practical considerations that lie behind capricious designationsnimpossible to justify by any truly neutral or scientificncriterion. Stipulations that are openly unjust and discriminatorynare purportedly required to undo conditions deemedndiscriminatory, conditions that have resulted, perhaps innpart, from prejudice, but primarily from organic historicalnand cultural development. These stipulations representndeliberate incisions into the body of a culture, and it shouldnnot surprise us if they seriously injure it. Can a prosperingnWSP institution, created not by discrimination but simplynby organic, historical development, remain vigorous if it isnforced to transform itself according to affirmative actionnideas that see no value in its ethnic or cultural heritage, orneven consider them as negative and evil?nHistorically and sociologically we can observe that ournliving institution has attained its present stature as a productnof a largely Scandinavian heritage. Will it survive if it isnforced to become a cultural kaleidoscope? If it makes sensento ask this question concerning an individual institution, is itnlegitimate to ask it about society as a whole? A society, like anbridge, is a structure where the whole is greater than thensum of all its parts. Various decorative elements may benremoved from a bridge without causing it to collapse, but ifna load-carrying element is removed, it will fall. A bridge cannbe built out of wood, stone, cement, or steel, but if girdersnfrom a steel bridge are removed and cement put in theirnplace, disaster is easy to foresee.nA certain racial, cultural, and religious mix has creatednAmerican society and maintained it, such as it is, into thenpresent. Can any and every arbitrary mix whatsoeverncontinue to maintain it? A biblical Christian will not regardnthe creation of man “in the image of Cod” a myth, but antruth. Consequently, he will not, consistently with his ownnprinciples, be able to value some individual varieties of man,ni.e., certain races, more highly than others. But by the samentoken, he is not permitted to value certain races — includingnhis own—less highly than others. Yet this is precisely whatnthe group that once sustained American culture and life isnbeing asked, nay, required to do: abolish itself in the namenof equality.nThe Tower of Babel was not abandoned because itsnbuilders were of different races. Presumably they were all ofnthe same stock. It failed because they could no longernunderstand one another. America has taken into itself anconsiderable variety of races, all on the assumption (untilnrecently) that they could, or soon would, communicate withnone another in a shared language and would ultimatelynparticipate in a shared and common culture. Our culture,nthat of the WASP’s and the “associated WASP’s” thatnmodern prejudice classes together, cannot survive indefinitenremoval and replacement of its parts without collapsing.nMany of those who fulminate, perhaps almost by habit,nagainst Christian culture as narrow and pernicious arenprecisely those who have benefited by the Christian morality,nhowever defective, of majority America. America’snWSP’s, whether by birth or assimilation, did not practicenthe Darwinian principle of the survival of the fittest whilenthey had power; will it come back to haunt them when theirn”Christian” morals have been forgotten?nCan the United States survive as a civilization and anculture without a base of unity? Fifty years ago we had anlarge measure of ethnic unity—unity with diversity, but stillnrecognizable as unity. We also had a large measure ofnreligious and cultural unity. Now we are confidently beingntold that by the year 2000, the bearers of that old culture—nnot just the WASP WASP’s, but the associated Catholic,nSlavic, Italian, and Jewish titular WSP’s will soon findnthemselves a minority in the midst of a “majority ofnminorities”—certainly a chaotic majority, given the vastlyndiffering nature of those minorities. That such a “majoritynAmerica’s \ASP% whether by birth or assimilation,ndid not practice the Darwinian principle of thensurvival of the fittest while they had power; will itncome back to haunt them when their “Christian”nmorals have been forgotten?nof minorities” will be able to sustain a civilization weakenednfrom within and threatened from without is not at allnself-evident.nFrom a Christian perspective, we might suppose that annadequate unity could be created by a functioning religiousnconsensus. In other words, a racially and ethnically diversensociety might be unified by a shared religious outlook.nIndeed, back in 1955 philosopher John Wild of Harvardndrew the thunderbolts of the university’s establishment bynsuggesting that America needed an “overarching scheme ofnvalues.” Because of Wild’s mildly Thomistic orientation,nthis struck his critics as a call to reestablish the Inquisition.nThis perspective, the official wisdom goes, is unacceptablenin pluralistic America.nIf we reject the Christian oudook and, forsaking itsndoctrine of human unity, take the naturalistic, evolutionarynperspective (is it the only alternative?), we are plunged intonthe struggle for the survival of the fittest. Under thosenconditions our national prospects are poor, both internalnand external. All economic, demographic, and militarynindicators seem to be telling us that the United States isndeclining among the nations of the worid. Internally, the oldnethnic bearers of our culture are being reduced to anminority within a babbling multitude without commonnculture or language. From a Christian perspective, one mustnsay that in the last analysis it does not matter. But most ofnour national pundits — including those who are most energeticnand determined about telling us to demolish all the oldnnorms — are people to whom the Christian perspectivenmeans little. It is just another old norm to be broken down.nIs there nothing in America’s future, short of somentotalitarian Gleichschaltung, other than cultural disintegration?nAmerica was sick in one way when it denied blacknAmericans their pride. John M. Perkins writes, “My hopenlies in restoring the black male.” That development is vital,nbut it will not suffice. Pride and dignity were stolen from thenNegro in America by slavery and segregation, and onlyngradually are they being recovered. Our society is stillnpaying the bill for those damages. Pride and dignity arenswiftly being bled away from the original and associatednWSP’s, and the charges for those ultimate damages will benmore than any nation can pay.nnnAUGUST 1988 / 25n