ALAN KEYES: Justifying War

WND ^ | 11/10/01 | Dr. Alan Keyes

[Keyes For President]

WorldNetDaily: Justifying war

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25289

Saturday, November 10, 2001

---

---

Justifying war

---

By Alan Keyes

---

© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com--> © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

It is important for any people to understand the reasons for its wars, and the nature of its enemies. For Americans, the question of why we fight always raises issues as old as our Republic. It requires reference to principles which are the very foundation of that Republic.

The war against terrorism is not a war against Islam. It is not a war against an extreme and fanatical interpretation of Islam. We are not fighting, and must never fight, a religious war. We are in fact a nation founded in the hope and promise of being a bulwark against religious warfare. The peaceful and ordered liberty of America is deeply, specifically rooted in our universal respect for the rights of conscience, and in our exercise of religious freedom. Our principle of religious liberty is a standing inspiration to the world to abandon religious warfare everywhere.

Bin Laden has declared religious war on America, but we are not fighting a religious war against him. We are not bombing terrorists because of their beliefs about God. We are seeking to destroy an association of men who have taken violent, evil action against the innocent in our country. Our actions are in response not to sectarian ideas about God, but to actions which shocked every decent human conscience, regardless of religion.

This distinction – between sectarian ideas about God and the notion of "decent human conscience" – is what makes the combination of liberty and moral order possible. And, in modified form, it guides our relations with the rest of the world as well.

The Declaration principles on which America stands were proposed by our founders to the world as "self-evident." The most important of these principles is the equal dignity of all men has been established by a power beyond human will, and no political order can be truly legitimate except in the measure it acknowledges, if only implicitly, the equal dignity of all.

The principle of human equality carries with it the corollary requirement that government receive the consent of the governed. Paradoxically, this can mean at times more enlightened citizens must show great patience in awaiting the consent of the governed to measures necessary for the political order more perfectly to embody the principle of equality. As Lincoln's life taught us, such patience can be a supreme virtue of the American statesman.

The implementation of the Declaration's self-evident principles can be complicated and long-delayed, even within a regime explicitly dedicated to their fulfillment. It should be no surprise, then, that American foreign and security policy must deal with a world of people and nations for whom effective respect for the dignity of all men is often much more remote. America is, at its best, a patient statesman for the community of nations, seeking to evoke by the authentic consent of those nations a respect for the universal principles of human dignity and self-government which cannot be imposed from without.

What does patience of this sort have to do with avoiding religious war? Religious profession and practice are the source of the most profound commitments to morality, to respect for the laws of nature and of nature's God. Religion is, accordingly, essential to the possibility of a people's effort to build a political order which respects human dignity under God. But religion is also, at least in this life, the source of ineradicable disagreements over the specific forms and methods by which the morally good life is to be lived. Religion thus appears both necessary and deadly to the peace of ordered liberty.

The American solution to this dilemma is to acknowledge religion as a principal source of moral goodness, while recognizing the danger of religious sectarianism only and precisely insofar as it appears in the form of actions which are immoral regardless of motive. The ruthless destruction of innocent human life, however it may cloak itself in a false language of theology or religiosity, is always and everywhere evil because it is the most manifest repudiation possible of the principle of human equality. This is one reason our founders listed life first among the rights with which our Creator endowed us.

The American political order exists to advance the attempt of self-governing free people to secure the rights with which the Creator endows them. Those, at home or abroad, who assault those rights by violent action have declared war on the first principles of American life, and must be opposed accordingly.

In calling on the world to assist in the war on terror, we depend upon the fact that the first principles of American life are, implicitly, the first principles of decent conscience in any man. We depend upon the self-evident truth that disregard for the life of the innocent is evil, whatever its motive. And that is why we summon the world to join us in a war not of religion, but of the universal order of natural justice which America has, from the beginning, sought to exemplify to the world.

---

Be sure to visit Alan Keyes' communications center for founding principles, The Declaration Foundation.

---

Former Reagan administration official Alan Keyes, was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Social and Economic Council and 2000 Republican presidential candidate.

[Mad Dawg]

Determining that "this is a decision where somebody sat down to figure out how much evil they could get away with" is clearly (or at a minimum, a very strong implication) that the person is evil.

I'm comparativley new to FReep but it seems to me a public statement on a public forum is an invitation for all to respond. I'm grateful for your response.

Again, as I said on another thread, when someone runs a red light, he is figuring out how much evil he can get away with -- and I wouldn't say the light-runner was an evil person.

The well has been poisoned. If I write how it looks to me it will be(and has already been) suggested that I am being Clintonoid or condescending. That kind of thing works to stop discussion but seems to me also to render discussion useless.

My personal take on that part of that speech was that the diction was ill-advised. Keyes went too directly (IMHO) for a kind of clarity and ended up laying himself open for the kind of misconstruction we're talking about now.

(In this connection I agree with the poster who said it would have been good if, in the article this thread is about, Keyes could have put in something like "As the President has said ..." to clarify that he was agreeing in this instance. I sure wish he had. I think he should be looking for opportunities to state explicitly when he agrees with soemthing the President has done. Like Keyes would care what I think.)

Anyway, in my training as a (now former) clergyman I was accustmed to use the term "evil" enough that it lost its "thrill". It became a, how shall I say it, technical term. Like "virtue" and "vice", which in common speech are almost comic terms, but in (at least some) discussions of ethics and whatnot are, again, technical terms.

So maybe I'm reasoning ahead of my data but I think Keyes was using the word "evil" that way and ill-advisedly forgot that it's a word which has such a penumbra that it, well, leads to the kind of reaction we see here.

He gets a big "poor choice of words" in my report card, anyway

But at least when I read that sentence it did not occur to me, really, that he was calling the President evil. I was focussed on the deed in question (the ESCR stuff) and did not and still do not) see the implication you find there.

Sorry if I'm not being clear. The caffeine has not reached my alleged brain yet.

[Mad Dawg]

How insulting you are to your fellow Freepers.

Seriously, I don't get it. How was that post insulting to anyone? The response I got from Daughter of an IwoJima Vet didn't suggest to me that she found it insulting. Can you help me se what was insulting about it so that I can apologize?

[Aquinasfan]

Bin Laden and his followers represent a minority of Islam. But if we take their bait, and start calling this a war on Islam, bin Laden's view will be accepted by the majority of Muslims, because it will then be true.

Bin Laden belongs to the Wahabbi sect of Islam, which represents 65% of Saudi Arabia and is also dominant in Nigeria and Indonesia too I believe. Do a Google search on Wahabbism. It's very disturbing. Additionally, there really aren't any moderate Muslims.

As for OBL not having authority, well, there is no central authority in Islam. The ultimate authority is the Koran, which they believe to be the literal, inspired Word of God.

Finally, it probably wouldn't be prudent to call this a Crusade, since few people here are willing to fight one. What we should do is stop immigration from Muslim countries immediately. Islam is not compatible with our Constitution. There is no such thing as an Islamic republic. The closest thing is Turkey. And Islamicism is always just beneath the surface.

[Amelia]

I hope you don't mind if I respond to all four of your posts with just one of my own.

Sweets, you wrote what you wrote and I wrote what I wrote....if you object to how your posting is read or understood, try changing what you write.

I think it is hysterically funny that the President has supporters who are so anti-Keyes that they bitch if he agrees with the Prez or bitches about the Prez....truly a no win situation which would only be solved to y'all's satisfaction if Dr. Keyes fell off the face of the earth.

Hello, Amelia....anybody home? 'Cuse me, ma'am, but in your own words, you suggested you were 'nit-picking'!!!! Are you trying to deny your own words?

Now, if you'll read way back in the thread, in #32, I pointed out that Dr. Keyes' comments about this not being a war against Islam agree with what President Bush has been saying all along. I certainly didn't think that was "bitching", but perhaps you did?

rdf responded to my comment by saying:

So now is a lovely moment for various Keyes haters to admit that he sometimes, when he thinks it true and wise, supports the stance of the administration.

My response to rdf was the post you seem to be having so much trouble with. I said:

Yes, Dr. Keyes does seem to be supporting the same position as the administration. Just a thought -- and I'm sure you'll think it's nit-picking -- but he might have made a little headway against those who say he's always "Bush-bashing" if he'd just added "As our President has said," in front of "The war against terrorism is not a war against Islam."

It's a small thing, but one that would have made it abundantly clear that in this case, because "he thinks it true and wise", he's supporting the position of the administration.

All I said was that if Dr. Keyes had made it clear he was agreeing with the administration, he'd have taken some of the ammunition away from those who say "all he does is bash Bush." I said this in the spirit of constructive criticism, not "bitching" or "complaining". Sorry you didn't "get it".

Also, I didn't say I was nit-picking, I said [Keyes supporters] would say I was nit-picking - and you've proved my point for me.

Then there is your post #94:

Didn't you forget to 'flag' a few cohorts?

This was referring to a post in which I flagged you and Howlin. I was replying to Howlin, and I flagged you out of courtesy since I referenced something you wrote. Aren't you being a tad petty here? Or are you suggesting that you are so much more intellectually capable that I can't debate you without help?

And finally, your #97:

Oh, sheesh, I am soooo sorry...I see.....I get it....you're trying to convince us that when you said'nit-picking', you were actually referring to 'the eggs of nats', right? And you do that while you are typing on threads at Free Republic, right? Just a little ol' habit you picked (no pun intended) up somewhere along the line, right? You probably pick at those darn nats eggs whenever you're nervous, or unsure of yourself, right?

Actually, "nits" are the eggs of lice, not of [g]nats, and no, I'm not in the habit of "picking" them since I don't have any.

You know, Rowdee, reading comprehension is a wonderful thing. Either you need to work on yours, or you are intentionally trying to alienate people. Which is it?

[Howlin]

and the only thing that might be (mis)construed

Implying, of course, that SHE was wrong in her own opinion and her interpretation of Gelato's remarks.

as an insult was his characterization of what you said (not of you)

Of course it's about HER.

as an "extreme exaggeration".

Which, of course, is calling what somebody said a LIE, no matter how nicely you dress it up.

[Howlin]

As I said in another thread, I think we are required to judge deeds but enjoined from judging people.

I've never understood that argument; how can you NOT like something somebody has done and STILL like the person? The person makes a conscious choice to do the deed; unless you just don't want to make people accountable for their own actions, that sounds like a cop out to me.

[Howlin]

you left out the blurb about the media misunderstanding!!!

I see you have your talking points right there by your computer screen.

[Howlin]

Isn't it odd that those of us who don't "understand" the meaning of Mr. Keyes' words also have difficulty communicating with Mr. Keyes' supporters? We don't understand what HE says, and they don't understand what WE say.

It's like their words mean something different to them than they mean to us. Or that their words can mean more than one thing, depending on the argument they are in.

I happen to know you voted for Keyes twice; and I happen to know that you don't necessarily disagree with his ideas; what you disagree with is HOW he says them.

And yet I see you, a Keyes admirer, being attacked for even THAT one remark. Very confusing.

[Amelia]

I've always thought Dr. Keyes was the greatest orator of our time. I'm now beginning to wonder; if his statements are subject to so many different interpretations, perhaps he isn't as great a speaker as I thought? Beautiful words are meaningless if they don't clearly convey the meaning intended.

I'm also beginning to wonder: if Dr. Keyes' most ardent supporters don't understand what common folk say using common words, how do they understand what he is saying?

[marajade]

"Well, when I was bundled with the DNC because I dared suggest that Alan Keyes hadn't earned the President's loyalty, I took that as an insult!"

Well I guess I got off easier than you... I was only labelled unprincipled. I guess being unprincipled is better than being labelled as a Democrat.

[marajade]

My husband interpreted the "evil" sentence the same as myself. My husband has had his IQ tested and is in the "genius" category. Maybe my husband just doesn't understand what "evil" means either. Not that just because one is a genius that means the end all of anything but I am by no means even close to testing out as a genius--just an average joe. So if an average Joe and a genius interpret something the same maybe it really is.

[Howlin]

if his statements are subject to so many different interpretations, perhaps he isn't as great a speaker as I thought?

They really, aren't though; that's why we all waste our times on these threads; about ten people in the world, i.e., Keyes supporters, don't "get it". I've been told he chooses his words very carefully. My impression is he usually hits his target.

Do a subject search for Keyes; look at the vast majority of threads; the mundane ones, meaning Keyes doesn't say anything about Bush, have about 30 posts, tops.

[rdf]

I think we all look foolish on these threads, and so I have an irenic proposal.

Let the friends of Keyes scold those who go over the line in writing about other freepers or about GWB. Let the friends of GWB do the same.

Let everyone try to discuss the content of the Keyes articles, no holds barred, but with no mention of who is inarticulate or arrogant or smug or pushy or whatever.

If we want to review whether Keyes has been on a "rampage" against GWB since the Inauguration, let's have a new thread, with evidence, not restricted to the August NFRA speech, on that subject. The most complete archive of Keyes public statements and columns is over at Declaration Foundation

I think that would be to the benefit of FR, Bush, Keyes, and everyone.

What do you say?

It would spare me, anyway, from considerable vexation and temptation to be uncharitable ... which I admit I have sometimes been.

And, if we all look like the Hatifelds and the McCoys, we all look, at the same time, ridiculous, and we damage the credibility of this forum.

I have 45 people over for a Sunday Brunch, so I won't be back on this thread until the evening. But I do hope my peace pipe will be smoked by most of us.

Best to all,

Richard F.

[Howlin]

If we want to review whether Keyes has been on a "rampage" against GWB since the Inauguration, let's have a new thread, with evidence

What do you think all these threads about Keyes are about? We don't NEED anymore Keyes threads to figure that out.

And there is plenty of evidence; you just won't acknowledge it.

[marajade]

"Let everyone try to discuss the content of the Keyes articles, no holds barred, but with no mention of who is inarticulate or arrogant or smug or pushy or whatever."

Does that include Keysters implying that Bushies aren't unprincipled just because us Bushies support Bush on his stem cell decision which now after 9/11 seems rather insignificant?

Personally, I wouldn't define myself in any way except as a Republican.

If either Keyes or McCain had been successful in the Republican primaries I would have voted for either of them and been supportive of their decisions as President; but they weren't, Bush was.

[Amelia]

Let everyone try to discuss the content of the Keyes articles, no holds barred, but with no mention of who is inarticulate or arrogant or smug or pushy or whatever.

If you'll notice, that's what I was attempting to do, until I was rudely attacked and my comments mischaracterized. Would you like to enlighten me on where I "went wrong"?

[rdf]

Although you may regard me as such, I do not regard myself as a "Keyes hater". As I've said numerous times before, I thought enough of Dr. Keyes to vote for him in 1996 and 2000. I have, however, become increasingly exasperated with some of his public statements since the election.

Yes, Dr. Keyes does seem to be supporting the same position as the administration. Just a thought -- and I'm sure you'll think it's nit-picking -- but he might have made a little headway against those who say he's always "Bush-bashing" if he'd just added "As our President has said," in front of "The war against terrorism is not a war against Islam."

I see now that you mistook my meaning. I never meant to characterize you as a "Keyes hater." I was writing to others through a response to you. There are, alas, some folks with a kind of hostile obsession about Keyes among the Freeper community.

And I actually agree that it would be helpful for Keyes to speak the way you suggest, praising GWB where praise is due. I do it myself, did it last week in a public speech in Dallas and I am the President of Alan's Foundation.

But Alan is his own man, and uses his own judgement. And, in any event, this column, and every column since 9/11 has been a patriotic and supportive statement.

I just wish we could spend our time on something kindly, interesting, and productive, and not on these ugly feuds.

Best to you,

Richard F.

[rdf]

I really must go now, for several hours. I do hope all this will work out amicably.

Best to you,

Richard F.

[Rowdee]

No, Amelia, I don't mind how many posts you respond to one reply....no problem.

Amelia, trying to use your #32 post is a red herring.....I never commented about #32, so how could I say you or anyone else was bitching or complaining?

It was in your #39 that you brought up 'nit picking'......I reviewed the first 38 responses again just to make sure there wasn't even anything similar.

..."All I said was that if Dr. Keyes had made it clear he was agreeing with the administration, he'd have taken some of the ammunition away from those who say "all he does is bash Bush." I said this in the spirit of constructive criticism, not "bitching" or "complaining". Sorry you didn't "get it"...

This doesn't fly either.....if you were such a 'great and devoted' follower of Dr. Keyes, you would know that he doesn't live to 'please' man, or in this case, Bush supporters....he serves his God and his Country. I can't believe some of y'all placing just great weight on what you feel or believe Keyes (or anyone else) should or shouldn't do--have you ever written him to suggest (or demand) such and such? Your whole argument about 'nit picking' and 'just trying to point out he could have made brownie points with Bush supporters' is just a bunch of hogwash. Nice try...but no cigar.

Amelia I did NOT say you said you were 'nit'picking', I said 'with your own words you suggested you were nit-picking!!! Power of suggestion. And you were---no one else had said anything about sour grapes or nits or nats! Sheesh!

And as to #94....yeah....consider me being a tad bit petty....I'm used to dealing with the whole wolf pack, not just a couple of betas!

Sorry you don't care for my attempt at some comic relief--I'll try to remember that next time. I'm glad it was you who brought up lice. LOL.

And don't worry about comprehension skills....back when I was in the third grade (and no, I am not bragging--just making a statement of fact), I was reading and comprehending at 8th grade level.

Alienation? The mere fact that I defend Keyes alienates many folks....BFD, to be quite blunt....I gave up marching to someone elses's drum many years ago.

Regards.....

[Amelia]

I just wish we could spend our time on something kindly, interesting, and productive, and not on these ugly feuds.

As do I, and I'm glad you understood the point I was trying to make in my post #39. Given our past discussions, I felt sure you would, and I felt you would take what I said in the spirit of discussion and not insult.

Let the friends of Keyes scold those who go over the line in writing about other freepers or about GWB.

If you're serious about this, you might want to read Rowdee's posts #55, 60, 93, 94, 95, 97, and 119. Perhaps you'll be able to explain to Rowdee what I meant in my post to you, since I was unable to do so. (However, it appears to me that at least some of Dr. Keyes' most ardent supporters enjoy these little feuds.)