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.

[Rowdee]

Amelia, dear heart, butt out....Howlin made a positive statement about knowing something and I am attempting to determine what it exactly was she meant....I don't need your interpretation, but thanks anyhow.

The point should be obvious....she either knows how you voted based on WHAT SHE SAW or WHAT YOU TOLD HER YOU DID. If she didn't see you actually mark your ballot, then she is merely spouting words based on what she was told, factual or not! No rocket science involved.

This is turning into a real hoot.....Howlin has a penchance for not responding to inquiries based on her idea of 'she don't have to answer nothin'...and then has turned around and demanded answers....and now you want to start 'demanding' answers!

[marajade]

"I guess I also think of Saint Paul. First he is a brutal and dogged persecutor of a minority sect -- then he becomes one of its leaders. And we all have bad days when we do or say stuff we regret - regret because it was wrong."

Paul was blinded for three days and repented; I haven't seen that same repentance from Dr. Keyes.

[Amelia]

Amelia, dear heart, butt out....Howlin made a positive statement about knowing something and I am attempting to determine what it exactly was she meant....I don't need your interpretation, but thanks anyhow.

Is it some kind of rule amongst Keyesters that the ruder you get, the more you use terms of endearment, such as "Hugs", "Regards", "Sweetie", "Dear Heart", "God Bless", etc.?

Rowdee, if you want a private answer from Howlin, I'd suggest you send her a FReepmail. As long as you are posting on the open forum, it's fair game for anyone to reply, and since it's MY VOTES in question, I'd say I have more right than anyone to have a say.

By the way, ARE you on some sort of mind-altering substance, Rowdee? You don't seem totally rational.

[Belial]

Wow. A Keyes article I agree with 75%. That's 75% more than usual.

On the flip side, can he write 500 words without alluding to abortion? Keyes is a good enough writer, he understands the need for focus and clarity. More likely his digressions are calculated raw meat for the pack.

[rdf]

Forget the evidence for your position. This is exactly the kind of thing that does no one any good.

We are in a war. Most of us are, mostly, on the same side of what must be done, and why.

There is no good in sparring with people who are bitter about Keyes and what he says, even, or most of all, when it is in line with what GWB says.

I truly believe you do best to ignore attacks on you, and to moderate your own tone. There is enough sorrow and bitterness to go around, and your breath only serves to fan the flame.

Defend what Keyes says in the column, if you think it right. Show that you think it to be in accord with the GWB policy, if you think it true.

Don't respond to baiting from irrational and bitter folks.

Best to you and all,

Richard F.

[seattlesue]

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?

I was hoping I read your reply before it was responded to so I could give you a word of warning.

Your only insult was to not trash Keyes. By responding with honesty you were opening up yourself for attack. You will be accused of scurrilous motives because "others" will know what "you really meant."

[Keyes For President]

Hi, Sue!

Good to see one of my all time favorite FReepers again!

:-)

[Mad Dawg]

[I changed paragraphs to linebreaks and maybe lost some of the bold face -- this is complex!]
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.

AARGH!
First I understood DaughterOAIJVet to agree with me the Gelato's remarks were not insulting -- it was the second response that was insulting. So the point I was trying to get clear about was indeed cleared up and it appears that I wasn't so far off base.

And here, I think, we have a problem with judging the person instead of the deed. If you disagree with something I said, or with my understanding of somebody else's remark then, it seems, I should take that as an insult?

Yes, If DOAIJVet thought Gelato was insulting her (which, I say again, she later said she did NOT think) then I think she was mistaken. I have little or no clue who DOAIJVet is (though I've enjoyed her posts) and, well, I have been known to make a mistake and I don't think I'm pond scum. My friends point out my mistakes to me and if they think I'm pond scum they're hiding it really well.

Does every disagreement mean we HAVE to think the person we're disagreeing with is a bad person? Is every disagreement about something somebody says or thinks a personal insult? I don't think so.

I guess, along with not thinking every disagreement an insult, I also see gradations and shades in failures of communication. I may be imprecise. I may be inaccurate.

Often when I tell an anecdote I exaggerate wildly - "remembering big", we call it in my family. Often I say what is not so, sometimes in error and sometimes on purpose.

I agree that "extreme exaggeration" is a pretty heavy-duty thing to say about what somebody says in a discussion. But I do not agree that it is the same as saying something is a lie. I know that if someone characteried something I said as an exaggeration I wouldn't be half as upset as I would if he were to characterize it as a lie.

If you say I told a lie, you are saying something about my intention. If you say I said something untrue, what I intended remains to be seen. I could have thought it was true.

Finally, you think that to criticize someone's actions is to criticize the person. But I do not think so. I may be wrong and maybe you cannot criticize a deed without making and articulating a judgement about the doer. But since I do not agree with you, presently I do not consciously intend to insult a person when I disagree with them - or even when I think they've done something wrong. I suppose you could say I have a lack of insight and do not understand my own motives. But when I say, "That was a pretty jerky thing to do," I think that is very different from saying, "You're a jerk."

I guess I've flogged this issue to death. Sorry. Anyway, I hope DoaIJvet does not think I insulted her.

[seattlesue]

Hi KFP! I don't have the time to spend like I used to. I sure do miss you and many others. It is always a joy to read your posts.

I see the same old silliness, it is a shame. Keyes' article was very good and went to the heart of the war we are in. Bush may state this is not a war against Islam, but Keyes is able to take that concept and articulate it with depth. This is not a slam against Bush, just a statement of fact.

Your friend, Sue!

[Howlin]

Forget the evidence for your position. This is exactly the kind of thing that does no one any good.

Is that your idea of how to get off to a good start, implying that even though she may be right, never mind?

[Howlin]

Bush may state this is not a war against Islam, but Keyes is able to take that concept and articulate it with depth.

Some of us don't need things explained to them six ways from Sunday; evidently the rest of you all do.

[Mad Dawg]

You will be accused of scurrilous motives because "others" will know what "you really meant."

Well, as long as SOMEBODY knows, huh? ;)

Thanks for kind words.

[Amelia]

We should probably all take this part of rdf's advice to heart:

Don't respond to baiting from irrational and bitter folks.

In fact, I'm sure that had I followed this advice, this thread would be at least 9 posts shorter now.

[Howlin]

Nine? You mean 120? The only time Keyes threads get beyond 30 posts is when we show up.

[seattlesue]

Thanks for kind words.

You are more than welcome!

[rdf]

Nice to see you here. What do you think about how we can make these threads more productive and civil? I'm open to all suggestions.

Have you dropped by the Declaration Foundation site? I wish everyone in this argument would. They'd see that on that forum, run by a foundation whose Chairman is Alan Keyes, there is no "party line" attacking the current US Administration or its head.

Anyway, to return the chief thing on my mind, do you see any way for us all to use the Keyes columns more fruitfully, and to avoid our unhappy past spats?

Cheers,

Richard F.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

What do you think about how we can make these threads more productive and civil? I'm open to all suggestions.

Forgive my ignorance, but are you some sort of moderator? I certainly hope you don't feel responsible for other people's posts on either side of this argument, because you're not - but you certainly seem to be attempting to get control over this conversation - not just now, but ever since the very first group of posts. I don't say this with malice; it's just that it seems to me that if you want to be productive and civil, be that. Assuming we're all adults here, I think we're all capable of finding those parameters for ourselves - unless, of course, you are officially in charge or something. If you are, please forgive my questioning you.

[seattlesue]

Hi rdf!

No, I do not see how to keep the exchanges constructive unless posters simply ignore those whose only intent is to make personal attacks or engage in exchanges that are not the subject matter of the thread.

I have decided to not respond to any one who is not interested in an honest exchange of thought. I have no use for the petty, viperish behavior that invades Keyes threads. I do not read the replies on 99% of the threads posted with the exception of Keyes threads. And the only reason I read those replies is because of the wonderful posters who frequent Keyes threads. You, are of course, one of those wonderful posters and someone I respect.

I will give this some thought and let you know if I come up with anything. Nice talking with you! Sue

[marajade]

"There is no good in sparring with people who are bitter about Keyes and what he says ..."

You know I used to belong a religious cult over 10 years ago and this what they say to former members, that they must be "bitter."

What evidence can you provide to prove that we are bitter?

The only thing I see is that we disagree with Keyes opinion that Bush is "evil."

[rdf]

Forgive my ignorance, but are you some sort of moderator?

I am not a FR moderator, and don't mean to assert an authority I don't have, or to suggest I can compel anyone to do anything.

My entire purpose on this thread has been to try, in my own posts, to moderate the tone of the recent Keyes column discussions, and to ask others to do the same, sometimes by exhoration or a mild word of rebuke.

I'm sorry if my manner of doing this offended you. No offense was meant.

We haven't met on the forum before, so I take the liberty of telling you my insititutional connection to Keyes: I am the President of The Declaration Foundation, and Keyes is the Chairman of that foundation. You can see the nature of our work by dropping by the site.

Best to you,

Richard F.