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.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

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

I hope you don't mind if I'm direct.

If you believe it is your place to "rebuke" others having an open discussion in a political forum where it is assumed differing opinions are welcomed, you're bound to offend some people.

To be perfectly honest, your rebuke might discourage some, but it would never stop me from expressing my opinion. In light of that, I would have to say that "offended" is not the word to describe my reaction.

Next time, though, if it makes you feel better and you wish to "mildly" flog me publicly, please don't bother closing with "Best," or "All the best to you," or whatever, because frankly, it rings rather hollow in the context of the entire post.

Thanks.

[Howlin]

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.

The question remains WHY? Why do you feel like you need to moderate Keyes threads; and can you kindly point out any other thread on FR that moderates reponses to it?

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

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

Now this is a very good question. I can't wait for the answer...because as I see it, Bush supporters are gratified and really have nothing to be bitter about. The only bitterness I've noticed comes from Alan Keyes himself.

But then, I'm probably "wrong". : )

[Howlin]

But then, I'm probably "wrong". : )

Somebody will be right along to tell you why, too!

[Amelia]

The only bitterness I've noticed comes from Alan Keyes himself. But then, I'm probably "wrong". : )

Oh, you're definitely wrong! (/sarcasm) We've already had a couple of threads on that subject....although rdf suggests the need for yet another one.

[Mad Dawg]

Process Observation

Oh Boy, let me give it a try:
Marajade says:
What evidence can you provide to prove that we are bitter?
Then DaughterofaijVet says:
Now this is a very good question. I can't wait for the answer... ...
But then, I'm probably "wrong". : )
Then Howlin says:
Somebody will be right along to tell you why, too!
Then Amelia says:
Oh, you're definitely wrong! (/sarcasm)

So,at least as it seems to me, a reasonable question is asked. Then BEFORE it is answered, the very possibility of an answer is mocked and disparaged.

Suppose it were somehow possible for rdf to amass and present a bunch of quotes supporting his thought that there was some bitterness spread around. If I am not misunderstanding them, Amelia and Howlin have already mocked, not the answer, but the very notion of an attempt at an answer. The suggestion seems to be that the qestion is legitimate, but any answer which might be offered would be illegitimate whether or not it had any intrinsic merit.

As if someone were to say,"Let me ask you something, but before you answer let me say that any attempt to answer (no matter what the actual answer) will be wrong."

Rdf's remark which started this sort of sub-exchange was in a response to seattlesue, and, as I understood it, it was an appeal for help in moving away from that kind of dialectical double-bind and toward a productive conversation.

When DaughterofIJVet asked if rdf was a moderator, rdf replied that he sought to moderate the tone of the conversation. I don't think that in any implies a desire to inhibit or control the expression of opinion as such.

When I wrote that DaughteroaIJVet had "(mis)contrued" someone's post, someone responded, "How insulting you are!" (or words to that effect). Nobody suggested that that response was an effort to moderate.

When rdf wrote asking seattlesue and others for thoughts (again, this is how I understood his post and I have been known to be wrong once or twice -- or n+1 times where n is as large as you please) on how we might make the conversation "more productive and civil" he got in response a flurry of comment suggesting that he was somehow claiming an authority not his.

It seems to me the "How insulting ...": response was a verbal dope-slap -- a rebuke and not a mild one(whether I deserved it or not is not relevant to what I'm trying to say here). Rdf's "What do you think about how we can make these threads more productive and civil? I'm open to all suggestions," was milder in tone -- and yet ended up with a far greater "cat among the pigeons" effect.

To me this seems asymmetrical. If a remark I make can lead to the exclamation that I am insulting, than why can rdf not make an appeal for help in moving a way from insult?

I personally think the well is completely poisoned, and I despair of anything more than what diplomats call a "frank exchange of views" (example: "Oh yeah? Well, it takes one to know one!") here.

[outlawcam]

The question of Keyes being able to serve in a Bush administration isn't one of whether or not Keyes could temper his criticism of the Bush administration if he took such a job. Keyes proved beyond a doubt, I think, that he is capable of that when he served in the Reagan administration. Therefore it isn't about "loyalty." What position under Bush does Keyes currently hold that demands he show "loyalty" to the extent that he not be allowed to publically criticize the President when the President is wrong? None!

That said, I can't think of a position in the Bush administration where Keyes would really fit. If he were to accept a job, he would be forced to, as I said, temper his criticism of an administration that, from time to time, has done the wrong thing. I would miss that criticism. I don't think that we can afford to lose our vigilance because we have a Republican as President. Contrary to conventional wisdom, it seems, bad laws and bad policies are more apt to be passed without our noticing them if they come from Republicans than from Democrats. The reason is our guard is down, and we do not see it coming. There may be nothing malicious about the law, but we'd be far more critical and discerning if it came from the Democrats.

However, I think that it's clear that Keyes would rather be in a position outside of the administration he sees as being run by what he describes as an amiable person who doesn't always stand the test of adequate defense of our founding principles. That way Keyes is free to relax the personal oath of "loyalty" he would have taken had he been a part of the administration, and would be free to speak his heart if he thinks it would best serve the purpose of, for instance, teaching our founding principles as it relates to war, abortion, or education. Even still, Bush would be wise to listen to Keyes from time to time, even if not as a member of his administration. Why should he, you might ask, when Keyes hasn't demonstrated the aforementioned "loyalty" (which I presume from posts other than yours consists partially at least of boot licking)? Because Keyes is often right where Bush is wrong. While the particulars are subject to debate, it's clear that Keyes has proven himself a more than adequate political and philisophical thinker, whose understanding of liberty and federalism, if applied, would help return our nation to its Constitutional and Declaration roots. A wise leader listens to good advice, as Bush has a reputation of doing.

Now...

This particular article, I thought, was supportive of what Bush has said in the past. However, as Keyes often does, he effectively communicated the principles that belie a society that permits abortion in his concluding paragraph.

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.

That principle, if correctly understood, goes a long way to helping us learn how to live our lives and govern ourselves. The taking of innocent human life, or even a society or government that allows the taking of innocent human life, actually destroys universal order and natural justice that binds our nation together. That has implications of what abortion means to our society, but Keyes was careful to not directly mention it here. The reason I think that Keyes does that here is to indicate that fighting terrorism (much like outlawing abortion) is not the means to restrict liberty practiced with wisdom and justice, but a natural end reflected by consistent adherence to common principles of our heritage.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

I honestly don't know how you found the energy or desire to post all that. I am just not interested in dissecting it all, so I'm going to keep this short.

I have observed that some Keyes supporters are far more quick to "rebuke", "reprimand" and "moderate" those who disagree with them than they are to police their own (something that became clear to me on page one of this debate). I don't know about you, but I will not be "rebuked", "reprimanded" or "moderated" in a free speech forum, unless of course it is the owner/manager of the forum doing the moderating.

When I said, "I'm probably wrong," I was simply making a reference to a joke people have made on this thread. I was not trying to discourage any sincere answers to the question. People really don't need to put everything I say through a sieve; it can usually be taken at face value. That remark was clearly an extension of the joke. If you believe you, or anyone else, can prove that people who don't agree with Alan Keyes are motivated by bitterness, no one has the power of discouraging you from presenting that information, as I see it.

[rdf]

I wrote:

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 fear I put it obscurely. What I meant was this: I will try to be more moderate. I have been trying do be so.

I wish Keysters would criticize excessive remarks by Keysters, and Bushies do the same for unhelpful things written by Bushies.

I see you think exhortation of you by me offensive, and I will not so offend you again.

Am I making better sense to you now?

Regards,

Richard F.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Therefore it isn't about "loyalty."

It is if President Bush determines that it is. I think he is wise not to trust Alan Keyes, because - however he has performed in the past - Alan Keyes clearly does not respect this President.

If he were to accept a job, he would be forced to, as I said, temper his criticism of an administration that, from time to time, has done the wrong thing. I would miss that criticism.

Then everybody's happy. I don't think he should be part of the administration, either.

I don't think that we can afford to lose our vigilance because we have a Republican as President.

Quite sincerely - did Alan Keyes switch parties or declare he was no longer a Republican? Because somehow, I think the "healthy skepticism" talk would come to an abrupt halt among his supporters if he happened to be the Republican occupying the Oval Office.

Because Keyes is often right where Bush is wrong. A wise leader listens to good advice, as Bush has a reputation of doing.

I respect your opinion, but condescension, while subtle, is still condescension. I, on the other hand, do not consider Alan Keyes the final authority on every political and moral topic. I don't operate on the premise that he is always right, Bush is sometimes wrong, and it would behoove the President to solicit the advice of The Master. (No offense intended.)

Although for different reasons, I think we agree on the basic point: Keyes should not be a part of the Bush Administration.

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Am I making better sense to you now?

I thought you were pretty clear the first time.

My objection is to the admonition (which you just repeated) that adults should publicly scold one another in order to control the course of a conversation.

If I have a disagreement with someone, in my opinion, it's really not the responsibility of anyone (aside from the official moderator of this forum) to rap me or the person I'm arguing with on the knuckles with a ruler. That's all. It seems as though the "rebuke" contributes more to things getting off track than the comments that start the disagreement in the first place. Case in point: Things had pretty well been expressed and resolved in this thread when you jumped in to give me some advice about how to communicate with others - now, here we are.

It seems as though you feel responsible for what other people say. I would encourage you not to take that on. It's a big burden.

If you want to engage in a discussion about Alan Keyes, that's great. If you want to be a hall monitor, that's your choice and you are, of course, free to do that. I wouldn't, but, that's just me.

[Mad Dawg]

I was simply making a reference to a joke people have made on this thread. I was not trying to discourage any sincere answers to the question. People really don't need to put everything I say through a sieve; it can usually be taken at face value.

I didn't put anything you said through a sieve. It proceeded the Howlin and Amelia remarks so I included it to give the context.

As I recall, the "wrong" joke was about Keyes defenders giving and defending their interpretation of what Keyes said.

As far as I'm concerned, the double-bind is still threatening. If I read carefully, I am putting through a sieve. If I do not I will be asked "Why don't you read what I wrote?"

I would agree that IN THIS THREAD a Keyester was first to step over the (or, at least, my) line. In other threads I have seen Shrubonistas initiate personal attacks. Interesting place, this.

[Amelia]

It proceeded the Howlin and Amelia remarks so I included it to give the context.

If you'd like some context on my remarks, read back to my exchange with a certain Keyester on this forum, in which the certain Keyester accused me of "bitching" because I said that if Keyes had wished to make it perfectly clear that he sometimes agreed with the administration, he could have stated in the essay that in this instance he DID agree.

I wasn't intending to "bitch" or snipe or start a flame war, I just offered a comment based on a comment Richard had made earlier, and I tried to make that extremely clear, to no avail.

Now, if MY posted words don't mean what *I* say they mean, and what they clearly meant (as far as I can tell) in the context of the discussion, anything I say could be construed (at least by *certain people*) to denote "bitterness", couldn't it?

[He Rides A White Horse]

Ecclesiastes

3:1 To every [thing there is] a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

3:2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up [that which is] planted;

3:3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

3:4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

3:5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

3:6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

3:7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

3:8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

With the utmost respect, Mad Dawg, I think you're thinking too much. If I do "a", then "b" will happen; if I do "c", people will think it's because of "d".

I don't think anyone is trying to put you in a "threatening double-bind". I know I'm not. If you honestly believe people who side with the President are motivated by bitterness, I would absolutely welcome your supporting argument. And I don't think I'm alone.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Now, if MY posted words don't mean what *I* say they mean, and what they clearly meant (as far as I can tell) in the context of the discussion, anything I say could be construed (at least by *certain people*) to denote "bitterness", couldn't it?

It's extremely frustrating to be told by someone else what you think or what you meant.

Truthfully, I thought your original remarks were very neutral. I couldn't really tell that you had taken any side, but if forced I would have guessed in the beginning that you were a Keyes supporter - just one who doesn't necessarily think every move he makes is perfect...which I guess by some people's standards might make you a Keyes hater, come to think of it. : )

(I'm anticipating the potential retorts to that joke as I type...)

[Mad Dawg]

. If you honestly believe people who side with the President are motivated by bitterness, I would absolutely welcome your supporting argument. Not only did I never say that, I'm not sure anyone ever said that bitterness was the only or primary motivation of "people who side with the president", especially if "people who blah blah" were taken to mean "all people who blah blah".

Of SOME people who argue against Keyes on Free Republic, maybe I might formulate that proposition and I think I saw something like that expressed here. But even then I wouldn't put it up for discussion because it doesn't strike me as in any way useful.

[Mad Dawg]

It's extremely frustrating to be told by someone else what you think or what you meant.

Yup, sure is.

I'm on the road for 3 days.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Not only did I never say that...

Perhaps not, but you wrote a very long post calling it a reasonable question, and examining in considerable depth how the topic was squashed by those of us who joked about it. Naturally you left me with the impression that you find the topic a valid thing to examine - so I essentially told you I was not attempting to stand in your way of doing that.

It's no big deal. Really.

To all:

This thread, in my opinion, has run its course. I have met some very nice people here, and I will see you all around.

[Amelia]

I would have guessed in the beginning that you were a Keyes supporter - just one who doesn't necessarily think every move he makes is perfect...

Which about sums up my position. Actually, I haven't yet found a perfect politician - or a perfect person of any occupation for that matter.

However, a politician is a public person, and their words and actions are therefore subject to review and criticism by the public. Dr. Keyes' essays or public appearances are certainly fair game for comments, pro and con.

In much the same way, when we express our opinions publicly here on FR, they are subject to review and criticism by other posters. The "trick" is not to let the comments degenerate into name-calling and personal attacks.