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.

[marajade]

"I've seen and heard plenty of Alan Keyes - and he is by no stretch of the imagination a Bush supporter."

Keyes has come out publicly stating that he is not a Bush Republican (whatever that means).

[marajade]

"Sorry you feel this way."

That poster is in no means alone either. What is Alan doing to change that?

[Amelia]

This is a fine thing, to disagree without insult. You might think about applying the same standard to your remarks about Keyes.

Richard, I must be dense - would you mind stating just what in DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet's posts you found "insulting" to Keyes?

[deport]

I am not a Bush Republican!

[Mad Dawg]

The first thing that happened on this thread when I dared to suggest that President Bush was not obligated to give him a job was - guess what - an insult directed at me by a Keyes supporter. (In other words, you might think about applying some consistency to your remarks.)

I don't understand. The first response to your sugestion was Gelato's, and the only thing that might be (mis)construed as an insult was his characterization of what you said (not of you) as an "extreme exaggeration".

I agree that the SECOND response got personal. I hate that stuff.

But then there's the "applying some consistency to your remarks" remark. Did rdf insult you? He's not responsible for what everyone, or even every Keyester, says to you. How could he be?

Further I saw nobody suggesting that Bush was obligated to give Keyes a job. Is there a Keyester here who thinks he is?

Mind you, it might be pretty prudent to do so, if Keyes would take it, which I doubt. One thing I would consider doing with something that I thought was a loose canon would be to tie it down.

But all this is beside the point. My own personal preference woud be for Keyesters and Shrubonistas (and in this thread it was a Keyester who started the digression) to stick to the topic. Vain dreamer that I am.

I think Gelato nailed it. There is indeed a set of "self-evident" principles which undergird our polity. They are broad enough to encompass a very great deal - excluding bald nihilism on the one hand and any worldview which denies or abrogates the dignity of each human being on the other.

These principles are sufficient to justify our response to terrorism, especially that of Osama Yo' Mama. Whatever our disgreements with Islam itself, we need not go into them to find ample justification for bringing terrorists and their supporters to bay.

Seems to me, anyway.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

And isn't that more important than our various disagreements?

This is just not complicated. Though I was not the one to bring it up, I was simply addressing the notion that President Bush has somehow been negligent by not offering this man who has repeatedly been disrespectful to him some sort of position in the Bush Administration, or that Keyes ought to be running the RNC - which, in my view, is absurd. That's all. I wasn't even talking about this specific article, nor would anything in this article change my opinion of Alan Keyes.

There's nothing personal about it, and that's really the only point I was trying to make.

[Torie]

Yep, I don't disagree with a word of it. It was a thoughtful commentary. There is a subtext between the lines about fetuses perhaps with which I disagree, but only if you are familiar with Keyes' cadences. It is a bit disappointing the the focus of the replies is not on the commentary in question, but scar tissue abounds. But focusing on old or new grudges is not the way for me. It is not healthy, at least with those worth cultivating. Someday, I would like to have a lunch with Keyes. It might be interesting. We are so different in so many ways (the cool cerebral secular neocon WASP of moderate temperment in general versus the passionate but nevertheless intellectual advocate for certain take to its ultimate absolutist logical conclusion religious Catholic sometimes paleo, sometimes libertarian sometime Burkean conservative), but still we might have some common denominator that would allow some useful exploration. It would be worth finding out. The only problem is that am nobody, and Keyes is somebody. :)

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

I don't understand. The first response to your sugestion was Gelato's, and the only thing that might be (mis)construed as an insult was his characterization of what you said (not of you) as an "extreme exaggeration".

I agree that the SECOND response got personal. I hate that stuff.

You're correct - it was not Gelato's post I was referring to. It was the second one.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Give me a break... It's as clear why as the nose on my own face.

It is to me, too. I'm sorry to hear your character has been called into question because you are not in awe of Alan Keyes.

I was reflecting today and trying to remember a time when President (or candidate) Bush demonstrated an attitude of disrespect to Alan Keyes, and I could not think of one. If he did, I missed it.

Bush values loyalty, and he is right to do so. He can count on none from Alan Keyes. If by chance Keyes is searching for the reason he has no position in this administration or the RNC, he need look no further than the mirror for his answer.

[marajade]

"I'm sorry to hear your character has been called into question because you are not in awe of Alan Keyes."

And it came from Keyes own spokesman no less.

That's okay I'm a big girl and I can take it.

I just get sick of Keyes superior moral attitude that no one else seems to be able to attain.

I guess Keyes forgot the part in the Bible where Jesus says he desires mercy not sacrifice.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Richard, I must be dense - would you mind stating just what in DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet's posts you found "insulting" to Keyes?

I hear the theme from "Jeopardy" right now. : ) (Actually, I could probably guess - but it wasn't personal - it was just my observation of his professional style.)

[Mad Dawg]

All Keyes has done is criticize Bush, even to the point of calling him "evil."
and
I guess Keyes forgot the part in the Bible where Jesus says he desires mercy not sacrifice. Yeah, and then there's the part about false witness.

You cannot show from any published writing by Keyes that he called Bush evil. He may have said he did an evil thing - but to the extent that politics involves good and evil, such a statement would be neither unusual nor remarkable. He may have questioned his motives. But only perfect people have unquestionable motives.

If I am wrong, as I often am, show me where, in so many words, he called Bush evil.

If you can't (heck, even if you can) maybe we could discuss whether Keyes and the President are right to say that we are not fighting and ought not to fight a religious war.

[Paulie]

"So why don't they use you?"

First - I don't have any answers for you.

Last election I was a strong Keyster and I was angry he was ignored and poo-poo'd by both the GOP and the media. I was also quite disappointed that Keyes was not offered a high ranking position of the Bush cabinet (and to think Christy Whitman is a member of the Bush team!)

I believe a lot has to do with Keyes' strong and uncompromising opposition to abortion. Above all Keyes is a man of principle and that doesn't sit well with the GOP elite apparently. Just my opinion.

[marajade]

Oh come on... everyone knows he said it.

[Rowdee]

..."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."....

This is soooooo rich.

Excuse me, Amelia, for using your response to rdf, BUT.....

rdf and Keyes for President......I swear before God that when I responded to KFP, I had started to make a 'snarling, half-assed snide remark' to the effect of bitching that Keyes had done it again---this time deliberately not using President Bush's name as a way to show his disgust of, hatred for, jealousy of, or ________________(fill in the blank) for the most beloved and wonderful and greatest President since before the founding of this republic.

I opted NOT to do it because I knew rdf would come back at me asking me to try to remain civil and not to inflame the feelings of others, yada yada yada. Especially seeing as how it does no good to attempt to do so.

And SOAB, if a Bush supporter doesn't come along and complain about it!!

Go figure.......incredible, absolutely incredible.....well, rdf, henceforth I shall put my honest feelings in print just to be the martyr and take the bullet someone would mean for a Bushie!!!!!

Is this world upside down or what!!!

[TrueBeliever9]

So now is a lovely moment for various Keyes haters

I don't hate Dr. Keyes - I just don't respect him anymore as a man of truth! He of all people should be willing to engage in thoughtful and strategic debate on this issue! And he should welcome the opportunity instead of burying his head in the sand!

[Fintan]

It still amazes (and infuriates) me that in this feminized, PC-polluted culture we live in, we have to justify retaliation for the mass murder of 5,000 Americans on our own soil..

[Amelia]

Excuse me, Amelia, for using your response to rdf.....

Why, because you mischaracterized what I wrote for your own self-aggrandizement? You are learning well from your mentor!

[rdf]

I think Keyes means what he said. And I know that he is in favor of sliting the terrorists' throats. But not in the name of a religious war. Rather, a war in defense of human dignity.

[Rowdee]

You are soooooo cute and half clever, I might add.....are you now trying to backpedal from what you wrote?

Hugs and Regards.....