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.

[Keyes For President]

Too many in Islam see this as a religious war. We are not fighting a religious war but they are. We might want to try and change their perception through reasoned debate, but make no mistake, they are primitive in their understanding of our espoused values ... and that's to some degree understandable, given our penchant to export our sick enlightenment hallmarked by abortion slaughter on demand as the favored alternative to other means of dealing with social and personal problems.

Excellent points.

[Torie]

Or should I have said Keyes to Klayman? Oh dear.

[Buckeroo]

The concept of a free channel with moderators screwing up the place has placed me upon the sidelines. On yeah .. its a *YAWN* on FR anymore.

[Howlin]

Equating Klayman to Keyes may be over the top

Now that I rethink that, you're probably right. One thing for sure you can say about Alan Keyes is that he is not now nor apparently ever has been a crook.

[redrock]

BUMP!!!!

redrock

[Torie]

I think we both got Klayman's number a long time ago. Among folks in the public square, in the metaphorical Dantian circles of hell, he and Bubba are probably neighbors. One tries to be fair and balanced, but sometimes even after one's best efforts, that still leaves little or nothing on the asset side of the balance sheet.

[FUSSBALL]

The main thing missing with Keyes during the elections is O-R-G-A-N-I-Z-A-T-I-O-N. I tried, with several attempts, to become appart of his team. I told members of his staff that he needed help in Kansas and I was willing to do some foot work for him. i.e. put out signs ....get signatures whatever he needed to get his name and word out.

What was the only response I got each of the 7 attempts?

Well sir, we will put your name down. Now, would you like to make a donation?

His organization sucks and they where more worried about money then getting free help to promote his name and cause.(Which is the real way to get grass roots recognition and support)_

[Amelia]

Shhhhh. Don't tell anyone. We wouldn't want the All-Keyes-does-is-bash-Bush crowd to look like a bunch of fools.

Doesn't matter. I got called a "Keyes hater" for posting that. Of course, as I pointed out earlier, Keyes could have made it really obvious that he sometimes agrees with Bush by clearly stating in the article that in this instance he does. Wouldn't that have fried the "All-Keyes-does-is-bash-Bush crowd"?

[quimby]

check out #7 ..... it's the reason why FR sucks.

Yep, censorship sucks. But it beats having entire threads pulled because of one idiot.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Really, now - are any of you truly prepared to argue that Alan Keyes respects the President? Supports him? Thinks the President is a good man who is qualified for the office?

Clearly, you all love him and find him flawless. I don't agree, but I have no problem with that. You are all perfectly entitled to that view, as I am to mine. What fascinates me is that you won't admit that he can't stand President Bush. It's obvious. He's as transparent about it as John McCain is.

You ridicule people who say Keyes bashes Bush, which leads me to believe you have evidence that Alan Keyes respects and is kind to the man who defeated him and went on to become President of the United States. I'd like to see it. I really would. I've watched him, and I've always had the impression that he thinks about as much of George W. Bush as Al Gore does.

He's critical of Bush - always has been, always will be. That's all right, but why pretend otherwise? I don't get it. Maybe some people don't like the idea that he's envious of another man, because that would disqualify him from sainthood.

[Doc On The Bay]

Hmmmmmmn------"OK it's a post by "Buckaroo"--"Yawn" ALSO works; "Substance" & "Cogent Comments" seem to work best here.....

Doc

[Rowdee]

For crying out loud, Howlin......you left out the blurb about the media misunderstanding!!! Gal, you are slipping!

[Rowdee]

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.

Regards :)

[Rowdee]

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

[Rowdee]

Wouldn't have bothered me a bit, Amelia, if Keyes had come out and said President Bush was the best thing since Motherhood and Apple Pie......I didn't agree with Keyes when he told his supporters to vote for Bush.

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.

OTOH, there would be a bunch of other folks pissed off that the nation lost one of its few truly outspoken proponents for constitutional government and the beliefs and ideals of the Declaration.....something that no President in a long time has done.

[k2blader]

Another excellent essay from the most eleoquent spokesman for Constitutional Conservatism.

Hear hear!

Keyes is one of the few men "in politics" I can trust to speak the truth.

[Rowdee]

..."you'll get all kinds of condescending remarks about how you're just LOOKING for anything to bash Keyes about"....

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?

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? You had no intention to suggest that it was some small thing that Keyes could have/should have done to make the President's adorers happy, right?

Tell ya what....if any posters here believe that BS, I've got a beautiful suspension bridge I'll sell you for a great price....I just have so many that I want to 'share' them with the rest of the world....'kay?

[Symix]

>when I was bundled with the DNC

I am truly sorry for the typo - I meant RNC - have no idea how the D jumped there instead. I think this typo unleashed this fury in you - again my apologies for the typo.

There was a message (#66) from Hawlin that brought my attention where he writes:
Dear, you must be new to the Keyes threads: here's the way it works; one of them posts an article written by Keyes…

It's a fine irony - may I offer another interpretation?
Every Saturday Dr Keyes publishes an article in WorldNetDaily.com; Mr. KFP takes it upon himself to promptly post it here.
Many people wait for the article - some to admire the mature thought and some to bash the author.

How is that? Which type are you?

[Gelato]

Thanks to deport for referring us to that article (I am not a Bush Republican!)--for, it really is the crux of the debate over Keyes’ opinion of Bush. Since this article illustrates Keyes' opinion of the Bush administration, let’s take a look at it, so there can (hopefully) be no misunderstanding.

Keyes begins with this premise: the Clinton era was not the most dangerous time we have faced, right now is (pre-September 11th).

That’s a rather provocative idea, especially considering what we got with Clinton. No Republican wants to think we are in more danger now with a Republican in the White House. So what did Keyes mean by this?

There’s no need for us to speculate what he meant by it, or to twist and or parse what he said. His view is written right there, plain as day:

Many conservatives believe that the Clinton presidency was the most dangerous time we have faced, as Americans and conservatives, in the history of the country. I do not share this belief. Rather, I believe that we are now entering that most dangerous era. For the bullet you hear is not the one that kills you. Organized and conscious advocacy of the principles that have made American liberty possible since the founding is unlikely to die at the hands of an explicit and avowed enemy like Bill Clinton. It is actually more likely that conservatives will passively accept political euthanasia for their cause at the hands of someone we have too readily believed could be entrusted with its wise care.

The times are more dangerous now because conservatives have put down their guard, is Keyes’ opinion. Naturally, when you aren’t on your guard, there is a greater possibility for harm than when you are keeping a diligent watch.

This is a legitimate concern. Many conservatives, once Bush got elected, seemed to think they could rest easy, and took it for granted that Bush would further the conservative agenda. But once that guard was down, according to Keyes, we blithely let the Bush administration promote the following:

1. Tax cuts, instead of tax reform
2. Federal involvement in education (which is unconstitutional)
3. Racial preferences (Affirmative Action)
4. Lack of a sense of urgency in strengthening the military
5. Faulty premises in refusing the Kyoto Protocol
6. Globalist-managed "free" trade at the expense of national sovereignty
7. Open borders with Mexico
8. An acceptance of Clinton’s abuse of executive orders

But those are just minor complaints. The primary one for Keyes is the federal funding for stem cell research:

Above all, I do not see firm and foursquare support for the principles that ought to defend the dignity of human life, whether in the womb or in the petri dish, beginning not from a moment we choose, but from the moment of God's creative will.

And a side issue:

I've been watching closely, and I have not seen a single serious Bush administration initiative that corresponds in reality to the agenda of liberty and of conservative principles. And meanwhile, the most successful policy of all seems to be the unrelenting GOP establishment campaign to suppress criticism of Bush administration policies by anyone trying to speak for the moral conservative voters who, by voting against Al Gore, allowed Mr. Bush to squeak into office despite losing the popular vote.

Now, the many points Keyes brings up here are worth discussing. Are his concerns baseless? Can they be refuted? Did he misspeak or exaggerate? It would be nice to see someone challenge Keyes’ assertions and show why he is wrong, rather than just complain that he’s “bashing Bush” and leave it at that. Indeed, we’ve argued the intent behind Keyes’ statements more than the validity of his arguments.

Some have wondered why the “Keyesters” have spent so much time trying to prove that Keyes really likes Bush when, from his own mouth, he’s not a “Bush Republican.” I’d say this sort of defense is in response to the accusation that Keyes holds something personal against Bush; that Keyes even hates Bush and despises him as “evil.” We go to such great lengths to disprove this because it is not true; there’s nothing personal about his criticism. Even in his “scathing” critique that I’ve been reviewing, and even with the provocative title, Keyes’ beef is not with George W. Bush as a human being; it is with the Bush administration, with the President’s policies. These are policies, after all, that affect each one of us for good or possibly for ill as actions by our government are apt to do. And all actions by government should be held in check and viewed with speculation, no matter the good intentions behind them. Government power is not a toy, and we have a right to speak up against its abuse.

One thing that has been lost in the discussion is the subtle encouragement Keyes is giving Bush to stand on principle. He is, implicitly, goading Bush on; trying to get Bush to have courage in defending what’s right. Whether Keyes’ outspoken way of doing this is successful or not we may never know, since the President is no longer faced with the same moral dilemmas presented him before September 11th.

But whatever the case, I'd like to see the discussion of this subject rise above the personality contest it has been thus far on FreeRepublic. Surely we are adult enough to discuss the issues Keyes raises without getting personal ourselves.

[Mad Dawg]

Using your OWN logic, I couldn't call a rapist a "rapist" just because he'd done ONE EVIL thing.

You could call him a rapist, but, as far as I can tell, you couldn't call him "evil", even though the "one evil thing" was very evil.

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