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 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.

Thank you; being a conservative, you can imagine my visceral feelings about being grouped with the DNC. Please understand, however, that it was not the only thing about your response to me that I found objectionable and personal - and that "fury" is a rather strong word to describe my reaction. I'm not as invested in this discussion as it may seem like I am, and I'm not even mildly angry with anyone here over this. I'm more accurately apathetic when someone who does not know me makes assumptions about my character based on a position I've taken politically.

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?

If you're addressing me, I honestly don't wait in the grass for any topic to show up on this site. In any case, your implication seems to be that if someone participates in a thread about Alan Keyes, they are unwelcome unless they come to "admire the mature thought". I want to make sure I understand you, because that, to me, seems rather contrary to open discussion.

[Keyes For President]

btt

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

First let me thank you for your pre-coffee post, and say that we can agree that the statement by Alan Keyes on Bush's decision was (I will qualify by adding at a minimum) an unfortunate choice of words.

You said to Howlin: 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?

If I may offer this: It has been suggested to me on this thread that things said to me that I interpreted as insulting were not, or at least not as insulting as I found them. (There was some confusion over which specific remarks we were discussing, and that's what I was trying to clear up when I responded to you.) It was also assumed that I misinterpreted and misunderstood the statements that provoked my reaction.

I think some kind individuals - like Howlin - would argue that my reaction is my reaction, and it really isn't anyone else's place to determine whether I should or should not be offended. It could almost be interpreted as an invalidation to an individual when that territory is ventured into. I don't believe you intended to be invalidating, so I didn't make a big deal out of it - but I think that's one of the points to be made here.

You weren't the only one to do this. I actually received Freeper mail from a Keyes supporter suggesting that I got "hot" about this, as if I instigated it. If you look carefully at the thread, I did not. (And yes, there was a Keyester who suggested Bush needed to "use" Keyes.)

I hope this partial explanation makes some sense to you. I'm having a difficult time articulating it; Howlin is doing far better than I am.

I'm a little focused on a big win by my Packers. : )

[Rowdee]

Sorry to disappoint your assessment, Howlin.....I don't keep a list of your talking points nor any others for that matter, by my computer or elsewhere, for that matter....rather, its a case of realizing there was something missing from the 'same old, same old'....

[Rowdee]

..."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."...

Just so I am clear.....how is it you know how Amelia, or even your husband, if you are married, voted....is this based on their telling you or did you actually see them mark their ballot? Let's just say, for Amelia's benefit that I am being 'nit-picky' about words....I'd hate to be accused of 'reading between the lines' or making 'assumptions about you when I don't know you'.

[Amelia]

how is it you know how Amelia, or even your husband, if you are married, voted

It could be, that unlike some people, Howlin actually READ my post #39.

[Amelia]

It has been suggested to me on this thread that things said to me that I interpreted as insulting were not, or at least not as insulting as I found them.

That's okay, it's been suggested to me on this thread that I said things I didn't say, and meant to say things I didn't say, and what I said was not what I meant.

I'm personally at a loss to understand how certain people are able to interpret what anyone says correctly, and some of us don't even know what we ourselves are saying.

[Rowdee]

Why don't you try rereading my #125!!!

[Howlin]

its a case of realizing there was something missing from the 'same old, same old'....

You're right about it being the "same old, same old."

However, that "rant" was the "rant" you all use, not me, so you'll have to forgive me for not remembering it word for word.

And it's nice to see you admit you don't need a cheat sheet, that you have it memorized.

[Howlin]

Just so I am clear.....how is it you know how Amelia, or even your husband, if you are married, voted....is this based on their telling you or did you actually see them mark their ballot?

You remind me of one of my cousins; she thinks because SHE lies and cheats, everybody else does, too.

[Howlin]

It has been suggested to me on this thread that things said to me that I interpreted as insulting were not, or at least not as insulting as I found them.

Well, this just gets better as we go along, doesn't it? Now, not only do we not understand what Alan Keyes says when it's printed on a page for us to read, and not only do we not understand Alan Keyes' gestures when we see it with our own eyes, but now apparently we don't even understand our OWN reactions to his words and gestures.

Thank goodness for the Keyesters, or we'd NEVER understand Alan Keyes. No wonder he's so "misunderstood." He has to have a pack of people following him around, explaining his every word. Quite the orator, I'd say.

[Rowdee]

Think I'll just cite another of your answers, Howlin, inasmuch as you have a penchant for not responding to questions...."I don't have to answer your questions", as your non-response response to my most recent question above....it would appear you don't want to be put on the spot for declaring you know something that you really don't know, but only assume...correct?

[Howlin]

Put the whiskey down, Rowdee; your last answer made NO sense.

Either that, or YOU must have misunderstood what I said. (See how dumb that sounds when you say it?)

[Amelia]

YOU must have misunderstood what I said.

Oh, no, dear, Rowdee understands what everyone said, and what they meant to say as well. YOU might not have understood what Rowdee said. You might not have even understood what you yourself said. But I'm sure someone will be along shortly to explain it all to you.

[Mad Dawg]

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.

The first thing I would want to say is that I don't think it's about "liking" either the deed or the person. It's about what I think.

I think the consciousness with which people choose to do things is varied, as a matter of fact. Some people seem to litter quite unconsciously. But even if we're talking about a something done with malice aforethought and all that, I think that all the deed tells me is at most something about that person right then. People change and it seems to me that their deeds as much "make" them who they are becoming as they proceed out of who they already are.

In any event, I guess I tend to focus on the deed. People are a mystery, at least to me.

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.

Finally, in this highly inadequate and sketchy answer, I don't think there's a connection between not "judging" a person and judging (and holding a person responsible for) a particular deed - or even a pattern of deeds. By all means, lock 'em up or fine 'em, or even put them to death. There are deeds and responsibilities and consequences. But in the old days the sentencing judges would say (and maybe some of them meant it), "May God have mercy on your soul."

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

He has to have a pack of people following him around, explaining his every word. Quite the orator, I'd say.

LOL.......not to mention that there must be a thread created every time Alan hiccups.

Then there are those who were born to be in a bad mood, 24/7, and this is their arena (no need to mention names). I don't know if it should be pitied, laughed at or thanked. One thing is certain, no political enemy could do nearly the damage that Keyes' own cultists do. Most other public figures would be humiliated by their words and attitudes, but I guess some folks will grab attention in whatever form available. Classless............entirely void of sophistication.

[Howlin]

It's enlightening today to discover that not only do we misunderstand Mr. Keyes, but now we misunderstand our OWN reactions to Mr. Keyes.........LOL.

[Rowdee]

More evasion, eh?

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

It's enlightening today to discover that not only do we misunderstand Mr. Keyes, but now we misunderstand our OWN reactions to Mr. Keyes.........LOL.

Hehehehe.....mighty insightful for a little circle of misfits that are increasingly floating toward the edges of obscurity.

[Amelia]

Rowdee, Howlin knows who I voted for. She also knows my real name, my husband's real name, our address & phone number, what we do for a living, the names of our children and grandchild, what we all look like, my parents' names, address, and phone number, the names of my siblings, what they do for a living, what my house looks like, and what each room in my house looks like. And then some.

Now, pray tell, WHAT is YOUR point?