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.

[TrueBeliever9]

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.

Keep repeating Dr. Keyes! Take a drive around Potomac and keep repeating!

[TrueBeliever9]

After his pathetic appearance on Hannity & C (which was the same mantra that appears in this article) I was sure that he was promoting himself for another appointment to the UN!

[Gelato]

With all due respect, I don't believe this is true. I've seen and heard plenty of Alan Keyes - and he is by no stretch of the imagination a Bush supporter. All I am suggesting is that there is no reason why his competitive, condescending behavior should earn him a seat at the Bush conference table.

Thanks for you respect, likewise.

I think it's great that you care about Keyes' opinion enough to be a close watcher of his. But you'll have to have noticed that Keyes' criticism of Bush is nearly always limited to the stem cell decision. The only exception I've seen is way back in the China/spy-plane dilemma, when he was worried that we were giving in to China's demands in what was essentially a hostage situation.

But these are merely disagreements over the President's policies. I hope we don't think that speaking out against an offensive action by our President qualifies a person as a Bush-basher, or that when we disagree with our government official, we are taking personal "pot-shots."

I know in politics there is the tendency to think of things as a battle of personalities, like a high-school popularity contest. That, I think, puts us in situation where we care more about external things, such as how a guy looks or talks, rather than whether what that guy is advocating is good for the country.

That's a tendency we need to overcome if we are to prevent another Clinton-like presidency in the future, I believe.

[duckln]

Bin Laden's hijacked airplanes did not target Christians and Jews

Now, that statement is totally false. He admits his target is Christians and Jews. He's ramping up the Islam domination jihad that's been going on for 1400 years.

[Rowdee]

Thank you for the ping......think from now own, 'll start at the very bottom of the thread and work upwards.

God, I wish he would leave the GOP and go to the Constitution Party....at least, they still say 'constitution', rather than leaving it in the outhouse like a Sears catalog.

[blackbart1]

Excellent Dr. Keyes, excellent. Thank you.

[Aquinasfan]

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.

Is Alan this naive regarding Islam?

He should read Belloc on the Islamic heresy, available on-line at EWTN.

[Gelato]

Bin Laden's hijacked airplanes did not target Christians and Jews

Now, that statement is totally false. He admits his target is Christians and Jews. He's ramping up the Islam domination jihad that's been going on for 1400 years.

Yes, that's what bin Laden said he wanted to do, but not what he accomplished, isn't it? Bin Laden may see killing Americans as killing Christians and Jews, but the truth is, America is made up of a substantial number of Muslims and persons of other religious persuasion, too. The fact that bin Laden doesn't mind killing Muslim Americans shows that this is not the religious war he claims it is. His battle, in actuality, is against anyone who believes in liberty.

Again, we can't take bin Laden's bait and give the Muslims of the world any reason to believe America is against them. This war is for freedom, not against religion.

[rdf]

He may be a great orator, but the man is a Bush-basher.

Here is a mild irony.

Keyes is supporting, in this article, the position of the US Government, headed by GWB.

We [the USA] have been adamant that we are not in war with Islam. Some folks have read this piece and said Keyes is a "Bush Basher." Some have said he is naive about Islam.

Go figure!

Best to you and all,

Richard F.

[Gelato]

Is Alan this naive regarding Islam? He should read Belloc on the Islamic heresy, available on-line at EWTN.

I don't know how much Keyes knows of Islam, but perhaps his position is not as naive as you think.

Personally, in my study of the Koran and the history of Islam, I've been surprised at how violent and authoritarian the religion is. And I can see where bin Laden gets his justification for his actions against us, since the Koran allows for the extermination of "infidels" under certain circumstances.

But the problem is, bin Laden has no authority to speak for Islam, or to issue a "fatwa" or "jihad" against anyone, just on his say-so. He has set himself up as a modern Mohammed, without any legitimacy. Thankfully, most Muslims--at least in the US--seem to recognize this fraud, and really do want to live in peace.

Bin Laden and his followers represent a minority of Islam. But if we take their bait, and start calling this a war on Islam, bin Laden's view will be accepted by the majority of Muslims, because it will then be true.

We cannot fall into the trap of thinking of the war in bin Laden's terms. This is a war for our political ideals--those ideals from our founding of universal God-given rights.

[rdf]

We cannot fall into the trap of thinking of the war in bin Laden's terms. This is a war for our political ideals--those ideals from our founding of universal God-given rights.

Golden Words, Gelato.

And Prudent ones.

Richard F.

[Amelia]

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. Keep repeating Dr. Keyes! Take a drive around Potomac and keep repeating!

Isn't Dr. Keyes saying what President Bush has been saying all along, i.e., this is not a war against Islam?

[rdf]

I appreciate your disagreeing without insulting me personally

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

In any event, he and President Bush are on the same page about this war's not being a religious war. That might move us all to more moderate and kindly speech.

Best to you,

Richard F.

[rdf]

Isn't Dr. Keyes saying what President Bush has been saying all along, i.e., this is not a war against Islam?

Well, yes. And I think it is true.

So now is a lovely moment for various Keyes haters to admit that he sometimes, when he thinks it true and wise, supports the stance of the administration.

I sit here, at my PC, fully confident that we will see many, many posts admitting this fact, and a great, and new, unity of conservatives on the issues of the war.

I also expect to win the lottery, and to see all my stocks double tomorrow!

Cheers,

Richard F.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

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

Excuse me? Dad? This is a political forum. I can, and I will, be honest about my observations regarding Alan Keyes. 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.)

[rdf]

Sorry you feel this way.

[rdf]

Here is your insult, from symix, not me.

I think you are just self-appointed, zealous "defenders" who attack Dr Keyes simply because his analysis and his speeches are a magnitude stronger that anything GWB could deliver; you (and probably DNC as well) just do not want to be compared to Keyes. That is sad. Un-patriotic too.

I think it mild, and it is not from me.

In fact, I don't agree with it.

Now, to return to sweeter things, don't you in fact agree with the position Keyes takes in the column? And isn't it the position of the US Government?

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

Best to you, and for America,

Richard F.

[marajade]

"He would be a good one to head the RNC instead of Gilmore."

What makes you say that? All Keyes has done is criticize Bush, even to the point of calling him "evil."

[Amelia]

So now is a lovely moment for various Keyes haters to admit that he sometimes, when he thinks it true and wise, supports the stance of the administration.

Although you may regard me as such, I do not regard myself as a "Keyes hater". As I've said numerous times before, I thought enough of Dr. Keyes to vote for him in 1996 and 2000. I have, however, become increasingly exasperated with some of his public statements since the election.

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.

[marajade]

"You don't know a thing about me, and you're leaping to some wild conclusions."

Hey don't you know that if you're against Keyes than you are unprincipled? That's how everyone who comes out against Keyes is labeled; including myself.

And there are those who question why Bush isn't using him?

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