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]

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

[Keyes For President]

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.

[Khepera]

bump

[Khepera]

Bump

I get asked all the time: “How do I get on this bump list?” Well the answer is you can’t! The FreeRepublic Master Bump List is not a list of people who get notified about a topic appearing on FreeRepublic but it is a list of topics that you can click on and have posts relevant to those topics displayed to you. There are many topics like “WOD_list” (War On Drugs) or “Homeschool_list” (Stories that Homeschoolers may be interested in) or “Homosexual Agenda” (A list of articles related to that topic). And they all appear on the The FreeRepublic Bump List

When you are reading an article you can add it to the list by posting a reply to that topic and in the “TO” box put the name of the list you want it to appear on preceded by an “*”. For example if you want the article to appear on the War on Drugs list then put “*WOD_list” in the “TO:” box instead of someones screen name. You can also put it on several lists by separating the list names with a simi-colon “;”. Then when you want to see the list go to The FreeRepublic Master Bump List and click on the link for that list.

[rdf]

ping!

[RadicalRik]

He would be a good one to head the RNC instead of Gilmore.
If he can't be president, then he should help make them, and make our party bigger, better and stronger.

[duckln]

Allan finnally screws up. It must be intentional because I'm sure he knows better.

We are seeking to destroy an association of men who have taken violent, evil action against the innocent in our country

Why did they take 'evil' action? Because we don't submit and pay homage to Islam. You've got to consider, these terrorists are defacto theologians.

On one side, people are taugh to 'love your neighbor' and 'thou shall not kill'. The Islam message that comes through to the 'fanatics' is, 'despise your neighbor' and 'kill if you can', and Islam is rallying around these 'fanatics'.

IMO, this war won't be over until the Koran is 'rewritten'.

[Symix]

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

I have a question of Mr Keyes, but really have no way to ask him - there is no e-mail address that I know of, so I am asking it here hoping it would somehow get to Mr Keyes.

The question is this - why isn't GWB using you? Why does the RNC act as if you do not exist?
Reading your articles and listening to your speeches one can not but be in awe of your intellect, leadership ability and morals.

So why don't they use you?

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

The question is this - why isn't GWB using you?

If you were President Bush, having been the target of this guy's pot shot after pot shot, would you "use" Keyes? Not to get into a big debate with those who love the man, but he rarely misses an opportunity to take a shot at Bush. I don't honestly see why the President should be obligated to offer him a gig.

[Gelato]

Hardly a "screw-up."

Notwithstanding the religious nature of the language bin Laden and his ilk use, we must not fight back in the name of Christianity, but in the name of our American principles of natural, God-given rights. Any attack on these rights is evil.

Alan Keyes often says America has a "creed" in a sense, but it, of course, is non-denominational. The creed is outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution: that all men are created equal with rights -- and one of these rights is the right to worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience. It is our respect for these principles that has made our nation unique and blessed above all other nations.

It may be true that we are fighting for the right of Judeo-Christianity to exist in our country, but we are also fighting for the right of any other religion. Bin Laden's hijacked airplanes did not target Christians and Jews; they killed members of other religious sects, even Muslims. But even if it had been exclusive to Judeo-Christianity, that still would not affect our response. Human beings were evilly murdered on our soil, and we will not allow that.

If we reacted as though this is a war of Jews and Christians against Muslims, we would play right into bin Laden’s hands. The “fatwa” he issued against America tries to pit religion against religion. The purpose, of course, is to get all Muslims around the world rallied to bin Laden’s cause. He’s the one on a crusade, not us. And he would like nothing better than to see Muslims think Judeo-Christianity is a beast that wants to destroy them.

We cannot take the bait.

[Gelato]

If you were President Bush, having been the target of this guy's pot shot after pot shot, would you "use" Keyes? Not to get into a big debate with those who love the man, but he rarely misses an opportunity to take a shot at Bush. I don't honestly see why the President should be obligated to offer him a gig.

That's an extreme exaggeration. The thing is, Keyes is deeply committed to the pro-life cause, and he takes issue with anyone who does not likewise uphold this principle.

Although Bush made strong statements to show his opposition to stem cell research during his campaign, he wavered from this once he got in office. Keyes has strongly denounced this, and he will continue to do so. It is, after all, not a light thing. It is a matter of life and death. And it doesn't matter who the President is, whether he is Republican or Democrat, Keyes will always criticize those are weak-kneed on this issue.

If this makes some in the GOP uncomfortable . . . well, that's their problem, not his.

[Symix]

It would be very disappointing if this was true - that GWB would hold a grudge to the degree where he would not use a true champion like Dr Keyes when there are no champions left.

I do not understand where all of you, Keyes bashers, find these alleged "shots" at GWB.
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.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

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.

Oh, puh-LEEZE. I couldn't care less about your comparisons, or who you deem to be "un-patriotic". You don't know a thing about me, and you're leaping to some wild conclusions. I did not "attack" Keyes, and I resent being lumped in with the DNC simply because I don't see why George W. Bush should demonstrate loyalty that Keyes has not earned.

Worship him if you like. I don't appreciate his treatment of the President (who happens to be a Christian, also). If that causes you to draw some conclusion about my morality, have at it. It means nothing to me.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

I think you know very well that Alan Keyes' criticism of George W. Bush extends well beyond the stem cell issue. He has repeatedly condescended to the President since the campaign - and while the Keyes Fan Club believes Bush should erase it from his memory and make Keyes his right-hand man, I think that's an unrealistic expectation.

Alan Keyes is where he belongs, doing what he does best - shouting, pontificating, criticizing and grinning whenever he comes up for air. President Bush owes him nothing.

[The Shrew]

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

The chances of Alan Keyes being Chairman of the RNC are slim and None!

Regards,

TS

[Jim Scott]

I do not understand where all of you, Keyes bashers, find these alleged "shots" at GWB.

Oh, really. Try this one from a Keyes speech on August 25, discussing the Bush stem-cell financing decision:

"I sit in front of a decision like that and I say this is a decision where somebody sat down to figure out how much evil they could get away with".

That one still sticks in the craw of a lot of Bush supporters and made a lot of Keyes fans into former Keyes fans.

Alan Keyes is intelligent, articulate and has stong convictions but he was tepid with his support of G. W. Bush following his nomination and went on the attack soon after the inaugration. The stem-cell decision threw Keyes into a real snit and nothing has changed.

I support Keyes duty and right to voice his convictions and his criticisms of the President but to expect the Bush administration to give this man the time of day would be beyond naive. Keyes has taken an adversary position toward Bush and in my opinion, although Alan Keyes has a fine understanding of many issues as well as strong positions on them but he appears to have no real grasp of politics and serves more as a commentator than anything else. Unfortunately, his commentary is often against Bush or his policies in some way, so cooperation between these two men is probably not possible at this point.

I believe both are happier this way. Dr. Keyes is free to attack Bush where and when he sees fit and Bush gets on with his Presidency, ignoring Alan Keyes. Works for me.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

"I believe both are happier this way. Dr. Keyes is free to attack Bush where and when he sees fit and Bush gets on with his Presidency, ignoring Alan Keyes. Works for me."

Exactly. I am dumbfounded that anyone would expect Bush to embrace Keyes. He may be a great orator, but the man is a Bush-basher.

[Gelato]

Worship him if you like. I don't appreciate his treatment of the President (who happens to be a Christian, also). If that causes you to draw some conclusion about my morality, have at it. It means nothing to me.

I'm glad we have Bush as President, and not Gore -- and I think it's safe to say his religion is not pretended like the Clintons' was. He seems to at least want to do what's right, most of the time.

However, it is disappointing -- to say the least -- that he wavered on the stem cell issue. He came close to doing the right thing, but in the end he tried too hard to please both sides. All Keyes has done is pointed out the inconsistencies in Bush's decision. That's where Keyes' criticism lies.

It's unfortunate that some have misunderstood this criticism to be a personal attack against Bush. But no matter what is said, it's just not true that Keyes ever bashed Bush. He has simply criticized him for waffling on the stem cell issue.

If you are pro-life, I hope you can understand the importance of this issue to Keyes. And I hope you realize it is something that we must defend at all times, even when we have a pro-life Republican in the White House. I’m sure if all pro-lifers had been firm in their pleas to Bush to not fund any stem cell research, it would’ve been easier for him to uphold it with no exceptions. But the pressure he got from the pro-life crowd to fund the research was apparently too great to ignore, and he obliged them.

We pro-lifers need to be firmer than that. Thank goodness we have Keyes to prick our consciences now and then.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

All Keyes has done is pointed out the inconsistencies in Bush's decision. That's where Keyes' criticism lies.

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.

For the most part, I have no problem with him - although I think he is completely unelectable, divisive, and at times comes dangerously close to the Windbag Zone - I actually do enjoy him in certain contexts. Having said that, I believe Bush is absolutely right to ignore him.

Thanks for the reasoned response. I appreciate your disagreeing without insulting me personally.