Alan Keyes Campaign Brochure
[Taken from the Unofficial Keyes Campaign Web Page]
A Statement of My Position on Several Key Issues Facing The Nation
by
Alan L. Keyes
You have asked for my position on several issues that reflect or are
part of America's moral crisis. In responding, I must first make clear
the approach I take in thinking about these issues.
I believe that we are not dealing with a number of separate and
discrete issues, but with what is essentially one moral challenge
which manifests itself in many areas. Simply stated, that challenge
has to do with the corruption of our understanding of freedom, due
mainly to the abandonment of the ideas of respect for law and
individual responsibility that ought to undergird it.
As a free people our way of life depends on certain moral ideas. As a
matter of personal conscience and belief, I believe that Christianity
most perfectly embodies those ideas. But since Americans come from
many different religious and moral backgrounds, I believe that, in
dealing with issues of public policy, we must derive these ideas from
sources that are open to support from people of all religious
backgrounds. Nothing meets this purpose more completely than the
principles and logic of the American Declaration of Independence. I
have therefore made the Declaration the explicit basis for dealing
with the moral crisis we face.
The Declaration is first and foremost a statement of the principles of
justice that define the moral identity of the American people. It
presents a certain concept of our human nature and draws out its
political consequences. All human beings are created equal. They need
no title or qualification beyond their simple humanity in order to
command respect for their intrinsic human dignity, their "unalienable
rights". The purpose of government is to secure these rights, and no
government is just or legitimate if it systematically violates them.
But the Declaration is more than an assertion of rights. It also makes
a clear statement about the ultimate source of authority which
commands respect for those rights. God, the Creator, the author of the
laws of nature, is the source. If God does not exist, or if worldly
powers are not obliged to respect God's authority, there is no reason
to recognize or respect the rights with which he has endowed all human
beings. Thus the effective prerequisite for human rights, and for the
idea of government based on consent (i.e., government based on
representation, elections, due process of law, etc.) is respect for
God's authority and God's eternal laws. If we accept the logic of the
Declaration, this reverence for God is not just a matter of religious
faith, it is the foundation of justice and citizenship in our
republic.
Our freedom is therefore derived from and based on respect for law,
especially the highest law as embodied in the will of the Creator.
Thus rightly understood freedom cannot be confused with mere
licentiousness. It first of all involves the duty to respect its own
foundations in the laws of nature and nature's God. That's why our
rights are "unalienable", which means that we do not have the right,
by our choice or actions, to destroy or surrender them. Indeed, if we
make the judgment that they are being systematically violated, we have
the duty to resist and overthrow the power responsible. This duty
involves both the judgment and the moral and material capacity to
resist tyranny. Taken together these things constitute our character
as a free people, which it is our duty to maintain.
This briefly summarizes the principles and logic that underlie my
thinking about the major issue of our day. In light of these
principles, I will now summarize my stands on the issues you asked
about.
ABORTION (AND EUTHANASIA)
The assertion of a right to abortion epitomizes the corrupt concept of
freedom that has tragically (and we may hope temporarily) achieved
ascendancy in our times. If the Declaration states our creed, there
can be no right to abortion, since it means denying the most
fundamental right of all to human offspring in the womb. One human
being has the right to take the life of another only in defense of his
own life, or when through acts of war an aggressor forfeits his
immunity from harm. This means that, except where necessary to save
the physical life of the mother, abortion involves the unjust taking
of a human life. The mere fact that the individual in the womb is
wholly in its mother's physical power, and completely dependent upon
her for sustenance, gives her no right whatsoever with respect to its
life, since the mere possession of physical power can never confer
such a right. Might does not make right. Abortion is therefore a
breach of the fundamental tenets of our public moral creed.
Of course, some people assert that human beings have the right to draw
the line which determines which human offspring have rights we must
respect, and which do not. If we accept this view, we utterly vitiate
the doctrine of human rights presented in the Declaration. According
to that doctrine, the laws of God command respect for the rights of
all human beings. But if human beings can arbitrarily decide who is
human and who is not, this command has no fore or effect. Whenever we
wished to deny someone's human rights, we could deny their humanity
and escape the force of the command. So, when whites wished to enslave
blacks, they denied their humanity, and so construed the right to hold
slaves as a property right. To avoid this absurdity, and the
injustices that follow from it, we must acknowledge that God has drawn
the line that separates human from non-human life, and human beings
have no choice but to respect his will. The Declaration also clearly
indicates how we can recognize this line, since it states plainly that
we are all created equal, which means that the criterion of our
humanity must be such as to provide no grounds for invidious
distinctions between one human being and another. Only one criterion
meets this requirement, i.e., that we are all of equal parentage.
Because our parents were human, we are human. After conception, life
in the womb is in this respect no different than life outside the
womb. We are therefore obliged to treat the human being, once
conceived, with the same respect that we demand for ourselves.
As for the so-called "right to suicide", and related practices such as
euthanasia, whatever emotional arguments we make on their behalf, they
represent a violation of the Declaration's principles. Our rights,
including the right to life, are unalienable. We therefore do not have
the right to destroy or surrender them. Now, if we kill ourselves or
consent to allow another to do so, we both destroy and surrender our
right to life. We act unjustly. We usurp the authority that belongs
solely to the Creator, and thus deny the transcendent basis of our
claim to human rights.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM/SCHOOL PRAYER
The doctrine of separation of church and state as it has been
articulated in recent years by our Courts, including the Supreme
Court, is an erroneous misinterpretation of the Constitution, that
actually provides the framework for massive violations of our first
amendment rights. The first amendment was never intended to exclude
all references to God and religion from our governmental institutions
or our public life. The surest sign of the absurdity and danger of
this doctrine is the fact that its application means that the
Declaration of Independence itself can only be taught in our
government schools as an historical artifact, rather than as the
living expression of our moral identity as a people.
I believe that the first amendment prohibition of established religion
aims to forbid all government sponsored coercion of religious
conscience. It does not forbid all religious influence upon politics
or society. The free exercise of religion means nothing if, in
connection with the ordinary events and circumstances of life,
individuals are forbidden to act upon their religious faith. Recent
administrative attempts to banish religion from the workplace, or
Court decisions that prevent teachers and other government workers
from personally pursuing or displaying their faith constitute, in my
opinion, clear efforts to prohibit the free exercise of religion. If
elected to the Presidency I would do everything in my power, through
public speeches and persuasion, legislation, and careful scrutiny of
candidates for judicial appointments, to turn the tide against
Constitutional interpretations that undermine religious freedom. Of
course, I would also strenuously oppose any efforts to use government
power to coerce religious belief or conscience, including efforts to
impose views that contravene religious conscience on matters such as
homosexuality and abortion.
I would also support the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution
to clarify the doctrine of religious freedom outlined above, in
particular with respect to school prayer.
SCHOOL CHOICE
I believe however that the court initiated prohibition of school
prayer was only the symptom of a deeper problem in our educational
system, which is the neglect of moral education and character
formation. The value-free education offered by the government run
schools has all too often proven to be education without value. This
is especially true now that Outcome Based Education and other such
concepts have been used as an excuse to establish curricular elements
that amount to politically correct brainwashing of our children. To
reverse this neglect, and thwart such indoctrination, I would strongly
favor and promote school choice approaches that empower parents to
send their children to schools that reflect their faith and values. We
not only need prayer in schools, we need schools that are in the hands
of people who pray. We must break the government monopoly on public
education.
SEX EDUCATION/CONDOM DISTRIBUTION
Human sexuality is primarily a matter of moral, not just physical
health. So called health-based sex education programs have done more
harm than good. They too often encourage adolescents to consider
sexual activity apart from marriage and family life. Especially in the
government schools, where teachers purport to deal with sexual matters
without reference to moral authority, they result in a vapid, context
free presentation of sexual mechanics which degrades and debases the
meaning of relations between the sexes and prepares and encourages
premature sexual activity.
As a rule I believe that sex education is the private responsibility
of parents. The government should not usurp this role. Where parents
choose to encourage school based instruction, I would strongly support
and encourage abstinence based approaches for young adults. On the
whole, however, I believe that education regarding relations between
the sexes should be home and church based, or at the very least
conducted in schools and programs that reflect the faith and values of
the parents. Since government schools eschew moral instruction, they
declare themselves incompetent to instruct in matters such as this,
which involve intrinsically moral reasoning and judgments.
WOMEN IN COMBAT
Though I believe strongly in the equality of the sexes, I resist with
similar conviction the idea that equality means that the sexual
difference makes no difference. I would restore fully the exemption of
women from involuntary service in land combat units, and institute an
in depth review and re-examination of the policy of assigning female
volunteers to combat duty. Our military forces are not fit subjects
for questionable social experimentation. Military preparedness should
be the top priority. As President I would try to be a line of defense
between our military establishment and those political and other
forces that seek to impose politically correct agendas at the expense
of military judgment.
HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS
It is wrong to treat sexual orientation like race where discrimination
is concerned. Race is a condition. Sexual orientation involves
behavior. What's more it involves behavior in response to passion. If
we equate sexual orientation and race, we are saying that, like race,
sexual behavior is beyond the individual's control and moral will.
This completely vitiates the concept of sexual responsibility, and
implies the rejection of moral responsibility in every case where
human action results from the influence of passion. We cannot embrace
such an understanding of rights without denying the human moral
capacity, and with it the fitness of human beings for life in a free
society.
I also believe that the effort to equate homosexual or lesbian
relations with heterosexual relations for public purposes such as
legal marriage, etc. represents a destructive assault on the
heterosexual, marriage-based family. For public purposes, the
regulation of marriage has as its special aim the establishment of the
rights and responsibilities connected with procreation and
child-rearing. As an institution therefore marriage transcends the
mere self-gratification of the married couple. By admitting homosexual
and lesbian relationships to the privileges of the married state, we
would devalue this transcendent status, and weaken the duties and the
sense of obligation it entails. Of course, the regime of easy divorce
established in many states has already weakened the fabric of
obligation that supports marriage and family life. Recognition of
homosexual/lesbian marriages would threaten to destroy it utterly.
TAXATION/GOVERNMENT SPENDING
If we allow the government to consume too much of our earnings and
resources, we erode the resource base of our freedom and our moral
responsibility. Excessive government spending, and the excessive
taxation and borrowing it produces, are therefore not only a threat to
our economic, they threaten our moral character and our ability to
sustain our liberty.
The best way to curtail government spending is to cut taxes. They
can't spend what they don't get. But we must also take away the
government's credit card. With limits on both tax revenue and
borrowing, the Federal government would finally be forced to get
serious about spending cuts. it is absurd to believe that in the
absence or these limits, serious cuts will be made. That's why a
balanced budget constitutional amendment, with barriers to both
borrowing and spending, is the way to secure budget discipline. (If
you have a child in college who spends too much and keeps asking for
more, you don't keep sending money until he figures out where he can
cut back on his expenditures. You cut back the flow of funds, which
forces the collegian to change his spending habits. This is simple
common sense. Why do our leaders demand that we abandon this common
sense when dealing with the government?)
Beyond a structure of government discipline, however, we must redefine
our understanding of the problem we are dealing with. Most of our
expensive government programs aim to deal with problems that are
related to the breakdown of moral standards and self-discipline. We
will go bankrupt as a nation if we continue trying to pay the
ever-increasing costs of our moral disintegration. We must begin to
deal with the moral causes, starting with an effort to end government
programs (like family-destroying welfare efforts, and sex-education
courses that encourage promiscuity) that actually hasten the moral
breakdown. Our first priority should be restoring the moral and
material support for the marriage-based two parent family. The
disintegration of the family is the major contributing factor in
poverty, crime, violence, the decline in educational performance, and
a host of other expensive social problems. Restoring a strong sense of
inter-generational family responsibility would even help to address
the financial problems facing the social security system.
I believe that tax cuts and reforms aimed at reducing government's
extortion of family income are essential elements of the program to
restore America's moral health. Fiscal sanity and moral revival go
hand in hand.