The Danger found in the Irrelevance of Moral Arguments
In previous writing here, I noted that I believe that what is legal is not necessarily moral, just as what is immoral is not necessarily illegal. And neither illegality nor immorality exclusive equates to sin. Why are these distinctions significant to me? As an amateur commentator on the political and social issues before our nation and the world, it has occurred to me on a consistent basis that a large portion of the peoples of the world and of the United States no longer look to a moral basis in determining a course of action or in the judgment of the actions of others. Individuals once were concerned with their godliness and considered sin a relevant concept. It isn’t sin I wish to discuss, as I believe that to be a matter between the individual and God. However, moral and legal issues are of man’s domain and must be discussed and understood in order to develop the finest characteristics in man, enabling our compassion, inspiring our dreams and suppressing our aptitude to harm each other.
There are many, on the left end of the political spectrum primarily, who argue that the right seeks to "impose their morals" on them. In response, the right now fails to make moral arguments and is held captive by the left’s view of us. Their alternative, to make arbitrary legal decisions and arguments that constrain us as individuals, restrict the debate and render the U.S. subject to the will of an immoral world.
We have, over the past three years, been very aware of the threat of an evil in the world that threatens the life and rights of all mankind. Yet we are often chided when we make such statements and are rebuked for proclaiming a man evil rather than accepting or using the euphemistic statement that “his actions are evil”.
Much of the world now holds as its highest accord that law and legality are what will free men from tyranny, end injustices and expand democracy. The U.N. fueled by this almost uniform belief, continually acts to legislate civility and equality rather than seeking the more powerful argument of moral justice and liberty as a basis for how man is governed and how nations interact. While the U.N. contemplates how to it may legally determine if genocide is occurring in Darfur, more innocent people are killed out of racial and religious bigotry. Particularly troubling to me is the prominence of this trend in the U.S., a nation I believe is the greatest advocate for liberty, justice and peace in the world.
While Senators Kerry and Edwards debate the justification for the invasion of Iraq, they miss the simplest of moral truths. They argue that it is wrong because of the lack of WMD’s found in Iraq, the U.N.’s failure to call the action “legal”, the lack of support of former allies in Europe, and of course, the new acts of terror in portions in Iraq. While doing this they fail to display any understanding for the moral value of liberty and the defense of it. The Presidents decision to liberate Iraq was driven by a clear understanding of our sovereignty, a responsibility to protect American lives, and the resolve to hold Saddam Hussein accountable for agreements he made with the U.N. in 1991.
The idea that Iraq had no direct relationship to the attacks of 9/11 should be resoundingly evicted from our conversation. The legal basis, that which they hold in such high regard, was clearly established by 17 U.N. resolutions and the agreement of Congress to permit the President to use force to enforce the regulations in question. More significant, and damning in their ignorance of it, is the moral basis for the liberation of Iraq. The U.S. is fighting a global war on terror, against an enemy which knows no political or national boundaries, and which after losing their base of operations in Afghanistan would most certainly seek not only other locations to train and plot, but would seek leaders willing to supply them with weapons and sanctuary. Iraq will no longer be such a potential home.
To this they respond, where does it stop? It stops when the terrorist, their ideology and nations that foster or support them are no longer in existence. The concern I have is that the world does not have the fortitude and moral resolve of President Bush or Vice President Cheney, and this will inevitably lengthen the war.
The world, and the United States, has suffered a great of loss. Of course, the terrible acts of terror committed by men who profess faith in and an interpretation of Islam have caused great loss of life to both the innocent who are victims of their terror, and the deaths of service men, American and others, contractors and employees, aid workers and citizens of a nation reborn into liberty. Remembering this loss is almost more than a man can take. Yet it is not the loss for which I reflect today. The loss that concerns me today is the loss of clarity and relevance of righteous and moral thought, dialogue and action in governance and daily life.
