The Newest “Political Hero”: Retired Lt. Col. Allen West, Culture of Fear Candidate 2010
Why is it that pro-torture candidates are seen as “political gold” by some Republican-voting Catholics? One of the “rising stars” being promoted by some Catholics is the retired Lt. Col. Allen West. He isn’t just a big supporter of an unjust war (Iraq), he isn’t just a big supporter of a failed immigration system, he isn’t just a supporter of torture — he was a man actively involved with and proud of torture.
Described in 2008 by The Independent, we get a clear view of the problem:
The men he named were seized and roughed up in turn. No evidence was found of any plot, and after another 45 days of terror, Yehiya was released. Today, he is severely traumatised, and collapses when he sees a Humvee approaching. The story only came to light after one of West’s soldiers began to protest against these practices, and the Pentagon launched an investigation. At a pre-trial hearing, West was fined $5,000, and now concedes grudgingly: “It’s possible I was wrong about Mr Hamoodi.” But he says he would do it again, and again, and again.
West has even taken to joking about it, gaining applause for telling Republican audiences: “It wasn’t torture. Seeing Rosie O’Donnell naked would be torture.” But the 1994 Convention Against Torture, to which the US is a signatory, is explicit: “Threat of imminent death” is the third form of torture it outlaws. There are reams of studies showing it can traumatise a person for life.
Yet the Republican Party has rallied to the defence of this torturer, and of torture in general. The Bush administration has ordered the simulated drowning of “high-value” suspects, and set up secret black ops sites across the world where it is practiced. After Afghan detainees were hanged from the ceiling and beaten to death, the officers responsible were merely given a “letter of reprimand”.
It’s not just that he engages torture, but he is also a known anti-Islamic bigot, who likes to continue to misrepresent Islam and its teachings to promote unjust wars in the Middle East. In a blog post, Allen West: Unfit to Serve, the blogger, Rafael, demonstrates some of the errors in West’s rhetoric. For example, West suggests that Islam has abrogated Koranic verses which call for peace, and so presents Islam as in a perpetual war with the non-Islamic world. Obviously, this is being used to support an aggressive stand in the Middle East, to take the war and turn into a war between the West and Islam. But it is also not how Muslims view their faith. Rafael writes:
And Muslim scholarship is divided as to whether can initiated except in defence, with a strong plurality opining that warfare is only sanctioned in defence.
More importantly, Rafael exposes West’s pretense for knowledge is really prejudice being used to justify his own bigotry:
West is not a scholar of Islam. Although he enjoins upon others to delve into Muslim Scripture and collected narrations, Mr. West has only a pale, one-sided superficial understanding of the topics he discusses. This is obvious when he mispronounces the terms he wants to talk about (Mr. West, the Arabic for a narrated saying is a ḥadeeth not a ḥaadith). His ignorance and bigotry is obvious when he calls Ishmael a “wild men” and uses the Bible, his “Word of God” and “immutable truth”, to justify perpetuating an endless conflict with Arabs (and by extension, Muslims, who as he says are obsessed with their own claims to supremacy). He claims, incorrectly, that the Muslims expelled the Jews from the Levant. He describes the Arabian Peninsula as the “Saudi Peninsula”,which both is incorrect and anachronistic pre-1932. Consistently refuses to properly capitalise the name “Muhammad” or “Muslim” or “Islam”. He describes “Islamic totalitarianism” as the “original enemy of the Jewish people”, as if they had no enemies before Islam under which they flourished; ask Maimonides. He claims lying is encouraged to promote Islam. He claims Israel has ceded land as if Israel has no obligation to respect the pre-1967 boundaries that the international community and the International Court define as proper. Misterms Arabs as the “Arabic people” (Arabic is a language, Arabs are an ethnic group). He says Muslims only claim to Jerusalem is from concocted stories and Saladin, not by a deeply held religious tradition and respect, nor by their being in Jerusalem as its guardians and patrons since 638. Instead Mr. West equates creating a Palestinian State with creating a terrorist (as if the allegation of crimes against humanity was never levelled against Israel).
This kind of ignorant hate is dangerous to promote. But it is worse for Catholics to fall for this bigotry and promote it. It is one thing to point out the defects of Islamic history, it is another to over-generalize claims about Islam based upon such facts (when they truly are fact). Catholics know full well the abuse which Christendom has promoted, and they do not want their faith to be judged and determined by such abuses. In the same way, Islam needs to be understood, both from its defects, but also from the good, to understand where the dangers come from but also ways to help promote peace through the positive good which can be found in Islamic teaching. Cardinal Arinze’s Religions for Peace points to those foundations: “Mercy, compassion, and peace are familiar concepts in the Qur’an.” [1] Indeed, the Koran teachings, similar to Christ, that we are expected to do good to those who would wish us evil:
The Qur’an states that if a person repays evil with good, that person will win the enemy over to become a friend: ‘Not equal are the good deed and the evil deed. Repel with that which is fairer and behold, he between whom and thee there is enmity shall be as if he were a loyal friend’ (Q 41:34). [2]
Vatican II tells us that we need to get to know Muslims better, and to end the dogmatic anti-Islamic rhetoric of the anti-Muslim polemical tradition:
Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.[3]
Instead of listening to the Church and working to find common ground to help promote peace, many Catholics continue to look for those who would demonize Islam and listen only to them — no matter how silly or outrageous those demagogues end up being.
But, not only does his hate for Islam get followers, in today’s political climate, his position on migration gets him many followers :
There must be obstacles to deter the illegal aliens, human traffickers, drug runners, and Islamic terrorists who are exploiting our porous border. I support some type of physical deterrent, fence or wall, anything which will canalize activity to areas where we can have better control.
We have to end the failed ideal of “multiculturalism” as it pertains to subjugating American culture to every other culture. The practice of easily obtained student visas led to the horror of 9-11. We can no longer grant these visas, or any others, to citizens entering from Countries known to harboring terrorist groups, especially Islamic terrorist groups.
We must clean out our prisons of illegal immigrants and have harsher penalties against illegals perpetrating crimes against American citizens. The “anchor baby” practice must be terminated. Lastly, any American city classifying itself as a “sanctuary city” must be cut off from receiving any federal government funding.
There are many problems with this position. He does not, for example, ask why the illegal aliens are coming here. One wonders if he thinks pagan nations were right in advocating “physical deterrents” against Christian missionaries who they saw as illegally entering their nations? Does he understand that his stand against granting student visas from countries known to “harbor terrorist groups” would end up denying student visas from all nations in the world? And what about the “anchor baby”? Is he advocating an overturning of the Constitution (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”)? While I can understand why someone who promotes big government over people might want to oppose “sanctuary cities,” which Catholics are wanting to promote and support someone who goes against Catholic understanding of migration and the charity we are to give to immigrants (legal or illegal?). I also think offering such harsh penalties, not only going against solidarity, are also going against subsidiarity.
Clearly, this is man whose promotion and engagement of intrinsic evils in his military career is willing to engage evil for the sake of national goals. He shows no concern for the dignity of the human person — his concern is for the dignity of the powerful nation-state. I cannot be end up being appalled that so many Catholics are willing to join his political wagon despite how antithetical it is to a culture of life. To be pro-life requires one to be more than merely against abortion. It requires one to be pro-life in all of its stages, to support human dignity. It is, indeed, to promote grace, charity, for one’s fellow human being, to look at them and see them with eyes of compassion. With West, we find the eyes of fear, a fear for the other, and this explains well the abuse he support against the other, the stranger in his midst. While we should look to West with compassion and understand why he has come to such a position himself, we must not, cannot let him spread that fear across the land. There is no way we can promote a culture for life if we do.
Footnotes
[1] Francis Cardinal Arinze, Religions for Peace (New York: Doubleday, 2002), 19.
[2] ibid., 19-20.
[3] Nostra Aetate, 3. (Vatican Translation).
Comments are closed.
Henry, it is certainly fair to examine carefully the record and words of any candidate for office but I don’t think it does much good speak against demonizing Muslims, while in effect doing exactly that to Mr West. I think identifying him as an ignorant, hateful, bigot is unjust. If one where to caricature an individual Muslim in the same way the injustice would be obvious. Shouldn’t it be just as important to be careful when dealing with Mr. West or anyone else with whom we disagree?
Chris
I am not turning his own position into a universal position representing the whole of the Republicans. If I did that, perhaps your remark would be true. However, if his position is filled with hate and ignorance, it is important to point that out. And there are many Muslims who also have hate and ignorance (like those who follow Bin Laden), and I have no problem saying they are such as well. The disagreement here is not just mere issue of opinion, but an issue of someone who is trying to gain political office, and so there is also more need to hear out and name his problems.
Thanks for taking the time to read my essay. Despite leaving the Catholic Church for Islam in my teenage years I still hold a deep respect for the Catholic Church, and always thought of my Islam as being a way of fulfilling my Christianity in coming closer to Christ’s teachings. The Church know advocates that obligates him to allow her to attend her Church services. Islam is one of the monotheistic religions that can bring a person to Paradise, and Muslims too are making efforts to find commonalities (see A Common Word). Islam not only allows for a Muslim man to marry a Christian, it Also as a student of Sunni Islam (its law, theology, and spirituality) and an initiate in the Shadhili Sufi order, I’ve often found talking to Protestants that the orthodox traditions of Christianity and Islam have much in common with each other in terms of developing concepts in theology like sainthood, intercession, negating anthropomorphism &c — of course they grew up debating and learning from each other. Albertus Magnus had studied in Muslim Spain as did Pope Slyvester who also studied in Morocco. St. John of the Cross took a great deal from Ibn `Abbad al-Rundi the great epistologist and essayist of the Shadhili Sufi order.
What is sad to see today is that modern political thought (which is suppose to be more enlightened, right?) has regressed into questioning concepts that religious traditions settled centuries earlier. Even the Founding Fathers of this country lamented in commenting one of the civilian massacares of the Revolutionary Way that such a thing would not have been committed by Mohammadans whose Prophet (pbuh) had prohibited such killings. The same with torture, the same with abortion, the same with usury, the same with racism (read the Prophet Muhammad’s final address — all veritable religious traditions spoke against these abhorrences as evil. It is telling that Islamic eschatology teaches that Jesus will descend from Heaven at a white minaret in Damascus, between a mosque and a church, that both faiths will come and greet him and that he may unite both of them upon the Truth.
PS: In Islam it’s necessary to warn others of evil and harm, and although it’s prohibited to speak disparaging a person’s honour, it’s an obligation when it is necessary to warn others. It is also an obligation to speak the Truth and to correct falsehood. If you were going into business with a crook you would want someone to tell you. If you were about to marry a cheat you would want to be informed. If you were about to give a campaign donation to someone who isn’t mentally stable, you would want someone to stop. There are quite a few stories about people who demand back their donations after learning the full story about this candidate.
Rafael
You are welcome. I do a lot of reading of Islamic sources (for inter-religious dialogue). While I am not Muslim, and too firm a Christian to be one, there are a few Muslims theologians and figures who are an influence on me; in the modern era, it is Ghaffar “Badshah” Khan, who really promotes a view of Islam which I think needs further exploration and development, it is based upon tradition, but it is capable of being critical of cultural influences on that tradition. In inter-religious explorations, I always tell people to first come to understand the other in how they understand themselves (in their plurality); polemics tends to reduce the other into ways they never see themselves. Of course we can and will learn from each other; that Badshah Khan was able to learn about being a better Muslim through Gandhi I think is indicative of how inter-religious dialogue can help promote peace and reform.
And you are right about the inter-religious dialogue (which was not always polemical, though it had polemics in it) found in the schoolmen. There are some good books which show how St Thomas Aquinas’ Summa was itself a product of such inter-religious dialogue that engaged pagan, Jewish and Islamic traditions — and indeed, showed his understanding of the diversity in those traditions.
It seems modern American political rhetoric has taken on dualism, and has found Islam to be the new “great evil,” now that Soviet Russia is no more. Much of the propaganda and scaremongering is the same.
Henry:
I agree entirely with your assessment of West’s character and I share your concerns and dismay about war-mongering and bigotry running amok in some Catholic circles.
Nevertheless I don’t see value in attacking the “Trads’” political heroes. This is likely to reinforce rather than soften the “we are the Church Militant” attitude, with no appreciation for the irony of how closely that term’s antagonistic mis-comprehension parallels mis-comprehension of Jihad. Furthermore, appeal to anything “Vatican II” among likely West supporters is, I think, likely to undercut rather than validate whatever point you attempt to deliver.
“With West, we find the eyes of fear, a fear for the other” is, I think, right on target (sorry,… I can’t resist the military pun). Prayer, compassion, and the example of our own courage are all we have in our arsenal (there it goes again!) to meet this most intimate enemy.
Frank
I hoped that the post would do a few things. One, it would introduce to some people, a figure who is a “rising star” that they might not know about. Second, he represents an attitude which is on the rise. It is important to see it is there, to see that the culture of fear is indeed creating the political figures which must be taken seriously. Third, it is in this reason why we need to see it is indeed a culture of fear that needs to be dealt with. Now, I agree, with some people, no response will be acceptable, and quoting Vatican II won’t help them. Nonetheless, I do know many who don’t think of themselves as trads still have yet to take on Vatican II’s call for better relations with Muslim. For some of them, I don’t think they know it exists (despite Pope John Paul II quoting it often when discussing Islam, and Pope Benedict also encouraging such re-engagement with Islam). So I hoped this would at least introduce some the Church’s desire to work for peace with Islam and to overcome the polemical tradition of the past.
You should read al-Ghazali, the paragon of Muslim thought. He was a big influence on Merton (as was I think Sh. al-Alawi who was his contemporary). There’s a documentary on Ghazali titled the _Alchemist of Happiness_. You should read his autobiography which is perhaps the greatest written, _The Faith and Practice of al-Ghazali_ trans. Watts. That should be a good introduction to anything else you might want to read of him. Sh. al-Alawi also has a good biography written by Martin Lings, _Sufi Saint of the 20th Century_, that impressed AJ Arberry a great deal. You should also take a look at the letters of Ibn Abbad al-Rundi. Also Ling’s _Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources_ is a classical, a very majestic work. Similarly there is the PBS documentary Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet, which is very well done. Terry Jones of all people has perhaps the best documentary on the Crusades in 4 parts, although I dislike that it ignored the personal piety of Saladin (and the mediation of St. Francis of Assisi) . There was a documentary on inter-religious interaction in Israel/Palestine done by a British Catholic I think titled _Abraham: Father of Three Faiths_ or something to that extent, but quite frankly his section on Islam is rather weak. He doesn’t spend enough time with credible scholars and he gets far too sucked in to the whole Isaac/Ishmael debate as to the identity of the sacrificed son (and doesn’t mention that the traditional position is that it was Isaac, but modernity concluded that it was Ishmael, probably to counter the Zionist’ justification of the Jews being the chosen ones and Ishmael being damned to the deserts).
Also did you know that the term Suma is a translation of a term in the Maliki school of Islamic jurisprudence for a work covering a wide-range of topics (Jami`)?
Rafael
I have The Incoherence of the Philosophers I’ve also read some of Al-Farabi, Arabi and many others. I think al-Ghazali was onto some of the problems which post-moderns came to appreciate, though I do not agree with how some ended up using that to go into “voluntarism.” It’s all complex, of course.
With the exception of Ibn Khaldun I think few of the great Muslim thinkers gave solutions to societal problems outside of a return to the traditional values of Islam. Although it is worth bearing in mind that membership in spiritual orders was extremely widespread at certain points in Muslim history, and the decentralised nature of religious authority and participation in Islam puts that call to a return to the soul into context. Religion was greatly dispersed across a society without an ordained clergy (although religious authority was delegated and maintained), and that perhaps leads to more individuals taking upon themselves the task of upholding the communal good. The same fervour and communal participation in religion has lasted longer into modernity in Islamic societies than Christian ones.
Secular solutions to secular problems are perhaps better than to Confucians (at least for top-to-bottom approaches). That said, you might check out some of the essays of Dr. Umar F. Abd-Allah (of the Nawawi Foundation) and Nuh Keller.
This is the the equivalent of the Democrats running Dr. Jack Kavorkian for election, and running proudly on his legacy. I can’t believe there are Catholics out there who support this guy.
Why are you vilifying a brave man who knowingly risked his military career and future by breaking a rule to put the lives and safety of his men first and now dares to speak the truth from his own personal knowledge and experience about what the enemy really is? As any good physician knows, only allaying the symptoms of a disease without honestly trying to identify and treat the cause will never affect a cure.
If by “Anti-Islamic” you mean ‘Anti-Satanic’, which anyone who believes in a God of Truth, Life, Love and Freedom should be, yes, that is true. To reject lies, psuedo-religious tyranny and enslavement of women is not “hate”, it is enlightenment! But before calling Lt.Col. West “ignorant” or a “bigot”, I would recommend doing some proper research of your own before regurgitating second-hand misinformation from others. (e.g. nit-picking semantics, transliteration spellings or geographical descriptives etc. are hardly cogent or legitimate arguments). Beware also of confusing free will charity by individuals with Socialism [aka forced "social justice"] or the government’s obligatory responsibility to protect our borders and all lawful citizens’ rights first.
Regarding the 7th century cult of Islam [Submission], I first read the Koran over 20 years ago and have seen through the “religion of peace” taqiyya [dissimulation] and propaganda repeated ad nauseam ever since.
It’s really very simple: You do not have to be a Christian or Jew to believe in One God [in Spirit & Truth], but no rational person can believe or follow the example of a self-proclaimed man of lies, hate, cruelty and death and pretend he’s God’s messenger!
(This is not about wars of defense or liberation either — Muslims throughout history have initiated and waged wars of conquest)
In other words, if your ‘God’ needed a liar, sociopath, paedophile, sadist, murderer, misogynist, satyr, tyrant and megalomaniac to represent or speak for him, what would that tell you? It’s patently obvious to any free-thinking person that the only thing that could ever be is Satanic.
For example, Y’eshua told those who falsely accused and rejected His living example of Truth: “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” John.8:44
[Note: the Muslims' 'prophet' claimed that Y'eshua did not die on the cross, that his followers were fooled, thus denying the Resurrection and calling the Christ and all His disciples liars]
However, if you choose to believe the agenda-driven opinions of demonstrably fallible men, simply because they are purported authorities with titles and robes, instead of the clear words and warnings of the Christ you (presumably profess to) follow, then mine will fall on deaf ears also.
Y’eshua warned: “For false messiahs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. Lo, I have told you beforehand.” Matt.24:24-25
The tragedy is that even educated western minds still cannot and/or will not grasp that there is no such thing as “moderate” Islam [Submission] because it cannot be moderate or peaceful in any way, shape or form by its very theo-political raison d’être, core tenets and commands via its ‘prophet’. Muslims are required to follow ALL of it or they are not Muslim. Period!
Trying to parse it with naive “political correctness” as being only “radical Islam” that advocates violence and the subjugation or death of all non-Muslims is not only misleading tautology but dangerous. Islam itself IS the problem. So yes, call a spade a bloody shovel or be damned! It is a false religion, a cult, contrived as cover for the explicit goal of tyrannical world domination.
“You will know them by their fruits” Matt.7:16
Sufis have notably been among the few able to rise above the hateful dogma, just like the mystics of any religion – but many suffered a violent end by their ‘brothers’ as heretics because of that free spirit as well.
Muslims who quote supposedly ‘peaceful’ verses from the Koran to pacify credulous “kafirs” [infidels] are deliberately deceiving you as they – or at least their Imams – are fully aware that it includes “al-naskh wa al-mansukh” [principle of abrogation] and “taqiyya” [dissimulation], as instructed when outnumbered. Gullible western converts have no clue that they are being used either, especially when they are ignorant of their Christian scriptures and not fluent in Arabic.
Any Muslims who genuinely repudiate the Koran’s obligatory commands to lie, infiltrate, kill and enslave the non-Muslim world, can only prove it by totally rejecting their false prophet’s plagiarized and twisted ‘religion’ of hate, cruelty and death.
Of course you don’t have to take the word of any experienced western expert, witness or scholar, just read and listen to some of the courageous ex-Muslims who rejected Islam, lived to tell, and are still under threat of death for speaking the truth! e.g. Wafa Sultan [Syrian], Nonie Dawish [Egyptian], Aayan Hirsi Ali [Somali] and Hasan Yousef [Palestinian]; all have autobiographies available on Amazon.
Wafa Sultan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up3yuQDAWKQ
A Christian Arab explains true Islam:
Watch this exposé of what is done to Arab children every day in the name of Islam:
With Nonie Dawish & Walid Shoebat (ex-PLO terrorist)
[Jhesu+Maria]
SOS
I am letting your trash through this time, so people can see the reason why this post was necessary.
It’s not just a “mere rule” to say “no to torture.” Torture is an intrinsic evil.
The material you site against Islam, such as Walid Shoebat, is from known liars; I would recommend, if you response at the end shows you are Catholic, you actually follow what the Church says we are to do with Muslims, instead of engaging outdated polemics based upon lies and distortions of Islam which show someone who has not studied Islam at all. Here, for example, is a Catholic exposition:
http://www.monasticdialog.com/a.php?id=496
I could take the time to refute the garbage point by point, but it is not worth it. You don’t know the material, only polemical writings written in the style of Jack Chick against Catholicism: the same type of distortion of the material, the same type of “ex” claims, and the same irrationality.