Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Evil is a behavior...

I just read Michele Malkin's fabulous article, No Tears for Terrorists and totally agree with what she had to say regarding Moussaoui and the ridiculous circus surrounding his trial. When are people going to wake up and know the difference between a person who claims to be "sick" when he/she is actually evil?

Her article reminded me of a previous blogpost here at Talkwisdom that I wrote several months ago. It covered the evil intent and behavior of child molesters and predators, but the main argument of what constitutes "sickness" vs. "evil" can also apply to terrorists like Moussaoui.

"The difference between sick and evil cannot be dismissed with facile eye-of-the-beholder rhetoric. There are specific criteria we can employ to give us the answers in every case, every time.

Some of those answers are self-evident and beyond dispute: A mother who puts her baby in the oven because she hears voices commanding her to bake the devil out of the child’s spirit is sick; and a mother who sells or rents her baby to child pornographers is evil. But most cases of child sexual abuse—especially those whose “nonviolent” perpetrators come from within the child’s circle of trust—seem, on their surface, to be far more complex. That complexity is an illusion.

The truth is as simple as it is terrifying:

Sickness is a condition.

Evil is a behavior.

Evil is always a matter of choice.

Evil is not thought; it is conduct.

And that conduct is always volitional.

And just as evil is always a choice, sickness is always the absence of choice.

Sickness happens.

Evil is inflicted."

Andrew Vachss states, "I see the current wave of liberal left judges giving light sentences to child predators as a result of them turning around the reality of that last concept. They have fallen into the incorrect mindset that predators are only "sick" and thus "have the absence of choice" rather than facing the truth of the matter that such predators are clearly choosing to inflict pain and suffering upon their victims for sexual pleasure due to evil behavior."

Just insert the term "terrorists" in the place of "child predators" and "killing pleasure" for "sexual pleasure" in that last sentence and we have exposed the truth about Moussaoui and his ilk!

Thank you Andrew Vachss! Finally someone has had the courage to call it like it is!! It's about time!"

Mr Vachss informs us:

"Until we perceive the difference clearly, we will continue to give aid and comfort to our most pernicious enemies. We, as a society, decide whether something is sick or evil. Either decision confers an obligation upon us. Sickness should be treated. Evil must be fought. If a person has desires or fantasies about sexually exploiting children, that individual may be sick. (Indeed, if such desires are disturbing, as opposed to gratifying to the individual, there may even be a “cure.”) But if the individual chooses to act upon those feelings, that conduct is evil. People are not what they think; they are what they do."

Our society distrusts the term “evil.” It has an almost biblical ring to it—something we believe in (or not) but never actually understand. We prefer scientific-sounding terms, such as “sociopath.” But sociopathy is not a mental condition; it is a specific cluster of behaviors. The diagnosis is only made from actual criminal conduct. No reputable psychiatrist claims to be able to cure a sociopath—or, for that matter, a predatory pedophile. Even the most optimistic professionals do not aim to change such a person’s thoughts and feelings. Such hopes ignore the inescapable fact that the overwhelming majority of those [insert "terrorists"] who prey [insert "kill"] upon children [insert "the infidels"] don’t want to change their behavior—they want only to minimize the consequences of being caught at it. "

Trackback URL for this entry:


Juan Buhler said...

Sorry to nitpick on a tangential topic, but this really confused me:

"A mother who puts her baby in the oven because she hears voices commanding her to bake the devil out of the child’s spirit is sick; and a mother who sells or rents her baby to child pornographers is evil."

If you believe the devil exists, why is it so unfeasible that it would take over a child's spirit? Then, why is it so unfeasible that his mother would hear voices (or angels, god himself, or whatever benevolent spirit might want to help) saying "put the baby in the oven"?

Honestly, it baffles me that your willingness to believe certain things can be so compartmentalized.

Would you consider sick a person who hears God ask him to kill his son as a sacrifice for Him?

Christinewjc said...


It was just an example meant to show the possible difference between establishing whether a person is "sick" or "evil."

The first example demonstrates schizophrenia where the person may have thought she had no choice, where, the second example demonstrates an intended, well thought out, free-will choice to make money through the misery and exploitation of a child.

The Biblical record about the near sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham was a foreshadowing within the Old Testament of what God, and His Eternal Son Jesus Christ, would do to overcome sin and death and bring people into reconcilation with God. Evil will be abolished at Jesus' second coming. But I'm sure a detailed explanation is not the reason you mentioned the incident and not what you desired for me to share. So, I'll stop with that brief explanation.

Anonymous said...

So upsetting that we have confused "sick" and Sickening"...but you left out the fact that while a Conservative-Right judge may(appropriately) lock up one who molests other's children, they (at a terrifying rate) let incest offenders off with a slap on the wrist...for the "good of the family". They even sometimes get supervised or UNsupervised visitation rights. Neither side really tackles what should be of the few I can see doing justice to the issue is Kamala Harris, my State Attorney General.