The Golden Age to be a Villain

As a diligent student of world history, I can not think of a better time to be a villain than the age in which we current live. For those who desire to commit abhorrent atrocities against their fellow man, the time is ripe. Mass murder, terrorist barbarism, and sweeping disregard for life and liberty could not possibly be met by a more welcoming response.Osama bin Laden orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent American lives on September 11, 2001, and I have spent five years listening to cries for understanding the angst of the Islamic people. Writers and leaders from all spectrums have pondered what America has done to anger the Jihadists so much, and what it was about America's foreign policy could have led to this "decision". As Mark Steyn chronicles in America Alone, the choice of adjectives and nouns used in the mainstream press to describe the incidents of 9-11 are tragically flawed; the "incident" of 9-11 was a barbaric incident of murder and terrorism - all other descriptions that lack synonyms to those adjectives and nouns are morally reprehensible. Of course, one need not question the existence of evil in the world by politely blaming the victims for the actions of Osama bin Laden; indeed, one could also choose just to deny that Osama performed the action altogether, ala the Rosie O' Donnell school of latent nut-jobs. The problem I have with the label, "nutters", as Hugh Hewitt so charitably calls them, is that it pre-supposes that their real error is merely psychological (which is certainly a part of it), and doesn't do full justice to the extraordinary moral failings of the 9-11 conspiracy crowd - a movement as embarrassing in contemporary America as any movement of the last 250 years.The "psychological vs. moral" dilemma is highlighted again this week, as I watched extensive morning news coverage of the evil monster from Virginia Tech, watching in vain, that is, for the words "evil" or "monster" to be uttered. He is "troubled", and this is a "sad affair", but certainly we must not jump to such hyperbolic statements like, "anyone who butchers over 30 people in cold blood is a despicable killer - oozing with evil and sin". No, in fact, if one wants to have their life story put on television, and allow images of them in their most sinister of fantasies to comb the airwaves, all one has to do is murder 30 people, and trust their friends at NBC to do the rest. I have said a lot of nasty things about the mainstream media in my day, and I will say a lot more, but I can not over-state the moral shock and disgust at NBC's repugnant decision to air this monster's video this week. Granted, they may have found some ideological sympathy in his stated hatred for the rich, and for Christians, but even then I am mortified at the failure of morality and of responsibility exhibited by these network executives. Clearly, their sons and daughters were not sprayed full of bullets this week by the man who has since dominated the airwaves.I do not portend to claim that the various motivations and circumstances that play into evil acts are to be ignored, or not studied. I simply take great offense that the pursuit of understanding these motivations has come at the expense of labeling the most grotesque and perverse actions of sinful people "troubling" and "difficult". What happened this week was rank evil, and our society's unwillingness to face the existence of evil in the world is going to reap consequences we do not want to think about. Moral relativism is a cute game in the classroom when we tell our 4th grade public school students that American democracy is not to be regarded as ethically superior to any other system on the planet, but it becomes a nasty thing when your son or daughter is shot down in cold blood. The over-psychologizing of evil actions is not helping anyone, unless you are the evil monster being invited to lay on the couch of the local shrink. The Calvinist doctrine of "total depravity" has never been more ignored in the public square than it is being now, and sadly, the need for understanding it has never been greater.Moral egalitarianism is the belief that all systems of thought are on an even playing field ethically. No one person or concept has the right to claim moral high ground in espousing their own view. I grew up believing this was such an absurd way of thinking, that I needn't waste my time rebutting it. Surely, this was self-repudiating drivel. Sadly, bodies are stacking up, and reporters are mortifying me with their lack of moral clarity, and yet this egalitarianism is running rampant. It is a glorious time to be a villain, indeed.The sad truth is that for one to be labeled "evil" these days, it seems they have to either free a nation from a murderous tyrant, or cut taxes on every economic class of people. You can watch CNN until you are blue in the face, but if you hear a monstrous Korean killer talked about in language that is 10% as pejorative as the language used to describe President Bush, I will pay you money (the other "evil" thing in our society, by the way). Sharansky's must-read, "The Case for Democracy", makes the absolutely correct claim that our problems in foreign policy these days are not from a lack of political clarity, but from a lack of moral clarity. I would take his notion further, and say that these days, our entire ability to function as a human race is suffering from a lack of moral clarity. There is evil within us, and we are wholly incapable of calling it such. May God have mercy on us. For perhaps if the left will not come to terms with the reality of evil, one day they may at least come to know the doctrine of divine mercy. It may be our last and best hope.************************************************************If I have said anything above that causes offense to any readers, please be aware that my 4th Grade teacher once embarrassed me when I got a question wrong in class, and that my younger brother averaged more points than I did in basketball.|End Article