Dads Against the Divorce Industry
DA*DI is devoted to reinstating the societal valuation of Marriage and the traditional, nuclear American Family, with particular emphasis on the essential role of FATHERS.
DA*DI offers contemporary reports and commentary on culture; its aberrations and its heroes.
When Men Go To War: Un-Diagnosing EvilGerald L. Rowles, Ph.D.
April 13, 2003
The war to free the people of Iraq from tyranny and the people of America from terrorism has collided with the illogic of secularism. This discordant condition voices itself in the following phrase: "I am against the war, but I support the troops." The parts of that assertion, taken together as an argument for neutrality, creates a disjunctive syllogism. Rather than having a major and a minor premise that lead to a logical conclusion, this is an argument against itself. In effect it says, "War is immoral, most warriors are moral, therefore war is ... what?
This is the kind of logical impasse one encounters in a culture of amoralistic non-judgmentalism. At least one man, President Bush, has risen above the specious contrivances of secularism in declaring the Iraqi dictator an agent of evil. Can there be a word that strikes greater terror in the heart of a secularist than 'evil'. Similar, if not greater, tremors were felt when former President Ronald Reagan judged the USSR to be an 'evil empire'. The collective secularist gasp was deafening.
What makes the word 'evil' so explosively threatening is that its premise and root stems from morality, as in morally reprehensible. The premise and root of morality is the fundamental recognition of right and wrong in behavior; a standard of behaving that has sharp and well-defined edges; an inhibition of hedonism and the meanness of me-ness.
But what other than evil can you call a man like Saddam Hussein; dysfunctional? Or how about psychopathic narcissist? Perhaps his is merely an extreme manifestation of ADHD. If one were wont to find a refuge from moral responsibility, one need look no further than the secularist psychiatric bible, DSM IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual - 4th edition). Within that ever expanding opus, one can find more than 280 diagnostic codes and descriptions.
At least 46 of those codes are drug and alcohol related. No less than 32 are sexuality based (except homosexuality and pedophilia, unless one is uncomfortable with those orientations). 36 address the academic and behavioral aspects of childhood. Some 11 codes address 'personality'. Not one code can be found for immoral, reprehensible, irresponsible, nor evil behaviors. Rather, every clinically excusable code therein is considered to be a form of 'mental disorder'.
Whereas in ancient times, mental illness was often considered a sign of a devilishly dominated soul, our enlightened age has deemed it an excuse for devilish behaviors. One need look no farther back than Andrea Yates, a victim of NOW diagnosed post-partum depression (code 296.2 or 296.3 depending on whether it is recurrent). Aha!, her five children were killed by depression, not their mother. The acts (five separate drownings) were not evil, they were the result of an involuntary response to an overwhelming mood disorder. And, according to Rosie O'Donnell, an occasion for "overwhelming empathy." Speaking for the victims, one suspects they experienced overwhelming terror. Had they lived, they may have been diagnosed with PTSD (Post-traumatic-stress-disorder - code 309.81) or Reactive attachment disorder (code 313.89). But they didn't live, they experienced post-traumatic death, for which there is no psychiatric code.
From a DSM diagnostic standpoint, one is either behaving as a result of having been a victim or behaving in a way to create more victims. It is all very clinically, empathetically and antiseptically non-judgmental. And it subsumes that a conversational rapport, or appropriately managed medication regimen, or a combination thereof, will expiate the behaver (sinner) and the behaved (sinned)-against. Which is all well and good as a method of informational transmission between secularist practitioner believers. But it has become a cultural disaster as street vernacular.
From a DSM and secularist standpoint, a historical analysis of the reported and observed behaviors of Saddam Hussein suggest a prima-facia diagnosis involving paranoia, narcissism, sociopathy, sadism, gender identity disorder, and sexual sadism. Poor guy. Do we feel better knowing all that?
Do you think that President Bush could have stirred the troops to combat by saying that we were going to intervene in Saddam's paranoid-narcissistic-sociopathic-sadistic-sexual-whatever behaviors to prevent the depression-ptsd-anxiety-learningdisabled-alcoholic-drug-panicdisorders related to the Saddam Hussein experience in the Iraqi population?
Or do you think that such selfless sacrifices are more likely to arise with the knowledge that one is fighting an unequivocal battle against manifest evil (code 666), with the only adequate intervention being to 'take the bastard out'?
And after all that; after having witnessed the extraordinary selflessness of our soldiers and the extraordinary depravity of that evil regime, will our culture have a keener appreciation of the distinctions between good and evil? Will we come to understand that we cannot afford the indulgence of amorality that invariably metastasizes into immorality; that we cannot afford the indulgence of non-judgmentalism that inevitably lapses into an acquiescence to evil, and that the sexes are not interchangeable?
The secularist media opinion-shapers and the feminist politicians have already begun the retreat into the familiar permissiveness of perversion and victim-pimping rhetoric. Saddam was merely a paper tiger. The war on terror is itself responsible for the humanitarian crisis that the Hussein regime created. The cost of the war far exceeded the value of toppling a couple of statues. We have merely substituted anarchy and chaos in place of the Hussein tyranny. And so it goes.
Evil abounds, undiagnostically speaking.
Back to DA*DI's Home