Evil vs. Insanity

Time Magazine's cover story this week is on Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood killer. Minor kudos goes to Time for being one of the first major media (read: liberal) outlets to actually discuss the fact that this was motivated by Islam. Well, at least they suggest it more than the other options. They are still weak on the issue, as they try and feign neutrality, though. At one point in this story, they suggest that Hasan said, "God is great" in "another language."

To be more precise, and thus to be a better journalist, he said "Allah uh ahkbar" (forgive my transliteration here). He said the Islamic war cry of an Islamic martyr/terrorist in Arabic. Time sidesteps that reality. While Time opens the door of admitting religious motivation, it doesn't go through it.

The truth is that so many media outlets have rushed to call this act of Hasan insanity. Perhaps that's easier. If people are crazy, what they did is not as bad, or so it would seem. But calling this act "insanity" is to confuse terms. Allow me to help most of the country with a term we've long lost (and only briefly used for a time after 9/11). What Hasan did was and is and always will be "evil." And make no mistake, his act was motivated by his worldview. It was perfectly sane, with respect to the fact that it was reasoned.

Hasan was motivated by Islam. Note that I'm not using the term "radical Islam." The more I read the Koran and become familiar with Islamic history, I'm more inclined to think that "radical Islam" is the norm, and the most true reading of the Muslim holy Scriptures (also note that most Muslims worldwide are sympathetic to radical Islam even if they won't take the last leap and kill themselves).

And to the extent that Hasan believed in the Koran and Allah, that is the extent to which his actions are extremely rational. If one thinks that any person who is not a Muslim is an infidel and detestable in God's sight, then one will not hesitate to kill them. If one thinks that they will receive a reward in heaven for killing an infidel, then what is stopping them? Hasan was rational, but was he moral? If we think his actions were immoral, we have to seriously consider the logical conclusion: that Islam is not moral. Consider another example.

Many revisionist historians like to note that Hitler may have been insane. He could not have been further from it. As evolution and naturalist philosophy flourished in the early 20th century, we got introduced to 2 ideas: 1) that humans evolved and are not different in kind than any other creature and 2) species survive through the survival of the fittest. So guess what Hitler practiced? The naturalist worldview as a grand experiment on humankind.

It was extremely rational, but was it moral? And if it wasn't, then we have to seriously consider the necessary (but not sufficient) conditions for lack of morality in naturalist philosophy. If Hitler's actions were immoral, then we have to consider the fact that naturalism is not moral.

And how do we consider something moral? How does a liberal Muslim call Hasan's actions wrong? How does an atheist call them wrong, then? I have two responses.

First, the true God sets on the hearts of all humans a deep and inner sense of right and wrong (Rom. 2:14-15). Second, the influence and scope of worldwide Christianity is so vast that many people borrow our worldview. And if we like what we see in Christian ethics, then perhaps we might reconsider what it means for the church to be separate from the state.

The church shouldn't be the state, and vice versa, but it can and should influence it. And no matter how hard the state tries to divorce itself from religious influence, it will always have a worldview. The U.S. government, besides our founding documents (it's early worldview accepted and acknowledged a personal God and eternal law), is now largely a secular institution. And in the case of Hasan, this secular worldview, without analysis of other's worldviews, cost the lives of many people.