³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

« Previous | Main | Next »

'The world's most evil dad'

William Crawley | 21:06 UK time, Tuesday, 29 April 2008

_44606762_joseffafp226b-1.jpgThe story that has e. There are many unanswered questions in the story of Josef Fritzl's appalling abuse of his children and grandchildren. Today, investigators proved that Fritzl is the father of six of his daughter's children. That much we already knew. What no-one can understand yet is how he managed to imprison, rape and torture his daughter for 24 years in the basement of the house he shared with his wife and family without anyone noticing.

Today's papers predictably -- and understandably -- reached for religious language to describe Fritzl. The Mirror and The Sun described him as the world's most 'evil dad'. It seems when we encounter horrific crimes of this order, horrors which defeat any effort to make sense of them, the media (and everyone else) find religious or quasi-religious language necessary as a response. Often, pathological language is linked, or language which mythologizes the crimes committed (e.g., 'evil monster'). In the face of such depravity, ordinary language is emptied of power.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    Agreed, "he's a very bad man" doesn't really seem to cut it.

    dp

  • Comment number 2.

    Fritzl has treated his own daughter with horrendous cruelty. Of course ordinary language seems inadequate to convey the revulsion that most people will feel on hearing of his crimes. We use ordinary language to deal with the everyday world, but the incestuous sadism of Fritzl lies outside the everyday world that we inhabit. So our language strains to cope with it.

    I do not see how religion can help us to express our revulsion any better. All it provides is a set of ancient ideas and concepts which wrap the crimes before us in worn-out myths. Calling Fritzl "devilish" is no more effective than calling him "vile", "cruel", or "vicious", and merely deflects our outrage at him onto some mythical demon or devil.

    There is no need to look for divisions, nor to quibble over terminology. I think that Humanists, Christians, Muslims, etc, will all agree that the crimes which Fritzl committed are vile and repellant and deserve the maximum punishment that the law can deliver.

  • Comment number 3.

    It'll be interesting to see what emerges from Jersey over the next few months. So far what we've learned from that situation has been pretty horrific as well

  • Comment number 4.

    Les, I accept that you as a humanist regard these crimes as vile and cruel and that we are all agreed on this. I disagree about the language issue though. I think it is the case that something deep inside all of us wants cries out in the face of this kind of evil. I believe that is the voice of God inside each one of us, our conscience. That conscience, in the face of this depravity, reaches (to use Will's word) for the term evil because we recognise that this man has sinned against the order of the universe itself. This is a version of the moral argument that CS Lewis favoured. Our conscience is the voice of God. The fact that we NEED to reach out for religious language to condemn this order of crime is evidence of God's existence. Thank God we can in fact be sure of eternal justice and that criminals like this man will be finally punished. That is because God is the ultimate judge. Without belief in God, there would be no hope of a final reckoning.

  • Comment number 5.

    PTL-

    So if your conscience fails to react against an evil deed, either you are wrong about the conscience being the voice of God or you have a defective conscience.

  • Comment number 6.

    John, the Bible describes how "the truth is supressed in unrighteousness". In other words, sin enters our experience and distorts our senses. My point doesnt relate to the sociopaths like this man in Austria. Rather, I'm trying to explian why the rest of us feel the need to descibe his behaviour as evil!


  • Comment number 7.

    jovialPTL wrote: "Thank God we can in fact be sure of eternal justice and that criminals like this man will be finally punished. That is because God is the ultimate judge. Without belief in God, there would be no hope of a final reckoning."

    If that was true, there would be no need for ordinary human law and justice. We could leave all questions of guilt and punishment to be dealt with by the gods in the hereafter. The gods would have omniscience and would match villain and punishment perfectly.

    Sadly, however, there is no hereafter and no eternal punishment. So it is up to us, humankind, to devise our own system of law and to punish the brutal, sadistic thugs in our midst ourselves. That is the Humanist view of crime and punishment.

    Strangely, very few religious believers seem enthusiastic about leaving all questions of law, crime and punishment to the gods and the hereafter. Perhaps they have some doubts about it and so they go along with human justice, just in case?

Ìý

³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ iD

³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ navigation

³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ © 2014 The ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.