Okay…its been a while since I actually posted anything…but this one’s got me laughing my arse off.
I think, in the context of the original question, that the doctor has a huge flaw in his thinking, based on how christianity views itself, and its best overall defense, which, as a pagan thinker growing up in catholic school, I heard a lot:
“None know the ways of god.”
Thus, by that assertion…which, in some form of paraphrasing or another, almost all clergy adhere to as their hidey hole, how can one say that a person is actually doing evil, instead of really doing god’s will, regardless of what the actual act is (end justifies the means, etc.)
So the actual flaw in the psychiatrist’s line of thought, then, isn’t that he’s ignoring the chance of the person being nuttier than a fucknut on a cold christmas morning, but that he’s also violating the foundation of the logic by which he makes the claim: He’s stating that man knows god’s will, and thus can judge what is and isn’t done by it…something that almost every christian church (with the possible exception of the mormons…who seem to think things on a more critical level) claims is impossible.
…And thus, by his own base argument, anyone who does anything in the name of god should be given the benifit of the doubt, and viewed as a holy man, while anyone who does anything in the name of satan should be shot as quickly as one would shoot a retard playing about a missle control room.
In finale, my good friend brian said it best:
“And here we make a, um…straight.”