UN Workers 'Beheaded' In Afghan Koran Protest

[Master of Ossus]

I think some people are confusing the ideal world with the actual world. In the ideal world a woman who dresses slutty, goes to a bar, gets drunk, and passes out on a pool table would never be raped. In the actual world she is putting herself at higher risk than if she stayed home. In an ideal world no one would be killed over a book burning. In the actual world that's a real possibility.

But because something is a real possibility does not mean that we should assign moral culpability to someone on that basis.

In the case of the Danish cartoonist he was probably aware that his cartoon would upset people - after all, other cartoons of his probably did - but he probably did not realize it was enrage people to the point of murder. In the case of burning the Koran it's pretty common knowledge that will really piss some people off - that is, after all, kind of the point of burning the book - and there was even reason to believe that it could incite physical violence, as that sort of thing has been seen before when the Koran has been desecrated. The pastor created a high risk situation, and worse yet, he was insulated from the risks he created and they were all borne by other people.

And the rape victim caused herself to be raped. Great. Thanks for the moral primer, Broomstick. I've already addressed your argument that the pastor was "insulated" from the risks he created, but would you honestly assign less moral blame to a soldier or some other foreigner who walked into a crowded market in Afghanistan and started burning Korans? After all, such a person would not be "insulated from the risks he [sic] created."

Does that lessen the barbarity of the killings? Of course not. Problem is, in their culture a Koran burning might be seen as a mitigating circumstance, "fighting words" so to speak. The pastor gave the extremists an excuse to get violent. It increased the odds of violence. I am baffled that some of you are willing to let the pastor off scot-free with no responsibility whatsoever for what his actions led to.

At some point, we have to start acclimating these people to the concept that just because they value something doesn't mean that other people are required to adhere to that value. And let's be real: giving the extremists "an excuse to get violent" assigns moral culpability to a spectacular array of actions that people here treat as entirely mundane. It's not a reasonable measure of moral culpability.

Moreover, I explained in my above post why systems of morality that do not assign the pastor blame are better than ones that do. Can you present countervailing arguments favoring ones that do assign moral blame?

And no, it's not racist to say that a Koran burning is likely to lead to violence. No one is suggesting that ALL Muslims fly into a murderous rage at the act, and they certainly don't. But in the actual world there are people with less self-control, with more anger, and who are looking for an excuse to commit violence. Sure, say and do whatever you want, but you can't be oblivious to the fact that there are consequences to what you say or do, and not all of those consequences are just or proportional because a certain segment of humanity isn't any better than poo-flinging monkeys.

So... acts have consequences, therefore we are morally responsible for the consequences of our actions, even when other people criminally intervene in the interim? What?

[Broomstick]

For God's sake. I am not arguing he doesn't have a right to say it. I am however arguing his bears responsibility for following through with his actions.

So he is morally blameworthy for... exercising his freedom of expression because people halfway around the world don't respect that right? You can recast this in virtually any way you want. It will not change the fact that you are holding him responsible for the gross and deliberate overreaction of others.

Yes, if you're expressing thoughts or beliefs known to upset other groups, and you go about expressing those thoughts and beliefs in a manner known to be provocative to those other people, then yes, your douchebaggery has gone to a level where there could be bad consequences and yes, you do share a portion of blame for the consequences whether or not your are legally liable.

Does that mean the pastor is guilty of murder? Doubtful. On the other hand, it's ridiculous to portray him as an innocent.

[quoteYou know that guy who feels guilty because he forgot to turn on the dishwasher before he left the house, called his wife and asked her to do them before she went off to work, and then she gets hit by a drunk driver because she was leaving the house 2 minutes later than she usually did? You know how everyone tells him that it wasn't his fault? That guy has your exact moral philosophy. Under your argument, he actually is morally culpable for his wife's death.[/quote]
The flaw in your reasoning is that Mr. Forgot the Dishwasher had no intention of killing his wife. It was truly accidental and unforeseeable.

In this case, however, it is KNOWN that burning a Koran is going to really, really piss off Muslims, and it is KNOWN that a few of the more extreme Muslims use this sort of thing as an excuse for violence. He was asked not to burn the book by people in authority - not forced, mind you, asked - who warned him about bad consequences and possible violence. The act of burning the Koran was intentional and bad consequences were foreseeable.

No. Therefore he should take his share of the responsibility for what he has done. Duh. What is with this freedom of speech strawman?

The fact of the matter is that freedom of expression, and protecting its free exercise, are powerful countervailing values that we should aspire to promote in society.

WE promote that in OUR society - Afghanistan is not our society. They do not follow our rules, they follow theirs. Free speech that allows Koran burnings and/or disrespect to Mohammed are not things they see as desirable and indeed they wish to suppress them. What you're saying with that statement is that our society trumps theirs. Are you always that ethnocentric?

Not that I agree with their society or their ways - indeed, I find many things about their traditions and customs repugnant - but I can acknowledge the live by different rules without in any way condoning or approving of those rules.

On top of that - it has already been established in the courts, at least in the US, that freedom of expression does have limits. It is not to be promoted to the point of causing widespread disruption or breakdown of the social order. Your freedom of expression does not extend to using it to incite a riot. Libel and slander are illegal. Lying for fun and profit is fraud and is also illegal.

In other western countries I suspect book burning would come under some sort of hate crime or hate speech - as an example, the BBC had an article explaining why the US government couldn't stop a nutjob pastor from burning someone's holy book so I'm assuming, as that needs to be explained to the BBC readership, that book burnings are not seen as acceptable in that country. .

That would tend to argue, even apart from all of the other arguments against your worldview (which I have already laid out in meticulous detail) that we should institute greater moral protections for people engaged in acts of free expression than we would to people under other circumstances who are acting in a manner that is not consistent with the exercise of freedom of expression.

In OUR society that is, in fact, the case. That is why when the American Nazi party or Ku Klux Klan decides to hold a parade or a public rally local police are dispatched to protect them from the outraged public that inevitably gathers around such spectacles.

The thing is, Afghanistan is NOT our society. Unless you're proposing the West invades, obliterates their leadership, suppresses their native culture, and imposes its own - and we've seen how well that works out over the past few centuries - Afghanistan is going to remain "not our culture". HOW do you propose that "we should institute greater moral protections for people engaged in acts of free expression" in a foreign society that views such expressions as blasphemy of the highest order? "Freedom of expression" is NOT universally revered, however much we think it should be.

Now, someone is likely to trot out something about homosexuals, as has been done already, or MLK, Jr, or various other examples. The thing is, you can't stop being gay or black. You can refrain from burning a book. Refraining from burning a book is a rather minor imposition on your ability to express yourself, and if that imposition prevents bloody violence and death I'd say you have a moral obligation to not burn books, even if not a legal one.

I guess that everyone here who promoted military intervention in Libya should face similar restrictions since they, too, are insulated from the violent acts that they specifically attempted to provoke.

See above.

See above? Spell it out for me. Without their influence, military intervention may well not be taking place in Libya, and the people who are killed and wounded by such intervention may well not be harmed. Explain to me why this is radically different from the situations you have hung your hat on.

The difference is that people were dying and more were going to die in Libya if nothing was done by the outside world. There was reason to believe a massacre against unarmed people was about to occur. The justification for military intervention in Libya was that intervening would result in fewer deaths than not intervening. Whether or not that is the actual result is a topic for a different thread.

In this case, however, NOT burning a Koran would avoid an riots, violence, injuries, or deaths arising from outrage at burning the book. Burning the book means there was a heightened possibility of violence. Thus, morally NOT burning the Koran would be the better decision.

Explain why a system of morality that assigns blame to the pastor is better than one that does not. I have explained in rather painstaking detail why I do not believe this to be true:
1. Your system assigns blame to people who are acting in otherwise innocent manners because of the criminal actions of others, and not by virtue of their own actions. This leads to incredibly arbitrary distinctions in a very wide variety of contexts, a few of which I have detailed.

It is questionable that burning a Koran is a truly "innocent" act, as book burning is already morally suspect to many in our society, and because the pastor was warned ahead of time that performing that act could result in violence halfway around the world.

Here's another analogy: someone who inadvertently serves a meal with shrimp to someone they don't know is Jewish and keeping Kosher does, in fact, commit a wrong by an innocent act. If, however, that person knows the person they are serving is Jewish and keeping Kosher, and that shrimp are not Kosher, than serving shrimp fettuccine is no longer an innocent act.

If the pastor didn't know burning a Koran would be so provocative and he went ahead and did it then arguably he'd be "innocent" - but that's not what happened. It was unlikely he didn't know that it would be provocative, but regardless, he was told explicitly that it would be provocative and could put Westerners in place such as Afghanistan at risk. Thus, his act was not innocent.

2. My system provides better moral safeguards for things like freedom of expression which demonstrably improve the quality of life and discourse within a society.

Except that even the society most adamant about allowing the free expression of even objectionable ideas STILL puts limits on that freedom for the good of the society. In other words, too much of even a good thing isn't always a good thing.

3. (Admittedly only detailed in this post.) Your system of morality, widely applied, can actually increase the grief and emotional suffering endured by people with survivor's guilt and related symptoms--something which should be discouraged.

You are failing to distinguish between accidental actions and unforeseeable consequences and those that deliberate and foreseeable.

Certainly if the pastor had burned, say, Books of Mormon or the tenants of Scientology then I think he would have engendered far less of a moral response, here. Why should Islam be given preferential treatment over those religions? Because its followers have demonstrably thin skins?

If those religions murdered 20 people I would condemn them too. The fact that those 2 pastors actions also come under scrutiny /= Islam getting preferential treatment.

At the risk of making this sound like a playground debate: Uh... yeah, it does. You are assigning moral responsibility to the pastor based on the fact that Muslims killed people. Had he burned religious texts of any other major religious group, no one would have been killed and you would not have assigned him any moral responsibility. That does equate to preferential treatment for religions that react violently when their religious texts are burned--ironically the very groups to which we should make special efforts to discourage.

It's the difference between the ideal world and the actual world again - MOST religions won't react to burning holy texts with murderous rampage but we know a certain segment of Muslims do. It's not "special treatment", it's recognition that a segment of Muslims react disproportionately to such an act. Burning a cross shouldn't have any special repercussions, either, after all, it's just a couple sticks of wood, but in certain contexts in the US it is seen as a threat of murder because of past history. It's fine to speak in the abstract of how people should behave, but in the real world they don't always conform to logic. Acknowledging that there can be disproportionate reactions is not the same as condoning them.

If you're sitting in front of a known murderer and you also know that he finds spitting on the ground especially provocative you're well advised to not spit on the ground when in his presence. Sure, that impinges upon your "right" to spit, but that imposition is pretty minor compared to the potential consequences, especially as you could get rid of unwanted phlegm by, say, coughing into a handkerchief rather than spitting on the floor or even swallowing the nasty glob. You have alternatives means to accomplish the goal of getting rid of glob of spit, and this pastor had alternative means of expressing his hate and contempt of Islam. He consciously choose a method that would be likely to incite violence.

[Big Phil]

Yes, if you're expressing thoughts or beliefs known to upset other groups, and you go about expressing those thoughts and beliefs in a manner known to be provocative to those other people, then yes, your douchebaggery has gone to a level where there could be bad consequences and yes, you do share a portion of blame for the consequences whether or not your are legally liable.

Broomstick, following this train of logic, Emmet Till was responsible for his own murder. After all, he knew that (allegedly) a black kid whistling at a white girl would upset white racist murderers... therefore, he's responsible for his own murder.

Likewise, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner were also responsible for their own murders; after all, their efforts to register black voters was known to provoke white racist murderers.

[Broomstick]

And the rape victim caused herself to be raped. Great. Thanks for the moral primer, Broomstick.

Way to totally miss the point, jackass - fact is, some situations are more dangerous than others. If you knowingly put yourself into a dangerous situation then yes, you are PARTIALLY responsible for what occurs to you. I really hate that this has been lost on people, especially in cases of rape. NO, it is NOT OK to rape people, or behead them, for any reason. But the world has lots of bad, immoral, criminal people in it. That's why our houses have locks on the front door.

But seriously, there are high risk and low risk situations. By telling people "oh, you bear no responsibility whatsoever no matter the environment you put yourself in" we actually put people at greater risk than if you owned up to the fact that some circumstances are more dangerous than others. Does that mean women should be barred from bars or drinking? No. But women should be told that if you DO go to a bar don't drink yourself unconscious because that makes it easy for Bad People to do Bad Things to you. Rape is still a crime, and I wouldn't use "she dressed slutty" or "she was drunk" as mitigating circumstances for the rapist, but in the REAL world dressy slutty and drinking yourself uncontentious is a fucking dangerous thing to do. You might not be simply raped - theft and murder also become much easier under those circumstances.

"Some asshole in Florida burned our holy book!" is not a migrating excuse for killing someone. On the other hand, burning a holy book will make violence more likely, whether that's a "good" excuse or not, whether that is moral or not. Why? Because not everyone cares about your morality. Even if they did, there are immoral and criminal people in the world. What they do is wrong, but putting yourself or others at greater risk isn't right, either. Not unless that greater risk serves some greater good yet, and in this case it doesn't.

I've already addressed your argument that the pastor was "insulated" from the risks he created, but would you honestly assign less moral blame to a soldier or some other foreigner who walked into a crowded market in Afghanistan and started burning Korans? After all, such a person would not be "insulated from the risks he [sic] created."

Yes, I would. This hypothetical person would be expressing himself with the knowledge that locals are going to get might pissed off at him. He is knowingly choosing to do this, presumably because he thinks some greater good will come of it.

I would hold the people who kill such a person to be just as guilty of murder and anyone else deliberately killing another human being. That's still a wrong and disproportionate response. But if the Koran burner was in a public square in some Afghan town and only putting himself at risk, no, I wouldn't hold him as morally liable as a pastor who burns a Koran in Florida and puts other people at risk, without either their knowledge or consent to that greater risk.

Does that lessen the barbarity of the killings? Of course not. Problem is, in their culture a Koran burning might be seen as a mitigating circumstance, "fighting words" so to speak. The pastor gave the extremists an excuse to get violent. It increased the odds of violence. I am baffled that some of you are willing to let the pastor off scot-free with no responsibility whatsoever for what his actions led to.

At some point, we have to start acclimating these people to the concept that just because they value something doesn't mean that other people are required to adhere to that value.

That cuts both ways. You have not "acclimated" to the notion that they don't give a fuck about YOUR values. THEY believe they have the superior ethics. The fact that MOST Muslims in the world did NOT riot would indicate that most Muslims understand that our two societies differ in what is considered acceptable means of expression.

But we're not talking about "most Muslims", we're talking about a relatively primitive backwater that until recently had little commerce with the outside modern world and no reason to consider other ethical systems. In the actual world they aren't going to change the customs and values of centuries (or millennia) just because the outside world has dropped a few bombs on them in the past couple of decades.

And let's be real: giving the extremists "an excuse to get violent" assigns moral culpability to a spectacular array of actions that people here treat as entirely mundane. It's not a reasonable measure of moral culpability.

You're assuming that if a pastor in Florida refrains from burning a Koran - which is a particularly offensive act to Muslims, not a minor annoyance - that it will mean surrender on any other cultural front you care to name. That's a slippery slope argument.

By your argument no Western woman visiting Muslim countries should ever cover her hair in accordance with local customs - Oppression! Interference with free styling of hair! It's a minor concession to foreign custom. Refraining from burning the Koran is a minor imposition on free expression that Muslims would greatly appreciate.

Moreover, I explained in my above post why systems of morality that do not assign the pastor blame are better than ones that do. Can you present countervailing arguments favoring ones that do assign moral blame?

Frankly, no, I don't understand why you conclude that systems of morality that let the pastor get off with no blame whatsoever are somehow "better". His actions triggered other actions that lead to the death of 20 people. The link is clear, even if his was not the hand that did the killing. He burned a Koran with the intention of stirring up trouble. As a result, over a dozen people are dead. I don't see how a system that assigns no blame to deliberate actions intended to incite fury is "better". That gets back to spreading rumors that the guy down the street is a pedophile when you know he's not, and vigilantes killing the guy - you intended to stir up trouble, and trouble resulted. That's why libel and slander are crimes because they can lead to third parties harming the target.

And no, it's not racist to say that a Koran burning is likely to lead to violence. No one is suggesting that ALL Muslims fly into a murderous rage at the act, and they certainly don't. But in the actual world there are people with less self-control, with more anger, and who are looking for an excuse to commit violence. Sure, say and do whatever you want, but you can't be oblivious to the fact that there are consequences to what you say or do, and not all of those consequences are just or proportional because a certain segment of humanity isn't any better than poo-flinging monkeys.

So... acts have consequences, therefore we are morally responsible for the consequences of our actions, even when other people criminally intervene in the interim? What?

Yes, you ARE responsible for the consequences of your actions. This is news to you?

Other people are responsible for their actions, of course - the people who killed UN workers are responsible for those deaths. They could have chosen NOT to kill those men, just as millions of other Muslims choose NOT to respond to a provocative act with violence. That does not erase the fact that the pastor's actions mad people extremely angry - and he is responsible for that anger, even if he is not responsible for how it manifested.

Again, if this had been an unintentional act of offense I would assign the pastor much less blame, perhaps none at all. But that wasn't the case. He KNEW this would stir up trouble, and he chose to stir up trouble, and that's why I hold him responsible for causing a riot, even if he did not, himself, murder anyone.

[Big Phil]

How much blame do you apportion to Pastor Douchebag, and how much to the murderers themselves?

100/0? 99/1? 50/50? Can you put a number on it?

[Broomstick]

Yes, if you're expressing thoughts or beliefs known to upset other groups, and you go about expressing those thoughts and beliefs in a manner known to be provocative to those other people, then yes, your douchebaggery has gone to a level where there could be bad consequences and yes, you do share a portion of blame for the consequences whether or not your are legally liable.

Broomstick, following this train of logic, Emmet Till was responsible for his own murder. After all, he knew that (allegedly) a black kid whistling at a white girl would upset white racist murderers... therefore, he's responsible for his own murder.

First of all, it was never established if he DID whistle at a white woman, which right there makes the analogy fall apart.

No, he was NOT responsible for his murder, the men who killed him were. However, a black man expressing interest in a white woman in the American south at the time was a very risky act. That's why black southern men avoided doing so, even if they were attracted to white women. No, it is not right that he was killed, but he was in a high risk situation. Staying in Chicago would have been safer for him. Recognizing that in no way makes his murder OK, or even diminishes the guilt of the murderers.

Likewise, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner were also responsible for their own murders; after all, their efforts to register black voters was known to provoke white racist murderers.

They were NOT responsible for their own murders. However, they did know that registering black voters DID put them at risk of violence, and murder wasn't impossible. They chose to take that risk because they thought doing so would serve a greater good. They weren't doing it to deliberately provoke "white racist murderers", they would doing it to change the society they lived in. They also were also assuming the risk of reprisals on themselves - they weren't sitting half a world away and putting others at risk. You can chose to assume a higher risk for yourself, but putting someone else at risk is a different matter.

Now, if the pastor thought burning a Koran would somehow magically down the line make Muslims more compatible with Christians that might be analogous... but that's not the case. If Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner where wandering around Mississippi spitting on Klansmen THAT would be more analogous to what the pastor in this case did - deliberately provocative act of questionable acceptance in polite society anyway. There was no moral goal that justified assuming the risks entailed in burning a Koran in a highly public manner.

[Broomstick]

How much blame do you apportion to Pastor Douchebag, and how much to the murderers themselves?

100/0? 99/1? 50/50? Can you put a number on it?

The murderers are, of course, 100% culpable for the murders.

But for the riot and violence leading up to them? I'd say Pastor Douchebag is 5-10% liable, with the rest on Afghan hotheads looking for an excuse to hurt anyone that wasn't of their clique.

Pastor Douchebag wasn't responsible for how the Afghans expressed their rage, but he was responsible for provoking that rage in the first place.

I'd also hold the media partly responsible as well, as they are the ones who disseminated the news of the burning so widely. If they had simply not given it such publicity there would have been considerably less rage generated. We've had book burnings around here since 2001, but because they didn't get publicity they didn't generate global outrage, either (locally, they were also strongly disapproved of, to the point that local pastors stopped the bullshit because so many of the local Christians also found it offensive).

[Alyeska]

Broomstick, following this train of logic, Emmet Till was responsible for his own murder. After all, he knew that (allegedly) a black kid whistling at a white girl would upset white racist murderers... therefore, he's responsible for his own murder.

Likewise, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner were also responsible for their own murders; after all, their efforts to register black voters was known to provoke white racist murderers.

I question whether or not you've read this thread and what people are saying. There are degrees of guilt. There is legal guilt, and moral guilt. Emmet Till was not responsible for his own murder. However, his actions did contribute to his death. He had the misfortune of living in a time where people could react very negatively because of racist beliefs and ignorance.

I would argue that mens rea is an important factor here. The intent of the individual.

Emmet Till almost certainly did not intend to contribute to his own death. By all accounts he was not suicidal. He was a young kid who appreciated the beauty of a girl. His intentions were that of a kid who has a crush on another girl. A 14 year old teenager doesn't exactly have the same life experience and understanding of the world as an adult.

Martin Luther King had very noble intentions. He wanted to right what he perceived as an injustice. He recognized that his actions would cause people to react violently and was more than willing to put his own safety on the line.

Terry Jones. Well I have a particularly low opinion of this individual for a variety of reasons. His intentions are built on a foundation if bigotry and an ignorant view of elements of the world. He is guilty of many of the same things he accuses others of through his selective beliefs. His public burning of a Koran was done with full knowledge that it would be perceived very negatively by the very people whom he opposes. That in itself is a self fulfilling prophecy. "Those people as savages. See, I did something they hate and now they are savage!" On top of that, what he did was done knowing he was not likely to suffer consequences of his actions.

The Jyllands-Posten cartoon contraversy is very similar to Terry Jones, but has a critical difference. Mens rea. The intent behind the action was dramatically different. The cartoons were done with the intention of supporting free speech and free press in the face of threats of violence. They weren't trying to deliberately incite violence.

Having said all that, I also don't think Terry Jones is guilty of any crimes. His moral crimes that I believe him to have committed are sufficient that I will have a continued low opinion of him. But laws on that type of morality have no place.

[Sarevok]

The end goal also needs to be considered.

What do we want from Afghanistan ? More terrorists or try and transform the place ? If it is the latter Terry Jones has single handedly turned the clock back a few years. He is a disgrace for anyone who ever did anything positive for Afghanistan.

[Alyeska]

The end goal also needs to be considered.

What do we want from Afghanistan ? More terrorists or try and transform the place ? If it is the latter Terry Jones has single handedly turned the clock back a few years. He is a disgrace for anyone who ever did anything positive for Afghanistan.

Do we punish him for exercising his free speech in American because he made things difficult in Afghanistan? Where anti-war protestors in the Vietnam era guilty of aiding the enemy? That same argument was used to suppress anti-war sentiment in WW1.

[Big Phil]

Broomstick, following this train of logic, Emmet Till was responsible for his own murder. After all, he knew that (allegedly) a black kid whistling at a white girl would upset white racist murderers... therefore, he's responsible for his own murder.

Likewise, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner were also responsible for their own murders; after all, their efforts to register black voters was known to provoke white racist murderers.

I question whether or not you've read this thread and what people are saying. There are degrees of guilt. There is legal guilt, and moral guilt. Emmet Till was not responsible for his own murder. However, his actions did contribute to his death. He had the misfortune of living in a time where people could react very negatively because of racist beliefs and ignorance.

I would argue that mens rea is an important factor here. The intent of the individual.

Emmet Till almost certainly did not intend to contribute to his own death. By all accounts he was not suicidal. He was a young kid who appreciated the beauty of a girl. His intentions were that of a kid who has a crush on another girl. A 14 year old teenager doesn't exactly have the same life experience and understanding of the world as an adult.

Martin Luther King had very noble intentions. He wanted to right what he perceived as an injustice. He recognized that his actions would cause people to react violently and was more than willing to put his own safety on the line.

Terry Jones. Well I have a particularly low opinion of this individual for a variety of reasons. His intentions are built on a foundation if bigotry and an ignorant view of elements of the world. He is guilty of many of the same things he accuses others of through his selective beliefs. His public burning of a Koran was done with full knowledge that it would be perceived very negatively by the very people whom he opposes. That in itself is a self fulfilling prophecy. "Those people as savages. See, I did something they hate and now they are savage!" On top of that, what he did was done knowing he was not likely to suffer consequences of his actions.

The Jyllands-Posten cartoon contraversy is very similar to Terry Jones, but has a critical difference. Mens rea. The intent behind the action was dramatically different. The cartoons were done with the intention of supporting free speech and free press in the face of threats of violence. They weren't trying to deliberately incite violence.

Having said all that, I also don't think Terry Jones is guilty of any crimes. His moral crimes that I believe him to have committed are sufficient that I will have a continued low opinion of him. But laws on that type of morality have no place.

As others have said, if this guy had burned the Book of Mormon, and riots broke out in Salt Lake City, no one would be blaming him. There is the reality that, while actions may have occurred as a consequence of his behavior, he bears no legal or moral responsibility, which is my position. Otherwise, as Master of Ossus has pointed out, one's moral or legal responsibility is based primarily upon the actions of others, rather than one's own actions.

I'm not arguing that the actions didn't happen as a consequence of what Pastor Douchebag did; I'm arguing that he bears no legal or moral responsibility for it.

[Serafina]

How much blame do you apportion to Pastor Douchebag, and how much to the murderers themselves?

100/0? 99/1? 50/50? Can you put a number on it?

You're apparently still under the impression that there is only a finite amount of guilt. If so, you should have read this thread more carefully.

The murderers are 100% responsible for their actions, as they are mentally fully capable adults that did not get tricked into their actions and were fully capable of recognizing the results of their actions.
The pastor is ALSO 100% responsible for HIS actions, as he is a mentally fully capable adult that did not get tricked into his actions and was fully capable of recognizing the results of his actions.

The murderers are therefore guilty of murder.
The pastor is therefore capable of inciting hatred in a group of violent people.

It's like someone taunting a man who's holding a fully automatic weapon in a train full of people, therefore making that man fire his weapon and killing dozens.. The taunting person is not pulling the trigger, but her actions are NOT morally upright and she should feel guilty for doing so. However, unless the man with the weapon is mentally retarded, inebriated or some such, he is ALSO fully responsible for his actions and should feel guilty for them.


Punishment is a more difficult aspect. Murder is obviously not a protected action, since there was no self-defense or such. However, free speech is a protected a action. It can be limited and therefore punished if there is a really good reason to do so, but it's not as clear-cut as murder.
However, punishment does not equal guilt and guilt does not equal punishment. Just because someone gets punished does not mean that he is guilty. Just because someone does not get punished doesn't mean he is not guilty. Just because someone is innocent does not mean that he is not going to be punished. And just because someone is guilty, that does not mean that he is going to be punished.
Punishment is not solely an extension of guilt, but should also consider the results it will have on society. In this case, punishing free speech could have negative consequences which should be considered.


In my opinion, this case went beyond free speech and into the incitement of hatred. This incitement was not accidental, but intentional. Furthermore, this act of speech (or expression, same thing) did not serve any other purpose worthy of protection. Therefore, punishment is applicable, since the action was not solely a protected act of free speech.
At least that's how it would be handled in Germany. I realize that the USA handle free speech differently.

[Sarevok]

The end goal also needs to be considered.

What do we want from Afghanistan ? More terrorists or try and transform the place ? If it is the latter Terry Jones has single handedly turned the clock back a few years. He is a disgrace for anyone who ever did anything positive for Afghanistan.

Do we punish him for exercising his free speech in American because he made things difficult in Afghanistan? Where anti-war protestors in the Vietnam era guilty of aiding the enemy? That same argument was used to suppress anti-war sentiment in WW1.

The thing is inciting riots is wrong. When riots happen anywhere in the world that rioters themselves maybe stupid is not used to dismiss the cause. Why is this being treated differently ? What Terry Jones did was not exercising right to free speech. His intentions were to make people angry and see how much damage could be done. It is not like the man himself is an agnostic/atheistic freethinker. This is the work of someone is purposely trying to gain as much attention as possible and drive rifts between muslims and non muslims.

[Alyeska]

The thing is inciting riots is wrong. When riots happen anywhere in the world that rioters themselves maybe stupid is not used to dismiss the cause. Why is this being treated differently ? What Terry Jones did was not exercising right to free speech. His intentions were to make people angry and see how much damage could be done. It is not like the man himself is an agnostic/atheistic freethinker. This is the work of someone is purposely trying to gain as much attention as possible and drive rifts between muslims and non muslims.

Was he trying to incite a riot? Was that his goal? Knowing it will happen is not the same thing as wanting it to happen. Did the Danish artists involved in the Mohammed drawings controversy know that what they did would anger Muslims? I think that many of them did. Was it their goal to incite violence? I sincerely doubt it.

Terry Jones is a prick. But he also enough of an ignorant jerk that he could very well not have intended to any direct malice because of tunnel vision on the subject.

[TimothyC]

What if the situation were reversed?

What if an American said that for every christian girl kidnapped in Egypt by muslims, that an empty mosque somewhere in the United States would burn. Would the muslims in Egypt be morally guilty for the property damage?

[TheHammer]

It seems like what some people are ascribing to is essentially apeasement. That we shouldn't say or do something that will piss muslims off. Otherwise they might go apeshit and kill innocent people. But as soon as you do that, the terrorists really do win. That is essentially what these extremists are - terrorists. They are using fear and intimidation tactics to get what they want. We are all free to think that the preacher is a racist asshole. However, the absolutely wrong response to this situation is to blame the preacher and say "See? We'd better never let that happen again!".

[Metahive]

Somehow I could sense someone would come and try the "appeasement" argument.

This is not appeasement. This is chastising people for gratuitously doing things that they might damn well know have negative consequences. No one so far has demanded any legal repercussions for the Pastor. Pastor Jones could have burnt dozens of Qur'ans, but was it necessary to do it in presence of the media? In case you missed my post earlier but the US already have a very low reputation in Afghanistan for several reasons, unnecessarily fanning the flames just to express how much of a bigoted fuck one is helps no one.

The right response is to not give these trolls the ear of the media to better distribute their flamebait.

[Alyeska]

It seems like what some people are ascribing to is essentially apeasement. That we shouldn't say or do something that will piss muslims off. Otherwise they might go apeshit and kill innocent people. But as soon as you do that, the terrorists really do win. That is essentially what these extremists are - terrorists. They are using fear and intimidation tactics to get what they want. We are all free to think that the preacher is a racist asshole. However, the absolutely wrong response to this situation is to blame the preacher and say "See? We'd better never let that happen again!".

China and Russia has Nukes. Should we appease them?

[Master of Ossus]

Broomstick:

My system of morality is better than yours for the following reasons, which I copy-pasted from above:

1. Your system assigns blame to people who are acting in otherwise innocent manners because of the criminal actions of others that arguably result from this, and not by virtue of their own actions. This leads to incredibly arbitrary distinctions in a very wide variety of contexts, a few of which I have detailed.
2. My system provides better moral safeguards for things like freedom of expression which demonstrably improve the quality of life and discourse within a society.
3. (Admittedly only detailed in this post.) Your system of morality, widely applied, can actually increase the grief and emotional suffering endured by people with survivor's guilt and related symptoms--something which should be discouraged.

In addition, your system appears to continue to allocate blame and culpability even for very attenuated results--something which is both nonsensical and inconsistently applied--because it treats "but-for" causation as the basis of moral judgment, even when original action would normally be innocent and is one for which no moral blame would normally be considered to attach. Again, this is a nonsensical method of allocating moral culpability for one's actions.

[Master of Ossus]

The end goal also needs to be considered.

What do we want from Afghanistan ? More terrorists or try and transform the place ? If it is the latter Terry Jones has single handedly turned the clock back a few years. He is a disgrace for anyone who ever did anything positive for Afghanistan.

Sarevok, we are trying to change Afghanistan, and part of doing that is acclimatizing people to the idea that if someone offends you that doesn't give you carte blanche to go around rioting.

Further, it's ridiculous to claim that he "has single handedly turned the clock back a few years," and moreover even if he had he wouldn't bear any moral culpability for that. This is the entire argument.

The thing is inciting riots is wrong. When riots happen anywhere in the world that rioters themselves maybe stupid is not used to dismiss the cause. Why is this being treated differently ? What Terry Jones did was not exercising right to free speech. His intentions were to make people angry and see how much damage could be done. It is not like the man himself is an agnostic/atheistic freethinker. This is the work of someone is purposely trying to gain as much attention as possible and drive rifts between muslims and non muslims.

First of all, you are using an extraordinarily broad definition of "inciting riots," but in any case merely stating or doing something offensive is an exercise of free speech. And provide evidence that the pastor's intent was to "see how much damage could be done?"

Moreover, you are once again applying a distinction between religious groups. This would've been okay if an atheist did it, but because the guy's religious he cannot? Your moral code obviously discriminates between religious groups, permitting some religious groups to engage freely in behavior that is proscribed from others.

[Master of Ossus]

Somehow I could sense someone would come and try the "appeasement" argument.

This is not appeasement. This is chastising people for gratuitously doing things that they might damn well know have negative consequences. No one so far has demanded any legal repercussions for the Pastor.

BULLSHIT.

Can we get the Florida preacher for inciting a riot, with manslaughter charges added on at the very least? I wish.

The sort of messages that started this chain of events leading to riots on another continent, would they fall under hate speech under Canadian or European laws ?

Pastor Jones could have burnt dozens of Qur'ans, but was it necessary to do it in presence of the media?

Yes. Free exercise requires you to be able to express yourself in front of an audience, including members of the press, if you so choose. Burning books may not be the best way to make an argument, but burning symbols of various ideologies is a form of speech.

[Metahive]

OK, got wrong on that part then.

Free exercise requires you to be able to express yourself in front of an audience, including members of the press, if you so choose.

That's really besides the point tough. Free speech means the government can't censor your speech, it doesn't mean that anyone has to absolutely give you a soapbox to preach from or the time of the day. If the news media refuse the distribute your private little creed you can't really force them by law into doing it, can you?

Burning books may not be the best way to make an argument, but burning symbols of various ideologies is a form of speech.

What argument? You're merely professing in public that you hate person/religion/ideology X. That's not an argument, that's a confession.

ETA:

Sarevok, we are trying to change Afghanistan, and part of doing that is acclimatizing people to the idea that if someone offends you that doesn't give you carte blanche to go around rioting.

Ehem, making them hate you won't make them any more willing to listen to your ideas, just a suggestion. Also, are you telling me that next time Obama should personally burn an entire pile of Qur'ans in front of the White House just to get the message home?

[Master of Ossus]

That's really besides the point tough. Free speech means the government can't censor your speech, it doesn't mean that anyone has to absolutely give you a soapbox to preach from or the time of the day. If the news media refuse the distribute your private little creed you can't really force them by law into doing it, can you?

True, but freedom of expression requires both that the speaker have the right and reasonable opportunity to express himself publicly and that the press have access to cover public events. It doesn't mean that you're guaranteed to have press coverage when you do something, but means that the government cannot intervene to prevent either of those events from occurring. The media chose to cover it; the pastor chose to publicly burn the Koran. Both are absolutely protected by freedom of expression.

What argument? You're merely professing in public that you hate person/religion/ideology X. That's not an argument, that's a confession.

It's a public statement that you reject whatever the symbol is that you are burning. It's a perfectly valid means of expression. It doesn't have to be an argument in order to be protected as free speech, provided that it is expressive. "Fuck the draft" is not an argument; it is a valid means of expression that is (and should be) protected via freedom of speech. This is precisely what I said.

Ehem, making them hate you won't make them any more willing to listen to your ideas, just a suggestion.

So the best way to get them to question their idea that they should kill people for expressing the same form of disrespect for Islam that people in their countries repeatedly and deliberately show for other countries is...? Turnabout ought to be fair play, in terms of expression.

Also, are you telling me that next time Obama should personally burn an entire pile of Qur'ans in front of the White House just to get the message home?

I'm saying that Obama should be promoting a western concept of freedom of speech in Afghanistan, and that includes explaining that freedom of speech includes the concept that you will not kill unrelated people for their expression.

Sorry, if it "makes them hate you" because you burn something as a political statement, that really does mean that they hate us for our freedoms.

As for your claims that this does not amount to appeasement, what you make of this:

Yes, if you're expressing thoughts or beliefs known to upset other groups, and you go about expressing those thoughts and beliefs in a manner known to be provocative to those other people, then yes, your douchebaggery has gone to a level where there could be bad consequences and yes, you do share a portion of blame for the consequences whether or not your are legally liable.

Seriously? What is that, if not appeasement? "You're welcome to express whatever you want but as soon as you use that freedom of expression to go after some unusually sensitive subset of the population I will morally attack you, screech and cry, and assign moral responsibility for what happens to you." Note that she's not responding against the argument; she's not attacking how he expressed that message--it's a specific statement that she provides additional protection to one group in the form of moral disapprobation because he chose to use his freedom of expression against a particularly sensitive group. Had he done this to the Mormons, or the scientologists, or to Christians or Buddhists then Broomstick would've had no problem with this guy. Specifically because Muslims demonstrably respond violently to the same sorts of speech that others take in good humor, though, means that Broomstick wants him to face legal and moral repercussions. That is absolutely appeasement.

[Big Phil]

UN envoy in Afghanistan gives harrowing account of how 7 UN workers killed

By DEB RIECHMANN
Associated Press
20 dead in 2 days of Afghan riots over Quran-burning that inflamed already strained relations

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Fearing for their lives, the U.N. workers dashed into a dark bunker hoping to escape the mob of Afghan protesters angry over the burning of a Quran by a Florida church.

Hope wasn't enough for three of them. They were hunted down and brutally slain - their bodies found later in three different parts of the compound in northern Afghanistan.

"They were killed when they were running out of the bunker," said Staffan de Mistura, the top U.N. envoy in Afghanistan, who recounted their harrowing deaths to reporters on Saturday evening. "One was pulled out alive because he pretended to be a Muslim."

De Mistura spoke in a somber tone as he described how three U.N. staff members and four Nepalese guards were killed Friday when the protesters stormed their compound in the normally peaceful city of Mazar-i-Sharif. He placed direct blame on those who burned a copy of the Muslim holy book in Gainesville, Florida, last month, stoking anti-foreign sentiment that already was on the rise after nearly a decade of war in Afghanistan.

"The demonstration was meant to protest against the insane and totally despicable gesture by one person who burned the holy Quran," he said.

He also said the U.N. building would not have been attacked if there had been an adequate cordon of Afghan police separating the demonstrators and the compound.

A formal inquiry is under way, but de Mistura said initial reports indicate that seven to 15 insurgents infiltrated a group of as many as 3,000 demonstrators who overran the U.N. compound, which was protected by Afghan policemen and six U.N.-hired Nepalese guards. The crowd overpowered the guards - who are instructed not to shoot into crowds of civilians, even if they are threatening - and the police were not able to stop them, he said.

Four of the Nepalese guards were killed; some were shot in the yard of the compound. Three Afghan U.N. workers survived by melding into the surging crowd, he said. Four Afghan protesters also were killed in the riot.

Protesters had set fire to cars and an electric generator in the U.N. compound so the bunker was dark. It was the only safe place for the four foreign U.N. workers on the compound, including the Russian chief of mission. But the door of the bunker was made to withstand a bomb attack, not the sheer force of a crowd of people trying to get inside.

When the killers forced themselves inside they saw Pavel Ershov, the mission chief who is fluent in Dari, one of two languages spoken in Afghanistan. They beat him, but stopped after he convinced them, in Dari, that he was a Muslim, de Mistura said.

"He spoke the language and tried to draw their attention on himself," the envoy said. "For a moment, he hoped that they would think there was nobody else there."

But using a light, the attackers found the three other foreigners, then pulled them out and killed them one after the other. Two died of bullet wounds. The third was killed with a knife to the throat.

They were identified by officials in their home countries as: Joakim Dungel, a 33-year-old Swede who worked on human rights; Lt. Col. Siri Skare, a 53-year-old female pilot from Norway who was an adviser; and Filaret Motco, a 43-year-old Romanian who worked in the political section of the U.N.

De Mistura spoke to reporters in Kabul after flying back from Mazar-i-Sharif. He was at the airport in Kabul when the victims' bodies were flown to the capital Saturday evening. In talking with top officials in Mazar-i-Sharif, he said he was convinced that the killers were insurgents, not demonstrators.

Protesters confiscated AK-47s from security officers at the scene, but all except one of the U.N. workers were killed with handguns, he said.

Moreover, the mission chief and some of the U.N. Afghan staff workers said the killers spoke in a dialect not common to Mazar-i-Sharif. De Mistura said authorities told him that several of the people arrested were from other parts of Afghanistan, including Kapisa province in the east and Kandahar in the south. Both provinces are hundreds of miles (kilometers) from Mazar-i-Sharif.

De Mistura said he was concerned that the deaths of the foreigners would give people, especially in the West, a reason to argue against continued involvement in the nearly decade-long Afghan war. He said the U.N. would not pull out of Afghanistan, but that he was temporarily redeploying 11 U.N. workers from Mazar-i-Sharif to Kabul because they can no longer work in the office, which was destroyed and looted.

President Hamid Karzai publicly condemned the March 20 Quran burning, leading some to blame him for triggering the protests. De Mistura, however, blamed the person who torched the holy book.

The pastor, the Rev. Terry Jones, had threatened to destroy a copy of Islam's holy book last year but initially backed down. On Friday he said Islam and its followers, not his church's burning of the Quran, were responsible for the killings.

"Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of offending culture, religion or traditions," de Mistura said. "Those who entered our building were actually furiously angry about the issue about the Quran. There was nothing political there."

But he said that with uprisings in the Middle East, and waning foreign support for the war, Karzai's government needed to pay more attention to the security of foreign civilians working in Afghanistan.

"I'm profoundly sad and I'm also shocked by what I saw, but we continue our work," de Mistura said. "We are not going to be deterred."

Bolded and underlined the relative portions. In a nutshell, the UN chief in Afghanistan isn't blaming the murderers themselves for the deaths, but instead is blaming Pastor Douchebag. There you have it, straight from an official source - the people who commit murder aren't to blame, the people they say pissed them off are to blame.

And although it isn't stated this way, it is possible that the murders may not be because of the Koran burning at all, but instead may be the work of the Taliban or others working to undermine the UN mission in Afghanistan.

[Simon_Jester]

Sanchez, has it occurred to you that someone who has to keep living and working in Afghanistan, with Afghanis, might reasonably join in condemning the bigoted fuckwit who, had he not been a fuckwit, would damn well have known that were he to get any reaction at all from his actions it'd be like this?

The guy who lit the fuse on this mess may not have personally shot UN staffers himself, but he damn sure had a very large hand in the protest. He chose to go far, far out of his way to provoke this kind of shit, and the people who had the shit land on them have every right to be angry at him.