I think the moral thing is pretty easy, and it’s based on the guy’s own morals. He’s an apostolic Christian. One of the main beliefs of such is that the Bible is 100% true, and all the commandments in the New Testament must be followed.
Romans 12:18 (KJV) “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” Unlike similar scriptures, this is not limited to Christians by the words or context. As an Apostolic Christian, he is morally required to not do things that piss people off.
Now, you and I may have problems with this interpretation, but it’s exactly the type of interpretation I’ve heard similar preachers use, and the exact interpretation I’ve heard from a few. Unless you have some other command that necessitates the action, or real life forces your hand, you are to try to not offend others.
Oh, and according to the same people, a small sin is just as bad as a big one. He may not be guilty of murder, but he is just as guilty as those who were.
Good God Almighty! That fucker has fingers I would die for.
OOPS! Just so you know, I’m 6’ 3" and I have Really long fingers.
Just trying to be real, mofo.
chihuahua wee-wee
And for the record, Even though this shitty fucker has less than 30 followers, that doesn’t excuse shit for me, and as of late’ I’ve been wiling to give a fucking shit load of ground.
Not that it means a fucking tin dime to any mofo here, but if you don’t like it, piss up a rope.
I’ve had pretty much my fill of stupid bullshit like this, considering what"s happening elsewhere in the world
Bunch of hate filled pieces of shit. NO FUCKING EXCUSES!!
FO and be lightly judged, wouldn’t want to offend any shitters tender sensibilities
Secretary Gates called Jones and warned him that people would get hurt if he burned his own book. Yes, he had reasonable knowledge about the consequences, but appeasing religious extremism is not the answer.
Yes, Jones as a leader of his particular congregation should have shown more wisdom and restrain (especially professing a religion that prides itself on those characteristics) but I don’t like to be threatened either.
He had power over people on the other side of the world, had he not burned the book people on the other side of the world would have had power of him.
Where Jones is at fault is putting himself in this no win situation.
Agreed, but just to clarify, would you agree with this?
Jones thinks about burning the book, but decides that the risk isn’t worth the act: Sensible restraint, not appeasement.
Jones decides to burn the book and declares he will. He’s warned by officials that this is a bad idea, and decides not to: Appeasement.
Jones decides to burn the book. Officials warn him this is a bad idea, and he does it anyway: Foolish and puts lives at risk.
Once he declared he would, he put himself in the no-win position of appeasement or risk, but if you also think that an internal decision to not burn the book in the first place would be de facto appeasement, I have to question it.
To address your first point, really, why in the beginning should this little pastor of some small anonymous church think his actions would even matter in world diplomacy?
I think its safe to assume that Jones wasn’t initially aware of the consequences and once the media storm started and Gates called it was too late to avoid the no-win situation.
But consider this: if you (general you) think everyone is completely and individually responsible for only their own actions and as such Jones has absolutely nothing to do with the murders, then it stands to reason that Gates asking Jones to not go through with it has nothing to do with Muslim extremists either. The only people Jones would be appeasing are American officials.
Either there’s a link or there’s not, but it can’t be both ways.
I agree theres a link, but think you’re confusing involvement with responsibility.
Your argument for responsibility requires that Jones know ahead of time what the outcome of his actions would be. I think we can both agree that he did not and could not know. Sure his actions would be incendiary, but on par with Afghans burning the American flag. He could not have known that having a Koran book burning party would get 8 people killed until it was laid out by Gates.
-You think at that moment he did know and was therefore responsible for going ahead anyway.
-I think that at that moment he did know the consequences but was unable to find an alternative to what would amount to appeasement to religious fanatics.
This argument reminds me of the Dram shop Law debate.
Way to go! You just killed 50 people! What were you thinking?!? How are you going to sleep at night knowing YOU are responsible for the death of 50 PEOPLE!
And that’s all I’m really after on this subject in general.
Fair enough. I have doubts that backing down from an ultimately pointless and needlessly risky act is all that bad; zero-tolerance policies always result in boneheaded stupidity IMO. But the acknowledgment of a link, that one influenced the other, is all I’m really after.
Has anyone on this board said Jones burning the Koran and the killing of the 8 UN workers wasn’t related? If thats all you wanted what were we even talking about?
I put the racism angle in there not to be edgy, but because the goal of both the free-speaker and Jones appears to be to provoke a reaction in a small subset of a group that he can then use to tar the entirety of that group. I admit that black/white racism is an over-used cliche but at the time I made my post I couldn’t think of a better way to bring this aspect into the situation.
You do raise a good point about the fact that Jones didn’t directly goad for action (He didn’t say “Bring it on”). But he did intend to be dangerously provocative in a delicate situation in which he knew (or at least had been told of) the likely outcome. His lack of contrition since then also suggests that he sees that the loss of life was a worthy trade-off for whatever he considers his goal was. If I changed the phrasing in my example to merely “Your wife’s a slut even I slept with her!” I don’t think it changes the impact much.
Jones knew that extremists were threatening Westerners based on among other things the lack of respect for Islam and the Koran. He then chose to demonstrate that this was in fact the case so as to provoke a negative reaction in a target, and use it to demonize a larger class of people of which that target was a member.
