I have read that he actually conducted some sort of a “trial”, at which the Quran was found “Guilty”. Sentence of death by [del]bongo-bongo[/del] fire was then carried out. If he did have some sort of “trial”, then his activity might reasonably be interpreted as “considered criticism”. Harsh, but still an opinion he’s free to express.
Which is exactly why people like him choose this method of murder; they know that people will come out and defend them with arguments like yours. So they can kill again and again without consequences of any kind.
I’m suprised that so many people who condemn Pastor Jones seem to praise Theo Van Gogh.
For those not aware, Van Gogh regularly referred to Muslims as “goat fuckers” and encouraged racism against Muslims in the Netherlands.
I certainly don’t think he deserved to be murdered, but he was just as much a disgusting piece of bigoted filth as Jones.
Personally, I’m no more upset by his murder than I was by the killing of the racist Rabbi Meir Kahane.
I’m not interested in any argument about things I never said. Nobody claimed Jones could be convicted or that he was responsible for murder.
If you’re going to debate, debate what I actually wrote or not at all.
Ahem.
Which legal minds?
By itself that quote could be taken to mean what you imply, but **cosmosdan **also said this:
… and you obviously saw it, so I think it makes to read his post more generously. In context, I think it’s pretty clear that he was saying that our legal system recognizes that responsibility doesn’t always end with the person “pulling the trigger,” that the law reflects an ethical obligation not to cause death indirectly.
I wonder if there’s an extent to which the disagreement here is semantic. For instance, suppose no one claimed that Jones was partially blameworthy for the deaths. What if the claim was just that he was ethically culpable for making the situation more volatile (and thus more dangerous)? Would anyone on the other side of this be willing to sign on to a statement worded something like that? Or to some other statement about negative externalities?
Good Lord. You responded to a post about legal principles, which are based on concepts of justice. You even quoted this bit.
“I would say he’s bordering on this.** Not in any way that can be prosecuted but morally and ethically. **”
When you say responsibility begins and ends with the person that pulled the trigger, it becomes abundantly clear that’s considered incorrect by our own legal system and the laws I mentioned.
according to my words that YOU quoted,
this is irrelevant, since I specifically said he couldn’t be. Once again, respond to what I actually wrote or not at all. You might read other my other posts as well so that you actually understand my position before responding to one you created in your head that I never said .
correct. Pretty simple I’m talking about recognized principles, and concepts of justice , that indicate he shares some of the responsibility.
I’ve also said, several times, it’s because he had forewarning and knowledge of the potential outcome,
IMO, in our present situation the smart thing is to make a conscious effort to not play into the hands of the America haters trying to convince others that we hate them, and don’t value their lives. That’s my problem to the rising anti-Muslim sentiment. IMO that makes those spreading it, especially those spreading it simply for profit, ethically culpable.
Jones went a step beyond that because of the previous warnings he had had form officials in the know, that such an act had great potential for increasing the violence aimed at our troops.
If your religious beliefs amount to “Islam is a false religion” so be it, but I would think the more compassionate and humble portions of Christianity would exclude overt acts of insult that increased the danger of harm to innocents.
And for the third time, I’m asking you to cite them. Don’t try running that same crap I debunked above. Cite these non-existent principles you claim exist. And be sure to analyze them carefully to be sure they actually have some relevance to this specific case. Or admit that you’re a layman talking out of your ass about things you do not understand. I’m good either way.
You parsed it correctly, however you are trying to link an emotional response with a physical (illegal) one. The two cannot be linked.
You are free to feel anger and assign blame for that anger to whomever you choose. People make each other angry all the time.
Inciting a riot is a completely different animal than burning a book to illicit an emotional response.
If he burned the book with full knowledge that the people he’d be making mad would go kill someone, you still couldn’t fault the man doing the burning with murder, ever.
Nuance, in this case, just doesn’t carry that far.
edit: It kind of reminds me about the old argument by people wanting to remove guns from the populace, but Guns don’t kill people, people do.
“Paster Jones’ Responsibility for Giving Al Queida Something to Work With”
Then maybe there is some sedition-related statute we could call into play and throw his sorry butt in jail over in the 'Stan and let the locals have a shot at the actual source of their anger.
Kinda like Gitmo reverso-redux. 
You’re wrong either way. You didn’t debunk anything. You made an assertion which is just your opinion. That doesn’t qualify as debunked by a long shot.
All you did was once again frame arguments I never made and then argue against them. I’m not interested in that waste of time.
The legal principles of incitement to violence and reckless endangerment are well established and part of our law. Your personal opinion is not. I already cited them. You may think they don’t apply in this case, but It’s foolish to claim they don’t exist.
Jones made a peaceful protest against Islam, which he apparently considers contemptible. Later, some moslems decided to murder some innocent strangers in the name of Islam, citing Jones’ insult to Islam as justification. Some apologists said that because this is foreseeable, then Jones is responsible for the murders (though presumably they also agree that this manifestation of Islamic belief and practice is contemptible, otherwise Jones behavour cannot possibly be reprehensible).
I foresee that others will peacefully protest against the mores of Islam in future. I assert that publicly criticising Jones in this case will encourage some moslem extremists to become more extreme, and that this too is easily foreseeable. What responsibility do those who criticise Jones today bear for the next round of moslem violence, which will be a little harsher than otherwise, given their encouragement now?
Does anyone have an argument absovling Jones’ critics which Jones can’t himself use?
Peaceful? Only in the sense that nobody was directly harmed by Jones’ actions. But what he did was peaceful in the same way that burning an effigy is peaceful.
I didn’t read any post claiming Jones was responsible.
At least one of us is hallucinating. There are almost three hundred posts in this discussion, which is debating “Pastor Jones and his moral responsibility for death”
That’s a good point. I haven’t seen the video, so I did make the assumption there was no incitement to violence (which seems reasonable, otherwise the criticisms would have been more specific). I think you can burn an effigy peacefully, but it would be quite hard to do in practice without it being an explicit incitement to attack the person whose effigy you were setting fire to.
“Nobody being harmed” would be one of my measures for if a protest was peaceful. “Nobody being offended” would not be.
My mistake. I actually meant the posts since I’ve been participating. I should have been more accurate.