One of our religious whack jobs burns a book, and some of their religious whack jobs respond in a mob attack that leaves 20 dead. There is general agreement here that our whack job might be despicable but had the right to do what he did under the "flag burning is symbolic speech" precedent. But we shouldn't glide right by Terry Jones' moral culpabiity: Jones is not quite like the rape victim who is blamed for wearing too short a skirt:
There are two big problems with this analogy. First, burning a Koran is an offense against Muslims, just as burning an American flag is an offense against Americans. It is not merely imprudent but morally objectionable. That does not justify a violent reaction, but it does make the provocation different in kind from that of a rape victim's wearing a short skirt. A better analogy might be to an adulterous wife who is murdered by her cuckolded husband. He is guilty of a serious crime, but it is also true that she wronged him.
Second, Terry Jones is not a victim. He is safe in Florida; the people who were killed in retaliation for his offense--including, according to Agence France-Presse, "four Nepalese, one Swedish, one Norwegian and one Romanian worker"--had nothing to do with it, but he acted anyway.
Jones was told his intended action would probably lead to violence, and he acted anyway, with what might be called callous disregard for others. He knew he was poking a stick into a beehive. That puts him on the same moral plane as the bartender who serves a drink to someone who is obviously already impaired and then says nothing to anyone as the person leaves to drive away. the primary responsibility for the DUI-caused death that follows is carried by the person who got drunk and drove But the bartender who knowingly and callously contributed to
Comments
Really? So if I make the outrageous claim that any offense to what I believe will be punished by death, not merely to the offender, but to any non-believer readily at hand, it's your moral failing if you refuse to censor your behavior to meet my irrational demand? The moral response to a belief system that is spread by violence and intimidation is surrender, lest your objection be the excuse for the promised viloence?
They didn't have to burn a Koran, Depicting Mohammed in an unflattering light will do. Speaking of that, I see the American media has claimed the moral high ground by making the Prophet de facto exempt from editorial cartooning. A liitle moral smugness is probably well-deserved fror that brave decision.
And the problem with your bartender analogy is that the bartender is promoting and enabling the culpable party, and doing so for a profit. He is promoting the very anti-social behavior that should be resisted- drinking and driving.
Jones isn't promoting the anti-social behavior/problem- one group promising that any criticism of its beliefs will be countered with violence- he is resisting it. Plenty of room to criticize his tactics and timing, but the moral response to violent theocracy is resistance, not acquiesence.