I was late getting to the Terry Jones story Burt posted the other day, so I’m going to reprise my comment here along with some additional thoughts.
As is well known by now, Terry Jones’s fulfillment of his tasteless publicity stunt to publicly burn the Koran apparently triggered five days of protest and mob violence across Afghanistan, resulting in the deaths of more than 20 people. Meanwhile, back stateside we seem to be struggling to come up with the appropriate narrative to frame the problem. Is Terry Jones to blame? To what extent? Should we blame the Afghanis? Islam? Or are Afghanis and Muslims just “animals who can’t be controlled” anyway?
On this score, I’m always a little unsettled when Bill Maher says something I agree with:
All this talk of people who burn the Koran and nothing about the people who reacted in such a stupid way. We are always blaming the victim and not holding them — most Muslims, but at least a large part of Muslim culture that doesn’t condemn their people.
There is one religion in the world that kills you when you disagree with them and they say ‘look, we are a religion of peace and if you disagree we’ll (expletive deleted) cut your head off. And nobody calls them on it — there are very few people that will call them on it.
It’s like if Dad is a violent drunk and beats his kids, you don’t blame the kid because he set Dad off. You blame Dad because he’s a violent drunk.
I think this is basically right, and it ties into a longer post I’ll have up soon.
Really, nothing good can come from talking about Jones’s moral culpability for the rioting and vicious acts of Afghanis on the other side of the globe. His act was sick and repugnant in itself, and that ought to be the end of the story. If there is some link to be drawn between his immoral act and others’ immoral acts, that’s a private matter for Jones to mete out with with his conscience and with God, and something for which his congregation and community should censure him. But this certainly does not meet the “imminent lawless action” test under Brandenburg v. Ohio: there was no intent to cause the rioting, and I don’t believe the doctrine applies to lawless action that happens in another country.
Putting aside the legal connection between Jones and the riots, I think the analysis of the moral connection is basically the same as in the case of a woman of poor virtue who falls victim to rape. Her poor virtue and promiscuity may be immoral. And the act of rape is certainly immoral. But whether there might be any link between the two has such little relevance, and carries such a strong suggestion that the latter act was in some way justified or mitigated, that it is simply not worth even mentioning. In lawyer-speak, its probative value, if any, is substantially outweighed by the substantial danger of undue prejudice or confusing the issues. It’s not to say promiscuity is not a problem, but when we talk about it in the same breath as rape, it tends to suggest that the rapist is in some way off the hook. And that’s a terrible suggestion to make.
In the same way, laying blame on Terry Jones for the lawless riots and killing in Afghanistan suggests that the murderous mobs, to some degree, should be let off the hook. They shouldn’t.
There are a lot of really weird dynamics going on there. I’m pretty sure I don’t understand even half of them.
You’ve got this guy (let’s call him a “jerk”) who wants to burn a Koran, right?
Well, we’re all progressive thinkers and the first thing we think of when we hear of someone burning a Koran is, yes, the Nazis and their little book burning parties. So our immediate (visceral!) response is to say “you shouldn’t burn books!”
We hear that there’s this group of people over there who are also saying “you shouldn’t burn the Koran!” We nod and agree, right? And then they say “if you burn a Koran, we will burn a Bible! WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT!?!?”
Of course, being good progressive thinkers, we get confused. A Bible is just a bound collection of paper. That’s it. It’s black (and sometimes red) ink on tissue paper with a leather cover. It’s not a totem, it’s just a book. Hey, we think. You shouldn’t burn books.
Inevitably, people die in the riot/party that follows the Bible burning that follows the Koran burning.
One can’t help but think that they’re thinking about the Koran incorrectly.
There are a lot of really weird dynamics going on there. I’m pretty sure I don’t understand even half of them.
I suspect that when people are Muslims and say people shouldn’t burn Korans, they mean that people shouldn’t be allowed to burn Korans. I also suspect that when people are not Muslims and say people shouldn’t be allowed to burn Korans, they mean that people shouldn’t be allowed to burn other books that they value as well.
I also suspect that when people are not Muslims and say people shouldn’t be allowed to burn Korans, they mean that people shouldn’t be allowed to burn other books that they value as well.
See also: John Paul Stevens and Texas v. Johnson.
When I say that people shouldn’t burn Korans, I mean that it’s an asshole thing to do. Likewise, people who vandalize communion hosts are assholes too (and yes, Professor Myers, I do mean you.)
There is a gulf between “you shouldn’t X” and “you shouldn’t be allowed to X”.
The former? There are any number of values of X that I agree with for that. Hell, “you shouldn’t eat more than two strips of bacon with breakfast”. See? We all agree with that.
“You shouldn’t be allowed to eat more than two strips of bacon with breakfast” is a *COMPLETELY* different sentence. It’s one that I’d dedicate time and resources to fight against. Even though I agree with the proposition that you shouldn’t eat more than two strips of bacon with breakfast!
“you shouldn’t eat more than two strips of bacon with breakfast”.
That makes too much of the sandwich just pancake.
Anyway, since the question on the table is moral culpability, not legal guilt, “shouldn’t be allowed to” is a distraction.
Culpability when it comes to other folks being offended has a lot of arguments on both sides going for/against.
We can look at the arguments given on behalf of Ofili’s “Virgin Mary” or Serrano’s work in recent years… and compare/contrast to the arguments given on behalf of the Mohammed cartoons or Matt/Trey’s Family Guy episode.
There are a lot of really interesting dynamics going on.
As I recall, “moral culpability” has only entered the discussion recently.
How can you be held morally culpable for over 20 people being killed and keep the question of legal guilt off the table?
Jurisdiction, if nothing else.
So Terry Jones is innocent, then?
Has anyone advanced a legal theory upon which Jones could be held legally liable? As Mike said, jurisdiction is one problem. There’s also the problem of extending the Brandenburg doctrine to inciting violence anywhere in the universe.
…there was no intent to cause the rioting…
I’m not sure that statement is true. Jones’ avowed intent was to demonstrate how dangerous a segment of the Muslim population is. He provoked, and solicited, and got, a riot. That is a morally culpable act although not, as you rightly point out, a legally actionable one.
The clerics in Afghanistan who responded to Jones’ publicity stunt by playing into his hands and agitating their congregations to riot are even more morally culpable than Jones, and the people who actually allowed themselves to be so enraged over the burning of a book on the other side of the earth that they would destroy property and take human life in response are ultimately responsible for what they did.
To import a legal term into the moral world, I say the clerics who incited the riots (“clerics” here referring to both Afghan Muslim clerics and American Christian clerics whose actions precipitated the violence) are severally, although not jointly, liable.
I’ve no quarrel, however, with saying that Jones’ publicity stunt worked as horrifyingly well as it did precisely and solely because there really is a dangerous and awful pathology built in to the culture of the Muslim proletariat and even within the Muslim bourgeoisie, some of whose members graduate to become full-fledged terrorists instead of merely street rioters or suicide bombers. Jones dangled some red meat in front of them, and they reacted like animals instead of human beings to that. They could and should have chosen a different reaction.
I was too quick to claim there was no intent. I didn’t investigate Jones’s statements, so you could be right. I certainly have no interest in going to Jones’s defense.
Your distinction between joint and several liability is a useful one. But I still think that it’s too confusing for a mainstream narrative. In that narrative, I just think talking about Jones’s culpability will suggest to many that the solution is to minimize our culture that provokes radical Muslims, rather than reform the culture that creates radical Muslims in the first place.
laying blame on Terry Jones for the lawless riots and killing in Afghanistan suggests that the murderous mobs, to some degree, should be let off the hook.
No. It doesn’t.
You must have attended the argument clinic.
It’s next door to the unsupported assertion clinic.