Questions to which the answer has to be 'No', unless you are a Guardian reader

The Guardian ask:

'Ten UN staff have been killed in a violent protest in Afghanistan against the burning of a copy of the Qur'an by a Christian fundamentalist pastor in Florida last week. Do you consider him morally responsible for these deaths?

Is the Florida pastor who burnt the Qur'an morally responsible for the deaths of UN staff in protests in Afghanistan?'

Weirdly some Guardian readers think Pastor Terry Jones is morally responsible, as though the Muslims who murdered the then UN staff have no free will or responsibility for their actions.

The final result is that 44.7% voted that 'Yes, it is a provocative blasphemy against others' beliefs and 55.3% voted that 'No, it should be considered a legitimate free speech act'. Yes 44.7% of the Guardian readers who voted thought that the Islamists who murdered UN staff do not bear responsibility for their own actions; is that not worrying?< Here are the comments of some of the people who voted Yes:

'danjmccoy

1 April 2011 6:07PM

and tonight he will sleep like a baby because he will not understand or care that he and the other "preacher" have killed these people. Done in the name of Christ or was it simple a cheap shot at publicity? The least we could do is put them on trial...but we wont because America seems to now feel it is ok to shout fire in a loaded theater....land of free speech no matter the damage done.


VirgilHilts

1 April 2011 7:25PM

Given that a clear line can be drawn connecting the burning of the Koran to the reprisals against the UN workers, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Pastor bears some responsibility.

That the Afghanis bear the ultimate responsibility is also a reasonable conclusion.

I would add, however, that in this case it seems that extreme provocation has produced an entirely foreseeable outcome. Knowing what we do about how some Muslim extremists react to this sort of thing, burning a copy of the Kuran was a ridiculously irresponsible, borderline criminal, action.'

Thankfully not all Guardian readers are that stupid:

'alamodefender

1 April 2011 6:17PM

blame the nut in florida,blame the cartoonist,blame the woman who was raped.it all makes perfect sense doesn't it?


lexhamfox

1 April 2011 7:09PM

You have to be careful when assigning 'moral' culpability for a non violent act which leads to violence. You can't excuse killing people just because you are deeply offended.

We've been through all this with the Mohammed cartoons. The arguments are the same.


Johnkimble1

1 April 2011 7:24PM

Using this logic where critics of Islam are held responsible for the actions of extremists then does this mean Theo van Gogh was actually responsible for his own murder?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3974179.stm

I guess in the Guardian world we should change the cause of death in his case to be that of suicide?