How much responsibility should a leader have over the actions of his followers?

[random]

Let's say there is a leader. He can be a spiritual leader, a political
leader or even a famous blogger or user in a forum.
That leader is basically moral and often talks about what he thinks as
right and wrong.

In one or more of his sermons/debates/articles, he talks about a
specific group which he doesn't like which he consider as immoral, and
I mean REALLY doesn't like. While he himself never encouraged illegal
or immoral actions, he often talks about that other group in either
ridicule or disgust.
Some of his followers take another step and actually do something that
is either immoral, illegal or both. It doesn't have to be physical
violence, it can even be minor harassments, as long as it is clear
that this isn't what the leader intended.

Now for the questions:

1) How much responsibility does he share for these actions, if it is
clear he didn't want the actions, but also just as clear that people
were encouraged to do that by his speeches?
(I'm not talking about legal or blame, I'm talking about morality -
right and wrong)

2) What can the leader do to prevent it, and what does he morally
obligated to do?

[4praise]

Excellent question - obviously very hard to answer.

1. I don't know. I think it probably has to be looked at on a case by
case basis.

2. A leader can mitigate this risk by spending more time doing things
and less time talking/writing. Speaking and writing is more likely to
create the scenario that you describe than "mentoring" would. Not
that a leader should never speak or write, but a lot of teaching by
example means that the "students" see what the teacher does and are
less likely to do something contrary to what the he/she would do,
soley based on words.

[random]

On Jul 17, 10:17 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> Excellent question - obviously very hard to answer.
>
> 1. I don't know. I think it probably has to be looked at on a case by
> case basis.

I'm tried to avoid looking on specific cases, since someone's opinion
on that group or leader might cloud the judgment when he tries to
answer.

So let's look at it another way: What kind of things makes the leader
more or less responsible?
Just as a reminder, I'm not talking about legal responsibility.

>
> 2. A leader can mitigate this risk by spending more time doing things
> and less time talking/writing. Speaking and writing is more likely to
> create the scenario that you describe than "mentoring" would. Not
> that a leader should never speak or write, but a lot of teaching by
> example means that the "students" see what the teacher does and are
> less likely to do something contrary to what the he/she would do,
> soley based on words.
>

In most cases, when it comes to many followers, the only connection
they have to the leader is by what they hear and read from him.
Besides, in this case it isn't the things he does, but the things he
doesn't do. The followers in my example decided to do something
despite the fact that the leader never did it before.

[thea]

brainwashing comes to mind when reading this thread!  how brainwashed are we by someone who wants us to promote their agenda.

I have been reading about activists that went to jail because they defied the law.  Most looked like young kids.  Remembering my psychology - *band wagon,* knowing that I cannot just jump on something that sounds good - it could get you in trouble.

So, how do you distinguish between something you'd be willing to *die for,*?

thea

[random]

On Jul 17, 6:25 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> brainwashing comes to mind when reading this thread! how brainwashed are we
> by someone who wants us to promote their agenda.

Actually, I specifically said that the actions by the individuals were
not planned or intended by the leader. So there is no brainwashing
here, at least not intentional.

> I have been reading about activists that went to jail because they defied
> the law. Most looked like young kids. Remembering my psychology - *band
> wagon,* knowing that I cannot just jump on something that sounds good - it
> could get you in trouble.

A good thing to remember when Theists sometimes mention the
willingness to die as a proof of being right.

> So, how do you distinguish between something you'd be willing to *die for,*?

I prefer thinking about it as things I will be wiling to fight for,
even in the risk of death.
Human rights and democracy come in mind as examples, but there can
also be others.

> thea

[4praise]

> So let's look at it another way: What kind of things makes the leader
> more or less responsible?

I think it's what I said before. If a leader is all talk then
followers are likely to act on the words in ways that they see fit.
But if the leader demonstrates by doing, then the followers should do
what the leader does/did.

If a leader demonstrates how to act, there is less ambiguity.

[Drafterman]

On Jul 17, 1:16 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > So let's look at it another way: What kind of things makes the leader
> > more or less responsible?
>
> I think it's what I said before.  If a leader is all talk then
> followers are likely to act on the words in ways that they see fit.
> But if the leader demonstrates by doing, then the followers should do
> what the leader does/did.

So when God destroys a city (Soddom/Gomorrah) then Christians should
do the same?

> > > > obligated to do?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[random]

On Jul 17, 8:16 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > So let's look at it another way: What kind of things makes the leader
> > more or less responsible?
>
> I think it's what I said before. If a leader is all talk then
> followers are likely to act on the words in ways that they see fit.
> But if the leader demonstrates by doing, then the followers should do
> what the leader does/did.
>
> If a leader demonstrates how to act, there is less ambiguity.
>

I already addressed the problematic part of that idea:

[4praise]

I think the question had to do with human leaders. People should not
presume to "play" God.

[random]

Here are some examples I can think of, they connect to both how the
leader should react and the responsibility he shares.
Feel free to comment or add more.

1) If the leader has knowledge or a strong suspicion that his
followers might include such people, he should confront them directly
(or give the information to the police, depends on the situation).

2) If something unexpected happens, and his followers do something he
is against, he must immediately go public with such a notice that this
is not what he wants. No "if", no "but", no "maybe", a clear message
without any silent winks.

3) The leader must be very careful with his words, and try to avoid
any ambiguities in his messages that can be interpreted as an
authorization to go against this group.

4) If the leader also has friendly relations or common goals with a
third group, who does promote or ignore these kinds of actions, he
must be very clear that despite the co-op, he does not share this
specific opinion.
In some extreme cases, it should even be done at the cost of losing
this friendship.

[4praise]

> In most cases, when it comes to many followers, the only connection
> they have to the leader is by what they hear and read from him.

That's not really a leader in book - a "leader" has a personal
connections the ones being led.

> Besides, in this case it isn't the things he does, but the things he
> doesn't do. The followers in my example decided to do something
> despite the fact that the leader never did it before.

In that case I don't see any way to think that the leader was
responsible. I'm not saying that people should never take initiative
and try new things - but if it turns out badly you can't blame someone
else.

[random]

On Jul 18, 1:25 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > In most cases, when it comes to many followers, the only connection
> > they have to the leader is by what they hear and read from him.
>
> That's not really a leader in book - a "leader" has a personal
> connections the ones being led.
>

Personal connection is not always possible, especially not with high
numbers.
How many people can a man personally know if he leads thousands or
more?
How much can you as a follower know the leader personally if you never
met him closer than public lectures?

> > Besides, in this case it isn't the things he does, but the things he
> > doesn't do. The followers in my example decided to do something
> > despite the fact that the leader never did it before.
>
> In that case I don't see any way to think that the leader was
> responsible. I'm not saying that people should never take initiative
> and try new things - but if it turns out badly you can't blame someone
> else.
>

Which is why I emphasized I'm not talking about blame or legal
responsibility.
I'm asking about moral responsibility. What can be done to prevent
such events, and what of these actions is the leader's moral
responsibility.

[4praise]

Even if you don't have the personal connection you can still observe
what a leader does and not just what they talk about - provided that
they do things rather than just talk.

I don't think I've come anywhere close answering your first question
but I am sticking with my answer to the second question which is to be
more demonstrative and less talkative.

[random]

On Jul 18, 8:09 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> Even if you don't have the personal connection you can still observe
> what a leader does and not just what they talk about - provided that
> they do things rather than just talk.
>

In most cases I can think of, the leader is a political enemy of the
said group, but does nothing to illegal or immoral to the individuals
in the group.

> I don't think I've come anywhere close answering your first question
> but I am sticking with my answer to the second question which is to be
> more demonstrative and less talkative.

So you can give some examples for yourself like I gave in another post
in this thread.
Give several points of what the leader should or shouldn't do as long
as it is within the general storyline.

[Drafterman]

On Jul 17, 4:42 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> I think the question had to do with human leaders.  People should not
> presume to "play" God.

Why the exemption for God?

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 4:49 AM, random <rando...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jul 18, 8:09 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> Even if you don't have the personal connection you can still observe
> what a leader does and not just what they talk about - provided that
> they do things rather than just talk.
>

In most cases I can think of, the leader is a political enemy of the
said group, but does nothing to illegal or immoral to the individuals
in the group.

> I don't think I've come anywhere close answering your first question
> but I am sticking with my answer to the second question which is to be
> more demonstrative and less talkative.

So you can give some examples for yourself like I gave in another post
in this thread.
Give several points of what the leader should or shouldn't do as long
as it is within the general storyline.

Random. 

In my opinion, it really depends on the specific situation.

Let's say for example, that a Leader talked about a social problem (keeping it general) and someone in his group agreed and decided to commit a violent act to draw attention to the social problem.

The Leader didn't advocate that and in fact advocated the opposite in other speeches, articles, etc. by actively advocating and/or organizing legitimate means of protest such as public demonstrations and petitions.

In this case, I don't think the leader would be responsible, since they wouldn't have been aware until after the fact. Once they were aware it would be incumbent on this leader to separate him/herself and their organization from the act as well as pass any relevant information on to the proper authorities where necessary. If possible, it would also be incumbent on the leader to talk to those who misinterpreted or used the leaders words to further their own agenda and clearly explain the position of the organization possibly  removing their membership (depending on the membership requirements of the organization).

 

The leader could only be responsible if he/she knew that bad acts were going to be committed by elements on the periphery or even suspected that something might be done, and then remained silent as this would amount to a complicity of sorts.

In any organization, there will be a percentage of people, who agree on the general position but will use that position to further another agenda, or who are extremist and take things to the nth degree when it comes to actions, or who wish to promote themselves in some way and draw attention to themselves, etc.

This can't be helped. 

Where a leader is aware of those elements, then the responsible thing to do is keep the communication lines open and try to be aware of how they are interpreting what is being said and actively work with them to deter them.

--
------------------------------------------------
Trance Gemini
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. --Voltaire

Which God Do You Kill For? --Unknown

Love is friendship on fire -- Unknown

[4praise]

> Why the exemption for God?

If you have children, you may punish one of them for some reason. But
you would not allow your children to punish each other. If your child
said "hey mom/dad, I just put Timmy in a time-out" you would say
"WHAT?"

[Drafterman]

On Jul 18, 3:35 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > Why the exemption for God?
>
> If you have children, you may punish one of them for some reason.  But
> you would not allow your children to punish each other.  If your child
> said "hey mom/dad, I just put Timmy in a time-out" you would say
> "WHAT?"

Got it. So since we are all gods children we are not allowed to
discipline each other. So you're an anarchist, then?

[random]

On Jul 18, 10:35 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > Why the exemption for God?
>
> If you have children, you may punish one of them for some reason. But
> you would not allow your children to punish each other. If your child
> said "hey mom/dad, I just put Timmy in a time-out" you would say
> "WHAT?"
>

Leaders have a moral responsibility over their followers, and
followers have moral responsibility to pick the right leader.

Drafterman didn't punish God, he evaluated his leadership according to
standards of leadership.
While indeed the thread was meant more for human leaders, I see no
special reason not to also include God in it. Especially if someone
claims he is a follower of the leader "God".

[random]

On Jul 18, 4:19 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree completely.
No one expects a leader to have complete control over his crowd, and
it is very likely that in some cases he will lose control of the more
extreme fringes.
He does not have complete responsibility over such events, but he has
a moral obligation to expect and prevent such events as much as he
can, and also to react in a certain way if such an event happens.

When it comes to preventing things before they happen, there are many
cases in which the leader speaks in a very emotional way against a
group, and then he is surprised that some of his followers took it one
step.
In most cases, the leader will not just act surprised, he will really
be surprised. The flaw comes from thinking that most followers share
his opinions and moral standards, and failing to see how his words
will effect some differently from others.
I think leaders should be very careful the way they express
themselves, especially when he talking against a specific group.

As for what the leader should do after such an event, I can't find
anything important to add beyond what you already wrote.

[Trance Gemini]

It's just too bad more Christians are responding to this one.

While 4Praise is responding he's kind of dodging the issue.

A shame ;-).

This is something everyone can learn something from.

[BlueSci]

On Jul 18, 12:35 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > Why the exemption for God?
>
> If you have children, you may punish one of them for some reason.  But
> you would not allow your children to punish each other.  If your child
> said "hey mom/dad, I just put Timmy in a time-out" you would say
> "WHAT?"

Christians often use the parent.child analogy, but I can't see why it
appeals to them so much. Personally, I'm offended that I should be
treated like an errant child. I wouldn't accept it from my own
parents, so why should I accept if from God?

[4praise]

> Got it. So since we are all gods children we are not allowed to
> discipline each other. So you're an anarchist, then?

Why would it be anarchy? Did the parent leave?

[Drafterman]

On Jul 19, 2:45 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > Got it. So since we are all gods children we are not allowed to
> > discipline each other. So you're an anarchist, then?
>
> Why would it be anarchy? Did the parent leave?

It would be anarchy because you are saying we are not allow to govern
ourselves. You are calling for the disestablishment of all man made
governments. That is anarchy.

[4praise]

Children can hold each other accountable and there can even be a
hierarchy amongst children. If temporarily given explicit authority a
child can even act in the parents stead. But a child should not
presume to have that authority.

So to get back to your question about raining down fire and brimstone
per God's example... It would be permissible to do so if given the
authority by God. I just said that people shouldn't "play" God
(decide to do something like that on their own). The "just war"
theory is an attempt to define this in a measurable way - a set of
criteria to determine if man has God's authority to rain fire and
brimstone on other men. I'm generally pacifist leaning, but I do
think there have been and will probably continue to be just wars on
the earth.

[thea]

Talking about *fire and brimstone*.  Maybe the story of Lot in Genesis is to let us know that One man believed God, Abraham, and he was the only man to know that destruction was coming and the only man who did something about it.

thea

[Drafterman]

On Jul 19, 11:36 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> Children can hold each other accountable and there can even be a
> hierarchy amongst children. If temporarily given explicit authority a
> child can even act in the parents stead. But a child should not
> presume to have that authority.

Ah, I get it. You are not an anarchist, you are a monarchist. The only
people fit to rule are those who God has ordained.

>
> So to get back to your question about raining down fire and brimstone
> per God's example... It would be permissible to do so if given the
> authority by God.

Ok, and how would we verify that such a person obtained that
permission?

[4praise]

> Ah, I get it. You are not an anarchist, you are a monarchist.

How did you come to that conclusion? A monarchy is a nation ruled by
one person.

> The only people fit to rule are those who God has ordained.

That would be my preference.

In Romans 13 Paul said that ALL government authorities ARE ordained by
God. Ironically, the Roman government eventually beheaded him.
Twisted isn't it?

[Drafterman]

On Jul 19, 12:14 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > Ah, I get it. You are not an anarchist, you are a monarchist.
>
> How did you come to that conclusion?  A monarchy is a nation ruled by
> one person.

As ordained by God. All other forms of government are done without
God's consent, which is against your philosophy. We (God's children)
are not allowed to rule each other without God's explicit permission,
according to your analog. The only form of government that has God's
permission is a monarchy (or other form of theocracy).

>
> > The only people fit to rule are those who God has ordained.
>
> That would be my preference.
>
> In Romans 13 Paul said that ALL government authorities ARE ordained by
> God.  Ironically, the Roman government eventually beheaded him.
> Twisted isn't it?

Romans 13 talks about authorities that exist. What about new
authorities that have come into existence since then? Also, why would
God ordain the destruction of authorities he ordained to exist in the
first place (such as ordering the invasion of cities that happen to
exist in the promised land). Makes no sense.

[4praise]

> why would
> God ordain the destruction of authorities he ordained to exist in the
> first place

In everything there are "seasons". The shift of power can be the
result of the abuse of it, or it can just be part of God's plan.

The big problem (and I am sure that Paul must have known this) is that
sometimes bad people have the authority. So how could he say that all
authority was ordained by God? It seems like in the later verses he
narrows it down to authorities that reward good and punish evil. So
an evil authority such as Nero or Hitler would not qualify. I think
he was mainly talking about local authorities or police.

[Drafterman]

On Jul 20, 1:57 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > why would
> > God ordain the destruction of authorities he ordained to exist in the
> > first place
>
> In everything there are "seasons". The shift of power can be the
> result of the abuse of it, or it can just be part of God's plan.

That's a stupid plan. Building something up just to smash it down is
action of a child.

>
> The big problem (and I am sure that Paul must have known this) is that
> sometimes bad people have the authority. So how could he say that all
> authority was ordained by God? It seems like in the later verses he
> narrows it down to authorities that reward good and punish evil. So
> an evil authority such as Nero or Hitler would not qualify. I think
> he was mainly talking about local authorities or police.

It seems like Paul didn't know what the fuck he was talking about.