Hi.

When a fanatic, group of fanatics, obeying a recognized leader and such leader obeying a god's command, commit genocides, who is guilty ? The leader; the god; the executors of the crimes; or all of them ?

Who , if anyone, should not be charged / judged with the religious crime ? (As by following orders)

 

In the case of the military, same question, without god... The top chief, the field commander, the soldiers...

If they were obeying a god, why is it called a "religious crime"? Isn't the god the only one who could prosecute a religious crime?

 

If you're asking about secular prosecution of murders committed by people acting under the orders of a leader, even a god, I don't think it would matter at all that their deity told them to, unless there was no division between church and state and the authorities deemed the murders to be justified.

 

In the case of the military, at least in the US, soldiers have the right to refuse orders if they feel they are illegal. Culpability would be equally shared if they followed through with unsanctioned murder.

Thanks.

If it is supposed to be called another way, I do not know. But if a god somehow 'tells' his disciples/followers/leaders to kill a certain population, seems to me it is a religious crime.

 

Would that god be guilty ? Would the fanatics taking blood on their hands be guilty ? Not in front of secular law, but on ethics, as to judge. From the point of view of fanatics, killing may be very well justified/'legal' ; from the point of view of victims, well, the opposite.

 

Fanatics may behave differently as to recognize what may be legal or not. Would that make them equally guilty or not guilty ? Would that lack of recognition/awareness change opinions/concepts about judging their behavior ?