Dr.king responds to the white clergymen's accusation,'your actions precipate violence' with a series of rhetorical questions.What questions does he ask?What point is dr.king making when he asks these questions?

From the text:

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion?

What Dr. King essentially argues is that people who see injustice and do nothing are more sinful than those who commit the injustice. This is an extension of what he has been arguing throughout the entire letter. Time and again, he has suggested that the clergymen (and his white audience by extension) have failed to truly consider the nature of black protestors, especially in contrast to other, more vicious forces. Here, he goes so far as to say that such ignorance is outright sin.