Ruminating on the controversy in Britain over the propriety of the Muslim niqab, along with earlier controversies over the Pope’s speech at Regensburg University and Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet, raises the question as to whether it is true (as some have said) that every major religion incorporates some form of the Golden Rule. Perhaps those with more theological training can offer some insight on the matter.

But the reactions in parts of the Islamic world to the Pope’s speech (everything from calling it “insensitive” to “We shall break the cross and spill the wine. . . . God will [help] Muslims to conquer Rome. . . . God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen") stands in contrast to the widespread indifference in the Islamic street over the trial of Abdul Raman—the Afghan who faced execution for converting to Christianity (before Afghanistan’s supreme court dodged the question by citing evidentiary problems).

As an excellent essay in U.S. News earlier this year noted:

Although only a few states—Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and, possibly, Afghanistan—endorse capital punishment for apostasy, many other Muslim nations, including Jordan and Egypt, have subjected apostates to lesser punishments that include imprisonment and exile, according to Georgetown University historian Yvonne Haddad. Even Muslim nations that officially embrace religious tolerance, like Pakistan, often turn a blind eye to widespread and unofficial persecution of apostates., a crude village justice carried out by supporters of a narrow construction of sharia.

All of which leads windingly to the need for a corollary to the Golden Rule. With typical modesty, let’s call it Hinkle’s Law. A first draft goes something like this: A party to a dispute is not allowed to invoke principles he or she does not embrace.

For example, if you think it is fine to murder a person because he adheres to a different faith, you cannot insist that others extend to you any kind of religious tolerance.

Hinkle’s Law could come in handy in all kinds of situations. In the Virginia senatorial contest, for instance, it would prohibit backers of George Allen who do not support the presence of women in combat from criticizing Jim Webb’s failure three decades ago to support the presence of women in combat.

Whaddayathink?

Pointing out hypocrites is always a good idea, Mr. Hinkle.

And since you were the first one to codify it, you should definitely get the right to name it as you see fit.  Hinkle’s Law it is.

Bill, I think there’s a fine distinction to be made between Hinkle’s Law and plain old hypocrisy. (Maybe too fine!) It’s hypocritical for me to disregard my OWN principles (e.g., it is hypocritical for me to condemn spitting in public as wrongful, and then spit in public). But Hinkle’s law addresses the invoking of principles that are NOT my own.

let’s say I do NOT think spitting in public is wrongful. Let’s say I think spitting in public is an unalloyed good, because it wards off evil spirits. (Wild hypotheticals are great fun, aren’t they?) But let’s say my neighbor Preacher Joe thinks spitting in public IS wrong.

If I see Preacher Joe spit in public, then under Hinkle’s Law I can point out that Preacher Joe’s words and his actions don’t match up. I can call him a hypocrite. What I CAN’T do is demand that society punish Preacher Joe for spitting, since I don’t embrace the principle that spitting in public is wrongful. If I DO demand that society punish Preacher Joe, then I am invoking a principle I do not embrace, and thereby breaking Hinkle’s Law.

Hmm… I think it’s generally referred to as “hypocrisy” (around my house, and as practiced by my wife, I use the term “double standard”, but let’s not go there, shall we? (and I will deny to the death that I wrote this)).  But we’ll allow you to define it and label it Hinkle’s Law.

Common sense at work! Isn’t it beautiful? Don’t expect a large following untill after 2008. It makes too much sense for politicians to grasp. Please give us your opinion on the bill signed into law by President Bush regarding legal treatment of suspected terrorists and the suspension of Habeas Corpus. It’s ramifications for the average citizen, innocently caught up in a Home Land Security or FBI dragnet?

Post Your Comments: