The Koran 'Abuse' Hypocisy (aka Hypocrisy Most Holy)

My cousin sent me an email containing an op ed published in the Wall Street Journal. The op ed was written by a reformer in the Saudi Institute. The article is available at: http://209.197.233.93/content/view/270//

This is the beginning of the article:

-------------------------------

Wall Street Journal - Hypocrisy Most Holy

Friday, 20 May 2005 by Ali Al-Ahmed Director of The Saudi Institute With the revelation that a copy of the Quran may have been desecrated by U.S. military personnel at Guantanamo Bay, Muslims and their governments -- including that of Saudi Arabia -- reacted angrily. This anger would have been understandable if the U.S. government's adopted policy was to desecrate our Quran. But even before the Newsweek report was discredited, that was never part of the allegations. As a Muslim, I am able to purchase copies of the Quran in any bookstore in any American city, and study its contents in countless American universities. American museums spend millions to exhibit and celebrate Muslim arts and heritage. On the other hand, my Christian and other non-Muslim brothers and sisters in Saudi Arabia -- where I come from -- are not even allowed to own a copy of their holy books. Indeed, the Saudi government desecrates and burns Bibles that its security forces confiscate at immigration points into the kingdom or during raids on Christian expatriates worshiping privately....

-----------------------------------------------
It turns out that the Saudis also confiscate Korans from pilgrims during the annual event if the Korans have illustrations, if the printing is too fancy, etc. They then burn these Korans. Also many Korans have been damaged in Muslim suicide bomb attacks on other Muslims at mosques. Also Saddam Hussein once had a Koran written in blood - a singularly blasphemous act that was completely overlooked in the Islamic world.

The article never actually says what the hypocrisy is. The hypocrisy could be: Saying that Korans are holy but not thinking that but I suspect the people making the charge actually don't know that the Saudis confiscate Korans. They may also not get the news about the Muslim on Muslim violence. If this is so, there is no hypocrisy. However, the leaders of the rioters probably do realize something close to the actual situation.

The hypocrisy could be however, saying that all bibles and korans are both holy but not meaning it in the case of bibles. However, that's not what the charge is.

I think the core belief of the people rioting and demanding punishment for the abusers of a single Koran at Gitmo are actually saying, "Infidels should be oppressed." and they mean exactly that.

The hypocrisy here is that the media don't reach the obvious conclusion when they are probably thinking exactly that. I'd rate this at least a level 4 hypocrisy because if it goes on long enough it does damage the chance of civilization reacting intelligently to the threat of Islamic terrorism.

Hypocrisy on Federal Judges

Both Democrats and Republicans agree on something. They agree the other side are hypocrites on the issue of filibustering Presidential appointees to federal courts. However, just because they both agree does not mean they are right.

First of all, the Democrats are using a somewhat different 'filibuster' technique now than the Republicans used in the Clinton Administration. This is basically because other legislative rules were changed to make it harder to block appointments in subcommittees.

Second, this filibustering is currently limited to Federal Judgeships.

Third, even if Senator X was against filibustering in year Y and for filibustering in year Y+ 12 it doesn't necessarily mean that Senator X is a hypocrite if Senator X has genuinely changed his mind. Furthermore a lot of Democratic and Republican Senators were not Senators 12 years ago.

So lets look at a single case, Senator Robert Byrd. He was for the filibuster back in the mid 60s when it was to oppose the 1964 Civil Right Bill (he has been a Senator since 1958). He was against the filibuster in the 1993-1994 Congress when the Democrats were the majority in the Senate. He now supports the filibuster and made a somewhat famous speech comparing opponents of the filibuster to Hitler's supporters.

Now, given that Senator Byrd is known to be an expert on Senate procedures and Senate history and given that he has not stated why he changed his mind and he has not said 'well the filibuster was bad back in the 90s because nominees could be blocked in subcommittee but now that they can't filibustering is good', we are forced to admit that there is a strong likelihood that at sometime in his career he must have been saying something he didn't believe. The question is whether that time is in the 60s and now or was that time in the 90s. Now what kind of hypocrisy is it. I don't think it is more than a type 3 minimal damage hypocrisy.

This is because the public, or at least most of the public, expects politicians to act on the greater principle that 'my values must win' and that lesser principles (e.g., filibustering is bad, filibustering is good), simply must be sacrificed for the greater principle.

Fishing for Hypocrisy

Here is a letter to the editor in today's newspaper

it is on line at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/06/AR2005050601223.html?sub=AR

Fishing for Hypocrisy

Saturday, May 7, 2005; Page A15

Angus Phillips ["Floridians' Philosophy Is Live and Let Live," Sports, May 1] lambasted everyone and anyone who would ever catch and keep ("kill" in his terms) a spawning rockfish during the spring trophy season. He says, "When big rockfish come into the Chesapeake Bay from the sea to spawn in April, the last thing I want to do is kill them."

Well, that's odd, given the fact that one year ago, Phillips wrote an article for the Sports section [May 2, 2004] in which he describes in great detail his incredible Chesapeake Bay fishing adventure; he and his 66 cohorts caught, kept and "killed" a total of 67 large, spawning rockfish during the spring trophy season of April 2004. He not only describes the excitement of this activity, he actively promotes it, writing, "If ever there was a time to try for a big rockfish in the Bay, this seems like it." He then lists the available charter operators who will take people out to do so.

I have no problem with people changing their minds and deciding to make different choices for themselves. But Phillips's diatribe, in which he demonized everyone who participates in such activity without mentioning that he has participated in and promoted such activity, is hypocritical.

-- Larry Freed

Annapolis

Actually if the columnist simply changed his mind, he is not guilty of hypocrisy. However, he is guilty of not fully disclosing his earlier opinions that were 180 degrees from his current opinion which is pretty serious for a opinion journalist.