9 ms·

A skeptic faces possible charges for debunking Mumbai’s miracle statue

57 points by suprgeek 14y ago

ars 14y ago
According to http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4216637 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4216637 this article is quite misleading. Also see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4216363 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4216363 for a parallel discussion of this.
- doetoe 14y ago
  I have the impression it is the hackernews post you link to that is misleading. Whatever the post-hoc statements of the bishop or hacker news posters, according to all information I can find, the complaint is based on article 295a, a blasphemy law: http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/indianpenalcode/S295a.htm http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/indianpenalcode/S295a.htm
ktizo 14y ago
Here's the website of his organisation for anyone interested - http://www.rationalistinternational.net/ http://www.rationalistinternational.net/
J3L2404 14y ago
"hurting religious feelings" is an arrestable offense. Ouch. I think the western nations often underestimate their own freedoms.
- srean 14y ago
  Depends. Try denying the holocaust.
  - almost 14y ago
    You think that pointing out that "holy water" is in fact sewage from a blocked drain is the same thing as claiming that the systematic murder of 6 million people never happened?
    - srean 14y ago
      You are arguing about a false equivalence. I was responding to the claim about the western "freedom" to offend.
    - J3L2404 14y ago
      What thesis one purports is inconsequential to the freedom of ideas. It stands on its merit or it doesn't. No need for bureaucratic intervention. Down with the idea police.
    - gouranga 14y ago
      Let's clear something up here. We will never know the truth. Evidence was burned, paperwork destroyed, the 'responsible' people were trialled in private and executed, propaganda was all over the place, facts are omitted for political gain and people needed to save face. The official story needed to be promoted. The people who deny the holocaust do not deny, but question whether or not the official story is 100% accurate or not. However to have any political force disallow questioning the official story is not an acceptable situation. It undermines free speech and it purveys an unacceptable duality of reality and fiction. Wars are always recorded in the eyes of the victors and are closed from future investigation (a bad situation).
      - urbanjunkie 14y ago
        There's a mountain of evidence that supports the fact that millions of Jewish people were killed in concentration camps. Are you seriously claiming that the biggest issue that holocaust deniers have is that the "official" version isn't "100% accurate".
        gouranga 14y ago
        Not quite - that's what your history teacher taught you. There's evidence that an undetermined but quite large number of people sadly died in concentration camps during the second world war. The number, race and cause of death was not entirely determined and is not possible to determine any more. That's all the facts on the table - there are no more concrete facts at all believe it or not (find me a citation which is credible to prove otherwise!). This is extrapolated into millions of Jewish people were killed in concentration camps which is the "official story" by the victors. The story came before evidence and evidence was destroyed before the story could be verified. The main issue is that historical revisionism is used to piece together events so we can learn about the past. When the label and respective charge of "holocaust denial" is placed one something, it is a closed subject where revisionism is no longer allowed. It's an enforced dark age. It should always be open for discussion and research. Perhaps one day some clarity will be found? Perhaps more can be brought to justice, perhaps more names could be cleared. It's not closed, so don't close it is what I'm saying.
  - J3L2404 14y ago
    Or sending a racist tweet from the pub after a match. When does he get out? Maybe Europe needs a constitution.
  - VMG 14y ago
    Still, most people would rather live with that restriction than move to Iran where you can have a congress about that but get executed for blasphemy. The OPs point stands, people in the west are vastly more free in their expression than in most other countries.
- gouranga 14y ago
  Hm, not quite. At least in the UK, we've got: Race Relations Act 1976 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 Also a load of stuff inherited from the EU which is very restrictive. Unfortunately for us, the intent of the laws was good but when you take a look at how the laws are applied, they are usually used via interpretation to silence and detain people with an opinion, be it valid or not. It's free speech for all (including the bad stuff), or no speech at all. The latter is all too common.
srean 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enemy_of_the_People http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enemy_of_the_People playing out. The play was adapted into a movie by Satyajit Ray (not one of his best, but it was after his debilitating stroke). In the movie the situation is the same except its hindu holy water. I hope it works out better in reality than in the movie.
extension 14y ago
According to his website, the police came to arrest him a few days ago, and if he hadn't been out at the time, he would be in jail now. So, this has gone beyond "possible charges". The church is dead serious about charging this man with the crime of letting them know that they were drinking sewage.
guard-of-terra 14y ago
And christians all over the world sit on their asses and not saying anything against arresting people for that bullshit. I guess a sizable portion of these are actually happy about the incident. I just never see them standing up and saying: I am against this as a christian, this is not what the Christ died for. Thus I consider all christians to have their small part in being morally responsible for that crap around the world (see also Pussy Riot scandal in Russia where I am from)
- rorrr 14y ago
  Of course they are quiet. Religious moderates always quietly support the extrimists.
- paulgb 14y ago
  I've wondered about this before, and I think that sharing beliefs with someone who commits evil results in moral ressponsibility only to the extent that a. your beliefs are wrong, and b. that your beliefs influence or enable their behaviour. A. is pretty obvious; if I believe that the sky is blue and someone who also believes the sky is blue commits murder, I have no responsibility for merely sharing a true belief. B. I think is sometimes underestimated. Even if you're not hurting anyone yourself, you could be legitimizing a belief that harms others. I think there is moral responsibility in this case, although I'm not sure I could argue it convincingly. A good example is how Catholics legitimize witholding contraception in Africa, even if they're not the ones witholding the contraception themselves. The issue in practice is A. If you believe that something is true, you don't feel the need to take responsablity for the actions of others who believe it. So nobody believes that they are morally responsable for their beliefs, tautologically.
  - guard-of-terra 14y ago
    But if you believe something is true, you have to stand up when other people with similar beliefs do horrible things. If you don't, I feel free to assume you do quietly support doing horrible things.
    - 14y ago
rorrr 14y ago
> "deliberately hurting religious feelings and attempting malicious acts intended to outrage the religious sentiments of any class or community.” What a bogus fucking law. Pretty much anything can fall under that. Christianity itself hurts my feelings.
- nivla 14y ago
  You do understand that you are talking about a law in a country where religious riots are pretty common? It is similar to how race-hate or sexism is viewed in the U.S. It better to have laws that disallows picking on people's sensitive sides and causing a blowout than ignoring it. You could do a simple risk-benefit analysis and come to the same conclusion.
  - bobsil1 14y ago
    They're not riots, they're political parties outsourcing murder for votes.
    - gingerjoos 14y ago
      It is simplistic to assume that it's all the political parties' fault. They can take advantage of these things only if the people let them. They are able to exploit deep seated feelings and insecurities because those exist.
  - rorrr 14y ago
    Ok, define "hurting religious feelings", and we'll talk. Keep in mind that anybody can invent any religion at any point.
    - nivla 14y ago
      Let me throw a similar question at you, define "race hate" or "sexism". Does making a joke about generalized views on race or sex contribute to "race hate" or "sexism"? If not where do we draw the line? When someone makes a remark about their own race or sex, why aren't we up in arms about it but if someone else does it, why do end up in a riot. See its not that easy to define things that are driven by complex emotions. >Keep in mind that anybody can invent any religion at any point. You are absolutely right. Religion in it simplistic form is simply a belief that a group of people share and unite under. Within that definition, even atheism is a religion, although an Oxymoron.
jawns 14y ago
I'm not sure why this man's investigation is being treated the way he says it is. Catholicism is not only open to having purported miracles investigated; it's, in fact, a requirement. Every year, many such investigations are conducted, and the vast majority find that nothing miraculous has occurred. The Church is fine with that; it's just as happy to weed out "imposters" as anyone else. For instance, here's a story about a U.S. archdiocese declaring a "bleeding" consecrated host to be nonmiraculous: http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/135600233.html http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/135600233.html And here's the quote that sums up the Church's position: "While the Catholic Church fully recognizes the possibility of miracles and remains open to their possibility, it does so with extreme scrutiny, investigation and care. This incident was the result of natural biological causes and should not be considered in any other way." So I'm surprised that some in the the Catholic community in Mumbai are resistant to this finding.
- jawns 14y ago
  Ah, just as I suspected, there's more to this story than the Slate article suggests, and it makes the Catholic community's response a bit more understandable: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4216637 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4216637 tl;dr: The Catholics aren't mad because he revealed a natural explanation for the dripping cross; they're mad because he alleged, apparently without offering any evidence, that it was all a scam set up by priests to bilk people out of their money.
  - billpg 14y ago
    Maybe he just had faith it was all a scam.
  - lotharbot 14y ago
    He had facts which supported his assertion that the water was mundane rather than miraculous; he used those facts as an excuse to accuse priests of being scammers, and all religious people of being gullible, regressive, and irrational. If he had stopped with a mere debunking, he'd be the "good guy" here. But he followed it up with defamation and attempts at provocation, which makes him something more akin to a troll. I have noticed this sort of behavior elsewhere: someone will make a series of statements, including some that are provocative and defamatory (accusing others of major character flaws, criminal activity, etc.) and then, when faced with backlash, will act as though they're being silenced or criticized over the most factual, least controversial part of their statement. IMO it's important, even for those who support their overall point, to call out this sort of behavior because it does not promote rational discourse.
sixQuarks 14y ago
This guy is smooth. He's threatening "to shed some light on the role that the Catholic Church played and is still playing today here in India" This is a brilliant defense strategy against getting arrested.
anxrn 14y ago
Op-Ed in The Hindu discussion the issue: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article3391109.ece http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article3391109.ece

57 points by suprgeek 14y ago

ars 14y ago

According to http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4216637 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4216637 this article is quite misleading. Also see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4216363 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4216363 for a parallel discussion of this.

doetoe 14y ago
I have the impression it is the hackernews post you link to that is misleading. Whatever the post-hoc statements of the bishop or hacker news posters, according to all information I can find, the complaint is based on article 295a, a blasphemy law: http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/indianpenalcode/S295a.htm http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/indianpenalcode/S295a.htm

ktizo 14y ago

Here's the website of his organisation for anyone interested - http://www.rationalistinternational.net/ http://www.rationalistinternational.net/

J3L2404 14y ago

"hurting religious feelings" is an arrestable offense. Ouch. I think the western nations often underestimate their own freedoms.

srean 14y ago
Depends. Try denying the holocaust.
- almost 14y ago
  You think that pointing out that "holy water" is in fact sewage from a blocked drain is the same thing as claiming that the systematic murder of 6 million people never happened?
  - srean 14y ago
    You are arguing about a false equivalence. I was responding to the claim about the western "freedom" to offend.
  - J3L2404 14y ago
    What thesis one purports is inconsequential to the freedom of ideas. It stands on its merit or it doesn't. No need for bureaucratic intervention. Down with the idea police.
  - gouranga 14y ago
    Let's clear something up here. We will never know the truth. Evidence was burned, paperwork destroyed, the 'responsible' people were trialled in private and executed, propaganda was all over the place, facts are omitted for political gain and people needed to save face. The official story needed to be promoted. The people who deny the holocaust do not deny, but question whether or not the official story is 100% accurate or not. However to have any political force disallow questioning the official story is not an acceptable situation. It undermines free speech and it purveys an unacceptable duality of reality and fiction. Wars are always recorded in the eyes of the victors and are closed from future investigation (a bad situation).
    - urbanjunkie 14y ago
      There's a mountain of evidence that supports the fact that millions of Jewish people were killed in concentration camps. Are you seriously claiming that the biggest issue that holocaust deniers have is that the "official" version isn't "100% accurate".
      - gouranga 14y ago
        Not quite - that's what your history teacher taught you. There's evidence that an undetermined but quite large number of people sadly died in concentration camps during the second world war. The number, race and cause of death was not entirely determined and is not possible to determine any more. That's all the facts on the table - there are no more concrete facts at all believe it or not (find me a citation which is credible to prove otherwise!). This is extrapolated into millions of Jewish people were killed in concentration camps which is the "official story" by the victors. The story came before evidence and evidence was destroyed before the story could be verified. The main issue is that historical revisionism is used to piece together events so we can learn about the past. When the label and respective charge of "holocaust denial" is placed one something, it is a closed subject where revisionism is no longer allowed. It's an enforced dark age. It should always be open for discussion and research. Perhaps one day some clarity will be found? Perhaps more can be brought to justice, perhaps more names could be cleared. It's not closed, so don't close it is what I'm saying.
- J3L2404 14y ago
  Or sending a racist tweet from the pub after a match. When does he get out? Maybe Europe needs a constitution.
- VMG 14y ago
  Still, most people would rather live with that restriction than move to Iran where you can have a congress about that but get executed for blasphemy. The OPs point stands, people in the west are vastly more free in their expression than in most other countries.
gouranga 14y ago
Hm, not quite. At least in the UK, we've got: Race Relations Act 1976 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 Also a load of stuff inherited from the EU which is very restrictive. Unfortunately for us, the intent of the laws was good but when you take a look at how the laws are applied, they are usually used via interpretation to silence and detain people with an opinion, be it valid or not. It's free speech for all (including the bad stuff), or no speech at all. The latter is all too common.

srean 14y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enemy_of_the_People http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enemy_of_the_People playing out. The play was adapted into a movie by Satyajit Ray (not one of his best, but it was after his debilitating stroke). In the movie the situation is the same except its hindu holy water. I hope it works out better in reality than in the movie.

extension 14y ago

According to his website, the police came to arrest him a few days ago, and if he hadn't been out at the time, he would be in jail now. So, this has gone beyond "possible charges". The church is dead serious about charging this man with the crime of letting them know that they were drinking sewage.

guard-of-terra 14y ago

And christians all over the world sit on their asses and not saying anything against arresting people for that bullshit. I guess a sizable portion of these are actually happy about the incident. I just never see them standing up and saying: I am against this as a christian, this is not what the Christ died for. Thus I consider all christians to have their small part in being morally responsible for that crap around the world (see also Pussy Riot scandal in Russia where I am from)

rorrr 14y ago
Of course they are quiet. Religious moderates always quietly support the extrimists.
paulgb 14y ago
I've wondered about this before, and I think that sharing beliefs with someone who commits evil results in moral ressponsibility only to the extent that a. your beliefs are wrong, and b. that your beliefs influence or enable their behaviour. A. is pretty obvious; if I believe that the sky is blue and someone who also believes the sky is blue commits murder, I have no responsibility for merely sharing a true belief. B. I think is sometimes underestimated. Even if you're not hurting anyone yourself, you could be legitimizing a belief that harms others. I think there is moral responsibility in this case, although I'm not sure I could argue it convincingly. A good example is how Catholics legitimize witholding contraception in Africa, even if they're not the ones witholding the contraception themselves. The issue in practice is A. If you believe that something is true, you don't feel the need to take responsablity for the actions of others who believe it. So nobody believes that they are morally responsable for their beliefs, tautologically.
- guard-of-terra 14y ago
  But if you believe something is true, you have to stand up when other people with similar beliefs do horrible things. If you don't, I feel free to assume you do quietly support doing horrible things.
  - 14y ago

rorrr 14y ago

> "deliberately hurting religious feelings and attempting malicious acts intended to outrage the religious sentiments of any class or community.” What a bogus fucking law. Pretty much anything can fall under that. Christianity itself hurts my feelings.

nivla 14y ago
You do understand that you are talking about a law in a country where religious riots are pretty common? It is similar to how race-hate or sexism is viewed in the U.S. It better to have laws that disallows picking on people's sensitive sides and causing a blowout than ignoring it. You could do a simple risk-benefit analysis and come to the same conclusion.
- bobsil1 14y ago
  They're not riots, they're political parties outsourcing murder for votes.
  - gingerjoos 14y ago
    It is simplistic to assume that it's all the political parties' fault. They can take advantage of these things only if the people let them. They are able to exploit deep seated feelings and insecurities because those exist.
- rorrr 14y ago
  Ok, define "hurting religious feelings", and we'll talk. Keep in mind that anybody can invent any religion at any point.
  - nivla 14y ago
    Let me throw a similar question at you, define "race hate" or "sexism". Does making a joke about generalized views on race or sex contribute to "race hate" or "sexism"? If not where do we draw the line? When someone makes a remark about their own race or sex, why aren't we up in arms about it but if someone else does it, why do end up in a riot. See its not that easy to define things that are driven by complex emotions. >Keep in mind that anybody can invent any religion at any point. You are absolutely right. Religion in it simplistic form is simply a belief that a group of people share and unite under. Within that definition, even atheism is a religion, although an Oxymoron.

jawns 14y ago

I'm not sure why this man's investigation is being treated the way he says it is. Catholicism is not only open to having purported miracles investigated; it's, in fact, a requirement. Every year, many such investigations are conducted, and the vast majority find that nothing miraculous has occurred. The Church is fine with that; it's just as happy to weed out "imposters" as anyone else. For instance, here's a story about a U.S. archdiocese declaring a "bleeding" consecrated host to be nonmiraculous: http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/135600233.html http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/135600233.html And here's the quote that sums up the Church's position: "While the Catholic Church fully recognizes the possibility of miracles and remains open to their possibility, it does so with extreme scrutiny, investigation and care. This incident was the result of natural biological causes and should not be considered in any other way." So I'm surprised that some in the the Catholic community in Mumbai are resistant to this finding.

jawns 14y ago
Ah, just as I suspected, there's more to this story than the Slate article suggests, and it makes the Catholic community's response a bit more understandable: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4216637 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4216637 tl;dr: The Catholics aren't mad because he revealed a natural explanation for the dripping cross; they're mad because he alleged, apparently without offering any evidence, that it was all a scam set up by priests to bilk people out of their money.
- billpg 14y ago
  Maybe he just had faith it was all a scam.
- lotharbot 14y ago
  He had facts which supported his assertion that the water was mundane rather than miraculous; he used those facts as an excuse to accuse priests of being scammers, and all religious people of being gullible, regressive, and irrational. If he had stopped with a mere debunking, he'd be the "good guy" here. But he followed it up with defamation and attempts at provocation, which makes him something more akin to a troll. I have noticed this sort of behavior elsewhere: someone will make a series of statements, including some that are provocative and defamatory (accusing others of major character flaws, criminal activity, etc.) and then, when faced with backlash, will act as though they're being silenced or criticized over the most factual, least controversial part of their statement. IMO it's important, even for those who support their overall point, to call out this sort of behavior because it does not promote rational discourse.

sixQuarks 14y ago

This guy is smooth. He's threatening "to shed some light on the role that the Catholic Church played and is still playing today here in India" This is a brilliant defense strategy against getting arrested.

anxrn 14y ago

Op-Ed in The Hindu discussion the issue: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article3391109.ece http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article3391109.ece