10 ms·

The Indian Miracle-Buster Stuck in Finland

188 points by anishkothari 12y ago

dharmach 12y ago
He was active in Indian Rationalist Association since long time and in 1990s he visited many villages exposing miracles. Only when he exposed Catholic miracle he got in trouble. It shows how much Catholic money and muscle power is capable in a country where Christian population is 2.3%.
manishsharan 12y ago
I wish they had posted a link to where I could send this gentleman some money. This world , India particularly, needs more people fighting religious superstition.
- enscr 12y ago
  You can get in touch with him here : https://twitter.com/SanalEdamaruku https://twitter.com/SanalEdamaruku Kudos to the gentleman for his relentless struggle against superstition.
guard-of-terra 12y ago
"But the furore has not died down - the Catholic Secular Forum (CSF), one of the groups that made the initial complaint, still insists it will press for prosecution should he ever return." I think that we should be petitioning Pope so he would tell this CFS to cease, desist and disassemble. He may issue Papal bull, for example. I don't remember catholics being eager on self-proclaimed wonders.
- jjoonathan 12y ago
  Don't they keep a big repository of saints that each require at least two miracles to be considered saints? EDIT: yes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization > To be canonized a saint, at least two miracles must have been performed through the saint's intercession after his or her death
- juliocc 12y ago
  Doesn't matter if they're Catholic, Hindu, Muslim or whatever. This is religious fanaticism at its best.
  - ginko 12y ago
    The difference with Catholicism being that it has one indisputable leader.
    - schoen 12y ago
      Mostly indisputable. :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope
      - ginko 12y ago
        Which lead to mutual excommunication(as these things usually go).
- pmorici 12y ago
  "I don't remember Catholics being eager on self-proclaimed wonders." Isn't seeing images of Jesus in toast and other silly stuff like that somewhat common? I feel like I see that kind of thing in the news in _America_ from time to time typically associated with Catholicism.
  - jvreeland 12y ago
    Very of those few are taken seriously by anyone. The Vatican is supposed to confirm miracles, and from what I remember it's not exactly an efficient or easy process. In this case I sincerely doubt they'd call it a miracle.
izzydata 12y ago
That is quite embarrassing for whoever claimed that statue drip to be some kind of miracle. Embarrassing enough to kill over? I guess so.
- mikeash 12y ago
  If they feel the need to murder somebody, surely the idiot who got people to drink sewage should be the target, not the guy who said, "hey, you're drinking sewage."
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
Christ, no wonder so many Indians flee to the west. I can't imagine what being a smart, secular, and skeptical person in that culture feels like.
- Glyptodon 12y ago
  Go live in small town America.
  - icambron 12y ago
    No wonder so many small-town Americans flee to cities.
    - hnal943 12y ago
      Certain types of people are attracted to the cities. Americans in general seem to me the most anti-city of the western world. The English in general are proud of London, as are the French of Paris. I don't think you have the same wide approval of NYC or LA in America.
  - drzaiusapelord 12y ago
    Fine, but if you read the article he's fleeing blasphemy laws. Small town America won't arrest me for saying that Kreskin is bullshit or that I'm not religious. I never understood why there's this hysterical knee-jerk reaction to every criticism of any country with 'but its just as bad in the US.' No, its not.
    - jerf 12y ago
      I suspect a lot of them grew up in families of a strongly religious bent. Families can't be "escaped" from when you're a kid. They then impute this to the town as a whole. But on the whole, as an adult, I don't see small towns in the US insisting on religious observance from a given person. You might have to "tolerate" a cross on the city hall's lawn, but considered on a global scale that's not exactly asking for a lot. (That is, considering that some sort of big imposition is, in its own way, pretty parochial.) There's certainly other ways of getting on the wrong side of the rumor mill, but, then, I think a lot of times the answer there is that one must often seek out a community that accepts them. Many of the small townies that go to the big city and find some community that accepts them would find those communities just as hostile to the people they left; it's not that they're "more accepting", it's that they accept you. The big city is "more accepting" because there's more subcommunities to be a part of, not because it's full of magically superhumanly tolerant people. And small towns simply lack the size to have a wide diversity of niche communities.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
tejaswiy 12y ago
The problem with India is that even highly educated, otherwise rational people put their thinking mind aside and give in to superstition. Consider Dr. Radhakrishnan, the head of ISRO (Indian space research org.) - Before every rocket that ISRO launches, he visits Tirupati, a holy site in India to pray for its success. Now, I realize this is far cry from people drinking sewage water, but if the head of the Indian space program is this superstitious, what can you say about the rest of the country?
- sremani 12y ago
  Being religious is not superstition. The serenity prayer nicely puts things in perspective - there are many things beyond human control that can cause failure - if going to Tirupathi gets him in the zone all the power to him.
  - bane 12y ago
    Religion is by definition superstition. It just depends on how okay you are with superstitious beliefs. Sometimes you can get benefit from them courage or art or motivation to live a better life, sometimes they muddle your critical thinking skills and do a sloppy job solving problems because you believe some higher power will take care of the details. "Being outside the realm of human control and understanding" is not what superstition means.
    - enscr 12y ago
      > Religion is by definition superstition For some, Religion encompasses superstition, but it goes beyond that. For others, Religion is "Dharma" [1]. It's a way of life / discipline. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma
      - bane 12y ago
        Dharma is also a superstition. People put too much negative weight on the term superstition. Dharma is a way of life driven by one of some set of superstition beliefs. If you doubt this, ask a series of "why?" questions about Dharma and drill down into it until you stop hitting rational thought and start hitting belief about the nature of the universe and belief about the importance of righteous action.
javajosh 12y ago
Ed Snowden is our Sanal Edamaruku. Sanal is blowing the whistle on more traditional superstition, Snowden is revealing that our beliefs in the "goodness" of government - particularly in the realm of self-restraint and general respect for our citizens - are also superstitions. And in the same way, large chunks of America are calling for his death, too. The lesson? It's remarkable how angry and violent people get when their beliefs are challenged - and this anger and violence seems proportional to the ignorance of those beliefs. It makes one yearn for the day when superstition is ended once and for all, and people can live in the real world according to the best evidence of their senses.
- briantakita 12y ago
  > It makes one yearn for the day when superstition is ended once and for all, and people can live in the real world according to the best evidence of their senses. A problem with that statement is peoples' senses differ. Whether you believe in extra senses or not, you would need to have everybody agree with you. There's also intuition & emotional motivation. It's easy to imagine a dystopia where only mainstream "senses" and "intelligence" are recognized as truth and people who have abilities that are not mainstream are shunned and persecuted.
  - javajosh 12y ago
    A superstition-free world would not be totally free of the disagreement born of differing perceptions. But it would be free of disagreement born of irrational prejudice. Error can't be eliminated, but it can be minimized. There's another, possibly even more profound benefit. Superstition's harm is less about what you perceive phenomena, but rather more insidiously removes the motivation to look more deeply into phenomena. E.g. it's a second-order issue. The Indian Catholics didn't want Sanal to find the toilet leak cause of the miracle. They willfully closed their eyes to other possibilities because of their faith. What is more harmful than an idea that inspires it's adherents to close their own eyes to reality?
    - briantakita 12y ago
      > What is more harmful than an idea that inspires it's adherents to close their own eyes to reality? There is a difference between Existence & Reality. Reality is based on perspective of Existence. Thus Reality is relative and seen by some as "mutable" (though I prefer the functional "immutable" view of a Reality). So the adherents you are talking about are viewing Reality perfectly well. It's just their Reality is different from yours. Now if their Reality is based on an illusion, like the bad plumbing in the OP, there's the matter of changing their perception & Reality by exposing the illusion. > But it would be free of disagreement born of irrational prejudice. What is irrational is in the eye of the beholder & heavily influenced by culture. To your point, some cultures are closer to absolute truth (less based on illusion) than others. However, even Rationality is based on a culturally defined Reality. What was Rational 100 years ago in America may not be Rational today. As humanity progresses, we expose the truth and create more illusion in different areas of Existence.
tosseraccount 12y ago
What about standing up to bad people in their own country? If everyone flees from the crooks, kleptocrats and nuts, then the crooks, kleptocrats and nuts win. Somebody has to stand up to them someday.
- srean 12y ago
  Would you ? Have you ?
  - tosseraccount 12y ago
    Yes.
    - palakchokshi 12y ago
      Please elaborate. Was it life threatening to stand up to these nuts for you? who were these nuts? What were you standing up against?
- themodelplumber 12y ago
  Well, rather than being killed dead, he got a nice writeup by the BBC, which is read by quite a few of his countrymen. I'd say he's taken a wiser path.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  That only works when there's a popular movement or political bloc surrounding you. The guys who go up against the gurus and miracle-men are a small minority. There was a NYTimes write-up not too long ago linked here explaining the situation. It all sounds pretty hopeless. Fleeing is the only smart move here. Also, a high profile skeptic there was recently murdered: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/world/asia/battling-superstition-indian-paid-with-his-life.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/world/asia/battling-supers... When the "bad people" are your neighbors, the majority, and the government, the law, the constitution, etc who exactly is going to take your side and free you from prison?
- icambron 12y ago
briantakita 12y ago
There's something about eating sacred cows. We often see anger & disrespect when someone says something contrary to the group belief. Many people & groups don't like their reality challenged by another.
- hnal943 12y ago
  I don't think anyone likes it when their reality is challenged. That part seems universal.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
imaginenore 12y ago
This shows two things 1) How weak people's faith is 2) How religionists behave when in power If you seriously believe in something, let's say, the moon orbiting the earth, and some nut-job would claim it's just a piece of cheese floating in the sky, would it bother you? No, you would just laugh and move on.
josephschmoe 12y ago
Meta: What does this have to do with hacking? This thread is a perfect breeding grounds for xenophobia and religion bashing. Those are both things we do not need here.
denzil_correa 12y ago
The most disappointing part of this entire story is Cardinal Oswald Gracias of Mumbai tried to broker a solution by calling upon Edamaruku to apologise and on Catholic groups to drop their case in return. The Cardinal should have upheld the freedom on expression of Edamaruku rather than giving in to the fundamentalists. Instead, he tried to conjure up a political solution.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Bear in mind that the outrage was only partially about the debunking of the miracle, but also about the suggestion that it had been engineered by the church to fleece people. My personal experience is that people will basically put up with having factual errors pointed out (even if they feel embarrassed by it), but imputing motivations is both pointless (because intent is often not amenable to proof) and dangerous (because people take that kind of thing far more personally).
  - denzil_correa 12y ago
    I get your point but I still find the Cardinal's response lukewarm. The Cardinal should have just said that the church did not do it to fleece people or collect money.
ableal 12y ago
Just a couple of days ago I re-read the first of G. K. Chesterton's Father Brown stories. The closing is apropos: "[...] But, as a matter of fact, another part of my trade, too, made me sure you weren’t a priest.” “What?” asked the thief, almost gaping. “You attacked reason,” said Father Brown. “It’s bad theology.”
argumentum 12y ago
The legal issues boil down to weak protection by Indian Constitution, which allows freedom of expression only for things that would never need freedom of expression. Under Indian law, the freedom of speech and of the press do not confer an absolute right to express one's thoughts freely.Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Indian constitution enables the legislature to impose certain restrictions on free speech under following heads: I. security of the State, II. friendly relations with foreign States, III. public order, IV. decency and morality, V. contempt of court, VI. defamation, VII. incitement to an offence, and VIII. sovereignty and integrity of India. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_India This is in a way similar to European notions of freedom of speech. In Europe, you can't deny the holocaust for example. We should be grateful that the US founders left no room for ambiguity in our Bill of Rights.
CapitalistCartr 12y ago
This reminds me of the word "reasonable". I rarely hear this word used correctly; it seems to mean to people, "Agree with me". Usually it goes something like: "Two plus two equals eight." "No, it equals four." "OK, hardass, how about seven." "No, its four." "C'mon, be reasonable, let's compromise on six." That's what a reasonable compromise means in this case.
abc_lisper 12y ago
Is there something we could do to help this guy in anyway?
neil_s 12y ago
I suspect the threat to him isn't from mindless mobs unwilling to change their beliefs, but the holy men who stand to lose out on their posh lifestyles if their bullshit is exposed. Case in point: http://www.odditycentral.com/news/golden-baba-indian-holy-man-tells-followers-to-live-frugally-but-drapes-himself-in-gold.html http://www.odditycentral.com/news/golden-baba-indian-holy-ma... Its these guys who have the resources to get whistle-blowers killed off relatively quietly.
suprgeek 12y ago
The problem is that the laws in India are very poorly worded, often misunderstood and arbitrarily applied. All of this gives the overworked & corrupt Indian police almost limitless discretion on what to enforce & against whom. It also provides a sufficiently motivated grudge bearer an easy way to Shut up someone (or worse) that is making an unpopular argument. There are several laws in this ugly bucket - "Hurting the religious sentiments of a group" "Defamation..." "Obscene content" "Promoting Enemity between religions" "Inciting Violence..." The extremely vague "IT Act" also adds a digital dimension to this nonsense - where you have people Jailed for "liking" Facebook posts http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2013/10/03/freedom_on_the_net_the_countries_where_you_can_go_to_jail_for_liking_something.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2013/10/03/freedom_on_... Just a terrible mess over there legally.... As if this was not enough rationalists are always in danger in a place like India (having personally been affected by this I can attest that this is infact very real - two reasonable people can argue but it is hard to talk to some one threatening you). One more link to put the very real threat this gentlemen faces in context:http://www.in.com/news/current-affairs/cbi-files-fir-in-narendra-dabholkar-murder-case-52790476-in-1.html http://www.in.com/news/current-affairs/cbi-files-fir-in-nare... Dr Dabholkar was gunned down in broad daylight, while out for a walk on a busy road.
- sriku 12y ago
  Counsellors ("shrinks" in the US?) recognize that nobody can "hurt your feelings" unless you permit them to as well. i.e. there is contribution on the side of those "feeling hurt" as well as the party "doing the hurting". Given that, we need to divide the accusation into three parts - a) was there any intention to "hurt the feelings of people", b) were there any lies uttered as an instrument that could have effected hurt and c) should we consider the "hurt" felt when facts are being revealed valid for legal purposes. In the case of Sanal, (b) is certainly not the case since he's talking about facts he found in his investigation, and we need only examine (a) and (c). Sanal is certainly not inciting violence between religious groups even by accident. So that's out. Sanal is a "myth buster" in the public eye - i.e. has permanently adopted a skeptical stance in matters of "miracles". Given the amount of evidence he's personally seen in this matter, we might at least give him the human allowance of a snarkiness that might have developed and which he might have expressed. Maybe mild cause for (a) perhaps, but insignificant in my opinion given his reputation. Rgd (c), I think this whole category of "hurt" ought to be legally excludable and as far as I've read there doesn't seem to be any constitutional provision to do so. Truth hurts people when it shatters a belief that they have attached their self worth to. If someone feels "hurt" when presented with facts (at least facts at hand, leaving aside "historical facts" for the moment), this kind of hurt should not be cause for legal action. I wish the "duty of a citizen of India to develop a scientific temper" were interpreted in this manner when it comes to actionable forms of hurt. edit: tpyo (b) -> (a)
tn13 12y ago
Honestly this news article looks like a PR job for this man withe objective of getting publicity and/or other help from sympathizers in West. Ironically, this method was employed by Christian missionaries like Mother Teresa to gather wealth from west.
tn13 12y ago
The article 295A which makes it illegal to criticize religion in India was introduced by British to protect Islam from criticism. It is not being used by all religions to assert their political power.
davidgerard 12y ago
RationalWiki article: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sanal_Edamaruku http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sanal_Edamaruku
known 12y ago
Most racist people http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15...

188 points by anishkothari 12y ago

He was active in Indian Rationalist Association since long time and in 1990s he visited many villages exposing miracles. Only when he exposed Catholic miracle he got in trouble. It shows how much Catholic money and muscle power is capable in a country where Christian population is 2.3%.

manishsharan 12y ago

I wish they had posted a link to where I could send this gentleman some money. This world , India particularly, needs more people fighting religious superstition.

enscr 12y ago
You can get in touch with him here : https://twitter.com/SanalEdamaruku https://twitter.com/SanalEdamaruku Kudos to the gentleman for his relentless struggle against superstition.

guard-of-terra 12y ago

"But the furore has not died down - the Catholic Secular Forum (CSF), one of the groups that made the initial complaint, still insists it will press for prosecution should he ever return." I think that we should be petitioning Pope so he would tell this CFS to cease, desist and disassemble. He may issue Papal bull, for example. I don't remember catholics being eager on self-proclaimed wonders.

jjoonathan 12y ago
Don't they keep a big repository of saints that each require at least two miracles to be considered saints? EDIT: yes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonization > To be canonized a saint, at least two miracles must have been performed through the saint's intercession after his or her death
juliocc 12y ago
Doesn't matter if they're Catholic, Hindu, Muslim or whatever. This is religious fanaticism at its best.
- ginko 12y ago
  The difference with Catholicism being that it has one indisputable leader.
  - schoen 12y ago
    Mostly indisputable. :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope
    - ginko 12y ago
      Which lead to mutual excommunication(as these things usually go).
pmorici 12y ago
"I don't remember Catholics being eager on self-proclaimed wonders." Isn't seeing images of Jesus in toast and other silly stuff like that somewhat common? I feel like I see that kind of thing in the news in _America_ from time to time typically associated with Catholicism.
- jvreeland 12y ago
  Very of those few are taken seriously by anyone. The Vatican is supposed to confirm miracles, and from what I remember it's not exactly an efficient or easy process. In this case I sincerely doubt they'd call it a miracle.

izzydata 12y ago

That is quite embarrassing for whoever claimed that statue drip to be some kind of miracle. Embarrassing enough to kill over? I guess so.

mikeash 12y ago
If they feel the need to murder somebody, surely the idiot who got people to drink sewage should be the target, not the guy who said, "hey, you're drinking sewage."

drzaiusapelord 12y ago

Christ, no wonder so many Indians flee to the west. I can't imagine what being a smart, secular, and skeptical person in that culture feels like.

Glyptodon 12y ago
Go live in small town America.
- icambron 12y ago
  No wonder so many small-town Americans flee to cities.
  - hnal943 12y ago
    Certain types of people are attracted to the cities. Americans in general seem to me the most anti-city of the western world. The English in general are proud of London, as are the French of Paris. I don't think you have the same wide approval of NYC or LA in America.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  Fine, but if you read the article he's fleeing blasphemy laws. Small town America won't arrest me for saying that Kreskin is bullshit or that I'm not religious. I never understood why there's this hysterical knee-jerk reaction to every criticism of any country with 'but its just as bad in the US.' No, its not.
  - jerf 12y ago
    I suspect a lot of them grew up in families of a strongly religious bent. Families can't be "escaped" from when you're a kid. They then impute this to the town as a whole. But on the whole, as an adult, I don't see small towns in the US insisting on religious observance from a given person. You might have to "tolerate" a cross on the city hall's lawn, but considered on a global scale that's not exactly asking for a lot. (That is, considering that some sort of big imposition is, in its own way, pretty parochial.) There's certainly other ways of getting on the wrong side of the rumor mill, but, then, I think a lot of times the answer there is that one must often seek out a community that accepts them. Many of the small townies that go to the big city and find some community that accepts them would find those communities just as hostile to the people they left; it's not that they're "more accepting", it's that they accept you. The big city is "more accepting" because there's more subcommunities to be a part of, not because it's full of magically superhumanly tolerant people. And small towns simply lack the size to have a wide diversity of niche communities.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

tejaswiy 12y ago

The problem with India is that even highly educated, otherwise rational people put their thinking mind aside and give in to superstition. Consider Dr. Radhakrishnan, the head of ISRO (Indian space research org.) - Before every rocket that ISRO launches, he visits Tirupati, a holy site in India to pray for its success. Now, I realize this is far cry from people drinking sewage water, but if the head of the Indian space program is this superstitious, what can you say about the rest of the country?

sremani 12y ago
Being religious is not superstition. The serenity prayer nicely puts things in perspective - there are many things beyond human control that can cause failure - if going to Tirupathi gets him in the zone all the power to him.
- bane 12y ago
  Religion is by definition superstition. It just depends on how okay you are with superstitious beliefs. Sometimes you can get benefit from them courage or art or motivation to live a better life, sometimes they muddle your critical thinking skills and do a sloppy job solving problems because you believe some higher power will take care of the details. "Being outside the realm of human control and understanding" is not what superstition means.
  - enscr 12y ago
    > Religion is by definition superstition For some, Religion encompasses superstition, but it goes beyond that. For others, Religion is "Dharma" [1]. It's a way of life / discipline. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma
    - bane 12y ago
      Dharma is also a superstition. People put too much negative weight on the term superstition. Dharma is a way of life driven by one of some set of superstition beliefs. If you doubt this, ask a series of "why?" questions about Dharma and drill down into it until you stop hitting rational thought and start hitting belief about the nature of the universe and belief about the importance of righteous action.

javajosh 12y ago

Ed Snowden is our Sanal Edamaruku. Sanal is blowing the whistle on more traditional superstition, Snowden is revealing that our beliefs in the "goodness" of government - particularly in the realm of self-restraint and general respect for our citizens - are also superstitions. And in the same way, large chunks of America are calling for his death, too. The lesson? It's remarkable how angry and violent people get when their beliefs are challenged - and this anger and violence seems proportional to the ignorance of those beliefs. It makes one yearn for the day when superstition is ended once and for all, and people can live in the real world according to the best evidence of their senses.

briantakita 12y ago
> It makes one yearn for the day when superstition is ended once and for all, and people can live in the real world according to the best evidence of their senses. A problem with that statement is peoples' senses differ. Whether you believe in extra senses or not, you would need to have everybody agree with you. There's also intuition & emotional motivation. It's easy to imagine a dystopia where only mainstream "senses" and "intelligence" are recognized as truth and people who have abilities that are not mainstream are shunned and persecuted.
- javajosh 12y ago
  A superstition-free world would not be totally free of the disagreement born of differing perceptions. But it would be free of disagreement born of irrational prejudice. Error can't be eliminated, but it can be minimized. There's another, possibly even more profound benefit. Superstition's harm is less about what you perceive phenomena, but rather more insidiously removes the motivation to look more deeply into phenomena. E.g. it's a second-order issue. The Indian Catholics didn't want Sanal to find the toilet leak cause of the miracle. They willfully closed their eyes to other possibilities because of their faith. What is more harmful than an idea that inspires it's adherents to close their own eyes to reality?
  - briantakita 12y ago
    > What is more harmful than an idea that inspires it's adherents to close their own eyes to reality? There is a difference between Existence & Reality. Reality is based on perspective of Existence. Thus Reality is relative and seen by some as "mutable" (though I prefer the functional "immutable" view of a Reality). So the adherents you are talking about are viewing Reality perfectly well. It's just their Reality is different from yours. Now if their Reality is based on an illusion, like the bad plumbing in the OP, there's the matter of changing their perception & Reality by exposing the illusion. > But it would be free of disagreement born of irrational prejudice. What is irrational is in the eye of the beholder & heavily influenced by culture. To your point, some cultures are closer to absolute truth (less based on illusion) than others. However, even Rationality is based on a culturally defined Reality. What was Rational 100 years ago in America may not be Rational today. As humanity progresses, we expose the truth and create more illusion in different areas of Existence.

tosseraccount 12y ago

What about standing up to bad people in their own country? If everyone flees from the crooks, kleptocrats and nuts, then the crooks, kleptocrats and nuts win. Somebody has to stand up to them someday.

srean 12y ago
Would you ? Have you ?
- tosseraccount 12y ago
  Yes.
  - palakchokshi 12y ago
    Please elaborate. Was it life threatening to stand up to these nuts for you? who were these nuts? What were you standing up against?
themodelplumber 12y ago
Well, rather than being killed dead, he got a nice writeup by the BBC, which is read by quite a few of his countrymen. I'd say he's taken a wiser path.
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
That only works when there's a popular movement or political bloc surrounding you. The guys who go up against the gurus and miracle-men are a small minority. There was a NYTimes write-up not too long ago linked here explaining the situation. It all sounds pretty hopeless. Fleeing is the only smart move here. Also, a high profile skeptic there was recently murdered: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/world/asia/battling-superstition-indian-paid-with-his-life.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/world/asia/battling-supers... When the "bad people" are your neighbors, the majority, and the government, the law, the constitution, etc who exactly is going to take your side and free you from prison?
icambron 12y ago

briantakita 12y ago

There's something about eating sacred cows. We often see anger & disrespect when someone says something contrary to the group belief. Many people & groups don't like their reality challenged by another.

hnal943 12y ago
I don't think anyone likes it when their reality is challenged. That part seems universal.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

imaginenore 12y ago

This shows two things 1) How weak people's faith is 2) How religionists behave when in power If you seriously believe in something, let's say, the moon orbiting the earth, and some nut-job would claim it's just a piece of cheese floating in the sky, would it bother you? No, you would just laugh and move on.

josephschmoe 12y ago

Meta: What does this have to do with hacking? This thread is a perfect breeding grounds for xenophobia and religion bashing. Those are both things we do not need here.

denzil_correa 12y ago

The most disappointing part of this entire story is Cardinal Oswald Gracias of Mumbai tried to broker a solution by calling upon Edamaruku to apologise and on Catholic groups to drop their case in return. The Cardinal should have upheld the freedom on expression of Edamaruku rather than giving in to the fundamentalists. Instead, he tried to conjure up a political solution.

anigbrowl 12y ago
Bear in mind that the outrage was only partially about the debunking of the miracle, but also about the suggestion that it had been engineered by the church to fleece people. My personal experience is that people will basically put up with having factual errors pointed out (even if they feel embarrassed by it), but imputing motivations is both pointless (because intent is often not amenable to proof) and dangerous (because people take that kind of thing far more personally).
- denzil_correa 12y ago
  I get your point but I still find the Cardinal's response lukewarm. The Cardinal should have just said that the church did not do it to fleece people or collect money.

ableal 12y ago

Just a couple of days ago I re-read the first of G. K. Chesterton's Father Brown stories. The closing is apropos: "[...] But, as a matter of fact, another part of my trade, too, made me sure you weren’t a priest.” “What?” asked the thief, almost gaping. “You attacked reason,” said Father Brown. “It’s bad theology.”

argumentum 12y ago

The legal issues boil down to weak protection by Indian Constitution, which allows freedom of expression only for things that would never need freedom of expression. Under Indian law, the freedom of speech and of the press do not confer an absolute right to express one's thoughts freely.Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Indian constitution enables the legislature to impose certain restrictions on free speech under following heads: I. security of the State, II. friendly relations with foreign States, III. public order, IV. decency and morality, V. contempt of court, VI. defamation, VII. incitement to an offence, and VIII. sovereignty and integrity of India. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression_in_India This is in a way similar to European notions of freedom of speech. In Europe, you can't deny the holocaust for example. We should be grateful that the US founders left no room for ambiguity in our Bill of Rights.

CapitalistCartr 12y ago

This reminds me of the word "reasonable". I rarely hear this word used correctly; it seems to mean to people, "Agree with me". Usually it goes something like: "Two plus two equals eight." "No, it equals four." "OK, hardass, how about seven." "No, its four." "C'mon, be reasonable, let's compromise on six." That's what a reasonable compromise means in this case.

abc_lisper 12y ago

Is there something we could do to help this guy in anyway?

neil_s 12y ago

I suspect the threat to him isn't from mindless mobs unwilling to change their beliefs, but the holy men who stand to lose out on their posh lifestyles if their bullshit is exposed. Case in point: http://www.odditycentral.com/news/golden-baba-indian-holy-man-tells-followers-to-live-frugally-but-drapes-himself-in-gold.html http://www.odditycentral.com/news/golden-baba-indian-holy-ma... Its these guys who have the resources to get whistle-blowers killed off relatively quietly.

suprgeek 12y ago

The problem is that the laws in India are very poorly worded, often misunderstood and arbitrarily applied. All of this gives the overworked & corrupt Indian police almost limitless discretion on what to enforce & against whom. It also provides a sufficiently motivated grudge bearer an easy way to Shut up someone (or worse) that is making an unpopular argument. There are several laws in this ugly bucket - "Hurting the religious sentiments of a group" "Defamation..." "Obscene content" "Promoting Enemity between religions" "Inciting Violence..." The extremely vague "IT Act" also adds a digital dimension to this nonsense - where you have people Jailed for "liking" Facebook posts http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2013/10/03/freedom_on_the_net_the_countries_where_you_can_go_to_jail_for_liking_something.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2013/10/03/freedom_on_... Just a terrible mess over there legally.... As if this was not enough rationalists are always in danger in a place like India (having personally been affected by this I can attest that this is infact very real - two reasonable people can argue but it is hard to talk to some one threatening you). One more link to put the very real threat this gentlemen faces in context:http://www.in.com/news/current-affairs/cbi-files-fir-in-narendra-dabholkar-murder-case-52790476-in-1.html http://www.in.com/news/current-affairs/cbi-files-fir-in-nare... Dr Dabholkar was gunned down in broad daylight, while out for a walk on a busy road.

sriku 12y ago
Counsellors ("shrinks" in the US?) recognize that nobody can "hurt your feelings" unless you permit them to as well. i.e. there is contribution on the side of those "feeling hurt" as well as the party "doing the hurting". Given that, we need to divide the accusation into three parts - a) was there any intention to "hurt the feelings of people", b) were there any lies uttered as an instrument that could have effected hurt and c) should we consider the "hurt" felt when facts are being revealed valid for legal purposes. In the case of Sanal, (b) is certainly not the case since he's talking about facts he found in his investigation, and we need only examine (a) and (c). Sanal is certainly not inciting violence between religious groups even by accident. So that's out. Sanal is a "myth buster" in the public eye - i.e. has permanently adopted a skeptical stance in matters of "miracles". Given the amount of evidence he's personally seen in this matter, we might at least give him the human allowance of a snarkiness that might have developed and which he might have expressed. Maybe mild cause for (a) perhaps, but insignificant in my opinion given his reputation. Rgd (c), I think this whole category of "hurt" ought to be legally excludable and as far as I've read there doesn't seem to be any constitutional provision to do so. Truth hurts people when it shatters a belief that they have attached their self worth to. If someone feels "hurt" when presented with facts (at least facts at hand, leaving aside "historical facts" for the moment), this kind of hurt should not be cause for legal action. I wish the "duty of a citizen of India to develop a scientific temper" were interpreted in this manner when it comes to actionable forms of hurt. edit: tpyo (b) -> (a)

tn13 12y ago

Honestly this news article looks like a PR job for this man withe objective of getting publicity and/or other help from sympathizers in West. Ironically, this method was employed by Christian missionaries like Mother Teresa to gather wealth from west.

tn13 12y ago

The article 295A which makes it illegal to criticize religion in India was introduced by British to protect Islam from criticism. It is not being used by all religions to assert their political power.

davidgerard 12y ago

RationalWiki article: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sanal_Edamaruku http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sanal_Edamaruku

known 12y ago

Most racist people http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15...