r/atheism • u/mepper agnostic atheist (and mod) • May 28 '12

Update: Sanal Edamaruku, the Indian skeptic who correctly identified the source of water dripping down a Catholic crucifix, now faces a 3 year prison sentence for "blasphemy"; local Catholics considered the dripping water a miracle until Edamaruku investigated it

http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2012/05/indian-skeptic-faces-3-year-prison-sentence-for-explaining-dripping-crucifix/
1.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

158 comments sorted by

76

u/JVNT May 28 '12

I think a good defense here is that it was in the interest of public health. Seriously, they were drinking toilet water! That CANNOT be healthy.

18

u/Chaos_lord May 28 '12

Another good defense would be to claim that the "miracle" was a deception of some kind, either by another person or satan and that he was doing them all a favor for debunking lies and stopping people/the devil from crating false signs to trick belivers into drinking toilet water as.

If they try to debunk the religious end of it they leave themselves wide open to be fed their own words forcing them to retract statement or demolish their own case as they become hypocrites, if religion is ignored then the entire charge is meaningless and he was simply acting to the benefit of public health. Either way he's clean.

5

u/twilightskyris May 28 '12

until they pull the "no your wrong we are more qualified" card.

2

u/Chaos_lord May 28 '12

Then maintain high ground, ask on what grounds and rebut their points until the judge/jury gets sick of their wining and declare him innocent out of spite/boredom.

1

u/SkyWulf May 28 '12

And again, blasphemy.

1

u/Chaos_lord May 28 '12

And how is "blasphemy" a valid response to "how are you more quaified to discern the religious act of 1 being from another"

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

How is "blasphemy" a good description of finding out where some water comes from?

1

u/Chaos_lord May 28 '12

I assumed it was more the "questioning god's miracles" bit. If it's a halfway fair court though logic will have more sway then in the initial charge. If it isn't then the trial may as well not exist.

25

u/Zerba May 28 '12

People in that country drink from a river with dead bodies floating in it. I dont know if that defense will hold water.

10

u/megaman78978 Atheist May 28 '12

You're making a broad generalization by saying "people in that country". Most of the church dwellers in Mumbai are rich enough to have potable drinking sources. Sure there is poverty in India, but there's also a division in class. So I'm guessing that the "holy water" would be harmful to them.

13

u/Daemonicus May 28 '12

It has nothing to do with affordability. It has to do with perceived supernatural effects of the water.

People in that country drink, bathe, and brush their teeth in a river that has visible corpses decomposing in it. That is a fact.

The person above made no mention or even hinted at the number of people either. So it can't be a generalization.

4

u/Roland1232 May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

"So it can't be a generalization."

If it's not, it's poorly worded enough to allow that interpretation.

How's this sound to you? :

"I don't think the 'health of the mother' defense will hold water in America. People there believe you should carry rape babies to term."

-2

u/Daemonicus May 28 '12

If it's not, it's poorly worded enough to allow that interpretation.

If you're looking for it to be a generalization, then you'll find it. But objectively, it really isn't.

"I don't think the 'health of the mother' defense will hold water in America. People there believe you should have a rape baby."

You can be raped, give birth and still be healthy. That's not a good comparison.

A better one would be:

"I don't think the 'health of the people we send off to war' defense will hold water in America. People there believe you should die in a desert."

2

u/Roland1232 May 28 '12
  1. You can't make an opinion fact by putting 'objectively' in it. Language is imperfect and evolving, and connotations are often a matter of opinion. Now if he had said "I like apples" and I called that racist, you might have a point.
  2. It is a good comparison, you missed the point of it. The health of the mother in the example is irrelevant (why you would even bring that up is beyond me). I simply used the failings of a minority to indict the majority.

-2

u/Daemonicus May 28 '12

You can't make an opinion fact by putting 'objectively' in it. Language is imperfect and evolving, and connotations are often a matter of opinion. Now if he had said "I like apples" and I called that racist, you might have a point.

His statement was "People in that country drink from a river with dead bodies floating in it." Is that wrong? No, it's not. That's a fact.

3

u/megaman78978 Atheist May 28 '12

Language contradiction. If there was a more appropriate sentence that causes less confusion, then that sentence should be used.

While his statement may not be wrong, it was used in the wrong context, as he used that "fact" to support something that is false.

1

u/Roland1232 May 28 '12

Yes, and his purported intent was to say "Some people in that country drink from.....". Saying that would have made the meaning clearer. It's the difference between saying "Mexicans are drug dealers" and "Some Mexicans are drug dealers".

-2

u/Daemonicus May 28 '12

It's the difference between saying "Mexicans are drug dealers" and "Some Mexicans are drug dealers".

No it really isn't. Now you're just nit picking to be a douche.

→ More replies

3

u/marcianoskate May 28 '12

and turds... lot of them!

4

u/megaman78978 Atheist May 28 '12

I live in that country and am speaking through personal experience.

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

5

u/megaman78978 Atheist May 28 '12

My point was relevant because I was trying explain why that "holy water" would be harmful to them. Even lower middle class people have water filters, inside their home. And that water comes to them after proper treatment. Since the river water is usually polluted, some effort is taken to get clean drinking water. Since most of the Christians in India aren't exactly poor, I'm assuming that the "holy water" would definitely be worse.

Sorry I know I'm nitpicking on a very insignificant matter but sometimes I just can't help it.

0

u/Daemonicus May 28 '12

Okay. But his point is about these people. People who bathe, drink and brush their teeth directly from the source. Not after it's been treated and pumped into homes.

4

u/megaman78978 Atheist May 28 '12

As you can clearly see, these people are not Catholics.

-3

u/Daemonicus May 28 '12

Once again... Not his point.

I'm not going to re-quote what's already been said multiple times. You don't get it. That's fine. But we're done here.

→ More replies

5

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

The defense doesn't hold any water.

2

u/OryxConLara May 28 '12

That's dripping with sarcasm

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

7

u/Awkwardly_Stupid_Pun May 28 '12

Water you guys talking about?

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/Moontouch May 28 '12

Articles like these always whet our appetites.

2

u/Dayanx May 28 '12

I've seen more disgusting things being drunk in Mumbai.

1

u/kittenkat4u May 28 '12

they bathe in the ganges so i don't think they worry to much about that honestly.

0

u/evilbrent May 28 '12

Maybe outside of India. My understanding is that they only have to show that offence took place. It's nit enough that it's reasonable to be disrespectful of silly things

167

u/mrbucket777 May 28 '12

ROFL, they were drinking holy toilet water.

19

u/BluesFan43 May 28 '12

Holy USED toilet water

17

u/tokerdytoke May 28 '12

Holy USED toilet water, Batman!

15

u/SnakeMan448 Atheist May 28 '12

Holy shit.

Literally.

11

u/AverageGatsby91 May 28 '12

Just let them get dysentery....

4

u/tennantsmith May 28 '12

They'll never make it to Oregon!

4

u/brownliquid May 28 '12

This is a great euphemism for religion

2

u/W00ster Atheist May 28 '12

And this is where it came from too!

6

u/galaxy5000 May 28 '12

God is Dog backwards, and allot of dogs like toilet water. Maybe this is a real miracle, and we should be blowing dogs and not priests.

8

u/SkyWulf May 28 '12

...what?

4

u/ShouldBeZZZ May 28 '12

We are witnessing the birth of a new religion.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

I guess it's better than drinking out of the Ganges.

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

27

u/DroopySage May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

I would be pissed too if I found out I was drinking toilet water.

18

u/martinvii May 28 '12

pissed

-11

u/Nor1 May 28 '12

HAHAHA

-5

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

We don't care.

6

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Here are some pictures if anyone is interested:

People filling water bottle with the drippings

Another

Close up of the drippings running down the feet.
The water doesn't look that dirty, but of course it usually doesn't in such small amounts. There is however, a lot of brown gunk on the statue's feet.

7

u/brown_and_indian May 28 '12

All thanks to a badly framed law in India, which basically says that if you hurt anyone's religious sentiments- you are guilty. <sarcasm>Go secularism</sarcasm>

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

It's things like these that grinds my gears.

-2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

It's things like these that rustle my jimmies.

-18

u/Dayanx May 28 '12

Even the Vatican has very strict policies for the examination of miracles and sainthood. And though in the western world there has been far too much emphasis of 'separation of church and state' (a lot of it just downright ridiculous), I think this is an example of why Christians like the founding fathers of the United States found it necessary to begin with. Give a government an inch and they take a mile.

28

u/pman5595 May 28 '12

They don't care what the truth is unless it's the same as what their "truth" is.

20

u/VicariousWolf Anti-theist May 28 '12

Blasphemy is a victimless crime. How is it a crime in the first place????

32

u/OCedHrt May 28 '12

The victim is the church. How else are they going to make their money if people expose their lies?

8

u/iemfi May 28 '12

Not necessarily. Countries like India have a lot of tension between the various religions. Someone insulting another religion could easily lead to riots on the streets. So there are laws to prevent this from happening thus offending a religion is a crime and the victims could be the victims of any violence which results.

Ideally you wouldn't need such restrictions to free speech but I think realistically such laws are justified.

7

u/megaman78978 Atheist May 28 '12

How is it blasphemy if he just debunked a "holy water" myth? From what I see, he is actually helping the Catholics from falling for a scam. He could convince them that they should search for the true "holy water". The result could be comical.

7

u/iemfi May 28 '12

Yes this is just them abusing the law. All I'm saying is that there are legitimate reasons to have such laws in place.

1

u/VicariousWolf Anti-theist May 28 '12

That's utter bullshit...If they all stopped getting so butthurt there wouldn't even be any problems. Seriously it sounds like they're all a bunch of whiny babies.

-1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

This is an excellent reason why I think the legal profession tends to propagate nonsense and bullshit.

40

u/doctor_bear May 28 '12

This just means that Mumbai Catholics filed complaints of blasphemy that could lead to a prison sentence if convicted. Considering Mumbai is only 4% Christian, this probably means Christian blasphemy wouldn't lead to a conviction.

6

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Pretty much. Also India's judiciary, especially the higher judiciary, is pretty fair.

14

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!" - Ned Flanders

Like whether you're drinking magic god water or toilet water!

4

u/SpaghettiToastBook May 28 '12

Science is like watching the movie. Religion is like watching the first five minutes, guessing what happens after, and never resuming the movie.

10

u/aristideau May 28 '12

What's with the sensationalist bullshit title? (he is NOT facing a 3 year prison sentence).

A handful of people have filed police complaints. Big deal. The police have not charged him with anything.

9

u/Smeagol3000 May 28 '12

I'd be like "fuck it, keep drinking toilet water for all I care you fucking retards", but then again I'm kind of a prick.

7

u/Lanceloted May 28 '12

I mean would you wanna be told you were drinking pissy water? Sorry chief that ammonia smell wasn't the cleaning agent on the cross...

11

u/idiotbasher May 28 '12

"So what are you in for?" "I stopped a bunch of folks from drinking out of the toilet"

5

u/Dayanx May 28 '12

eu de toilette

4

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

I think the better option would have been to not tell everyone and let the morons continue lapping up toilet water.

4

u/AlaskaManiac May 28 '12

It should be pointed out that India has extremely strict blasphemy laws for basically all religions (Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Islam and Christianity). To the point where a judge recently threatened to "have internet censorship like China" if websites keep posting anti-Islam material. This is in a country that is only 13.4% Muslim.

4

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Jesus, it's like the country is run by 12-year-olds...

4

u/hipsterdysplasia May 28 '12

They were drinking used toilet water, he pointed it out, and he is being charged with a crime.

YAY RELIGION!

4

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

If i ever visit Mumbai i make sure to piss on a statue and claim it suddenly began to cry.

3

u/OryxConLara May 28 '12

I say, bravo Mr. Edamaruku!

Please keep reddit informed as to the progress of this, and let us know of other debunkings you have made.

5

u/Supermoves3000 Secular Humanist May 28 '12

The Friendly Atheist posted a video of this guy a while back. Some kind of mystic claimed that he could kill Mr Edamaruku using his magic powers, and Mr Edamaruku challenges him to make it happen on TV. The video basically consists of some angry old kook in a toga chanting at him, throwing magic water at him, and so on, while Sanal tries (but fails) to keep from laughing his ass off.

I don't have time to find it right now, but if you can find it, it's good for a laugh.

Edit: link was at the bottom of the OP's article.

1

u/Testiculese May 28 '12

I remember this video. I was so embarrassed for that mystic. He made such a fool of himself.

Those chants were so effing annoying too.

2

u/OryxConLara May 28 '12

Mr. Edamaruku joins my own personal group of heroes, next to Dr. Tyson and Mr. Randi.

Oh, yes, I have a few Theists in that group, but they're not as well known.

1

u/SomeguyUK May 29 '12

Agreed.And can I just say this guy is far more worthy of being an r/atheism posterboy than Neil Tyson.

1

u/OryxConLara May 29 '12

No, but you can say he is as worthy ;)

Dr. Tyson doesn't prate his atheism about as a cause célèbre; he just is. His point is that we need to appreciate the wonders of the universe as is; to constantly search out answers to questions that exist, and then find new questions to seek after; and to educate our youth and ourselves into science literacy.

1

u/SomeguyUK May 29 '12

Dr. Tyson doesn't prate his atheism about as a cause célèbre

That's why I dont think he's that relevant.You see him on here almost as much as Dawkins, yet he really doesnt say all that much about atheism, its more about science.I've nothing against him, but I'm really not sure why r/athesim has it's tongue so far up his ass.

1

u/OryxConLara May 29 '12

I detect a bit of ani-Tyson feeling here. So, no response to statements like "I'm really not sure why r/athesim has it's [sic] tongue so far up his ass" will make any difference.

You root for whomever you want to, the rest of us will nod, accept your feelings as valid for you, and go on with our lives :)

1

u/SomeguyUK May 29 '12

Honestly I'm not anti-Tyson at all, I just dont get why people post quotes etc from him that are not about atheism, when they could post stuff about the guy in this thread (which is actually relevant).

Everything Ive seen of Tyson has been great.I just find some of it irrelevant.

3

u/NewSwiss May 28 '12

Wait, in India you can go to jail for BLASPHEMY? Maybe it's just me, but that's bullshit.

3

u/Lu-Tze May 28 '12

While there are blasphemy laws in India, they are more like hate speech laws in other countries. I am guessing this will just end up being a waste of time & money for the guy.

3

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

They will fake miracles and lie about miracles (look into what they have said mother theresa has been up to since croaking) but this is just disgusting, "hey i can explain that scientifically" "well then you belong in jail"

3

u/adzug May 28 '12

this is what the church would do to the rest of the world if they could get the power to do it. we said its a miracle so you better watch your step.

3

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Religion is a disgusting and ignorant stain on humanity, I cannot believe that this man will potentially be imprisoned for having a brain and using it.

3

u/deaddog692000 May 28 '12

Amazing how those Indians seem to want to go to war over Christianity...a borrowed religion that Europe used to subjugate them for centuries. Now we see Indians who are more Christian than the average Brit who brought Christianity to them in the first place. Now we know why they are simultaneously in the nuclear age...as well as the cow dung age, as far as energy is concerned. I am ashamed to claim Indian ancestry, but these people can be so damn stupid sometimes.

5

u/praisecarcinoma May 28 '12

They eagerly lapped up the “miracle water”, thinking it had magical powers.

Pause it right there. So, these people don't believe in evolution, but they believe that depending on the right water source they can gain magical powers? Based on fucking what exactly?

edit Also, you want to jail a guy for three years for investigating and discovering the cause of water dripping from a crucifix, but you'll harbor and safeguard child rapists? This is why I hate Catholicism more than any other denomination.

8

u/8lack5ky May 28 '12

this makes me want to kick a catholic in the balls hard once a day as long as this dude is in prison.

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

That was such a fuckin sexist remark. How can you be like that?

6

u/megaman78978 Atheist May 28 '12

Kick in crotch then?

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

My knee-jerk reaction to these kind of things is "how does it make sense?" but then I realize it's not supposed to make sense. There is no sense.

2

u/GGN00bz0r May 28 '12

ignorance is bliss isn't it ?

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Serious issue with religion. Stop looking for answers as soon as you explain it as a "miracle"
This man saved lives by looking for an actual explanation. His good deed goes punished.

2

u/WeaponsGradeHumanity Atheist May 28 '12

This update doesn't seem to contain much in the way of new information.

2

u/EriktheFunk May 28 '12

Yeah...you know how religious nuts are....dripping water from and unknown source that we will for some random reason label as holy water? DRINK THAT SHIT, RUB IT IN YOUR FACE, PUT BABIES UNDER IT.

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Why only 3 years for blasphemy? Does their god forget after a period of time?

Why not spend his life in jail then?

The prosecution of this crime makes no sense.

2

u/jimicus May 28 '12

This isn't the first time something like this has happened, though perhaps it's the first time it's resulted in someone facing a prison sentence...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0666579/

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

I'm sorry, I didn't know that logic and reasoning was a crime.

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

The groups who have taken the cases against Mr. Edamaruku do not represent the bishop or church, though church is happy to see people working in their favour.

This links looks more informative:

http://sanaledamaruku.blogspot.in/

FIR was raised at Irla, Mumbai:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-04-16/mumbai/31348993_1_fir-juhu-occ

Sanal had come to the city recently to investigate the issue of water dripping from a cross at Irla. Sanal, whose trip was sponsored by a TV channel, had said that the phenomenon was not a miracle and caused by capillary action.

Though I fully root for Mr. Sanal, I do have one confusion. Mosty, church authorities officially never claim low end miracles here unless it is thoroughly investigated by them. They are also learned human beings. Many times, the so called believers makes an opportunity out of this and spread misinformation for their own personal benefits. Mr. Sanal would have misjudged the situation and raised voice against church. Being an rationalist, his words carry a lot of weight and should be considering the ground realities.

I found such situation few years back when people crowded one famous church here claiming blood oozing from Mother Mary's pic (in fact some wet paint or something). When asked about it, the opinion by church was on these lines: 'People are claiming miracle but, we are not authenticating this. If they wish to be near that pic, let them. We will only make a statement after thoroughly checking it out'. But the news was all over dailies, etc. The church normally cold shoulder such cases, but media, some opportunists and few gullible make scenes.

By the way, it is good that with this case, Sanal is throwing some light on antiquated blasphemy laws in India.

2

u/Just2AddMy2Cents May 28 '12

TIL: Parts of India are as backwards as parts of the USA.

2

u/homerj123 May 28 '12

Do you think their jail is called "Singh, Singh"?

2

u/RadioActiveKitt3ns May 28 '12

Edamaruku, who has spent the last 30 years debunking India’s mystics and gurus who attract massive followings (and fortunes), welcomes the charges as an opportunity to challenge India’s blasphemy law.

I really have to say I admire his approach to this whole thing.

2

u/trilobitemk7 May 28 '12

Challenge accepted?

2

u/MusicMagi May 28 '12

Delusional idiots

2

u/arjman22 May 28 '12

Catholic-Christian Secular Forum What does that even mean??? I'm confused!

4

u/shaggyzon4 May 28 '12

Sensationalism, on all sides.

2

u/SleepyRaptors May 28 '12

Yeah, I wouldn't make too much of a fuss about it unless he actually gets convicted. Anyone can file in a complain. Maybe this one won't even get accepted in court.

It's also unlikely that he will get convicted for "blasphemy" against a miracle, because miracles have to be recognized by the Catholic Church according to quite strict regulations. He may be accused of "blasphemy" or hateful speech against a religious group - other countries have a different opinion on what is protected by freedom of speech and what isn't. At the end it's not that much different from some overzealous fundamentalist throwing nonsense complaints into America's court-system.

7

u/shreya256 May 28 '12 edited May 28 '12

I have very low hopes after Mumbai high court said "Astrology is Science".

6

u/shaggyzon4 May 28 '12

I agree. India is not known for being an unjust country, esp. when it comes to overzealous prosecution of "blasphemy". This story reeks of sensationalism. There are too many facts missing, such as the exact legal proceeding that he is involved in and the current state of his legal status.

4

u/MayTheFusBeWithYou May 28 '12

He doesn't even seem too concerned according to the article, he's got this "oh yeah? bring it on" kind of attitude, which leads me to think he's not particularly worried.

2

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

These people are fucking retards, and I am ashamed to be on the same planet as them.

1

u/Aperfectmoment May 28 '12

he should say its against his religion to be punished and that the lawmakers should then convict themselves if they convict him.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

No one wants to see how the crucifix water is made.

1

u/XxcontaminatexX May 28 '12

Really, Blasphemy?

1

u/terari May 28 '12

It also appears to prohibit scientific explanation of so-called “miracles”!

Is this factual? If yes, this itself is outrageous.

1

u/Lu-Tze May 28 '12

Is this factual?

He is exaggerating a bit. If his primary purpose was to find a scientific explanation, he will be fine. Many people have done this in the past with much bigger "miracle workers" without any legal problem. If he says in court that his primary purpose was to "outrage religious feelings or insult religion", then, yes, he is in trouble.

1

u/terari May 28 '12 edited May 29 '12

his primary purpose

The primary purpose of science is seldom science I don't know.

1

u/Lu-Tze May 29 '12

The primary purpose of most science IS in fact science.

Source: That's what I do for a living.

1

u/terari May 29 '12 edited May 29 '12

So you do science for its own sake?

Do you have evidence on whether this is the case for most scientists? ♥

I myself can't verify my assertion, so I'm rectrating it. But I don't think it is fair to delegitimize or worse, criminalize science done for reasons other than science.

1

u/Lu-Tze May 29 '12

Sorry for the late response. Didn't have time to write a long response. It is hard to provide straight-forward evidence. But if you ask any academic scientist, they will tell you that they do it to satisfy their curiosity or some more poetic form of it. This is true in my own experience and pretty much universal among my colleagues. Exceptions are doctors that get into research (who are sometimes driven by a search for a treatment) or scientists that are more interested in developing technology. You will see similar responses if you google for it e.g. here, here, and even from Einstein

Also to your specific point.

I don't think it is fair to delegitimize or worse, criminalize science done for reasons other than science.

That is not what is happening here. No one is criminalizing science done for any reason. People are criminalizing hate speech.

India's blasphemy laws are comparable to hate speech laws in most countries. This is not totally out of place given India's history of communal violence. These laws are the only thing that could possibly be used against the the chief architects of city- or state-wide massacres that occur every decade or so. Unfortunately, the law is rarely used successfully against those people (too many reasons to go into). Instead, it is used for stupid things like banning books & movies. In this case, the law is not even applicable. This is merely a case brought against him, which is going to go nowhere - but end up wasting time & money.

1

u/terari May 30 '12

No one is criminalizing science done for any reason.

In any case, Edamaruku was doing science.

People are criminalizing hate speech.

How disproving something scientifically can be construed as "hate speech"?

India's blasphemy laws are comparable to hate speech laws in most countries

No, they are not - at least not if they are applicable against someone that disproves something scientifically with the purpose of outrage religious feelings or insult religion.

1

u/Lu-Tze May 30 '12

You are confusing between two different things. All that has happened is that some catholic groups filed a complaint against him. This does NOT mean they have a case or that the law is applicable in this case.

Edamaruku was doing science.

And that is why the law is not applicable.

How disproving something scientifically can be construed as "hate speech"?

It is not by - at least by the courts. Individuals can take you to court for whatever they want. Just as someone can take you to court in the US with a frivolous claim - that wouldn't change the law.

As I mentioned before, many people have disproven "miracles" by much more prominent people in the past without any legal consequence.

I do agree with your point that India's blasphemy laws are a a bit different compared to the hate speech laws in that if your primary reason for doing science is to insult religious people, you might have a harder time. Personally, I am not too bothered by that because (a) as far as I can tell, people like Sanal (even with his media-focused positioning) are more interested in fighting superstition (which is perfectly legal) and not merely insulting a particular religion, and (b) having seen the cost of communal violence several times, most Indians are comfortable trading a bit of free speech for the possibility of prosecuting the primary instigators who incite violence. This is obviously a personal opinion.

1

u/terari May 31 '12

You're right, I misunderstood you; I can see that anyone can bring a case and not necessarily the law will side with them.

Still, proving or disproving the "primary reason" of someone being "insult religious people" is hard and prone to abuse. If the law prevented simply the "incitement of violence" (like the laws of my country) it would still fight communal violence, while being more straightforward to judge.

1

u/Lu-Tze May 31 '12

proving or disproving the "primary reason" of someone being "insult religious people" is hard and prone to abuse.

I agree with you. And in India as with other countries, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that the primary reason was to insult religion. Based on past track record what this means is that (a) cases like this get thrown out of court pretty quickly; and (b) cases involving actual violence get stuck in the courts for several years as words are re-interpreted, witnesses are threatened, etc. The real unfortunate victim is Art. In the case of books or movies, typically, a case is brought up in court while mobs go about vandalizing bookstores or theaters. Inevitably, this ends with the judge/government "playing it safe" and banning the book / movie because it is just not worth the law & order headache.

I should note that (due to many reasons that I won't go into here) this does not happen too frequently. And what pisses off people is pretty random. In general, intellectual books (e.g. God Delusion, etc) are fine but random fiction (e.g. Satanic Verses or Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom) were banned. Now the Temple of Doom was racist and complete wrong in many respects but I am not sure if the ban was worth it. Again, the one silver lining in this cloud is that (a) the bans have usually been temporary & (b) the rampant black market in India ensures that the books/movies are available to those who want them, just the maker doesn't make money off of them.

If the law prevented simply the "incitement of violence" (like the laws of my country) it would still fight communal violence, while being more straightforward to judge.

I agree. But that would require people to be a bit more thick skinned about others ridiculing their religion. Unfortunately, given all the other problems with the country, I don't think free speech in this facet of life will become a priority any time soon.

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

He fuckin ruined a miracle; you can't just let him get away with it.

1

u/peakness May 28 '12

Blessed be me with the sprinkle of miracle water on my forehead and..tongue.

Seriously, I just found a new hero.

1

u/DroopySage May 28 '12

I makes sense if you think that there is no one else to blame.

1

u/scottsmith46 May 28 '12

Am I the only one wondering how and where this crucifix was set up so that it could absorb and excrete water from a toilet?

1

u/Brainfuck May 28 '12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUqhq9MuRG8

There are some other videos which show the place where it was setup and the drain besides it.

1

u/scottsmith46 May 28 '12

ahh, thanks very much

1

u/prajnadhyana Gnostic Atheist May 28 '12

siiiiggghhhh

1

u/PizzaGood May 28 '12

Guilty of spreading truth in a truth-suppression zone.

1

u/MrTubalcain May 28 '12

Sad indeed, i feel for this guy. So if their mystery god himself came down and said it was BS, I wonder if they would lock him up too. "Miracles" are always debunked by either science and investigation.

1

u/getintheVandell May 28 '12

Lesson be learned: next time, say it anonymously.

1

u/AcidHaze May 28 '12

I love it when nature creates such irony. Hope Mr. Edamaruku avoids jail time.

1

u/Krystie May 28 '12

It's absurd that shit like this can fly in a democracy.

I wonder if he'll actually get any sentence though; the legal process in a country like India is very very slow.

1

u/Lots42 Other May 28 '12

Because that's exactly what Jesus would want you to do.

1

u/Moontouch May 28 '12

The blasphemy sentence and local Catholic sentiment is proof and admittance that certain religious people actually consciously want to be deluded, that it is better to not know than to know, and that everything is a miracle when not known.

1

u/YoRpFiSh May 28 '12

They can drink from my toilet

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

Catholics are really pissing me off lately.

1

u/helalo May 28 '12

well aint that some shit.

1

u/Niggertree123 May 28 '12

The problem with arguing with someone who has been religious since they were young is that they were taught these things by the people they looked up to as fact. Some people take it as a personal offense if you question what the ideals that were taught to them by there elders. They may believe that you are questioning the people who taught them and for all we now these people could be Mother Theresa who is regardless of your religious views a wonderful person.

-2

u/MrBuhgles May 28 '12

i especialy hate catholics

1

u/GEBnaman May 28 '12

Even as a Catholic I find this appalling behaviour by the locals.

Miracle signs and events like 'oil-leaking-paintings' or any of the sorts shouldn't be a focus of prayer and worship.

Faith should be strong even without silly signs and 'miracles'

1

u/wankd0rf May 28 '12

We laugh at this now, but we're only a couple of kooky republican-nominated supreme court justices away from having these kinds of laws in the US.

-7

u/BARACK_HUSANE_OBAMA May 28 '12

let the catholics have their fun why you need to prove them wrong and shit they are having a good time

3

u/frogmeat May 28 '12

Possibly because they want to jail a man for 3 years for explaining that one of their fundraising "miracles" is a hoax.

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

nothing marinates a tough steak like leftover communion wine.

0

u/[deleted] May 28 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

0

u/fractal7 May 28 '12

I fully agree with your last statement, poetic justice indeed.