Religion
Related: About this forumIndian skeptic faces 3 year prison sentence for explaining dripping crucifix
The local Catholics spotted water dripping from a crucifix in Mumbais western suburbs. They eagerly lapped up the miracle water, thinking it had magical powers.
Sanal Edamaruku, president of the Indian Rationalist Association and Rationalist International, inspected the site and pinpointed the source of the water. A leaking toilet drain.
For explaining that the only magic power the water has is to transfer gastrointestinal infections and other disease, Edamaruku now faces up to three years in prison for blasphemy.
"Its a case of miracle-mongering," Edamaruku told AFP from his home in New Delhi. "Any kind of miracle-mongering is ultimately to get money and power."
Accusing him of spreading "anti-Catholic venom" during televised debates on the crucifix, outraged religious groups in Mumbai have filed police complaints that could see Edamaruku jailed for up to three years under Indias blasphemy law.
Joseph Dias, general secretary of the Catholic-Christian Secular Forum, lodged one of the complaints, claiming it was the result of Edamarukus very obvious and stridently anti-Christian bias.
http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2012/05/indian-skeptic-faces-3-year-prison-sentence-for-explaining-dripping-crucifix/
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)this story demonstrates that rank and file catholics are as dumb as those at the top.
what a bunch of hooey? jail him who questions our miracles.
go on lapping up that "holy water" you fools and see what gifts you gain. the lucky ones might even be martyred.
rug
(82,333 posts)iemitsu
(3,888 posts)i simply pointed out that by lapping up the sacred ooze one of the faithful might meet his ultimate reward sooner. to me, it seems that since, the ingestion of the ooze was done as a testimony to faith, that the one lapping up the ooze and died has earned martyr status.
rug
(82,333 posts)iemitsu
(3,888 posts)had they done this on purpose, as i suspect they did, they would have died as a direct testimony to their faith. that makes a martyr.
like drinking the kool-aid at jonestown.
rug
(82,333 posts)"rank and file catholics are as dumb as those at the top"
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)which seem to suggest an internal power struggle. i was raised catholic and am interested in topics related to the church. i have an advanced degree in ancient and medieval history with a focus on church history. i always snicker when the humanity of the institution is revealed.
i didn't mean to insult any individual catholic.
sorry. please accept my apology.
rug
(82,333 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)PufPuf23
(8,843 posts)"Outraged religious groups" are the blasphemy.
from the link:
While India is formally a secular nation, has a law which bans deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. Edamaruku points out that this holdover from the colonial period runs counter to free expression. It also appears to prohibit scientific explanation of so-called miracles!
Laws against blasphemy have no place in a modern, diverse nation. Not only do they suppress scientific investigation of claims of the supernatural, but they also can be used to prevent a minority religion from stating that the majority religion is simply wrong.
longship
(40,416 posts)Edamaruku stands up to this Swami who claims he can kill anybody with his magic. Edamaruku says, fine, kill me. And an Indian TV phenomenon is born. Edamaruku sat calmly, smiling and even laughing at the Swami as he, of course, fails to kill him. Watched by more people on live TV than a Super Bowl.
Edamaruku is a skeptical hero.
daaron
(763 posts)I believe in absolute freedom of expression in any free society people should have the freedom to ridicule to criticize or to be ridiculed. That should be guaranteed in any civil society, he said.
http://sanaledamaruku.blogspot.in/
longship
(40,416 posts)But ridicule and criticism should be directed towards a persons opinion, not as an ad hominem.
In the tantrik challenge, Sanal frankly and openly ridicules the Swami by basically smiling and laughing at his attempts to kill him using magic. It was perfect ridicule, well done.
daaron
(763 posts)Munching bottle after bottle of 'arsenic' homeopathic pills won't even fill one up, let alone give anyone so much as a stomach ache.
longship
(40,416 posts)Homeopathy is a huge scam. Expensive water or sugar pills. But Prince Charlie likes it. Lil bit o the bubbly, eh Charlie?
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)And, for extra bonus points, where exactly this happened and when?
Maybe a schematic of Edamaruku's ingenious solution, of which we all are supposed to be so admiring?
The text of the complaints allegedly filed against him? The details of the charges allegedly filed against him? His trial date?
Any frickin details at all?
dmallind
(10,437 posts)If you'd like to go.....
"Early in March, little drops of water began to drip from the feet of the statue of Jesus nailed to the cross on the church of Our Lady of Velankanni, down on to Mumbai's unlovely Irla Road."
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)dmallind
(10,437 posts)The Torygraph and its staff are far more likely to laud religion than condemn it.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)so if he's a Telegraph employee it says something about his journalistic standards. It's also relevant whether he has or has not spent any time anywhere near the alleged locale of the story, because it could affect his ability to report accurately
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)http://mumbai.cityseekr.com/our-lady-of-velankanni-church/tourist-attractions-sightseeing/venue/395837
It seems to be Our Lady of Velankanni Church, a popular pilgrimage destination
Where in that building was the supposedly dripping statue?
dmallind
(10,437 posts)But hey maybe it's just a made up story to make religionists look bad...
..........maybe.
Most telling critical comment is this, hilariously redolent of yet utterly contrary to claims of many DU believers..
it is Secular India - Rights to Minority Religions only and ban, discourage and criminalise all festivals, Rites, Philosphies, Thoughts and Religions of Indian Origin.
Secular India has completely submitted itself to foreign domination. Only Hindus can be criticized.
from: Vijay
Posted on: May 7, 2012 at 03:08 IST
Made even more fun by having being posted in an article that debunks a non-Hindu miracle claim.
If that claim really existed outside The Great Secular Criticize Christians Caper that is
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)So I have asked for details, none of which you provide so far
dmallind
(10,437 posts)I gave you a time, and a location as you asked. Your desperate attempts to change your obvious assumption this was false are beyond pathetic
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)http://sanaledamaruku.blogspot.com/2012/05/batting-for-reason-in-land-of-faith.html
He says the "holy" water comes from a nearby toilet and could be infected with bacteria
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/18431327/genuine-miracle-or-just-bad-plumbing-weeping-jesus-statue-stirs-up-blasphemy-row-in-india
It took him less than half an hour to discover the source of the divine tears: a filthy puddle formed by a blocked drain, from where water was being pushed up through a phenomenon all high-school physics students are familiar with, called capillary action
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article3391109.ece?mstac=0
Sanal Edamaruku, president of the Indian Rationalist Association, revealed that a weeping cross was not actually a miracle at all, but in fact caused by a leaky drain
So ... is the water from a leaking tank, from a toilet, from a puddle formed by a blocked drain, or from a leaky drain?
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)of jumbled reporting of Edamaruku's finding of the cause? Not accusing, asking.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)What's reported is just a vague mishmash
If Edamaruku is the great debunker, that he portrays himself to be, why doesn't he carefully lay out the facts for us?
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)I suspect he has been pretty clear. I do think he is using this controversy to try to overturn blasphemy laws. Articles have named at least one of the complainants, so I don't think it's manufactured. I doubt very much that he'll be jailed, and I don't think he's much afraid of it either.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)If this IS a miracle, where is the affirmative evidence for that? It's not Edamaruku's responsibility to "lay out the facts" to prove that it isn't.
If it hasn't been substantiated as a miracle, with no possible natural and prosaic explanation, why should someone offering a prosaic explanation (whether ultimately correct or not), be charged with blasphemy, as opposed to just being shown to be wrong?
You red herrings about reporting of details don't bear on this.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)this is not the sort of "miracle" that would interest me
So I'm not looking for evidence that it's a "miracle," and I don't really need convincing that it isn't a miracle. I would, of course, be interested to see a careful scientific explanation of the dripping water here -- not because I doubt there is a good scientific explanation, but because the whole story here is wrapped in so many layers of tiresome noisy self-righteous bullshit, so I'm not seeing the neat clean and clear-cut scientific explanation I expect. Feel free to provide it, if you have seen it
Because I am interested in politics, I do find people's loud noisy self-righteous bullshit tiresome, and I'm interested in looking hard at it when I see it. This may be difficult for you to understand, because I'm NOT interested in tackling people's loud noisy self-righteous bullshit head-on: I find it more interesting and informative to look at the bullshit obliquely from a distance, while attempting to form a fuller view of the facts -- in order to understand what the hell is REALLY going on behind the loud noisy self-righteous bullshit
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)in why blasphemy laws even exist in this day and age, and why they are being applied in instances where no blasphemy is even intended or implied, of which this is only one example. Exactly what dripped from where onto what and why is irrelevant to that, but you seem to be pushing hard for those details, despite your claim to be uninterested.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)after independence and again in 1961 (somewhat indicated by italics):
Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.-- Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
So although you describe it as an "anti-blasphemy" law, the statute could also be regarded as a law to limit public disturbances (aiming to prevent the outraging of any class) or as a species of anti-libel law (insofar as construction of the offense requires deliberate and malicious intent). While we in the US do not generally regard "outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens" as a crime, we do make exceptions to our free speech theories in the case of "clear and present danger" to the public order, and there is no obvious reason to think that what constitutes a "clear and present danger" is the same at all times and places. Moreover, although we in the US of course recognize libel limitations on free speech, the English version of libel law has long differed from the American, and I see no obvious reason to think the American version must always be regarded as superior. The American notion of free speech is certainly in many ways a good thing, though I am unpersuaded that everyone everywhere outside of the US should always adopt your view that outraging people, deliberately and with malicious intent, should be protected
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)any legal action with respect to this matter? And more generally, what can you tell us about the actual recent history of IPC § 295A in India?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that the state had taken legal action yet? The OP stated quite clearly what had happened, but you, typically, have moved goalposts and created strawmen.
Let's get back to the real issue, which you continue to dodge. Why should anyone be subject to blasphemy laws in this day and age, or have to worry about potentially being charged under them, particularly if they happen to be speaking the truth?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)that is less-than-flattering about religious believers. Pick every nit, no matter how small, to try and cast the whole article in doubt.
Would that he gave the same attention to other matters...
dmallind
(10,437 posts)a puddle of water from a blocked toilet tank drain, which like every blocked drain in history, leaked?
Why don't you apply this critical approach to gospel claims, which disagree on slightly more important and less reconcilable details as the raising of the dead, the last words of a living god,and whether a genocide occurred?
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)where exactly is the alleged leaking blocked toilet tank drain relative to the crucifix?
And, of course, I don't apply the scientific approach to gospel claims, because the truth of the gospel does not (to my view) depend on scientific verification
daaron
(763 posts)struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)for a phenomenon, then waving your hands instead of providing the explanation
I expect nobody in this forum doubts there is a good scientific explanation for the water dripping: I merely indicate that I have not yet seen a detailed schematic of the setup that convinces me I have been given the explanation
Edamaruku, of course, may somewhere have provided the correct explanation: I cannot tell because of the vagueness of the reporting (and perhaps also because some of it is in Hindi)
But it is not enough to say "capillary action" without knowing where the water source is relative to the drip
Here is a nice photo from Wikipedia showing capillary wetting of a concrete block:
I say you cannot engineer a protrusion on the upper half of the block, from which water will continually drip down after rising into the block by capillary attraction, unless there is some other continuing supply of energy: for otherwise you would have the makings of a perpetual motion machine. Another way to say this is: the very same energetic considerations, that drew the water up into the porous block, hold the water in the block and discourage it from leaking back out at a higher level than it entered
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)in Mumbai, or is it on the Bay of Bengal?
dmallind
(10,437 posts)Sane people can understand that proper names are often repeated..
Your google skills are surely up to finding pictures of both...and more besides.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)in Mumbai, all I found were photos of the church in Velankanni on the Bay of Bengal
And perhaps it would be just as odd to find a Church of Our Lady of Velankanni in Mumbai, as to find a First Presbyterian Church of Houston TX in Buffalo NY
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)A lot of moments seem to have passed
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)iemitsu
(3,888 posts)struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)merely wants Edamaruku to apologize for his claim that the local priest set this up as a money maker
dmallind
(10,437 posts)Wearing what color underpants? After eating what breakfast? Obviously they are just lying if you can't give us these vital details that you are misssing .......
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)Last edited Tue May 29, 2012, 01:18 AM - Edit history (1)
since one Richard Nixon questioned the patriotism of Helen Gahagan Douglas by wondering aloud whether she wore pink underwear. Afterwards she always called him "Tricky Dick"
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Your reluctance to provide them is telling.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Is it possible that Edamaruku is correct? Denominations of all stripes are peppered with money changers. Is it possible that here is just one more example? Did the priest or the church proclaim a miracle before looking for a more prosaic explanation? If so, why?
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)I hope you don't perceive this as an attack, because truly no attack is intended. You don't seem to be trying to defend the miraculous nature of a wet cross. You seem to take issue the the idea that a pipe might plug up, puddle and the resulting ooze seep through the walls. Or maybe you don't. You seem to think there is a lie somewhere here. Would that be a fair thing to say?
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)that the actual story vanishes behind the posturing
The TV footage I posted seems to show a free-standing crucifix with water dripping from a toe. I cannot tell for sure -- and frankly I found it difficult to watch while a bunch of folk tried to yell over each other, sometimes in Hindi and sometimes in English. Naturally, I would find the scientific explanation interesting. I cannot see an obvious scientific explanation from the picture as I currently understand it. That does not mean I expect a non-scientific explanation, nor does it mean I doubt that there is a scientific explanation. It means only what I said: I cannot see an obvious scientific explanation from the picture as I currently understand it, based on my view of TV footage that I found tiresome to watch
I do suspect Edamaruku is something of a poseur. I do not claim he is alone the only poseur in India
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)to challenge blasphemy clauses in the Indian penal code. I think that makes him one of the good guys. I will leave the rest alone, as miracles seem to be always in the eye of the beholder. I didn't watch the video, so I'll leave you to your skepticism without comment.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)the picture I'm getting from this is
||| permeable material
|||
|xx\
|x\x\ protrusion and drip
|x|
|x|
|x|
|x|
xxxx watersource xxxx
water from below rises in permeable material by capillary force alone until it finds a place to drip off?
um, absolutely not! the energy from the falling water drops could be harnessed by a perpetual motion machine
so the drip must actually be BELOW the water source, mustn't it?
for example:
xx watersource
x|||
x||| permeable material
x|||
xx||
xx||
xx\\
|x\x\ protrusion and drip
|||
|||
|||
|||
but I don't see how from those pictures. I wondered if rainfall might be charging the material with water, but Mumbai was dry in March and April
perhaps there is some more complicated physical explanation that includes an energy source that would raise the water: could diurnal cooling and warming of the porous material have the effect of charging the material by capillary forces and then releasing water?
daaron
(763 posts)Capillary action, or capillarity, is the ability of a liquid to flow in narrow spaces without the assistance of, and in opposition to external forces like gravity. The effect can be seen in the drawing up of liquids between the hairs of a paint-brush, in a thin tube, in porous materials such as paper, in some non-porous materials such as liquified carbon fiber, or in a cell. It occurs because of inter-molecular attractive forces between the liquid and solid surrounding surfaces. If the diameter of the tube is sufficiently small, then the combination of surface tension (which is caused by cohesion within the liquid) and adhesive forces between the liquid and container act to lift the liquid.
For the mathematically inclined (assuming a working knowledge of LaTeX):
The height h of a liquid column is given by:
h={{2 \gamma \cos{\theta}}\over{\rho g r}},
where \scriptstyle \gamma is the liquid-air surface tension (force/unit length), ? is the contact angle, ? is the density of liquid (mass/volume), g is local gravitational field strength (force/unit mass), and r is radius of tube (length).
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)Please look again at the diagram I gave:
||| permeable material
|||
|xx\
|x\x\ protrusion and drip
|x|
|x|
|x|
|x|
xxxx water puddle xxxx
In such a setup, water can indeed rise from a lower level in a hydrophilic porous material by capillary forces. But (I say) without some other energy input, water cannot rise from a lower level into the porous material and then drip off from a point higher than the water source: otherwise, one could assemble an array of such devices, collect the dripping water, and use the collected water to turn a paddlewheel continually, harnessing a constant stream of energy in violation of the prohibition against perpetual machines: the final kinetic energy, of the falling of the water drop, must come from somewhere, by the conservation of energy. This energy cannot be harvested for free from the surface interactions of the water in the pore space of the permeable material
daaron
(763 posts)And of course it can - does so every time a tear rolls down one's cheek. Or whenever a wound in a tree seeps.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)by capillary forces without any energetic inputs, there is little point in continuing "discussion"
daaron
(763 posts)Omniscientone
(12 posts)A group of people tried to pass a blasphemy law at the UN level one time. Thank God, I live in America where laws like this violate the constitution.
I don't think it really has anything to do with religious fervor, but more to do with a government who thinks they can regulate everything.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)since it dates back to 1860, the height of British rule
Iggo
(47,581 posts)struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)Last edited Tue May 29, 2012, 09:18 PM - Edit history (1)
Have any charges actually been filed against Edamaruku?
Dunno, but best guess would probably be: not
So is Edamaruku facing imminent arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment?
Dunno, but best guess would probably be: unlikely
Is the story about the persecution of Edamaruku for correctly explaining a dripping statute?
A: We don't know in full detail what explanation Edamaruku gave, so it's impossible to know whether his explanation was actually correct
B: Edamaruku isn't advertising his explanation in detail, because he actually wants to discuss some other matters
C: Edamaruku's opponents say they do not object to the natural explanation but do object to his ridicule of people, which they say is unfair and not founded on the facts
Conclusion: Edamaruku seems not to be persecuted at all, and he certainly does not seem to be persecuted for providing naturalistic explanations
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)All we have are news stories. Here is the story from the NY Daily News who got it from
Unless you have something better, we have to go on face-value. Do you have a conflicting story to present? No? So "we" are really not anywhere near where you claim. You are the only one there.
Dunno, but best guess would probably be: unlikely
Well, since India now has a Blapshemy law on the books, just how unlikely do you really think it is for someone to go to prison: likely
http://www.rediff.com/news/column/indias-very-own-blasphemy-law/20110321.htm
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)If you know in detail what explanation Edamaruku gave, feel free to provide it: I haven't found it in detail yet, and I don"t see anyone else posting it here, so we don't know in full detail what explanation Edamaruku gave and for that reason it's impossible for us to know whether his explanation was actually correct
Your link regarding "blasphemy law" discusses India's IT Amendment Act of 2008, rather than IPC 295A which is what is usually called the blasphemy act. The alleged events took place in March; it is now nearly June, and as far as I can tell (though I might be wrong) no prosecution is in sight. If you believe Edamaruku is likely to be charged under the IT Amendment Act of 2008, you are free to provide any evidence, of such, that you can muster, but I should think your argument ought to be specific to the facts surrounding Edamaruku
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)All we have is the story from the news wire. We must assume that the story is accurate unless proven otherwise.
Supposition. You may be correct, but since local news from India is difficult to come by, we may never know.
I don't have any argument. I posted a news story about a guy who was charged with blasphemy for exposing people to reality in a way that annoyed them. You are the one with the argument. Please feel free to present any factual, verifiable evidence that this story is false or inaccurate. You have given your opinion (as reasoned as it may be) but it is still just your opinion. (that I tend to agree with much of it is irrelevant)
Gore1FL
(21,163 posts)...I suppose urine could turn into antibiotics using the same methods!
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)I've heard before this that India's religious minorities are really strident and DUer Vehl has told me that the Congress Party historically threw them a lot of bones to get their votes. I assume thus BS blasphemy law is one of those bones.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)in some form since 1860, so predates the Congress Party
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)It looks like it's free-standing inside a semi-spherical metal trellis that supports a flowering vine
Religiously making news
Postnoon News | May 28, 2012
... Sanal Edamaruku, president of the Indian Rationalist Association, ... said he inspected the site and found the source of the water to be leaking toilet drainage ... Accusing him of spreading anti-Catholic venom during televised debates on the crucifix, ... religious groups in Mumbai have filed police complaints ...
http://postnoon.com/2012/05/28/religiously-making-news/50899
I'll first repeat my scientific objection: it is not possible, by thermodynamic law, for water to seep up from below into the cross, then to rise to the level of the feet, and then to drip back down from the feet, without consuming energy from somewhere to drive the water back out of the cross. So I find Edamaruku's "capillary action" theory inadequate without significant further elaboration: a simpler explanation IMO is that someone regularly waters the vine with a hose and sprays down the crucifix at the same time, with the result that the porous material acquires some water which gradually drains out
Secondly, I'll point out that somebody filing a police complaint is not at all the same thing as the authorities filing charges preparatory to arrest and trial