Slashdot Mirror


Indian Man Charged With Blasphemy For Exposing "Miracle"

bhagwad writes "When a statue in Mumbai began to miraculously drip tears, huge crowds began to gather, pray, and collect the water in vials. Sanal Edamaruku has exposed such bogus miracles before, and when he was called in, his investigations showed that it was nothing more than a nearby drainage. The entire investigation was caught on tape. The priests were outraged and demanded an apology. When he refused, a case of 'blasphemy' was registered at the police station and they now want to have him arrested." In related news, today Kuwait's parliament "passed amendments to the Gulf state's penal code stipulating the death penalty for those who curse God, Islam's Prophet Mohammed or his wives." However, they made no change to the penalty for playing a joke national anthem at a sporting event.

33 of 796 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds like they'd be right at home in the GOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Especially if they got elected in Oklahoma, Tennessee, or Arizona.

    I say Mitt Romney picks that statue for a running mate to solve his Mormon problem. The only trick will be telling the two apart.

    1. Re:Sounds like they'd be right at home in the GOP by dlgeek · · Score: 5, Funny

      It'd be easy - only one of them would have political convictions that are set in stone.

    2. Re:Sounds like they'd be right at home in the GOP by Moryath · · Score: 5, Informative
  2. Hopefully by jeremy85mai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hopefully the world will start to grow more accepting toward skeptical beliefs(such as atheism, Agnosticism, etc). It makes me sad how often these beliefs are persecuted :(

    1. Re:Hopefully by grege1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The world is rapidly going the other way. Back in the 60s and 70s people thought that The Age of Reason had won and we could move into the future with hope. Now reason is under attack from the religions of the world. And it is getting worse by the day. All the fundamentalists from all religions should be made to sit and watch The Life of Brian at least one a year and eat halibut.

    2. Re:Hopefully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't think reason is under attack by religion specifically. It just seems to be popular to be a moron these days. The number of well-established scientific theories you disagree with is a matter for competitive sport.

    3. Re:Hopefully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The fact they're getting louder doesn't mean they're winning. It might be taken as a sign of desperation.

      The first people to leave a majority religion are the ones who don't fear ostracism, the rebellious, the suborn and the alienated mostly. After them are the ones who go when it ceases to be socially unacceptable. Then there are those who leave when it becomes increasing obvious that their faith and their religion have parted company, and the religion is no longer something they want to be a part of, disgruntled moderates for the most part.

      The very last hangers on, the ones who will never, ever leave as long as they still draw breath, are the fanatics. A religion can have just as many total fanatics when it comprises 90% of the population as it does when it comprises 40% - they go from being a few bad apples to the gradual majority who drive away those disgruntled moderates I mentioned above.

    4. Re:Hopefully by shentino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What I'd like to know is how any religion that professes to believe in an all knowing and creative deity would deny the mastery apparent in the minds of its own creations.

      I mean seriously, why would God create a brilliant analytical brain, only to shun its use?

    5. Re:Hopefully by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny

      I mean seriously, why would God create a brilliant analytical brain, only to shun its use?

      Probably the same reason He created fossils for dinosaurs that never actually existed.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re:Hopefully by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe they're the ones to blame for the rise in religionism

      yeah, they're to blame.

      you nailed it.

      (how this was not marked troll, I don't know. but to blame athiests FOR the rise in religion is hand-waving that not even sky daddies could pull off)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    7. Re:Hopefully by FrootLoops · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your two posts summarize some of the major problems with religion debates. (The GP may not have been serious, but assume for now that it was.)

      mvdwege:
        * Unfair generalizations: "The current crop of atheists is indeed loud, and particularly obnoxious." People are not a ubiquitous mass and treating them that way inevitably leads to problems. Humans like to personify everything, especially groups of other humans, but that natural urge needs to be replaced with complex mental models that accurately reflect reality to the extent a human mind can do so.
        * Defensiveness: "sheer seething stupidity" ... "current crop of idiots" -- those statements will only convince people to fight you.

      TheGratefulNet:
        * Sarcastic responses: "yeah, they're to blame." See defensiveness.
        * Poor reasoning: "to blame athiests FOR the rise in religion is hand-waving". The obvious argument (likely missed because of defensiveness) is that religion felt threatened by a rise in atheism and responded by becoming louder. Whether there's any truth to that argument is a good question, but it isn't patently ridiculous hand-waving.

      Each of the problems above is caused by an emotional response overcoming clear thinking. People in general could stand to be more like Spock when it comes to debates.

    8. Re:Hopefully by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not a straw man, there are those Christians that claim that archaeologists who find dinosaur skeletons are the equivalent of modern day cryptozoologists who use hybrid taxidermy to support their claims. The more sophisticated dino-deniers believe that dinosaur fossils are a test of faith, and presumably take the fact that they fit so perfectly into the fossil record without a trace of scientific incongruity as evidence that their deity is almighty and powerful enough to fake evidence really well.

      There's also those who claim that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans and are mentioned in the bible, despite this argument being easily refuted by geological dating of the rocks the fossils are found in.

    9. Re:Hopefully by bryan1945 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I cannot comment on the world, but I can comment on my experiences here. People say they're atheist or agnostic, no problem. Someone says they're Christian, like I have in the past, and I'll get a bunch of replies mocking my belief in "fairy tales" and "how's that intelligent design going for you." And that's all I say- I'm a Christian, don't defend anything, don't push any agenda. I'll await the derision over in the left corner.
      The point being I get derided just because I say I'm something different from you, but Cthulhu help me if I try to say anything against atheists/agnostics here, which I never have, BTW.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    10. Re:Hopefully by grege1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      This must be Australia corner. Our Prime Minister is female, single, childless and an atheist. When such a person could be elected as the president of the USA I will believe in faeries at the bottom of the garden. The mad monk can keep the crap he is trying to import from American politics.

    11. Re:Hopefully by Kaitiff · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, I agree with his statement to a degree. Recently I had a Jehova's Witness bang on my door trying to peddle her wares. When I politely told her that I was Atheist she took that statement w/out a beat and immediately came out with a pamphlet SPECIFICALLY for self-professed atheists. She also had an entire set of pre-arranged arguments regarding atheism and morality. I was a bit taken aback. I think that the religions of the world are taking notice to their shrinking congregations and are going on the attack to stem the loss of money in their coffers. Even 30 or 40 years ago, although you wouldn't immediately be stoned for professing your lack of religion 'we' were most definitely a backwater. Now Reasoning people are far more numerous and far more vocal about their views. 30 years ago I could NOT have told my parents I was atheist; now we have rather heated discussions on the topic, when we aren't smart enough to avoid the subject. :)

      --
      If I sound stupid, it's not me talking....
    12. Re:Hopefully by digitig · · Score: 5, Informative

      The world is rapidly going the other way. Back in the 60s and 70s people thought that The Age of Reason had won and we could move into the future with hope. Now reason is under attack from the religions of the world.

      Nope. Some people did, but others thought it was the dawning of the Age of Aquarius and a revival of spirituality. Many of those folks rejected science as being a force for evil -- there was a massive anti-science swing in the 1960s. Turn off your nostalgia filter and you'll find that there was no golden age.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    13. Re:Hopefully by doublebackslash · · Score: 5, Informative

      Atheism is being against religion while Agnosticism is having no religion.

      I'm sorry, but that isn't correct. Atheism is simply asserting that there is no god. Agnosticism is a harder one to define but it is (in VERY brief) the idea that though there could be something beyond the mortal ken the details of it aren't anything more than pure speculation.

      There are many shades of Agnosticism but there is only one of Atheism and that is "There is nothing supernatural." There is nothing in that statement that attacks anyone. People just feel attacked by it. I don't claim to understand why.

      --
      md5sum /boot/vmlinuz
      d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e /boot/vmlinuz
    14. Re:Hopefully by digitig · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Despite the propaganda, you'll find reasoning people both outside and inside religion

      Why would a reasoning person believe in the unverifiable? The only reasonable reaction when presented with a nonfalsifiable hypothesis is "could be, but I don't really know".

      Religion is at best wishful thinking. And wishful thinking isn't reason.

      Is there an objective reality? The existence of one is non-falsifiable. Is logic valid? The validity of logic is non-falsifiable. If you really believe that the only reasonable reaction when presented with a nonfalsifiable hypothesis is "could be, but I don't really know" then I assume you are an epistemiological solipsist, which is an intellectually viable position but one that challenges science just as much as religion.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    15. Re:Hopefully by LoyalOpposition · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't even conceive the idea to put belief (let alone faith) in something that's unprovable.

      I suspect that you actually do put belief in something that's unprovable, but that you simply don't realize that you are doing so. For example, do you believe that the scientific method is a good way to learn about the universe? If so, then what proof do you have that such might be the case? Many people would answer that it can be proved using the scientific method, but those same people scoff when shown a claim by the bible that the bible is reliable, and call it circular reasoning. Ultimately, you're left with an infinite regress of reasons supporting reasons, which to my mind is more difficult to put faith in than the existence of god.

      On the other hand, suppose you're skeptical about the scientific method. Ask yourself whether skepticism is the correct way to approach knowledge of the universe. Shouldn't one be skeptical of such a belief? One must either accept and operate on the assumption that skepticism is the appropriate opinion to hold, or that it's not. One must accept one of those beliefs on faith, as it were.

      Stephen F. Roberts: "...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

      Mr. Roberts' claim proves too much. Let me show you why using analogy with mathematics, as I'm particularly fond of mathematics. Let's suppose I believe that there exists precisely one even prime, and analogously that precisely one god exists. Let's suppose furthermore that Mr. Roberts believes that no even primes exist, and analogously that no god exists. I dismiss candidates 3, 17, and 61 because they aren't even. I dismiss candidates 10, 34, and 100002 because they aren't prime. I dismiss candidates h, e, and pi because they aren't integers. I dismiss candidates -3, 0, and 1 because they aren't greater than one. I now understand why I dismiss all the other possible even primes (other than 2). Mr. Roberts' would now claim that I understand why he dismisses 2. In fact, I don't. Number 2 is even; it's a prime; it's an integer; it's greater than one. Arguments that claim that something doesn't have a property have no bearing on other predicates. Specifically, if I claim that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist because it was imagined by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to protest a decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to teach Intelligent Design, then that has no bearing on the god that we supposed I believed in at the beginning of this paragraph, provided that we didn't suppose I believed in the flying spaghetti monster.

      ~Loyal
       

      --
      I aim to misbehave.
  3. Nothing to see here... by alphakappa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Anyone can register a case for pretty much anything in India. If the police actually arrested the guy, or if he was convicted of blasphemy, it would be worth talking about. Right now, it's just a bunch of nutcases filing a case, not the government. Let's not fall for hyperbole.

    --
    "When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
  4. Re:Tennessee Theocracy by bobwrit · · Score: 5, Informative

    This isn't the first time that Tennessee has taken an anti-science position either. The unfortunate thing is, it's not the only state moving in that direction. A few years ago, I remember Texas was thinking of doing the same. The larger issue with Texas doing that, however, is that Texas happens to be of of the main producers of school text books in the US. I, personally, use that piece to explain why the US is so lacking in science education- the people writing the text books are under heavy theocratic control :(

    --
    -- (this is a sig) My Computer Programming Forumhttp://www.programers.co.nr/
  5. Re:Blashphemy??? by Securityemo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, people in my country worship a man who was allegedly tortured to death over 2000 years ago. There are life-sized statues of the man, wearing only a rag, nailed to a cross in every temple. People wear smaller depictions of the torture instrument as a good-luck charm of sorts. Part of the rites involve drinking wine and eating a small piece of bread in the belief that it, in a spiritual sense, is the blood and flesh of this poor man.

    Well, I guess it's a lot more intimidating than a jolly elephant man at least? Keeps the unwashed foreign tribes at a distance.

    --
    Emotions! In your brain!
  6. Re:Fuck you, racist. by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

    labeling someone a hater or fearer because he doesn't like or has a rational reason to not agree with something is not a counter argument, no matter what the political correctness thinktanks say.

  7. Re:Blashphemy??? by Frankie70 · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you RTFA, you will know that it happened in a Christian church in Mumbai.

  8. Re:Blashphemy??? by Shihar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dude if you think that worshiping elephant gods is fucked up, you should come to America and see some really crazy shit. In my country people worship some sort of zombie god/king. Their religious icon of choice is an ancient Roman execution and torture device. A bunch of sub-sects of this religion practice ritualized cannibalism and blood drinking. They think that their zombie god is going to come back some day and kill everyone, and they think that this is a good thing because it lets them get to their promised land or something equally crazy. I swear I am not making this shit up. These people are craaaazy here. I'll happily take some elephant worshipers over these psycho zombie worshiping cannibals.

  9. But... by bmo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The charge is entirely unconstitutional.

    It's written in the Indian Constitution that people not only have the right to pursue the sciences, but have a duty to do so for the whole of society, under Article 51 A.

    To wit: Article 51A(h) To develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform;

    He's charged, but the charge won't stick even with a drunken lawyer.

    He is roaming around free, because the police and the judge know the charge is bogus and a waste of everyone's time, but to do nothing would cause riots among the derp-infested.

    --
    BMO

  10. Re:Tennessee Theocracy by cheater512 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    no conflict between the Bible and science

    Except thats not entirely true.
    Science and the Bible conflict an awful lot. Straight from page 1 onwards.

    What you meant to say was that your religious world view and your scientific world view do not conflict.

  11. Re:Blashphemy??? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, every religion is going to seem wacky to outsiders, but..

    Everyone can clearly see how foolish everyone else's religion is. For some reason not many can turn the same critical eye on their own.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  12. Only Fools and Horses did this by Noughmad · · Score: 5, Informative

    Drops of water on a holy statue? Sounds just like the Miracle of Peckham.

    --
    PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
  13. Not really by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is a very old tactic by the religious establishment, don't question us and we won't question you. Basically, you are free from religious control, unless you question the religious control. You are a free person, unless you try to exercise your freedom.

    It has been the way to keep groups down for millenia, Jews are a famous example. Countries that claim to have been tolerant really just operated with "Don't be noticeable and we won't notice you to much".

    The Catholic church was fine with evolution, they didn't push for creationism UNTIL Catholics who had accepted evolution made more sense then genesis started to think "wait a minute, if genesis is a fairy tale, then why is any of the rest true and why then is it required for me to remain silent about this priest in my ass?". Creationism and the attack on science didn't start until the church started to loose power because of it. In the 70's, people were still balancing the two. Proof? Their were plenty of scandals back then but people kept quiet because while they accepted evolution, they still believed as well. Enough to not risk upsetting the church. That has changed and the church NEEDS power. Without control, they are nothing. After all, you can talk to god anywhere, why pay for churches and priests when god is everywhere or nowhere?

    The church isn't anti-evolution. It is anti-critical thinking. Critical thinkers wonder why the pope has a super luxerous seat on an airplane that could be carrying medicine. Just why gold is needed on a cross for a carpenter. And why people to poor to feed their kids should pay for it all. Can't have that.

    The renaissance was another age the church lost a lot of power in because people started thinking. The post-war new age thinking (In Holland, ont-zuiling, the end of the columns of power, where your faith defined who you where and you trusted your boss, doctor and politicians without question) cripped the church even more, now they are determined not to become totally irrelevant. Because the most dangerous idea a church faces is a religious person who realizes that Jezus never founded a church. You can believe without ever going into a church or being buggered by a priest. That is scary as hell to the establishment, those kind of people might even believe you can love your country and STILL question it! It is no accident the religious zealots and the right wingers go hand in hand. Romney and co want you to believe, so you won't think and question. Not just god and the church but the free market, the wars, wallstreet bailouts. Breed, have lots of kids who can't afford to be picky about jobs so Ann Romney can afford a domestic while she bitches about her struggle as a super rich stay at home mom.

    Or do you think the right like people having less children who can afford higher education and grow up to be thinking, questioning citizens? Things were so much better when people had a dozen kids who could be send of into domestic service for whatever usage the rich saw fit. And if a girl then inevitably got pregnant by a rich landlord after rape, well, that just ensured the supply of cheap labor would continue.

    A fool thinks that those who desire power desire slaves. Far better is a serve, a man who thinks he is free but forges his own chains. Religion and the American dream forges the best chains.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Not really by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Catholic church now officially accepts the Scientific model of the world almost completely including the Big bang and origin of species through Evolution. To mainstream Christians American version of Christianity now seems like a different religion from another planet, only superficially sharing rituals with the rest of the Christian churches.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
  14. Re:Hook on Opiates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do you think the Creator believes in a Creator?

  15. Re:A better question... by JosKarith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've always wondered why an omniescent deity would require open worship. If God knows all then surely it knows how you feel without you having to say anything.

    --
    'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'