HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » Indian skeptic faces 3 ye...

Mon May 28, 2012, 11:58 AM

Indian skeptic faces 3 year prison sentence for explaining dripping crucifix

Catholics in Mumbai are outraged at a skeptic who pointed out that their latest miracle was full of it . . . literally.

The local Catholics spotted water dripping from a crucifix in Mumbai’s 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”.

"It’s 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 India’s blasphemy law.


Joseph Dias, general secretary of the Catholic-Christian Secular Forum, lodged one of the complaints, claiming it was the result of Edamaruku’s “”very obvious and stridently anti-Christian bias”.

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

77 replies, 10563 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 77 replies Author Time Post
Reply Indian skeptic faces 3 year prison sentence for explaining dripping crucifix (Original post)
cleanhippie May 2012 OP
iemitsu May 2012 #1
rug May 2012 #5
iemitsu May 2012 #8
rug May 2012 #18
iemitsu May 2012 #25
rug May 2012 #26
iemitsu May 2012 #28
rug May 2012 #29
Jim Lane May 2012 #2
Angry Dragon May 2012 #3
PufPuf23 May 2012 #4
longship May 2012 #6
daaron May 2012 #52
longship May 2012 #56
daaron May 2012 #57
longship May 2012 #60
Odin2005 May 2012 #72
struggle4progress May 2012 #7
dmallind May 2012 #9
struggle4progress May 2012 #10
dmallind May 2012 #13
struggle4progress May 2012 #14
Odin2005 May 2012 #70
struggle4progress May 2012 #74
struggle4progress May 2012 #11
dmallind May 2012 #12
struggle4progress May 2012 #15
dmallind May 2012 #33
struggle4progress May 2012 #16
LiberalAndProud May 2012 #19
struggle4progress May 2012 #20
LiberalAndProud May 2012 #23
skepticscott May 2012 #31
struggle4progress May 2012 #32
skepticscott May 2012 #51
struggle4progress May 2012 #54
struggle4progress May 2012 #55
skepticscott May 2012 #77
trotsky May 2012 #49
dmallind May 2012 #34
struggle4progress May 2012 #37
daaron May 2012 #58
struggle4progress May 2012 #63
struggle4progress May 2012 #17
dmallind May 2012 #36
struggle4progress May 2012 #39
struggle4progress May 2012 #21
struggle4progress May 2012 #22
struggle4progress May 2012 #24
iemitsu May 2012 #27
struggle4progress May 2012 #30
dmallind May 2012 #35
struggle4progress May 2012 #41
trotsky May 2012 #50
LiberalAndProud May 2012 #38
struggle4progress May 2012 #40
LiberalAndProud May 2012 #42
struggle4progress May 2012 #43
LiberalAndProud May 2012 #44
LiberalAndProud May 2012 #45
struggle4progress May 2012 #47
daaron May 2012 #59
struggle4progress May 2012 #61
daaron May 2012 #62
struggle4progress May 2012 #64
daaron May 2012 #65
Omniscientone May 2012 #46
struggle4progress May 2012 #48
Iggo May 2012 #53
struggle4progress May 2012 #66
cleanhippie May 2012 #68
struggle4progress May 2012 #71
cleanhippie May 2012 #75
Gore1FL May 2012 #67
Odin2005 May 2012 #69
struggle4progress May 2012 #73
struggle4progress May 2012 #76

Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Mon May 28, 2012, 12:10 PM

1. oh brother!

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iemitsu (Reply #1)

Mon May 28, 2012, 02:08 PM

5. Who are you proposing gets executed?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #5)

Mon May 28, 2012, 05:21 PM

8. executed? where did i propose that?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iemitsu (Reply #8)

Mon May 28, 2012, 08:22 PM

18. You must have meant accidental martyrdom.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #18)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:41 PM

25. i suppose, but only if they accidentally drank the dripping fluid.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iemitsu (Reply #25)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:45 PM

26. Now that that's cleared up, what about this?

 

"rank and file catholics are as dumb as those at the top"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #26)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:51 PM

28. i had spent the morning reading about the vatican scandals

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iemitsu (Reply #28)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:56 PM

29. NP. There's a lot to criticize.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Mon May 28, 2012, 12:25 PM

2. His problem is that reality has an anti-religious bias. (n/t)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Mon May 28, 2012, 12:32 PM

3. perhaps he is just against liars and frauds

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Mon May 28, 2012, 01:05 PM

4. Sanal Edamaruku did a public service

"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”.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Mon May 28, 2012, 02:23 PM

6. Sanal Edamaruku is the real deal

The Great Tantric Challenge

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #6)

Tue May 29, 2012, 12:00 PM

52. Hm. And he takes a position that appears to be a common debating point here.

 

“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/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daaron (Reply #52)

Tue May 29, 2012, 01:34 PM

56. I agree with Sanal on that.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #56)

Tue May 29, 2012, 01:42 PM

57. Reminds me of a James Randi challenge to kill him with homeopathy. :)

 

Munching bottle after bottle of 'arsenic' homeopathic pills won't even fill one up, let alone give anyone so much as a stomach ache.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daaron (Reply #57)

Tue May 29, 2012, 02:16 PM

60. Unless one's diabetic ;)

Homeopathy is a huge scam. Expensive water or sugar pills. But Prince Charlie likes it. Lil bit o the bubbly, eh Charlie?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #6)

Tue May 29, 2012, 10:52 PM

72. That is FUCKING AWESOME!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Mon May 28, 2012, 04:10 PM

7. Any details? Like, y'know, exactly who was claiming exactly what was a miracle?

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #7)

Mon May 28, 2012, 06:33 PM

9. Strange lapse in google-fu there.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article3391109.ece

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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #9)

Mon May 28, 2012, 06:49 PM

10. Is the author the same Praveen Swami who works for UK's Daily Telegraph?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #10)

Mon May 28, 2012, 07:02 PM

13. possibly - why would it matter?

The Torygraph and its staff are far more likely to laud religion than condemn it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #13)

Mon May 28, 2012, 07:06 PM

14. The Telegraph is very likely to carry "weird news" stories denigrating funny folk in foreign lands

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #10)

Tue May 29, 2012, 10:50 PM

70. This was reported by the BBC World Service weeks ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #70)

Tue May 29, 2012, 10:57 PM

74. By all means let us have your BBC link

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #9)

Mon May 28, 2012, 06:53 PM

11. Here is a picture I found by searching for

Irla Road Mumbai Velankanni


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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #11)

Mon May 28, 2012, 07:00 PM

12. Strange none of The Hindu's millions of readers seem to doubt it

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #12)

Mon May 28, 2012, 07:17 PM

15. As usual, I take the view that if the story is worth our attention, then we should get details right


So I have asked for details, none of which you provide so far



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #15)

Mon May 28, 2012, 10:33 PM

33. None of which? Bullshit

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #12)

Mon May 28, 2012, 07:42 PM

16. Maybe the commentators did not read widely with an eye for discerning the truth:

the water came from a leaking tank nearby
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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #16)

Mon May 28, 2012, 08:47 PM

19. Are you arguing that the weeping cross must be a miracle because

of jumbled reporting of Edamaruku's finding of the cause? Not accusing, asking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #19)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:07 PM

20. I'm just trying to figure out what the actual story is.

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?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #20)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:37 PM

23. Since the articles make mention of television appearances,

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #20)

Mon May 28, 2012, 10:08 PM

31. The questions you should be asking are

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #31)

Mon May 28, 2012, 10:33 PM

32. As water dripping from statutes doesn't much impress me much one way or the other,

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



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #32)

Tue May 29, 2012, 07:22 AM

51. Then you should be very interested

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #51)

Tue May 29, 2012, 12:35 PM

54. The law can be traced back to 1860, but has been modified slightly several times since, notably

after independence and again in 1961 (somewhat indicated by italics):

IPC § 295A
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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #51)

Tue May 29, 2012, 12:48 PM

55. Back to the facts now: what evidence do you have that the state has actually taken

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #55)

Wed May 30, 2012, 06:28 AM

77. Where did I or anyone say

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #19)

Tue May 29, 2012, 07:21 AM

49. No, this is just what he does whenever a news article is posted...

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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #16)

Mon May 28, 2012, 10:36 PM

34. Or...for sane people

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #34)

Mon May 28, 2012, 10:44 PM

37. I can't determine from the video I've posted how that explanation works:

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #37)

Tue May 29, 2012, 01:52 PM

58. How convenient. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daaron (Reply #58)

Tue May 29, 2012, 02:58 PM

63. You do science no honor by asserting you have a scientific explanation

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #9)

Mon May 28, 2012, 07:45 PM

17. Here is another question: is the Church of Our Lady of Velankanni

in Mumbai, or is it on the Bay of Bengal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #17)

Mon May 28, 2012, 10:42 PM

36. How many St. Peter's churches exist?

Sane people can understand that proper names are often repeated..

Your google skills are surely up to finding pictures of both...and more besides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #36)

Mon May 28, 2012, 10:50 PM

39. I asked because when I attempted to google the named church on the named road

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:28 PM

21. It seems Edamaruku has been claiming since early April "I may be arrested any moment"

A lot of moments seem to have passed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:30 PM

22. This seems to be TV coverage from early April

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #22)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:38 PM

24. It seems to consist largely of various folk attempting to outscream each other

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #24)

Mon May 28, 2012, 09:46 PM

27. just like fox news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #22)

Mon May 28, 2012, 10:01 PM

30. Churchman on the program repeatedly says that the church is not claiming any miracle here but

merely wants Edamaruku to apologize for his claim that the local priest set this up as a money maker

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #30)

Mon May 28, 2012, 10:39 PM

35. Were they claiming a miracle BEFORE he debunked it?

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 .......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #35)

Mon May 28, 2012, 10:55 PM

41. I don't remember the color of anyone's underwear being of critical importance to a news story

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"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #41)

Tue May 29, 2012, 07:22 AM

50. He's just asking for facts.

Your reluctance to provide them is telling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #30)

Mon May 28, 2012, 10:48 PM

38. I haven't read all your links or watched the vids, so pardon me for asking.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #38)

Mon May 28, 2012, 10:51 PM

40. I have no idea. I'm just trying to get the accurate story

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #40)

Mon May 28, 2012, 11:11 PM

42. Do you believe Edamaruku is lying?

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #42)

Mon May 28, 2012, 11:28 PM

43. I think there is much posturing here. And in fact there is so much posturing here

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #43)

Mon May 28, 2012, 11:47 PM

44. We'll agree on this. I believe Edamaruku is trying to exploit this episode

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #43)

Tue May 29, 2012, 12:00 AM

45. I wish they would caption this, though. A translation would be very helpful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #45)

Tue May 29, 2012, 01:04 AM

47. So here is something that seems curious to me:


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?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #47)

Tue May 29, 2012, 01:59 PM

59. Capillary action.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capillary_action#Examples

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), θ is the contact angle, ρ is the density of liquid (mass/volume), g is local gravitational field strength (force/unit mass), and r is radius of tube (length).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daaron (Reply #59)

Tue May 29, 2012, 02:41 PM

61. You have not at all understood my objection.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #61)

Tue May 29, 2012, 02:56 PM

62. Sure I did.

 

And of course it can - does so every time a tear rolls down one's cheek. Or whenever a wound in a tree seeps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daaron (Reply #62)

Tue May 29, 2012, 03:04 PM

64. I think if you regard liquid transport in trees as adequately modeled

by capillary forces without any energetic inputs, there is little point in continuing "discussion"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #64)

Tue May 29, 2012, 06:08 PM

65. Oh, there was little point in continuing "discussion" before I posted word one. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Tue May 29, 2012, 12:23 AM

46. This is why super over the top political correctness is bad.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omniscientone (Reply #46)

Tue May 29, 2012, 01:19 AM

48. Well, the Indian law has nothing whatsoever to do with "political correctness"

since it dates back to 1860, the height of British rule

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Tue May 29, 2012, 12:25 PM

53. See? It's the bias that's the problem. Not the bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Tue May 29, 2012, 08:22 PM

66. Where we are with this story:

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




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #66)

Tue May 29, 2012, 09:56 PM

68. Your supposition could not be further off-base.

We don't know in full detail what explanation Edamaruku gave, so it's impossible to know whether his explanation was actually correct

All we have are news stories. Here is the story from the NY Daily News who got it from
This article was distributed through the NewsCred Smartwire. Original article © Agence France Presse 2012
http://india.nydailynews.com/newsarticle/4fc2430ea78e19fd47000000/dripping-crucifix-sparks-indian-blasphemy-row

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.

So is Edamaruku facing imminent arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment?
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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #68)

Tue May 29, 2012, 10:52 PM

71. I've posted a link to his blog, various links to news accounts, and at least one link to TV footage

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #71)

Tue May 29, 2012, 11:47 PM

75. Again, your claim is nothing more than supposition.

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


All we have is the story from the news wire. We must assume that the story is accurate unless proven otherwise.

and as far as I can tell (though I might be wrong) no prosecution is in sight.


Supposition. You may be correct, but since local news from India is difficult to come by, we may never know.

I should think your argument ought to be specific to the facts surrounding Edamaruku


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)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Tue May 29, 2012, 09:55 PM

67. Well, they think wine turns into blood...

...I suppose urine could turn into antibiotics using the same methods!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Tue May 29, 2012, 10:49 PM

69. I heard this on the BBC a few weeks ago and it pissed me off.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #69)

Tue May 29, 2012, 10:54 PM

73. I posted the text in #54 upthread: it seems to have been last modified around 1960 and has existed

in some form since 1860, so predates the Congress Party

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Wed May 30, 2012, 12:31 AM

76. Found a still photo of the crucifix shown in the video footage:


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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread