
A skeptic faces possible charges for debunking Mumbai’s miracle statue - suprgeek
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2012/07/a_statue_of_jesus_oozing_holy_water_an_indian_skeptic_debunks_miracle.html
======
jawns
I'm not sure why this man's investigation is being treated the way he says it
is. Catholicism is not only open to having purported miracles investigated;
it's, in fact, a requirement. Every year, many such investigations are
conducted, and the vast majority find that nothing miraculous has occurred.
The Church is fine with that; it's just as happy to weed out "imposters" as
anyone else.

For instance, here's a story about a U.S. archdiocese declaring a "bleeding"
consecrated host to be nonmiraculous:
<http://www.startribune.com/local/blogs/135600233.html>

And here's the quote that sums up the Church's position: "While the Catholic
Church fully recognizes the possibility of miracles and remains open to their
possibility, it does so with extreme scrutiny, investigation and care. This
incident was the result of natural biological causes and should not be
considered in any other way."

So I'm surprised that some in the the Catholic community in Mumbai are
resistant to this finding.

~~~
jawns
Ah, just as I suspected, there's more to this story than the Slate article
suggests, and it makes the Catholic community's response a bit more
understandable:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4216637>

tl;dr: The Catholics aren't mad because he revealed a natural explanation for
the dripping cross; they're mad because he alleged, apparently without
offering any evidence, that it was all a scam set up by priests to bilk people
out of their money.

~~~
lotharbot
He had facts which supported his assertion that the water was mundane rather
than miraculous; he used those facts as an _excuse_ to accuse priests of being
scammers, and all religious people of being gullible, regressive, and
irrational.

If he had stopped with a mere debunking, he'd be the "good guy" here. But he
followed it up with defamation and attempts at provocation, which makes him
something more akin to a troll.

I have noticed this sort of behavior elsewhere: someone will make a series of
statements, including some that are provocative and defamatory (accusing
others of major character flaws, criminal activity, etc.) and then, when faced
with backlash, will act as though they're being silenced or criticized over
the most factual, least controversial part of their statement. IMO it's
important, even for those who support their overall point, to call out this
sort of behavior because _it does not promote rational discourse_.

------
extension
According to his website, the police came to arrest him a few days ago, and if
he hadn't been out at the time, he would be in jail now. So, this has gone
beyond "possible charges". The church is dead serious about charging this man
with the crime of letting them know that they were drinking sewage.

------
guard-of-terra
And christians all over the world sit on their asses and not saying anything
against arresting people for that bullshit.

I guess a sizable portion of these are actually happy about the incident.

I just _never_ see them standing up and saying: I am against this as a
christian, this is not what the Christ died for.

Thus I consider all christians to have their small part in being morally
responsible for that crap around the world (see also Pussy Riot scandal in
Russia where I am from)

~~~
gscott
Did you know about this incident before it was posted here?

Most people live their daily lives, go to work, come home, have no idea what
is happening in India.

Certainly there is plenty of Christian charity in India but it is unlikely
even they know about this incident. Here is one for example:
[http://www.networknorwich.co.uk/Articles/196169/Network_Norw...](http://www.networknorwich.co.uk/Articles/196169/Network_Norwich_and_Norfolk/Resources/Training/Training_Archive/Norfolk_Christian_charity_offers_India_work.aspx)
they have their mission, it has nothing to do with policing Christianity.

A leaky drain, going through walls, and ending up through a nail hole in a
statue could be a miracle to someone else. I can't tell someone else it's not
even though it doesn't appear to me to be a miracle but just happenstance.

There is no Christianity police and you wouldn't want any because you need a
certain number of Christians to vote for gay rights.

~~~
guard-of-terra
I just never see people sacrificing their mental comfort and beliefs to save
human beings. I do see people sacrificing human beings to save their mental
comfort and beliefs. A lot.

That mismatch is a problem for me. So I want everybody have no mental comfort
to preserve and no beliefs.

~~~
gscott
There are tens of thousands upon thousands of people out there right now
sacrificing an easy life to save others.

You don't see it on the news because "child doesn't starve" is not a news
story. People who do great things are often not promoting themselves because
they do these things not for a slap on the back or a congratulations but to
improve lives.

I like this guy, usually people do things as groups but he is able to on his
own find where he can do the most, moves there until it is done, and moves to
the next place.

<http://www.wamda.com/coe/video/235835>

~~~
guard-of-terra
Sacrificing your life is easy and noble.

Sacrificing your beliefs is much harder and less common.

------
sixQuarks
This guy is smooth. He's threatening "to shed some light on the role that the
Catholic Church played and is still playing today here in India"

This is a brilliant defense strategy against getting arrested.

------
srean
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enemy_of_the_People> playing out. The play
was adapted into a movie by Satyajit Ray (not one of his best, but it was
after his debilitating stroke). In the movie the situation is the same except
its hindu holy water. I hope it works out better in reality than in the movie.

------
ars
According to <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4216637> this article is
quite misleading.

Also see <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4216363> for a parallel
discussion of this.

~~~
doetoe
I have the impression it is the hackernews post you link to that is
misleading. Whatever the post-hoc statements of the bishop or hacker news
posters, according to all information I can find, the complaint is based on
article 295a, a blasphemy law:
<http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/indianpenalcode/S295a.htm>

------
anxrn
Op-Ed in The Hindu discussion the issue:
<http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article3391109.ece>

------
rorrr
> _"deliberately hurting religious feelings and attempting malicious acts
> intended to outrage the religious sentiments of any class or community.”_

What a bogus fucking law. Pretty much anything can fall under that.
Christianity itself hurts my feelings.

~~~
nivla
You do understand that you are talking about a law in a country where
religious riots are pretty common? It is similar to how race-hate or sexism is
viewed in the U.S. It better to have laws that disallows picking on people's
sensitive sides and causing a blowout than ignoring it. You could do a simple
risk-benefit analysis and come to the same conclusion.

~~~
bobsil1
They're not riots, they're political parties outsourcing murder for votes.

~~~
gingerjoos
It is simplistic to assume that it's all the political parties' fault. They
can take advantage of these things only if the people let them. They are able
to exploit deep seated feelings and insecurities because those exist.

------
ktizo
Here's the website of his organisation for anyone interested -
<http://www.rationalistinternational.net/>

------
J3L2404
"hurting religious feelings" is an arrestable offense. Ouch. I think the
western nations often underestimate their own freedoms.

~~~
srean
Depends. Try denying the holocaust.

~~~
almost
You think that pointing out that "holy water" is in fact sewage from a blocked
drain is the same thing as claiming that the systematic murder of 6 million
people never happened?

~~~
gouranga
Let's clear something up here. We will never know the truth.

Evidence was burned, paperwork destroyed, the 'responsible' people were
trialled in private and executed, propaganda was all over the place, facts are
omitted for political gain and people needed to save face. The official story
needed to be promoted.

The people who deny the holocaust do not deny, but question whether or not the
official story is 100% accurate or not.

However to have any political force disallow questioning the official story is
not an acceptable situation. It undermines free speech and it purveys an
unacceptable duality of reality and fiction.

Wars are always recorded in the eyes of the victors and are closed from future
investigation (a bad situation).

~~~
urbanjunkie
There's a mountain of evidence that supports the fact that millions of Jewish
people were killed in concentration camps.

Are you seriously claiming that the biggest issue that holocaust deniers have
is that the "official" version isn't "100% accurate".

~~~
gouranga
Not quite - that's what your history teacher taught you.

There's evidence that an undetermined but quite large number of people sadly
died in concentration camps during the second world war. The number, race and
cause of death was not entirely determined and is not possible to determine
any more. That's all the facts on the table - there are no more concrete facts
at all believe it or not (find me a citation which is credible to prove
otherwise!).

This is extrapolated into millions of Jewish people were killed in
concentration camps which is the "official story" by the victors. The story
came before evidence and evidence was destroyed before the story could be
verified.

The main issue is that historical revisionism is used to piece together events
so we can learn about the past.

When the label and respective charge of "holocaust denial" is placed one
something, it is a closed subject where revisionism is no longer allowed.

It's an enforced dark age.

It should always be open for discussion and research. Perhaps one day some
clarity will be found? Perhaps more can be brought to justice, perhaps more
names could be cleared.

It's not closed, so don't close it is what I'm saying.

~~~
urbanjunkie
Actually, YOU find ME a credible citation that supports your little tinpot
revisionist theory.

Of course, you won't, as that will expose the lunacy of your position.

ps - the moon landings actually happened.

~~~
gouranga
The typical response. The burden of proof is on the inclusive case.

Were you there? If not, all you have is stories passed down built on
propaganda. I don't disbelieve, but i expect evidence. I've been to Auschwitz
btw - have you?

I dint get the moon landings point. They did happen.

~~~
netcan
There is in fact a mountain of evidence for the holocaust, much more than for
most historical events. As much or more than evidence for the number of
soldiers from various armies that died. Accuracy is not as good because
estimates are consolidated from lots of sources. But the ballpark figure and
the overall picture is very certain, mostly because of the huge number of
different sources of information. For example:

A lot of the evidence is comparing population numbers before & after the war.
here we have: national census data, synagogue or community records.

For example, in my grandmother's village they know (and documented) pretty
much who lived there before. Who survived. Who died. And to a large extent,
how. There is lots of speculation to make up the total of course: if someone
died in the getto from nutrion related disease, does that count? Suicide? If
30% of the people just are unaccounted for how many do you assume survived and
weren't found, died some other way or were gassed? In that case though, that
number is around 30% and that is not atypical for local communities.

There are various other evidence sources as well: Nazi records (remarkably
good), trial evidence from tens of thousands of witnesses in dozens of
jurisdictions, guards, inmates, train drivers, local populations.

From that sort of evidence you can piece together how many people were gassed.
For example you know from guards, inmates, locals etc roughly how many people
came in a day during different periods. You corroborate that with evidence
about how many bodies were disposed of. Stuff like that. This kind of counting
is going to undercount significantly relative to the former kind of counting
(before & after numbers) because it doesn't account for lots of other causes
of death or disappearance, but thats expected.

None of it amounts to perfect accounting. If in Holland 150,000 people
identified in a 1941 and 35,000 can be accounted for in immigration to Israel,
the US & in the 1950 Dutch census, you have a good idea about how many died.
We also know from Nazi records how many were deemed half & quarter Jews (as
well as corroborate Dutch census numbers to Nazi records). Put it together and
we can estimate a range of "missing persons". You have problems like the US
not recording religion or Israel not recording place of residence in 1941
(maybe they were born in Belgium and eventually emigrated from France). Double
counting, not counting. Part Jews that didn't identify in census data in 1941
also didn't identify later on so are hard to track. People changed their
declared identities. Some assumed new identities altogether. Some immigrated
to places that aren't recorded. Assumptions are made about these things. Maybe
150000 were murdered, maybe 75,000.

The real estimate is a range: 3-7 million.

As for the taboo. Thats a problem and its bad for finding truth. Mostly its a
problem that Orwell put his finger on. " _The nationalist not only does not
disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable
capacity for not even hearing about them._ " Basically, "denial" is a mostly
Fascist phenomenon, at least in Europe.

~~~
gouranga
That's some good information. Thank you. This is quality discussion.

The irony of the concept of denial is that those (like myself) who choose not
to form an opinion yet are lumped on with the denying group. This very concept
itself is a form of fascism / authoritarianism.

Bringing Orwell back into the discussion, this is a form of doublethink i.e.
holding two contradictory ideas:

1\. Fascism is bad.

2\. We'll use fascist tenets to promote that fascism is bad.

Paradox! (I personally aim to be paradox free)

~~~
netcan
You come off as more then withholding judgement opinion. You come off as
challenging the general consensus opinion, including the academic one.

I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and assume that you are in fact
reacting to what you see as a censorship of discussion by tabooing the whole
subject. My point with the Orwell quote is that in most cases of European
"denial," it was being promoted almost exclusively by Nazi/Fascist
sympathizers. Hence the labeling and stigmatization of "holocaust deniers,"
which incidentally was initiated mostly by the Germans of the 1950s, disgusted
by the sins of their fathers.

In the 1960s Palestinians adopted a skeptical-conspiracy "denial" that was
part of their conflict with Zionism. IE the holocaust myth was fabricated as
an excuse for Zionist colonialism. The current chairman of the PA, for example
wrote his doctoral thesis on the subject. Over about 20 years this
simultaneously percolated into what has become semi-religious beliefs in the
Muslim world on one hand and backed away from by its original proponents as
their evidence was strongly and insistently refuted in academia. The
aforementioned chairman, for example, no longer promotes these ideas. In the
instances that it has merged with religion it has also adopted various
medieval anti-jewish mythology and/or 19th century Czarist propaganda. Various
Muslim brotherhood affiliates streams, for example, believe in the Czarist
"Protocols of the Elders of Zion" document.

This is why I noted European denial separately. A lot of the modern leftist
skeptics are influenced by this wave (rather than the earlier fascist one).

~~~
gouranga
I am literally just withholding judgement. The opinion only needs to be
challenged if it feels threatened. I do not wish to challenge it personally
but would passively accept more information as it becomes available.

Genuine thanks for the notes - very interesting and a good read.

~~~
netcan
More info available than you could read in a lifetime. This is probably the
most studied historical topic of all time.

