Indian skeptic charged with 'blasphemy' for revealing a fake miracle

[John Dibble]

http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/1045
http://boingboing.net/2012/04/13/indian-skeptic-charged-with.html

You can read the articles for the full deal, but to summarize the order of events are like this:

1. Water starts dripping from the feet of a crucifix.
2. Local Catholic officials bill it as a miracle and try to get a lot of attention for it.
3. Sanal Edamaruku, Indian skeptic, is asked by TV-9 to investigate the miracle. He shows how it was caused by capillary action.
4. He accuses church leaders of 'miracle mongering' and those leaders demand he apologize. He refuses. They threaten to file a blasphemy case against him.
5. They file the charge.
6. Sanal is refused anticipatory bail, so if arrested he will have to spend entire trial period in jail.

The official complaint is that he was "deliberately hurting religious feelings", which is in Section 295A of India’s Penal Code.

[John Dibble]

It's so easy to say that in a country generally without religious violence and where religion is taken for granted as a personal choice. But in a country like India where religion has too often been used to provoke violence and hatred, it makes perfect sense to have laws to prevent them. Having said that, these laws shouldn't be used to silence critics of a powerful organization and hopefully the court will tell the Catholic Church to get lost.

US law doesn't allow you to use religion to provoke violence either. Provoking violence is not protected speech under the US Constitution. Stopping people from "hurting religious feelings" is not the same thing as disallowing the provocation of violence - laws like that are supported by religious organizations specifically so they can silence criticism.

[John Dibble]

US law doesn't allow you to use religion to provoke violence either. Provoking violence is not protected speech under the US Constitution. Stopping people from "hurting religious feelings" is not the same thing as disallowing the provocation of violence - laws like that are supported by religious organizations specifically so they can silence criticism.

But the US has never had a (significant) legacy of religious violence. India has been plagued by religious violence for centuries, and therefore religion is justifiably a sensitive topic. These laws are intended to prevent, for instance, a Hindu fundamentalist sect from insulting Islam and provoke violence that way. They were never intended to be used by a well-funded global organization to silence a critic.

The law in question was put into place by the British Empire in 1860 - I think it was very much intended to be used by a well-funded global organization to silence critics.

[John Dibble]

Last I checked, India gained independence in 1948, in an environment when the British whipped up hatred between Hindus and Muslims in a last ditch attempt to hold onto power and which resulted in the partition of India. So, regardless on who initially passed the law, there is a somewhat justifiable rationale for having a law against whipping up hatred.

That does not require giving special protection to religion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In which case you would be "hurting religious feelings" and breaking the blasphemy law.

[John Dibble]

Another victory for blasphemy laws - an Indonesian atheist who was attacked and then arrested after posting "God does not exist" on his Facebook page has been sentenced to two and a half years in prison.

http://www.atheistalliance.org/news-a-articles/archive/480-atheist-alliance-international-condemns-jail-sentence-for-alexander-aan

[John Dibble]

An update on this:

http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2012/07/sanal-edamaruku-update-indian-catholics.html

1. Sanal Edamaruku has fled to Europe to avoid arrest and imprisonment.
2. Some Indian Catholic groups have stated they will drop the complaint if Sanal apologizes for exposing their miracle to be a leaky pipe. Sanal has refused.

[John Dibble]

Apologize for what? All he did was reveal the truth.

That's essentially what they want him to apologize for.