When does exposing a hoax become blasphemy ?

[MartG]

http://boingboing.net/2012/04/13/indian-skeptic-ch...

Guy explains how a 'miracle' is occurring and gets arrested for blasphemy

[eldar]

God moves in mysterious ways. Then laughs...

[SystemParanoia]

religious pricks

burn the fking church down with all those brainwashing priests in it

[once]

Hmmm ... well, yes and no. First it doesn't seem like it was a hoax. Looks like a plain accident to me. I don't think anyone is saying that the water was deliberately diverted to the cross.

Secondly, we don't know exactly what this Sanal person said to offend so many people. The article says:

"Some hours later, in a live program on TV-9, Sanal explained his findings and accused the concerned Catholic Church officials of miracle mongering, as they were beating the big drum for the drippling Jesus statue with aggressive PR measures and by distributing photographs certifying the “miracle”."

For all we know, the charges of blasphemy could relate to the other accusations that he made - ie of miracle mongering. By all accounts it was a heated argument.

I am an atheist, so I don't for a moment think that there is any divine hand behind this. But I also don't think it was a deliberate hoax. He may be being accused of blasphemy for pointing it out, or the accusations may be based on what he said during the argument that happened afterwards.

It seems to me that both the church and the skeptics are trying to make too much out of a simple accident. But then as an atheist, I would say that, wouldn't I?

[Mr_B]

Nothing retards like religion can. See taxi driver thread and just about every other thread involving religion.

I seem to remember a episode of Only Fools and Horses where a statue of Christ is seen to be weeping, mainly because Del knicked the lead roofing of the Church roof. Maybe they get repeats over there and took inspiration ?

[Ozzie Osmond]

Mr_B said:

Nothing retards like religion can.

The problem is simply the idiots who state every word to be literally true and then cherry pick passages to fit what they want.

Better to see religion as a combination of common sense and illustrative stories IMO. And whatever God may be it seems unlikely that he/she writes books in any event.

[AndrewW-G]

Some time later in India

[SirBlade]

MartG said:

http://boingboing.net/2012/04/13/indian-skeptic-ch...

Guy explains how a 'miracle' is occurring and gets arrested for blasphemy

I wonder what life was like back when religion was a zero day exploit.

[speedy_thrills]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Better to see religion as a combination of common sense and illustrative stories IMO.

Yet I see Leviticus 20:13 an neither common sense nor illustrative in nature.

[carmonk]

once said:

Hmmm ... well, yes and no. First it doesn't seem like it was a hoax. Looks like a plain accident to me. I don't think anyone is saying that the water was deliberately diverted to the cross.

Secondly, we don't know exactly what this Sanal person said to offend so many people. The article says:

"Some hours later, in a live program on TV-9, Sanal explained his findings and accused the concerned Catholic Church officials of miracle mongering, as they were beating the big drum for the drippling Jesus statue with aggressive PR measures and by distributing photographs certifying the “miracle”."

For all we know, the charges of blasphemy could relate to the other accusations that he made - ie of miracle mongering. By all accounts it was a heated argument.

I am an atheist, so I don't for a moment think that there is any divine hand behind this. But I also don't think it was a deliberate hoax.

It may not have been a hoax initially but it became so the moment the mechanism was revealed and the church decided to continue promoting the miraculous magic Jesus angle. AFAIK there is no crime of blasphemy in India, it's just that they have an umbrella protection of all religious belief from criticism. As an Atheist I'm happy that my own belief is based on reason and logic and doesn't need special dispensation to protect it from questioning.

[andyroo]

It beggars belief that these people believe that their God, who they see as an almighty being that created the universe and everything in it, has nothing better to do than make a statue of himself look like it's crying...

[MartG]

carmonk said:

As an Atheist I'm happy that my own belief is based on reason and logic and doesn't need special dispensation to protect it from questioning.

I couldn't have put it any better than that

[Lost_BMW]

andyroo said:

It beggars belief that these people believe that their God, who they see as an almighty being that created the universe and everything in it, has nothing better to do than make a statue of himself look like it's crying...

Just bear in mind that this is the mob who only, grudgingly, 'pardoned' Galileo a short while back.

Second worst religion in the world!




and don't mention The Inquisition....

[Apache]

MartG said:

carmonk said:

As an Atheist I'm happy that my own belief is based on reason and logic and doesn't need special dispensation to protect it from questioning.

I couldn't have put it any better than that

Agreed, the level of insecurity and paranoa some believers display when their religion is questioned belies the integrity of their belief in my opinion

[TheHeretic]

It's just one of the issues with these things. Religion, and their 'quirks' being unquestionable being one of them.

[MartG]

Apache said:

Agreed, the level of insecurity and paranoa some believers display when their religion is questioned belies the integrity of their belief in my opinion

In a similar vein I think it's funny that most religions ban superstition, which is usually defined as 'any other religion'

[speedy_thrills]

carmonk said:

As an Atheist I'm happy that my own belief is based on reason and logic and doesn't need special dispensation to protect it from questioning.

As an Atheist I want to the "special dispensation" door open when travelling in very religious places. I have no desire to explain to a Saudi man with pliers or a blowtorch that I don't believe in god, I'd prefer to play "Don't ask, don't tell" on the subject at that time.

[Apache]

And once a believer finds a religion to believe in, why does he feel it incumbent upon himself to persuade others to believe too? safety in numbers? confirmation that he isn't a lunatic?

[DonkeyApple]

Tards are always going to believe and follow something. Whether it's Simon Cowell, a get rich quick scheme or fairy tales written down by punters who wiped their arses with their hands.

What is bizarre is thinking about the logic of blasphemy laws. It does seem immoral to use the formal laws of society to enforce something that is totally unproveable.

Sure, arrest and charge someone for assault, threats etc etc but there can't really be a place in modern law for 'blasphemy' charges.

[TheHeretic]

DonkeyApple said:

Tards are always going to believe and follow something. Whether it's Simon Cowell, a get rich quick scheme or fairy tales written down by punters who wiped their arses with their hands.

What is bizarre is thinking about the logic of blasphemy laws. It does seem immoral to use the formal laws of society to enforce something that is totally unproveable.

Sure, arrest and charge someone for assault, threats etc etc but there can't really be a place in modern law for 'blasphemy' charges.

There was a motion being put through the UN to guard against religious criticism, (I kid you not). it got quite far, and there is always pressure for it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/25/blasphemy...