X-Message-Number: 26416
References: <>
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: "Cryonics Has No Beef With Religion" - WRONG
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 15:50:19 +0200

On Jun 27, 2005, at 7:16 PM, David Pizer wrote:

> Requiring others to be truthful is another requirement.  That includes 
> not making guarantees that you don't know if you can back up.

The law is extremely limited in this respect (Requiring others to be 

Freedom of religion allows anyone to make any guarantee they want 
(assuming there is no direct cash payment.) Thus, your first step is 
getting a Constitutional amendment passed - ready to throw away 
millions of dollars and the next twenty years of your life (and get 

> Now maybe you (whoever is reading this) realize the above argument is 
> sound but you also believe that the world is not ready for such a 
> confrontation.

The only confrontation I can see worth pursuing is one between a 
cryonics friendly church and the government. The government could then 
eliminate all exemptions in the law for churches, if we were lucky. We 
could then have people making a fully informed choice.

> If this situation does not seem wrong to you (a person who wants to 
> live in this world a long time), then I submit there is something 
> wrong with you!

Sure it is wrong - churches should tell the truth. However, this would 
have very little effect, since most persons are excluded from cryonic 
suspension by their economic situation.

The cryonics movement must take advantage of the situation by forming 
its own churches that compete with traditional ones. Such a church 
could make any claims that are even slightly more believable than those 
made by traditional churches and eventually win.

> Right:   Brian also said something in the same paragraph that I had 
> overlooked.  "The field that cryonics really has a beef with is 
> We should be thinking about initiating two lawsuits:  One against 
> religion to obtain an injunction from them to prevent them from 
> *guaranteeing* eternal life based on faith instead of real evidence, 
> and one against medicine for not offering (or at the very least - 
> informing about) cryonics as a last chance proceedure when all else 
> fails, to those who don't want to be dead right then.

Who would you sue? The AMA? Your local hospital for malpractice? And 
how would you gain standing? Since you already are knowledgeable about 
cryonics, you have no grounds for complaint.

The Freedom of Religion clause would allow churches to place cryonics 
friendly counselors in hospitals to educate critically ill persons. I 
suspect, however, a few lawsuits would be necessary to get this 
accepted, especially in the case of hospitals run by traditional 
religious institutions.


David S. Stodolsky    SpamTo: 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26416