X-Message-Number: 26527
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:24:11 -0700
From: Mike Perry <>
Subject: Religion, Fraud, Risk
References: <>

My comments to Jeff Dee's posting #26506:

>It is *wrong* to take money on promises that you don't have a good reason to
>expect you can uphold. If religions commit that wrong, they should be
>challenged.

So far, though, the proposed lawsuit has not been stated to address the 
issue of taking money for something. As far as I can tell, most religious 
institutions don't "take" money in the way a vendor would do, in exchange, 
express or implied, for some claimed good or service, but accept donations 
only. Usually too, the ground for solicitation is not something like "pay 
us $10K and God will see that you get to heaven." A claim like that I think 
could be successfully challenged in court. But instead the understanding is 
more along lines that the donation will help the receiving organization 
maintain itself or further its work in some tangible and verifiable way. 
(Some of this work, too, will be of charitable nature and not just 
promotion.) People have the right to solicit donations like this, and 
people have the right to donate. Yes, it may be that many donors do feel 
they are benefiting in some unverifiable way (thinking that God will reward 
them, for instance), but still their choices are uncoerced. In theory a 
challenge to this might be mounted on the basis of fraud, but the case 
would surely be thrown out quickly.

Jeff further states:

>If they win in court it is *still* wrong, and they should be
>challenged again. But many of you seem to think that religion is SOOO 
>dangerous
>that we'd better not annoy it.

But you have to consider what you are trying to accomplish. In our case we 
want to win over people to cryonics in the largest numbers--isn't that 
right? So we have to ask what is the best approach. For example, should we 
attack organized religion in hopes of instilling doubt about its efficacy 
in the minds of believers, in the further hope that they will then turn 
toward cryonics as a possible alternative means to life beyond the usual 
limits? That seems to be the motive for the proposed lawsuit. I don't think 
that approach will work nearly as well (if it would work at all) as the 
alternative of trying to interest people in cryonics *without* challenging 
their basic beliefs. This second approach could take different paths, but 
one might be to treat cryonics as a possible life-saving, life-enhancing 
procedure along the lines of conventional medicine. Yes, it is unproven, 
but so are some medical procedures that many religious people still would 
accept as desirable to attempt (a risky, unconventional operation, for 
instance, to repair a damaged heart). I think that is what has been 
advocated so far by cryonics organizations, and I think it will accomplish 
more good (get more signups in particular) than a frontal assault through 
the courts. The latter, in fact, could well backfire and result in more 
burials and cremations, not less, in addition to endangering those now in 
suspension or signed up. In any case I doubt very much it would turn the 
world massively to cryonics, which in turn will require scientific 
breakthroughs, as I and some others have said.

>A few years ago, when the Godless Americans March on Washington was 
>discussed on
>this list, some of the same voices now opposing David's idea attacked me for
>planning to participate - even going so far as to predict that my life 
>would be
>in danger because Christian terrorists were likely to attack. That didn't 
>happen
>either. Perhaps there's a lesson to be learned, here.

You were exercising your right (along with others as a group) to peaceably 
assemble. You were not directly attacking any organization, just asserting 
where you stood on a certain issue (atheism vs theism) and that is a right 
people generally recognize you have and are not (usually) strongly offended 
if you want to exercise it. Also you were one of numerous individuals, so 
it was unlikely you would be singled out for special attention by a 
would-be terrorist. On the other hand, when it comes to danger, you mainly 
had your own hide to worry about, whereas cryonics organizations have 
dozens of helpless people--their patients--which they could lose in a way 
that would not be perceived as slaughter or murder by society at large. 
They also have to consider their animate members, who could need their 
services any time. And they are very small in number, so they tend to be on 
the firing line individually, much more than individuals in a larger group. 
Extra caution and precautions thus are called for.

Mike Perry

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26527