And what about the side-effects of such a battle?
Such as stricter legislation…?
Also…
This is exactly what happened in UK in 2019. And the consequences were terrible.
1 Like
It is an issue…
At least in Europe, we have already relatively strong rights considering body autonomy, many things are / were possible here, and that’s great.
But still, like I said, they sued Dr. Evil and actually put him in jail, though his customers were happy with his work, simply because they said “nope, it’s not possible to agree to someone cutting of your nose, no matter how bad you want it. or to split your tongue, or whatever. this is gruesome, and we don’t allow it any more”.
So, things like that happen. And I don’t want any more of it, because, like Eyeux said, we have great professionals over here - and I would never ever visit a doctor (shady or not) for a bodymod, simply because I love the scene I’m in.
edit: @Eyeux, since you are UK-based, do you happen to have a good news article about what actually happened? I had one, but I can’t find it currently…
1 Like
If proved applicable under religious freedom then tighter legislation would be irrelevant.
To my knowledge the UK case had to do with the someone dying… a bit out of scope?
1 Like
got this one:
Not the best one, but covers good ground.
2 Likes
Nope, that was Howie in Australia
edit: or his assistance, not so sure about that one… but was an implant going very wrong
1 Like
Likewise. After some shower thoughts…
1 Like
Thanks. I think it is important for those interested to read it, since it clearly shows that his customers even signed agreements to get their mods done, and this didn’t change a bit in court…
Damn, just read that article again and I’m fucking angry again…
Hope Amal understands our slight paranoia now 
2 Likes
As much out of scope as someone completely unrelated to the Church, but using the “religious freedom” created by the church to perform shady procedures… and then killing a client accidentally.
And that is ignoring the fact that in UK case had no one dying, as @Coma pointed out.
I also get worried that this:
Might be a bit too optimistic…?
If that were the case then why does Trepanation, which is also a religious practice, requires so much legislation around it that it’s actually borderline impossible to perform lawfully in many US states and most EU countries? (exactly where I took the “you need a doctor that agrees to no longer operate in hospitals” example from)
We also can’t forget that we’re talking about a very polemic field here, so even if we would not do something stupid, we must assume someone will do. And they will do that under the guise of “religious freedom” created by us…
Agree! Was a great Idea!
Yeah… I wish I could live in a world where I don’t need to expect the worst from people all the time… 
1 Like
I do, but the church approach to religious freedom has nothing to do with who’s doing it. It’s all about being legal to do at all. For example, if a surgeon were to be doing tongue splits in the UK there would be no legal issue… what the laws in these states I’m concerned about are saying is that putting chips in at all is illegal… even for surgeons to do. That is the roadblock that would be removed by religious freedom. Who performs the installation is a totally separate issue.
Yeah, but I think that one has to be cleared before poking the beehive… otherwise, it can and most likely will lead to trouble…
edit: guys… it’s 2 am now, I have to sleep 
But I’m sure Eyeux will fight on for our case! 
1 Like
Great example!! That is exactly what I am afraid of!
Before the spotlight hit the bodymod community last year… We could do those procedures with both Surgeons and Body Artists.
Surgeons who would do that were… shady, at best! Body artists were great!
Now it is illegal for non-surgeons to do that.
And even the surgeons who could do that before also ceased doing it, just to avoid the bad publicity.
currently biohack is in the same gray shade that bodymod was…
So I am honestly concerned that by bringing the spotlight into it we will reach very similar results!
You might be required a medicine degree to be allowed to implant microchips like you are currently allowed to, even without the need for such a degree.
I say that, although hoping to be proven wrong!!
actually…
Does anyone have any one, a single measle one, example of any slightly polemic practice that existed on the gray shades, and then was brought into light… and did not ended up completely circled in new and stricter requirements??
Because I can think of dozens of examples where that happened, and can’t find a single example where it did not.
(hence my worry) 
I actually should be embarking on that same train, tbh!! 
Can you give guidance where I can read more about this topic? I want to understand why it is illegal.
Edit: Silly question. Generally it originates from incompetence and dodging responsibility (brexit).
Or having a shit precedent and being afraid to change back to original (airport -100ml rule).
I don’t even think it would be possible to argue that a procedure could be performed by specific people… that’s not what religious freedom laws even deal with… it’s about whether or not something can be done at all.
In any case, maintain scope guys… the “who” is a lesser issue than the “can” at this point.
A church’s money is how you would fight legislative actions about “who”. Lobbying… travel… meeting with lawmakers… suggesting bill verbiage… all that is how you bend law to your will… and it would take far more effort than to simply defense the right to augment one’s self with chip implants.
Not to worry. I have reinstalled withExEditor so I can edit my posts in gvim, and now you can’t see me type no more
I can’t see, but I can hear your keyboard cracking 
any time I upset you. 
Everybody else does it. Scientology, the LDS church… they all abuse 501(c)(3) to get megarich and lobby people of influence right and left. We could do a little of that too, for worthwhile purposes.
I mean you can stay virtuous and get nowhere, or play some of the same game also. After all, idiots decided to sneak exemptions into the law for religions: look at them if you have someone to blame when clever people take advantage of the loophole. Or at religions, which are the prime source of the problem.
It can be a Church’s money, or an NGO’s money. equally as effective.
If you remove the “who”, then the “can” becomes moot.
I do see your point.
And I agree that we must fight to enable it to be done.
But… apart from few places (like a couple of US estates), Injecting chips is already allowed almost everywhere!
There are even some countries, such as Middle Easter ones, where chips are currently allowed. But I can see they being outlawed if Transhumanism becomes a Religion.
The big question is…
Is it worth to create a Church, which could make everything harder for everyone everywhere, and would bring worldwide repercussions, just so it would become legal to have chips in a couple US States?
Also considering that we do have non-religious alternatives to achieve the same results at some point, and these would not bring even a fraction of the issues that creating a religion would.
That is a very slippery slope.
And it’s not only that my ethics costs a lot more than that.
It’s also that I can see far too many moves ahead, and I can’t avoid but to see this backfiring terribly.
And I refuse to use “others also do that” as justificative for my actions. Else I would be murdering, pillaging and raping all around!!
Err… perhaps not necessarily in that order… 
I also have nothing against being clever and exploring a system. It should work to, at the very least, expose how broken a system is.
But I do have something against lying to myself preteding I am clever when I am actually being lazy.
Under these lenses, this whole church scam is a lazy approach.
An NGO could accomplish so much more, and with so much less backlash!
The NGO approach is the one I see as the clever route.
Actually, since the sole drive for this lies within US law…
Has anyone attempted to use the second amendment to achieve the same results?
I am pretty sure that in this modern era someone clever could come up with a reason to treat chip implants as either a weapon, or a necessary component of one.
Thus denying you your implant comes down to denying you your right to bear arms.
This sounds to me like a similar amount of effort as the Church route, but with far less side-effects!
There’s another possible outcome: if enough people game the system (which is rotten in the first place), eventually the government might have enough and remove the exemptions altogether, thereby (1) screwing ALL the churches - fake and real - which would be extremely satisfying, and (2) leveling the playing field. As in, everybody gets to be treated the same, religious or not.
Or, it’ll never happen because established religions have too much clout, and we get to be treated as nice as religious people. Because why shouldn’t we, at the end of the day?
That’s why, as ethical as I may be, I’m all for setting up fake churches, to expose the absurdity of applying preferential treatment to religious people and their organizations, and take advantage of said preferential treatment if possible.
1 Like
If the only other possible outcome you can come up with is a Joke… that fuels my concerns.
me too! but then, do that with a Fake subject!
Treating Transhumanism as a Religion is far from “setting up a fake church”:
It is borderline twisting the Transhumanism movement into a mockery of itself.
It’s turning it into a laughing stock, as your own jokes and comments about FSM show.
And even if you don’t care about what others will think of you, this will contribute to weakening the movement and causing a big divide within it’s ranks, which could damage the efforts of current Transhumanist activists.
ps: you are still showing up multiple times as “typing”, @anon3825968
Edit: Actually… What about just creating another fake church, with the dogmas we want, but disconnected completely from Transhumanism?
That might be quite an effective way to contain the side-effects to within US.
1 Like