Some morons are negatively biased. They are.
If they don’t read why the church was established the first place they don’t worth being considered.
I was born in that part of the world where being PC is not in fashion.
I do not lean backwards to avoid being accused hunching.
I dare to stand up straight if I know what I’m doing.
1 Like
Yeah, it happens when I open the post, and whenever I save the draft in vi. withExEditor automatically synchronizes the textarea with the contents of the temporary file when it gets updates, so you see me “type” every once in a while when the textarea gets updated.
Also, if I include URLs or images and I want to check that they render well, I have to sync up the textarea to see the preview. Hence more typing.
Still, I just typed all of the above and you was none the wiser 
Would it be disrespectfull to this thread if I am to open a new Poll?
Something similar to the original, but inclusive of:
- Support/Join, regardless
- Support/Join, but only if this is a serious religious institution
- Support/Join, but only if it is completely disconnected from Transhumanism. Let’s make a completely made up church just to abuse US law.
- I am Against. I think only bad things can come from it.
- Support/Join, but only if it’s a non-church organisation.
Edit: added the last item after @Atilla’s comment.
I mean… I get the thought behind the first poll, but given the turn the Thread took, it feels kinda “biased” now… 
To be fair, I went to grab a cup of tea… 
Can’t agree more!
Hence why I am so concerned about the backlash from treating Transhumanism as a religion.
Atilla suggests:
Let’s say formally complying with the legislation to register a church, instead of calling it FAKE.
Because: it would give a chance to start from scratch and only add elements which are passed the Rosco - Coma - Eyeux - Amal type of argueing. (I could have wrote rational, individual, collective and con- POVs 
)
Legal help - I guess most would agree
Mental support - Some would
Education - Some would
Research / Developing - Most would
if an organization taps into these topics you can’t call it FAKE, unless it’s an acronym.
1 Like
And, let’s not forget, we have a Glorious Leader, and with any chance he likes Kool-Aid too If that doesn’t qualify as a church, I don’t know what does.
Oh, I am fully onboard and in favour of all the points @amal listed in favour of raising a church!
Would be great to have an institution doing all that!
But… If that institution is a Church, this brings up a plethora of other issues and backlashes and consequences which will hit far too many unrelated folks right in their faces!
Good news is… an NGO is also able to address all your points just as efficiently as a Church would! arguably even more efficiently!
The only point that the church approach hits better is some very topic law-breaking in some very specific US states.
Which might even be achievable by the NGO or 2nd Amendment approaches…
Hence why I am being such a pain in the ass here! XD
I am so committed to my serious face right now that I’m not even gonna make a joke about choir boys here… 
I view this list as levels of commitments. We could work out a debate why to join regardless by reasoning each point. Polling the data wouldn’t be representative without wider audience, but it’s interesting to see how many people read the topic w/o commenting. (Generally it’s 5-6 who comments on philosophical questions, 20-30 who answers polls.)
I agree!
Would be more interested in a comparative analysis.
How many would have given a different answer to the original poll if there were both “in favour”, “conditional” and “against” options… and also how many others would answer to this poll who did not answered to the original one.
My 2p is that a religious organisation in the terms of we believe it is our right if notvone of our main purposes on earth to augment our bodies using electronic or mechanical hardware to improve our quality of life and to fulfil or goals.
This just came up organically on my FB feed… sorta makes my point about the power of a church, at least here in the USA.
Ugghhh…
Are they proposing a merger?
You know, mark of the Beast and all that… Maybe they feel CoT is a natural partner.
1 Like
Blinked and missed this. What have we done now?
Never mind, found it.
So, had a breakfast, a bath, jumping in here again.
I thought a lot about this thread while not being online, and I really like the NGO-approach…
Let’s say, “we” (whoever^^) found an NGO for bodily autonomy. For this, all people who have to do with chipping humans ( 
), like, Amal, the guys from Grindhouse Wetware, maybe even others over at biohack forums and all, could go and chat a bit with the big names and clubs of the bodymodification scene (we have some registered clubs in Germany, guess it’s similar in other countries?), and we could all get this done in a much bigger scale. Maybe get this Temple of Satan on board as well, they seem to fight a similar battle 
Afterwards, we could take care of many different things that all fall into the “body autonomy” category, for example:
- proper training for bodmod artists to allow them to apply anaesthetics and do their job legally
- safety guidelines for things to be implanted, like a base standard for the glass and such (so people won’t freak out saying we implant unsafe things)
- maybe even fight against stuff like (male or female) genital mutilation, piercing baby’s ears and generally doing things to others without consent - that might be nice for good publicity, and in the best case even do something good
I just think that this is such a big scale project that maybe finally all people who are (or could be) affected by it should finally be working together. This whole “don’t want to have anything to do with you!” going on between biohackers and bodymodders is seriously getting on my nerves…
2 Likes
Yep!
The satanic temple does a lot of good actions taking advantage of being a church.
But they are a church… (and a Faith, and actually religious. not fake)
As I said earlier, I completely agree with your goals.
Just pointing out my concerns with the side-effects of taking “Transhumanist church” as a road.
Actually, freedom over oneself is already part of the Satanic Temple’s creed.
So maybe one can already do that without need for a new church…?
I’ve briefly spoken to a priestess I know in US and she’ll get back to me with something more concrete…
But out of the top of her head:
“a practice being supported by a religion, such as “freedom to do implants” would not be enough to allow you to bypass a state law. In some states you would need a “religious ritual of doing an implant”, to be allowed”
And she actually used abortion and weed as an example.
Abortions are covered in some recognised religions, but just “being a member of a church” is not enough to allow you. It must be performed as part of a ritual (and some states plain don’t allow you regardless)
They are indeed. for quite a long time now!
A church can do one thing an NGO can never do: make ludicrous unreasonable demands and have the powers that be bow to them because… religion.
That’s how a few Pastafarians managed to get a photo of themselves wearing a strainer on their head on official state documents.
NGOs are expected to be rational outfits and don’t benefit from the same freedom. I guarantee you no FSM member could pull off that sort of shit if they were part of an NGO instead of a church.
Very similar in Germany as well - no matter if it’s a part of your religion, an animal sacrifice would not be allowed. Never ever. Same with female genital mutilation.
So even if you say “my religion wants me to have implants”, it is very likely that it doesn’t make any difference, or rather makes things worse (for the reasons Eyeux already stated).
I think this might lead to them being much more taken serious by any official body of state… Nobody really takes Pastafaris serious, it’s all mostly seen as a joke that does no harm to anyone. Now implanting potentially dangerous stuff is a whole different thing and might lead to much more resistance. So by being an NGO and making clear and serious claims, proving “we” take things serious and want to work out a safer way to get all that done, all while fighting for the right to rule over your own body… this might be something more helpful, I think.
Not stateside it ain’t. The creationists (or “intelligent design” as it’s now cutely called) have their pants in a knot over the FSM.
Yeah, okay, same as every christian organisation is nicely offended by anything having remotely to do with satanism and the like. But I’m rather talking about the people who make the laws - the governments themselves. It’s important to talk with them on a similar level, and if they just view you as a joke or a “funny but not dangerous thing”, they won’t really listen much…
Bodymods don’t have much of a lobby, and biohacking even less. By making a fake church of all that, they won’t be taken more serious, but rather less, and I don’t think this helps us at all.
At least in Germany, we have some NGO that are rather influential, and it is generally recognised that they do “good stuff”, so they have a big support from society. This might be important…