[Lnc-business] Satanic Post - LNC Input Requested

Sun Apr 16 11:26:11 EDT 2017

I agree with Patrick and Ken.  This is a question of governance structure,
not content, not social media, not messaging strategy.  It relates to all
those things, and to be clear, I think progress is needed on all of those,
but the fundamental issue, as I see it, is governance structure.  For us,
that comes down to two questions:  what is the role of the board (i.e. how
can we be sure that our members can either complain to us, or vote us out,
if they don't like what we're doing), and what directions should we give so
as to prevent, not satanic posts, but all the other problems discussed,
such as those Ken points out, and those discussed at the meeting by Whitney
and Patrick.

As a bit of a disclaimer, while I didn't think it was the best idea, I
wasn't terribly bothered by the post.  Maybe I'd be more, or less, bothered
if I were a social media or PR person.  I'm not - that's why I've sought,
as best I can, positions in the party relating to governance, not
advertising and PR.  I am not reacting to that post.  My concerns about
governance structures are not new, I just think they've come to the surface
and are now in a position to be addressed.

That said, I'm not going to say that I will oppose any solutions that deal
with content, or image, or things like that.  I will likely oppose
solutions that require the board to get involved in things that are not, in
my opinion, high level enough to warrant board action.  For example, I
oppose anything along the lines of "who did it?  Let's find that person and
deal with them."  In my view, while we can put people in a position to do
such things, we should not do them ourselves - and, more importantly,
whatever goes out in our name goes out because we have allowed it, in one
way or another.  The identity of the individual is irrelevant; the
organization needs to take full responsibility, full stop.  What I will
definitely oppose is solutions that, in my opinion, perpetuate or expand
poor governance structures - not ideas that simply continue them, which I
may support as stopgap measures, but that expand them or build more
structures I view as ineffective.

Joshua A. Katz

On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Ken Moellman <lpky at mu-net.org> wrote:

> I believe that if we're going to run religious-themed memes, that they
> should always include multiple faiths. That way we can never have content
> that is singled out and used out of context.  Part of the issue in modern
> politics is the out-of-context clip.  Messaging must be crafted in a way
> that prevents being clipped out of context.
>
> Does anyone care that the Satanic Temple is basically a parody
> organization?  No.  They see "Satanic".
>
> So crafting messages is actually a skill.  That's the point.  And
> messaging is extremely important to at least corral, if not control, from
> an organizational standpoint.  I'm pretty sure other people know that.  I'm
> pretty sure that's why we have the APRC.  I am not saying I'm any good at
> messaging myself, but I know it is critically important.
>
>
> Meanwhile, I'm now receiving messages from current and former FB
> volunteers who are saying there are fundamental problems with the way
> things are structured. That there is one particular person who is
> inflicting his vision upon the FB crew.  They have asked to not be publicly
> identified because they know this person and their allies will also start
> attacking in response.  This exposes a fundamental problem with the way
> things are set up currently.  And as it stands, the status quo will
> continue with no corrective action.
>
>
> It's extremely frustrating to someone like me, who tries to focus on the
> technicals.  I don't want to get involved in platform fights, for instance.
> But I can help build websites and email servers, and I can put us on the
> ballot. But if others are doing things which push people away and hurt the
> party, then all of my work is for naught.
>
> ken
>
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Patrick McKnight <
> patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Arvin,
>>
>> I respectfully dissent from the premise of your message. The issue is not
>> this one post. The issue is the structural process and lack of transparency.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Patrick McKnight
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All -
>>>
>>> I'd like to request LNC oversight on the Satanic Temple posting as part
>>> of the #FreeToBelieve series. I don't want to see our volunteers raked over
>>> the coals for issues related to the LNC or APRC.
>>>
>>> Is a Satanic Temple Posting:
>>>
>>> 1. Fine on any day of the year
>>> 2. Never ok
>>> 3. Generally ok, but not during a religious holiday of a conflicting
>>> religion.
>>>
>>> If future posts go up, I'd like it to be very clear on what the LNC
>>> views are, so that volunteers are not blamed for our decisions.
>>>
>>> My view: I don't think that this is a battle worth picking. You can
>>> already be as Satanic as you want in America, so we're not gaining
>>> anything. I'd much rather focus on repealing laws and taxes that exist.
>>>
>>> Personally, I have no opposition to the Satanic Temple. As part of an
>>> overall study of religion, I have read sections of various "Satanic" books,
>>> and written in non-political areas on mythology parallels between
>>> Prometheus in Greek Mythology and Lucifer in the Judaeo-Christian
>>> tradition. Realistically, I'll probably look into the religious legal
>>> protections they have, based on the comments by the chair, to see how
>>> others can do the same. I'd love to see an America in which every single
>>> house and apartment building is legally seen as a religious location that
>>> pays no property taxes.
>>>
>>> -Arvin
>>>
>>> --
>>> Arvin Vohra
>>>
>>> www.VoteVohra.com
>>> VoteVohra at gmail.com
>>> (301) 320-3634
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170416/29678d82/attachment-0002.html>