[Lnc-business] Satanic Post - LNC Input Requested

[Joshua Katz]

I'll see if I can find a perfectly red one.

Joshua A. Katz


On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Everyone declare a holiday and kill the fatted calf.  I agree with almost
> everything Joshua said except I do not share the presupposition against
> volunteers (not explicit but suggested because they were just "etc.").  One
> thing I want to highlight:
>
> *Part of that strategy, of course, might be "conduct some research and
> decide X."  Part of it must be "we wish to be presented as ..."  *
>
> *That is what I am saying.  Research is just part.  We MUST decide on the
> other as well. And if all I hear is well, such and such is a small
> percentage of the population - it isn't popular - etc - well I'm not that
> Libertarian.  I am the Libertarian who cares about the freedoms of even the
> .001 with no political voice.*
>
> -Caryn  Ann
>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm only chiming in on this particular sub-topic to explain why I'm not
>> chiming in more substantively on this particular sub-topic, and to offer
>> some opinions on other matters.  I agree with a good portion of what's been
>> said, and disagree with some of it - but I'm not convinced, at the moment,
>> that my opinion matters.  I think it will matter if the LNC is asked to
>> take up the question of specific content, and I'll give it then - but my
>> hope is that the LNC will not take up that topic.  Rather, I'd like to see
>> the LNC deal with the governance structures involved (and certainly not the
>> people and personalities) and with overall strategy.  On that point, while
>> I have pretty strong and well-known opinions, I care more about the
>> governance structures and the LNC being strategically active, to the point
>> where I would prefer we adopt a broad strategy with which I entirely
>> disagree to not adopting one at all.  But, as I've pointed out before,
>> that's not reactive, and it's not about the Satanism post, which most of
>> the non-LP internet has forgotten about.
>>
>> As for us Libertarians, well, Dreamers have been deported, the Justice
>> Department is doing everything but its job, our President is making truly
>> awful diplomatic choices (unless the goal is provoking war with North
>> Korea) combined with confusing and contradictory actions, and we are
>> witnessing an attack on global trade, free movement, and the international
>> system not seen since WWII.  Furthermore, (getting into territory less
>> universal to Libertarians, but very important to me), we are seeing
>> evidence slowly accumulate that this nation is being run by people working
>> actively with hostile foreign powers, first in the election, and later in
>> policy choices, including, in my view, an economically suicidal decision
>> which will prove incredibly beneficial to Russia.
>>
>> From a purely partisan perspective, meanwhile, the Republican Party,
>> although it may choose to save itself, is very slowly, and very publicly,
>> going through a collapse of public trust and belief.  Unlike the fall of
>> the Whigs, this is happening in real time, and so is harder to identify,
>> but if the GOP continues to stand by officials who we are finding sold out
>> this nation's interests to a foreign, hostile power, it will in the not so
>> distant future cease to be a viable party.  The LP, then, will stand
>> between this nation conceived in liberty and one party rule.  In light of
>> that, I think we owe it to this nation to professionalize our messaging,
>> speak with a clear voice, and demonstrate our competency, rationality, and
>> ability to govern.  (As to Satanism, well, we always encourage people not
>> to choose the LESSER evil, don't we?)
>>
>> My interest here is not reactionary.  It is something I have felt we
>> needed to do since I joined this board, and something I have brought up
>> multiple times.  Continued references to reactions are, in my opinion,
>> unfair.
>>
>> On content - I am not a PR professional, and in my view, it is the job of
>> this board to govern while using professionals, not to attempt to be all
>> things to all people.  As such, I believe we should get our governance
>> structures in order, then craft a strategy, then expect someone - we can
>> decide whether that is staff, consultants, outside professionals, etc. - to
>> execute it.  Part of that strategy, of course, might be "conduct some
>> research and decide X."  Part of it must be "we wish to be presented as
>> ..."
>>
>> I would also point out that, no matter what, things will always go
>> wrong.  There will always be embarrassments, there will always be missteps
>> - and expecting accountability structures to catch all of them, and prevent
>> us from ever looking bad in public, is a fool's errand. If you're mot
>> making mistakes, you're not taking risks, and if you're not taking risks,
>> particularly when you occupy our position, you're not going to succeed.
>> What good governance does is makes sure that those missteps happen in the
>> context of a bigger project that is aimed at concrete, measurable goals.  I
>> have, for as long as I have been on this board, felt that the problem with
>> our messaging was not occasional failures, but the lack of a coherent whole
>> - and I feel that way about all our messaging, not only the volunteer.  I
>> feel that that is a problem that comes from the top, i.e. us.  We do not
>> have a clear, coherent strategy, and so our messaging is a bunch of
>> discrete, disconnected statements, donation requests, other solicitations,
>> and memes, which taken together, do not tell a clear, persuasive story.
>> Successful campaigns (political or not) do just that.  I have suggested,
>> and continue to suggest, what I think is a strong, principled, and
>> currently relevant theme for the LP - "Break the Bonds."  Could religious
>> freedom with within that?  Most certainly.  Nonetheless, if there is more
>> support for some other coherent plan, let's do that.  However, a printed
>> letter asking for money while pointing to spoiled races, followed by an
>> email about an elected official, followed by a meme suggesting that
>> Congress is unnecessary, followed by a post about activist training,
>> followed by a donation solicitation talking about an office, does not tell
>> a story.  None of those things are bad, and all could be done in alignment
>> with a common theme.
>>
>> How would that work for "Break the Bonds?"  I'm glad you asked.  The
>> printed letter, rather than pointing to spreads and encouraging the spoiler
>> narrative, could speak about how voters are Breaking the Bonds of
>> attachment to the party of their birth, seeking to freely choose on a race
>> by race basis.  (This isn't our perfect outcome, but given our position, it
>> is certainly an improvement for us.)  The email about a new elected
>> official could focus on their broad goals in office, framing them in a
>> Break the Bonds context.  Rather than simply "look, someone won!" we can
>> point to crucial vote they've already cast and say what Bond it Breaks.
>> The meme could encourage the viewer to Break the Bond of attachment to the
>> structures of their national government, in favor of connecting to broader
>> truths and the universality of freedom, suggesting that institutions are
>> valuable only insofar as they broaden freedom, and become simply another
>> set of Bonds otherwise.  The post about activist training could try to
>> engage the people who went to their airports, whom Howard Dean described as
>> "not typical Democrats," but rather young people, mostly politically
>> inactive, who think globally, and are more concerned with the rights of
>> those around the globe than with the material benefit of those who live
>> next door - who are already Breaking the Bonds of nationality and seeking
>> commonality with all those who yearn to be free.  The office solicitation
>> can avoid talking about the benefits to us of paying off the mortgage early
>> - such financial considerations being, first, our problem as the board, and
>> second, not terribly inspiring - and instead focus on the ways our DC
>> location is helping us to Break the Bonds, and inviting the very, very
>> lucky recipient of such a letter to Break the Bonds with us.
>>
>> Now, I have no idea what the finished products would look like - I would
>> leave that to people who know how to design such things.  That's the
>> difference between governance (our job), management (part of staff's job),
>> and execution (everyone's job).  Nor do I know what issues should be
>> focused on - I just know that, under such a strategy, whatever issues they
>> were would be fit into the theme.  The theme would not drive the choice of
>> what to say, although other strategic considerations would, of course.
>>
>> But before any of that can happen, governance structures by which to
>> execute such things are needed.  That was what I understood the committee
>> to be making recommendations about.  I will support any proposal brought
>> back that gives us better governance structures, and oppose any proposal
>> that, in my opinion, gives us worse governance structures.  I think I have
>> some time to worry about that, though, since the committee hasn't even
>> fully populated itself yet.
>>
>> Joshua A. Katz
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It is not often I disagree with David, but it happens, and it happened
>>> here- but only partially.  (this goes beyond the "satanic post" - I
>>> disagreed with that post for many reasons I laid out over and over and
>>> after Nick said okay delete it, I was the one who actually hit the delete
>>> button)
>>>
>>> *First, Alicia raises great points about using other people's religious
>>> texts.  *Words mean different things in different religions, and most
>>> people don't like political parties purposefully trying to use their texts
>>> basically to say "See, God is a libertarian." (this is putting aside the
>>> atheist ones).  She worded that perfectly.
>>>
>>> I like the Free to Believe concept and I think it IS actually very HIGH
>>> on the list of people's concerns. It can be done without trying to
>>> appropriate the religious texts (and there was a definite mixed message
>>> issue in mixing irreligion with religion and timing, and well all the
>>> issues I already very publicly had with that post) by just showing
>>> *PEOPLE* and that these *PEOPLE *are welcome and do not have to abandon
>>> their traditions to be Libertarians or maybe having PEOPLE and not the
>>> PARTY giving their view on how they can be X faith or No Faith and be a
>>> Libertarian.
>>>
>>> Where I disagree is that now we start saying we only care about the
>>> popular issues (*or appear to be saying that)*.  MOST PEOPLE don't care
>>> about legalizing prostitution or *all *drugs. Trump has shown MOST
>>> PEOPLE do not care about free movement of people and really do not care to
>>> speak up for Muslims.  I can name a lot of things that many people don't
>>> care about that we have cared about and* the biggest complaint from
>>> those who have supported us for years is that we have stopped dong that
>>> consistently*.  That all that matters is the almighty polls and the
>>> fickle vote, principles be damned.  I also hear that well, those people
>>> will just have to accept that now we have to go after others.  I keep
>>> hearing we have to stop playing to libertarians - but what those
>>> libertarians hear is that they don't matter anymore.  And I hear from many
>>> (not here) that the Party really doesn't care - that base is expendable
>>> (and the litany of insults comes.... you don't want to grow, you are just a
>>> debate club, you are politically autistic, etc.)   And it makes me wonder
>>> how we think they became libertarians to begin with.  Very few of us are
>>> second generation.  We go after others by giving them libertarianism.  If
>>> our ideas are so loathsome and wrong that they can't be said, we are all
>>> wasting our time and are terrible people.  I obviously don't believe that.
>>>
>>> *In the 1970s, I can guarantee you Joe America did not care about gay
>>> rights.  But we did.  *The Libertarian Party today seems to have
>>> forgotten there is a whole other frontier we should and could push on. The
>>> rights of people who believe that a "couple" isn't the only relational
>>> arrangement and they suffer.... but that is a tangent but I think a good
>>> symptom of how we are content to play it safe.  Because we worry that this
>>> won't sell in Apple Pie USA.  If that is our worry, we picked the wrong
>>> horse to back - and I think Americans ARE hungry for real freedom.
>>>
>>> And when we say we are going to care about X group because they are X in
>>> the number of issues etc we are telling some other Y group, who also has
>>> liberty issues, that we are embarrassed by their issues and well, we
>>> polled, and not that many people care about your subjugation, so too bad,
>>> so sad.  I believe we need to not only be different in our views but in our
>>> approaches and we are buying old party and old world approaches.... this
>>> isn't saying we have great approaches now  but it is saying we need to
>>> think more about how to be like the early lean and hungry Apple who broke
>>> all molds and not a mini-me of traditionalism and old party thinking.  One
>>> thing has become my mantra  over the past six months: * I will say the
>>> word abolish.*  I think there are multitudes that are just waiting to
>>> hear people boldly saying what they actually believe.  With respect.  With
>>> consideration.  With nobility.  But with frank honesty, treating them as
>>> mature adults who can handle the truth. We are not the priests and
>>> priestesses of secret dangerous knowledge that the laity cannot handle so
>>> we must mediate it to them in diluted form.
>>>
>>> We have never been that Party, and it isn't the Party the core base
>>> believes we are.  I can tell you, I'm not THAT Libertarian that says, well,
>>> your freedom isn't on the top list of Americans, (it didn't poll so well in
>>> Main Street USA) so I am not going to talk about it.  It won't earn me
>>> popularity, don't you see?   I'm THAT Libertarian that will step on the
>>> third rails of politics IF it means defending the rights of the individual
>>> and challenging the cult of the omnipotent state.  Trump broke all current
>>> molds - people want something different.  We need to be that something
>>> different that isn't something tyrannical and awful, but noble, beautiful,
>>> bold, and courageous freedom.
>>>
>>> Turning from that, this shows then a false issue.  *We can do this
>>> great targeting, but we must never be unwilling to take the risks and be
>>> the voice for the unpopular opinions too.*  We can do both, but I
>>> keeping hearing about playing it safe and becoming bean counters.  I will
>>> not go along with that, I will continue to say we are the voice for the
>>> unpopular as well as the popular, just like we were for gay folks in the
>>> 70s.  As the meme says, "Why Choose Just One?"
>>>
>>> And though I am NOT claiming this is a Libertarian verse, I am a
>>> Christian, and it applies by analogy.  *"When salt loses its saltiness
>>> it is not longer fit for anything but to thrown into the trash heap."*
>>>
>>> Half of what I hear out of Libertarian talking heads (again this is
>>> general - not directed to any of my fellows) is that we should lose our
>>> saltiness.  It is unbalanced.  We must do this targeted sort of thing.  We
>>> must talk to the mothers of sons who are rotting in jail for using,
>>> selling, or possessing a plant. We grieve with them. We must denounce the
>>> brutal bombings overseas and those parents who have the horror of the
>>> maiming and killing of their loves ones.  We shudder in horror with them.  *But
>>> we must also speak to those who may not have the numbers to ever get
>>> political attention or wooing because their liberty matters too.  *
>>>
>>> And the minute I hear anything about our "top priority"  but not the
>>> fact that our Bylaws tell us what it is - *to implement and give voice
>>> to the principles in the Statement of Principles*, I know we are using
>>> the wrong starting point.  Our SoP does not say, "We, the members of the
>>> Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state on popular
>>> easy issues and defend the rights of the individual that don't anger the
>>> majority and who poll well because it is winning at all costs."
>>>
>>> We are the vanguard.  We are the bleeding edge.  We are the ones that
>>> say to the Overton Window- "Oh yeah?  How about pushing you a bit
>>> northward, shall we?"
>>>
>>> *I will not bean-count what rights are worth supporting * -  liberty is
>>> also for the person doing the things many people don't like but are their
>>> right to do.  *Speaking truth to power isn't playing it safe and
>>> letting the polls tell us what issues we discuss.*
>>>
>>> As far as that Policy Manual section (thank you Aaron), it is even
>>> slower than what actually happened here.  The post went up, it was seen,
>>> numerous people including myself contacted Nick immediately who has the
>>> authority to pull it himself without needing a majority, and he made the
>>> decision to pull.  If Nick had declined, the Policy Manual steps could have
>>> then ensured that the LNC could veto that decision by informing the
>>> Secretary.  Going straight to the Chair took care of it quickly, though the
>>> PM procedure gives a good means to veto any Chair inaction.  Some may say
>>> not quick enough.  For me, I personally didn't see it until I was off work
>>> that day.  It was quicker than trying to contact a majority of the LNC and
>>> getting word to the Secretary.  But if the LNC ever had a Chair make a bad
>>> decision or be unavailable, that is certainly a good failsafe.
>>>
>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 7:18 AM, David Demarest <
>>> dpdemarest at centurylink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alicia and Daniel, thank you for your thoughtful and detailed comments
>>>> on our exploratory committee scope, subject matter and prerogatives.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First a comment on the offending Satanic Temple meme that I finally
>>>> viewed for the first time last night. Coupled with the second-hand
>>>> information that the Satanic Temple uses their “belief system” as a
>>>> satirical tax dodge, and ignoring for a moment the obvious Holy week timing
>>>> faux pas, I am trying to figure out what is so philosophically offensive
>>>> about the meme. Is it because it infers the belief of some Libertarians
>>>> that we own our own bodies (property rights) as opposed to God owning our
>>>> bodies? Help me understand in a non-hysterical, non-hand-wringing way from
>>>> a logical factual perspective, where the philosophical beef is in this
>>>> hubbub. Obviously, the religious belief systems of some, even if admittedly
>>>> in this case a satirical tax dodge, may be offensive to a few. So What? Is
>>>> the real problem not the philosophical dogma questions but our undeniable
>>>> dysfunctional personal and institutional Libertarian Party messaging
>>>> strategies?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> These religious dogma questions notwithstanding, I would agree with
>>>> Daniel, Alicia and many other LNC members and Libertarians that the bigger
>>>> issue is why the religious freedom meme series was there in the first place
>>>> and for what purpose in light of our top priorities of creating a winning
>>>> messaging strategy, getting Libertarians elected and putting the statists
>>>> out of business. Religious freedom is obviously an important part of the
>>>> Libertarianism philosophical foundation and a timely issue to core
>>>> Libertarians who understand the importance despite our dysfunctional
>>>> internal and external institutional messaging strategies. But how far down
>>>> the list of priorities is the religious freedom issue to non-Libertarians
>>>> that we want to connect with?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First, the timely positive outcome of this hubbub is that we are moving
>>>> toward better scope control and accountability of our various outreach
>>>> messaging outlets. We can further turn this unfortunate incident into a
>>>> long-overdue opportunity to clean up our incoherent messaging strategies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The bottom line from my perspective is that religious freedom
>>>> initiatives are better handled in private discussions with core
>>>> Libertarians. Furthermore, the broader audience that we are trying to
>>>> connect with to achieve our long-term goal of freedom for all would
>>>> probably put the religious freedom issue well below the immediate concerns
>>>> that define where they are at in their personal lives and family
>>>> circumstances. To connect with the broader audience, we need to get off our
>>>> soapboxes and reach out with targeted, tested leading questions that
>>>> connect first at the emotional level with those who do not yet share our
>>>> Libertarian values and goals.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Once we figure out, for example, that African-American women between
>>>> the ages of 30 and 50 are primarily concerned about their sons not being
>>>> murdered (*targeting*) and we determine what leading questions will
>>>> connect with them (*testing*), we can work on our messaging
>>>> *techniques* to leverage their immediate emotional concerns, plant
>>>> seeds of doubt in their statist solutions and open the door for them to ask
>>>> us for more information about how Libertarians would go about surmounting
>>>> the immediate obstacles faced by their segment of society. Let’s explore
>>>> the art of “winning hearts and minds, not arguments” as a much more
>>>> effective messaging strategy to accomplish our end goal of freedom, nothing
>>>> more, nothing less.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I look forward to working with all of you to turn this obvious outreach
>>>> misstep into a tremendous opportunity and positive turning point for the
>>>> Libertarian Party as we build a winning messaging strategy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ~David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ~David Pratt Demarest
>>>>
>>>> LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>>>>
>>>> Secretary, LPNE State Central Committee
>>>>
>>>> Cell:      402-981-6469 <(402)%20981-6469>
>>>>
>>>> Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On
>>>> Behalf Of *Daniel Hayes
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 20, 2017 5:11 AM
>>>> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Satanic Post - LNC Input Requested
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just speaking for myself,  I think that as part of the process there
>>>> may come some recommendations out of the newly formed committee regarding
>>>> content in the rather broad sense, but that remains to be seen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In this series, "FreeToBelieve", people that start to analyze it may
>>>> notice a disproportionate representation on a per capita basis.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have 2 memes for an organization that has less than .01% of the
>>>> population of the United States involved with it. You have zero posts that
>>>> clearly represent the organization that 70% of the population is affiliated
>>>> with.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  I just can't help but think that that looks like it favors one over
>>>> the other.  The fact that the ONLY one that had more than one meme
>>>> presented was the one that represents that one mentioning the Satanic
>>>> Temple could seem like the LP favors that ideology over the others.  That's
>>>> a problem.  There still exists the problem that there were belief systems
>>>> that were not represented here in the series.
>>>>
>>>> I still think the right thing to do is to remove the whole thing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Daniel Hayes
>>>>
>>>> LNC At Large Member
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 20, 2017, at 4:23 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are certainly process problems, but I'll comment on the content
>>>> as well.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand what the #FreeToBelieve series, at least the way it
>>>> has been approached, is supposed to accomplish.
>>>>
>>>> The value of freedom of religion is not about what various religions
>>>> have in common, but in how they are DIFFERENT.  The value is that two
>>>> people can have polar opposite religious beliefs but still live together in
>>>> a free country.  If I believe it's a sin to wear the color red, and you
>>>> believe it's a sin to not wear the color red, guess what?  We both can live
>>>> side by side in a libertarian society.  I'll wear blue, and you'll wear
>>>> red, and neither of us imprisons the other over it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's one thing if we make a graphic symbolizing that people with widely
>>>> varying religious beliefs are part of the LP...though perhaps we should
>>>> avoid turning their religious symbols upside down in the graphic...that
>>>> cover pic is gone now.
>>>>
>>>> This series has started quoting religious texts, however, and posting
>>>> them to make some kind of a political statement.  Religion and politics
>>>> don't mix.  We're playing with fire, and it's not surprising that we got
>>>> burned.  Quote something out of context, and your target audience is
>>>> offended that you're twisting context to try to tell them their God wants
>>>> them to be Libertarian.  The word "freedom" in a religious text may not
>>>> mean freedom like the LP talks about...it may at times mean freedom from a
>>>> previous oppressor...or freedom from consequences of sin...  What if it's a
>>>> figurative passage, or a parable, or someone's dream sequence, and we just
>>>> yank it out of place to use it for our agenda?
>>>>
>>>> Religion is a set of standards that you impose on yourself
>>>> voluntarily.  Politics is about a set of standards that you are willing to
>>>> use the force of government to impose on others.  (For the anarchists in
>>>> the LP, that's a null set.)
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes there are overlapping areas of agreement between your
>>>> religion and your politics, but those conclusions are arrived at for
>>>> COMPLETELY DIFFERENT REASONS.  Maybe your religion teaches "Thou shall not
>>>> commit murder" because God said so, and there's eternal punishment to
>>>> consider.  Libertarians say murder is unacceptable because it is the
>>>> ultimate initiation of force which permanently deprives the victim of all
>>>> of their rights.  Completely different reasons for the same conclusion.
>>>>
>>>> When we start quoting religious texts as some sort of support for our
>>>> political views, what is that supposed to mean???
>>>>
>>>> Sure, there are some religions that call for theocracies in which the
>>>> religious and political standards are identical, but we're not advocating
>>>> for that, right?  So why are we quoting religious texts at all?
>>>>
>>>> There are a very large number of quotes from the same religious texts
>>>> that we would not post.  We're not going to post, "Remember the Sabbath to
>>>> keep it holy", are we?  (Using Ten Commandment examples just because so
>>>> many are at least familiar with them.)  They may be a fine way for a person
>>>> to choose to live for themselves, but to enforce that standard on others
>>>> deprives them of the freedom to have a different religious view.  Good for
>>>> religion.  Not so much for libertarian politics.
>>>>
>>>> Why even go there?  It's completely unnecessary to wander into such
>>>> dangerous territory, and religion is not the basis for our politics.
>>>>
>>>> -Alicia
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 6:44 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *In Liberty,*
>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>>>
>>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>>> *We defend your rights*
>>> *And oppose the use of force*
>>> *Taxation is theft*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> *We defend your rights*
> *And oppose the use of force*
> *Taxation is theft*
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170420/3a247e7b/attachment-0002.html>