[Lnc-business] Fwd: Satanic Post - LNC Input Requested
Caryn Ann Harlos
carynannharlos at gmail.com
Thu Apr 20 20:51:11 EDT 2017
Thank you Starchild. That means a great deal to me.
- Caryn Ann
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Beautifully said, Caryn Ann! I concur 100%. From noting where Alicia got
> it right, to the larger point that we are about standing for *freedom*,
> not just popular freedoms, you totally nailed it. If we had "best of"
> awards for posts to this list, I would nominate this one in a heartbeat!
>
> Love & Liberty,
> ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
> (415) 625-FREE
> @StarchildSF
>
>
> On Apr 20, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos 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*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170420/7544cade/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list