[Lnc-business] Fwd: Satanic Post - LNC Input Requested

[Ken Moellman]

I will chime in only to note this: The petitioners left in Ohio apparently
ran into a couple of people who refused to sign the petition who cited the
"Satanic post" on Facebook as the reason.

ken

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 7:45 AM, David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net>
wrote:

> Caryn Ann, I agree with all your points. I support a bold platform that
> pushes the envelope of our rational search for the truth and a set of
> bylaws that consistently reflects the principles embedded in our platform.
> I also believe in communicating with others in a way that respects their
> innate intelligence and ability to act in their rational self-interest. I
> am constantly amazed at the capabilities and inclination of the “average”
> person to assimilate sophisticated Libertarian concepts if they are given
> the respect of asking them leading questions that connect with where they
> are at in the competition of life. Governments have a vested interest in
> not trusting the rest of us to reason things out and make decisions for
> ourselves. Their authoritarian motive is blatantly obvious. I have a vested
> interest in trusting everyone to rise to the challenge of their
> intellectual capabilities and decide what is best for themselves and those
> they value. My motive is likewise blatantly obvious – freedom, nothing
> more, nothing less, for me and all of those around the world that I value
> for their innate willingness to refrain from the initiation of force.
>
>
>
> We Libertarians are far more capable of effective communication that just
> hitting folks over the head with our ideas and relying on osmosis for our
> ideas to percolate through society as they surely will in the long run.
> Unfortunately, we may not have the luxury of waiting for the long-run
> osmosis paradigm to succeed. Our current ticking-time-bomb economic model
> is not sustainable and is accelerating in the wrong direction. I have no
> intention of waiting to rebuild from the ashes. I believe that an ounce of
> messaging strategy prevention is worth a ton of cure.
>
>
>
> We have a choice. We can rest on the laurels of our well-thought-out
> principles and bylaws and rely solely on self-righteously pontificating the
> truth of our principles from our ivory towers. There is time and place for
> that approach. However, I too have far too long relied solely on that
> approach with limited success. Going forward I choose to take a more
> proactive approach to messaging. I believe that effective communication
> with others that do not yet share our principles starts by reaching out at
> an emotional level that connects with where they are at now to ask leading
> questions and then listen sympathetically. I believe that accelerating the
> spread of our ideas through effective messaging strategies is entirely
> consistent with our principles.
>
>
>
> You can count on me to put my messaging strategies where my mouth is
> regardless of whether it is popular with any segment of the Libertarian
> Party. Principles and truth, including messaging strategy truth, come
> before party.
>
>
>
> 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 *Caryn Ann Harlos
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 20, 2017 7:51 PM
> *To:* Libertarian National Committee list <lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Fwd: Satanic Post - LNC Input Requested
>
>
>
> 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*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170421/0319c950/attachment-0002.html>