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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I don't disagree with you Larry.  But lately there has been a push that we
must not ever say anything "scary" like abolish.

As to that.  Personally.  I will not comply.

We do need many tools.

When it's time to say abolish, call me.  And people take things from a
quirky pink-haired anarchist that they might not take from others.

Many tools.  Many voices.  Diversity.

-Caryn Ann


On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:01 PM Larry Sharpe <lsharpe at neo-sage.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Nobody said this, I just want to be sure the committee heard my opinion
> here.
>
> However our messaging strategy or process is adjusted, I hope we can
> encourage diversity while maintaining the goal. I like an idea similar to
> Arvin's where we are focused on a specific end game. In his case, always
> shrinking government. The style, however, I think should be less
> constrained.
>
> As Arvin heard me preach in Harrisburg, we need bomb throwers and eggshell
> walkers. That day, Arvin talked about Ayn Rand and starting with taxation
> is theft. And moments later I talked about culture and emotion and waiting
> before addressing logic. Both are correct. People are moved by different
> messages at different times in their lives.
>
> Martin Luther King didn't advance the Civil Rights movement on his own. He
> needed Malcolm X too (and many others). While George Washington fought on
> the battlefield, Benjamin Franklin talked diplomacy in France. We needed
> both to win the revolution.
>
> To Caryn Ann's point, should we say "abolish"? Absolutely yes. Should we
> ONLY say "abolish"? Absolutely no.
>
> Just my two cents.
>
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I lost a fantastic Colorado volunteer because we deleted it.
>>
>> -Caryn Ann
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 7:55 AM Ken Moellman <lpky at mu-net.org> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Larry
>
> *Larry Sharpe*
>
> *The Neo-Sage Group, Inc.*
>
> http://TheNeoSage.com/ <http://theneosage.com/>
>
> <https://www.facebook.com/TheNeoSageGroup>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/user/TheNeoSage
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/neosage
>
> *https://www.facebook.com/neosage <https://www.facebook.com/neosage>*
>
> *212-307-3545 <212-307-3545>*
>   *Instructing – Advancing – Inspiring*
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170421/282b20fc/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3629 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170421/282b20fc/attachment-0002.png>