Jump to content

Talk:Satanism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Machiavelli

I've removed the reference to Niccolo Machiavelli. Unless someone else can give a convincing textual connection between his writings and Satanism, there's no reason to reference them. Machiavelli was a political philosopher, and one who developed his own meaning of arete and other classical values that run counter to Satanist values. 69.202.77.44 29 June 2005 08:15 (UTC)

Satanic cults

(Comment: The idea that such cults do not exist is subjective, not objective, and thus does not belong in an Encyclopaedia unless counter-balanced by the opposing opinion.

Fact is, there is significant evidence that such cults DO exist, such as the extensive lists of unexplained missing persons tied to alleged cult sites. And though some cults may not be described as 'Satanic' (they don't worship Satan), there are cults documented to have sacrificed humans to their various deities. For instance, the Ancient Order of Druids certainly did sacrifice humans in England during the late 19th and early 20th century, and it is very possible that similar sects, or perhaps even the Order itself, still do. Though such sacrifices are arguably justified by the fact that they pale in comparison to the mass brutal sacrifices that occured around the world contemporaneously--the First and Second World Wars.

Human sacrifice is an ancient tradition shared by many cults throughout history, including the Druids, the Mayans, the Aztecs, the Scythians, and arguably even the Catholics.

Understandably the idea of human sacrifice is highly controversial, but to many it is still considered a completely acceptable ritual.

The idea that such cults worship Satan is, as aforementioned, often a misconception based upon subjective religious viewpoint.)

moved above comment from article.
I think my response would be that the counterbalancing opinion is provided at satanic ritual abuse - is that sufficient? Martin 09:32, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Their very existence is suspect, and more than likely an urban legend. Just because someone labels someone else as a Satanist does not mean they ARE Satanists. Titanium Dragon 11:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

__________________________________________

Brilliant definition so far...

Does anyone have a work of origin for the term "Satanism"? while the Merriam Webster gives a date, it doesn't cite its sources, and it would be nice to nail that down.


Recent edits by 213.65.252.218

213.65.252.218 recently made four edits; while there's nothing wrong with the first two (changing references of "Set" to "Setian Satanism"), the second two (11:01 and 11:27, 7 Jul 2004) are highly problematic:

  1. The section on "Traditional Satanism" was wiped and replaced with a gratuitously POV section in "Other Groups".
  2. Material moved to the LaVeyan Satanism article was inexplicably added back to the LaVeyan Satanism section in this article; if there's a link to an article-proper about a given subject (which there is, immediately above the LaVeyan Satanism blurb), the blurb in the more generic article should merely be a quick overview — readers can visit the full article for more information.

I'm reverting these most recent two edits. - Korpios 16:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

August: I deleted the section on Traditional Satanism simply because there is no such thing! Or rather, there is such a thing but it is void of all meaning. I explained that in the "Other Groups" section. Also, the ONA is certainly NOT a group that can make any legit claims about a long tradition. Everything (historical) they say can be shown to be their own invention. Their beliefsystem is also their own invention, try to find Casual and Acasual elsewhere, try to find their silly thing about Lovecrafts "gods" elsewhere ...try to find evidence that, as they say, Baphomet is the name of an old female goddess of blood! Calling ONA Traditional Satanism is outright wrong. Secondly I have to question the reason of a section dedicated to Traditional Satanism. I have already said the word means almost nothing, as a definition. Another point to be made is: In the section below ("Other Groups") a number of gnostic sects, etc. are mentioned. Aren't they, if any, traditional!?!! It makes no sense dedicating a paragraph on Traditional Satanism to the ONA, absolutely none at all.


Recent large deletion by 66.212.4.114

(Section reformatted for better thread-flow.)

I am restoring large sections deleted by User:66.212.4.114. They were deleted and replaced with nothing but the religion headers. Please discuss this change here before deleting large sections with no replacements. - Tεxτurε 20:48, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I brought those grafs back to stubs because they're conjectural, and contain almost no information on actual Judeo-Christian theology, or how the concept of "Satan" operates in those traditions.
I don't see that much that can be considered inaccurate in that section. What specifically? Is your objection that you think some entries should be moved to a different section? - Tεxτurε 21:26, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Texture, I've actually gone ahead and reverted back to the state the article was in before 66.212.4.114's edits. The edits made by that user were either POV or flat-out erroneous (or both), IMHO (e.g., changing the very definition of "Satanism" at the top of the article). If said user wants to defend their edits, I'm all for hearing them out. I don't think I clobbered anything in your most recent two edits (as they appeared to be partial reverts, anyway), but I apologize if I did. - Korpios 13:50, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Weird, unfounded, dubious...

Here are items I feel are in need of removal or alteration because they are misleading, or just out-of-place.

Satanism in Traditional Theology

a. "Conversely enough, .. they are also seen as the people who killed Jesus"

Irrelevent to the subject. Also a topic of great debate. To include the statements about a view that Jews are Satan does not reflect the beliefs of the Jewish person in regards to the concept of Satan, which is what this subpoint in this article is referring to. This will be removed.

b. "As of 2001, some Muslims..."

This is absolutely and completely wrong. 2001 was not the timing when some Muslims forumulated their opinions about the US. Furthermore to imply that there is a some section of Muslims that revere the US or Cold-War Russia as the Great Satan misleads the reader to think they are something more valid than religious kooks bending doctrine or projecting their emotions into religious teaching. If we are going to do that then we need to include the 1960's Black Muslim movement calling whites "Satan", & other Christian groups calling people incarnations of Satan. The intent of including this view must be tempered with so many qualifiers to dampen it's effect that it may just be best to remove it altogether.

c. "Logically it can't be an enemy of God... they are probably referring to Jesus"

The debate over contradictory statements w/i the Christian religion is not relevent or helpful in this article. Although I wholeheartedly agree with the statement, it does not help define true-believing Christian's views on Satan. This should be removed.

I will return to do the editing on this article Friday if there are no objections. --Duemellon 14:58, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Updated --Duemellon 16:29, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Don't know if this is worth adding to the article, but just for interest, the British Navy has appointed its first recognised Satanist, and is considering whether to add Satanism to its list of recognised faiths. See BBC Adambisset 11:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Rewriting

Working on a rewrite of this article based on the following (I have currently changed the order of appearance of "kinds"):

"LaVeyan Satanism" is a misnomer. The only people that use that term are Satanists that want to differentiate themselves from Satanism as a religion, as founded by Anton LaVey. People who affiliante with the religion of Satanism as founded do not call themselves "LaVeyan Satanists", nor do journalists. The information in LaVeyan Satanism should be moved here and if a splinter group like Dark Doctrines needs more room, they should establish other pages that focus on their divergant version of Satanism.

Before Anton LaVey used the existing term "Satanism" there was no organized Satanic religion, only Christian heretics or small ill-formed groups.

The Temple of Set does not use the term "Satanist" anymore, referring to themselves as "Setians", though they consider themselves to be a Satanic religion.

The Dark Doctrines are insufficiently important, famous or relevant to constitute more than a short note in comparison to the Church of Satan. I am using the Wiki guides in defining it as such. It should be moved into a subsection

Church of Satan Google "Church of Satan": 48,600 Alexa ChurchofSatan.com: 114,134 links to:129

Temple of Set Google "Temple of Set": 16,700 Alexa Traffic Rank for xeper.org: 608,020 links to: 44

compare the above to the following:

Dark Doctrines Google "Dark Doctrins":1,770 Alexa apodion.com: 2,364,173 links to:18

for further comparison, the ONA is defunct organization but has almost as many refrences to the phrase "Dark Doctrines" (a phrase that, in google, brings up articles NOT on SAT/TAN Dark Doctrines:

Order Of Nine Angles Google "Order of Nine Angles": 1,150 no known official webpage

Please see my comments in Talk:LaVeyan Satanism, but in summary: your edits are far and away from being NPOV, and as they are unwarranted they should be undone; I will revert the articles. The CoS does not deserve special treatment in an article regarding "Satanism" at-large; it is covered in Church of Satan, and the relevant beliefs are covered in LaVeyan Satanism. Please make a much stronger case than the above (keeping in mind my comments on the other talk page as well) if you continue to object to the state of the articles. - Korpios 20:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The whole Sat/Tan section is awful. NPOV, unsourced in its claims, and full of rampant speculation, it needs serious reworking. It claims to be old - ancient, even. By whom? How reliable are such claims? Many Wiccans claim their religion to be ancient, but it was founded in the 20th century. Also, it is given a bit too much preeminence, especially considering the two most commonly thought of forms of Satanism are of the Gothic (worshipping the Christian Satan, even though it is likely a legend) and LeVayan varities.
The only site used as a reference for that uses the abbreviation Xians for Christians, and does not seem to be terribly professional. I'd like to see a real source for it. Titanium Dragon 11:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. I have a decent working knowledge of the LaVeyan and Christian/"Gothic" variants, but not of the others; I'd like to see someone with such knowledge update the relevant sections with a bit more in the way of solid backing. I suppose I'll add such research to my To-Do list if no one comes forward. - Korpios 23:44, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Main Trends?

The four "main trends" here seem to be missing something big: theistic Satanism.

Sat/Tan being a main trend seems iffy. Other than Tani Jantsang's and possibly HR Vad's group, I've never seen it espoused as a major philosophy by anyone else. It's vaguely related in the "becoming"/"being" bit to the Setian "xeper" philosophy. But a main trend based on 1-2 groups? That's stretching.

Setian Satanism is debatable, since the Temple of Set did indeed orginate from the CoS, but tends to distance itself from the Satanism label as being too narrow and counterproductive in its semantic baggage. But it's definitely one of the main LHP "trends", so I can see it's place here.

But where's "theistic Satanism?" I've already read the arguments about "modern" vs. "traditional" and I can agree there, but it seems very incomplete to mention something as relatively obscure as the Dark Doctrines and yet make no mention that, alongside the atheistic and nontheistic versions of Satanism there are indeed theistic non-Christian Satanists running around. Some of the "other forms" MIGHT be theistic, but nothing is actually said regarding that. It should at least be *acknowledged,* even if it requires it own Wiki entry for the details (as does LaVeyan Satanism).

I feel that's a large hole in this article and gives the reader an incomplete and skewed view of the religion/philosophy.

Theistic Satanism is a myth; the only people who claim to worship Satan have been insane and have no organization. The vast majority of people who claim to worship Satan as a god are being sarcastic or are trying to provoke a response. I would argue that this is not even a minor trend among Satanists, because the people are insane. If you were to include this, you would have to include being racist, killing Muslims, ect. as "major trends" under Christianity - they would make up a larger proportion of Christianity than theistic Satanists do among Satanists. Theistic Satanism is not a major trend as far as I have seen, and every source I've found on Satanism dismisses the reality of theistic Satanists. Titanium Dragon 21:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

REPLY: There are Theistic Satanists - Diane Vera has an organization for them. Diane Vera is not insane. She is quite logical.

Sat Tan or Dark Doctrine Satanism is quite well known, especially amongst Satanists themselves. The organization that espouses it is the Satanic Reds - Social Realist organization and, in terms of real number of people, has to-date the most members. The monographs of the Dark Tradition are sold offline and have been on sale and selling for decades. In fact, your "well known" Anton Lavey handed out high titles to the people presenting these monographs. The Dark Doctrines have been around for decades and were around in a form that was not-Satanic before they were presented to Satanists.

In an effort to be sincere about such matters, it would be logical to present the three main types of Satanism out there, since many know for a fact that all other forms of it are nothing but borrowings of these three main types:

1. LaVeyan - whether Church of Satan of First Satanic Church of Karla LaVey (Anton's daughter). I believe you have their urls. 2. Temple of Set or the Storm offshoot group of Zeena Schreck. I believe you also have their urls. 3. Satanic Reds Dark Doctrines which are wholly separate and independent from any of these other organizations that have LaVeyan influences. http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/faq-html for the information about this organization which, some notice, was "conveniently" deleted by someone, perhaps someone afraid of the numbers in terms of people, not arbitrary hits of some number counter that doesn't even count geocities sites.

There are probably a great many things you have "not heard of."

Sat/Tan

I have heard of LaVeyan Satanism. I have heard of the Temple of Set. I have heard of the Order of Nine Angles. I have heard of dabbler satanists, satanic ritual abuse, etc. I have heard of a few other organisations not here mentioned, e.g. First Church of Satan, and Bambini di Satana.

I have never in my life heard of Sat/Tan or Dark Doctrines. And yet, there is no references to who these sat/tan people are. What are the big names? Major books? Major organisations? The description of them is devoid of all such information. For all I know, sat/tan is the ramblings of some wikipedia user going on about there personal idiosyncratic views.

But then, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Sat/Tan is really big and important. But the article at present gives me no reason to believe that they are.

Unless some actual evidence for Sat/Tan's notability is provided (verifiable names of major thinkers, books, organisations), I suggest all mention of them be deleted.

-- Samuel Katinsky

There is a link at the bottom of the page, but as for numbers I have no clue. As far as I know they are not a major group, and this has been discussed before on this page. No one seems to know what they are; most likely it is a very small group, and the number of webpages I have found on the subject is small. Additionally, there is a seperate Dark Doctrines article, which I think should be made into a redirect to this article. It sounds to me like someone from a rather small organization wants to make their group more well-known via these means. Additionally, it seems the vast majority of "hits" on this subject are because of other places which have taken this exact article and put it on their own webpages, or because of the words "Dark Doctrines". I vote for the deletion of the Dark Doctrines page and the deletion or severe paring down of this, and to move it down to the "other groups" because it is not hugely important.
I also think that it would probably be best to put LeVayan Satanism at the top of the group; they are the group most commonly associated with Satanism - the current order seems illogical to me. Possibly, a page or brief bit of writing about the myth of "theistic Satanism" should also be included. Titanium Dragon 21:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I also vote for deletion of the Sat/Tan referenses. -Mikael
I removed it. Should we should put the Dark Doctrines page on votes for deletion or not. Titanium Dragon 12:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have put a cleanup sign in the article page. I think it's clearly justified in this case. The page is a mess. -Mikael 18:52, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

You should not delete what is, in fact, some of the most popular stuff within Satanism because it is all about the Darkness and the Flame (not about some dinky human philosophy). It is popular within many organizations that are out there and around for decades. To delete information that many people do want to know about is censorship. You have heard of the "First Church of Satan" and yet they ripped off the entire Sat/Tan information from the people that own the copyrights to it - and that is the Dark Doctrine people - Satanic Reds - Social Realists. What are you afraid of? Competition? Anton Lavey certainly heard of the Dark Doctrines and handed out two Magistrate degrees to *non members* for them.

Biased

The article as it stands presents an overly narrow view of the term "satanism". I doubt that most people use the word in the sense of LaVeyism. The article would be better if it addressed the term in its more general sense and relegated LaVeyism to a separate entry.

The fact that most people may use the word "satanism" to refer to something other than the Church of Satan, as founded by Anton Levey irrelevent. At the same time, the fact that there have been several offshoots from the Church of Satan should not be completely ignored.207.157.121.50 11:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

I have reverted the page to the previous more NPOV view.-FredrikM

Indeed it is biased to delete any form of Satanism that exists out there. The Order of the Nine Angles, for instance, is not an online organization, nor will you be likely to find information on them online, or an access into their organization online. Their own spokespeople have spoken up enough about this matter.

Also, the information on Sat/Tan Satanism has been put back since that, known as "Dark Doctrines" is one of the most popular forms of Satanism out there - it is also not inversion Christianity of any kind.

More bias: The Church acknowledges that few people subscribe to its views, and is not naïve of the fact that most people find the idea of being entirely self-serving to be morally repulsive. As such, though, the LaVeyan Satanist maintains, those who find themselves naturally aligned with Satanism should not adhere to herd mentality and assume there is something ethically wrong with them, but should instead adopt an individualistic, "who needs 'em" attitude, and consequently should strive constantly to stand head-and-shoulders above the so-called moral majority, and as much as possible to exploit their misguided altruism and good will. This seems pretty biased to me. While Satanism may be undesirable to many people (by virtue of its name alone, it has a sort of negative connotation to me, for instance...), Wikipedia is NPOV. Stating that it is a "fact" that "most people find the idea of being self-serving morally repulsive" is not only POV but, judging by the virtually everything I read in the news, completely false. However, I do not feel qualified to edit the article properly, since I know nothing about Satanism. Can someone else do it? MrHumperdink

I think most people would find the "idea" moraly repugnant, in practice, that is exactly how most people behave. At the same time it is not a "fact" but someone's projection about the views of the majority.207.157.121.50 11:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

I have cleaned up the links section of the article. I have deleted these two links:

I have not found any reference to these groups except their own webpages and pasted links in online encyklopedias such as Wikipedia. If anyone can find any information concerning these groups, please post it here. -FredrikM

Someone removed all the other information

Someone removed a great deal of information relevant to Satanism; I would ask that they discuss it HERE first, before doing so. I'm going to be putting it back in, because the CoS and Anton LeVay are NOT the only people to claim to be Satanists or who use the term. Titanium Dragon 05:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I find it interesting how people such as User:Mister White edit this page with an almost sectarian attitude. Maybe the high frequency of such edits is grounds for a section in the article itself? :) -FredrikM

One of the first?

The opening sentence of the section on Philosophical Satanism currently reads: "[...] the Church of Satan (one of the first above-ground organizations to use the term) [...]". Were there any above-ground organizations to use the term before the CoS? —Morning star 16:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope. It was certainly the first. Are there any contenders? FredrikM 21:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


The following adition removed, until clarification.

Satanism is as legally protected as every other religion in the United States (example: a court case ruled a United States military officer could not be discriminated against in any way simply due to his status as a Satanist).

The claim is very serious, and court reference is due. Does it really have a status of religionin the USA? Today any bunch of freaks may proclaim themselves a pet religion. Are they all protected? mikka (t) 21:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that Anton Levey, being the founder of the Church of Satan, rejected Legal tax-exemption status from the U.S. government.207.157.121.50 11:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey


As far as I am aware, though each religion is technically protected, this is not clear until a court has decided it. Searches of ReligiousTolerance.org reveal no information. However, I can find a page from the U.S. Army Chaplain's Handbook about the Church of Satan:

Satanism in Chaplain's Handbook

As far as I can find, that's the only resource I can seem to find. That would seem to indicate recognition by the U.S. Army (and thus, gov't), but that's yours to interpret. -- Cabhan 00:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


All religions are equally protected in the United States, as per the Constitution. However, stating it is largely pointless, as it is inherent and somewhat deceptive, as -all- religions are protected in the US (at least, in theory under the law). It doesn't suprise me that someone tried to discriminate against them, but putting it in is like putting it into Scientology - it is redundant. Titanium Dragon 04:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Yes, technically, all religions are protected. However, rules are different in the military. For example, the U.S. government hires a very large number of Christian Priests, Rabbis, and Imams. On the other hand, they hire no Wiccan Priests/esses or Satanist Priests/esses or Santerians, etc. There are religions that are recognized by the government, and there are others that simply exist in the U.S. The issue here is that a claim is made that Satanism is of the former, whereas others believe it is of the latter.

Personally, I believe it is of the latter, as I cannot find any evidence of the government declaring it recognized. If the person who added the statement can defend it, then the statement will be added back into the article.

As a note, I have found a copy of the U.S. Army Chaplain's Handbook:

Chaplain's Handbook

Cabhan 15:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to keep adding to this, but as per the Air Force Religious Pin article, the only Chaplains recognized by the Air Force are Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim. -- Cabhan 15:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New Article/Stub

I created the article Religious Satanism, but I don't know much about it. Can anyone help?

Thanks. --Admiral Roo 12:07, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Disclaimer

I came back to find that a disclaimer had been added to the page. Personally, I don't think it's needed, but I changed it to actually reflect a true statement. I'm just wondering if anyone feels it's necessary or if we should remove it.

The disclaimer is in the introduction, where it starts "It should be noted..." -- Cabhan 14:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I am not a Satanist, and not exactly very knowlegable in the subject, I need some help from people who can check out joy of satan and tell me what its about. I visited it, and from what I can tell it does not belong to mainstream satanism, althoug it claims to be.


Well, "mainstream Satanism" is pretty much the Church of Satan and (maybe) the Temple of Set, being the two largest publically Satanist organizations. This site is DEFINITELY not Church of Satan. I dunno enough about the ToS to say if it's a part of that, but I am HIGHLY doubtful.

One reason I removed the link is how little information there is. The "Purposes" section is fairly accurate in regards to modern Satanism, except for comments about the original creator and such things.

The site seems mostly to be a personal rant of the author. One of his updates mentions that Satan has spoken to him directly, and also declares (in a very long-winded rant) that the Jews are actually controlling the world and the Christian churches.

Another contains Satan's message to all warriors about fighting the Christians.

Basically, a lot of this site seems to have nothing to do with mainstream Satanism, and seems (to me, at least) to be a personal rant. -- Cabhan 13:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See both My page on Satanism and the article Satanism wich I contributed the content box that shows the three forms of Satanism. --Admiral Roo 17:51, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks guys for the help. But what I realy want to know is if the claim that Satan is an Extra Terestrial is considered mainstream. I'll look through the links you provided, but as far as I can tell this claim is unique to the Joy of Satan website. --Technogiddo 20:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Black Flame

I recently removed a reference to the Sat/Tan section, since this section was removed. However, there is now a dangling reference to a "Black Flame". Since I know absolutely nothing about this Black Flame, can someone please fill this in? This reference is at the end of the first paragraph in the Setian Satanism section. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 18:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

A link was just added to the article that is a Muslim perspective of Satan and such. The vast majority of the site has nothing to do with Satan, rather, it is Qur'anic Healing.

That said, it brings up an interesting point: should we have links that deal with the Abrahamic perceptions of Satan, or should we limit our links to Satanic groups, and the like. Personally, I feel that since the article is about Satanism, not Satan, and definitely not Satan in the Torah/Bible/Qur'an, our links should deal exclusively with Satanic groups or other information on the religion called Satanism.

So if no one disagrees in a few days, I'm gonna go and take out that link... -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 21:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

A Few Points

I have amended the sentence that previously ran "Many contemporary Satanists eschew traditional religious beliefs, attitudes and worship in favor of a more egotistic worldview and practices such as magick." - I have replace "egotistic" with "egoistic"; the link goes to "egoism", which implies that the Satanist follows and enhances his or her 'ego' in the Freudian sensem rather than implying, as with "egotism" that Satanists are entirely selfish, which brings into question the neutrality of the article. I hope this is understood and OK.

Non-Satanic Sects: I have never heard of Islam, Judaism, or Protestantism referred to as Satanic, and only ever heard Buddhism and Hinduism referred to as Satanic by a very hardline Jehovah's Witness that I used to work with. I cannot agree with the statement "It is also common to see Christian denominations or even Judaism and Islam referred to as Satanic", so I have amended it to read "occasionally".

For the same reason, I have also changed the line that read "Any religion that does not follow the Christian religion or recognize Jesus Christ as explained in Christian dogma. " to "Some religions" and moved it to the second definition, as it is by far the less common.

The previous entry on LaVeyan Satanism within this article appeared wholly biased and contained some factual errors, so I have changed it to be more impartial. For reference, here is the text I removed/edited: "Theologically, each individual Satanist is viewed as his or her own god; its rituals are essentially magick in the original sense given by Crowley, with an eye towards furthering the Satanist's ends. The belief system can be summed up in the motto "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." The Church acknowledges that few people subscribe to its views, and is not naïve of the fact that most people find the idea of being entirely self-serving to be morally repulsive."


Does Satanism often use "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law"? I've heard non-Satanists reference Satanism as following it, but I've not read of Satanists themselves using it. Also (as you may know), that's only 1/3 of the Law of Thelema...

My next door neighbor has a Jewish father and a Christian mother. His Christian grandparents believe he is going to Hell, since he was raised Jewish. That said, many Fundamentalist Christians consider all religions that are not Christian to be Satanic ("that which you sacrifice not to God is to demons" or whatever it is from the Bible). For some reason, Jews are often on the top of the list. Also recall that until Vatican II, the Catholic Church considered itself the only Christian religion. Many Fundamentalist Christians both a) believe they are the only true Christianity and b) believe that all non-Christians are Satanists. Combine the two, and you get it.

Just some thoughts. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 17:40:52, 2005-08-13 (UTC)

That is why I don't like the Christain faith, thogh that does not mean I hate christions (I at one time fell in love with a christian woman). IMO, they think they are so ricous (sp?) that they can do anything they want. --Admiral Roo 16:06, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Bogus Etymology

Sorry, but deriving "devil" from Sanskrit "devi" is completely bogus on every linguistic level... AnonMoos 05:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Wiktionary agrees (saying that it is derived from Greek), but I recall Anton LaVey stating it comes from Sanskrit. Also note "another theory", which is a fact. The article does not state that devil DOES derive from devi, but rather that this is a theory. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 02:05:48, 2005-08-21 (UTC)
If you hypothesize that the moon is made of green cheese, then that's a "theory" too, but not one which any expert in the field would place the slightest credence in. Same with "Devil" from "Devi" -- it doesn't belong in a serious encyclopedia unless it's explicitly differentiated from linguistically-respectable etymologies. AnonMoos 02:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Inversionism

I can find nothing to show me that this is even a word, let alone a concept. Can someone explain it or edit the article accordingly? - Reason. 25 october 2005

"no true satanist..."

removed the following - "It must be noted that true Satanists do not act as such, and have no connection whatsoever to Gothic Satanism." - from the "Gothic Satanism" section as it seems an example of the No true Scotsman fallacy. --Black Butterfly 20:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I see what you mean. Would "It must be noted that no above-ground Satanist organization advocates such behavior." be acceptable? Basically, I'm trying to point out that if someone says "I am a Satanist", such behavior is NOT to expected. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 20:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Gothic Satanism

wouldn't this be better titled "devil worship?" what have goths, ancient or modern to do with the witch craze of the 16th and 17th centuries? Benvenuto 08:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I seem to recall this as being phrased as Gothic Satanism, but as I can't recall where I read this, I will change the title. "Gothic" is not used here as a reference to the Goth subculture, but rather to a large set of unorthodox practices referencing the Visigoth barbarians. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 14:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Sinagogue of Satan

I noticed this section added to the article, as well as the external link. While I'm not opposed to the link, I have never heard of this organization, and a Google search reveals 239 hits. I'm gonna move it to the "Other Groups" section. If anyone can prove its notoriety such that it deserves its own section, feel free to post here. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 14:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone (I assume the founder) keeps bringing his group for a full subsection in the article. As it is quite unnotable, I have relegated it to a paragraph under 'Other Groups'. For one, I take offense at its position above LaVeyan Satanism, but again, it seems extremely unnotable.

If you decide to read this, this article should not be quoting large passages from a book that applies ONLY to you. There is an external link to your organization: if people seek more information, they may look there. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 15:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That text was deleted from the Sinagogue of Satan topic. The author refused any editing help, and has posted the same poorly formatted, and unedited text here. -- Mikeblas 05:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have requested mediation from the Mediation Cabal. The case may be found at this link. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 05:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Disputed section

Thank you for the paragraph and the link. I have no dispute with you folks anymore. Any actions or further disputes are not from me nor requested by me and are solely by the people editing. I will say I still think you are biased. The End. Rev. Michael S. Margolin

The dispute seems to be over the inclusion of the following paragraph: diff

A minor request in the paragraph you folks were kind enough to write for me you don't use Rev. I am a legally ordained minister and it would be very nice if you could see your way as to making a small edit and adding Rev. before my name. Thank you Rev. Michael S. Margolin

Margolinian Satanism

File:987.jpg
Rev.Michael S. Margolin
The file [[:]] has an uncertain copyright status and may be deleted. You can comment on its removal.

This style of Satanism was created by Rev. Michael S. Margolin when he formed his "Sinagogue of Satan" on 1-29-99 It is based on freedom of religion, for freedom of religion makes religion subjective as apposed to objective. This was Rev. Margolin's "Philosophical Checkmate". If one accepts freedom of religion it takes away the "I'm right, you're wrong" issue. Thus neutering God and it's dogma in any and all religions, including Atheism, though it has no God it still is a belief. Margolinian is also based on what he learned from his years in Aleister Crowley's Ordo Templi Orientis. And the paragraph from Alpert Pike's "Morals and Dogma" written in 1872, provided below. Unlike LaVey's Satanism Margolinianism is not about self indulgence at all. It does assert that freedom and individuality are the fore front of his religion but balanced with social responsibility and activity. To learn more one should read the whole manifesto at <<http://www.sosatan.org>>

"Morals and Dogma" page 102 paragraph 5 “The true name of Satan, the Kabalists say, is that of Yahveh reversed; for Satan is not a black God, but the negation of God. The Devil is the personification of Atheism or Idolatry. For the Initiates, this is not a person, but a force, created for good, but which may serve for evil. It is the instrument of Liberty or free will. They represent this Force, which presides over the physical generation, under the mythologic and horned form of the God Pan; thence the he-goat of the Sabbat, brother of the Ancient Serpent, and the light bearer or Phosphor, of which the poets have made the false Lucifer of the legend.” Albert Pike “Morals and Dogma“ Ancient and Accepted Rite of Free Masonry written and published in 1872.

Discussion

The best thing to do in such circumstances is to cite sources. Reverend Michael, what sources (preferebly weblinks) can you provide that prove that this movement is indeed notable enough to merit such discussion? Izehar 14:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That's it, I've protected the page - discuss here please instead of revert warring. Izehar 14:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Barnes & Noble "Think you're the only one" pages 100-101 written by Seth Brown pub 05 as far as internet just do a search if I say anything more I'll just be insulting for I have lost patience with this. I was not the original poster nor do I know who was. But Tony Serra is being contacted to represent me meanwhile the O.T.O.,A:.A:., Knights Templar IE Church of the Holy lands, Illuminati, Scott right Freemasons, Theophony Records, Kenneth Anger, and over 4,000 people world wide think you are biased. I'd also include my girl friend Ritta Anne Poot who someone was kind or mean enough to call me and said she died of kidney failure today. Pray my members in the military don't nuke us all! Aum Ha ISN 666

p.s. I'm not having a good day. fuck you all


A Google search of "Sinagogue of Satan" (with quotes) returns 233 results. Several searches of the same thing with any number of news sources (BBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX) included outside of quotes return no more than 21 results, none of which lead to anything actually proving notability. Your sole source ("Think You're the Only One") I can't speak on, as I don't own a copy myself, but two pages in a book cataloguing oddball fringe groups hardly proves notability.

The reason that I continuously revert your edits is that I don't feel that your group is notable. You have been given a paragraph in the "Other Groups" section, which is where we have put many groups that are Satanic but not a major brand. An appropriate move would have been to create a separate article for your group, which you did. However, it was then voted for deletion, which is a statement of what Wikipedians feel.

If you would like to add a bit more detail (note "a bit") to the paragraph under "Other Groups", I would not oppose it. However, by adding a prominent section (above LaVeyan Satanism nonetheless, which is certainly the most notable Satanism), you are throwing notability on its head. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 01:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


Quite possibly a proper article about the Sinagogue of Satan, drafted by an unbiased third party not associated with Satanism, the Church of Satan or the sinagogue of Satan, could reside as an article under Category Religion, Sub-category Religious movements. Would you allow that? To Exclude any possible mention of the Sinagogue of Satan while allowing other religious groups to be mentioned in articles of their own would be tantamount to discrimination and quite possibly illegal. On the other hand, if individuals can't control their verbage or attacks on others, maybe they should be banned for a short time if not permanently from posting and editing articles -- Biowolf

  • I have no problem with the Sinagogue of Satan having a Wikipedia presence: I simply oppose it having a prominent place in the Satanism article, as it seems to me a fairly unnotable Satanist group. If you wish a separate article be created, I would not oppose it, though seeing as how such an article has already undergone AfD, it would need to be quite a different article than the one put up previously. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 00:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Should I again attempt to develop an article about or including the Sinagogue of Satan, I assure you it will be quite different than the original, will probably be found under the category "Religious Movements" and will be able to pass Wikipedia notability standards. - Biowolf

Can't you just include the following sentences somewhere:
Margolinian Satanism was created by Rev. Michael S. Margolin when he formed his "Sinagogue of Satan" on January 29 1999. It advocates freedom of religion, on the understanding that this approach makes religion subjective as opposed to objective. It has roughly X members, based predominantly in the USA.
Of course, I don't know if the above is true. Lets all accept it (or something like it) and then we can all go home. Izehar 12:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
We already have something of that sort:
The Sinagogue of Satan is an organization of the religion founded by Michael S. Margolin based on the Ancient and Accepted Rite of Free Masonry's definition of Satanism as described in Albert Pike's work Morals and Dogma. This religion is not based on those of the popular Satanists of our day, nor Hollywood and Christian propaganda, except for Aleister Crowley. The religion contains no dogma in of itself, and encourages its followers to believe in whatever they like, as long as they do not attempt to push such beliefs on others. The aim of this religion is the ultimate destruction of religions through the advancement of individual freedom and social responsibility. The Sinagogue of Satan does not promote self-indulgence (in contrast to LaVeyan Satanism), but rather self-expression balanced with social responsibility.
If we change this to "Reverend" and you guys try again with the "Sinagogue of Satan" page, will we be okay and will you stop adding in this section? -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 14:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you put in Reverend when you wrote the paragraph? O I know because the fact is you are biased. And now your trying to make a deal? I have no control over my 4,000 members world wide so I can not promise you anything. But in a show of good faith I will ask them to refrain. Wheather they listen to me or not is up to them.

Rev. Michael S. Margolin

I didn't put in Reverend for the same reason I don't say Reverend Anton LaVey or Priest Gerald Gardner or Taoist Master Lao Tzu or Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. I simply don't often use such honorifics unless it makes an important difference. However, as you have requested it, I will gladly but it back in.
That said, the point of mediation is to come to an agreement. Can I assume that we agree to stop adding this section and to concentrate efforts on a separate article called "Sinagogue of Satan"? -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 20:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm let me see if I understand your statement. So you have a personal bias against useing terms Like Reverend Preist etc. etc. etc unless you decide it is important? Golly Gee wilikers I wonder what other personal bias you have. Hey can any of you other admins see any other personal bias CABHAN may have?
I have one more question. Who the Hell made you God?
Rev. Michael S. Margolin
To begin with, I am not an admin. That said, I don't use them for sheer brevity: I feel that "Martin Luther King, Jr." illustrates the fact well enough without including the honorific. It is not a bias that I have, simply a tendency that I have adopted. As you have requested that "Reverend" be used in the paragraph, I have no problem using it.

YOU JUST DON'T GET THAT YOUR OWN WORDS ARE PAINTING YOUR GUILT.

ISN

Me

As for who made me God, no one did. It just came naturally :). In all seriousness, though, I have agreed to your request, so I fail to see why this is not remedied... -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 03:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Rev. Michael, do you agree? Shall I unprotect the article? Izehar 20:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Not at this time Izehar, I have sent you an email which includes my phone # email me or call me iether meduim works for me and again thank you for your fairness and help. Rev. Margolin


HS,

who has been butchering this talk page damn, it was less messy and more legible last time I edited it. Anyway you want peace? You show me your paragraph with a link to this or a duplicate of it on Wikipedia, http://www.acadine.org/w/Sinagogue_of_Satan and all it's links and documents the 1st time Sinagogue of Satan apears in your paragraph and it is a deal, checkmate game over then lock it after it is published. Even though I cannot control my people I know that when they are happy, they are placid. On the other hand you cannot control the members of the Church of Satan so I guess 1+-1 really does equal zero. By the Way you still have not added Rev. before my name. I hope you don't do bussines in this manner.

ISN

me

P.S. I am getting allot of complaints that the whole satanism page and links are a vanity page for Church of Satan and that the url I suggested be on top of it all since it is not commonly known and is a totally different than any form of satanism known to the uneducated populus about the occult arena. So I guess you are right CABHAN, I did turn noteriety on its ear even with crapy spelling and bad grammer.

ISN

me

If you wish to have another go at the Sinagogue of Satan article, and have it look like that, I would not oppose it. The reason that "Reverend" has not yet been added is that the page is locked until we come to an agreement, and I therefore am incapable of adding it.
So, allow me to make an offer. You can have another go at the Sinagogue of Satan article. It will be written by you guys. I may come over for some copyediting (that is, spellchecking and grammar-correcting), but I will stay out of content, etc. On the Satanism article, we will retain the paragraph in the 'Other Groups' section that will link the words 'Sinagogue of Satan' to the Sinagogue of Satan article. I will add the title "Reverend" to this paragraph. In return, you will stop adding this large section to the Satanism article, and, should it continue to be added, allow its reversion.

HS,

I guess if we didn't fight we would never have gotten the chance to appreciate each other. To my people I ask that you respect this agreement. To Izehar, Again thank you for your help and fairness. Please unlock the page and again thank you. I only have one regret in this whole thing and that regret led me to think upon something very scarey. My statement "Pray my members in the millitary don't nuke us all" that is fucked up. After awhile of thinking on this it made me worry about the people with the keys, codes and buttons what religion are they? What groups do they belong to? I was in the Navy and I met all kinds of people from all kinds of back grounds. I stoped thinking about it because there is nothing we can do but hope the millitary screens these people very thouroughly. If I were to apologize for anything it would be for making that statement and even thinking it.

ISN

Rev. Michael S. Margolin

Baphomet Rex 666

The Mad Poet ACBHB

Frater Inferior of O.T.O. and A:.A:.

Deal? -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 14:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Deal R.M.S.M.

HS CABHAN, would you please edit this for me, not content just grammer and spelling. Thank you in advance.

Hello America, if you will do me the honor of making me your next President I promise to take care of domestic policies before granting any more foreign aid. I also promise to uphold the post at a 1/4 pay of what the current President makes. My agenda is as follows. 1. Concentrate on domestic affairs before giving any more foreign aid and reduce the aid that is being given now to help America's needs. 2. Cut the pay of all Politicians in half and as an act of good faith I will take a three quarters pay cut to show that I am a President for the people and by the people not corporations and private enterprises. 3. I promise to drastically reduce income taxes for family house holds that make less than $200,000 a year and abolish taxes for house holds that have an annual income tax of less than $80,000 a year, and Social Security payments that are less than $40,000 a year per house hold, this goes for private retirement plans as well. 4. An affordable and efficient Health-care system for all American citizens. 5. Carefully and calculatingly bring our troops home with minimal jeopardy to the goals achieved by all their sacrifices, not only Iraq but Afghanistan and Korea. 6. End all Sanctions against Cuba and work toward a long and prosperous friendship for both countries. 7. Improve foreign relations by supporting diversity of culture, belief, and political rule, no matter how much it may differ from our own system, cultures and beliefs. 8. Continue to finance Space exploration and technologies, general sciences and all aspects of the medical fields to further and improve the standard of living for all American citizens and Americans to come. 9. Ensure that the federally funded education systems are affordable for all ages of students and become the best in the world. 10. Create a checks and balances system to ensure this government becomes and stays a government for the people by the people. And to start make the office of President only achievable by popular vote not the electoral college which I will abolish. 11. Review and repeal sanctions on religions. Mormons will have the legal right to be polygamists, as well as Muslims and any other religion that allows it. Homosexuals will be granted the same marriage rights as heterosexuals. The use of Sacraments of all religions shall be protected by federal law this includes Wine, Hashish, Marijuana, Salvia Divinorum as well as many others. In ending I'd like to say I am just as poor as Abraham Lincoln was when he ran for President but just as hard working. Please do not let my humble beginnings blind you from making this country a better place for all American Citizens.

Thank you for your time. Sincerely Rev. Michael S.Margolin Baphomet Rex 666 H.P. and founder of the Sinagogue of Satan



I'm kind of surprised no here mentioned Gurdjieff and his book Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson (1950) ISBN 0919608124 I realize it's probably not Satanism in quite the same sense but it still might be worth including. I've only read alittle bit of it but surprisingly it does talk about Satan as a being from outer space!! (see discussion above) Jabot the Scrob

PROCEED TO ARCHIVE 3

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Satanism/Archive_2&oldid=1089153074"