Talk:Satanism/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

New Edits, Atheistic Satanism

Someone please take a look at the new edits. lets begin with 'atheistic satanism' where the writer did not even write about how atheism is used in satanic practice

"If one is to allow Wikipedia's designation of "Satanism" to be divided nicely into two separate categories (of "Theistic" and "Atheistic" Satanism) then one must first acknowledge that this division and categorization leaves out the type of "satanism" that by all historical accounts predates either of these two "brands" of satanism. That is, the word "satanism" historically first referenced a fiction: the worship of the spiritual enemy to the Christian faith that was not actually happening. Real life people calling themselves satanists in a theistic or atheistic sense (as detailed below) never actually happened until after use of satanism in a fictional sense. Only after the cultural proliferation of this "Fictional Satanism" did people appropriate the common man's fear of Satanism to label their own beliefs or practices. Satanism was originally a label used to describe the practices and beliefs of the "other." Of course, those beliefs and practices were imaginary and the label of satanic was places upon them for various reasons. Thus, "fictional Satanism" was the first satanism, and still continues on today when groups are labeled by others as satanic, but do not practice or believe either of the two categories of satanism below. Furthermore, one cannot begin to understand the theistic and atheistic satanisms without first acknowledging that persons truly holding such beliefs as outlined below use the word "Satanism" well aware of its cultural baggage. The word "Satanism" and "Satanic" are used in place of other titles because these words are the words used by fearful masses of Christians and common folk who historically quaked in their boots when they allowed their imaginations to conquer up an image of people utilizing sacred instruments, vestments, and ritual in a way antithetical and supernaturally diametrically inverse to Christian imagery, ideals, or morality."

This person did not follow wiki standards. Also, the use of quotes in this paragraph is misleading and unnecessary; quotes should be used to show a direct statement that should be cited word for word and enclosed in quotes. Note that this re-write is POV, without references, and has nothing to do with the article title 'atheistic satanism'. This should be reverted back to its last edit. Lets write about how atheism is represented in satanism.

""then one must first acknowledge that this division and categorization leaves out the type of "satanism" that by all historical accounts predates either of these two "brands" of satanism." to quote from above. Yes this information belongs in the Satanism_disambiguation page instead, since it has nothing to do with modern practices or methods of satanism, nor does it apply to atheist beliefs in satanism.Venus Satanas (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Needs complete rewrite

This article is incredibly biased and pathetic. It speaks of Satan as simply a Christian myth. There is no discussion of the history of Satan or Satanism. I have seen some bad wikipedia articles, but this one shows why schools don't let you use wikipedia. Someone needs to rewrite the whole thing from scratch (not Old Scratch).

This article has just about everything (for some one who is interested) to give one a brief understanding of what Satanism is about. If you want to know about it then why not buy the book or look up a site that is deticated to Satanism not read through and complain about you lack of satisfaction —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.193.145 (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone with a completely objective viewpoint needs to do just that. The article lacks proper citations, which immediately tags most of it as OR. Not to mention, whoever is responsible for the current version of this article apparently can't tell between truth and propaganda. 208.49.176.241 14:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Much of this article tries to be fair, but however says things like "Careful use of the word, according to one respected website, refers to a 'small religious group that is unrelated to any other faith, and whose members feel free to satisfy their urges responsibly, exhibit kindness to their friends, and attack their enemies'" According to one respected website? Listen, one website, no matter how "respected" it is, can have their religion-bashing mentioned in the first paragraph and be referred to as "careful use of the word." Rewrite needed badly. Karonaway 22:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, it needs someone who has actually read the numerous historical works on the subject. Has no one of the great editors of these articles on satanism, ever bothered to look at Jules Michelet's 1862 book on Witchcraft and Sorcery, or Richard Cavendish's 1967 book on the Black Arts, or Huysmans' 1891 book la-Bas, or H.T.F. Rhodes 1954 book on the Satanic Mass, or any of the other books which have been around for many years and which discuss in detail the history of satanism? An article on Satanism can't start with modern Satanic movements - it has to describe what writers 50 years ago, and 100 years ago, were already writing about. It should mention the witchcraft trials, pacts with the devil, black masses - historical depictions of satanism, and then start talking about the modern movements. There are a hundred articles scattered all over wikipedia that discuss this or that aspect of satanism, but no one has brought them together under one article.Jimhoward72 21:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

*If you are attempting to construct a detail on the history of Satanism as a religion, a social rather than literary and figmentary phenomenon, then the texts you are mentioning immediately above won't be of much help. Michelet created an entertaining reactionary pagano-satanic fantasy, Cavendish did a wonderful job of tip-toeing through the subversion ideologies of Christians and reflecting some semi-demonic folklore (at best LHP matter). Huysmans' "La Bas" is fiction associated with the Leo Taxil Hoax, and Rhodes is at best a reflection of rebelliousness within Catholicism or Roman Catholic culture (folklore or actual; that's the only one of those i have yet to peruse).

*All the data you are describing as 'preliminary to modern movements' only serve to provide the raw material (often folkloric, literary, pop-cultural) for modern religious Satanism as it actually existed as of the 1960s and extends into modern times. I suggest that there are few books (secondary and tertiary research) which may actually be used for reference in Wikipedia, and that these could easily be identified. I have constructed a preliminary and inclusive booklist that features some of these (notably by James R. Lewis and Arthur Lyons) here.

*The biggest issues surrounding an examination of the history of Satanism as a religion are:

1) criteria as regards what makes 'a religion', and when Satanism becomes such a thing;

*The factors of influence for determining this are the number of people involved (how many people are needed in order to have 'a religion'?) and what is actually done with respect to Satan and worship (when does it stop being Christians acting out and start being something else? is that something else an awkward 'Neo-Paganism', or does it include something devotional or honorary in relation to whatever is taken to be 'Satan'?); and

2) whether there is anything definitive and restricting which sets into stone for all time what Satanism may and may not, or does include.

*The factors of influence for this are authority (who establishes what is 'Satanic' or what is 'part of Satanism'?) and the establishment of legal or criminal restrictions to group or individual practices (will you say that serial killers or criminal cults sporting Satanic symbols, however few of these there may actually be, and their Satanic ideologies are 'not Satanism', even if they maintain that their violent activities are part of their practice of their religion?).

*From what i have been able to discover thusfar (documentable from reliable sources, not sensationalism, and not zealous bragging by Satanists trying to project backward an august and hoary past without reality), the earliest known social activities self-described as 'Satanism' appear in the 1960s at or just prior to the establishment of the Church of Satan as founded by Anton Szandor LaVey and his friends.

*There are contentions about older groups, but i have found nothing which substantiates them. They are, like many Neopagan witchy "famtrads", extremely difficult to pin down and very likely fables without basis. These possible alternatives are a cult in Toledo, Ohio headed by a Mr. Herbert Sloane, and a group called the Brotherhood of the Ram in southern California, officiated by Donald R. Blythe. That both men existed and sought to associate themselves with Satanism or Luciferianism of a type is obvious, but when they did so, and how they conducted their group's activities is far from clear. Proceed with caution in the construction of this religion's web page. I'll do what i can to assist, with citations to actual references.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have quite an extensive occult library and I'd be happy to help.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 22:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A big problem is that this article has no structure. I'm trying to work on LaVeyan Satanism, but I'll see if I cna't get around to this too tommorow. Give a historical perspective, a basic thing on LaVey, Theistic, etc. Its kind of hard to do though. Where does one start? How does on basically define such opposing viewpoints? WerewolfSatanist 02:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an important criticism. What might be valuable is the examination of other religion pages at Wikipedia and identifying the common formatting for their presentation. New religious movements (NRMs) of comparable age would be the most helpful due to their relatively recent origins and contentious atmospheres (e.g. Scientology, Wicca, Neo-Druidism, etc.). Perhaps this has already been done. If so, make this clear. If not, specify a formatting in the Talk page here for discussion and we can consider its pros and cons or watch what revisions to the page accomplish.

So far the page starts with a pseudo-sociological breakdown. This is popular amongst Satanists attempting to spin their particular views, and may be helpful to sociologists attempting to analyze the social breakdown, but it is not a conventional presentation of a religion. Its categories dividing 'Theistic' from 'Atheistic' Satanism are important and helpful, but they ought to be preceded by some kind of History section that is discussed here before it is rendered, since it is liable to be poorly-sourced and projecting into a hoary past without basis (common in new religions extending off of Christianity and Judaism). Also, these should be reversed in order, because, despite contentions (unsupported by reliable sources) as to the age of theistic Satanism, nothing sizable develops self-describing as Satanism with theistic character until after LaVeyan atheism hits the scene, to my knowledge.

My guess is that it shouldn't be too difficult to provide a sourced explanation of how the subversion ideologies of Christians and the occasional rebellious activities of lapsing Christians came first, and these were partly inspirational to those who, in the middle of the 20th century, fashioned the initial organizations of overt (mostly atheistic) Satanism. From there, the history of minute cults (religious groups) will resemble most other religious social analyses with notability becoming the ultimate criteria for groups and people described here. The mention of "heavy metal music" in the current page's construction could be part of a detail of what influences or converses with Satanic culture, and this is analyzed helpfully by Lewis in "Satanism Today" as including such things as music (Death Metal, Black Metal, others), horror fiction (books, movies), and Christian demonology.

In case the point wasn't made clearly elsewhere, there are very few secondary research sources on Satanism and its history. As someone doing original research and trying to find the most reliable secondary and tertiary sources on the religion, i maintain that only a handful of these exist and should be easily identifiable so that we can use them to draw out a helpful article. The most obvious of these is "Satanism Today" because of Lewis' standing in the academic community and his fair evaluation overall. Melton is just a rudimentary list with detail and sourcing problems. Lyons is a journalist with possible WP:POV problems, but should be usable nonetheless. Newton is helpful but primarily focusses on sensationalism and news clippings (stories, claims) rather than on the ground examination of religion itself. Others tend to be primary research or Satanists pushing a POV.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree, this page needs major editing. I would consider myself an objective observer, with no particular investment in the topic. Primarily, I find the whole "as an aside..." paragraph to be decidedly unencylopedic in the way it is written, and in much of its content, though I suppose I can kind of see some merit in helping to explain origins and cultural attitudes. In any case, without a citation, it smacks of original research. Even with a citation, I would cut the whole thing down to about a sentence or two, ideally after having re-organized the article. I don't have the time or resources to start citing sources or adding content to this article, but I think a good start would be cutting that paragraph. Any objections or comments? --Thud495 03:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done some copy editing work and reworded some of the article. Still, the article continues to advocate a particular view of Satanism, the more New Age non-deistic lifestyle form that grew out of LaVey's movement. The article is in bad need of a POV and originla research comb over, esp in regards to the Christian faith and its views on Satanism. I was hoping that some of the more interested editors could get some sources to back the assertions made here (Left Hand Path work group?). I'll be trying to dig up some refs myself but I've been really busy of late. I'm hoping to add sections to the article with a start on the concept of Satan in Hebrew lore and its position in hebew occultism and the role as the opposer, how it evolved into a stigma of heresy for non-christians after the rise of Christianty and then into hedonistic and "free-thinking" secret orders before it's moden reinterpretation today as a Randian lifestyle choice. NeoFreak 13:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess the article must be changed to explain clearly that vandalism and killing have no relations to the idea of Satanism, and is done by sectaries, which are plentiful in all kinds of religions. I shall make a translation of Russian Wikipedia article - it is much better. And I hope someone more skilled will merge it with the existing. Barafu Albino Cheetah 07:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, a bunch of CoS people came through here over the past while and "Sanitized" all the articles to read like Anton LaVey commercials. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful rewrite done recently! Whoever did it, (they didn't sign in) thanks for clearing some things up! Karonaway 19:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

if one examines the Wikipedia pages of other religions (and presumably what will be sustainable given the characterization both on the disambiguation page and on the page itself is that what is being described here is a religion), one may see that there are conventional formats for the presentations of religion. I examined Christianity, Gnosticism, Buddhism, Neopaganism, Scientology, Thelema, Scientology, and Wicca, and i've come up with the following major sections (and subsections in parens) into which what has been written so far may be fitted:

• 1 History
  • 1.1 Etymology and terminology {of the term 'satan'/'Satan'/'Satan'},
  • 1.2 In Christian literature and folklore,
  • 1.3 Rise of religious Satanism {in the 1960s, the Church of Satan, or earlier orgs if someone produces evidence of it},
  • 1.4 Media manipulation and celebrities {about LaVey and his activities + more},
  • 1.5 Controversies {re SRA Scare, sociopath Satanists like Ramirez and Atkins}

• 2 Religion and philosophy {explaining the differences between these two},
  • 2.1 Concepts of Satan {as heinous symbol and as admirable entity as poles of the spectrum from Christian bogeys through Satanist religion}
  • 2.2 Satanism and new religious movements {non-doctrinal aspects; collage aspects}

• 3 Varieties of Satanism {a good portion of what now exists could go here}
  • 3.1 LaVeyan Satanism
    • 3.1.1 Atheistic Satanism {retained}
  • 3.2 Theistic Satanism {retained}
  • 3.3 Demographics

• 4 Practices
  • 4.1 Groups alleged to have practice Satanism
  • 4.2 Worship, ritual, and magic
  • 4.3 Satanism and heavy metal music {retained}

• 5 See also {retained}
• 6 References {retained}
• 7 Further reading {retained}
• 8 External links {retained}

what do you think of this layout? what parts would not work and why?-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

It seems as if this wiki page would really benefit by being re-written into a model that is similar to the other pages in the same category, which would make the article much more informative than it is right now. The parts that would definitely work are the origin and history, and the addition of controversies is a good addition as well. The section:Satanism and new religious movements is very appropriate and could contain some interesting information, but the Practices and varieties should be switched so it would be varieties, and then practices. I really like the inclusion of the demographics section, this would be excellent and it is something that is missing from this article. -- Venus Satanas (talk) 11:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

We really ought to archive this page. Get rid of all the flame warring so we can have some coherent conversation. WerewolfSatanist 00:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. You can archive any conversation any older than about a week for active talk pages or about a month for less active. That's my rule of thumb. If you have any questions on how to do this you can check the code, look at WP:ARCHIVE or hit me up on my talk page. NeoFreak 14:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I just did a bunch more. Looks like few have archived this page since 2007. I'm archiving anything more stale than 1 month and have added to a couple of threads that seem promising.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Article Confusion

I have never finished a Wikipedia article more confused than when I entered it. At no point does the article say point blank "Satanism is _____" or "although their are several denominations, all Satanists believe ______". If Satanist do or do not worship the Devil, this should be mentioned - as should if they believe in a Judeo-Christian God. any history beyond a few decades of random observations would be helpful, too. If there is no history, this is relevant, too - because common knowledge (or at least my own knowledge and three people I asked quick) is that Satanism goes back at least a couple hundred years. An evolution of Satanism would be excellent. Key players of Satanism would be nice, but I would love a few short blurbs on some of the main denominations of Satanism. Thanks! Summary:

• Satanism is ___
• History of Satanism
• Evolution of belief of Satanism
• Current denominations

Mike 03:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I totally understand why this is an issue. The problem is that the term "Satanism" has been appropriated (some say hijacked) by several groups in the 20th the most well known being Anton Szandor LaVey. Each of these groups wants to front their interpretation of Satanism and because of the political infighting, Christian paradigms projected through the media, lack of authoritative secular scholarship, etc it becomes very difficult to establish anything approaching "Satanism is X and they believe Y". The very meaning of Satanism has changed and the term has become subjective.

I'm planning a total rewrite of this article when I get some more of my physical references in from back home and I find the time. I'm going to detail its origins in Judeo and Christian myth, the evolution of Satanism in the Middle Ages as heretical underground organizations, its emerging prevalence in secret and pseudo-occult societies and then "free thinking" groups after the Renaissance up to its modern inception as a more Nihilist and Objectavist type environment. The term now encompasses the occult, actual deity worship, ideological dogma and a distinct atheistic counter-culture. This is still a ways off but if you have any more ideas in how you'd like to see the article evolve or having any material you think would be helpful then by all means hit me up here or on my talk page. NeoFreak 20:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be very pleased to see a Satanism article very much like what you're proposing, above. I hope you find the opportunity to start that work at some point. I did something similar with the Order of Nine Angles page, which was in a similar state of disrepair for a while (and actually got AfDed, DRVed and then prodded before I got around to fixing it). All I can say is, dive in, be bold, and you'll surely make this article better given time. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to argue that the main page of the "Satanism" topic, is missing one element, or perspective. There is a group of Satanists out here, on the web, that believe in Spiritual Satanism. It is a form of Theistic Satanism that supports the ideas of a multitude of Pagan/Gentile religions. In contrast to La Veyan Satanism, they believe the Pagan/Gentile Gods to be real, extraterrestrial beings. They believe that Satan is the Sumerian serpent God Ea/Enki, who created humanity through genetic engineering more than 30,000 years ago. They claim that all occult magick has a rational and scientific explination. They also have an alleged definition of the human soul. I am personally studying the claims of this sect of Satanism. I advise anyone to do the same. Check out joyofsatan.org for more information. l0sh0y0s 23:25, 24 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by L0sh0y0s (talk • contribs)

List of Satanists

List of Satanists has been redirected here. For convenience I am linking to the discussion page from here: Talk:List of Satanists. violet/riga (t) 17:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this a good idea? Why? Will it inspire us to create something substantial, or discuss the creation of something substantial?-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Satanism Pages Bifurcated

There are 3 different (named) Satanism pages at Wikipedia so far, and they have been part of a battleground of religious POV-pushing largely without citation or with badly-cited sources. These are as follows:

1) Satanism (This Page]

which seems to be the focus of quite a bit of revision and to which this is posted. I would think that this is the page that would handle the discussion on the other two and getting them created or revised back to ordinary standards, if not one of the Project/Portal Talk pages.

2) The List of Satanists redirect

which is a redirect to the Satanism page -- what should be here is simply a list of Satanists (notable individuals, presumably). There could also be a 'List of Satanist Organizations' if people care about these (they seem to).

3) The Satanism Disambiguation page

which appears to be a kind of stub listing types of Satanism, Satanic orgs, para-Satanist topics, and SRA -- what should be here is a detour for religious Satanism, Demonolatry, and Luciferianism (these first three possibly together), Literary Satanism, and Christian fantasy 'satanism' including Satanic Ritual Abuse ('Satanic Panic'; possibly the last two together?).

The disambiguation (1) should discern between religion, fiction, and folklore, if possible, along with their offshoots, whereas the list(s) (2) will of necessity become an egotistic competition for citation demonstrating notability.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Satanism References to Date

I'm constructing a list of all known sources provided to these talk pages or that i can see associated with the article page itself through time at my own pages. I am hoping that this will be of reference and demonstrate how little has been done to source with substance the construction of the Satanism page itself.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As i suspected, there aren't many and aren't many mentioned in the archives to date. What follows are those which are not internet sites; summaries interjected between them with what they contain and what they may be relied upon to support in the way of the article's content would be pertinent and welcomed.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive 2 (1 hard reference)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PAMPHLET NO. 165-13
RELIGIOUS REQUIREMENTS AND PRACTICES of Certain Selected Groups
A HANDBOOK FOR CHAPLAINS
HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, APRIL 1978

Archive 3 (6 hard references mentioned)

Lyons, "Satan Wants You", 1988
"Satanism Today" by James R. Lewis, 2006
J. Gordon Melton, "Encyclopedia of American Religion", 1996
"The Second Coming: Satanism in America" by Arthur Lyons, 1970
'Marburg Journal of Religion' (June 2001) Lewis, James R.
"Who Serves Satan? A Demographic and Ideological Profile" by James R. Lewis
Volume 6, No. 2 (June 2001); 10 Pages (10,151 words)
'Marburg Journal of Religion' (Sept 2002) Lewis, James, R.
"Diabolical Authority: Anton LaVey, The Satanic Bible and the Satanist 'Tradition'" by James R. Lewis
Volume 7, No. 1 (September 2002); (8254 words)

and that's the entirety of what has been mentioned to date in the Talk pages. Are there more?-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You should also add Michael Aquino's book, Church of Satan. It is a good document to use for reference, because it is about the early history of the Church, and the social development of Satanism. Venus Satanas (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You might find Arthur Lyons' book to be a rather good source, especially for including information on historical "Satanisms" both real, pretended, and imagined. I'm reading through it right now. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

agreed. Lyons is not an academic or sociologist, but he is a journalist and has some important reflective contributions to make in terms of Satanism and Setianism. thanks.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Other Sources For Discussion

Jules Bois "La Satanisme et la Magie" published 1895 Bois declares that there are three Satans: the Satan of the poor dispossessed who turn to him for consolation; the Satan worshiped for perverse pleasure by depraved and rich people; and finally, the Satan of the dilettantes who are drawn away from true religion by an intellectual interest in mysticism. He defines Satanism as anything that departs from the worship of One God. [this was taken from Chapter 18 "Satanists and Anti-Satanists" Eliphas Levi and the French Occult Revival Weiser Inc. ISBN 0-87728-252-8 1972Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, writings about Satan are age-old and interesting, but say nothing about Satanism per se. Levi is not the best of sources. The name of the chapter is tantalizing, but informs us of no Satanists whatever.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is Levi not a good source? He is the guy that drew the Baphomet that all satanic groups covet?

Also he is probly the most famous occultists. Before Anton tried to high jack Satanism the Occult was considered Satanism.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Because Levi's history (e.g. "The History of Magic") isn't generally either well-sourced or full of reliable content. He provided his salons for entertainment as well as for instruction, and his education was what it was. He wasn't in any case familiar with actual Satanism, just rebellion from a Roman Catholic mysticism he either didn't want to or could not attain.

Levi's Baphomet is only one example of an attachment to the Templaric Bogey. Crowley attached himself (after what he says was his mother's encouragement, calling him 'The Beast'), 666. LaVey applied a drawing by Wirth he found on the cover of a book by Bessy and made the icon for his church.

Famousness does not necessarily make for reliability of report about history or indeed of Satanism. Christians considered all kinds of things to be 'of the Devil,' but that never made it so until a veritable Devil's contigent took up the tools and worked with them in the Devil's name. It wasn't a religion until a cult formed to do this out of such a contingent and properly identified.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"He wasn't in any case familiar with actual Satanism" So tell me where besides the Church of Satan and "Might is Right" do you get your "actual Satanism"?

Since you are going to be an active editor it would be good for you to show the rest of us what your definition of Satanism is and besides the Church of Satan and books based on the Church of Satan, what your sources are. I'd also like to point out that this statement, "It wasn't a religion until a cult formed to do this out of such a contingent and properly identified." is extremely POVRev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

See above in the hard copy sources by sociologists like James R. Lewis. I don't believe that "Might is Right" indicates anything necessarily. LaVey's text is indicative of a certain type of Satanism to be sure. We aren't talking about defining Satanism here excepting as it comes to be extant (recognizing when it arises). I have provided an adequate description of what i think qualifies for that in this Talk page and you aren't providing anything convincing by mentioning sources like Levi or Huysmans or Michelet. Satanism is something sizable self-describing as such. Nothing of size pre-exists the Church of Satan to my knowledge. Got any other contenders? You have struck out so far.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Truly it is you that have struck out. You have set yourself up as judge and jury of this topic and have shown not only myself but the other editors your mission. You are here to push the Church of Satan POV and I'm thankful I got to expose it before you got too far. I notice you left out Jules Bois from your list. Also you mentioned Wirth as to where Anton got his Baphomet, but you did not say that it was Oswald Wirth a student of Eliphas Levi. You also down talked Levi's Salons when Anton did the same thing in the 60's and for entertainment which you cast a negative light on Levi for, but apparently O Judge it is OK for LaVey to do exactly what the French Occultists did.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think i properly agreed that James R. Lewis is the best source for information about actual Satanism. He informs us from an academic perspective, tertiary source, that LaVey and his Church were the first easily-identified Satanists we have information about in history. I'm actually open to other perspectives, but i don't see any evidence that you are offering up to support them. Levi isn't a reliable academic, sociological, etc., source. At least J. Gordon Melton tries to indicate others, but we need more information to reach conclusions as to timing. Wirth was a competent artist, yes. LaVey and his church self-identified as Satanists. Levi and his students did not do that, ever.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a bit of a problem with where you are going with this.

You see the word Satanism existed before the Church of Satan existed.

It also had a definition before the Church of Satan existed.

Just because someone forms a group and calls it Satanism does not negate the definition of the word prior to that groups existence. Nor does it allow that group to hold a monopoly on the word or it's definition and history.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The word 'satanism' referred to Christian and post-Christian fantasies (subversion ideologies, cf. Bromley in particular within "The Satanism Scare"), and to fiction or what is properly called 'literary satanism'. It did not refer to any extant phenomenon that i can reliably identify prior to the LaVeyan church. It was about this that i have been asking you, but you haven't yet provided detail that i can confirm as evidence. LaVey properly did identify 'de facto Satanism' (which is its rough equivalent but not (yet) under the name) as a category of possible existence prior to his church, but as yet i haven't understood it to apply to more than a few individuals such as Aleister Crowley and maybe Francis Dashwood. As ideology, it existed long prior to any religion. as religion, Satanism should be overt to qualify, and firmly related to Satan in some positive way if not using the term proper. I'm not sure i understand your sustainable contentions about pre-LaVeyan Satanism.

As regards monopolies, we are of course agreed. Neither am i a proponent of the infallibility of Church of Satan ideology nor that it should somehow have control over anything but its own affairs. I prefer to let definitions remain descriptive (of terminological usage) outside rigid dogmas, and let history be demonstrated through appeal to reliable resource. You have claimed to have a large library supporting your contentions, so i look forward to your additional support of these from it. Kind regards, -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I’m not sure if your missing my points altogether or just artfully trying to dodge them.

The word Satanism existed and had a definition before LaVey coined and commercialized it.

Whether there was a group or even just one person that called themselves a Satanist prior to LaVey is irrelevant, even if William Blake did, which he did. As you yourself admit there is tons of material written about Satan, Satanists, and Satanism prior to LaVey.

A definition and history of Satanism could easily go like this.

Satanism was created by the Catholic Church around the 1200’s as a propaganda engine to persecute any and all other religions including Judaism. This propaganda engine was adopted and used by many branches of the Christian faith to persecute anyone or group not belonging to their sect. This propaganda engine was also adopted by novelists and even socio political groups in an attempt to achieve social and religious reforms as seen in France in the mid to late 1800’s. This engine has also backfired several times throughout history and this can be easily resourced by looking at all the documents of Catholic Priests and others caught experimenting with magic or accused of being witches or committing various heresies. These backfires can also be seen and resourced today in the crimes of Richard Ramirez and various other mainly teen age committed crimes. Thus the term we’ve come to use “Reverse Christians” for it was their propaganda that created these people and their actions. The article is not about religion, it is about the word Satanism in all it’s uses, aspects and history and should not be restricted to just it’s use as the title of a religion by a man in the 60’s.

Also after looking through “History of Magic” again . I see it is extremely detailed in its sources in the tons of foot notes provided by A.E. Waite. Though I personally distain Waite that does not negate his contributions.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Satanism To sum up in a few words: An encylopedic article needs to cover all the sources. People interested in improving this article, should at least be familiar with these two books by scholars who have tried to tackle the entire spectrum of what "Satanism" means:

• Gareth Medway, The Lure of the Sinister: The Unnatural History of Satanism, 2001.
• Gerhard Zacharias, The Satanic Cult, translated from the German edition, 1964.

If you can't go to the library and get these two books through an interlibrary loan (especially Zacharias' book, which is very in-depth and radically different from the approaches seen here), and further, if you can't understand what they are trying to say Satanism is, then you probably shouldn't be editing this article - because you're not going to improve it. I'm not saying you have to agree with everything they say, but you have to have the in-depth understanding that they do in order to describe "Satanism" as a phenomena fairly. Most sources people are referring to in these Wikipedia articles are popularized "mass-market" sources made avalable on the Internet, and after the "Church of Satan" was created. Do you know that there are scores of books in French and German discussing Satanism, that were written before the 1960s (as well as books written in English)? Zacharias' study summarizes most of them, and this article can't keep brushing off what people have been writing about Satanism from the 1800s to 1960, simply because they aren't capable of going to a library and looking at the sources. Or are they hoping that people are so stupid that they will forget that there were more books written about Satanism before LaVey's late 1960s movement, then there were after it. And if you say only post-LaVeyan satanism is valid Satanism, that's similar to the Protestant claim that only Protestant Christianity is valid, and that Catholics aren't really Christians. Which brings up another issue - these Wikipedia articles on Satanism are written by people from Protestant countries with a Protestant background, and attempt to completely ignore Satanism in Roman Catholic countries (which is how they attempt to brush off everything written in French in one sweep).Jimhoward72 (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Jimhoward72, it is very helpful to begin to discuss categories of phenomena qualifying as 'Satanism'. the disambiguation page attempts to distribute these to differing locations, and from this perspective i offered in Talk pages here what i could substantiate as overt religious movements identifying by this name. once one extends beyond this so as to include literary, fictional, Christian subversionist, pop-media strata of what associates itself by letter, theme, OR content to the term, then you have begun to IGNORE the disambiguation you previously left behind. I have no objections do doing this if we are going to then remove that disambiguation page at some later time, and with this in mind begin to identify sources on ALL things both conceptual and ontologically real that have been associated with the term since the beginning of history. if that is your interest, please say so and let's avoid the miscommunication.

regarding Medway and Zacharias, please summarize what they have to say about overt religious movements prior to the Church of Satan and who was part of them. it helps if there are sociological analyses, extant records, and other good data from which to draw conclusions. I am not familiar with either text, though i will be acquiring Medway's, and Publishers Weekly at least (found at Amazon.com) does not provide Medway any compliments. apparently Medway, a freelance writer, deals with concepts of Satan (hopefully drawing from sources like Russell or Ansgar Kelly or Rudwin for content but we cannot see the Bibliography at Amazon), and also seems to give a broadside of the SRA scare (though his index doesn't contain reference to Selling Satan which is a massive omission). this doesn't tell us anything about religious movements, which is to what i understand this Talk page and "Satanism" refer, though his index does cover quite a lot of what we can agree is substantive. it fails to mention Herbert Sloane (OH) or Don Blythe (CA). in short, this source does not appear to be comprehensive, or authoritative, but it may be somewhat helpful. why you think it is important you don't say. explain why Medway is an authority on this subject (a "scholar"???) and why you think his book is better than others.

Zacharias, on the other hand, seems to be a very scarce or rare source and it would be extremely important should you wish to use this as a source to begin to quote it directly and, if it becomes available more readily, to make this known, since the knowledge in Wikipedia is consensually-driven. perhaps you could start by telling us what Medway has to say about Zacharias and his reliability, as well as what actual people Zacharias is referring to prior to the Church of Satan as Satanists. who is Zacharias? why do you think he has anything substantative or reliable to say about any Satanism? please be somewhat specific, and refer to contents in his text you are recommending describing real social activities and human beings who self-describe as Satanists. given your evaluation of Medway as a "scholar", please also explain what 'scholarship' Zacharias has attained.

the distraction over access to sources is completely off the mark. my references were to academics, not pot-boiler thrill-writers with an interest in satisfying undiscerning readers incapable of documenting their source data. nobody is disputing that the term was used for a myriad of things prior to LaVey's church, and at least i am not talking about what is "valid". I am instead describing quite clearly how i proceed from the disambiguation page (which is already in serious disarray, see its talk page) to attempt to identify strictly overt religious movements identifying themselves as Satanism. if you take it beyond that, then just kindly explain how and why, and then what qualifies prior to 1967, who was involved, where they lived, and what they were doing that you think constituted their overt Satanism. that will help me to understand what you are claiming.

if you or Rev. Margolin want to go back in time endlessly and discuss all kinds of categories of "Satanism", i understand, but let's not bother quibbling about the details first. instead, please delineate into categories to what the term was associated as regards its actual ontological referents. start with whether it had any (i.e. whether it was just a concept as regards what is reproduceable historically), then what these were. if you don't know, then your entire evaluation is a waste of time. if you don't feel like doing this, then please at least provide for us some chronological history at a point which begins to name human beings and their 'involvement with Satanism', where they lived, what they believed, how they referred to themselves, what they did as they practiced it, etc. thank you for your contribution. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

Rev. Margolin, you are quite correct that LaVey did not originate the term 'satanist', and yet you have yet to demonstrate that LaVey (and his wife, and their comrades) did not invent the religion of Satanism, which was obviously my focus of interest for many moons now. self-ID is not irrelevant as this is one of the criteria for sociological categorization. if you have others, then please explain them.

I do appreciate your attempted summary of a history of Satanism. how did you arrive at the 13th century (1200s) as the time of the origin of Roman Catholicism propaganda using the term? the OED? is your selection of the late 1800s (that leaves at least 600 years of history unmapped!) based on Dashwood or the Taxil Hoax material? absent defining "Satanism" beyond propaganda, i don't see how priests "caught experimenting with magic or accused of being witches or committing various heresies" necessarily represents a 'backfire'. are you maintaining that magical practice and/or the practice of witchcraft/heresies were indicators of the propagandistic 'satanism' of the Roman Catholic Church? if so, and these may be identified, can we run down a list of these identifiers for the 'first part' of Satanism's history (as a tool of religious propaganda)? I don't follow your reference to Richard Ramirez here, or why he is some kind of example of a "backfire" of religious propaganda. is it because he uses the propaganda as a fear-inspirer with the communication of the media?

as regards 'Reverse Christians' or 'Inverse Christians', i don't think that these kinds of beliefs began being called 'Satanism' in any systemic sense until the 20th century as self-applied. if you know differently, please point out some instances, as i would be very interested to learn of the linguistic history.

with regard to this article, it extends off of the Satanism_(disambiguation) page, to whose Talk page you have posted many times, and thus without that disambiguation, it could well become anything associated with the term. if this is your contention, then you ought to be stating this on the previously-mentioned Talk page also so that we can get the disambiguation removed, else more clearly indicating what you want to do, since presently that page says "Satanism is a catch-all term referring to several religious movements." (my bolding) please make up your mind or at least forge an agreement with me about it. :) consider this some kind of 'Satanic' olive branch.

for my part, i suggest that the disambiguation page list the various categories of referent for the term (add to these if you have ideas):

(1) propaganda;

(2) proto-religion in inversion interior to Christianity and de facto statuses;

(3) pop-media circus (under LaVey, if you like);

(4) serious religious extentions (starting with or beyond the Church of Satan, or earlier, if we can document it);

and that we delineate those here.

I can spearhead the matter either at the disambiguation page or here if you like, and we can map them out. there truly aren't that many of them, and some good portion of the territory is mapped on the disambiguation page right now, possibly needing a slight tweak. please advise as to your preferences and your interests, as we seem the major contributors of duration and appear to be drawing near to consensus. ;) -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

"Randian Objectivism" & "Modern Satanism"

This article suggests that "Randian Objectivism" is one of the hallmarks of "Modern Satanism". I'd agree that the two schools of thought have a lot in common, and I'm sure some Modern Satanists are attracted to Randianism and vice versa. But I've never heard any Satanic group actually promulgate Randian Objectivism, as opposed to merely expressing a shared spirit. In particular, I think Rand's thought involves a number of specific arguments (e.g. the infamous 'A is A' hence 'Man is Man' argument), and I can quite conceive that a Modern Satanist might agree with the spirit of Rand's thought yet disagree with some of her more particular philosophical approaches; thus, saying that Randian Objectivism is an aspect of Modern Satanism is not really accurate. Also, I think that Rand and her orthodox followers would reject those aspects of Modern Satanism which are derived from Ceremonial Magick. (Proviso: I have no personal experience with either Randianism or Satanism -- I've read some of the works of each, but personally I find both their views equally loathsome -- so, I can't exclude that maybe there's some deeper connection between Randianism and Satanism which I am unaware of.) --SJK (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been quite a few years since I read all the works by Anton Lavey but I do vaguely remember him discussing it and stating his religion is partly based on it. Perhaps a Church of Satan member would be kind enough to shead some light on this subject.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey I found the answer for you, here ya go,

AYN RAND Was an athiest and didn't believe in anything mystical. She never knew LaVey and never had correspondence with him as he and many CO$ members claimed. Her book Atlas Shrugged was plagarized by LaVey as part of the Nine Satanic Staements in the Satanic Bible. I got this from,http://usminc.org/satanism.html "THE HARD TRUTH ABOUT SATANISM"Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, a lot of the things that website says about Anton Lavey, sound plausible -- I'd believe that he is the L. Ron Hubbard of Satanism.. At the same time, if you read more of that website, there is an obvious slant/agenda going on there, so I'd take whatever it says with a grain of salt. I think, if a more trusthworthy, less biased, source could be found which makes a similar debunking of Lavey's claims, that could be a useful resource. --SJK (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not into debunking LaVey I merely was trying to answer your quiestion about Ayan Rand and as I told you, I had a vague memory about her from the LaVey books I read, early 20's 45 now. I came across that sight again and saw it mentioned Rand so I showd it to you. Yeah guilty of trying to help again, go figure.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There are people who claim that Randian Objectivism is an aspect of Satanism?!? Really? The idea is ludicruous on the face of it. Ayn Rand and her disciples take themselves far more seriously than that idea suggests. LaVey had nothing on her, even on his wildest megalomaniacal dreams. Whoever proposed that idea was obviously attempting to smear Objectivism. Luis Dantas (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In this case exploit it's popularity.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael, when you say "Yeah guilty of trying to help again, go figure" I think you are misunderstanding what I said. I never implied you are interested in debunking LaVey, I might be mildly though [but not enough to lift a finger to do it myself, because I really don't care]. Please accept my apologies for my contribution to misunderstanding between us :) --SJK (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You're fine SJK, and I think over the years I've shown I'm here to keep this article from being manipulated by groups that wish to monopolize it.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>I have informed you above of the sources from which you may obtain these kinds of analyses. to your detriment, you are failing to use them, and they are easily available in some cases via Google. I will help you to come to speed now. in the case of LaVey and Ayn Rand, James R. Lewis reflects a more complete analysis by Michael Aquino in "The Church of Satan". use your browser and search for the key term 'Ayn', where Lewis writes

"in circles critical of CoS, one often hears the accusation that LaVey’s "Nine Satanic Statements," one of the Church’s central doctrinal statements, is an unacknowledged "paraphrase...of passages from Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged" (Schreck and Schreck 1998), specifically from the character John Galt’s lengthy speech in the latter part of Rand’s novel. However, when one actually examines these parallels (which are conveniently laid out in Appendix 11 of Aquino’s The Church of Satan), one finds that this is a caricature of LaVey’s indebtedness to Rand."

please use the references that i have provided for you, especially as it relates to what people call "Modern Satanism" (the only kind of actual religious Satanism that has been demonstrated to exist within Wikipedia or anywhere to my knowledge). thanks. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

For the record Sinagogue of Satan is a satanic Religion going on 10 years old and documented in Brown, Seth (2004). Think You're the Only One? Oddball Groups Where Outsiders Fit In, Barnes and Noble. pp. page 100-101. ISBN 0760757089.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

congratulations on your endurance as a Satanic organization. as an independent Satanist, part of a coalition of independents (in The HISS) i have found it helpful to find out as much as possible about org-Satanists, and what you believe, practice, and advocate through time (some exponents change this, issuing what amounts to propaganda from within the Satanist community -- i call the religion 'Satanity' because i don't think that there is any singular 'ism' or ideology that represents it). my conception of religion (and i base this in part on standards common to studies of sociology of religion) is such that i think of it as something that involves more than a single person or cult, more than a small group of people. so while i do not myself think of what i do as "a religion", i do think of my activities as part of 'the religion of Satanity' (or conventionally, the religion of Satanism).

I understand your wording "to my knowledge" just increasing your knowledge. Also it has nothing to do with anything from LaVey unlike most Satanic groups that copy that religious sect.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks for increasing my knowledge. I think i misspoke above with ambiguous language. I agree that many forms of Satanism now exist which could be referred to as 'Modern Satanism', and think that it all arises after the Church of Satan. this is something that you and i have been discussing for some time. of course more than the Church of Satan exists after its development and i am familiar with many types or strands. sorry for my unclarity. I was issuing a challenge to document religious Satanism other than the Church of Satan prior to 1967 (i.e. please someone demonstrate with citation to a reliable authoriy that any religious Satanism is not "modern").

if you could also quote the text in question (Seth Brown, 2004) as to what he thinks constitutes Satanism, how it has changed through the years, who have been the major proponents of it, as well as what Mr. Brown's background is with respect to religion and occultism, etc., that would be even more helpful. modern Satanist groups and individuals developing outside of and beyond LaVey and his Satanic Bible are important to map where they are "notable" by Wikipedia standards (consider it carefully: not famous, or important or popular, but instead "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject). let's discuss this further! -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

It's an article I'd have to type it all out or you'd have to buy the book, it is on pages 100-101 though. As far as Satanism you've already seen the paragraph I've posted several times showing it did exist. Funny back in the 1800's they were arguing about "Modern Satanism" and that was over 100 years ago. As far as SoS read and judge the manifesto yourself.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

not really. it sounds as if you don't understand how to excerpt or summarize his text and that it isn't about anything before 1970s. your reference to the 1800s is specious. there was no social referent of any size self-identifying, and i'm sure you know that. tell us then why we should consider Mr. Brown to be of any relevance as a source. is he an academic, a sociologist like Lewis, or a reporter like Lyons? -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

<outdent>Brown is a writer not a reporter. The book he included Sinagogue of Satan in is about oddball groups even the Church of the Subgenious is in it, Robert Anton Wilson was an active member. His book is not about Satanism but does have an article on one Satanic group in it which is the Sinagogue of Satan. As for Satanists before 1970 read Eliphas Levi and the French occult revival, one chapter you might find very interesting is "Satanists and anti-Satanists". Also read Satanism and withcraft by Jules Michlet, The Devil's Dominion by Anthony Masters, The history of Magic by Eliphas Levi, Lords of the Left Hand Path by Stephen E. Flowers, Ph.D.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Also A.E. Waites Book, "Black magic and pacts", though I don't like Waite it is a pre 70's book on Satanism.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

so Brown has nothing reliable to recommend him as regards the history of the religion of Satanism. Eliphas Levi doesn't describe anything reliably (quote him if you believe that he does) in the way of social religious groups. Jules Michelet is not a reliable source for sociology of religion (consult academic reviews of his work). quote some of the books you think are good. you're just throwing out titles repeatedly and i keep informing you of the problem with them as i know them.

Waite's text is not about Satanists at all, but about grimoires. I no longer think you have an interest in providing reliable sources by Wikipedian standards, just throwing around titles to text which has nothing of the kind of data you say is in them. please make yourself more clear. thank you. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

My point is the the word Satanism was used and existed before the 70's and it's history of use and or abuse should be included. As far as Waites book most of the grimoires are aimed at invoking demons, an act viewed by the Church as Satanism. Also pacts with the Devil was and still is viewed by the Church as an act of Satanism. This article should reflect all aspects and perspectives on Satanism not just LaVey's invention.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The contemporary history of Satanism was not written or created by those who write about Satan and satanism for the sake of controversy, fiction or propaganda. The historical authenticity of these tales that Mr. Margolin suggests as Satanism or satanic (Lyons, Levi, Brown, et al), are not historically accurate or reliable as references for satanism.

The only existing record of Satanism in history was the creation of the Church of Satan. This fact was recorded as evidence, by researchers like Lyons who wrote: ”.. like other occult and magical belief systems, (Satanism) is a response to social tensions and has emerged during a time of social fragmentation” (from Satan Wants You: The Cult of Devil Worship in America) Lyons reported on the characteristics, nature and role of modern Satanism. The Satanism wiki article should rely on more reliable resources just like this.

In reference to self-ref (nagasiva), A proper reference would be objective and point out the facts, and not try to assert a single point of view in order to persuade readers, like the links to Satanism Resources that he posted on this page. I have to agree with self-ref where he wrote “..many forms of Satanism now exist which could be referred to as 'Modern Satanism', and think that it all arises after the Church of Satan”, because as a social phenomenon, Satanism is a modern religion and philosophy. Venus Satanas (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Seth Brown did not write a book on Satanism or it's history, he wrote a book about various religious and social groups people might find humorous and entertaining. One of the groups he wrote about in his book was the Sinagogue of Satan, by the way the only Satanic group included in his book. And no, not a friend of mine or a member of SoS, just a writter that thought people would find my religion interesting and apparently notable enough to be included.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Self-ref and Venus please provide your sources instead of us having to mearly take your word on your claims. Not webisites books please.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I have done so previously and more extensively in the section on HISTORY below. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

This Wiki article is about the history of Satanism as an organized religion, and as a philosophy in a modern context. self-ref provided many good references and he also made a layout of the page as it should be, and I will continue this discussion there. Venus Satanas (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's about the word Satanism in all it's uses, context, and history, not just an organized religion. Look at the article itself as it stands now it shows exactly what I've been talking about and I didn't even write the article but I am very happy with the way it has been developing.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

actually, it is about whatever we coherently set it out to be. the Disambiguation page gives the impression of it being primarily about religion, with references for other meanings elsewhere. explain, if you think this is inaccurate, untrue, or needs repair, what you think that the Disambiguation page should be doing and how you would like it to be used. thanks. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

Lords of the left hand Path Stephen E. Flowers, PH.D.

Satanism: The practice of the Left hand path as defined in terms of Judeo-Christian based terminology. It does not denote the "worship" of Satan, but rather the practice of the Left Hand Path in some form.

Left Hand path: the path of non-union with the objective universe, the way of isolating consciousness within a subjective universe and, in a state of self-imposed psychic solitude, refining the soul or psyche to increasingly perfect levels. The objective universe is then made to harmonize itself with the wil of the individual psyche. Originally translated from Sanskrit vamamarga, "left-way".

Also see Crowley's "Magick without Tears" chapter 12 The Left hand Path - The "Black Brothers"Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

please explain why Dr. Flowers or Mr. Crowley are reliable sources on these subjects. remember that we are attempting to identify third-party references, particularly those which are reliable sociological and ethnographic academics. so far your sources are not sufficient and i don't think either Flowers (in what did he receive his Ph.D.?) or Crowley qualify here, though they are at times amusing to read.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

Flowers did his graduate work in Germanic and Celtic philology under professor and scholar Edgar Polomé at the University of Texas at Austin from 1973-1984. In 1981-1982 he studied the history of occultism at the University of Göttingen, Germany. He received his Ph.D. in Germanic Languages and Medieval Studies in 1984 with a dissertation entitled Runes and Magic: Magical Formulaic Elements in the Elder Tradition. From 1984-1989 he was a lecturer in the Departments of English and Germanic Languages at the University of Texas and was last known to be teaching Classical Philology at Austin Community College.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

very nice, but that doesn't make Dr. Flowers an authority on anything except these languages. if he gets a Ph.D. in sociology of religion (such as Melton and Lewis have) any time soon, do let us know. until then, do you have any other sources you would like to cite?-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

Can't help but notice you ignored Mideval studies, history of occultism, why is that? O I know why, they support my arguement.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to read any quotations you have on Medieval studies from sociologists of religion or other academics (third parties) about what Satanism is. please quote them. I informed you i'm focussing on Satanism religion so far, and this manifests in the 20th c.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

Crowley wasn't a satanist, and he never identified as a satanist. He was a Thelemite and a ceremonial magician with an interest in egyptianism and tantra. And Flowers seems to be an expert on the germanic languages, mythology and runes, and the Temple of Set. None of these things relate to satanism. Venus Satanas (talk) 11:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Occult doesn't relate to Satanism? Gee I guess the Satanic Bible does not contain the Enochian keys either.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

As for Crowley "Thou Satan-sun Hadith that goest without Will" Hadith being one of the three Gods in his book of the law which is the basis of Thelema. You can find this in Liber Samekh but I doubt you or ref own or read any Crowley just anti Crowley propaganda. Since I've been in the O.T.O. for over 20 years I'd have to say I'm far more of an athority on Crowley than either of you.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Crowley wasn't degreed on sociology or other subjects as a third party source you can cite by Wikipedia standards. please try again. meanwhile i'll keep using our already-identified sources in our cache.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

I didn't post that as a source I posted that to show other editors you and Venus are Bias and know little to nothing about Crowley.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

in fact, you are posting no sources or citations to any reliable authorities, just original research, which is not helpful in Wikipedia. please consult the Wiki standards and begin to help us revise the page using these. thanks. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

SECTION 1 of the Article (Proposed): HISTORY (Religion)

I had a request for sources and citations, and since i recently placed a new outline for the article in the top section of this page i thought i would begin to consult the sources already outlined above as the relevant part of the archives of this Talk page that have already made an appearance as background for the 1 HISTORY section rewrite proposed. they are by and large convincing and clear. I have a large number of other texts which might supplement, but while i can use what has already been built here by the diligent and interested (esp. Diane Vera), i'd like to do that.

"The Church of Satan was formed on Walpurgisnacht, April 30, 1966, in San Francisco, California, when Anton LaVey proclaimed the beginning of the Satanic Era. Initial growth came from coverage in the mass media. Articles included coverage of LaVey holding a funeral for a member of the U.S. Navy killed in San Francisco."

from J. Gordon Melton and James R. Lewis' research in the document ["Religious Requirements and Practices of Certain Selected Groups -- A HANDBOOK FOR CHAPLAINS" http://www.heart7.net/handbook.html#satan], 1993 (ONLINE EDITION - last updated 30 May 2000). this portion is substantially unchanged from the April 1978 version to which reference is also made in our archives.

The 1993 (/2000) edition also has 'Basic Beliefs' which are quite interesting given the data typically presented by those arguing a POV:

"The Church of Satan worships Satan, most clearly symbolized in the Roman God Lucifer, the bearer of light, the spirit of the air, and the personification of enlightenment. Satan is not visualized as an anthropomorphic being, rather he represents the forces of nature. To the Satanist, the self is the highest embodiment of human life and is sacred. The Church of Satan is essentially a human potential movement, and members are encouraged to develop whatever capabilities they can by which they might excel. They are, however, cautioned to recognize their limitations ‑‑ an important factor in this philosophy of rational self‑interest. Satanists practice magic, the art of changing situations or events in accordance with one's will, which would, using normally accepted methods, be impossible."

Ibid. (1993/2000), both versions have the text of this third-party, academically- and sociologically-sound published document used by the Armed Services of the U.S. to conduct its business. the sources are two very respected scholars of religion (Melton and Lewis).

I would like to add the following 'Credal Statements and/or Authoritative Literature' showing us a clear set of texts that LaVey found helpful and important at least initially to his church (enough to emphasize this to the military):

"The writings of Anton S. LaVey provide the direction for the Satanists - The Satanic Bible, The Compleat Witch, and The Satanic Rituals. (See also "Ethical Practices.") Members are encouraged to study pertinent writings which serve as guidelines for Satanic thought, such as works of Mark Twain, Niccolo Machiavelli, G.B. Shaw, Ayn Rand, Friedrich Nietzsche, etc."

ibid. (1973), this is a helpful initial explanation of how Satansm originated, with what advertized associations and authoritative derivations. if you have better sources, please cite them and explain why we should consider them seriously. thanks. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

For an encyclopedic article on Satanism it should include all the uses of the word "Satanism" and it's history of use/abuse. Much like the Religious tolerance page did here, http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanis5.htm

For us to negate this infomation solely to define the word Satanism as a religion created by Anton LaVey is to deny the general public the knowledge of all the other uses/abuses and history of the word since it was first uttered.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I am attempting initially to tackle religious Satanism after the Disambiguation Page makes that distinction clear. please read previously conversation where i explain that that page and this article itself currently refer to this page as explaining Satanism religion. I have no objections to broadening this, but we'll need to revise this other text accordingly.

as my outline shows, i am also agreed that such an etymological analysis is valuable. please quote some reliable sources that track this etymology if you can. surely there will be some tracking 'satan' (the noun), 'Satan' (the office as in Job), and 'Satan' (the anti-God as in Christian and other gospels). branching from that to 'satanism' per se (its typical usage by Christians to describe an imaginary and faux subversive antagonistic cult in its midst which may be applied overtop competing religious like Jews so as to demolish them) is the main challenge, and i don't think that anyone has yet offered citations that we can use.

until they do, why don't we stick with something that we know we can track? once you come upon something reliable tracking the rest (websites like the one you mention don't count, but are a helpful pointer), post it here, quoting it and citing its source. thanks.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

Easy, to start Religous Tolerances own sited sources, The Malleus Maleficarum (The Witches' Hammer) 1486, Francesco Maria Guazzo's Compendium Maleficarum, which was written about 1620.

The devil's dominion by Masters is an in depth book on this propaganda engine {but not written in a way to expose it as such}, and where I got the 1200 date for my short essay which I was pleasently suprised to see is pretty much a short version of the religious tolerance article. As for back fires of the propaganda engine I see that is also addressed in their article, again preists and others turning to the propaganda in the belief they can get a better deal in life from the Devil. My major point in all of this is we can educate and curb people away from this line of thinking by exposing it for what it is, maybe even save some bunnies in europe. Glad to be finally working with you.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

again, feel free to provide actual text from these books for our reference as regards anything that 'satanism' might be. your titles are fun, but without something more coherent and specific in the way of quotes we can't make use of them to construct the article. thanks.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

<outdent>so here was my outline and some comments/suggestions:

• 1 History
  • 1.1 Etymology and terminology {of the term 'satan'/'Satan'/'Satan'},

COMMENT:here is where we can branch into usage even of 'satanism' prior to the religious Satanism of the mid 20th century.

• • 1.2 In Christian literature and folklore,

COMMENT:beyond the scriptures into Milton, Dante, Shaw, Twain, and all of the Der Teuffel (woods Devil) motifs.

• • 1.3 Rise of religious Satanism {in the 1960s, the Church of Satan, or earlier orgs if someone produces evidence of it},

COMMENT:this could mention ritual or ceremonial antagonist activities as proto- or de facto Satanism such as Hellfire Club and Dashwood, or more modern activities known such as by Sloane and Blythe. then it can cover the explanation of how the Church of Satan started in lecture events by LaVey, promotion by local SF paper, and events beyond this covered by the media such as the military funeral and his child's baptism as well as the incorporation of Satanism and Setianism into the military Chaplains Handbook.

• • 1.4 Media manipulation and celebrities {about LaVey and his activities + more},

COMMENT:this should be about LaVey's contention as to his part in Rosemary's Baby, possible contention about being Mansfield's boyfriend, having accidentally killed her with magic, and other possible extravagances. it would be helpful to identify actual incidents of his expression which were false and then cites correcting these as from his children or others drawing on official docs.

• • 1.5 Controversies {re SRA Scare, sociopath Satanists like Ramirez and Atkins}

COMMENT:this should really start with the whole notion of rumor-panics and how the folklore of subversive 'satanism' was repeatedly used by Christians to smash Jews and later to make incursions on liberal Christian and secular communities in association with the psychological community's endorsement of 'Recovered Memories' under Pazder (later renamed 'False Memory Syndrome'; Pazder married his patient, engaged in questionable activities, etc.).

suggestions for revision? this only applies to the "1.History" section of whatever page discusses religious Satanism. I don't much care about a Disambiguation, and that can be discussed on the Satanism Disambiguation which has been unbalancedly skewed toward religious Satanism already. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

No sources cited for accusation of Satanism directed at various entities.

Can somebody cite references as evidence for each of the entities to be included in the paragraph below?

"Also, there are numerous historical elites and elite families who are believed Satanists such as the Rothschild banking family, The Warburg Family, J.P. Morgan, Ku Klux Klan leader Albert Pike, Karl Marx, Guiseppe Mazzini, and Adolf Hitler along with several prominent organizations such as the Freemasons and several elite Zionist sects." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.122.75 (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

^ This is hilarious. No, citations will ever be found for any of those people, nor will any of them be included in this article. None of those people were ever anything close to satanists. Zazaban (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

whoever put this into the article was undoubtedly talking about conservative Christian willingness to ascribe "satanism" (the subversion ideology of Christianity, which i have argued should be separated out from the article on religious Satanism) to a variety of religious and socio-economic factions. the contention here is that these "are believed Satanists". we should be asking whether those who believe it are notable and relevant, and in line with what you have said above, i am dubious that they are either. I will repeat again that i think religious Satanism (which started in the 1970s) should be separated within Wikipedia (by the Disambiguation page) from Christian subversion ideologies without merit which these religious use to tar and feather their competitors with baseless propaganda and rumor-mongering.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

You make a good point re: subversion myth, but I don't think it'll be that simple to separate out the two topics. E.g., the subversion myths have provided a large amount of material for Satanism, such as the idea of the black mass or kissing the goat. Maybe a better tack would be structuring this article historically, beginning with historical "subversion myths", and continuing on to illustrate the eventual invention of Satanism?

I'd definitely agree that modern "accusations of satanism" originating from American fundamentalist populist fruitcakes have absolutely no purpose in this article, since they usually have nothing to do with "satanism" - and also because they have absolutely no scholarly support. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree on the "American fundamentalists" their accusations help to contribute to reverse Christianity like their fore bearers in Europe did. Though we do not view reverse Christianity as Satanism, the general public does. Infact they view that as Satanism over LaVey's invention for it is the more popular concept of Satanism as far as the general public and hollywood movies go.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Those in history who were 'accused' of satanism were slandered with that title. Those in history who willingly took the title of Satanist [such as LaVey, Aquino, others] are self-identified satanists. There is a clear difference. This wiki article should reflect that idea Venus Satanas (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but at the same time, I'm starting to think this article gives undue weight to stuff made up by some guy 40 years ago. It certainly shouldn't be an article just on CoS, but similarly it also shouldn't just be an article on stuff made up in the last 40 years. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I keep repeating this, but it for the most part keeps falling on deaf ears. I agree completely that this article is too much based on what happened in the 1960s and after. Unfortunately, the younger, internet generation, who is incapable of going into libraries, reading other languages, or understanding historical phenomena, is writing this article. You know why "Witchcraft" wasn't written about before Gerald Gardner (in the 50s)? Because England had anti-witchcraft laws. Similarly, it was illegal and/or unacceptable to write about Satanism until LaVey came around (in the 60s). That doesn't mean that Satanism or witchcraft didn't exist prior to them. And anyone actually reading LaVey's early works (no discredit to him, of course), can obviously see he was just scraping stuff together from ealier sources - there is nothing new about Ayn Rand, Ragner Redbeard, the Black Mass (or other Satanic rituals), or the enochian keys - LaVey's two major works (Satanic Bible, Satanic Rituals) are almost completely rehashings of much earlier works. Again, the information about Satanism was extremely prevalent, in French and German, and other languages, before LaVey. Look in Wikipedia for the articles that link to "Satanism" - a huge number of them are referring to a "Satanism" that was pre-1960s. Again, Zacharias in "The Satanic Cult" (1964) thoroughly discusses much of this literature. Some examples: Stanisław Korab-Brzozowski, Stanisław Przybyszewski, Joris-Karl Huysmans - these articles link to "Satanism", and they don't mean 1960s Satanism! Writers of these articles can't keep implying that there was no historical phenomonon of "Satanism" prior to LaVey - more books were probably written about it (in French, if not in German), before the 1960s, than after them.Jimhoward72 (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see I'm not the only one that has done his homework, thanks for your help Jim.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to stay out of this debacle, but I added a new section about pre-1960s satanism, where hopefully we can mention anything that precedes the 1960s Satanism which spread through the mass media (Avon books, movies, the Internet, etc)Jimhoward72 (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

William Blake called himself a Satanist and was reffered to as a Satanist if I can find the quotes I will get them to you, there might even be something in the wiki article on him, time is short I'll research latter.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate the work done on this page so far. This is getting back to being the good article on Satanism that it was before some Church of Satan bozo came through and redacted everything. Fantastic work! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Satanism in Italy

There ought to be a special section (or a stub entry) on the phenomenon of Satanism in Italy. News reports indicate that both the Church and the State have launched a concerted campaign against Satanism. This Church-State cooperation appears to be a model version and could at some point be imitated in other Western jurisdictions that are enduring similar abuses on the part of different types of cults. [1] ADM (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw something hilarious in a scholarly article or book recently, on this very topic. (The article was probably from the late-90s....) Some Geraldo Rivera-style Italian TV talk show was trying to manufacture a moral panic along the lines of Satanismo della rock-musica - la seduzione di gioventù d'Italia. But the show producers couldn't find any real Satanists in the country to present the Satanist point of view (a la how Boyd Rice used to do that on Geraldo in the US). So instead, the producers invited some Christian to come on... and talk about Wicca, and how that's just as bad as Satanism. I'd be happy to find that article for you - I'm sure I can track it down. However, I dunno if there's much that can be said about Satanism in Italy. A Satanic Panic in Italy would be a good article, as apparently the American fundie nutters have indeed been targeting Italy with their manufactured panic discourse recently. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are some orphaned articles that would like to be in a Satanism in Italy section:Marco Dimitri, Andrea Pasciuta. Links on the bottom have more info, especially if you read Italian.Jimhoward72 (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a group in Italy that contacted me about 2 years ago. They might be disbanded by now though, for some of them were arrested for sex with minors. They were a homosexual Satanic group that sent us a bunch of pictures of their activities. I'll look back through the members message board for their posts to get the groups name for you. Like the bunny killers in Russia and Germany that contacted us, this group is underground due to it's illegal activities.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Satanism in Russia, France, etc

It seems like it would be a good idea to start making sub-sections dealing with some traditional appearances of Satanism in various countries. For example, there is a lot of material available about French Satanism, (and these days, Italian Satanism), and Russian Satanism. Here is something about Russian Satanism - there is enough material here to write an entire section about Russian Satanism:

The Occult in Russian and Soviet Culture, Chapter Four

"The Shade of Lucifer's Dark Wing":Satanism in Silver Age Russia, by Kristi A. Groberg

"A project that marked the final phase of Symbolist satanism was the literary collection Satanizm (1913), illustrated with engravings by Félicien Rops. Among the translations of satanic theme pieces by Baudelaire, Barbey d'Aurevilly, and Anatole France and such works as Stanislaw Przybyszewski's "Sinagoga Satanae" (Synagogue of Satan, a European name for a witches' sabbath) are scattered poems, stories, and articles by Russian writers. We find Mikhail Artsybashev's article "Ideia D'iavola" (The idea of the Devil), Valery Bryusov's poems "Zhenshchine" (To a woman) and "Lamia" (The witch), Sergei Makovsky's "lz pesen Astarte" (From the song of Astarte), the critic Nikolai Abramovich's article "Khudozhniki satanizma" (Artists of satanism), and short stories by Sologub and others. Satanizm brought together a cross section of prose, poetry, and imagery by the European satanists popular at the end of the nineteenth century, as well as a core group of Russians under their influence, and so provides a microcosm of the movement from that perspective."

Jimhoward72 (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Satanism in late 19th century Poland

Article on Stanislaw Przybyszewski and his role in Satanism in Poland. Kind of long and detailed, but still good info about this guy that basically said he was a Satanist, praised Satanism, and wrote both fiction and non-fiction about it:

Dynastic Conservatism and Poetic Violence in Fin-de-Siècle Cracow

"Nevertheless, Czas itself had made the explicit equation between Satanism and anarchism in September 1898, and Przybyszewski, whose literary reputation included both of those dubiously distinctive labels, was inevitably controversial for the conservative point of view. [....blah, blah, blah.....] Thus Przybyszewski, in 1897, had already made precisely the same equation between anarchism and Satanism that Czas articulated in response to the assassination of the empress in 1898. Czas, like Przybyszewski, saw the earth as "a battlefield between infernal and celestial powers," life as a contest "between Satanic inspirations and the grace of God," even though Przybyszewski was capable of artistic sympathy with some aspects of Satanism. Czas also discerned the "underground fires in human souls," but Przybyszewski recognized that they burned with the psychological intensity of human instincts. Cracow conservatism and fin-de-siècle decadence were closely related in their terms of analysis, addressing the Satanic character of anarchism."Jimhoward72 (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

LaVeyan Satanism

"Its teachings are based on individualism, self-indulgence, and "eye for an eye" morality....[it] regard[s] Satan as a symbol of man's inherent nature." It makes it unclear however whether LaVeyan Satanists oppose these concepts entirely or accept and indulge in them as the natural purpose/feature of humanity. Someone care to elaborate and make this clearer in the section? The Temple of Set section is somewhat unclear, as well, especially regarding its philosophical disagreements with the original Church of Satan. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 03:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article lacks concise, clear (like an encyclopedia) entries. For some reason the writers haven't yet actually captured "LaVeyan" satanism, or the others, in a few clear sentences. I guess they would first have to be able to see the satanic movements as "phenomena" or "historical events", and then describe them accurately. They have been described clearly in a lot of books, but too bad those descriptions haven't made it to Wikipedia yet.Jimhoward72 (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Satanism in conspiracy theories?

Would it be a good idea to add a section for Satanism in conspiracy theories? There are a lot of theories about groups like the Freemasons and the Illuminati having Satanic connection as well as a lot of other theories regarding Satanism. Δnnuit Cœptis 23:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that the mentions already present are enough. P.S. Great to see another anarchist in these parts. Zazaban (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I personally think there could be more about it. Some theorists (like myself) believe Satanism runs very deep into society and everyday life^[2]. PS: Thanks. Good to see I'm not the only one here. Δnnuit Cœptis 23:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The vast consensus is that that is veering into crazy territory. Including it would be undue weight, and would vastly contradict the forms of satanist otherwise presented in the article. Also, not theory, hypothesis. An often non-falsifiable one at that. Zazaban (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

93 to you both, see http://www.sosatan.org and yes some of the popular tripe even makes me sick. 93/93/93Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Satanism in Heavy Metal

One good example that the satanism in Metal music is often just for shock value is that the singer/bassist Tom Araya of Slayer is a roman catholic, and in the documentary Metal: A Headbanger's Journey, he stated that he suggested the album title God Hates Us All (from the song Disciple), because it is a great title that will annoy people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.101.1.21 (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Freemasonry

Experts on the topic should probably be able to explain why certain people have made claims that Freemasonry and Satanism are a bit similar. For instance, both are secretive/occult, both involve a kind of craft and both insist on special form of illuminism. ADM (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It started with the Taxil hoax. That article explains it all.Jimhoward72 (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The Taxil scandal only covers some issues not all. The one thing some forms of Satanism have in common with Freemasonery is both are based on the Kabbalah. The paragraph at the top of the Sinagogue of Satan manifesto was written by Eliphas Levi when Taxil was 6 years old therefore not part of the Taxil hoax and shows a commonality between Satanism and Freemasonry.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church vs. Protestantism vs. Eastern Orthodoxy vs. Judaism vs. Islam vs. Sikhism

Another issue that might deserve to be cleared up is the reason why Satanists appear to be more intent on targeting the Roman Catholic Church instead of other monotheistic religions such as Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Judaism, Islam, or Sikhism. These religions have very similar views in terms of good and bad or right and wrong, and it seems somewaht unfair that the Catholic Church is targeted above others by adepts of Satanism. ADM (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason is already explained in the article: Satanism originated in Christian and Roman Catholic countries. There haven't been any naturally occuring Satanist groups in non-Christian countries. Satanism originated as a reaction to the surrounding Christian culture. Christianity has built in within it the idea that a being called "Satan" is the enemy of the Christian religion - other religions have nothing similar to this concept of some kind of Satanic empire that is trying to overthrough their religion. It's built into Western Christian civilization - Dante's Inferno, Milton's Paradise lost, the witch persecutions of the Catholic Church. There's no doubt that Satanism is a product of Christain dominant Western culture, and that Satanism was a reaction to and rejection of this Christian dominance.Jimhoward72 (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, kind of, but that doesn't explain why Roman Catholicism is targeted more often than f.ex. Calvinism or Lutheranism. And I think that the question was a request for some information on why just Roman Catholicism. Speculatively and unsourcedly, I would guess that it is easier to antagonize long lists of sins, such as the seven mortal sins, than a general and vague statement "don't be wicked towards each other!". Actually, the so called Satanists don't provide the general answer "you must always sin and behave obnoxiously", but instead propones moralist regulations of the same actions. The more vague the general moral statement, the harder it is to formulate an antagonist statement. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 12:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the real question would be, "why is it (ex) Roman Catholics that write Satanist literature"? In other words, historically, why so much of Roman Catholics becoming Satanists in reaction to Roman Catholicism, while on the other hand, a similar phenomenon is not found in Protestantism of the same period. That's a historical question, but it probably has something to do with Protestantism (in this way similar to Satanism) reacting in opposition to the Roman Catholic church. Or, in other words, many groups of people had reasons for hating the centuries-long rule of the Roman Catholic church, and rebelled against the Roman Catholic church for various reasons. Roman Catholics that identified with Satanism is one example, ie. Marquis de Sade, Stanisław Przybyszewski (a Roman Catholic), the Belgian artist Félicien Rops, and Charles Baudelaire - all of them came from Roman Catholic backgrounds.Jimhoward72 (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Good Job Jim and I fully agree with and back what you said, yes Devils are world wide but Satan is from Rome OK he had a Jewish Mother and Father but the Satan we know today was created by the Catholic church.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Who" comment in "who regards Satan as benevolent"

My answer to "who" would be those Satanists who accept the gnostic argument that identifies the God of the Bible (or at least of the Old Testament) as the "demiurge" , broadly malevolent and tyrannical, and a lesser being masquerading as the true deity. Most of the gnostics then went on to identify the true deity as being more adequately pointed at in the New Testament ; one current of gnostic thinking however identified the OT references to HaSatan as being propaganda against the true deity; the nature of the true deity could then be discerned through a combination of false "claims by the demiurge" in the Bible plus reading through the negative characterisation of Satan to discern a true (and benevolent) actuality . Fileuràl'anglaise (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

references

Huh?!

Simply put: those references are to Wikipedia, which isn't a citable source to be used in Wikipedia. We're just discussing the article named "Satanism", not speculating in alleged connections between Gnosticism and Satanism. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Not only does this lack WP:Reliable sources, but this is also a good example of WP:Synthesis, so it is inappropriate for inclusion in the article. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 02:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

WTF?

", and the French poet Charles Baudelaire (who published his poem, Les Litanies de Satan, "The Litanies of Satan" in 1857)"

I've erased this part. Anybody who knows enough about Baudelaire may be awared that his so-called "satanism" is nothing but rebelion. Les litanies de Satan is a provocative poem far from being religious. Who wrote that down?

Adolescent Satanism

I've included references to adolescent pseudo-satanism to distinguish it from the more adult pursuit of rituals, symbolism and philosophies attendant on satanist religious practice.

Calibanu (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)User Calibanu

Sounds reasonable, but it has been removed a couple of times due to lack of citations (I've reverted the removals and added citation notes). Do you have any sources you can cite? Oscroft (talk) 09:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Adolescent psuedo-satanism? You do realize its just satanism regardless of age if you SPECIFICALLY WORSHIP SATAN!108.66.197.69 (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Oklahoma Satanism's Proposed Monument's Caption Abit Wonky

Actually Satanism proper is not supposed benevolent or 'nice', BUT civil law and civilisation could require that any openly practising Satanists MUST abide laws against harming non-Satanists or only-supplicants who are Satanists. An entire industry could be built around people being paid to be tortured or hurt by Satanists much like BDSM but with a religious link (i.e. that supplicant's soul belongs to Satan for the period of BDSM session). OTHERWISE the Satanist is not supposed to be nice, though they will need to abide by social norms to a degree by not being too abrasively evil.

To be accurate the Satanic caption should read :

“Satan stands as the ultimate icon for the selfish tyranny, oppression and suppression, and the irresponsible pursuit of suffering."

“The mission of The Satanic Temple is to encourage malevolence and lack of empathy among Satanists ONLY - and the rest of the non-Satanist population AFTER the end times occurs."

This effectively means no children will be involved in Satanism, for evil is not something growing people or growing children can practice properly. There is destruction and never growth in Satanism. BUT the energy itself sustains balance of reality and cannot be dismissed.

Until the end times occurs, all governments have the right to punish any Satanists not abiding by civil laws which require at keast neutrality (cannot be evil) by Satanists to non-Satanists and all citizens. No need to water down but do put the firm foot of government down where over-extended expressions of any faith occur. Satanists MUST be evil, but the citizens can always count on laws to protect them IF they are not supplicants or not members of the faith who consent to being treated evilly. Infor5med consent is the key here.

When a person is of age and chooses to be a Satanist at the local temple, that Satanist gives up some protections of the state THOUGH at any time because of religious freedoms in most democracies, Satanists can also relinqush that faith and count on the police to protect them regardless of whatever the Satanists think - which is the caveat for such depictions and negative religions to be acceptable and legal and registered entities, and the reason it is so difficult to rise in Satanic hierarchies or be formally invited to a Satanic Church or for the mealy mouthed or potentially violently civil rights Satanist despising governments that do not respect freedom of religion no matter how outre..

This is where the High Priests of Satanism, or Lords and Princes of the Satanic Church will decide who among the ranks has the dedication to sacrifice, are willing to :

i) suffer pain for the cause of Evil (Evil Hospitalers - PAIN heals antipodally hence they ARE hospitalars) ii) if their other literary or evil contributions deserve promotions in the appropriate branch (Evil Templars - they spend all the time in the temple) iii) or if their sorcerous powers are worthy (Evil Magisterium - they study pentacles and other branches of Magick, formulate and discombobulate NLPs andf NPPs) iv) be assassins and guards protecting the above groups (Evil Defenders) or are v) of great physical prowesss preparing for end times by retaliating against any depredations of the non-Satanist community disturbing any of the above groups - these are not guards but tend to melt into the masses and only appear to firebomb or kill IF their fellow Satanists are hurt (Evil Crusaders - the most active will be the highest ranked - think albino assassins from the Priory of Sion), vi) or are just Saturday Satanists.

They however will be able to leave anytime as per civil laws BUT if they want to rise in the hierarchy, they will have to try their best to keep up with evil practices and requests for murder. This is also where the Satanic Ecclesiarchy will need to determine who's able to keep their mouths shut, or who's able to keep killing people without a conscience, so their practices remain secret etc.. MEANWHILE all non-Satanists who are peaceful and non-hating of Satanists, MUST be left alone. Even Satanists need goods and services so friends among non-Satanists can be the occasional indulgence if needed. This however is not a luxury as a Satanist rises up the ranks (i.e. will only mix with Satanists). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.106.148.254 (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Satanists due to civil laws, may not engage in warfare against Christians UNLESS Christians attack them first - and vice versa.

the new satanists and the new world order.

years ago i read a book called the new satanists, today a lot of people are talking about a new world order that is aimed at contoling the planet. they went by such names as werewolf order, temple of set, they have been described as an offshoot of the orignal church started by anton lavey in the 60's. secret societies like the illuminati,the freemasons, assassins, knights of the round table,knights templar, the order of the black snake ,skull and crossbones,cross of confusion, to cite only some of the secret organizations or lodges that refer to satan or lucifer. satan was a god, the chief god, and fell. hence lucifer was considered to take his place and in most of these aethiestic religious occults considered satan as a force in the universe responsible for the direction and affairs of mankind. satan considered as an evil diety in ancient times he was also called by several other names the accuser and the one who tempted jesus and throughout history people have used him as an evil agent who was capable of spreading evil and carrying out the plans and affairs of humankind. a lot of controversy has arisen on the existence of satanism now seen as a force completley responsible for the invention of evil and the doom of mankind. the crowned prince of evil like the devil belial or leviathan all are neccasary devices or vices responsible for the unspeakable widespread of evil we see all around us. it makes you wonder what this devil is really like and why so many people depend on him for their very existence. i was very intersted in this topic after hearing about cases of things such as satanic ritual abuse (the village idiot usually a fat and middle aged man with a harem of women he could choose from who were more than willing to curry his favour.)or the real cases where the belief in evil caused horrid descriptions about people being possesed and even murdered and mutilated all to satisfy or honour the appetites of those obssesed with their need for evil. kinda strange eh? don. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.0.102 (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

OMG, is this totally, freaking true? Christians, unite! ^_^ Celestialwarden11 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not true. This is Christian propaganda aimed at misdirecting your attention away from the people that are really trying to take over the world, Christians.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

But that is not necessary! We've already taken over the world, twirling our moustaches and laughing MouahahahahahaAA! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah tell that to the Christian heads the Muslims have been collectingRev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, although much of it is propaganda, you cant deny facts that Satanism has led to the most played-out (and most gruesome) deaths. While you can also site cases from other religions, again, its "hard to throw rocks when your made of glass" (as in, Satanism's reputation is bad enough and it wont do much better of them pointing fingers). On the note of Christians and Muslims taking over the world, that was once true, but I think that and atheistic base is actually creeping in on us 0.0 70.45.101.169 (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Dangers, dangers! Can't we just smile towards each other and sing cute songs, Christians respecting Moslems, Satanists and the other way around? Why take the worst psychopaths over the borderlines as representative examples? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Greetings everybody. As a, lets just say a knowledgeable person on the subject I must say that I dont think you have any idea what you are talking about. I am not necessarily saying that you people are stupid nor trying to insult anybody but if you are going to speak of such matters perhaps you should study it better and/or perhaps yourselves as well before saying that Satanism has led to the most played-out (and most gruesome) deaths. I think that for example you have left out Christianitys torture devices, burnings, drownings, et cetera as well as a multitude of other religious and non religious people committing violence in life. That is one part of Humanity. And the Temple of Set and Werewolf Order taking over the world. Sorry but, hahahahaha . In other words, All Muslims are not evil suicide bombers, All Satanists are not evil murderers, Nor are all Christians perfect little Angels. From my standpoint Everybody has the capability for the most gruesome hatred to the most intense compassion, whether you are conscious of it or not. And yes, by the way. Not all so called Satanists have a belief system that has anything to do with Judeo/Christian or biblical beliefs. And yes there are a helluva lot more religions and individual religions and interpretations out there in this world than the major religions. Most of this so called ritual abuse cases have been shown to be coming from the minds of crazed Christians full of ignorance and fear towards mentionings of words such as Satan or Lucifer. There may be a lot of propaganda going on in this world and although this thread started with the new world order and some very inaccurate information from my standpoint im not even gonna go into politics though I could probably ramble on and on and on. Perhaps everybody should ask themselves how much of their own views are the result of propaganda and ask themselves if they can really, really see through their own delusions? Tough question eh? Anyway im getting bored and hungry so I bid all of you, my little deciples, mwuhahahaha Brains to munch on my words.

Try to keep things within scope of lawm or you'll all be branded psychos. Meanwhile though, the issue of lack of numbers of friendly people and lack of formal recognition and protection by the state tends to be the problem for most Satanists. Oklahoma is a good start, but really watered down into meaninglessness.

Satanism

Please, I do not want to bother anyone, but when I was going through the talk pages of a couple of my fave shows: [3][4], it said that Satanism was part of them? Is, like, this really true? Please, respond! Celestialwarden11 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The video of Winnie the Pooh worshipping Satan was a fake, I know plenty of people that could make similar videos. And one group accusing the show/comic W.I.T.C.H. of being Satanic doesn't prove anything. There are a lot of crazy people in the world that accuse all sorts of things of being Satanic (Lawry's seasoning salt, for example). Some people will believe anything just so they can believe that someone is in charge of the world, even if that happens to be Satan. These people are usually likely to lump together various things they know nothing about. I'd bet good money that the group that accused W.I.T.C.H. of being Satanic have never watched an episode of that show. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Phew, Thank God that this isn't true. Now, I can have a smashing time watching the shows without nervousness, yeah! Yahoo! Have a fantastic day, ALL! ^_^ Celestialwarden11 (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Archive

moved 2009 to archive.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation and Starting Over

I've noticed that the whole page has reverted into a gobbledy-gook of subversion ideologies and religious Satanism again. this primarily comes about because there is insufficient consensus about what should be on the page. if you look into the archives you will see the basis for the content of the page plainly extracted from our discussions and pointed out in academic journals. instead, religious interests are repeatedly and routinely inserting their preferences to the content here and making it unreadable and nonsense.

I have noticed no will to cooperate and am not interested in attempted reversions to what i have favoured in the past. I will merely occasionally place my objection here and am willing to continue discussing the subject. you should be paying attention to Wiki standards of notability and citation, not waxing long about your theology, demonology, or sociology without basis. thanks. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Happens now and then in religious articles. I call it street preacher pamphleting and I've also seen it in Hyper-calvinism. I'm considering erecting a task force for dealing with such POV-spamming of Wikipedia. I'll take a personal note for now. Thanks for your notice! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

my pleasure. it's good to know there are others out there with an agenda beyond something personal! ;) here is a link to relevant sources mentioned within the archives to date -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

so far we have not yet agreed as to disambiguation of 'Satanism' or on the emergence of organized Satanism in the 1960s as the departure for religious interests. I would like to begin drawing on our identified sources to substantiate a realistic address to at least this latter emergence and its DECENTRALIZED character:

"Beginning in the late 1960s, organized Satanism emerged out of the occult subculture with the formation of the Church of Satan. It was not long, however, before Satanism had expanded well beyond the Church of Satan. The decentralization of the Satanist movement was considerably accelerated when LaVey disbanded the grotto system in the mid-Seventies. At present, religious Satanism exists primarily a decentralized subculture, not unlike the Neopagan subculture." -- Lewis, James R. 'Who Serves Satan? A Demographic and Ideological Profile', in Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 6, No. 2; June 2001. Web. http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/ivk/mjr/pdfs/2001/articles/lewis2001.pdf (accessed 8/2/10).

we should be able to discern between religious Satanism (a quantifiable category identified by academia) and Christian folklore, adequately evaluated as fused into moral panics within Christian society, and in fact within the same documented source, Lewis provides some help with this, distinguishing what he calls "ritual abuse scare" data from what he has already referred to as data on "religious Satanism".

"Perhaps surprisingly, no serious academic books have been written on this movement. What exists are a number of good scholarly volumes on the ritual abuse scare, such as Jeffrey Victor's Satanic Panic and James T. Richardson et al.'s The Satanism Scare. Beyond a couple of older articles on the Church of Satan (e.g., Alfred 1976) and a relatively recent paper on Satanism in the UK (Harvey 1995), the only extended, academic treatment of organized Satanism is William Bainbridge's now-dated Satan's Power (1978). However, even this book focuses on a single group, the Process Church, which has long since distanced itself from Satanism." -- Lewis, James R. 'Who Serves Satan? A Demographic and Ideological Profile', in Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 6, No. 2; June 2001. Web. http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/ivk/mjr/pdfs/2001/articles/lewis2001.pdf (accessed 8/2/10).

these kinds of sources should inform the primary DISAMBIGUATION rather than the variable alternatives (e.g. 'types' of (religious) Satanism) we have previously featured on that page. at some point in the near future, if nobody cogently refutes my cited data in this thread, i will revise that disambiguation page to reflect this, relegating all 'types of Satanism' to be listed on the (religious) Satanism page itself (which we will subsequently construct). thank you for your cooperation.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

without objection, I will begin a discussion on the Disambiguation page referring to this and perhaps copy this there if there are no other substantive conversations as to its content. issues of NOTABILITY are hamstringing the construction of this page and few are discussing them here.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Satanism: Atheistic/Deistic_Satanism

• Satanism#Atheistic/Deistic Satanism: Shouldn't it be more appropriate to call this section “Non-theism”/Deism Satanism.
• Shouldn't it also be more appropriate to change the word “atheistm” here to “non-theism”: “Unlike Theistic Satanists, LaVeyan Satanists are atheists and agnostics who regard Satan as a symbol of man's inherent nature.”. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• How would that even make sense? Atheism just means you don't believe in a god, such as in the case of Levayan Satanism. Changing it to non-theism wouldn't do anything but confuse, not to mention it isn't a word I recognise.88AdolfLover88 (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

let the LaVeyan Satanists self-describe in conventional language as either atheists or whatever, along with their explanation with what they mean by this. cite their documents. they are widely known. describing them in unusual or uncommon verbiage, especially as it conflicts with or doesn't conform to their own self-description is probably a waste of time. explain that THEISTIC Satanism is what has grown up contrasting itself to LaVeyans and those like them, interested in Satan as a god. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC

• Well, I have a valid question that I can't believe nobody else asked. This is Atheistic (meaning no theism, meaning believe in NO gods/higher powers, as it is understood, though technically it just means "without-knowledge"), yet it's listed as Atheistic/Deistic Satanism. How the hell does that work? How can you be atheist and deist (deism is the belief in a higher power/god(s)/goddess(es)? On top of that, none of the ones listed in this section even believe in any sort of deistic power. When these types of Satanists refer to themselves as their own gods, they don't mean they're actual gods... Technically, if any Satanism was deistic Satanism, it would be under theistic Satanism. Anathematized one (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• A minor point, but I didn't want to directly edit the page since there might be a reason. In the intro-text, when discussing Atheistic/Deistic, the following odd statement is made: "Some Satanists believe in God in the sense of a Prime Mover but, like Atheistic Satanists, still worship themselves..." It is not made clear on this page that atheistic Satanists worship themselves. Is this in fact the case? The notion seems incoherent, as any form of atheism seems to me to imply lack of worship, unless the word "worship" is diluted to meaninglessness by weasel-wordery. A fix for this issue would be to remove the clause "like Atheistic Satanists". Jobriath (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Atheism is a belief in a lack of a deity. Alatry would be lack of worship. Belief in a deity and worship are actually two different things. Apollonius of Tyana and pre-Christian Inuit believed in deities, but discouraged worship of them for different reasons. The Shramana traditions and religions show plenty of examples of nontheistic worship, as does the Cult of personality for figures such as Kim Jong-il. David Hume also argued that many ancient European pagans were really atheistic animists (as many of their beliefs lacked a transcendant creator god), and would have likely leveled the same statement at Shinto had he been aware of it. Atheistic Satanists, according to their own statements of belief (such as the Satanic Bible), see only themselves as worthy of worship. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Problems in the chapter "Symbolic satanism"

The problem is in the symbolic satanism part and the endnotes 11, 12 and 13. None of the sources substantiate two claims made in the section, namely that:

a) "modern satanism" and "symbolic satanism" are indeed "sometimes" used interchangeably

- of course, cats are "sometimes" called dogs, but there is no indication in the sources cited that this is a practise that is even relatively common)

or

b) symbolic satanism involves observance of satanic religious beliefs

- Nothing that the sources 11-13 say would point to the direction that the beliefs symbolic satanists may have are of religious nature, at least not in the sense that religious belief is defined in the wikiarticle religious belief

I removed these claims.

128.214.164.62 (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)npyrhone

the categories are always going to change based on the interests of the religious. cite some sociologist for your categorization please! there are enough now to select from, including James R. Lewis or Jesper Petersen. the descriptions by Satanists themselves are often not too helpful to getting to more than their doctrines and how they seek to portray themselves and their competitors. if i have some time i'll add to this section with something from the "Contemporary Religious Satanism" text edited by Petersen which outlines some excellent options.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

what's more important about this categorical distinguisher is that it does not accept Satan as a literal entity, of any kind, but regards Satan as a symbol. this is asserted regarding the character of Satan in the Satanic Bible ("SB"). Lewis characterizes the SB as important in the development of early Satanism (at least 20th c.):

"[It] appears that the SB is a doctrinal touchstone for many--though certainly not all-- participants in this movement, despite the fact that the great majority of contemporary Satanists are not formal members of Anton LaVey's Church of Satan. (One respondent, noting that he was not a member of any organization, wrote, "[It's] just me and my Satanic Bible.") And whatever LaVey had in mind when he (or his publisher) entitled this publication, in certain ways the SB plays the role of a "bible" for many members of this decentralized, anti-authoritarian subculture.

"This is not to say, however, that Satanists regard the SB in the same way Christians regard the Christian Bible. Many are aware, for example, that LaVey drew heavily on the thinking of others when he composed his "bible." Many have also become aware in recent years that LaVey fabricated a semi-legendary biography for himself (Wright, 1991). However, neither of these facts undercut the legitimacy of the SB because the Satan Bible is not a "sacred text." Rather, the SB is significant because of the philosophy of life it advocates, not because of any divine--or diabolical--authority." -- Lewis, James R. 'Who Serves Satan? A Demographic and Ideological Profile', in Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 6, No. 2; June 2001. Web. http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/ivk/mjr/pdfs/2001/articles/lewis2001.pdf (accessed 8/2/10).

it's philosophical character is what lends assertions such as that (esp. LaVeyan) 'Satanists don't believe in a being called Satan.' in fact, most religious today probably don't believe in some literal Underworld ruled over by a Jailer anti-God called 'Satan'. Satanists are far less likely to believe in some literalist fantasy. the term 'modern' is unfounded, but 'symbolic' is helpfully descriptive. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind there are reverse Christians like Tom BlackWood that are hard at work trying to turn Satanism into "Reverse Christianity". Of course I'm hard at work undermining his efforts. I feel that any Satanism that is not based on Christian mythology should simply be called Satanism. Any form of Satanism that is an off shoot or perversion of an existing religion should be regarded as a perversion of that religion and not a form of Satanism.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

if at all possible could you please quote and cite a relevant source for any of your assertions? that's the method by which lasting wiki pages will be constructed, and that's what i was attempting to do above. if you have other sources you like more, feel free to bring them forward and we can evaluate their source and content. thanks!!-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Quote? I'll do much better than that, read his words for yourself voiceofsatanism.com also you'll see he repeatedly states "Satan is coming back" out of all the Christian mythology I've ever read I never read that Satan went anywhere. I think he has Jesus and Satan confused, again supporting my claims. What do you think?Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, a few months ago Diane Vera called me and asked me to stop retaliating against Blackwood's attacks against me and The Sinagogue of Satan of course I told her to go fuck herself.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

http://sosatan.yuku.com/topic/1356?page=-1 http://sosatan.yuku.com/topic/1349 http://sosatan.yuku.com/topic/1354 Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if i was unclear. by "relevant source" i am speaking about a third party such a sociologist or a news article or encyclopedic source covering the subject of Satanism, rather than anything else. if you would take the time to examine pages such as WP:NOTE and WP:NOR, you will see that what passes in the main for 'good' sourcing at Wikipedia isn't web pages or direct quotes from the people about whom you may be making contentions, but instead some reliable coverage of the data in question. most simply will not be able to be substantiated and will be effaced from this project unless we bolster it with citations from sources like what has been assembled here and in the archives identifying as helpful to citations. if you can get my meaning, please contact me through any number of channels we have available. I know we intersect in several zones and i would be happy to discuss this further as we appear to be the only two individuals consistently interested in the contents of this and the Disambiguation page. thanks! -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This sentence I feel is incorect

"as they believe in the same theology presented in the Hebrew Bible."

I frankly don't belive for a second anyone actualy belives the Judeo-Christian cosmology and chooses to side with the Villian.

Satanists jsut identify who they do worship with The Devil to be seme rebelkous and to atagonize Christians.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.33.65 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a source to cite for that? I've got several books on my harddrive from different books that, while they may contain some originalities, does depict Satan either as the Miltonian falen angel, or (perhaps more in line with historical beliefs about rebellious angels) identifying him with Semyaza from the Book of Enoch. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You can actually use lots of Christian theological debate and thought to justify how they can both believe in the Hebrew Bible and also side with Satan. You see, it's been proposed that Satan, previously known as Lucifer, was sent to Earth to help get it prepared for the arrival of Adom (Adom = Adam = man - technically it means "red in the face" or "light in the face"). Lucifer's job was to teach Adom about God, what the Earth was, that it was Adom's place to rule and that Adom would be he who sat at the right hand of God. Out of jealousy, Lucifer decided to leave Adom as ignorant, because Lucifer (which you can find in the Bible) loved God that much and wanted to be the one to be at His right hand. Lucifer wanted Adom to fall from grace so that he could take their place next to God. It's even been proposed that Psalm 8, while not written by Lucifer himself, is an account of Lucifer's justification to God as to why he rebelled and tried to destroy Adom. Psalm 8 is taken a stance of sort of a plea, questioning God about "what is MAN that You would put him at the highest?" (You can read Psalm 8 here - http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+8&version=NIV ). These people may actually feel sympathy for Lucifer and side with him because of this. Though there are hundreds and thousands of theological arguments that could be made for this, this is just ONE of many. Anathematized one (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Satanism vs Demonism

I would like to point out that this article primarily deals with demonism (interchangeably with devil worship) as it currently stands. The actual website for the church of satan would probably be the best place to review information on satanism as a religion. While many people make demonism and satanism a paralell since the actual church of satan has no link to this I believe it would be unfair to continue to keep the current format as it unfairly paints them as demon worshipers when in fact they don't even believe they exist.

A better option for this page may be to include a link for demonism under the title in case people are attempting to locate demon worship information vs satanism religion. This would allow the link to actual give people current in depth official information on the actual religion without them having to dig through 90% of the article to see 3 paragraphs on the religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.34.248.16 (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. The demonists, as you call them, often refer to themselves as Satanists as well. The Church of Satan website covers a type of Satanism, it isn't Wikipedia's job to make the sectarian decision which brand of Satanism is the most "real" Satanism, just as it doesn't decide whether Catholics or Mormons are the "real" Christians, Sunni or Shia are the "real" Muslims, and so forth. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This is merely another poor attempt by Christians to gain control of the definition of Satanism so they can exploit Satanism in an effort to support and validate their own mythology. Good job at nipping this one in the bud Ian.158.184.48.160 (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

More like paranoia and ignorance of this site's guidelines on your part. See WP:AGF, WP:CITE, and User:Ian.thomson/MeVsXians. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

My apologies on the post location I am new to this. I wasn't attempting to say either is more "real" since my own religion has nothing to do with christianity. I managed to find the reference for LaVeyan satanism through the disambiguouty reference at the top of the article.

References for the OTO and Typhonian Order?!

In pop culture there is no reference to the Thelemic groups Ordo Templi Orientis and the Typhonian Order has being "satanist". If so can we have a properly sourced refrence for both? If not we need to assume some sort of "dirty tricks" at play and have the Typhonian Order section removed.--Ickesshadow (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur, if a souce can not be provided in a timely manner that section should be removed. Azzl9 (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Been done a while ago. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"O Satan sun Hadit" Liber Samekh Section B158.184.48.160 (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Role of church of satan to occult

what is the role of church of satan to ocultism, black and white magic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.108.130 (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There is not a single school of occultism, but a bunch of different ideas. The Church of Satan is just one of many Satanist groups, but they're atheists, the occult stuff is just to scare people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.156.95.226 (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The church of Satan plays no role in Occultism. They do have a bastardized version of John Dee's Enochian keys in their Satanic bible. Anton changed the angelic names to demon names thus rendering the system defunct as far as what is presented in their Satanic Bible.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

comment

OK look, the entire article on LaVayn Satanism is false. try going to the Church of Satans website for Proper and Correct information on satanism. After all they know their own religion better than any one. the Church of Satan's website gives DETAILED information as to what they believe and all their various customs. Clearly you didn't go to their site for any of your information. If you had you would have listed the Nine Satanic Statements and the Eleven Laws of the Earth which are the "Ten Commandments" if you will, of the Satanic religion.

www.churchofsatan.com The Site also has Multiple contact listing. i sent them an e-mail once and recieved a reply within the hour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki1488 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the article on Satanism in general, of which atheistic Satanism is only a type, of which the Church of Satan is only a group. If you would like to discuss how Wikipedia handles LaVeyan Satanism, try that article's talk page instead, or the article Church of Satan, which also has a talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Lisatree, 23 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The source for citation 36 should be changed from "36.^ Tiffany Evans Claims Rihanna & Others Satanists; Slams “Russian Roulette;” Rihanna’s Devilish History Friday, October 23, 2009, Editorial Staff" to http://truthquake.com/2009/10/23/tiffany-evans-claims-rihanna-other-celebrities-satanists-illuminati-slams-suicide-glamorizing-russian-roulette-devilish-history/ because the article's location was moved to this new domain after the company was changed from peoplemagazinedaily.com to truthquake.com. The article does not exist at the old domain location. Thanks. Lisatree (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done:Or, better yet, I could remove the whole sentence, because there's no way that that article meets reliable sources standards. That's an editorial, it makes claims that simply wearing an eye patch is showing an Illuminati symbol, and says things about Rihanna's intelligence that I can't repeat because they violate WP:BLP. That article has no business being used as a reference for anything. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, you probably believe the only news in the world is what the corporate media tells you, such as CNN or BBC. They're owned by the people in the New World Order. The owners are all members of the Bilderberg Group, which is the main group in the Illuminati New World Order. Wake up and do some research. The only way anyone should be able to be an editor of this page is if he or she has a Ph.D. in religious studies or is a verified leader of the Church of Satan, which you likely are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisatree (talk • contribs) 13:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No personal attacks. If you don't like the reliable source standards for this site, you're free to leave. I don't see any evidence that you're a Ph.D in religious studies, nor that you're a leader in the Church of Satan, so by your standards, you shouldn't be here either. Also, if the New World Order wasn't just a paranoid delusion, don't you think we'd be working for them? Fnord. ;) Ian.thomson (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Yardflamingos, 2 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Satanist don't believe in the Juedo-Christian beliefs. They use Satan as symbolism for self-enrichment.

Yardflamingos (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Read the article, that's LaVeyan Satanism, not Satanism as a whole. Wikipedia does not point to one denomination and say "this is the true representation of this religion." Ian.thomson (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Per Ian.thomson's rationale. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Witchcraft Act

Where the article says - "Anti-witchcraft laws such as the British Witchcraft Act 1735 (repealed 1951), reflected public sentiment against witchcraft and Satanism" - it is factually incorrect. The act outlawed what was seen as fraud i.e. pretending to be able to perform witchcraft for money. Previous witchcraft laws were superseded by this act since the legal establishment by this time regarded real witchcraft as an impossible crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trewornan (talk • contribs) 19:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. Normally, I'd ask for a reliable source, but that part of the article doesn't have a source, so off it goes. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for any breach of etiquette. As a source I suggest http://www.karisgarden.com/cunningfolk/witact.htm although how reliable you'd consider that I don't know. A relevant excerpt:

"no Prosecution, Suit, or Proceeding, shall be commenced or carried on against any Person or Persons for Witchcraft, Sorcery, Inchantment, or Conjuration, or for charging another with any such Offence, in any Court whatsoever in Great Britain. And for the more effectual preventing and punishing of any Pretences to such Arts or Powers as are before mentioned, whereby ignorant Persons are frequently deluded and defrauded;" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trewornan (talk • contribs) 18:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Blogs are usually not accepted (here are the reliable source guidelines). However, the original statement didn't have a source, and the witchcraft act fails to mention anything halfway kinda having to do with something that could be interpretted as something like Satanism, so the statement is gone. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

POV Legitimacy debate

What does the term "religious legitimacy" mean? Does this assume the COS claims theistic Satanism is not legitimate due to alleged lack of sanction or organizational status? What source is claiming the COS or its relative doctrine is labeling any theistic Satanist as false, irreligious or non-Satanic? Is the COS truly concerned with the issue? What sources are there claiming any theistic Satanist or organization is outwardly stating the COS or LaVeyan Satanism is a detriment to true, real and authentic Satanism? The section of Legitimacy debate attempts to address or invigorate historic in-fighting which led to schizm between Temple of Set and COS in the 70's, but there is doubt either theistic Satanist or LaVeyan Satanist is threatened/worried if the other is a representation of genuine Satanism, meaning each understand the other is relative to the title's broader definition.Blackson (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

CoS takes the stance that they are the only legitimate Satanic religion, all others are referred to as pseudo Satanism's. This is the same stance most orthodox religions have taken to discredit other religious groups of the same faith. A good example of this propaganda tactic can be seen performed by the Catholic church against the Protestant church.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Where do they make this statement of sole-legitimacy? The COS does have a concern for pseudo Satanism, yet the reference is to "White Light Mystics who use Satanic trappings" - article first appeared in The Black Flame, Volume 1, #1, 1989. Their motivation doesn't point to ad hominem marginalia, but rather cultic fanaticism. Even when an individual like James Sass uses the term pseudo-Satanism I don't feel he uses it in the spirit to discredit legitimate Satanic organizations, rather he seems to give a heads up or encourages individuals to question facade, I don't get the feeling he's attacking theistic sects. The habit of Satanists attacking COS with the debate over pseudo-Satanism is evident among blackwood and BOS' complaints of the former, but this tactic could be argued as an effort towards traction/attention among smaller sects who seek cool-kids inclusion and greater search engine ranking. My point is a section about legitimacy is a cheap way of saying, "Hey it's cool to rip on the COS, everyone is doing it". In truth it is the lesser known sects who desire more initiates by using sophomoric methods to debunk random charlatans (yesterday it was Manson, then a new Manson then Jay Z and so on), which in any circumstance is P.O.V. If you consider the ONA's take on pseudo Satanism, they simply desire Satanic organizational definitions based in alleged criminal or sinister activity. Again it points to the cool-kids table as if COS just isn't sick, hardcore or murderous enough. I cannot admit I recognize any of these organizations attempting to debunk one another's core doctrine or message. The disapproval amounts to nothing more than social esteem issues as if none of these people truly appreciate how one another dress.Blackson (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that what you bring up is part of the situation but not the whole of it. I know one group that has been around since 1999 that did not and does not attack CoS nor does it have any interest in becoming the biggest or most famous Satanic group. It just wishes to do it's own thing and peacefully co-exist. This group was even on the CoS bunko sheet. It just goes to show you that even the ostracized of our society try to establish a pecking order.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Back to the section in question and the debate of legitimacy. I don't feel the section aides in defining Satanism, its core beliefs, doctrine, ethics or morality/amorality. The section hints of original research, P.O.V. and lacks neutrality. One could elaborate in an attempt to catalog all the instances of legitimacy attacks on COS, but that just misleadingly focuses the article on the COS via trivial data, and if you turn the table attempting to find evidence of COS (or atheistic Satanic organizations) discrediting theistic sects the result isn't encyclopedic, but more of a personal statement on peripheral socio behaviour or random orders. To compare the outcome of smaller Satanic sects discrediting COS to the Protestant Reformation's influence on society is a stretch. My point is there exists infighting within Buddhist and Hindu sects, but evidence is trivial and not a focus within encyclopedic articles. Such articles are intended to define the belief systems not the idiosyncracies of adherents. I'll try and elaborate or catalog objectively every outward instance/claim of pseudo-Satanism, but I really don't feel it defines Satanism. So maybe a separate article might come of it with a link from this article. What I realize as result of this discussion is a tone in this article to forge a definition of Satanism trending towards atypical social definitions avoiding practice, doctrine or core ethics, as if to state Satanism only exists as ether which is misrepresentative and an affront on the tactile or tangible qualities of the belief system.Blackson (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Somebody at one point hoped to link casual albeit premature forms & infighting under one title of pseudo, but the result is awkward. I don't find any significant material that can back up this section and over time this paragraph on sects labelling one another seems less and less relevant in the big picture. The heading "pseudo-satanism" is also misleading because it lumps casual and adolescent in with pseudo. I agree with the relevance of including casual/adolescent, but to say they are fake forms makes the article seem confused in an attempt at apophasis. What I mean is the article should avoid evaluation of this type in steering readers into what any wiki editors believe Satanism is "not". Point being casual/adolescent is NOT a pseudo-satanism, nor are loose unsourced, insubstantial arguments among a handful of practitioners crucial within the motive of defining Satanism to a broad audience in an unbiased tone. I plan on removing the pseudo-satanism heading and weak paragraph mentioning unsourced infighting, leaving the Casual paragraph instead. If anyone can offer a valid citation for the alleged COS vs. Theistic debate then it should stay.Blackson (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

'Before modern Satanism' Section Irrelevant

this section as presented within this article as of this signature should be shifted off the page to something about Christianity, the subversion ideologies of, and resistances to, Christianity by anyone whatever. it is one of the sources (along with the literary, such as Faustian tradition, horror fiction such as Dennis Wheatley, or the more difficult to evaluate Huysmans or Michelet) from which religious Satanists have DRAWN, but should not in fact be confused with the religious groups proper, as these only extended back to the 1960s.

if there is no support for their alignment to religious Satanism (no facets of religion were present and no cults known by the name, no academics such as sociologists of religion identifying these as Satanism per se), then this should be removed completely.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Jules Bois "La Satanisme et la Magie" published 1895 Bois declares that there are three Satans: the Satan of the poor disposed who turn to him for consolation; the Satan worshiped for perverse pleasure by depraved and rich people; and finally, the Satan of the dilettantes who are drawn away from true religion by an intellectual interest in mysticism. He defines Satanism as anything that departs from the worship of One God.Note that Church of Satan and the Singogue of Satan fall under descriptions 2 and 3.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Note also that what we call "Reverse Christians" falls under description #1Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

ONA

I undid the revision by user Self-ref who deleted the Order of Nine Angles section, referring as that user did - without evidence - to the ONA as a faux organization. I refer this user and others to the academic Conference on Satanism in the Modern World held in November 2009 at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology where the ONA was the subject of two academic papers. I also refer this user to the upcoming academic paper by Dr James Lewis to be presented at an academic conference on Satanism that will be held at the University of Stockholm in September 2011 which will detail his research which will include results of the questionnaire he compiled especially for members of the Order of Nine Angles. Given such academic research into the ONA and its members, the statement by user Self-ref seems incorrect, to put it mildly. Pointyhat9 (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed contentious quotes about membership, which IMO are out of place in a summary - which is what this is, here - and do not provide a NPOV. Those interested in the ONA and its membership can and would/should go to the main Wikipedia article about the ONA where the contentious issue of membership is described in some detail complete with reference to reliable sources. Coolmoon (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit request from Terrsaa, 30 July 2011

Please add MySatan to the list of external links. MySatan is a Satanic Social Network much like the Satanic International Network and the 600 Club which are already included in the section. MySatan is located at http://www.mysatan.net/

Terrsaa (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The links section actually looks like it could do with some pruning. I haven't checked the sites, but I'd guess half of them don't meet the WP:EL guidelines. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 09:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ian.thomson trimmed the list; with reference to the specific one above, WP:ELNO says that we don't link to social networking sites as a general rule. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly irrelevancy phrasing

Intro, second para, first sentence reads:

Satan, also called Lucifer by many Christians, first

those satanists that in some way can be characterized as Christians, aren't what's regarded as "many". The relevant thing here is whether

1. satanists and luciferanists regard themself being the same kind, and secondarily whether
2. neutral academic sources regard them being the same kind.

That Christians are in a majority is less relevant, since the object under observation is a minority. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Luciferians and Satanists consider themselves "Left Hand Path" but are two very different belief systems. The term Luciferian was first notably used for Blavatsky's Theosophy society news letter "The Luciferian". The term Satanist was 1st used by the Catholic church for extreme heretics and rebels. Christian Satanists do not fall under either of these terms and are labeled by us as "Reverse Christians". Neither Satanists nor Luciferians get their dogma from traditional Christian mythology and or its propaganda.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Status in countries

Is Satanism forbidden by law in the Western World? Because it is described as a non-religious group. I think it is forbidden in African and Islamic countries. But what about Europe and America? 86.80.208.136 (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The First Amendment to the United States of America's Constitution guarentees freedom of religion. Many European countries have similar laws. See Freedom of Religion for more details. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

-Thank you for your answer, but I could not find any thing about Satanism. 86.80.208.136 (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Satanism is a religion. A general statement about religion would assumably apply to Satanism. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

-Alright, but about the status in countries. I still did not find it. Runehelmet (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

1) Satanism is a religion. The Church of Satan is atheistic, but it is still a religion. Other Satanic groups see themselves as left-hand path, but it's still a religion.

2) Most of North America and Europe guarentees freedom of religion, meaning they do not outlaw religious practices unless those practices physically harm people.

3) It therefore follows that countries with freedom of religion would allow Satanists to practice their religion (or lack thereof if Satanism happened to be a non-religious group) as freely as anyone else; i.e. that it is legal, that it is not forbidden by law in the Western World.

I don't see what the misunderstanding is here. Finding out an individual country's stance on Satanism would be easy enough to figure out: look at the article on that country and see if that country's government guarentees freedom of religion. Why the Satanism article would have a per-country status chart or something when no other article on a religion does is beyond me. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Problematic sentence

Generally, those Satanists who believe in the Judeo-Christian concept of Satan are linked into the belief system of today's Judeo-Christian religion, as they believe in the same theology presented in the Hebrew Bible.

This has to be edited. To start with, it gives the impression there exists some sort of a unified "today's Judeo-Christian religion".

As Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk · contribs) brought out in his edit summary and in this discussion on my talk page, it's inaccurate to say "in the Hebrew Bible" when we mean any concept of Satan in any Judeo-Christian religion.

I'll go ahead and be bold and edit those things now but I think this should be discussed.

As far as I know, (that kind of) Satanists take their concept of Satan as he is depicted in Christianity (i.e., what Christians say), not (only) in the canon of the scriptures. There's a big difference, so maybe the Bible shouldn't be mentioned at all. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 17:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Jean and so the other editors are clear on the point I was presenting I'll copy paste part of my comment. "Since the Jewish bible only mentions Satan in Job and as an subordinate of Jehovah not an enemy or adversary of God don't you think it's gross a misrepresentation of the Jewish faith to lump all the christian mythology on it's back?"Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

VERY valid point Rev. Michael.. The lumping of an christian Mythology on Jewish tradition and religion is a misnomer in and of itself. While there are current movements, especially since WW2 and the Holocaust aka Shoah, to bring Judaism and Christianity together as some form of conjoined twins, their sense of faith is much different.

Christianity, centers around the belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and that he was the returning Messiah. This is the main divide between Christianity, as Judaism for the most part does NOT accept Jesus as their Messiah. He was rejected, and by mythology crucified. Now as this stands, it places the divide, centering around Jesus, and not Jehovah, whom is shared by the two paths. There are Messianic Jews, whom are exceptions to this rule, however the average Jew is in essence indifferent to Christianity.

The Relation, of Satan to Judaism is indeed as Michael has stated - Satan, to them, is nothing more than a tempter, and agent of their God. Does Judaism Believe in Satan, As is seen here.

Christianity is the path that created the 'evil' entity of Satan, with the New Testament, and that is not accepted as accurate by Judaism.

On the note of Satanism, being generally accepted as a response to Christianity, I would contend that it is a mixture. Whereas, Christianity is well known as taking Paganism into its beliefs and changing them to suit their aims. This was started by the Catholic Church, in its aim to be Universal , also is guilty of some of the worst crimes against humanity, second only to the holocaust in the inquisition and other crimes (The Holy Inquisition) Christianity incorporated many pagan and otherwise outside beliefs, and demonized the rest. Thus giving rise to the popular notion that anything outside of Christianity as 'Satanic'. Pop culture has also done much to further that sentiment.

The root of Satanism, rests in more of the Judaic version of Satan, as in being an adversary to the Judaic concepts... This is somewhat carried into other Abrahamic faiths, (Christianity and Islam) and that is it. Satan, includes many of the archetypes through out history, that have been demonized by the Catholic/Christian church.

There is a very small minority of people within the Satanic Community, (Where in my opinion, all of this information on Satanism SHOULD be from, not Christian or other outside sources) that even adhere to anything resembling the Christian Satan... That would be next to impossible, as such a person would within days be incarcerated, or worse. Such 'evil' would not be tolerated by the world in general, let alone the Christian majority.

I would suggest, redoing the article with information from people WITHIN the Satanic Community, and not just Anton LaVey either, as he nor his Church of Satan represent Satanism to the fullest - This article, in many ways, represents Satanism as per not only Christianity, Judaism, but also LeVayen Satanism, which are individual issues in and of themselves.

To improve this, there are many authors, who have written within the Satanic Community, that could be used as reference - To get a better grasp of a path that is much more diverse than presented, perhaps there must be deeper research into Satanism, from the aspect of its people.

James L. Nicholson II 20:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by High Magister Nicholson (talk • contribs)

The Catholic church also demonized Pagan Gods such as Astarte and turned her into the demon Asteroth because the cult was too popular to kill so they absorbed it and made Easter. The bunny and eggs were her fertility symbols and to this day most people don't have a clue as to why their children color eggs every year and admire the Easter Bunny.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael, please keep it on topic on how to improve the article. James, your comment is very long. I understand you both have strong opinions on the topic but original research is not useful here.

The article should cover all viewpoints on Satanism, that includes what Christians and other religious people refer to as Satanism; LaVeyan Satanism should also be covered, and all other note-worthy "Satanisms". So I think the article's structure is fine as it is, and I don't think it should be rewritten from the point of view of what some may consider "real Satanism".

I'm not even sure what kind of Satanism you're referring to that hasn't been covered properly, Theistic Satanism is mentioned and even has its own article, Symbolic Satanism is also mentioned.

"There is a very small minority of people within the Satanic Community /--/ that even adhere to anything resembling the Christian Satan..." -- I think "Christian Satan" is redundant, if it weren't for the Bible then Satan as such wouldn't exist. If one is a Satanist of any kind then then they inevitably take at least some of their ideas about Satan from how he is depicted by Christians and/or in the Bible.

At this point I'd recommend you get specific and propose what exactly should be added to/removed from/changed in the article as it currently is; specifically, mention what type of Satanism isn't sufficiently covered in the article or is ignored in the lead section ("Satanism is a group of religions that is composed of a diverse number of ideological and philosophical beliefs and social phenomena. Their shared feature include symbolic association with, admiration for the character of, and even veneration of Satan or similar rebellious, promethean, and liberating figures.") — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 16:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

How about the creation of the word as an accusation by the catholic church to persecute and demonize non Catholics such as the action against Astarte, Jews and Pagans of various cults? Which by the way is still the most used application of the word today. Some historical figures like William Blake adopted the name as an act of defiance against the Church. Most books and references do not cover this aspect of the word because most of the books on the subject are written by Catholics and Christians. Because Satanism has been such an underground movement due to persecution what you ask us to provide is next to impossible but I'll see what I can do.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

reliable source?

Under "LaVeyan Satanism": Is religioustolerance.org a reliable source? TheseusX (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC).

dmoz search list

dmoz Open Directory search result shows list of 587 websites to Satanism, and 294 links within Open Directory five Categories - Society: Religion and Spirituality: Esoteric and Occult: Satanism: Demonolatry: Demons (242), Society: Religion and Spirituality: Esoteric and Occult: Satanism: Personal Pages (21), Society: Religion and Spirituality: Esoteric and Occult: Satanism (12), Society: Religion and Spirituality: Esoteric and Occult: Satanism: Chats and Forums (10), & Society: Religion and Spirituality: Esoteric and Occult: Satanism: Demonolatry (9) ἙρμῆςΚυλλήνη (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And this has what to do with article improvement? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"A satan" versus "Satan"

It is my understanding that, although the usual interpretation is that all references to Satan are concerning the same character, it is equally valid (at least within study of the Hebrew Bible) to regard it as an improper noun meaning "adversary". This general usage refers to any angel meant to question or obstruct any human endeavor. That is to say, David's provoker, Job's doubter, and even the angel responsible for keeping humans out of Eden would all be (potentially) separate beings, and each is "a satan". If this is indeed the case, then certain sections of this article which make the assumption of a single Satan should be rewritten. Alternatively, a note could be added that, for the purposes of this article or within the contexts of these belief systems, that assumption is made. Can anyone confirm what I've said? —Malnormalulo (talk) 08:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The article would need to be re-written if Satanism regarded those satans as separate entities. To claim that, we would need reliable sources saying that Satanists view satan as refering to different beings. The ones we have right now (as far as I can find) portray Satanists as viewing Satan as a proper noun. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, Satanists certainly take that view, but it isn't expressed that way in the article. It's being expressed as absolute fact, not as the interpretation chosen by Satanist theology. —Malnormalulo (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't find any such reading. I did find:

• "LaVeyan Satanists are atheists who regard Satan as a symbol of man's inherent nature"
• "Theistic Satanism (also known as Traditional Satanism, Spiritual Satanism or Devil Worship) is a form of Satanism with the primary belief that Satan is an actual deity or force to revere or worship"
• "Theistic Satanism is theistic as opposed to atheistic, believing that Satan is a real being rather than a symbol of individualism" Ian.thomson (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're understanding my point. I am not saying that Satanists take the view that "ha-satan" could be regarded as an improper noun. My issue is that, in the article (particularly the second paragraph of the intro), in discussing the concept of Satan as it appears in the Bible, the statement is made that "ha-satan" is in fact described throughout the Bible unambiguously as a singular entity. The information on Satanism itself is irrelevant — I believe that this article is making an unfounded generalization of a concept that extends to many other topics in theology and Biblical studies. —Malnormalulo (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

history of groups that follow "satan"

Has no one thought of mentioning the newly found joy of Satan. I believe that this is a substantial improvement from other satanic theological standpoints. I think that this group deserves to atleast be mentioned on the topic: history of satanism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.182.3.50 (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You'll want to check out WP:NOTE, our standards on what is considered notable or not. In short, there needs to be reliable third-party sources, preferably academic, discussing them for more than a trivial mention. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Catholic League reference for Adam Lanza

Here is what the Catholic League reference says

Trevor L. Todd was a classmate of the Newtown, Conn. mass killer, Adam Lanza. He says Lanza was a devil worshipper who had his own website on the Internet. Indeed, he says the website “had the word ‘Devil’ on it in red Gothic-style letters against a black background. It gave me the chills. It was just so weird.”

Does this look like a reliable source? Editor2020 (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

If you read the article it says that more research should be put in to the role satanism plays in serial crimes. Bill Donohue admits there isn't conclusive evidence to say that there is a satanic connetion to the killings in Newtown but that the idea should be investigated. If you read my edit you would also see that I specifically stated that Lanza was alleged to be a satanist, and I believe that his connection to satanism should be explored in trying to figure out his motive. My point about the Catholic League and its reliability is that has it ever been known to lie or falseify stories, and I don't believe it has but gets a bad rap because it rejects the politically correct attitudes towards the Catholic Church.Gicantor93 (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I agree with Editor2020 on this. This doesn't constitute a reliable source. Not only that, but mentioning it with only the one, single, biased citation fails WP:UNDUE and WP:N. Also, please don't edit war — let's establish a consensus before we do anything. – Richard BB 08:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me how the Catholic League is an unrealible source? Public officials actually ask the organization for information regarding religious issues. Also I was stating that Lanza was alleged to be a satanist and to have run a satanic website, and someone saying something like this would as an allegation that Lanza had satanic connections, remember an allegation is sort of like being accused of something. Since the Newtown shooting is such an important event (not only in the bloodshed but also in its effects on public policy) all possible motives should be investigated and understood, and if Lanza's alleged satanism was the cause this should be public information.Gicantor93 (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I would remind you to wait until a consensus is achieved here in this discussion before re-adding the content. There's no rush to add it immediately; trying to re-add it now before we have thoroughly discussed the issue will only earn you a block. See WP:BRD. – Richard BB 07:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Wandering by and thought I'd give my two cents. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. And I quote, "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation". "His friend said something" is unverifiable speculation. The only way we could ever report on something like that is if it has received significant mainstream coverage, which it has not. I see only one remotely reliable source for this, and WP:EXCEPTIONAL says that "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. This is flimsy information at best and Wikipedia is not the place to begin an investigation into this connection. We are not investigators. We simply report on reliable, verifiable information that others have found. If an investigation happens and we receive more evidence of this Satanic connection, then and only then can we consider mentioning Lanza. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Satanism as a new modern religion Mach Elite / Elite power.

The belief in Satan as "a uniting factor" for Buddhism, Judaism, Christianism and Islam Islam. Accept this religion is 4, support, subsidieren and want to draw political profit from it.Mercedes 1 GAY 613 (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM, WP:No original research, WP:CITE, and WP:Identifying reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a message board, nor a pulpit for you to preach from. Wikipedia summarizes mainstream academic and journalistic sources, and on issues of religion only reports what is documented about doctrines, instead of serving as a propaganda ground.

Also, your claims grossly oversimplify Buddhist philosophy and what role Satan plays in Jewish theology to the point that one cannot reasonably assume you've actually studied either. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

LaVeyan Satanism

There seems to be a push from LaVeyan Satanism followers to define it as "the" Satanism (from the article: "The Church of Satan rejects the legitimacy of any other organizations who claim to be Satanists, dubbing them reverse-Christians, pseudo-Satanists or Devil worshipers.[38] Today, the Church of Satan promotes itself as the only authentic representation of Satanism, and it routinely publishes materials underscoring this contention.") This is creeping into our articles. [5], [6] I've reverted Mean as custard [7] but would welcome more discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Satanism as Secular Humanism?

It appears that, over the last several years, secular humanists have begun to essentially masquerade as Satanists in an effort to combat the promotion of Christianity in schools and other public places in the United States (by handing out satanic coloring books in schools, creating a satanic statue for display on state property, etc.). I have no support for the theory that these various efforts were aimed not at proselytizing for Satan but to combat the intermingling of Church and State. However, it seems fairly self-evident. I think a section under this entry should include some mention of this phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.186.55 (talk)

Article content must be supported by reliable sources (not editors' opinions). Do you have any? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

He means do you have any sources. We know you have opinions. Our article Sky has four citations just to say that it's blue. We do not believe that anything is self-evident, especially conspiracy theories. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I think anon is referring to that kind of thing: "A Christian group received permission to distribute Bibles and other religious materials to their students, leading atheist groups to appeal for an equal opportunity. It wasn't long before the Satanic community hopped on board as well. "If a public school board is going to allow religious pamphlets and full Bibles to be distributed to students -- as is the case in Orange County, Florida -- we think the responsible thing to do is to ensure that these students are given access to a variety of differing religious opinions, as opposed to standing idly by while one religious voice dominates the discourse and delivers propaganda to youth," the Satanic Temple’s spokesperson, Lucien Greaves, explained in a statement." It does seem like intentionally "pointy" behaviour (as we would call it here), like, "if promoting religions is allowed then fine, let's promote Satanism to children". But anyway, we can only report what the sources say and not make our own conclusions. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Satanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120701104244/http://www.churchofsatan.com:80/home.html to http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST: The Satanic Temple

Lucien Greaves (working on a draft article here Lucien Greaves co-founded the TST with Malcom Jerry

The current article says Lucien founded the organization which isn't factually 100% correct. I was also under this impression until recently. There's also requests for Malcom Jerry and Jex Blackmoore (all significant). I'd claim Jex needs note as she's the first chapter director in Detroit and has quite a bit of media coverage with the Unmother concept along with the "Snaketivity" in Lansing (deserves it's own wiki).

We need a specific page just for the TST. I put a request in the Article request spot in wiki.

Overall the page is difficult. The concept between Atheistic Satanism and Theistic Satanism is IMHO almost so different it doesn't belong in the same article. It's difficult to go to the Satanism article looking for Atheistic Satanism and it be kind of burried. I guess that's the confusion in Satanism though?

I haven't started a full TST article because it could get to time consuming someone that is like, in school in a research writing class could do it and many "leafs". I wanted to personally start on leafs but perhaps we could put a simplified page to start?Barfbag666 (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 June 2016

Satanism is a modern free-thinking religion and Satanists can therefore develop new ideological and philosophical beliefs. FraterLuciferi (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I want therefore permission to edit the article Satanism, so people becomes aware of the fact that it's a single religion but a free-thinking religion. FraterLuciferi (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

All Wikipedia does is neutrally summarize professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. You need to cite such sources to support changes. Also, do not edit war.

Also, don't just spam edit requests -- just edit the one you already made.

Per the sources in the article, there are atheistic forms and theistic forms, some branches of which regard themselves as distinct from other types of Satanism. Wikipedia is not here to promote any sort of ideology. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

There are no types of Satanism. Satanists can have different ideological and philosophical beliefs whatever they are considered to be atheists or theists simply because Satanism is a free thinking religion influenced by works such as Paradise Lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FraterLuciferi (talk • contribs) 16:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

"Different ideological and philosophical beliefs" would be different types, especially when some of those groups (like the Levayan Church of Satan thinks that they're a distinct religion from other forms of Satanism). By saying that there's only one Satanism (even if diverse), you are denying the free-thinking of many Satanists. And again, you need to cite professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources for your claims. We do not take original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

What religious people consider is not objective but subjective. There are many different ideological and philosophical beliefs between Satanists but it's because one of the basic satanic values are independent thoughts and individualism. By saying that Satanism is a group of ideological and philosophical beliefs it leads to denying of the free-thinking of Satanists. I'm only objective here and editing the rhetoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FraterLuciferi (talk • contribs) 10:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

"one of the basic satanic values are independent thoughts and individualism" -- that's the subjective religious thinking that the article does not operate on. The sources for the article describe Satanism as a grouping of different religions, in part because many of those religions consider themselves distinct from other Satanic religions. Are you saying that the Levayan Church of Satan is wrong to believe what they do? Ian.thomson (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The church of Satan distinct themselves from the other satanic organisations simply because they rejects the other organisations to be Satanic. All satanic organisations shares the same root and do therefore agrees that Satan promotes independent thoughts and individualism. The sources is to be found in this article that points out works such as Paradises Lost who has influenced the founders of Satanism. If the source of this article states that Satanism is many religions then it's not valid and must be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FraterLuciferi (talk • contribs) 10:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

In other words, the Church of Satan considers itself a different religion from other groups of Satanists. Your very first sentence in that post is an admission that they do not consider themselves the same religion. Distinct religions can share roots without being the same religion -- most of the major world religions trace back to just Judaism and Hinduism; but no one's gonna argue that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahai, Sikhism, Thelema, Wicca, and Scientology are the same religion. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 June 2016

FraterLuciferi (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The article contains misinformation by stating Satanism is a group of ideological and philosophical beliefs. Satanism is a religion because it has a system of values, standards, symbolism and rituals like the other religions. The reason why there are different and will be different philosophical and ideological beliefs between Satanists is because one of the basic satanic values are independent thoughts and individualism. These ideas can be found in romans such as Paradise Lost who had a great influence on the development of Satanism. That's why I seeks a request to edit the article so people are more aware of the fact that Satanism is a religion. Thank you. FraterLuciferi

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. In addition, please provide reliable sources to support this change. clpo13_(talk) 15:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

My sources are the works Paradise Lost and the satanic bible where it states that it easy could have been someone else who created Church of Satan if LaVey did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FraterLuciferi (talk • contribs) 10:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Those are not mainstream academic sources. One of them is a poem by a Christian and the other is from an organization that specifically excludes other types of Satanists as not belonging to the same religion. Your religious interpretations of those texts (whatever their philosophical realities may be) does is no substitute for mainstream academic sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Satan is described in romans and works as a liberating figure that promotes individualism and independent thoughts. That's why Satanists have different philosophical and ideological beliefs but still belongs to the same religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FraterLuciferi (talk • contribs) 11:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

A shared belief does not a religion make. Both Christians and Muslims regard Jesus as the Messiah (though in different ways), but no one's gonna argue they're the same religion. Jews and Muslims likewise consider themselves the Children of Abraham -- but again, you don't really have anyone arguing they're the same religion.

Some Satanists believe that Satan is a real being like you or me, and a proper deity to be worshiped in return for liberation -- and that those who deny this are not true Satanists. Others think that that's superstitious hogwash and that it's just inverse Christianity instead of "real" Satanism. If you ask them, each group would say that they are different religions. So, from an etic perspective informed by a diverse range of emic perspectives, they are distinct. Your perspective is a single emic one, and obviously religiously motivated at that. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Satanism is a group of different ideological and philosophical beliefs because it's a free thinking religion. There are no holy books to define Satanism and Satanists can develop new ideological and philosophical beliefs because they consider the character of Satan to be a liberating figure that promotes independent thoughts and individualism etc.

"European Enlightenment, some works, such as Paradise Lost, were taken up by Romantics like Byron and described as presenting the biblical figure of Satan as an allegory representing a crisis of faith, individualism, free will, wisdom and enlightenment.[citation needed] Those works actually featuring Satan as a heroic character are fewer in number but do exist. George Bernard Shaw and Mark Twain (cf. Letters from the Earth) included such characterizations in their works long before religious Satanists took up the pen. From then on, Satan and Satanism started to gain a new meaning outside of Christianity.[9]"

I don't understand what the problem is that I call Satanism a free thinking religion because it's only more describing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FraterLuciferi (talk • contribs)

See WP:No original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Caption on Pentacle

The caption that currently stands on the picture of a pentacle is as follows:

The downward-pointing pentacle is often used to represent Satanism.

The word "often" seems to be the object under debate, as the last several revisions have been to edit this phrase. This caption should follow W:NPOV, but there should be a good way to rephrase this avoiding using phrases that come from WP:WEASEL. I understand that those words are not "banned", but using indeterminate phrasing is usually not a great thing for the encyclopedia. Greatpopcorn (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Going down

Watching all these pictures about satanism and this pentacle... So we should go down. Materialism ? What the hell materialism. We all need bucks in the pocket. Satanists won't give any bucks but only teach you how to be the worst bitch of the universe. Am I wrong ?