Talk:Satanism (disambiguation)

This article was nominated for deletion on 23-08-2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

Historical Satanism?

In Wikipedia, the term "Satanism" has already been monopolized by various satanic religious movements. This is in complete disregard of serious scholars and historians who have been studying and writing about Satanism for well over 100 years. That Wikipeda users have monopolized the term "Satanism" to refer to just modern satanic religious movements, is just ridiculous. Every time some serious historian or student stumbles across "Satanism" in Wikipedia, they have further proof that Wikipedia cannot produce an objective article about a valid historical topic.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are fallow. The term hasn't been monopolized because it, like the pages in Wikipedia, are incapable of being owned.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huysmans and other French authors of his time, wrote about Satanism (with a capital S) and it was considered a valid topic for discussion. Additionally, there have been numerous historical works written discussing Satanism (Rhodes, H.T.F., 1954, "The Satanic Mass"; Zacharias, Gerhard, 1964, "Der dunkle Gott: Satanaskult und Schwarze Messe: The Dark God: Satan Worship and Black Masses", Cavendish, Richard, 1967, "The Black Arts", etc., etc.). When someone goes to a real encyclopedia, they find a well informed article mentioning researchers such as these.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources pertains to Satanism as a religion. They only describe what should be called, after sociologists such as Bromley, Best and Richardson, have accurately named it, subversion ideology and folklore. At best what might be identified is antinomian, misanthropic, and/or anti-Christian reactionary social activities, such as with the Hellfire clubs. The sources above do not relate to Satanism as it exists today except insofar as these modern developments have been inspired by and drawn from these books.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of the problem, from another (historically balanced) Wikipedia article on Huysmans (quote follows):

"Huysmans' next novel, En rade, a highly unromantic account of a summer spent in the country, was relatively unsuccessful commercially. In 1891, the publication of Là-Bas (Down There) attracted considerable attention for its depiction of Satanism in late 1880s France."

So, the unwary Wikipedian reader, thinking they are going to be linked to a valid article on the historical phenomonon of Satanism, which will also mention Satanism in France in the 1880s, instead gets linked to a Church of Satan promo site. Jimhoward72 10:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agreed that a page on the Church of Satan isn't the answer. I suppose that they could be led to a Disambiguation page on satanism which explains that for centuries fictions were constructed by Christians and called 'satanism' in order to frighten their audiences and displace their competitors. the reader about the Huysmans novels should probably not be fooled, however, into thinking that there was any kind of religious Satanism that Huysmans was actually reflecting. instead, that reader should be led to a page on how 'satanism' was used by Christian religious as a subversion ideology for its sociopolitical and self-deluded purposes.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

Theistic Satanism

Theistic Satanism exists for over a 1000 years, when LaVeyan satanism since 1966, So please explain, how is Theistic Satanism "post" Laveyan ?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As something more than an individual affair, there are little to no reliable records of anything called 'Satanism' excepting what becomes targetted by hateful and fearful Christians. Certainly there are no obvious records of anything until the 1960s and LaVey's church sports the name.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page now says:

Satanism may refer to:

Satanism, The original religious movement found by Anton LaVey
Theistic Satanism, The Post-LaVeyan religious movement

Proof from the past that you folks love to over look, side track and basicaly spin. “The true name of Satan, the Kabalists say, is that of Yahveh reversed; for Satan is not a black God, but the negation of God. The Devil is the personification of Atheism or Idolatry. For the Initiates, this is not a person, but a force, created for good, but which may serve for evil. It is the instrument of Liberty or free will. They represent this Force, which presides over the physical generation, under the mythologic and horned form of the God Pan; thence the he-goat of the Sabbat, brother of the Ancient Serpent, and the light bearer or Phosphor, of which the poets have made the false Lucifer of the legend.” Albert Pike “Morals and Dogma“ Ancient and Accepted Rite of Free Masonry written and published in 1871. I'd like you all to note the date on which the above paragraph was published.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Pike was no friend of Kabbalah, nor was he a reliable source on Judaism, which never had an anti-God in its scripture. Pike plagiarized Levi and made up his Scottish Rite after helping to fashion the KKK. He is not a reliable source on anything historical to my knowledge.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether LaVeyan Satanism is truly the "original" form of Satanism is at best debatable. Certainly it's the most widely publicized. But there was at least one other group that got at least some publicity back in the late 1960's and early 1970's, namely the Lady of Endor Coven, which is said to have been founded way back in 1948 by a Toledo barber named Herbert Sloane. It is mentioned in The Encyclopedia of American Religion by J. Gordon Melton (sorry I don't have a copy handy so can't provide page number) and in a few relatively objective books on Satanism including Satan Wants You by Arthur Lyons. More recently, it has been mentioned by new-religion scholar James Lewis in his book Satanism Today (where Sloane's group is referred to primarily by its other name, The Gnostic Order and Temple of Satanas). There is some debate about whether it was really founded way back in 1948 and also over the question of when Sloane first started using the label "Satanist," but at the very least it's clear that his group existed at the same time LaVey started getting a lot of publicity, if not before.

Sloane's Satanism was definitely a theistic form of Satanism, which makes it quite possibly inaccurate to classify theistic Satanism as "post-LaVeyan." The truth is that we don't know how old theistic Satanism really is because, for the most part, it has been informal and underground. This means we can't prove it definitely existed before the late 1960's. Nevertheless its prior existence seems far more likely than not. Quite a few well-known occultists (e.g. Aleister Crowley) had beliefs which at least bordered on Satanism. Even H.P. Blavatsky had some favorable things to say about Satan in The Secret Doctrine. And just about anyone who hangs around the Pagan/occult scene long enough will sooner or later run into someone who, at least as an adolescent phase, spontaneously invented some form of reverence for Satan.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because de facto Satanism existed prior to LaVey's church,

(You LaVeyans always want to act like you're the original Satanists,and any Satanists before you that believed in a real Satan are infact de facto Satanists,and you go so far as to deny what is said in the intorduction of the second edition of the satanic Bible that there where pre-Laveyan satanists who believed in an antropomorphic Satan)

this does not confirm that Sloane (or indeed Blyth) preceded LaVey as public Satanists. If you run across a reliable source which indicates with something substantial that Sloane's Gnostic Luciferianism self-described as Satanic (his interview with Holzer does NOT give this impression), then please publicize it. Lewis' "Satanism Today: an Encyclopedia of Religion, Folklore, and Popular Culture", and Newton's "Raising Hell: An Encyclopedia of Devil Worship and Satanic Crime" are interesting, and both mention Sloane, but neither of them indicates the ultimate source beyond Melton covering the Lady of Endor Coven or indeed what Melton used for his sources. To my knowledge Melton was out of touch with Satanism for a number of years and taken by the SRA Scare prior to his commencement to actively log Satanist orgs.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the advent of the Internet, theistic Satanism has really come out of the woodwork. It is NOT just an insignificant peripheral phenomenon compared to LaVeyan Satanism. Any exploration of a large bunch of online theistic Satanist forums, e.g. on Yahoo, will reveal that at least a slight MAJORITY of Satanists these days -- at least online -- are theistic Satanists of one kind or another.

Also, theistic Satanism is not really a single religious movement. It is a category of religions, all involving reference Satan, but otherwise very different, and some of them at each other's throats. For examples, see the many websites linked on the following page of my Theistic Satanism site: Other theistic or theistic-friendly Satanism/"LHP" websites. For a listing of some major subcategories of theistic Satanists, with examples and references, see my page about The Varieties of theistic Satanism, also on my Theistic Satanism site.

Dogmatic LaVeyans will insist that the fact that most theistic Satanist groups are small and informal somehow invalidates our claim to the label "Satanism." Well, most Wiccan covens are small and informal too. Does that invalidate Wicca as a religious category too?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the Wiccans used Murray and others with abandon trying to pedigree their religion back to the Stone Age. There are standards for historical research and so far almost nothing ties Satanism to anything pre-1960s and Wicca pre-1950s. If you know about it, cite it here in response.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Satan has long been on the warpath about claiming that LaVey's belief system is the ONLY valid meaning of the word "Satanism." But, to this day, they still haven't convinced the makers of most dictionaries, and I see no good reason why Wikipedia should reflect the CoS agenda either.

In general, Satanism is not monolithic. It would perhaps be more accurate to speak of Satanisms (plural) than Satanism (singular).

Before I begin a long conversation, in order "Lady of Endor Coven" to be considered the foundation of satanism, you need all of the sources backing up the claim (to help you out, the following lack verifiable sources and therefore can not be cited as proof: theisticsatanism.com, www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/CoAz, and both sites you list above) of this coven's existance (which LaVeyan satanism has for itslef), date of formation (which LaVeyan satanism has for itslef), and proof that it identified itself as Satanism (which LaVeyan satanism has for itself). Until then, the only Theistic satanisms that can give sources of their foundation are all after LaVey's CoS formation. other "border line" so-called satanisms didn't even put emphasis on satan:

Aleister Crowley prefered Horus and various other gods of Greek and Egyptian Mythology.

Note that in Liber Samech Crowley in his foot notes proclaims Hadit "The winged globe" to be Satan. See "Magic in theory and practice" Dover Press.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Pagans didn't include satan into their systems at all.
Hellfire-Club prefered Bacchus and Venus
The "Devil Worshiping" Yezidi were devoted to Malak Ta’us, the peacock angel
The Lady of Endor Coven seems to be Ophite Gnosticism, and has no verifiable sources. Could you refer me to actual literature from a certifiable source, not CoA sites?

Until these conditions are met, Satanism will remain as is. AlexanderLevian 18:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~ J. Gordon Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religion is certainly as reliable a source as any. Melton has long been one of the foremost scholars of new religion. James Lewis is also a reputable scholar of new religions.

~ "Witches: True Encounters with Wicca, Wizards, Covens, Cults, and Magick", by Hans Holzer, has a great section on Satanism, including descriptions and photos of Sloanes group.Jimhoward72 12:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melton doesn't explain how much he did to check out Sloane's (or indeed Blyth's) claims. Newton and Lewis reference Melton. Hanz Holzer has no data indicating Satanism. NO OTHER SOURCE THAT I CAN FIND PROVIDES ONE ADDITIONAL IOTA on Sloane or on Blyth. If you have text from Holzer on Sloane's Satanism, please quote some of it as well as Sloane's contentions regarding what their activities included and when. To my knowledge Sloane mentions Murray's text as instrumental to his inspiration and a Gnostic text that came out in the late 60s or early 70s as important to his group's instructions. These are anti-confirmations, not evidence in support of the claims being made.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, my claim is NOT that Sloane's group is "the foundation of satanism" but rather that NO group -- neither CoS or any other group -- should be considered "the" foundation of a single ideology which can justifiably claim exclusive title to the word "Satanism." There have long been many different Satanist groups and individuals with many very different ideologies. To define Satanism as ANY single ideology is simply not reasonable. Historically, the word "Satanist" has been used to refer to anyone with a favorable view of Satan (regardless of whether Satan is seen as a symbol or a real entity), and there have existed many different favorable views of Satan. And the word "Satanist" was in common use long before LaVey, so he was in no position to trademark it. Diane Vera 19:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Diane. You are quite right to make the point that the emphasis on individualism and decentralization makes it impossible to support some kind of 'foundation' from which all of Satanism is supposed to spring. We should abandon this idea immediately as just so much old monotheism warmed over.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it seems that the best idea would be to begin discussion on making the page titled Satanism to redirect to the Satanism (disambiguation) page and reword the description to not include terms such as "pre-" or "post-laveyan". also to change Wiktionary's definition of satanism to keep everything consistant. With such done, both Theistic Satanism and LaVeyan Satanism will be able to have separate articles with neither claiming to be "True Satanism". The article for Anton Lavey would also need to be reworded to say "founder of organized satanism" until sources can show a previous group that identified themselves as satanism. I am having trouble obtaining certain text that Diane Vera has cited as a source but I will continue until I do. They would definetly be good sources for the change of definition of the term "Satanism", hopefully I will be able to make these changes soon and I thank you for remaining patient with my response time (personal problems have interfered). As soon as I have the sources in my person and am able to cite with page numbers and all that good stuff, I will begin the process. Until then, I encourge that you begin this yourself and hopefully we can stop all this bickering and start improving the articles themselves. I'm only loyal to wikipedia and want what is best for this site, it's articles, and, of course, the editors. My best wishes and thank you. AlexanderLevian 19:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm game for that discussion and i have many of the relevant sources to which Ms. Vera referred. perhaps the way the current Satanism page could be switched out is to Satanism_religious, and other types differentiated based on what they are. I suggest that the Christian subversion ideology of 'satanism' might be located at Satanic_ritual_abuse, say within Satanic_ritual_abuse#Pseudo-satanism, or in a new Satanism_subversion_ideology page after description by Bromley, Best, and Richardson's "The Satanism Scare" and any number of sources on how Christians have persecuted and tormented Gnostics and Jews and others through the centuries.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk)

This is a bifurcation of the Satanism page at Wikipedia and a disambiguation page should not be used to rectify the situation which apparently is a long time coming that NPOV can be attained. I will take this up on the regular Talk:Satanism page so that this can become a legitimate disambiguation between SRA, Literary satanism, and religious Satanism.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took this up on the regular page and there were no objections to my changing this so as to include fictions by Christians that are described by notable sources and covered here at Wikipedia, so i will begin to add them as time goes by (moral panic, satanic ritual abuse, Satan, Satanic Verses, etc., etc.).-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]