Talk:Satanism

Talk:Satanism/archive1
Talk:Satanism/archive2 - Discussion Up to 2006-01-16

This probably doesn't belong here in this discussion, and is therefore a little off topic. But, what the hell happenned to the "SAT/TAN- Dark Doctrines Satanism" article? It's a very valid forkm of Satansim, even Lavey himself recognized this. Though it be more deistic/panendeistic than Atheistic in nature, it was recognized by Lavey himself and it's chief proponent Tani Jantsang was given an honorary title by Lavey. There used to be an article on Wikipedia about SAT/TAN-Dark Doctrines Satanism{which explain the "dark foce in nature"}, but it's disappeared? What happenned folks? In Reason: Bill Baker--Iconoclastithon 23:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

CONTROVERSY?

Where is the Controversy section for this article? If Christianity has one, then certainly Satanism should have one as well. Additionally, why does this article have only *ONE* reference? Such a topic needs to be a) buttressed by further research and b) less biased. Ngfrazier 16:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The controversy page cannot exist due to wikipedia's bias allience with the Church of SatanRev. Michael S. Margolin 05:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In reference to: "The controversy page cannot exist due to wikipedia's bias allience with the Church of SatanRev. Michael S. Margolin 05:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)"-Please at least learn to spell before attacking people. There is not "allience" or "alliance" between wiki and Church of Satan anymore than there is between wiki and any other religious group who may happen to have members who are wikipedians. Conspiracy theories do little to preserve historical truth, which is what wikipedia is here to do.Nnoctis 19:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Historical truth? You mean like the holocaust never happened is historical truth, or perhaps how Manifest destiny was for good for America, though the Indians suffered from it? The current article is misleading. The most known definition of Satanism is that of Devil worshiper. Though the CoS is the most known and not a secret order, their definition of Satanism is not known to the general public and the majority of other Satanist groups and occult religions disagree with their definition.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 01:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

While controversy section would be great to add, it should be based on some kind of truth. Saying "Satan", even all day long, will not bring you any closer to possession. --Vitalyb 22:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Your point is well-taken (more references, less bias). Any other brave souls want to second this motion? Ngfrazier 23:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

HS, More references, Less Bias! 2nded ISN Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason this article hasn't been improved yet is because everyone insists on bickering over what Satanism is and is not rather than improving the article. I fully intend to rewrite much of it and expand it with references, but it's a futile effort so long as it's vandalized/reverted six times a day and the majority of "editors" are people who logged on to whine about "bias" and engage in internet drama. I have a partial rewrite already in the works, which I'll probably include once things stabilize. -Lvthn13 03:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages merely because you have a difference of opinion with the person for whom the article is a biography. See also the Wikipedia policy on articles on living persons. Further violations will be reported to Wikipedia administrators. -Lvthn13 04:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Do you suppose your personal opinion is of any relevance to a biography? Or do you suppose I get worked up when silly blowhards threaten to expose me? Get a library card. -Lvthn13 01:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What I posted had nothing to do with personal opinion and everything to do with relative history and facts placed in context. Now stop your pathetic attempts to manipulate reality by spinning the non biased facts presented to the Satanism article including Stantan LaVey's wedding in which I was a guest weather you like that reality, fact and or not Mr. Opinion.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 07:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would I care whose wedding you went to, and why are you bothering with this? Do you think you'll convince me of something? -Lvthn13 07:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It was STANTAN LaVey's NOT JUST ANYONES, ANTON'S GRANDSON! AND YOU REMOVED THE POST ABOUT IT!Rev. Michael S. Margolin 07:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC) With Guests, Glen Danzig, Hank Williams 3, Snoop Dog, Dolomite, Marvin Knifer Sotelo, Rev. Michael S. Margolin, Wee Man from Jack Ass and many more including CoS Priests that did not attend CoS's tiny shin dig.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 08:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

^^Did you mean "Stanton" "Lavey"? Whoever you are, no one is going to take your points seriously in an academic atmosphere such as wikipedia if you contunue to use caps lock and mis-spelled words like a raving mad man...Also Wikipedia is not here to advertise events, no matter whose "grandson" puts them on, nor is it here to slag people of different religious views than your own (such as CoS)Nnoctis 19:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

But wikkipedia has no problem with advertising CoS's event held that same day without notable Stars like Snoop Dog, Wee man, Glen Danzig, Hank 3, and many others including old CoS priests that did not attend the CoS event.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 01:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

And? I reiterate, I don't care whose wedding you went to. Why are you wasting your time telling me this? In case you didn't notice, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a message board, I'm an editor, not a gossip hound, and there are no "posts" here to remove. If you think so badly of me, why do you care what I think enough to keep telling me this? Shouldn't you be doing something productive? -Lvthn13 08:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC

sounds like an important sign of how widespread Satanism is, despite Christian bias (Snoop Dog and even that guy out of Jack Ass) Id say thats important information which im glad has been written here:}80.192.59.202 11:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As with the Nadramia post it is relevent to the subject matter and is not only history but fact. But due to your personal opinion and Bias you edit it out.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 08:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Also fact by your own hand as wiki history can back up with it's saved pages. Rev. Michael S. Margolin 08:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

And I find interfering with your attempt to manipulate reality through wikipedia very productive.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 08:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

How are you interfering with anything except your own free time? I'm still editing pages. But enough of this, it is pathetic and I will remove this from my page shortly to keep from cluttering it with your foolishness. I'm sure you'll accuse me of bias for that as well, which is fine. -Lvthn13 08:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean erase the evidence before other admins see you are guilty of personal bias?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 08:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)ISNRev. Michael S. Margolin 04:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

^^Is anyone authorized to remove or ban this guy? He's smearing wikipedia by accusing the entire community here of being in cahoots against his wacky theories. MADNESS. Nnoctis 19:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Case in point. We'll tag this person, who contributes nothing except strife, "Exhibit A." -Lvthn13 02:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Case in point, it is you that should be tagged, one more note Lvthn13 tried to keep Karla LaVey out of the article as well but lost in mediation..Rev. Michael S. Margolin 15:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

So, do you do anything on Wikipedia except maintain a vanity page and try to start fights? Haven't seen you making any useful edits, though you certainly complain enough. I'm done here, I use Wikipedia to write articles, not to bicker with bored washups. -Lvthn13 02:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well this guy sure seems to like my edits on the Theistic Satanism page and the quote from Pike has been up for gee 2 weeks now? Hi again, thanks to whoever added to it. I have edited it to give it the tone of an encyclopedia, but I believe I've kept any info you addedMerkinsmum 01:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Starting fights? Me? Guilty to the fighting but not guilty to starting them. Complain? not really my complaint is but one and has always been one"KNOCK OFF THE BIAS!" I see I'm not the only one that feels this way. As for your "bored wash ups" comment, 1st, look who is resorting to name calling. 2nd, look who has resorted to defamation of character by calling me a wash up.3rd, Look who it sure as hell seems to me like he's trying to start a fight by resorting to name calling.4th, My page is not a Vanity page it was made by a wikki Admin. 4a. Note his comment about my page is a reflection of his personal bias and an attempt to manipulate reality by calling it something that it is not, Note that goes for the wash up comment as well, O and let's not leave out his definition of Satanism.5th I'm not bored I find stopping tyrants like you from manipulating reality a very important service to society. Have a nice day.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 03:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a question about a statement you made Lvthn13. Here is your statement. I'm done here, I use Wikipedia to write articles, not to bicker with bored washups. -Lvthn13 02:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC) So does that mean if the article ends up being replaced by the theistic article you won't revert war?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 04:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Rev. Michael S. Margolin, is it bias to put Controversies on the Christian article? On the Muslim? On the Morman? Accept it, nowadays there is nothing that doesn't carry contriversy. If every other religion doesn't carry a contriversy, why can't yours? -69.67.230.139 04:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If you would stop looking for an excuse to fight me and start actually reading you'd see I'm all for a contriversy page. I merely stated due to bias editors they won't allow it, not me. But as usual you are only seeing what you want to see, instead of reading what is really written. That goes for your religious text as well.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 15:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

To "rev Margolin"--What ARE ou talking about What bias? You seem to be the biased one here. Calm down, sirNnoctis 19:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You are very poor at attempting to manipulate reality, keep your day job.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 00:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason there is no contreversy page for Satanism, and that there is one for Christianity is because unlike christianity Satanism actually makes sense. Christianity spent thousands of years earning it a contreversy page, such as not speaking up about the Holocaust or the Crusades. BUT WAIT! thats just the Roman Catholic Church, yet one Church speaking for all the others is exactly what is happening here. Anton Szandor LaVey founded the Satanic Church in 1966 despite all the people who would have liked to have been responsible, but didnt think of it first. - + Devil Worship is not the definition of Satanism! Satanism is the worship of oneself, as Satan! Many organizations have pretended to be the founders, but arent. LaVey will always be responsible for it, I am sorry that everyone who types on this page couldnt have written the Satanic Bible. Grow up and accept the fact that you didnt make Satanism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.107.90 (talk • contribs)

Actually Christianity made Satanism as it is commonly known to the masses, Anton merely made an organized religion out of it.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but Christianity stole the concept of Christ from Horus the egyptian God, so christianity is not a reliable source for anything due to all the history it ate up and spat out which modern academians consider fact. The losses of the library of Alexander are of the greatest kind. Everything of value before Christianity has been destroyed, LaVey knew arguing things on such a level was pointless. The time came for someone new to define things not the Church. The era of the righteous (in the traditional sense) is over. If history is manipulated by man then, like how many view the occult, it should be taken as a grain of salt. Note {I respect the occult and condsider mydself a student thereof}

Osirus, slain and risen. Not Horus, but you were close, also Bachus, Dionysus, Harpcrates, Methrias and many more.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 14:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not along with a controversy section, have a reaction to contreversy section. It is a little unfair for Satanism because LaVey is dead, and Peter Gilmore, I dont know what he is doing. Points can be addressed against anyone or concept, yet sometimes there are obvious answers to the points adressed. It only seems logical.

Definition of "Satanism"?

Okay I posted something in the "Lewis articles" section, but I figured I'd put THIS quote from said article "Diabolical authority" up for all to see.

"Unlike members of the Church of Satan, however, non-CoS Satanists felt free to criticize and even to reject aspects of the LaVeyan tradition by appealing to the authority of rationality-a criterion of legitimacy LaVey himself put forward as the very basis of Satanism. Thus, in terms of this criterion, non-CoS Satanism is closer to the spirit of LaVey's philosophy than the contemporary Church of Satan."

On first look, this would appear to agree with the position that the Wikipedia article should be expanded to include all Satanism and not break it up. But I recall stating earlier that an organization and a religion aren't the same thing. It seems that this article defines Satanism outside of the COS as still by the Satanic Bible and other works by Anton LaVey, though it too suggests that the organization is a seperate thing. And this is, as I said earlier, an objective source. Maybe its nothing, but I think its worth pointing out. WerewolfSatanist 23:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

~ No it does not DEFINE "Satanism" that way. Acknowledging that nearly everyone in the Satanist scene was (as of 2000 C.E. or so) influenced by LaVey to one degree or another is NOT at all the same thing as defining the word "Satanism" itself in terms of LaVey. On the contrary, Lewis says that LaVey is a "controversial figure" among Satanists.

I challenge you to find even a single religion scholar who DEFINES the word "Satanism" that way.

Diane Vera 02:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't making any solid statements as far as his definite stance. I was just saying that it bears thought that Satanism cannot quite get away from Anton LaVey, no matter how much people complain. I don't mean to disrespect you as I respect the work done on your website. My point is, even if it isn't a "Diabolical Authority," LaVey's works still seem to hold true as foundational texts and introductory primers. WerewolfSatanist 04:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

~ The person who made the "Major Overhaul" evidently accepts the Church of Satan's oft-repeated claim that LaVey's worldview constitutes the one and only valid meaning of the term "Satanism." For some further reasons to reject that claim, besides what has already been discussed here, see Talk:Satanism (disambiguation).

Diane Vera 17:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

~ I'd like to point out that his section "Fundamental Individualism" is a lie. Marvin Sotelo and Rev. Michael S. Margolin are living proof of it. For the document from Peggy Nadramer to Rev. Michael S. Margolin see http://www.sosatan.org/picspoke.html As you can clearly see this is an official CoS document and it shows very clearly that CoS does not suport individualism. Rev. Michael S. Margolin 21:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

~ Hello, to the person who posted the above paragraph, could you please sign whatever you write here? Just type four tildes (~) in a row, and this site will automatically generate a signature for you when you save your edit.

Diane Vera 19:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• A question/challenge to those who are in favor of the recent "Major overhaul": Can any of you cite any reputable scholarly sources which DEFINE "Satanism" as "the religion founded by Anton LaVey"? I might be mistaken, but, offhand, I'm not aware of any reputable scholarly source which DEFINES "Satanism" that way, as distinct from merely asserting that LaVeyan Satanism is the most influentual form of Satanism. For example, James Lewis has said that nearly all Satanists are influenced by LaVey to one degree or another, which was indeed very true around the year 2000 C.E., though it is getting less so now. But even Lewis's statement isn't the same thing as DEFINING Satanism itself as Anton LaVey's belief system. As far as I am aware, the only people who DEFINE Satanism as "the religion founded by Anton LaVey" are the CoS itself and its partisans, plus an assortment of not-so-scholarly people whom the CoS has succeeded in persuading.

Diane Vera 05:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

HS, Diane is not a member of SoS, but as you can all see she is 11 moves ahead of the people trying to manipulate wikkipedia. I've known of her and her group for some time, and back her %100 in her efforts to make this article non bias, ISNRev. Michael S. Margolin 07:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

HFS, As a (LaVeyan) Satanist myself this page is too fuckin' biased. A friend once said "Why does Satanic Unity seem almost impossible?", think of the possibilities. Sure from what i've seen Satanism is evolving at a fast rate but it would be a lot stronger and a lot faster probably if we weren't constantly fighting each other. Fuck it band together, like the Sinagogue of Satan we stick and look out for each other, that's our key. Problem is fights get started over stupid shit and we're all too arrogant to ever let it go. If you wanna fight, fight a real enemy that won't hesitate killing you. -Dr. Jekyll aka Marvin "Knifer" Sotelo

Info from Arther Lyons, _Satan Wants You_, 1988, plus some relevant historical context

As far as I am aware, the two best (though somewhat out of date) scholarly references on Satanism are _Satanism Today_ by James Lewis and _The Encyclopedia of American Religion_ by J. Gordon Melton. Unfortunately I don't have either of these two books handy at the moment, and it will be at least a few weeks before I have time to go to the library and look through them to find some suitable quotes.

In the meantime, I do have handy a copy of _Satan Wants You_ by Arthur Lyons, published in 1988. Lyons is not a religion scholar, but _Satan Wants You_ has an introduction by the late Marcello Truzzi, a sociologist at Eastern Michigan University. Earlier, Lyons had written another book on Satanism, titled _The Second Coming: Satanism in America_.

Below is Lyons' definition of "Satanism," on page 9 of _Satan Wants You_:

In this book, the term "Satanist" refers to anyone who sincerely describes himself as a worshiper of the Christian Devil, _whatever he perceives that to mean_. As we will see, what it does mean to the individual worshiper can vary drastically. Because many modern groups have picked up their practices from horror movies or fictional accounts of Black Masses, there is a great latitude among modern cults in both practice and belief. Only in Dennis Wheatley novels is there such a thing as a "traditional Satanist."

The book starts off with a chapter that is mostly about the Satanic Ritual Abuse scare, then devotes nearly half the book to historical precursors of modern Satanism, then devotes one chapter to "The Church of Satan" (which talks about some of the CoS splinter groups as well as the CoS itself), and then has a chapter on "The Temple of Set _et al_." In the latter chapter, on page 133, Lyons says:

Two Satanic cults that illustrate the wide range of Satanic beliefs, although no longer in existence, are the Lady of Endor Coven of the Ophite Cultus Satanus, and the Orthodox Satanic Church of the Nephilim Rite.

The Lady of Endor Coven was started in 1948 by a Toledo, Ohio barber turned fortune teller, Herbert A. Sloane, and ceased with his death in the 1980's. Sloane's creed, based heavily on gnosticism, taught that Satan was not evil, but the bringer of wisdom and the messenger of God. The Christian God was identified with the Demiurge, whose spirit was trapped in the material world, with Satan sent to earth to give man occult knowledge, or gnosis, so that the divine aspect within humanity could be returned to God.

The Orthodox Satanic Church, in existence from 1971 to 1974 in Chicago, which at its height claimed more than 500 members, taught a similar system of beliefs. The group's anti-LaVey philosophy taught that God the Creator created Satan, who, in turn, became the teacher of all knowledge. Through ritual, prayer, and songs, held every Saturday night at Chicago's Occult Book Shop, members were exhorted to absorb as much of Satan's wisdom as they could.

When I first became a Satanist back in 1991, Lyons' book was perceived within the Satanist scene as a pro-CoS book. Even though it does NOT endorse the CoS party line, the CoS loved it because it did give LaVey and the CoS a starring role, to a greater extent than many Satanists at that time felt was deserved. At that time, the CoS was laying low due to the Satanic Ritual Abuse scare, whereas the Temple of Set (ToS) had been catapulted into the limelight by that same scare, thanks to the accusations against Michael Aquino. And, yes, at that time, Michael Aquino still did call himself a Satanist and did refer to the ToS as a "Satanic" organization. (For some examples, see his 1991 Comments concerning: "The Enemies of our Enemies" by Isaac Bonewits and a subsequent letter to the Pagan magazine _Green Egg_.) So, at that time, nearly everyone in not only the Satanist scene but also the Pagan/occult scene thought of the ToS -- NOT the CoS -- as the leading Satanic group. The U.S. Army thought of the ToS as a leading Satnic group too; see this PDF copy of the 1992 U.S. Army Chaplain's handbook (plus an introduction by Michael Aquino). Among Satanists, occultists, and Pagans, it was commonly believed that the CoS was pretty much completely dead. Most of the other major public Satanists at that time, e.g. Kevry Bolton and John Allee ("Lord Egan"), were either members or ex-members of the Temple of Set.

So, Arthur Lyons' book was generally perceived as exaggerating the ongoing significance of the CoS. Yet even this pro-CoS book did NOT claim that "Satanism" should be defined as the teachings of Anton LaVey. The latter claim would not have seemed credible to anyone until the late 1990's. Lyons' book did not even make the CoS's beloved semantic distinction between "Satanism" and "Devil worship," instead treating those terms as synonyms. (Even atheistic symbolic Satanists can be said to "worship the Devil" in the sense of holding Satan in high regard, even if only as a symbol.)

The Temple of Set's alt.satanism FAQ, written by Michael Aquino, defines "Satanism" as follows: "Satanism is the belief in the existence of Satan as a sentient being or spirit in the universe, and the worship of Satan and obedience to his perceived principles, standards, and goals." Obviously this is an overly narrow definition of "Satanism," but my point here is that a very influential Satanist leader (which Aquino was at that time) advocated a definition very different from the CoS's, and that this is one of the many facts implying that the CoS's definition of "Satanism" should NOT be seen as having any truly objective validity.

In the early-to-mid-1990's, when the SRA scare began to die down, the CoS started to come out of the woodwork. Its supporters got into endless squabbles with the ToS and its online members. Eventually the ToS got sick of all the squabbling and stopped calling itself a "Satanic" organization, leaving CoS in a position to claim a monopoly -- which wasn't really quite true even then, because, even then, there did exist some non-LaVeyan groups, such as the Demonolatry folks, for example.

Since the year 2000 C.E., thanks to the Internet, the CoS has been losing the near-monopoly it attained in the late 1990's. Unfortunately I'm not aware of any religion scholars who have been following the rather dramatic recent developments of these past several years, at least not in the English-speaking world. I've been in touch with both J. Gordon Melton and James Lewis, and they seemed glad to hear from me, but they aren't focussing on Satanism at the moment.

So, given Wikipedia's standards, it may well be premature for Wikipedia to say very much about the recent developments. However, the definition of "Satanism" as referring to LaVey's belief system in particular is NOT historically justified, and it is definitely not justified NOW, even if I can't yet cite any sufficiently prestigious third-party sources to show quite the extent to which it is currently unjustified.

Diane Vera 17:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Info from The Religious Movements Homepage,

An academic source which isn't the very best and is quite outdated, but which nevertheless does illustrate some very imporant points, is The Religious Movements Homepage Project, which was run by the late Jeffrey K. Hadden at the University of Virginia. Its page on Satanism was last updated in 2000 C.E.

Observe this page's definition of "Satanism." There is no mention of Anton LaVey as part of the definition. Rather it simply describes "Satanism" as consisting of two categories, atheistic ("philosophical Satanism") and theistic ("religious Satanism"). Though said to be a "minority," theistic/"religious" Satanists are presented as being every bit as entitled to the label "Satanist" as are atheistic/"philosophical" Satanists. Atheistic/"philosophical" Satanism is defined in no more detail than to say that "Modern Satanists tend to follow what they believe are the ideals of Satan, and present him as an ideal whose traits are to be emulated. Satan is often represented as a symbol of resistance to dominant religious traditions (e.g., Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu)." The Temple of Set is mis-categorized as atheistic/"philosophical," thereby inflating the "majority" of Satanists who are said to be atheistic/"philosophical." Near the bottom of the page is a collection of links to five Satanist groups, four of which hold beliefs quite different from those of LaVey's Church of Satan.

As I said, this page isn't the greatest academic source in the world. (I have yet to have time to go to the library and extract a bunch of quotes from THE most reputable academic sources that I'm aware of, the books by J. Gordon Melton and James Lewis.) Nevertheless, this page is an example of what scholars of new religions are likely to regard as an objective definition of "Satanism." In particular, note that the definitions of both atheistic/"philosophical" Satanism and theistic/"religious" Satanism both revolve around the figure of Satan, NOT around ANY specific set of beliefs or ideals that Satan is believed to represent. Thus, Satanism is not defined as being ANY specific complete religious outlook, but rather as a loose category of belief systems, not necessarily having anything more in common than a favorable view of Satan.

I would point out, furthermore, that this page was put together at a time just past a peak of CoS dominance in the late 1990's. If there was ever a time when it could have been credibly argued that Satanism = LaVeyism, it was then. Yet, even then, it would appear that scholars of new religions refrained from defining the word "Satanism" that way.

I've mentioned elsewhere, and I'll briefly mention again here, that the proportion of theistic Satanists has grown over the past several years, as anyone can verify by looking at a large sampling of Satanist forums, e.g. on Yahoo.

In addition, there have gotten to be more and more non-LaVeyan symbolic Satanists as well. An example is the Sinagogue of Satan, whose founder has recently participated in this discussion too.

Diane Vera 22:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

James Lewis's online papers

I haven't yet had time to go to the library and look up James Lewis's books, but, in the meantime, I've had a look at two published papers of his that are available online:

The first paper is Who Serves Satan? A Demographic and Ideological Profile in the _Marburg Journal of Religion_, Volume 6, No. 2 (June 2001).

This paper does not contain an explicit definition of the term "Satanism."

It does give LaVey's _Satanic Bible_ a central role as "the single most influential document shaping the contemporary Satanist movement." However, Lewis also wrote:

Anton LaVey was and is a controversial figure, and his organization is at present deeply embroiled in controversy with other Satanist groups. In the course of my research, I found myself unwittingly stepping into this arena of contention. Perhaps as a consequence of this conflict, some of my contacts voiced objections to the central role I assigned LaVey and his best-known work, _The Satanic Bible_, in the formation of modern Satanist religion. I was, furthermore, encouraged to shift my emphasis to the work of earlier literary figures ultimately responsible for fashioning the positive image of the Devil that LaVey later adopted for his Church of Satan.

Note the mention of LaVey as a "controverial" figure among Satanists. But Lewis concluded that the central role he gave the _SB_ was justified on the following grounds:

...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.

Further down on the page, Lewis wrote:

...In a follow-up questionnaire, respondents were explicitly asked how they regarded the SB, and to what extent their personal philosophies aligned with the ideas expressed in its pages. Most stated that their view of the world aligned significantly with the SB. ... Most hastened to add that they did not regard it as "dogma."

He then discussed some specific LaVeyan ideas that most Satanists agree with. But he then wrote:

These LaVeyan notions do not, however, exhaust the kinds of answers respondents provided. In addition to a handful of people who asserted that there is a "real" Satan or real demons, a significant subset of respondents described Satan almost mystically as an energy, or as, "The unknown and unseen force that moves the universe." Some respondents emphasized the impersonality of this force, as a "faceless, purposeless power without direction, given name to become more limited and comprehensible to the human mind. Without form, without thought." Similarly, another respondent portrayed Satan as a force like gravity: "Satan represents the cosmic forces which act to create occurrences and which guide the life process such as the moon dominating the tides of the ocean." At times, this view of Satan as an impersonal force almost seemed to explode out of its naturalistic mold to express a genuinely mystical view of the universe.

Nowhere in this paper does Lewis imply that those who have strong disagreements with the _SB_ aren't Satanists. Thus, his paper cannot be used to justify a _definition_ of Satanism as "the philosophy of Anton LaVey." It can be used only to justify a claim that the vast majority of Satanists are influenced by Anton LaVey to one degree or another.

The second paper is Diabolical Authority: Anton LaVey, _The Satanic Bible) and the Satanist "Tradition" in the _Marburg Journal of Religion_, Volume 7, No. 1 (September 2002).

It starts out with a quote from the Church of Satan website: "We have a bible. We have a _pro-human_ dogma. We have a church. We have a tradition."

But then the third paragraph begins with:

The Temple of Lylyth is part of a loose, decentralized Satanic movement that coheres as a distinct religious community largely by virtue of adherence to certain themes in the thought of Anton LaVey, founder of modern Satanism, though few movement participants outside the Church of Satan would regard themselves as "orthodox LaVeyans" (something of an oxymoron).

Note the reference to "certain themes in the thought of Anton LaVey" -- by no means the entirety of his thought. Note also the rejection of the idea of "orthodoxy" by most Satanists. Lewis writes, further:

In addition to numerous splinter groups, a decentralized, anarchistic movement emerged that was shaped by the central themes in LaVey's thought, particularly as expressed in _The Satanic Bible_. This book became a doctrinal touchstone of the movement, though independent Satanists felt free to selectively appropriate ideas from _The Satanic Bible_ and to mix them with ideas and practices drawn from other sources. LaVey's book became, in a sense, a kind of quasi-scripture, which is a form of what Weber meant by traditional authority (despite the fact that it seems odd to refer to a religion less than forty years old as a "tradition"!). However, many independent Satanists also adhered to LaVey's program of the authority of rationality, feeling free to criticize and even to reject aspects of the LaVeyan tradition.

In contrast, the remnants of LaVey's church - which is still technically the largest single Satanist group in terms of formal membership - quickly solidified into a doctrinally-rigid organization focused on maintaining the purity of LaVeyan Satanism. This was partly in response to the challenge presented by non-CoS Satanists. In the ongoing argument over legitimacy, LaVey's successors have come to place excessive stress on their role as bearers of his legacy, even asserting that only CoS members are "real" Satanists and characterizing Satanists outside the fold as "pseudo" Satanists.

Further down, Lewis wrote:

The scope and significance of this dispute is reflected in the many attacks on non-CoS Satanists found on the Church of Satan website, particularly in the "Satanic Bunco Sheet," "Sycophants Unite!," "The Myth of the 'Satanic Community,'" "Pretenders to the Throne," and "Recognizing Pseudo-Satanists." Even a superficial perusal of these documents makes it clear that CoS is _obsessed_ with shoring up its own legitimacy by attacking the heretics, especially those who criticize LaVey.

and:

There are many presently-existing groups which derive directly or indirectly from the Church of Satan, the most important of which is the Temple of Set. The conflict (mostly on the internet) between the original Church of Satan and new Satanist groups accelerated after LaVey's death.

What this paper documents is a conflict between the Church of Satan and the "many independent Satanists" who are influenced by LaVey to one degree or another, but who derive their ideas and practices from other sources too, and who feel "free to criticize and even to reject aspects of the LaVeyan tradition."

Therefore, to _define_ "Satanism" itself in terms of LaVey would be to take sides in this conflict, in violation of Wikipedia's policy requiring a neutral point of view. It is one thing to acknowledge that LaVey's influence is pervasive, as James Lewis has done, but quite another to accept a _definition_ of Satanism itself in terms of LaVey.

Not only would _defining_ "Satanism" itself in terms of adherence to LaVey's teachings be in violation of Wikipedia's requirement of a neutral POV, but it is also contrary to the practice of scholars in the field. Note that Lewis himself refers to the "many independent Satanists" as "Satanists," though the Church of Satan would call a lot of them "pseudo-Satanists."

Elsewhere in the article, Lewis says that LaVey has been referred to as the "St. Paul of Satanism." Note: the St. Paul, not the Christ. Although St. Paul was indeed the single most influential early Christian writer and preacher, no one would ever even think to _define_ the word "Christianity" itself in terms of St. Paul -- even despite the traditional Christian belief that St. Paul's writings were infallibly inspired by God, whereas the vast majority of Satanists hold no analogous belief concerning LaVey.

Near the bottom of Lewis's paper is the following disclaimer:

One comment of particular note was that the social organization (or, perhaps more appropriately, disorganization) of modern Satanism cannot accurately be characterized as a "movement," "community" or "subculture." I have nevertheless used these terms throughout for lack of more adequate terminology.

Diane Vera 02:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course he was the "St. Paul" but who was the "Christ" in this situation? But that is just religious banter. my real point is to include a quote from Lewis.

My survey findings, however, consistently indicated the centrality of LaVey to modern Satanism. This finding was a surprise, as I had initially assumed that contemporary Satanism had moved well beyond LaVey. I was thus led to conclude that-despite his dependence on prior thinkers-LaVey was directly responsible for the genesis of Satanism as a serious religious (as opposed to a purely literary) movement. Furthermore, however one might criticize and depreciate it, The Satanic Bible is still the single most influential document shaping the contemporary Satanic movement. As one of my informants noted, "I do not think Satanists can get away from LaVey, although some seem to take a real issue with him or try to downplay his importance. He wrote the book that codified Satanism into a religion, and for that he should be considered the central figure of the religion."

Objective source? Citing the reason Wikipedia has the main Satanism article as it is? HmmmmWerewolfSatanist 23:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It is nevertheless a "NOTABLE" fact, as Lewis also points out, that a large number of Satanists would take issue with such a dogma-oriented or cult-of-personality-oriented definition of the very word "Satanism" itself. Therefore, a DEFINITION of Satanism in terms of LaVey is definitely not a neutral POV. It would indeed be accurate to acknowledge that LaVey is the single most influential Satanist leader, but a DEFINITION of Satanism in terms of LaVey would be exceedingly offensive to many.

In any case, Lewis's observations about the extent of LaVey's influence were true in 2000 C.E. but are no longer true, as anyone can easily discover by exploring a variety of Satanist forums. These days, the Satanist scene really is starting, truly, to move away from LaVey. (Hopefully Lewis will do a follow-up sometime in the not-too-distant future....)

Diane Vera 02:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can organize one...if people can answer honestly. Have a collarborative effort of Satanists, theistic autotheistic and otherwise. WerewolfSatanist 04:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions of "Satanism"

On dictionary.reference.com I found the following definitions of "Satanism":

1. the worship of Satan or the powers of evil.

2. a travesty of Christian rites in which Satan is worshiped.

3. diabolical or satanic disposition, behavior, or activity.

The above site also displays the following definition from Wordnet:

n : the worship of devils (especially Satan)

The American Heritage Dictionary (bartleby.com) hads the following:

1. The worship of Satan characterized by a travesty of the Christian rites.

2. satanism Profound wickedness.

The above definition seems to be indicating that "Satanism" with a capital S refers to meaning #1, whereas "satanism" with a lower case S refers to meaning #2.

yourDictionary.com has a copy of the American Heritage definition.

Merriam-Webster online displays the following definitions:

1 : innate wickedness : DIABOLISM

2 : obsession with or affinity for evil; specifically : the worship of Satan marked by the travesty of Christian rites

MSN Encarta defines "Satanism" as follows:

Satan worship: the worship of Satan, especially as a parody of Christian rites

Of course, dictionaries are tertiary sources, not secondary sources. I understand that Wikipedia's policy is to rely mainly on credentialed secondary sources -- such as, in this case, academic scholars of new religions. However, when considering definitions of words, it does seem to me that dictionaries should be looked at as part of the larger overall pickture.

Diane Vera 12:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

J. Gordon Melton, _Encyclopedia of American Religion_, 1996

J. Gordon Melton is considered one of the top scholars in the field of new religions and small sects. His Institute for the Study of American Religion was contracted by the U.S. Army to help with writing the Army Chaplain's handbook.

Today I went to a library to look up his _Encyclopedia of American Religion_. The library presumably had two volumes of the Fifth Edition, dated 1996. However, I was able to find only the first volume, which discussed general categories of religions grouped into "families," Satanism being part of the "Magick family." The second volume, which was missing, apparently goes into more detail about specific organizations.

The "Satanism" article is on page 165. In it, Satanism is referred to as "the worship of Satan." The very first sentence of the article begins, "Often confused with witchcraft is the worship of Satan." The article then goes on, for two paragraphs, to discuss the distinctions that (Neo-Pagan) witches commonly make between witchcraft and Satanism. Then the third paragraph begins with, "Apart from their allegiance to Satan and resultant dislike for the Christian church, Satanists do share in common the magical worldview of witches." Among other things, Melton then mentions how Anton LaVey used the term "witch" too.

Melton then talks about two categories of Satanists, "what are frequently termed the 'sickies'" and "the public groups which take Satanism as a religion seriously and have developed articulate theologies which do not resemble in many ways what one might expect." Melton apparently wasn't aware of the "many independent Satanists" whom James Lewis talked about, several years later, in his academic journal papers.

About the "public groups," Melton says, "Their theologies closely resemble liberal Christian theologies with the addition of a powerful cultural symbol (Satan), radically redefined." He doesn't specify the alleged similarities to liberal Christian theologies. I can only guess that he may be referring to Christian-identified atheists, deists, and pantheists who see Jesus as a "powerful cultural symbol," analogous to the Church of Satan's view of Satan.

The Temple of Set is mentioned in a paragraph which begins, "During the mid-1970's, Satanism experienced a significant decline. Several new Satanist groups did appear, the most notable being the Temple of Set, which developed a rather unique Satanic theology based on Egyptian motifs." Note that Melton does call the ToS a "Satanist group," consistent with statements by Michael A. Aquino himself in the early 1990's before he finally began to distance himself from the term "Satanism" in the mid-1990's.

The remaining paragraph and a half talks about the anti-Satanist panic of the 1980's.

Nowhere in the "Satanism" article does Melton actually spell out the beliefs of any specific Satanist leader or group, beyond a few very general hints. Rather, Melton simply assumes a definition of Satanism as "the worship of Satan," apparently with an understanding that the word "worship" can be stretched a bit, in much the same way that the most liberal Christians stretch it too.

On page 166, in the bibliography of his chapter on the "Magick family" of religions, the section on Satanism includes Arthur Lyons' book _Satan Wants You_ as a source. Apparently Melton considers Lyons to be a reliable source.

As I said, I wasn't able to find the second volume of the _Encyclopedia of American Religion_ today. However, the first volume had an index which included pages in the second volume. There, I noticed that there were references to the following groups and people on pages in the second volume:

- Church of Satan - 1704, 1706, 1707, 1709, 1710, 1712 - Church of Satanic Brotherhood - 1705, 1708 - Herbert Sloane - 1709 - Temple of Set - 1710 - Satanic Church of the Nephilim Rite - 1711 - Thee Satanic Church - 1711 - Satanic Orthodox Church of the Nephilim Rite - 1712

In addition, the index listed more references to "Satanism" on pages 1643 and 1660 (if I'm reading my handwriting correctly; that last page might possibly have been 1666).

If/when I have a chance to read the above pages, I'll post about them here.

Diane Vera 02:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not make an article which lists the significant men and women of Satanism and their contributions for the main article Satanism?

I believe there already is one... somewhere... ≈ The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 12:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Satanism and the Internet (and external links)

James Lewis, one of the top scholars in the field of new religions, wrote the following in his published paper Who Serves Satan? A Demographic and Ideological Profile in the _Marburg Journal of Religion_, Volume 6, No. 2 (June 2001):

... The Satanist community is an internet community. While more than half of all Satanists do not meet with their coreligionists face-to-face, Fifty-eight communicate with others in talk rooms or via e-mail on a daily basis and another thirty one communicate frequently. This finding is congruent with the scattered geographical distribution of Satanists.

The above-mentioned "fifty-eight" and "thirty one" are out of a total of 140 Satanists surveyed. Later in this article, Lewis also wrote:

... Many Satanists (or at least those who responded to the questionnaire) are primarily internet Satanists. This is at least partially because of the "scattered" geographical distribution of Satanists, although, according to my contacts, the marked individualism of modern Satanists--which mitigates against close group work--is also a factor.

To be honest, the statement that Satanism is "an Internet community" is at least a slight exaggeration. There do exist offline Satanist groups, and I've even known some Satanists who didn't have Internet access at all. Nevertheless, I would agree that Satanism these days has become PRIMARILY Internet-based. And, given Wikipedia's standards of verifiability, if a top-notch scholar like James Lewis, one of THE leading scholars of new religions, calls Satanism an "internet community," then the observation that Satanism today is PRIMARILY Internet-based should be considered to have been verified, unless some other new religion scholar can be found who denies this.

This observation, in turn, should inform Wikipedia's "Satanism" page's policy on external links. While it would still be illegitimate to list every pipsqueak new website that comes along in an attempt to boost traffic, it should certainly be legitimate to list pages which in turn contain links to many other Satanist sites. Examples would include the Open Directory listings for "Satanism" and its subcategories, the Church of Satan's links page, and my own list of Theistic or theistic-friendly Satanism/"LHP" websites. Preference should be given to those pages that list, in some reasonably informative and well-organized fashion, sites representing a variety of different points of view within the online Satanist scene.

Also among the "External links," it would be reasonable to list sites that already have a high Internet profile, e.g. those Satanist sites that come up on the first two or three pages of Google for the keyword "Satanism" and which are not redundant with other listed sites. Preference should be given to those high-profile sites which articularely and intelligently present points of view not included in other listed high-profile sites, or which present a variety of points of view. Preference should perhaps also be given to websites of groups with a verified offline presence, but that should not be a _sine qua non_, since to do so would misrepresent the Satanist scene by creating a bias in favor of those groups that seek offline publicity, which is something that many Satanists do not believe in doing. If a Satanist website has a demonstrably high internet profile, that should be sufficient verification that a lot of Satanists are reading it.

In addition, if Satanism is PRIMARILY an "Internet community," it is also reasonable to include, within the main body of Wikipedia's "Satanism" page itself, brief quotes or paraphrases of key ideas on some of the higher-profile Satanist websites themselves, NOT as definitive statements regarding Satanism as a whole, but merely as examples of some of the many varieties of Satanist belief. Such quotes or paraphrases should _NOT_ take up the majority of the page, which should be devoted primarily to cited observations by scholars of new religions and by other reputable third-party sources. Quotes from Satanist websites could then be presented as up-to-date examples of statements by the scholars and other third parties.

Diane Vera 02:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. On second thought, given Wikipedia's policies which I have now studied in more depth, perhaps the main "Satanism" article should not contain ANY external links except perhaps to James Lewis's articles, the Religious Tolerance site's Satanism page, and Rick Ross's collection of articles on Satanism. Links to the Church of Satan site and a few other well-known LaVeyan groups could be placed on a separate page about LaVeyan Satanism.

On the main Satanism page, it should be clearly stated that a wide variety of other forms of Satanism do exist, theistic and otherwise, as can be easily verified by anyone who explores a reasonably large sampling of Satanist Internet forums. It should also be stated that, because the recent growth of theistic and other non-LaVeyan Satanisms is a relatively new development, it has not yet been adequately studied by scholars of new religions and hence cannot be covered in detail in Wikipedia. The interested reader can be invited to Google such terms as "theistic Satanism," "traditional Satanism," "religious Satanism," "Devil worship," and "Demonolatry."

Other than that, in my present opinion, the main Satanism page should be limited to assertions that can be backed up by religion scholars and other reputable secondary sources. It should also (and can easily do so, with quotes from James Lewis) document the existence of a quarrel between the Church of Satan and "many independent Satanists." The main Satanism page should NOT discuss LaVeyan Satanism in detail beyond a few very basic principles, since that can be discussed in the separate article on LaVeyan Satanism. Rather, the main Satanism page's emphasis should be on the history of modern Satanism, including the fact that Satanism has become a largely Internet-based subculture, and (in as neutral terms as possible, quoting James Lewis) the existence of an ongoing fight between the Church of Satan and other groups whose beliefs differ from the CoS's to one extent or another. (It should also be noted that the term "traditional Satanism" is misleading, since no known CURRENTLY-existing "traditional Satanist" group can document a history going back before the founding of LaVey's Church of Satan 1966 C.E.)

My main aim here is not to get my own site listed (although that would certainly be nice) but simply to oppose the Church of Satan's attempt to monopolize the definition of "Satanism." As can be documented from Lewis's writings, LaVey is a "controversial figure" among Satanist, even if nearly all Satanists are influenced by LaVey to one degree or another. So, a definition of "Satanism" itself in terms of the philosophy of Anton LaVey is, most definitely, not a neutral POV.

Diane Vera 01:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Further P.S.: Regarding theistic Satanism, what we do have that's clearly notable is (1) Herbert Sloane and the Lady of Endor Coven (even if there's some debate about how old that group really was), (2) The Temple of Set, during the time when Michael Aquino still called himself a Satanist, and (3) the Demonolatry folks, who are mentioned in one of Lewis's articles.

Diane Vera 13:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Major Overhaul

This has been long overdue. Very long overdue.

This article has been an embarassment for Wikipedia for as long as I can remember.

It is you and those that back you that are the real embarassment. Rev. Michael S. Margolin 07:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It has essentially been one long list of vanity pages,

Yes all in Favor of LaVey Rev. Michael S. Margolin 07:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

where groups that do not even vaguely fit the definition of Satanism Yes your definition Rev. Michael S. Margolin 07:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC) can list their contact information in hopes of attracting followers. Not anymore.

Apparently the people who contest that Anton LaVey founded Satanism as a religion aren't up to date on Wikipedia policy. Allow me to clarify:

You mean allow you to maninipulate and twist reality.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 07:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No statements that cannot be backed up by reliable, neutral sources can be counted as fact. Clear enough?

And no matter how many we throw at you that do, you'll lie and twist them to back your arguement. Rev. Michael S. Margolin 07:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No evidence that any "generational Satanism" has ever existed has been brought to my attention. If you think you have proof of this, consider that your source must predate 1966 (the foundation of the Church of Satan) to provide incontrovertable evidence that it is otherwise. Etymological research shows that up until LaVey, "satanism" (not capitalized) and "satanist" (the same) were not used as religious designations but as insults, the implication being that the person in question was either crazy, a blasphemer, or both. The term was most often leveled at Christian heretics, not anyone who actually considered themselves in league with the devil. This has been established time and time again.

Again making rules to make others conform to your way of thinking. If you went to the Margolinian school of manipulation you would have sooooo flunked. Rev. Michael S. Margolin 07:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, just because a group has an angelfire. 666 now, I've been with hostways based in europe for what 5 or more years?And before that a private Finish Nazi Server, even the down syndrome folks of society are smarter than you are. Rev. Michael S. Margolin 09:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

site and a bunch of teenagers calling themselves "priests" does not make it a valid religious organization, and it certainly doesn't make it notable by Wikipedia standards. The groups removed from this page either do not fit the definition of Satanism, or have membership so insubstantial that regardless of whether they qualify as "Satanic" or not they are not notable (in most cases, both are true). For example, the Temple of Set has a number of members, but does not even consider itself to be a Satanic organization. Sat/Tan has never been demonstrated to have membership beyond a single individual. This nonsense is not up to Wikipedia standards.

http://p078.ezboard.com/bsosatan.boardStatsLink Total Registered Members: 161 100 are Global Users 61 are Local Users. That is just the message board stats but as you can see most of my members are over seas and 161 is more than Church of Satan will reveal about its members numbers. Remember CoS does not reveal how many members it has or has ever had. www.sosatan.org is going on 8 years old has over 4,000 members world wide has been with host ways in europe for over 5 years and prior to that was hosted on my co-founders server in Finland and he is a famous Nazi and my best friend. Now watch this post get spun by our good spin Doktor. And last but not least we call ourselves Satanist and don't live by CoS rules. One more point Myself and all my Priests and Priestesses are legally ordained through ULCM. Rev. Michael S. Margolin 17:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, all changes made to this article must be verified by outside sources and must be within the standards of content for Wikipedia. Otherwise, they will be reverted immediately. I welcome constructive efforts, but I cannot allow all standards of factuality and content to be tossed aside. -Lvthn13 06:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

So called Major Overhaull gone to far.

This section should not all be about Anton LaVey because the term Satanism existed in 16th century. Used by Roman Catholic Church. http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanis5.htm

Ah, thank you for the link! That actually seems to prove exactly my point, and I support it entirely. As that page says, such "early Satanism" was an imaginary religion invented, as I said, to serve as a derogation of those the Catholic Church wished to persecute. It perhaps deserves a minor section describing exactly this, and I will gladly elaborate to make sure that it is included. It doesn't, by the way, negate the fact of LaVey creating Satanism as a real religion. But, this link is valuable so I'll very gladly edit the article in some free time to include that.

Also, please keep commentary in proper format, don't just tack it up to the top of the page. -Lvthn13 21:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Anton LaVey did not create the term Satanism

Satanism has also existed since the 15th Century. Anton LaVey did not invent the term Satanism unless he existed in 15th Century and member of Catholic Church http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanis5.htm 15th Century Satanism

Once again, please put your commentary in the correct format, not randomly put up at the top of the page as though it takes all priority.

This article is about the religion Satanism, not the historic use of the term. The use of the term in Catholic Inquisition has now fallen entirely out of favor, and was never used to describe an actual religion. Therefore, it is of etymological interest but of no interest to understanding Satanism as a religion, the topic of this article.

Also, your repeated edits without real discussion, against established consensus, and inclusion of irrelevant links, is vandalous and in violation of Wikipedia policy. Please cease the attacks, register a name, and enter discussion or you will be reported to administrators. -Lvthn13 21:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The term 'satanism' is used by many different kinds of organizations and people to define themselves. The old article accurately depicted a multitude of religions and philosophies. I don't need esoteric sources, I can figure that out simply by googling for "satanism". Obviously, as a satanist, you would consider your own definition as the one and only right, but Wikipedia is not the place to push for a clarification of terminology - the article about satanism is about what people mean when they use it, not what it ideally should mean. I'm not a regular editor on either Wikipedia in general, or this article in particular, but I request for this edit to be undone. Even worse than unfairly favoring one flavor of satanism over all others, it quiets the discussion on the nature of the philosophy by basing everything on one book: It would be inappropriate even to define Christiantiy through the bible alone, and they consider it Holy Scripture. -Ados 20:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The errors here are multiple: First, there are not "flavors" of Satanism (as a religion, it should be capitalized). First, as I've detailed below, LaVey was the first person to define Satanism as a religious designation. More to the point, the other groups that call themselves Satanists have no published literature whatsoever to indicate that they have a belief system, have such insignificant membership as to make them unnotable, and from what little is available about them, obviously have nothing in common with one another to suggest that they should even be going by the same name. This isn't like the difference between Baptists and Pentacostals, but like the difference between Taoists and Muslims, and the Muslims insist that they also are Taoists even though the definition of Taoism existed long before they did, and they have zero common ground. It isn't logical.

But, to make this simple: can you prove that any of these different kinds of organizations are actually organizations (as opposed to websites), have a coherent belief structure, reliable sources on their beliefs, or meet Wikipedia standards of notability?

I have and even after a long discussion with Fearwig he admitted Sinagogue of Satan is of mentionable notabilty. If you see my user page everything you ask about structure is there and we are a legal and registered religion through UCLM All this can be found on my discussin page and Satanism discussion page none of this is new. And some of us including me call ourselves Satanist and in Marvin Sotelo's case "A LaVeyian Satanists".Rev. Michael S. Margolin 01:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your example of a google search is disingenious, since I could type in "dog" and get a million results irrelevant to the four legged animal. -Lvthn13 22:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Your demands on what qualifies something for inclusion are arbitrary, and do not reflect at all Wikipedia's quality standards or common practice. In what way a belief system is coherent or not, does not matter for it counting as a religion. Websites are frequently and rightfully used as a credible source on Wikipedia, as they have the advantage of being readily accessable and verifyable to the reader. - Can you _prove_ that the Church of Satan is more than thinly spread self-help group meetings of people who have to compensate for low-level employment, more than the wet dream of a lonely loon? Holocaust revisionists get published, too - that doens't make them credible.

I agree that different "satanist" groupings have little in common, but again, that is not the issue here. It's an encyclopedia: If enough people call it something, it has a right to be listed under that name. At most, make a disambiguation page - but don't just whitewash the article of all other opinions. Google may not be a perfect demographic tool, but it is the best tool that is available in the timeframe an average reader is willing to invest. As such it has authority. If you google for "dog" and you find tons of high-ranking pages describing trees and birds as "dogs", then maybe the article on dogs needs some revisioning. -Ados 12:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Satanism as a whole can only be defined as the practice of a religion as outlined in the Satanic Bible. Sure there are other groups of people who call themselves Satanists, but those aren’t the people (nor religion they purportedly practice) one expects to read about when they wish to understand what Satanism is.

This is an encyclopedia like you point out. And because of that the article should not be ambiguous (as it was before). It should be a fair representation of what Satanism is (and is not). Including every Tom, Dick, and Harry, into the article just because they call themselves a Satanist, or a Church, would be far from fair, or an honest representation of Satanism.

Let me just say that I am not a member, or an advocate for Church of Satan in any way. With that said I do believe that there should be one definition for Satanism and that is the modern brand of Satanism that 90% of “Satanists” ascribe to. If someone wants to make an entry for “Traditional Satanism” and “Devil Worship” they are free to do so, and this new article could even link to them while describing what modern Satanism is not. Absinthe (Talk) 17:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Kind of shot yourself in the foot there. This is an encyclopedia of facts, not opinions, nor is it a pulpit for "equal opportunity opinions." Your statement about results for dogs does of course ignore what I pointed out: by your definition then, the page for Dog should include a section on the use of the word in black slang for "friend," another entry for its use as a slang for "ugly person," a section on the website www.ytmnd.com and a section on doggystyle sex. The idea that this would somehow belong in the articel for Dog is of course absurd; the word dog first and foremost refers to the friendly quadruped we all know. See also the article for Weed; directs to an article on the garden pest, not Marijuana, nor does it even mention the drug. Original definitions get priority.

You make an issue where there is none. Search for Devil Worship, for example; you find exactly what you were looking for. Same for Demonolatry. Why confuse readers by trying to tack two dozen unrelated things under one article? That's how you'd like to see Wikipedia operate? -Lvthn13 21:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Devil Worship redirected to Satanism. I've changed it to redirect to Demonolatry. -Serdan 07:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Facts are just very prestigious opinions ... and the article on "dog" has at least a disambiguation page linked at the top. But I see that the way of reason is blocked and I don't really care enough to get into an edit war about it. Someone more fanatical will have to come along. -Ados 10:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I must give my absolute support for the so-called major overhaul that has taken place. Very well done.Darkahn 10:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

How is this for evidence? “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 1875.

Note:For the Initiates, this is not a person, but a force, created for good, but which may serve for evil. The Initiates are Satanists and this is from 1875 long before Anton was alive. Also this is my proof and Backed up with fact. Waiting for your reply. Rev. Michael S. Margolin 21:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC) - (unsigned comment moved to correct position)

Lots of people centuries before that had the same view of Satan. Doesn't mean they founded the religion, and the text you quote doesn't support the idea that these people called themselves Satanists, only that they viewed Satan as a positive archetype. -Lvthn13 19:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The black arts and various occult practices resurfaced in the late 19th century. In France, it was believed that Freemasons were involved in Satan worship. Satan also became a symbol for the French revolution through writers such as Eliphas Lévi (Russell 1986: 201). In 19th-century French culture, Satan was often depicted as a political figure, though whose side he was on changed constantly depending on who made the charges.

In 1875, the Theosophical Society was founded by Madame Helena Blavatsky, and another occult organization, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, twelve years later. One of the most prominent members in the later years of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn was Aleister Crowley, a name that has come to be synonymous with popular understandings of Satanism in the 20th century. Although Crowley was not a technically a Satanist, he did claim to be "the Beast 666" from the book of Revelation, and some of his ideas and practices would later be incorporated into modern Satanism. In 1930s Paris, a Luciferian temple was established by Maria de Naglowska, and it is believed that her organization is still active in France (Medway 2001: 11-21. Rev. Michael S. Margolin 21:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

All of which are facts you could have read from LaVey's book The Satanic Rituals.

You are side tracking the point and the issue and none of this came from LaVey. You wanted proof I gave you Proof now you are trying to dodge the truth and redirect it to LaVey. This appears to be a Bias on your part. Thus your new section on Satanism is full of personal bias and favortism toward LaVey, thus this is a biased article, therefore goes against wikki policy. Rev. Michael S. Margolin P.S. Also note that the EGC exists within O.T.O. so no suprise that after 32nd degree you are offered Masonic Satanism, a religion within the order and hidden from the general public just like the EGC is with the O.T.O.. Gee a tad slow replying when exposed for what you are. Rev. Michael S. Margolin 21:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Pretty quick to jump to conclusions. You seem to be missing my point entirely. I stated in my original discussion that I was well aware of the Hellfire Clubs, Crowley, Templars, Masons, etc, and so was LaVey, and the right conclusion is that while these are interesting side notes, none of them constituted a formation of a religion going by the name of Satanism. None of this is new knowledge then, I put it forth myself, so saying that I am "running from the truth" is merely accusatory. You still have not provided a single source indicating that anybody prior to 1966 called themselves a Satanist (yes, it must be specific that they called themselves a Satanist, because the issue here is the title of the article, not the existence prior to 1966 of people who sympathized with the devil). -Lvthn13 05:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It is you that is missing the point. I'm talking about secret societies your talking about a man that comercialized a secret. In secret, 32 degree Masons that accepted Baphomet were and are Satanists. Anton did not invent Satanism, he comercialized and ruined it. And Freemason Satanism has nothing to do with self indulgence. Rev. Michael S. Margolin 21:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The article on freemasonry doesn't mention anything about Satanism, so how about you go edit that first and see what happens? -Serdan 16:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. -Lvthn13 21:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

More side tracking, just because the wikki article does not mention it does not mean it does not exist. I gave you proof and facts and all you guys can to is side step and attempt to manipulate reality to try and push your bias opinion on what Satanism is to the general public. This is the same tactics and style of propaganda the Nazi's used in ww2 His biased entry is in fact the equivalent of an article on ice cream that discusses Baskin Robbins but doesn't say shit about Ben and Jerry Rev. Michael S. Margolin 21:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Godwin's Law. -Lvthn13 21:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't call you Nazi's, I merely pointed out you are useing the same tactics, which by the way you are. Heir spin docter, I have a bomb Shelley for you and a Blake and a Milton. All before Anton and all used the Term Satanist and Satanism in various texts. http://www.sbc.edu/honors/HJSpr03/Jensen2.htm One more thing if Anton was the first how does that negate any other forms that followed or predates? I think the ONA would like to have a few words with you, Heir Spin Doktor. Rev. Michael S. Margolin 21:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

-Indeed...the ice cream comparison is valid in my opinion. I understand that many take the term "LaVeyan Satanism" as an insult, but they shouldn't. This entry needs to have more represented than just LaVey's take on it, whether that take was the first one or not. If the current state of Satanism is to be ignored in favor of the egos of the red card holders, it's a sad day for freedom of information and lack of bias. No real encyclopedia I have ever read ignores the present. This entry here ignores the present fully...and displays complete bias on the part of the person that did the Major Overhaul. There are people that deny the holocaust took place...thank god none of them are editors for Wikipedia. If the same biased POV entry we see here were the norm for Wikipedia I think most people would laugh at your website, and it would cease to be a useful resource of UNBIASED and NPOV information. Another major overhaul should be reconsidered, wherein such biased editors are run out of the place so that ALL points of view can be represented. There is an entry for LaVey, and Entry for CoS...that info does not need to be cited here; rather it should be linked to. No one here is trying to convince anyone to remove any references to LaVey...his contributions to the history and evolution of Satanism are real, and therefore should be here. But they aren't the only contributions or evolveing factors.

Consider this...CoS has a website, they have a message board, they have all the same things that made you remove other groups from this article. They do not reveal membership, yet you assume that they have many members. Other organizations and churches would likely gladly tun over membership numbers to you to prove they are more than a "vanity site"; yet that is ignored. Rev. Michael Margolin has given you facts and proof; yet you ignore it. Others have made the same comments a I am; and you ignor them too. This whole debacle is clearly one created by and perpetuated by the ego of the person who revised the entry. The detractors to another revision that is less biased all diplay a bias of their own in their posts in this discussion area; and that also is ignored. Surely there is someone from Wikipedia that can step in and analyze the facts rather than use opinon and conjecture to allow this ordeal to continue. Let's not procrstinate on this...let's get someone truely impartial to analyze the facts, and make sure that such biased revising does not happen again. People who want info on Judaism do not ask Muslims, and I don't think that anyone seeking info on Satanism should be asking obvious CoS members or sympathizers. *UNBIASED* is all we want...not to wipe LaVeys name from the entry completely. Tell the whole story, not one point of view on it. ISN, Scott of the Morning.

~Isn't this sorta like having an entry on cola where you only mention RC and leave out coke and pepsi? Or talking about hardcore and only mentioning Black Flag and Minor Threat, but not Hatebreed and Throwdown? Just my two cents. Cheers...fanatics continue denying, diehards continue pushing for unbiased NPOV articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cola ~

~The word "Satanism" was in dictionaries long before Anton Lavey. In most dictionaries, the primary meaning of that word is still "the worship of Satan." LaVey didn't invent the word; therefore, LaVeyans don't have a copyright on it.

The word "Satanism" has many meanings. In my opinion, it shouldn't even be thought of as an exclusively religious term. For example, literary critics have long used the term "Satanism" to refer to literature containing favorable portrayals of Satan. (Google "Romantic Satanism" for example.)

As for objective evidence of the existence of religious Satanists at least as old as LaVey: In J. Gordon Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religion and in a few other sources including the book Satan Wants You by Arthur Lyons, there is mention of a group called the Lady of Endor Coven, which is said to have been founded back in 1948 by a Toledo barber named Herbert Sloane. LaVeyans will typically object that it can't be proven the his group relly dated all the way back to 1948, or that it used the term "Satanist" all the way back to 1948. Perhaps not, but, at the very least, they clearly were around and using the term "Satanist" in the late 1960's and early 1970's, contemporary with LaVey's arrival on the scene. And their belief system was not at all LaVay-based; it was Gnostic-based. Diane Vera 06:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

~ A few more points:

Above, someone wrote: "Satanism as a whole can only be defined as the practice of a religion as outlined in the Satanic Bible. Sure there are other groups of people who call themselves Satanists, but those aren’t the people (nor religion they purportedly practice) one expects to read about when they wish to understand what Satanism is."

Actually, LaVey isn't what most would people expect to read about either. In most dictionaries the primary meaning of "Satanism" is still "the worship of Satan." Theistic Satanism is actually closer to what most people would think of as Satanism.

Absinthe wrote: "Let me just say that I am not a member, or an advocate for Church of Satan in any way. With that said I do believe that there should be one definition for Satanism and that is the modern brand of Satanism that 90% of “Satanists” ascribe to."

Where do you get that 90% figure? It might perhaps have been accurate for a while in the late 1990's, when LaVey and the Church of Satan made an all-out push for monopoly after a brief period (late 1980's to early 1990's) when the Satanist scene was dominated by the Temple of Set. But, to anyone who has explored a reasonable sampling of online Satanist forums these days, e.g. on Yahoo, it's plainly not true that 90% are LaVeyans. If anything, the majority are theistic.

Diane Vera 02:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms Section

Taking a look at the criticisms section, it seems that 3 of the criticisms come from this page. While I admit that the criticisms posted there are likely valid criticsms of Satanism, I found a lot of wiggle words ("some", "Christian theologians") and no specifics as to who is making these criticisms. Can we get some sources on where to find them? Gracie. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 03:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Focus on Levay?

Is it just me or is much of the page still written as if this were an article about the Church of Satan instead of satanism in general? There are already at least two articles devoted to that subject, Church of Satan and LeVayan Satanism, those seem like space enough. For instance is there really any justification for repeating the entire list of Satanic Statements and Satanic Laws both here and on the Levayan page? -- Alkzndr, April 4, 2006

I was about to add something like Alkzndr's comment myself. I don't think the problem is that it focuses on a very prominent Satanic church (CoS) so much that it does so despite the ready availability of information elsewhere on Wikipedia on LeVay &c. I'm not sure the good Reverend's comment is quite right either, though--rather than outline all the specific forms of Satanism, I think this article should give the "sects" an overview while linking to independent articles. The body itself should certainly focus on the unifying principles of the faith. There's nothing NPOV about supplying a copious amount of information, though--if you have information to balance it out, supply it, and trim the overlap between this article and Church of Satan, LeVayan Satanism, and others. If you can improve it with more material, do so. Plus, Wikipedia can't really be biased... its editors can, I admit. But you are an editor, too. So get cracking. Fearwig 22:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

~Above, Fearwig refers to "the unifying principles" of the "faith." But Satanism isn't really a single "faith" with ANY "unifying principles." As the term "Satanism" is used by scholars of new religions, it is an aggregate of religions having a commen theme -- seeing Satan in a favorable light -- but not necessarily any specific common pronciples. For more about this, see the section on the definition of Satanism. Diane Vera 11:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

~HS, I am from the Freemason family of Satanists, Aleister E. Crowley, Albert Pike, Theodore Reuss, Jack Parsons, Ben Franklin, Jean Cocteu, Kenneth Anger, and many many more. Funny you brought up Zoraster he is a huge influence, not only in hermetics but Freemasonry as well. As far as dualist that is Christian Satanism. We are based on the formula of 1+-1=0 thus we are nihilists. For an in depth look at this topic See Crowley's "Magick without tears" Or Crowley's "Tau Teh King" No I'm not a Thelemite but have been in Ordo Templi Orientis for a very long time LOL I'm Also honored in the A:.A:. Now as for get cracking a friend not a member sent me the following Paragraph for submittle.

The Sinagogue of Satan is a religious organization based on the concept of Satanism as described in Albert Pike's book Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry: Morals and Dogma. The doctrine of The Sinagogue of Satan is not based on the “popular” Satanists of our day, nor Hollywood or Christian propaganda. The religion contains no dogma in or of itself, and encourages its followers to believe in whatever they like, as long as they do not attempt to push such beliefs on others. The aim of this religion is the ultimate destruction of religion through the advancement of individual freedom and social responsibility. The Sinagogue of Satan does not promote self-indulgence but rather self-expression balanced with social responsibility.

Now as far as Satan as a Deity here is a paragraph to show you the Masonic take on that topic.

“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 1875.

I hope this all helps, feel free to ask for more. ISN Rev. Michael S. Margolin

Reading more, I think there's a lot to be said for streamlining almost anything out of this that goes into more than cursory depth about LeVay's CoS, and moving anything that's actually unique over to the relevant articles. Even in the "Criticisms of Satanism" section, you've got principles directly relating to the CoS (at least from my uneducated standpoint). For instance, am I not correct in thinking that many, or at least some interpretations of Satanism do accept the existence of Satan and/or God as literal deities, or deity-like figures? Under the criticisms the editor has added what can only be inferred as counter-criticisms, ones that imply strongly a CoS-like standpoint on that issue. Fearwig 22:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Satan within Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Ayyavazhi

The phrase "expanded upon" is a corruption of the fairly-common phrase "expounded upon." In addition, there is an agreement problem with the subject and verb in that sentence. One can expound upon an account, or idea. One does not expound upon a word. Let's try: "The term 'Satan' originated with Judaism and the concept was elucidated further by Christians and Muslims." Drogue 08:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

On further thought, a better edit would say: "The concept of 'Satan' originated with Judaism and was elucidated further by Christians and Muslims." Drogue 10:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

HS, the name Satan did come from the Jews, but maybe even older, but Devils and Jinn or rather evil spirits predates Judaism. Devils are seen in almost every religion and culture on earth. I understand the main article is on Satan/Satanism therefore mystical Satanism or Demonology should be a seperate artical. Just trying to help. ISN Rev. Michael S. Margolin

Djinni are spirit beings supposed to live "in a civilization in Spirit World" just like this universe.And yes,they DO predate Islam,nor are they evil.When they like,they cross over here,doing this and that.--CAN T 21:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have always accepted the dualistic side of Judaism that produced Satan/Shaitan and the Hebrew equivalent with which I'm not familiar, which led to stronger dualistic elements in Christianity and Islam, to have its roots in Zoroastrianism. The parallels seem too clear to ignore, the more one reads. Am I alone in this? I think this topic is too big for this article, though. Fearwig 22:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did the article go?

On April 28th, Allez basically gutted this article with no comments on why, and obviously nothing on the talk page about it. See [1] for specifics. What happened and should it be reverted? Kutulu 02:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Lies

This whole article is not even about Satanism. Satanism is the worshipping of the self. That's right. It is the belief that the worshipper is a god themselves. Satan worshippers worship Satan. Satanists worship themselves. See the difference? The reason most people think Satanists worship Satan is because Satan is in the name. However, this only refers to the act that the archangel commited against the christian god. If I knew howto flag this thing for controversy, I would.

Satanism is a religion founded partly on a humanistic philosophy. In that I mean, they don't worship Satan, but see him as the embodiment of individualism and human nature. They believe that what Christians call "sin" is not wrong, but completely natural with humans and it is unfair to ridcule it as Christianity does.Wolfranger 14:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly suppose that this is a matter of opinion. There are probably many people who you would classify as Satan worshippers who classify themselves as Satanists. This is the kind of discussion that defines sect divides, I think. I'll add the controversy flag, though. It's well-deserved, if not just for this reason. Fearwig 22:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I strongly reccomend that to stop this stuff from happening, make it so that Satan Worship doesn't redirect to Satanisn.72.43.149.190 18:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sinagogue of Satan

HS, I Posted this on my message board tonight, I felt it applied to the current dispute. ISN 666

HS, last night in the chat room I was asked how old I was and what 1st sent me down the road of Satanism. I told them as long as I can remember but it was seald when I was in 1st grade, I was 6 years old and watched this cartoon.http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=9217663848885980499&q=donald after seeing it you will see why even though I was a Member of the Church of Satan, because I read they support freedom of the individual, which I and we all know now they don't, was why I was always a Crowley fan. Crowley and the Freemasons got it, Anton skipped school that year, By the way Walt Disney was a FreeMason . And for those of you that want the mathmatical formulae of that cartoon go here. http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/emt669/Student.Folders/Frietag.Mark/Homepage/Goldenratio/goldenratio.html Now I ask you, WHO DELIVERS THE GOODS?????!!!!!!!!!!!??? and or Gods as the case may be? ISN 666Rev. Michael S. Margolin 05:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.abcnews4.com/externalwebsite.hrb?website=http://www.sosatan.org/

HS, just for fun here are two interviews side by side one with me and one with John Allee. Do please tell me what you think. The interviews are under 'Articles" www.leagueofsatanists.com ISN Me

HS, this is from Fearwigs discusion page.

"If all the things you say are true, then I have no reason to argue about it, as then your organization is certainly of mentionable significance. Fearwig 16:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)"

Do any of you other editors have anything to say before I let my members do their will?

ISN Rev. Michael S. Margolin

I think the person who edited the article to add this information is the founder of said "Sinagogue", if a signature near the top is what I think it is. It's also about as far from NPOV as you can get. Removing edit, for now. If the author wants to reread the Wikipedia contribution info and rewrite it such that it's even remotely objective he's welcome, I guess (or better yet wait until his movement is actually significant, such that someone else can write it--just because we have online ULE certs doesn't mean we get our own wikis for invented religious movements). Again, correct me if I'm mistaken in any way. Fearwig 22:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If you note the discussion at the end of Talk:Satanism/archive2, you'll see that we had an issue like this before, but that agreement was reached that so long as a small portion could be maintained on this page, and efforts begun to restore the article (which later failed in Deletion Review), we could try and avoid the huge problems of contant revert warring here. I'd urge that a small section be left in the Other Organizations section (though of course made NPOV and grammar-corrected), so as to satisfy the conditions there. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 02:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand now. I dare say it could become a very long list, though, if every supposed reverend listed his or her Satanic bowling team as a burgeoning religious movement. Fearwig 18:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Believe you me, I very much agree. But I do think that this may be the most peaceful way to go about it: people get to have a small and peer-edited section, and therefore we aren't subject to constant revert warring. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 03:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism

Why is Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy listed as an "associated concept"? Although it is true that the main thesis of Objectivist ethics states that the pursual of one's own rational self-interest is the moral purpose of one's own life, the entire philosophy is at odds with the concept of Satanism. Objectivism is a philosophic system based on four main points: objective reality, reason, self-interest, and capitalism. Satanism is a loose conglomerate of emotion-based and mystic beliefs. I strongly object to Objectivism's being listed as an "associated concept." - A.T.

I agree with whoever added it that it's closely related, philosophically. That the founding principle of each is that action for the sake of self-interest is morally sound, whereas most every other major philsophy opposes that notion. If I'm not mistaken, there are also some shared admitted philosophical influences between the two of them, Friedrich Nietzsche, for one. The problem here is that "Satanism" can mean many things, and one meaning is close to Objectivism (another involves pimply goons with The Crow makeup). Objectivism, of course, cannot be interpreted as loosely as Satanism, since it is more or less a cult of personality based around the philosophies expresssed in the fiction of one individual. Fearwig 18:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, A.T., they match up quite perfectly. One Satanic aspect, as far as objective reality goes, is to question all things and believe nothing beyond or outside the realm of fact, which leads into reason.

Satanism? A strong emphasis on the self, which subjectifies self-interest, which leaves the desire to be successful: Capitalism.

Bacon HS Bacon, as far as Sinagogue of Satan is concerned Subjective reality is at the forefront with objective reality as a balance beam to make the system a paradox. Therefore when we say freedom of religion undermines religion we include our own to allow objective reality to be true as well, paradox, philosophy, and chess. ISN Me

Devil Worship Section

This section seems titled with a non-NPOV. It cites that media is trying to gain higher ratings for example. There is no citation and seems largely to be opinion. I'll wait for discussion, but I believe it should be edited soon. Jackhamm 14:52 2 June 2006 {EST}

Red ink

Just checking--is this last edit really odd vandalism, or actual? Fearwig 02:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Set and tax exemption

I moved the Set section from the cults section into the setian section; it got seperated somehow. Anyway, I noticed a line about it being recognized as a tax-exempt religion, but that is meaningless; AFAIK all religious organizations of a certain sort are tax exempt by their very nature. Unless there is some reason that it is important, I don't think it is relevant. Titanium Dragon 09:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know that the CoS is not tax-exempt, and that they do not wish to be. While I don't know the exact process for becoming tax-exempt, I suppose that it might be a mark of progress in that a Satanic religion became tax-exempt? But yeah: I'm really not sure. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 15:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

HS Cabhan, O.T.O. is tax exempt. SoS is not since we don't accept money. The easiest way for a group to go tax exempt is to go though Universal Life Church ministries. You can also buy charters from groups already tax exempt. as usual, just trying to help. ISN Rv. MSM

History of Satan in Judaism

There are some very incomplete and assumption-based statements in these two sections.

There is a deeper history of Satan that actually arises within Judaism after its exposure to Zoroastrianism. It was under the Babylonian subjugation and subsequent freedom by Cyrus II the Great of Persia that influenced all of the dualities that Judaism and its descendents carry.

It wasn't before this that Satan was ever mentioned, because, before these times the idea of either Good or Evil being seperate from God was unthinkable. God caused happiness, and caused misery. Everything was explained in these terms until this very point in history.

See Ahura Mazda vs. Angra Mainyu.

Other Sources for this :

From Satan and the Forces of Chaos

"In the monarchic period in Israel (c. 1000-586 B.C.) in fact such a figure as a rival to God is intolerable. Suffering and calamity were considered to be directly sent or permitted by God. From her emergence as a distinctive sacral community committed to the worship of her God alone, Israel had come to terms with the current polytheism of the Near East. While not worshipping other gods, she recognized their worship by other peoples."

- John Gray, Near East Mythology

also...

- Peter Clark, Zoroastrianism, An Introduction to an Ancient Faith, pp. 154-155

In fact, from the entire Mystae conspectus on this, alone, one would have a great world of work on their shoulders to rework this article to reflect history.

HS, Great Job! I have a question though. From what I've read in Hermetics and Freemasonry and my own copies of Zoroaster's works and From O.T.O. Zoroastrianism isn't duality but Nihilism. Do you think that because the two philosophies have opposeing forces is what causes the confusion? To clearify Nihilism is about negatives and positives uniting and creating by their union. Thus the Masonic statement "The universe is at sex" meaning it is not at war. In Dualism you have opposites at war, conflicting, not joining, with the aim of one destroying the other. Also coming from a Jewish upbringing I was taught no heaven, no devil, no life after death. So I don't see Judaism as dualist either but monotheist. What I do see as dualist is Christianity and to some degree Islam though it is monotheist. You totally kick ass in your studies so I'm happily awaiting your reply. ISN RV.MSM

Non-Satanic Sects

I would like to dispute or at least ask for a source on the comment about in the 1950s Mormons commonly referring to the Roman Catholic Church as the "Church of the Devil" because of their elaborate ceremonies because it doesn't really make sense that they would. I'm not theologian of any sort but the Mormons are not without their own elaborate ceremonies if you look at all their rituals within the temples. So, it really doesn't make sense if a comment like this was made and since it is not sourced I have to wonder if maybe someone just added it in as a jab at Mormons.Zerase 23:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Zerase

Gnosticism

Although by no means an expert, I was wondering about some of the notations in the Gnostic sections of Satanism referenced, as I have had some exposure to study on the subject. To generalize, while these groups did equate the Old Testament God as the demiurge, most also saw the New Testament God as a true God and worshipped him, not to mention revering Christ as an emanation of God. The article phrased the way it is now would seem to indicate, at least to my mind, that the concept of an overarching deity was completely rejected by Gnostics. Further, while in most Gnostic belief the serpent did bless humankind with knowledge, in this is supposedly acted on the impulse of the 'True/Christ God' acting against the 'Demiurge'.

While there may be philosophical and ritual precedents for Satanism in Gnosticism (individual experience in regards to the divine, some of its more mystic characteristics, etc) there are also many deviances and differences, on some very fundemental grounds (worshipping of diety(ies), sacredness of material world, etc). As a result, I feel obleiged to express my concerns over the Ophites, Early Gnostics, and Valentinians mentioned in veiw of clarity.

For this one you guys might want to consult Mordi Shapiro he is a priest in the gnostic church whithin the O.T.O. Or contact some of your folks that are in your Thelemapedia. Though I was baptized in the EGC and given permission to use and adapt EGC rituals for SoS use, I never studied it too deeply. As far as Satanic, the closest they get is their Mass which is held every sunday in Berkley at sundown as well as many other lodges and camps around the world,. Just trying to help. RVMSM

Misleading and Innacurate Terms and Statements

This is more a rant about Satansim handled on Wikipedia in general.

First off, I'd like to comment that "Religious, Theistic, LaVeyan, Philosophical" are all misleading terms, really. LaVeyan is the only one that makes sense in its context, but thats rarely used by actual LaVeyan Satanists.

In general, the Satanism introductions are confusing. Anton LaVey (meaning LaVeyan Satanism) advanced first the idea that Satan is a Dark Force of nature. Yet thats listed as "religious" or "Theistic" Satanism. Why? Theistic implies a kind of God. Why not just leave it at "Theistic" Satanism as "religious" is innaccurate.

Why not call the LaVeyan article Religious (as it constitutes a religion as well as philosophy) and term the "Religious" article "Theistic." The labels are confusing and the information seems garbled.

HS, how about LaVey's system be Called Atheistic Satanism, Systems that involve a deity be called Theological Satanism and SoS will continue as Occult Satanism since it comes from Freemasonry which is founded in occult lore? Just trying to help as usual. ISN RvMSM

That would make more sense.

Semi-protected

I semi-protected this page to stop the revert war that has been going on.

To the one attempting to change the lead: if you have a source that indicates that a religion defined as "Satanism" existed in the 15th century, you can put it in the article, per WP:RS and verifiability. That it was invented by the Roman Catholics as a justification for witch-burning seems far-fetched to me, but once again, we use reliable sources, and indicate where we got our information. At any rate, that wouldn't belong in the lead, though: your edit looks a little like vandalism. Please discuss it here first. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting this page. I am dedicated to improving this article in good faith and according to Wikipedia policy; please forgive a few present issues with the article, I am aware of them and am in the process of reworking it section by section to further improve it. I fully support a neutral view of this topic, I merely wish to see it all done by the book. -Lvthn13 23:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

OK ... unfortunately I had to bump it up to full protection. Both sides are in violation of WP:3RR but since no warnings were given I'm not blocking anyone. I'm going to leave a note on the other user's talk page to come here to propose changes in the article and give sources. Antandrus (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection removed ... please discuss major changes rather than edit-warring. Should protection be needed again and I'm not noticing, you can report at WP:RPP or even WP:AIV depending on the nature of the edits. Antandrus (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Historic Use of the Term

I created this section to accomodate the fact that the term satanism was used historically, but in a different meaning than its present usage. Since we clearly do not live in the 16th century, the modern usage prevails as the primary topic of the article, and therefore that also should be the content of the lead (see administrator's comments above). Edits that elaborate on this should be sourced per Wikipedia policy, and should avoid use of weasel words or implications to detract from the content of the article itself. Thank you. -Lvthn13 23:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Further clarification: I do not dispute that the term Satanism (or satanism) was in circulation prior to the foundation of the Church of Satan. What I contest is that there was ever an organized religion by that name prior to the Church of Satan, and that the term was ever used by a person to describe himself as a religious designation. I do not know of any reliable source that can prove otherwise, and in the absence of such proof, it should be considered unsuitable for mention in an encyclopedia. This matter was in fact investigated in depth by LaVey himself, as he had a desire to uncover the roots of heresy and witchcraft; he specifically mentions in various literature assorted Hellfire Clubs, the Masonic movement, Knights Templar, and occultist groups (including Aleister Crowley), and concludes that while many of these groups were accused of being Satanists by others, none of them actually called themselves Satanists (Crowley strongly denounced the term himself). Therefore, as an actual religion, Satanism was founded by LaVey.

Although Crowley distained the use of the term Satanism, He Proclaimed, "Hadit" the winged globe as Satan. It is in his foot notes to Liber SAMEKH Thurgia Goetia Summa (Congessus Cum Daemone)sub figure DCCC "Magick in theory and practice" Dover Press 1976 Also note that Anton LaVey and Michael Aquino did not do their home work on this issue for they both proclaim Set "the noon day sun" as the egyptian Satan. According to myself and the Rose Croix Bes is the egyptian Satan, for Bes like Pan was a god of music, sex, drugs, war and child birth. This is not the first time I surpassed my contemporariesRev. Michael S. Margolin 20:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with including a subsection on historic use of the term, and have already started such a subsection and used the very source provided by Jungle to reference this. That source seems to verify my own conclusion, that Satanism was a term used by the Catholic Church to accuse people of witchcraft and fuel the Inquisition, and that source seems to back the idea that no such real cult ever existed (it calls it an imaginary religion). So your own source is entirely in line with what I am saying.

Further, Satanism is an active, modern religion with many thousands of adherents worldwide (probably in the tens of thousands), and extant organizations promoting it. Therefore, I also suggest that in concordance with Wikipedia neutrality, respect for this modern religion is given in allowing it priority in definition as opposed to an obsolete use of the term as an insult (similar reasons exist for why Pagan is now a religious designation and not a derogatory term).

I have no problem with expanding the article within reason to discuss history, but all claims should be substantiated by reliable sources, and should be placed within context of the article itself, not allowed to push the real content aside by taking over the lead to the article with statements not reflective of the rest of the content. Do you have additional sources or information you wish to see considered? -Lvthn13 01:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Might it be more appropriate to, given this meaning is quite seperate from the religion Satanism, to make an article like Satanism in Christian Culture or Satanism (imaginary cult) or Satanism (Delusional Christian Hysteria) or something? It sems like it'd merit its own article and could be expanded on, while being significantly different enough to merit its own page. Titanium Dragon 02:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That's actually an excellent idea. -Lvthn13 03:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree! Absinthe (Talk) 06:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Perfect! I personally think Satanism in Christian Culture would stay in bounds of the NPOV. Then Religious or Organized Satanism to reflect Dr.LaVey's system and will be accepted as the original Satanism (as far as philisophical/religious systems and organizations are concerned) then Post-LaVeyan or Theistic (Tradition and Religious are misleading terms) Satanism to describe those organizations and philosphies that formed after the CoS. But what of Satanism as a general term and will Satanism as a general term being given it's own article? My suggestion... "Satanism" should be used as the general term for any emphasis on Satan (whether as religion, art, philosophy, or christian concept), then "Satanism in Christian Culture" to reflect the various usages and history of the term in christianity, "Organized/Relgious Satanism" for solely LaVey's system, then "Theistic Satanism" for the post-LaVeyan systems. I'm just throwing out some lettuce and tomatos to see if someone wants to make salad. thank you.AlexanderLevian 22:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

All satanism is ridiculous. Jesus is better. It is all a lie.

66.228.245.11, Try signing your comments when you have the nerve to say them. Thank you. AlexanderLevian 00:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have recently done something similar to what have have talked about. I kept the Satanism page to refer ONLY to LaVey's system and created a satanism (Disambiguation Page). Hopefully this will prevent any futher vandalism and irrelevant links on this article. Thank you and I await your replies. AlexanderLevian 04:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work. It's certainly a nice start, and now that this issue is hopefully settled, we can begin improvement on this article, which direly needs it. -Lvthn13 04:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Pure Bollocks

I don't really know how to add to this discussion properly...I am not a very savvy person when it comes to these types of things (posting in this discussion I mean).

However, this is the most biased take on Satanism I have ever read. It's the equivalent of an article on belief in God that only focuses on Judaism.

I wonder...how much did Peter H. Gilmore pay you to revise it in such a bullshit biased way? Did he give you one of those little red cards at a discount? Whatever the cost of your ethics as an "unbiased" whateveryouare, you should be ashamed for changeing the article in the way that you did. It in no way represents more than the Church of $atan's singular take on Satanism. There is much more to this belief system than you have written. If I am not mistaken, there is already a Wikipedia entry for the Church of Profit...I mean Church of $atan. Please do something a little less biased with this entry.

When I read it I threw up a bit in my mouth and wished that you'd been here to spit it on.

Type in "Theistic Satanism" instead of crying. You professed that you aren't a savy person and you might want to reexamine facts, like the one that Satanism was started by Anton LaVey. Period. There is no authentic, documented use of the term to describe an actual religion. Originally it was simple propaganda. So this article adresses the first codified, documentable, defined use of Satanism and its beliefs. There are other uses as well, which are covered in Wikipedia (Though the disambiguation page has vanished). Also your assumption that the Church of Satan is purely for profit is flawed. One, the Church doesn't demand that you be a part of it to be a Satanist. It would certainly be more profitable to do so. Two, originally the cost of membership was 13 dollars. It went up for varoius economic reasons (one being they actually pay taxes). And when you look at other organizations, you'll find annual fees, sometimes as much as eighty dollars, though I've seen them up to 120. Something else that would be more profitable. Go figure that the COS only charges one fee to be a member. And to everybody else, why is the disambiguation page gone? WerewolfSatanist 22:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

-Profit vs. non-profit is hardly the issue here. I also find this entry to be biased in the extreme. And I think that the person posting that you referred to was commenting on not being savvy in how the system works for posting something on this page; they didn't seem to be speaking in generalities about themeself as a person. Though they did do a good job of wrecking one of the other posts above; in a way that I found quite humorous, though blatantly irresponsible and immature.

If the church does not demand that you pay them to be considered a Satanist, then why aren't ALL Satanic beliefs listed here? If, by their (and your) own admission one can be a Satanist without being a member of the CoS, then why does the Wikipedia entry on Satanism centre around this one church? It smells of bias to me, though you will of course disagree. The starter of this particular area of discussion (Pure Bollocks) makes a good point. It IS similar to speaking of the belief in God and only mentioning, say, the Baptists.

WerewolfSatanist 04:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC) says "As I recall, a Church and the religion it follows aren't mutually inclusive. The CoS is an organization while Satanism is a religion. Hence this is about the religion. If I recall, doesn't the CoS article deal more about its history anyway (which also if I recall, was suggested for revision by someone or other). It deals with the organization, giving an overview of the beliefs. BUt this is about the exact beliefs.

What beliefs? The Beliefs that incorporate the first use of the word Satanism. Just Satanism. Of course there are other religions which fall under this moniker, but don't they constitute "Theistic" Satanism? LaVey got there first, took the name. He used it defined it and made it into a real thing and not a myth. His religion is "Satanism." Whether the CoS today still is true to it is up for you to decide. But the first authentic form of Satanism was that by Anton LaVey which this article is about.

Yes others claim the title "Satanism" and they have an article don't they? Why aren't all people who apply the name "Satanism" to their beliefs "Satanic" by the Anton LaVey definition? Because this form of Satanism has a definition. Things have definition. They can be used and applied differently, but the defintion doesn't change. It is still what it is. Analogically, a sword is a sword, either way. They have certain characteristics that make them swords as opposed to other weapons (such as guns). Satanism is what it is. We all have personal definitions, but how is this biased really? Satanism was started by Anton LaVey. He got the ball rolling. He defined it. First and foremost and he is deserving of that respect if nothign else. I applaud Wikipedia for granting the man due respect.

I guess if you wanted a compromise, we could have searches for Satanism direct to the disambiguation page. Then EVERYBODY could see that there is more than just Anton LaVey. "

Inability to edit errors

There are 2 added items to the 11 rules of earth that do not show up on the edit page and which i can't seem to change. Has the page been hacked?

SO...What happened?

Now the original article on Satanism is vanished and it just links to the Theistic Satanism page. Call me crazy, maybe I am. Where'd it go? Have you naughty people been playing around and not telling anyone?

The internet religionist's vandalism has been reverted. The article is now proper, with a seperate page for Theistic Satanism. Darkahn 15:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Enemies of Good

At the end of the first paragraph, there is the following sentence: "Other devil worshippers though reject this idea, and see themselves as enemies of "Good" and servants of "Evil" in the name of Satan, who they see as the God of all that is Evil."

These are the devil worshippers whom I am interested in learning about. But there is no citation and doesn't seem to be any more information about them. (I have often wondered if it is possible to find people who worship an entity they themselves consider evil. Or at least to find an organized group of such people. I sometimes imagine that to follow a value system that values evil over good would make one want to do everything the opposite from mainstream society. Since eating food gives one strength and health and pleasure, the opposite would be to starve. Groups enhance feelings of closeness and brotherhood and love, so the opposite would perhaps shun groups - I think my imagination is off-mark - striving to do everything the opposite is hard to fathom - Even in the Bizarro world of Superman things couldn't be completley opposite.)

So, can anyone provide a citation for the sentence in question? Thanks.

Didn't read all of your post, but a Satanist does not worship Satan. Check out Devil Worship NJlo 21:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

List of groups vanished

Ok, someone has drastically snipped this article, if it was just moving the info that was here to 'theistic satanism' then fine but they haven't put it there either. Be a shame to not have the summaries of the various groups somewhere.Merkinsmum 13:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Satan

Who is really into this? I've met people who say they are Satanists, but I knew they weren't really into it. So, who would truly want to worship this with the world against him? I know, as a christian, that the world is against Jesus, but most who don't believe say that he was just a wonderful teacher. I've never heard anyone say Satan is a wonderful teacher. --Yancyfry jr 03:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Then you haven't talked to any Satanist-WerewolfSatanist

Hello christian, your post is paramount to religous harassment, 7 years is a long time to pay for being a moron. Now how do you like talking to a Satanist? One more thing, in your bible, religion, reality, Satan gave man the knowledge of good and evil. Now I ask you, could you ever dream of a better teacher or course study?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 00:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

How is discussion tantamount to harrassment? Also, you need to reread Genesis. God gave Adam and Eve the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God is omniscient, therefore God knew Adam and Eve would eat from the tree. Satan was merely God's pawn in convincing them to do so, thereby allowing humankind to exert free will. All part of the plan. Applejuicefool 02:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Easy this page is about disscussing the Satanism artical not Christianity. Therefore to post Christian concepts or ideas here is out of context to the discusion and apears to be Christians trying to force their beliefs where they don't belong, thus HARASSMENT! Secondly your statement on Genisis is an arguement of symantics and again trying to force your beliefs on others in a forum where discussing your religion is out of context. The real point is getting you Bad Christians to accept freedom of religion as most Satanic groups support, to not only make you Better Americans, and Christians but to also stop you folks from harassing others that don't follow your beliefs.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not forcing my belief on you, in fact, Christians aren't supposed to force beliefs, just try to help you see the light, whether or not you believe. This is not "HARASSMENT", just a question. -69.67.230.139 04:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Applejuicefool, very good. Your facts are straight, God did know all of this was to happen. He wanted us to have the choice to love Him. He created Angels as followers, but they are like robots, preprogrammed to love him. --66.218.14.32 03:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Again what does this have to do with the Satanism article? No Bad Christians, this is HARASSMENT! Also you write, God wanted us to have a choice. If that is true, how come you work so hard to take that choice away? If you are truely a servents of God you would not undertake such actions.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 15:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Reread your first post in this section, "Reverend." You're the one who couched your claim "...in your bible, religion, reality...." I was simply stating that your understanding of my Bible, religion and reality, are incorrect. You posted your incorrect statement, and I corrected it. In my religion (contrary to your statement), Satan never gave mankind anything of value. And stop accusing me of harrassment. I didn't post anything on this page until you posted a direct lie about my religion. Guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree... Applejuicefool 18:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point entirely, your religion has no business here. You posting here in Satanism discussing Christianity is pushing your beliefs where they don't belong.If you want I can start doing what your doing here in the Christianity article discussion page. But that would make me just as bad as you. Also in Albert Pike's "Morals and Dogma", Pike proclaims Satan made Adam not God. Therefore me understanding your religion is irrelevant because my religion is not your religion and your religion does not have a monopoly on Satan nor does the Church of Satan. You just refuse to accept responsibility for your crime, how typical of people of your faith. YES YOU ARE GUILTY OF RELIGIOUS HARASSMENT! And you keep proving your guilt by repeating your crime.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, my religion has no business here. True, your understanding of my religion is irrelevant. But your commentary on my religion is not irrelevant. You personally made an incorrect statement regarding my religion. You weren't talking about Satanism when you said "One more thing, in your bible, religion, reality, Satan gave man the knowledge of good and evil," because the pronoun "your" refers to Yancy, and Yancy has presented himself as a Christian, not a Satanist. If you don't want my religion here, then don't comment on it, and especially, don't lie about it. From my point of view, Yancy asked some questions about your religion. He used a comparison between Christianity and Satanism to ask for more information - to gain understanding. You accused him of religious harrassment, and used a lie about the Judeo-Christian creation story to make a point. I came along and corrected that lie, and now you're accusing me of harrassment. I would say it's more harrassing to lie about someone else's religion, regardless of the page you do it on. Applejuicefool 20:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

LIE? How do you know it is not taught that way in my religion? You Dont! To us your religion is a lie but you don't see me pushing Satanism in the discussion page for the Christianity article do you? Your faith also claims that Satan created all the other religions of the world to keep people from the one and true religion Christianity. How do you think Hindus feel about that? Well I'll tell you. When they sued CHIC publications back in the early 80's for a Christian comic that said exactly that, it shows you how they felt. Lies and Truths are realitive and as subjective as reality itself. The only relevent fact here is Yancy, and you are trying to force your lies on us. That and you are guilty of religious HARASSMENT! Also it's not a matter of wanting your religion here or not. Its a matter of Yanci should not have posted a Christian based question here for it is out of context with the discussion page for the Satanism Article.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 22:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You made a claim about Christian beliefs (you said the Christian Bible has Satan giving Adam and Eve the knowledge of good and evil - not true), and you lied. Regarding the CHIC thing, I never claimed that Christians are perfect. I admit it freely - Christians have made some big screw ups over the years. I never tried to force lies on anybody - I just tried to correct your facts when YOU SPOKE ABOUT MY RELIGION. I will go away when you acknowledge that you made an incorrect statement about the tenets of Christianity. In exchange, I freely admit that your statement may have been correct by the tenets of Satanism (I don't know - Satanism is not my area of expertise). Also, Yancy didn't post a Christian based question here - he posted a question about how Satanism compares with his Christianity. Applejuicefool 03:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Now I know why you use Fool as the last part of you nick nameRev. Michael S. Margolin 04:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it. So I take it you're admitting your error? I'll retract the word "lie" and we can call it an error if it will make you feel better. Applejuicefool 04:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the error is on you and Yancy but Yancy saw the error of his ways and posted his Embarrassment about it. You on the other hand just dig deeper and deeper.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 05:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You made a statement about Christian belief. It was wrong. I corrected it. Please explain my error. Applejuicefool 15:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Posting here, your beliefs are out of context with the forum, weather it is to correct my interpitation of your religion or not.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I heartily agree that my beliefs are out of context with the forum. No argument there. But you were the first one to post a statement about Christian belief (at least, in the "Satan" subheading). You brought Christian belief into this discussion, not Yancy, and not me. So go ahead and acknowledge your error about Christian tenets, so I can go away. It is harrassment on YOUR part to spread falsehoods about my religion, no matter what the forum. Applejuicefool 19:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Spreading falsehoods is not harassment and as far as true or false that is a matter of opinion now is it not? I mean, I noticed you did not jump on Albert Pike stateing Satan created Adam. Is it because you can't accuse a man that has been dead for over a hundred years of harassment? No applejuice, spreading falsehoods is not harassment, at best it is Propaganda, and Attemting to manipulate reality as the Church of Satan has done with the Satanism article. If I have harassed anyone it is the editors that created and maintain the new Satanism page, but at least my harassment was and is in context. Now for your accusation that I brought up Christianity you will see that is false with the following copy paste from Yanci jr's first post that started this whole affair. I know, as a christian, that the world is against Jesus, but most who don't believe say that he was just a wonderful teacher. I've never heard anyone say Satan is a wonderful teacher. --Yancyfry jr 03:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC) And basicaly if you reread this whole section you will see my main message over and over was, "Freedom of Religion will make us all better people no matter what our belief system is."Rev. Michael S. Margolin 20:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you brought up Christianity, I said you were the first to post a statement about Christian belief. All Yancy did was ask a question about Satanism, and compare the world's perception of Christianity to the world's perception of Satanism. Yancy did not make any kind of statement about the tenets of the Christian religion. You did. And they were incorrect. No, it is not a matter of opinion. You wrote "Satan gave man the knowledge of good and evil." In Genesis, God creates the Garden of Eden including he Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. True, he ordered them not to eat its fruit, but he knew they would (omniscience, dontcha know.). It's hard even to make a case for your statement, because Satan wasn't even around! It was a serpent that convinced Eve to take the fruit, not Satan. So the next time you make statements about Christian lore, make sure you have your *facts* straight. Oh, I didn't "jump on" Albert Pike because I have not read "Morals and Dogma" and I have only your secondhand quote to go by. From the evidence I've seen so far, for all I know you are misrepresenting his intent. But since you ask, Christian tenets hold that Adam was created by God, not by Satan. By the way, I partially agree with what you claim is your "main message." Freedom of religion is a great thing, but it doesn't extend to murder (yes, I know Christianity has violated this. Those Christians were wrong, just as assuredly as today's Muslim terrorists are wrong).

Applejuicefool 21:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If it makes you happy I'll refer to what I said as my take on the story. That's as close as I will venture to your request. As for, (yes, I know Christianity has violated this. Those Christians were wrong, just as assuredly as today's Muslim terrorists are wrong). That is one thing we both agree strongly on. If any of these religions, Islam, Christianity, Zionism ever succeeded in becoming the the only religion the sects in that religion would turn on each other, as they do in Iraq and Iran, As they do in Northern Ireland, As they do in Israel and New York city. The biggest part about freedom of religion is not just freedom but the responsibility that comes with that freedom. I have said this many times in my life and I'll probably say it many more. "One man's freedom should never become another man's slavery." That goes for personal interpretations of religious books no matter what religion they come from.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 01:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That's close enough, I guess. A satanist's take on Christian tenets is obviously quite different from what those tenets actually are. My main argument was that you originally phrased your comments about Genesis in terms of "This is what a Christian believes," so if you're saying now that you meant "This is what a satanist thinks a Christian believes," I accept that. I believe I've made it clear that Christians do not believe Satan gave mankind the knowledge of good and evil. So enough of that topic. I agree with your statements about freedom and responsibility. My freedoms end where yours begin, and all that. As promised, I'm going away now, as long as you agree this discussion has outlived its usefulness. Applejuicefool 14:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

One last thing I will add Applejuice, and like you my freedoms end where yours begins as well. No one in America should be a second class citizen for any reason, be it religion, race, wealth or lack there of, social status, and finally education. And yes I am running for President in 2008.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 17:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yancyfry jr, you need to look at the facts. Actually, the world isn't against Jesus, the world is against people who use his name to go against his teachings. People have given Jesus a bad name, and have stood against his teachings and principles. I'm jewish, but I still know that Jesus (whether or not he was the messiah) told people to be good, and then a few centuries later in the crusades, people went around brutally murdering people in his name. This is why many people are, as you say, "against Jesus". If people just were nice to other people, and accepted what people believe in and lived together in peace, then there would be none of this silly arguing. Seriously. When people go and use their religion to boss around other people and deny freedoms (such as LGBT rights and Women's rights in America), other people get angry at them. If they just accepted people for who they are, and didn't mistreat other people because of their beliefs(i.e. 'being gay is a sin and gays will burn in hell'), the world would be a better place. Let's stop this silly bickering over 'who's a better teacher' and just get along. If someone wants to believe in Satanism, the world should just let them. People shouldn't be denied respect or the right to believe in something without being harassed for it. Ilikefood 23:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This is probably the last place to say this, but for "women's rights", the only thing I know of about christianity denying (in some sects) is priestship and abortion, and for the priests it is because they are supposed to symbolically marrying the church, in emulation of Jesus. For LGBT rights: they are against the use of the word marriage, which they define as union to create life, in emulation of Genesis, to be applied to a union, which, however loving, very simply cannot create life.

As for Rev. Michael: You speccifically said "One more thing, in your bible, religion, reality,

Satan gave man the knowledge of good and evil." Noone in there do you imply that you are going on the teachings of your religion. In fact, you are SPECIFICALLY saying these are the teachings of the Bible. AJF calls this claim as a falsitude, which, very simply, it IS, and you begin ranting about Religious Harrasment. Now, forgive me, but the world I live in defines religious harassment as mistreating others based on their religious beliefs. Unless AJF sent you IM or something specifically insulting you while he posted that, harassment does not apply in anyway. Secondly, I cannot find any disrespect in Yancy's question: he was asking for an explanation of how people can worship something that, in his understanding of the word, clearly indicates what society abhores. He was comparing that to how he worships Jesus, even though society, while not maybe abhoring, clearly dislikes the solid moral guidelines that are not "adaptable" to their conveniences.

It would also be nice if you could expound (perhaps on a different page or a talk page) this line "to help spread the love of Jesus instead of the hate of Christian hypocracy."

What hipocracy are we talking about here (obviously, I'm excluding anything from the medieval ages to the 1700's). 128.211.254.142 03:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Easy, what you are doing here is hate not love, I can't speak for all of us just 4,000+ and we ain't feeling the love if you get my meaning. "It would also be nice if you could expound (perhaps on a different page or a talk page) this line "to help spread the love of Jesus instead of the hate of Christian hypocracy." I did.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 05:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

All of this, including my replies are out of context to what this page is for. It is that simpleRev. Michael S. Margolin 04:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the line that said: "Wanting to change the world with his ideas, Anton LaVey..."

to:

"Wanting to satisfy the needs of man wih his ideas, Anton LaVey..."

Satanism doesn't believe in preaching or in converting the rest of the world to Satanism, and I think the orignal line was inaccurate, although it meant well. It was trying to explain how LaVey recognised the need of religion in man and therefore applied that to his ideologies, instead of keeping it purely philosophical.

Embarrassing. I regret what I said. Obviously, I didn't know what I was talking about. I stick to my faith in Christianity, but I should learn to keep my mouth shut when talking about something I didn't even understand. --Yancyfry jr

HS,actually Yancyfry jr you should learn to respect other peoples right to belief. If you do that, not only will you be a better American, but you'd be a wonderful Christian and a living example to other Christians to help spread the love of Jesus instead of the hate of Christian hypocracy. That and you'd earn respect from those you wished to disrespect. ISN Rev. Michael S. Margolin 15:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Only Two Small Mistakes

I'm not a Satanist, but I've studied several of LeVay's works, including the Satanic Bible. As an Atheist, I don't need all the mystical jargon and all the pretend magic to satisfy me. But LeVay's outlook on life is something I admire and agree with 100%. The explanation of Satanisim from a modern "Satanic Church" perspective on Wickpedia is 100% accurate in my opinion. It's a good article, non-judgemental, that gives the ideas and perspectives of modern Satanists.

Two errors exist. Under references, there is a link to a religous tolerance webpage that has nothing to do with modern Satanism. It's a good read about midevil satanisim, but it's not a valid reference.

The most important error is that much of the material listed in the article is taken directly from LeVay's books, and is not properly cited. The material definately is under copyright. For example the "Nine Satanic Statements" come directly from the Satanic Bible, but no reference or citation is listed. I like the way the material is presented, but as it is shown, it violates the copyright, and the generally accepted rules for citations in academic articles. If the material is going to be used, it must be properly cited. [Dave Wilson, 14 Nov 06]

      I agree with this 222.155.212.126 09:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Tom

This article has been changed

Previously, this article considered Satanism to be a broad label for several different groups, of which LaVey's was one.

Now, it says that Satanism is what LaVey invented. What about non-LaVeyan forms of Satanism?

The older form of the article was much more accurate and balanced. --SJK 21:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

AGREED!Rev. Michael S. Margolin 17:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Satanism is what LaVey invented. The article has been reverted, as it was decided far earlier that this version of the article is more accurate, and as long as pseudo-satanic cults keep using their sock-puppets to anoynmously edit this article to refer -only- to them and vandalising other pseudo-satanic cults and Satanism's articles, it will continue to be reverted. The only 'mass' religion known as Satanism, and indeed the first actual religion of Satanism, was created by Anton LaVey.

If people are wanting to be Devil-Worshipping anti-Christians, then I am sure they can look further into it by clicking the link to other forms of Satanism at the top.

There is also ALREADY a seperate article for Theistic Satanism. Lastly, I have changed the "disambiguation" link at the top to mention Theistic Satanism, to avoid confusion. We don't need another edit war between unregistered users.

IF Wikipedia wants to have the article refer to Satanism AND pseudo-satanism, then do so, but pulling up a dead article and acting as if Joe Schmoe's cult of the year somehow qualifies as having 'Satanism' refer explicitly to them, rather than an international religion which is more than 40 years old, is quite simply retarded.

Also, let us not forget the "Set/tan"-ists. What in the Hell (pardon the pun) makes it so that this page somehow refers explicitly to a very -few- number of cults, most of which are merely pissed off at the Church of Satan, and not them? There is no argument for it.

Set/tanists have just has many "rights" to have this page direct to them as well as Theistic Satanists. If this page is going to be made universal, than I highly suggest including all religions that try to dub themselves Satanism, and for the page to explicitly state such. There are no 'forms' of Satanism.

There is Satanism, and then there people who cling to the title because they were kicked out of the Church of Satan, and those people sure as hell don't have the right to undo several months worth of edits and discussion, especially when there is already a page for their 'religion'.

If the Theistic Satanists, Set/Tan-ists, et cetera, want to come together to make this page refer, universally, to refer to all alleged 'Satanic' movements, as in Satanism by Anton LaVey, so-called Christian allegations of Satanism, along with religions that claim to be Satanic, while keeping the anti-CoS garbage off of Wikipedia', than by all means I am willing to compromise - but then, this article needs a name change too.

HS! Darkahn 15:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

HFS, Excuse me but your statement, "while keeping the anti-CoS garbage off of Wikipedia" is rather misleading. It is CoS that is anti everyone else. As the take over of the Satanism article is proof of. One more thing, has anyone noticed that wikkipedia is the only encyclopedia that defines Satanism as invented by LaVey? Gee I wonder why that is.ISNRev. Michael S. Margolin 20:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Firstly, there have been no edits to this page as far as I am aware of by any members of the Church of Satan. The only 'take-over' of this page, was by an unregistered user, who reverted it to an unfinished and misleading version while simultaneously leaving the right-hand bar, which refers explicitly to the dogma of the Church of Satan, in a confusing manner. For example: a quick glance at the Church of Satan's messageboard reveals absolutely nothing about Wikipedia, while several other organizations which have a different definition of satanism certainly do, your own included.

As well, before I reverted this article, there was -no- article for LaVeyan Satanism, as 'Modern Satanism' also linked to this page. However, there -was- a second article for Theistic Satanism. That has been fixed. If however, a middle-ground needs to be reached, we could always make it so that Satanism links explicitly to the disambiguation page, and then neither Theistic Satanism, nor Set/Tanism, et cetera, would take the actual title of being the main religion - as long as edit wars keep off of individual groups' articles. It would certainly be better than having an edit war over this article.

Lastly, your assumption that this encyclopedia is the only one which defines LaVey as forming the first actual Satanic religion is incorrect. The Yahoo! encyclopedia article on Satanism does the same, however, it also incorrectly refers to LaVey as actually worshipping Satan. Also, history.com's encyclopedia does the same, while still not making the distinction. Those are just two web-articles I found in 15 seconds of using Google. As for more professional encyclopedias, I will keep an eye out, though you are very unlikely to find any professional encyclopedia addressing the actual religion of Satanism, or its pseudo-offshoots, as all encyclopedias I have read pertaining to the matter have only addressed the Christian allegation of devil-worship. Darkahn 23:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

HS, I was referring to professional encyclopedias, and the ones you brought up get their feed from Wikkipedia don't they? I've seen the other on line encyclopedias even carry the same type O's in the same article as wikki so that shows the source is wikki. The Christian allegations of Devil worship are just as Valid as Satanism itself. With a long history of note able mentions, Pope Honorius, Eliphas Levi, Francis Barret, Francis Bacon, Blake, A. E. Waite, Albert Pike, The Beast 666 Aliester Crowley though he did not use the term Satanist Proclaimed that Hadit is Satan in his Liber SAMEKH. I see this as a war of symantics, between the CoS and every other Satanic group in existance, prior to and after the CoS was created. To down play the role of Hell Fire Clubs, FreeMasons and even Christian Satanists is a crime against history and equal to writing the holocaust never happened. To assume in good faith that CoS has nothing to do with this article is moronic, there is far too much evidence in this war to point that it is watching and acting on everything. CoS for years has been trying to monopolize Satanism, much the same way the Catholic church tried and tries to monopolize Christianity. I say bring back the broard version of Satanism, and knock off the CoS bias. From your last post I can see you are fairly non bias as well as honest. I hope to work well with you in the future. ISN Rev. Michael S. Margolin 17:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

HS. I have been unable to find any mentions of any actual organized religions called Satanism in any professional encycloepdias to this date. While the verifiability of Crowley being an actual 'satanist', along with Freemasonry and anti-Christian 'satanists' is, in my opinion, questionable, I do not believe it is a discussion point necessarily on this article.

While I disagree that the Church of Satan's membership or hiearchy have had anything to do with editting this article, as I believe under a monopoly they would have gone through great lengths to discredit the 'First Satanic Church' of Karla LaVey's and would not have included it on the right-hand menu bar, there is obviously very little recognition of professinal crticism of the CoS on Wikipedia. Just the same, the criticism that does pop-up time and again is usually unprofessional, and does not actually address criticizable points (aka: Anton's propagated life).

I am of the opinion that this page should -not- be an article that broadly links to Satanism and its later offshoots, as there are no current satanic cults that have verifiable roots pre-CoS (the Al-Jiwah, which most cults claim as their own, being notorious for basically being satanic "in-name-only"), and instead should link directly to the disambiguation page, with LeVey's 'Satanism' being atleast addressed as the first mass-organized and most known 'satanic' religion. Arguably, doing such would avoid any potential future CoS 'takeovers'. Darkahn 19:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

HS, LVTHN13 tried to keep Karla out of the article but lost in mediation. Also I posted a pargraph underneath the 6-6-06 CoS Black Mass about Stanton LaVey's wedding at the Henry Fonda theater in Hollywood on 6-6-06 with Hank Williams the 3rd, Dolomite, Wee Man from jack ass, Snoop Dog, Glen Danzig and many old school CoS priests that did not attend the CoS Black Mass. LVTHN13 removed it. If you look back through the talk and the edits you'll see CoS has a very big hand in this new version of the Satanism article. About the CoS priests that attended Stanton's wedding I understand that may come off as a bit waring but it is a fact and you shoulda seen their faces when they saw me there in full Masonic regalia. ISNRev. Michael S. Margolin 20:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

HS, also your statement "LeVey's 'Satanism' being atleast addressed as the first mass-organized and most known 'satanic' religion." Even I can't argue with that, but that should not negate the value of the other historic uses of the word Satanism, weather it was used as a term for persecution or in a minority of cases like Blake open defiance of the church. ISNRev. Michael S. Margolin 20:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

lucifer/satan

I don't wanna change that phrase without consulting others first. I know there are many who believe in the fact that lucifer is satan and vice versa. (i.e. mormons) But I think lucifer should be excluded since the confusion of the world lucifer as satan is an error made by a translator of the bible from hebrew to latin. There is no passage in the Scripture whatsoever that directly states that Lucifer is Satan and Satan is Lucifer.

"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 1875. Even Old Albert Pike agrees with you.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 17:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a Solution to the Current Issues?

Alrighty everyone. As we can all tell, there are a lot of people unhappy with the current state of this article. Rather than constantly yell and scream at each other, perhaps we can sit down and try to work out a compromise?

I should probably announce my own position: I did prefer the older version of this article, where "Satanism" was a page for all sorts of Satanic groups, with the CoS having its own page (and the most prominent position on this article). No one can deny that the CoS is the largest and most well-known Satanic organization.

I should also probably state that I am not a practicing Satanist in any form, I have never been affiliated with a Satanic group, but I am very interested in Satanism and other such religions.

Despite that the CoS was the first above-ground Satanic organization and certainly has laid much of the framework for modern-day Satanism, it is certainly not the only Satanic group in anyone's mind. They may be the "true" practicioners of LaVey's brand of Satanism (which certainly was very influential and deserves note), but there are other philosophies and organizations out there that practice Satanism.

It's somewhat like how the Christianity article does not only discuss the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has held more influence than every other Christian group combined, and has been the basis of essentially every other form of Christianity today (even Protestants are defined as opposed to Catholic practices).

The Satanism article needs to discuss SATANISM and not the Church of Satan.

Now then. The page that I envision is somewhat like this:

• The Satanism article becomes a cover page for the term "Satanism" and provides an overview of the history of Satanism (even pre-CoS) and different approaches towards Satanism (primarily Philosophical and Theistic). The Church of Satan and the Temple of Set (being the largest Satanic organizations and virtually the only ones with 3rd party information available) both receive sections of the article outlining their practices.
• The Satanism article includes a section towards the bottom where other Satanic groups may have a small description of their organization. This section will be aggressively moderated. These smaller organizations do not receive their own articles (unless they can prove notability, which is admittedly unlikely). These descriptions will likely be limited to a single short paragraph and a link.
• The Church of Satan receives its own article. This is the article where the Church of Satan and the precepts of the Satanic Bible may be described (though they certainly will be mentioned in the Satanism article). This article may also make reference to being the first above-ground Satanic organization and may reference the impact of the CoS on Satanism in general.
• The Temple of Set will receive its own article. This article will be devoted to explaining the Temple of Set, their beliefs, etc. This article may also relate its contributions to Satanism in general.
• If there is enough to say about a particular philosophy of Satanism (for instance, LaVeyan Satanism but not in the context of the CoS, or, for instance, Theistic Satanism), it may receive its own article in addition to its section on the Satanism article.

The exact content of these various sections will be written by those who know it better than I, but does this sound like a feasible plan? Even if it does not, I hope we can all discuss this calmly and orderly.

-- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 02:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

---

HS, you know you have my faith and support, you’ve earned it big time. Like I said even I can't argue about CoS being the most known. But I noticed you said above ground, thank you, that point has been rail roaded every time I brought it up to clarify a misunderstanding or more like an over site. Satanic Groups or even Groups people would call satanic even if the members did not call themselves satanists existed long before CoS and as we all Know the Catholic church called the Templars Satanists and did all kinds of nice things to them. Anyway I'll be on my best behavior and ask my people to do likewise. Like I said a few paragraphs up yes CoS was the First Organized public religious group, but that should not negate the historic use of the word including the Christian churches use of it as an allegation to kill people. A modern example of this is Chavez calling Bush the devil and various news articles on how Bush is a Satanist. Funny thing is, Bush is Skull and Bones therefore would fall under Theistic Satanism. This use of the word Satanism is far more well known than the CoS and used way more than the CoS's definition. It is also the definition in all of the profesional encyclopedias. From Britanica the top part of their article. "Satanism also called Devil Worship worship of Satan, or the devil, the personality or principle regarded by the Judeo-Christian tradition as embodying absolute evil in complete antithesis to God. This worship may be regarded as a gesture of extreme protest against Judeo-Christian spiritual hegemony. Satanic cults have been documented in Europe and America as far back as the 17th century ISNRev. Michael S. Margolin 03:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• You do raise a good point, that being about underground groups. Wikipedia has a Verifiability policy (WP:V). We cannot include material if we cannot cite a reliable source that backs up the claim. For that reason, if it arises that we want to include information on any underground or secret Satanic organizations (for instance, Skull and Bones, if they are Satanic (I do not know either way)), we MUST have a source that backs this up. And yes, I am hoping that "Satanism" will be used for devil worship and CoS-style Satanism, with the particular pages going into more detail of each one. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 04:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As you already know S&B is a college Fraternity. It supports freedom of religion for it's members, so it is not a Satanist group. (Well I don't claim them anyway nor does the Illuminati) My point is that others call them Satanists and that use of the word Satanist or Satanism is used more in that context than any other. Which is most likely why the profesional encyclopedias define Satanism in that context. On a further note I do understand why the majority of us cringe at that definition. Because we want to distance ourselves from frustrated Catholics like Richard Ramerez that claim themselves to be Satanists, but in reality are just fucked up Catholic kids.67.170.214.183 04:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

HS Cabhan, how is this for a chess move? as far as your wikkipedia needs a reliable source to verify underground movements you have documents on me. Therefore am I not like a technical advisor like Anton was in the crapy movie "Devils Rain"? ISNRev. Michael S. Margolin 19:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the allusion to the Catholic Church. Every form of Christianity holds the same roots somewhere, but there are no 'forms' of Satanism. For instance, aside from a very few number of Theistic 'satanist' groups, they do not follow any of Anton LaVey's writings, but instead follow Crowley's or a cut-and-paste editted Al Jiwah.

The same goes for a vast majority of 'LaVeyan' Satanists, who do not consider Crowley 'satanic' by any means, nor do they use any claimed 'ancient' books. Theistic 'satanism' and 'LaVeyan' Satanism are two, entirely seperate religions, with greater differences than Islam and Christianity. Infact, a vast majority of Theistic 'satanist' groups don't even use the same material. However, of course, the allusion -can- be made to the Catholic Church if you refer to the war between the First Satanic Church (which is, arguably, far less 'publically' organized than the CoS), and the Church of Satan itself.

That is why I disagree with having them all on one page, and not simply having a disambiguation page link to seperate pages, without any false claims of Theistic 'satanism' being 'Traditional' satanism (for no modern-day Theistic 'satanist' has verifiable roots that pre-date the CoS to my knowledge), and without the false claim that 'LaVeyan' Satanism is the -only- 'satanic' religion.but without any bias one way or the other.

I, myself, am a Satanist in the 'LaVeyan' sense, though I am not affiliated with either the First Satanic Church or the Church of Satan. Darkahn 14:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I so feel sorry for whoever is gonna try and accomplish this balancing act but whoever they are they have my full supportRev. Michael S. Margolin 19:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Satanism is a religion where satan fears God because God will destroy him in the end" if this isn't vandalism then I'm wasting my time.67.170.214.183 05:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

where'd it go???? In the trash where it belongs.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 23:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a common vein in the philosophies which make them all "Satanism" and all that fall under that should be discussed. Hence I don't think that people like Richard Ramirez shouldn't be dicussed. He was pyschotic, not a Satanist. And I already posted further down about Setianism. Of course then there's teh question of whose going to write the article...WerewolfSatanist 03:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

HS Wolf, point being Rich calls himself a Satanist to this day, weather we agree with him or not, that is what he calls himself. The other point is, people calling people or groups Satanists is a far more common use of the word than the Church of satans definition. As far as who is going to write the article, hopefuly cabhan will and I hope we all support his efforts no matter what our personal stance is on this project.ISNRev. Michael S. Margolin 15:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, people can call themselves whatever they want and still NOT be that. I could call myself the American Offspring of Bruce Lee and master of Jeet Kun Do, but that still wouldn't change the fact that the only knowledge I have about martial arts come from watching Power Rangers when I was six. There should be SOME limit, which Rich falls outside of...though I guess he does deserve a mention under a list of morons who think they're Satanists when they're really just Reverse Christians. Just a thought of course. Lets not forget that pillar of Nitzchean wisdom about Faith Not Proving Anything.WerewolfSatanist 02:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

We both agree Rich is a frustrated Catholic, but avoiding the point gets us nowhere. The word Satanism or Satanist's most common and known use is as an accusation, PERIOD. For a recent example of this look to the tabloids that accuse Bush of being a Satanist because of his membership in S&B. But we both know S&B is a college fraternity not a Satanic cult. Yes people also accuse S&B of being a satanic org. My point is that CoS's definition does not meet wikkipedias criteria.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 15:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahh but can an insult really be used as a "definition?" I mean, as I said before with Rich, it desereves a sideline mention, but its hardly an unbiased account of what Satanism IS. WerewolfSatanist 03:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Again that is not the issue. The issue is notoriety. CoS's definition is at best only known to people into the occult and many of them including Pagan's do not accept CoS's definition. For an example See (Paganpedia's definition of Satanism). As far as the general publics knowledge, Satanism is defined as the worship of Satan. Though CoS is a notable group, their definition of Satanism is not notable. Therefore does not meet Wikkipedia's notability criteria, you know, like what you guys tried to pull on my religion, that goes for CoS's definition of Satanism. (ALSO NOTE THAT SINCE LAST MARCH 2006, CoS HAS BEEN TRYING TO PRESSURE PAGANPEDIA INTO ACCEPTING THEIR DEFINITION!!!!!!) So far to no success.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 22:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Anybody else think we should just use the Religious Tolerance website's defintion and source organizations for specific theology and philosophy? And maybe use their method of defining religions by the beliefs of the followers and sidelining defintions of people looking in? WerewolfSatanist 01:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Your sarcasim is very clear, but it still can't cloud the issue.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 04:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

HS, one more thing, FUCKING LEMMINGS! ISNRev. Michael S. Margolin 04:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I was actually being serious. It seemed like a good idea as Religioustolerance.org seems to have it pretty much together. WerewolfSatanist 00:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

HS Werewolf, Sorry, I took it as if you were being sarcastic. After reading the definition at Religioustolerance.org I have to say I'm with you on this one. That is an extremely fair definition for all parties involved. And again Sorry bout jumping to conclusionsRev. Michael S. Margolin 01:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Temple of Set Links and REferences

Why reference the Temple of Set? It has nothing to do with the Church of Satan at all. They even go as far to say so, distinguishing Satansim and Setianism as two different things. Whats the deal here? WerewolfSatanist 03:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Bloody Vandalism

I request protection of this article from new/unregistered users. Each time I have visited it -- over the course of two months -- SOMEONE has vandalized it. I've undone more vandalism on this article alone than all the other reverts on other articles I've ever done. It's getting very, very annoying. Darkahn 01:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of this article

This is or should be a general article, an overview, about Satanism - not a fan page for LaVey or his followers. That type of modern Satanism can have its own entry, its own page, under LaVey Satanism or whatever. Therefore I have reverted to a previous edit, and removed what has, it seems, gone against the Wikipedia NPOV. 65.57.106.27 21:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, you did a poor job of reverting it. This is not a 'fan page', it is simply the article. As this is the primary form of Satanism, it will keep the 'Satanism' title, 'LaVeyan Satanism' seems to me to be a made up name, I've never heard that name mentioned anywhere out of Wikipedia. And so the article shall remain as it is. The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 22:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Being that forms of Satanism do exist outside of LaVey's teachings, and forms of Satanism have been around LONG before LaVey, the term is widely used, and this article should not focus on just his teachings. 70.162.66.142 11:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why we have the disambiguation page; to list other forms of Satanism. The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 11:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As an outside observer, I would tend to agree that most people do not think specifically of LaVey when they hear the term Satanism. This article does thus need to be rewritten. However, some discussion should occur on this talk page before anyone completely rewrites the article. Hopefully through discussion and collaboration we can reach a version everyone agrees on. - SimonP 22:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Some of you may have noticed the banner which has just recently been placed above, by the first and I think ONLY WikiProject interested in this article, placed their by me, the first member of that project. Personally, as Satanism existed LONG before LaVey was born, and has existed in numerous other aspects as well since he started his group, it seems to me to be at best a mistake to allow the main page for what is effectively an entire group of religious groups to be preoccupied with only one particular group. Personally, I believe that the article could and should contain content regarding the LaVey church, but it is at best illogical and at worst blatant advertising if the page is reserved exclusively for the LaVey group. Badbilltucker 22:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Then how about we turn this into the disambiguation page? The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 22:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In my view the best would be an overview article with a history of the various forms of Satanism and links to sub-articles on all the major varieties. - SimonP 23:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed -- as long as it's done properly. I'll proceed to move all this info to LaVeyan Satanism. The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 00:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we could see the pages for Christianity and other religious creeds as basic templates whose format could be followed for use on this page as well. Certainly, LaVey's group is one of the most significant in history to fall within this category, and having it have its own subsection, probably under a main section "Modern Satanism", would probably be not only appropriate but almost required. Badbilltucker 16:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If you dislike that name, Satanism (LaVey) would also work. - SimonP 02:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, could it simply not just be moved to Church of Satan? It seems to me we have two articles explaining the same thing here.... The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 02:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Making it a disambiguation page would work...Or moving it LaVeyan Satanism. If somebody wants to work on it, making it an overview article with the history of Satanism and the different types would probably be the best bet. Rzrscm 12:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of noone else who has ever used the name Church of Satan, and if that is the organization's official name then that is probably the best place to put it. Badbilltucker 16:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The idea is good though the articles should be combined properly so the history of the Church is preserved too. I would suggest adding the "Philosophy" section of this article in the other article. Than holidays. History (possibly combined with the Black Mass article as it seems more of an historic thing). Then Practices, policies, etc. As far as the "Satanism" being redirected to the disambiguation, once again I think "Setianism" is best left off the list. It may be a "Left Hand Path" religion but not exactly Satanism (as said by the Setians themselves). WerewolfSatanist 04:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Bah, I'll work on the LaVeyan form anyway. We'll get through this eventually! The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 12:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Anybody else think we should just use the Religious Tolerance website's defintion and source organizations for specific theology and philosophy? And maybe use their method of defining religions by the beliefs of the followers and sidelining defintions of people looking in? WerewolfSatanist 01:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC) I like and suport this idea.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 04:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"Satanism existed LONG before LaVey was born" - care to put up your sources? Darkahn 10:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we could probably count at least Joris-Karl Huysmans' Lá-Bas as being sufficient sourcing for the existence of Satanism prior to the recent era, with the numerous (if frankly not particularly well sourced) references to Satanism in the annals of medieval Christianity serving as back-up. Badbilltucker 16:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's reword your statement a tiny bit Darkhan and see how it flies. "What people called Satanism, existed long before LaVey did."Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• As The Church of Satan has a relatively 'unique' meaning I would agree with others above that it would be most logical to discuss all aspects of such there... rather than having content split or duplicated between that article and Satanism. The Satanism page itself should cover the general nature and history of the concept, even when incorrectly or spuriously applied (e.g. Satanic ritual abuse), with brief sub-sections and links to other articles on specific examples (e.g. Church of Satan, First Satanic Church, Hellfire Club, et cetera). --The DA 15:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits made to the article according to this discussion. For a simple and solid reasoning simply look at the thousands of articles that link here. In any case this is not the correct method to disambiguate an article.

As for whether or not to disambiguate the article itself, I propose to retain it's older form. Satanism existed long before LaVey was born - yes, but only because Satanism can mean many other things before LaVey was born. The Church label every religious group it dislikes as "heretics" and "Satanists". However, for a truly Satanist group, LaVey's was the first one.

I believe it's better to let the most notable "Satanism" take the article. We can mention other uses of Satanism in "Background" and mention their differences. This would be much better than changing a very old article into a semi-disambiguation page. Aran|heru|nar 16:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As I stated, I'm forced to disagree with you Aranherunar. DA's idea was much more in line with the NPOV policy. This is simply trying to revert back to a rather biased view, citing new Theistic Satanism groups as background when they're actually rather new. "Age" does not merit credibility. It might also be notable that I was warned not to edit pages without seeking consensus, which you have not done. I don't see any consensus in the progression of the conversation, at this point, in support of your proposal. WerewolfSatanist 23:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly? I support Aran's reversion, though that is simply my arguably biased opinion. Most of these Theistic Satanism groups that pop up don't even meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy, so I'm failing to see the whole NPOV thing, when there are honestly people that believe George W. Bush is a reptillian alien, yet they aren't mentioned.

I'm willing to compromise with a disambiguation, though, but let's try to avoid giving devil-worshipper given names to the philosophy of Anton LaVey, as they are the only ones I have ever heard act like the religion based upon his philosophy was a "form" of Satanism. It's not. The people claiming to be "Modern" Satanists saying this would be slapped upside the head for this by the CoS, Stanton, and the FSC. There's no mystical connection, creed, nor even link between Modern Satanism, old and non-religious "Satanism for fun", or newage devil-worshipping cults that use literature whose authors whould shudder at it being called satanic. Satanism is not Christianity; the Church of Satan and Joeblow's evil dark knights is not the Catholic Church v the Russian Orthodoxy (although it could be argued the CoS VS the FSC is). Theistic "satanism" and "Modern" Satanism aren't anywhere close to being "forms" of the same religion. So, if we're going to do a disambiguation, atleast have it link properly to "Modern" Satanism without the BS claims; though Aran has a point about the thousands of websites linking directly to Satanism as explicitly a good source of info on "Modern" Satanism. Darkahn 09:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that while specific groups aren't exactly notable, Theistic Satanism as a movement is. Its not a simple nonexistant sect of crazies, like once believed. It is now at least a valid religion, if decentralized and scattered. Deserves mention. WerewolfSatanist 00:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no such thing as being NPOV when it's a matter of verifiability. Given how the article has been here for ages I would suggest not modifying it unless it is proven that some other forms of Satanism prevail over the one in the article - notwithstanding we'll still have to find a way to fix the thousand of links that link to this article. The users arguing for a disambiguation or a general article here have been interpreting NPOV wrongly - it doesn't mean we include everything in the article, but instead, we don't give anything more than its worth, if it worths anything at all. Given that by common sense most people would be thinking of LaVey Satanism when they come to Wikipedia, there is no problem with the article's original form. There are already several articles linked that talks about other forms of Satanism. If you find the need, you can create a new page, such as Satanism (word), etc., that talks about other types of Satanism.

I don't see how lack of consensus should stop me from reverting the article at the present state. There are thousands of articles linking here - every minute it took for someone to type his comment would mean some readers are directed to the wrong page they were supposed to read. Aran|heru|nar 07:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest...

We leave the page as it is, as it is a completly neutral standpoint. The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 20:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Gotta agree it's completely neutral, but we might just as well move the dab page directly to the Satanism page. Also, I personally think the subline "A Christian concept" is kind of vague under the circumstances. Maybe changing it to "A name historically used by the Christian Church for advocates of conflicting philosophies", or something similar, although more verbose, might be a bit clearer? Badbilltucker 20:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, yes, although I personally have never found any confusion under the 'Christian Concept' idea, but there's nothing wrong with your idea, so go ahead. As for moving the Disambig page straight onto the Satanism page, I'll just go ahead and do that now -- I considered briefly when it was first moved why exactly the Satanism page wasn't the disambig, but I'll deal with that now. The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 20:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

So far so good guys. I do have a problem with this sentence though, "LaVeyan Satanism, the religious movement founded by Anton LaVey. (the most prominent current usage" CoS is the most known group, but it's definition of Satanism is not the most prominent current usage of the word. This little problem was and still is the main part of this whole war. Though CoS is the most known group, their definition of the word Satanism is not. To allow this sentence to stand as is, is to continue to let CoS attempt to monopolies the definition of the word Satanism by exploiting wikipedias editing policies.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 22:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, sir, and the page has been changed to reflect the input. I personally think the "witchcraft" section might be moved up to second position, with some sort of tag to the effect of "the most prevalent historical usage", but the phrasing of both sections is currently beyond me. Badbilltucker 22:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If you move up witch craft, lump it with the Catholic and Protestant crimes and modern Satanist child sacrifice stuff and basically say that the most common use and meaning of the word Satanism is 1 as an accusation against those, Authority (religious or other wise) wishes to persecute. 2 Reverse Christianity or Catholicism, being Christians no matter what denomination losing faith in Christ and turning to the Churches own definition and propaganda as to what Satanists are and do and act that out in hopes for a better life than what Christ gave them.3 Anton LaVey's Atheistic/Fascistic religion where might is right and self indulgence supersedes the foundations of society.4 Margolinian Satanism that nullifies all of the above. Just a little humor to lighten things up and please this is only a suggestion I am not a technical writer as you all have seen time and again. Also though my brand of Satanism does exactly what I stated I only added it as a joke to keep things lightRev. Michael S. Margolin 23:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC) I forgot to add "Scape Goat" "the devil made me do it" which the Catholic church was actually lame enough to use at the hight of the Priest molesting children scandals. This should be lumped with the anti witchcraft, Templar, Jew, Negro, Homosexual, Indiginious tribes, you name it definition of SatanismRev. Michael S. Margolin 00:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Satanism should be included in the article "Religion" as a valid and long term companion of almost all the worlds religions.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 04:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Satanism; All of the above. But basicaly the spirit of revelution, the desire to be free and all that it implies, to think for oneself, no matter how bad our spelling and grammer is.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 04:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to ensure there are no more accusations of favoritism and such, I will alphabetize the list and remove any other content deemed POV. The Haunted Angel ^{(The Forest Whispers My Name)} 22:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Favoritism is reasonable in dab pages, particularly when one or two usages are the most frequently referred to and known. While I applaud The Haunted Angel for his clear demonstration of neutrality, I do think that the LaVey usage and the medieval usage should occupy the first two spots, in some order. However, if he can think of a better term to describe the medieval accusation used for witchcraft, I would be extremely grateful. Badbilltucker 23:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Good Job Guys keep up the great workRev. Michael S. Margolin 16:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps simply "A Christian Perjorative" should be used. The other is lengthy. And if you ask me the Alphabetizing works great. This is an encyclopedia after all. Neutrality, NPOV, everything this page has been arguing about for months. Lets just keep it neutral and work on revamping the individual articles. WerewolfSatanist 19:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I put this on the talk page on the christian take on things. I thought I'd copy it here because it might be useful. I have a library of rare occult books and am more than happy to help with sources or systems etc. etc. So please feel free to ask. Christian mysticism and witchcraft For details on this subject see Francis Barrett's "The Magus" 1801 copyright 1967 by University Books, Inc. ISBN 0-8065-0462-5 Published by Citadel Press. See also "The great Grimoire of Pope Honorius" 1492 as well ISBN 1-879000-09-1. Trident Books copyright 1999 The main part of this system is much like the Goetia. Basicly invoking God to have the power to control Demons. It is a Christian take on king Solomons Magic which is basicaly the same system. Also the Moromons use Talismans from the Greater Key of Solomon. Why I have no idea besides possibly a Masonic influence.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably a Masonic influence. Smith was positioned in the "Man needing Help" body posture of the Masons when he died, and was heavily involved with them in New York. And, the books may well qualify as reliable sources, I'm thinking specifically about The Magus and maybe the Grimoire as well. I'm afraid I'm not as up to what qualifies as significant in this field. Lastly, I seem to remember in Oskar Hennecke's Neutestamentliche Apocryphen his having mentioned some early quasi-Christian sects which might qualify for inclusion here as well. If anyone can find a copy, it might be worth checking out. Badbilltucker 21:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a copy nor can I read German, I did find this, perhaps it will help. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0048-1009(199010)32%3A4%3C379%3ANA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z I totally overlooked Gnostics a cornucopia of Christian Mysticism duuuh I feel stupidRev. Michael S. Margolin 02:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Another great source of Christian Mysticism which is quite reknown is "A true and Faithful Relation of what passed for many years between Dr. John Dee and some Spirits" First published in London 1659 Facsimile 1992 Magickal Childe Publishing ISBN 0-939708-01-9Rev. Michael S. Margolin 04:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_views_on_witchcraft"Rev. Michael S. Margolin 02:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject: Left Hand Path

In order to create an organized effort, I've put on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page a proposed Left Hand Path project to try and sort out all the problems we go through and to help properyly cite and protect things. If you're interested just go to the Project Council/proposals page and add your name to the "Left Hand Path" section. Seeing as there's been a wide variety of edit wars, it might be good to get some organization (and possibly administration to mediate conflicts). Just an idea. WerewolfSatanist 16:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I will happily support this initiative. -Serdan 23:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

See Crowley's "Magick without tears" ISBN 0-941404-17-X LCCC# 82-83310 the chapters 6,7,8,9 on three schools of magick, Crowley dicusses the left hand path. But chapter 12 The left hand path-the "Black Brothers" he goes in depth on the subject.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 22:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality, Disambiguation, LaVeyan Satanism

The last person to screw with this page both Deleted the criticism section AND screwed up the disambiguation page.Consensus has so far said that it is best just to leave it as a disambiguation page and deal with the individual forms of Satanism in separate articles in order to keep things neutral. Thats why I attempted to revert things back to how they were, but as it is I'm not sure HOW and I'll have to rewrite my criticsm section for LaVeyan Satanism....As a note I AM a LaVeyan Satanist and am trying to improve the individual article on LaVeyan Satanism with the criticism section in an attempt for neutrality which the last user to revert (not you Zoe but the other guy) has utterly ruined. WerewolfSatanist 22:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase what I said (But leave my intial reaction): This is kind of a work in progress. No its not perfect yet, but why just revert things to the way they were? Why not instead create a general page for Satanism first before jumping back into a rather biased account of Satanism? WerewolfSatanist 22:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC) 9

I was wondering if there was some kind of agreement that allowed the last revert, and if not perhaps we need to have some kind of help from a wiki mediator.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 23:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a question. Since the majority of editors agreed to work on this project in the aim of how it was before the current revert is there any way to protect their work and efforts?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 00:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DR Dispute Resolution for you Rev. It might help. Until that is sorted out I'll add my Criticisms once again.WerewolfSatanist 00:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-01-03_SatanismRev. Michael S. Margolin 01:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Major edit

I agree with the criticisms that "Satanism" should be a much broader article than LaVeyan Satanism. So I replaced the original text with text from the Satan article. The original text, I moved to the "LaVeyan Satanism" page. Hope this is fair. Please note that LaVey and the Church of Satan are still mentioned prominently on this page.

---

=---------

Why is there a "church of satan" banner on the page ???

ENOUGH WITH THEM TRYING TO MONOPOLIZE SATANISM!!! REMOVE IT!!!! --veltis-

It doesn't belong on this page, true, but there are better arguments than propaganda of anti-Christians. Darkahn 08:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, this isn't the way to do it. Look at Whatlinkshere. This article is old. Aran|heru|nar 07:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Current opinion?

Sorry about being absent for a while, everybody. I've been too busy working on the article lists to actually notice what's been happening to the articles during that time. I feel extremely stupid about that, by the way. Anyway, with perhaps some reservations about the paragraph on Satanic crimes, which I acknowledge may well not belong here, the article looks pretty good to me, other than maybe lacking sources. I think that it's basically a decent job of covering the subject. Other opinions? Badbilltucker 20:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Satanic crimes should be there for it is an excellent example of how the Christian religion uses the word Satanism to manipulate the masses to persecute non Christians. And thank you for all your help.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 20:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I left the banner there because I thought it had more than one Satanic group on it. By all means, feel free to change whatever. The symbol looks cool--apologies if it is too LaVey specific, maybe somebody would prefer a different one?

The Levi Baphomet with other Satanic groups and people added to the banner would round it out. As is the banner only reflects CoS and the LaVey Legacy. Though on this one I'm not complaining, just trying to help. And BadBillTucker feel free to try and get an SoS article made if you still want to. More than happy to help with any info you need.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

On Satanic crimes, wasn't there a French Satanic child-molesting ring that got charged a year or so ago? As I recall, there were dozens of them. A big part of the scandal was how the high-ranking townspeople had hushed it up. (Some of them were in the cult.) Wish I could remember where this was... ====

They were not a Satanic group. Just poor French community exploiting their kids to gain alcohol, cigerettes and in some cases food.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Pardon the pun, but where in the hell is this article getting at hundreds of people being convicted for SRA? As I recall, the FBI released a report stating there was not a single proven case of SRA in the USA. While obviously certain cases were 'interpreted' by the media as SRA, they were certainly not in the number of hundreds. Care to put up some sources? Lastly, I prefered the disambiguation page. I also fail to see the logic behind the statements that LaVey was a spokesman for Satanism as a whole, as this article suggests, or that his works are somehow viewed by the devil-worshippers as controversial. Aside from a very few cults, most of them don't pay any attention to LaVey whatsoever. LaVey did not believe in forms of Satanism. Devil-worshippers to him were worse than the Christians. Darkahn 08:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a mental hospital I believe in New York ran by Christians that got busted for implanting false memories that was about 8-9 years ago. After that bust the whole SRA push died. I'm not gonna attempt to write history for I'm not a historian, I'm sure if anyone is interested in the facts they can easily be dug up on the web. One more note on this subject, Thelema Lodge in Berkley California was raided durring this witch hunt along with a few other O.T.O. camps around the bay area which resulted in false chrages, police brutality and a Law Suit in which the O.T.O. and private parties involved won not only a finacial settlement but all charges were droped. Again showing how the Christian religion uses the word Satanism to scare the lemmings into violating the rights of non Christians.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Whose idea was the "Ceremonial Bible Burning" link? I've never encountered anyone that does that. Sounds like an exposingsatanism.org kinda thing. WerewolfSatanist 02:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Phunting 01:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)== Revert war goes on ==

Is there anyway to put an end to the church of Satan zealots from reverting the Satanism article?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The article can be semiprotected, but that requires administrative intervention and generally someone coming close to violating the three-revert rule. Badbilltucker 22:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Any posibility of you getting that rock rolling Bill? And can any of us revert it back to the non bias version without looking like vandals?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 23:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Not the best person to do the reverting myself, based on my limited knowledge of the subject, and I don't want to mistakenly include any of the wrong info. One could revert the vandalism, and then file a request for semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, requesting either semi-protection or full protection. Beyond that, the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes rules come into play. For this to work, we have to engage in an attempt to resolve the dispute short of official involvement. This could involve seeking an advocate. I have contacted one and hope to be hearing from GuyIncognito shortly. Badbilltucker 23:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Bill I'm posting this url so you and everyone else involved can receive their compliment for working together to try and make a nonbiased Satanism article and two, the mediater might be a good person to tap. I hate to cuz I don't wanna bug him, I was awfully thankful for his help the last revert I just hate to ask him again.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-01-03_Satanism Rev. Michael S. Margolin 00:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I detested that so-called "unbiased" version of the article. It was pure bollocks. Hundreds of SRA convictions? Please. I am of the belief that a disambiguation page is still the best way to do it and keep it "neutral." And, with all due respect, there have been more vandalizations by both kids and Theistic "satanists", who put more effort staking the claim of them being "true satanists" rather than editting their own article, than their have been by CoS-affiliated individuals -- so far, I only know of one here.Darkahn 06:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem still remains that the church of Satan's definition of Satanism is not the predominate one, and the article as you like it, makes it look like it is. Thus a misrepresentation of the facts. Yes the Church of Satan I will admit is the most known, but their definition of Satanism is the least known, least used in any context, therefore should not dominate the article as it does in the way you want the article. As for any of the editors that agreed to make this a non biased article claiming "True Satanism", SHOW ME, that whole True Satanism is from CoS and why they and you want to dominate the definition of Satanism to furthermore make the lame ass claim as being the one the true, the just as the stuck in the mire of trying to dominate reality as all the other old world religions.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 07:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You know I never actually saw where it said "SRA convictions." Really guys. Whats the big deal? Why is it that people can't worry about improving the articles rather than arguing over semantics? So separate everything and have an unbiased page to give a general overview. If you don't like it than IMPROVE it, don't replace it. Everybody is actually working to improve these articles. If the "SRA convictions" bothers you cause it is not factual, then take it out. Cause you're right. Quote FBI reports. But don't replace and articles just becuase you don't like them. 64.5.145.74 14:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote this tonight. I'm not saying this is what should be posted. I'm merely offering it as a possible rough draft we can all be happy to work with and from. So save any desire to chew me a new asshole, I have enough new assholes. And please remember I'm not a technical writer I'm a fucking poet god damn it. The only technical writing I ever did was the SoS manifesto but even that to me was chess and poetry. OK enough disclaimer here is what I offer.

Satanism has a very broad and varied definition. Most commonly used in the context of devil worshiper. Wheather it's used in the context of self proclamation or as an accusation to justify persecution by various religions around the world that have an antithesis to their belief. Though predominant in dualism such as Christianity it can also be found in monotheism such as Judaism and Islam as well as indigenous religions around the world. As far as Satanism as an organized religion, and used in the context of self proclamation, the most popularly and widely known groups are the Church of Satan founded by Anton Zandor LaVey in San Fransisco California in 1967. They also have their own definition of Satanism which is basically Atheism and is based on their Satanic bible. The next two most popularly known groups in Satanism are the Ordo Templi Orientis (Aleister Crowley )and the Temple of Set (Michael and Lilith Aquino), but these two groups fall under Satanism in the context of an accusation, for neither group proclaims they are Satanists but other religions accuse them of being Satanists. The third most widely known group in Satanism proclaims they are Satanists, they are the Order of the nine angles, ONA. Like the Church of Satan they have their own definition of Satanism which is the antithesis of Christianity.

This space reserved for anyone that feels their group is more known or has more members than the Sinagogue of Satan which boasts well over 4,000 world wide.

Unlike the aforementioned groups is the Sinagogue of Satan. Again they have their own definition of Satanism which is nihilist in nature and based on its self canceling philosophy. SoS based their religion on freedom of religion as an act to undermine all religions including itself. Therefore not all of its members are Satanists and besides not accepting donations or charging for membership explains it's growth world wide and members in almost every religion including self proclaimed Satanists of various definitions.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 04:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Technically, it is not a disambiguation page unless it reads like this:

Satanism can refer to:

• Article 1, description 1
• Article 2, description 2

... etc.

Tunnels of Set 04:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

See, even Set points out the possibilities are endless! Thank you Set.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 05:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As someone new to the veritable war that seems to be raging here, I'll give my view. Personally I feel a proper disambiguation page would be the most sensible thing to do, ensuring that nobodies definition is regarded as the 'true' definition. Quite what are the objections to this? Regarding the above statement I think that to just state the CoS is "basically Atheism and is based on their Satanic bible" and to mention nothing about doctrinal beliefs of OTO and ToS but then to wax lyrical over SoS does seem rather biased towards the latter. Personally I've never heard of SoS (though I hardly claim authority on the subject), I'm skeptical therefore that it should have such high seeming priority. Oh and it should be ‘whether’ in the second line, not ‘weather’.

Regardless, I think the article as it stands at the moment is significantly worse than it was when I last looked.Phunting 01:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You missed worshiping, worshipping. Also you overlooked that space open for more prominate groups let alone the disclamer stating rough draft. Also as you can see, if you'd add to my rough draft using your critisms it would make a great article. Expand on CoS, Expand on O.T.O., T.o.S., O.N.A., and leave out Sinagogue of Satan, at the same time, to do so would be editing history to suit your personal bias.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 05:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. I left out ignorance to be polite.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 05:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"You missed worshiping, worshipping." Not sure what you're referring to here. I mispspelled worshipping besides using the wrong weather.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 15:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Also you overlooked that space open for more prominate groups let alone the disclamer stating rough draft." Not at all. I appreciate you did leave that element. I also understand that it was a draft, which is why I commented on what elements I felt needed re-drafting! I don't advocate leaving out SoS at all, I just stated as it stands the article seems inappropriatly weighed towards it. I also assure you I have no personal bias here, or desire to edit history as you put it. I am not a CoS member, or a member of any other such organization for that matter. I just have an interest in the subject and would like Wikipedia to have as good an article on it as it can.

"I left out ignorance to be polite."- Not sure what you mean by this either?... Phunting 13:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC) "Personally I've never heard of SoS (though I hardly claim authority on the subject)"Rev. Michael S. Margolin 15:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ignorance? Quite possibly. However I have never seen the organization referenced in a book, magazine, article, program, news story or website aside from wikipedia. If you could provide a reference from an independant source (ie not a website created by the organization or something editable like wikipedia) I would of course take it back. Phunting 17:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Brown, Seth (2004). Think You're the Only One? Oddball Groups Where Outsiders Fit In, pp. 99-100. Barnes and Noble Books. ISBN 0760757089Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Footage of Michael Margolin on Out & About with Roger Martin Episode #157 Angels Among Us / Pagan Day Festival.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.leagueofsatanists.com/revmikeinterview.htmlRev. Michael S. Margolin 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The Mad Poet, CD http://www.theophanyrecords.com/madpoet/Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Anton LaVey

The reason I edited the Anton LaVey paragraph was 1 the complaint here on the talk page of using the term spokesperson. He was a spokesperson for his own brand of Satanism but not all Satanism. But he was a Satanist and the most prominately and widely known one. I hope you guys like this small edit if not I understand again I was just trying to help.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 05:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems good to me, though I think we could just put it in the past tense with was. Don't see why we need is, and was. Tunnels of Set 06:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As we both know I'm a poet not a technical writer, and thank you for your feed back. I used "is and was" as an alusion to he passed. My way of respectfulling alluding to his departure from this plain of existance much like Robert Anton Wilson who was currently released from the pain of Polio and not to brag but another noteable I befreinded but that was over 20 years ago and before his reocurent affliction. I watched his "Maybe Logic" a couple months ago, (Great a must see for everyone)as usual it was great but I did not know about his new bout with polio and was to say the least messed up for a few days from seeing him that way. I'm just glad he isn't in pain anymore and for the record Rob is my favorite Buddhist.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 07:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Satanism project group proposal

Instead of the on going revert war can we form a project group to work out and create a Satanism article? Also if we can do this is there any way we can get protection for the artical while it's being worked on? I feel if we work together instead of argue over symantics and revert war we could make a good non biased article especially if the group is made up from several different Satanic groups including CoS.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that anyone who does not engage in the discussion can and should be reverted until they do. Tunnels of Set 20:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and thank you for your help.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Besides me, anyone else getting tired of this revert war?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 15:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

We could report this as vandalism seeing as most of the reverts back to the older article see no discussion. Also, I find the idea of "recruiting on their own message boards" amusing when the only people editing this article seem to come from no common message board. I only went onto the Rev's website to talk after I began editing this article. Long after.

On another note....THERE IS A TALK PAGE. State your complaints. Thats the POINT Of a talk page. To discuss and logically portray your point. There is also a LHP Work Group now, meant to help bring together people and suggest new ideas for articles. Talk and discuss there. Mediation has already suggested the generalized form of the article. Leave it at that. WerewolfSatanist 00:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

WerewolfSatanist, I'm glad that you are amused by the "recruiting on their own message boards" comment. What amuses me is that even though the posts on the message board in question make it quite clear that there is a uniformed effort to "takeover" this article that you would insist that this isn't the case.

Recruiting? no we are not like you, yes I have been giving the play by play on the Sinagogue of Satan message board ( it's more entertainment than anything else) but show me where I asked for help in this little war of ours on my message board. Telling people to do their wills is not comanding or even manipulating them is it? Told ya we are not like you. And like it or not some Sinagogue of Satan members such as myself call themselves Satanist and CoS don't get my little red card till they give me a Million dollars tax free.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 03:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If it is the majority consensus of people who edit this article that is the barometer for what happens here, then perhaps I should do the same thing and we can add 40 or 50 new editors to this project who disagree with your definition of "Satanism". Is that the direction this article needs to take in order to get a factual and stable entry here? Let me know.

Not to come off as being insulting here, but if the Church of Satan religion is a new religion, how come you want to resort to the same tactics as old world religions?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 03:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My main point of contention with this current entry is that there is no basis to include subculture Satanism as the main staple for the Satanism entry, other than to serve the purposes of those who are editing the article here. I am NOT pro-CoS in any way; however I would very much like to see the term properly represented. Absinthe (Talk) 01:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Then include subculture Satanism, to do that you do not have to revert the article to the aformetioned biased version. But you will have to get creative and do something besides critique.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 03:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

By reverting, you are essentially creating a duplicate article of LaVeyan Satanism. Please stop. Tunnels of Set 01:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What she said and Set if you're not a girl I'm mega sorry Bro!Rev. Michael S. Margolin 03:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

They LaVeyan Satanism article should be deleted then, as it is a redundant article for Satanism (I don't know who created it). Stop what? Stop letting a small handful of people hi-jack a Wikipedia entry? Not a chance. The current article is ambiguous, doesn't tell the reader what Satanism is whatsoever, other than to say what it isn't, and provides nothing of value to Wikipedia readers. At the very least the former article made clear what Satanism was and offered the reader information on the subject. Absinthe (Talk) 01:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No it should not be deleted. It should be there for people to go to from the Satanism article to learn more about him and the CoS. Is that too simple or what?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 03:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Then discuss what you think is missing and collaborate on adding it. Reverting to an old version of the article is not a way forward. It will not achieve what you want. Tunnels of Set 01:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds great in theory Tunnel, the only problem is that the old article was fine but it just had to be reverted incessantly because it was a "Biased Church of Satan definition" and rather than say what the PROBLEM with the old article was, specifically; those who had a problem with it merely created an ambiguous page that linked to Theistic Satanism thus allowing the editors here to link to their own website. So I would like to know what the issue with the correct (former) version of the Satanism article is.

When you say correct, don't you really mean, the one, the true? And you're not biased?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 03:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Even the mediation of 1-3-07 couldn't cite a specific issue with the article other than to say it was continuously being reverted (I wonder why) and they didn't like the definition. So I'm all ears, let's here what the problem with the old definition is, and why it's absolutely necessary to have a painfully ambiguous page for a main Wikipedia article. From there, I’m completely open to create an informative and neutral page to clearly communicate to the Wikipedia readers what Satanism is. Absinthe (Talk) 02:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Easy, the old version defines Satanism as the religion created by Anton LaVey. That is false. Satanism as it is most commonly known was created by the Catholic Church. They even wrote masive works as to what Satanists do and how they worship. Need I really cite the masses of Catholic and other denominations propaganda that were and are the birth words of the monsters they created and we so strongly fight to distance ourselves from, even to the point of attemping to manipulate an online encyclopedia.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael, first of all, it isn't necessary to reply to each and every post with a simple-minded one sentence response.

Simple-minded? Resorting to insults already?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 04:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You can just as easily formulate one large thought with multiple points that you wish to retort to.

I'm a Satanist, I don't live by your rules!Rev. Michael S. Margolin 04:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, please for the love of god learn basic elementary school punctuation and grammar, and don't forget your spellchecker; you are just making yourself look silly, and I for one feel embarrassed for you.

No, my grammer may suck but I'll always be a better poet than you. O I left out and Chess player like the game your losing to me nowRev. Michael S. Margolin 04:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Now on to the larger point. Subculture Satanism (Theistic Satanism, Setianism, Devil worship, Luciferianism, etc, etc, etc.) is a contemporary byproduct of Satanism and not the other way around. These masses of “Catholic and other denominations propaganda” (improper punctuation intentionally used) are nothing more than archaic hate-mongering establishments that tried to conjure false propaganda to support their various causes. In modern times the followers and protagonists of these various movements are largely used as a response to modern day religion and as a vehicle with which to rebel. Modern Satanism (aka LaVeyan Satanism) is the only mainstream and modern movement to have a solid, traceable foundation of a religion/philosophy that we can point to and say, “yes, this is Satanism as it is known to the 20th and 21st century.” And as inconvenient as it might be for you, this is the best and most accurate way we can describe Satanism from an encyclopedic point of view.

Now, I would have no problem adding a section about Subculture Satanism to the proper version of the article, however I doubt you (or your friends) would allow the article to exist long enough for anyone to do that. You see the only thing you seem interested in, is making sure that the Modern (read: LaVeyan) version of the definition for “Satanism” is not the definition here, and that your outdated, obscure, and inconsistent definition of Satanism is. Absinthe (Talk) 03:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You are so poor at attempting to manipulate reality you expose your guilt.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 03:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else, interested in actually discussing the article, want to take a stab at this? Absinthe (Talk) 04:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

CheckmateRev. Michael S. Margolin 04:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Get Gilmore in here, he knows who I am, get him in here, and I so pray he is better than you, if not I'll tear up this little red card. Out of sheer shame! I'll even post the pieces for the whole world to see.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 04:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Next step

If this article is going to be the jumping off point, and not going to be reduced to a simple redirect page, then I'd suggest going the route of a one or two paragraph summary of each of the subarticles, with the {{main|subarticle}} tag at the top of each section, like this:

LaVeyan Satanism

Main article: LaVeyan Satanism

blah blah blah .. simplistic summary .. blah blah blah

Theistic Satanism

Main article: Theistic Satanism

blah blah .. simplistic summary .. blah blah blah

etc. I suggest ordering in terms of historic order (date of founding of first group espousing type) or, if there is disagreement about that, alphabetic... Tunnels of Set 05:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

1871Rev. Michael S. Margolin 05:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes it is better to let sleepping dogs lay. Especially when it has three heads compared to your one.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 05:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Tunnels, I like the fair minded place that you are coming from. Let me throw this out there as food for thought and get some feedback. Modern Satanism is a mainstream subculture. What I mean by this, is that when Rolling stone does an article on Satanism, they are referring to the philosophy that was born in the counterculture movement of the 60's. When artists, actors, celebrities, and most often times writers/authors talk about modern Satanism in America, they are referring to Modern Satanism (LaVeyan Satanism). When someone finds out that one of their favorite musicians or celebrities are a Satanist, they might come to Wikipedia to find out what this belief is all about and what it entails.

Now, I'll be the first one to tell you that when it comes to joining an organization to consecrate who you are or what you believe that I personally think it is very silly. A philosophy is a lot bigger than some "club" that you join just to prove to yourself that you are a <insert ist or ism here>. I would just like to see the popular and contemporary use of a word, that describes a philosophy, be accurately described, in encyclopedic form, here at Wikipedia.

When you mention Satanism in the mainstream press or the subculture press, most people in the know, know you are referring to the Satanism that was born in the counterculture movement. And Modern Satanism is that definition which most people are looking for when they come to Wikipedia. Now the 4 or 5 people here that are monitoring the article daily aside, the vast majority of those who describe themselves as a Satanist or describe someone else as a Satanist, are describing the philosophy of Modern Satanism. I think it’s only fair to accurately define this term using the media, subculture, and the vast majority of its practitioners as the barometer, rather than what the sorely disproportionate sampling of editors here think it is or should be. That’s just how I feel. Absinthe (Talk) 06:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you said "Most people in the know" which implies that your and CoS's definition is not the common definition. Also the rolling Stone's magazine article was an interview with Anton LaVey therefore of course the article is going to reflect the CoS definition. For the tenth billionth time, your definition is not what the majority of people around the world think of when they hear or see the word Satanism. To try to push your definition here is merely attempting to manipulate reality to make your definition become the popular one. As I have shown you, I'm here to prevent that. Furthermore the only encyclopedias that define Satanism as you do got their feeds from Wikipedia.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 15:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael, the only thing you are here to prevent is a productive and healthy discussion. So from here on out when I say things like, "Let me throw this out there as food for thought and get some feedback", I mean everyone except you. Your broad sweeping statements are unfounded; you are more concerned with appearing to be right than you are with bringing something of substance to the discussion, and it’s clear from visiting your website that the only part of Satanism that interests you is the ego gratification you get from calling yourself the Dark Lord High Priest Magus Guru God of the Underworld. So please, leave the discussion for people who have a genuine interest in the welfare of the article, k? Absinthe (Talk) 15:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Show me where I call myself Dark lord or magus or even guru for that matter. Again your attempts to manipulate reality merely expose you and your aims for what you really are and are trying to achieve.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 17:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Absinthe, defining a term simply by its popular definition is not encyclopedic. An encyclopedia has to generalize to embrace all views. Really, the most popular definition of Satanism in most Christian minds is not the one you would want to start out with, is it? Because let's face facts, that's the most common view in popular culture. I still think this article should start with a general definition acceptable to everyone, then break out into a paragraph or two on the distinct views, but let all the details of those views be in the subarticles. Personally, I think the influence of LaVey is fading fast. What you say was true in the 60s, 70s and even 80s, but things changed in the 90s, and the fields in much different in this century than it was then. Tunnels of Set 16:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with Tunnels of Set.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 17:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Tunnels, I might have to agree with you as it pertains to popular perception of Satanism. I was more referring to the informed perception/understanding. By informed I'm simply referring to anyone who has an understanding of the LHP, Occult, or general Subculture savvy.

I don't know that I agree with your statement regarding the LaVey's waning popularity in the 90's as there was a massive resurgence of Satanic interest in the 90's in the mass media and pop culture (partly thanks to the music industry) as well as the various subcultures. And while I don't see the interest in Satanism in the 2k era increasing, I don't see a dramatic downfall. With that said I also don't see any increase in the interest of Theistic Satanism, so I don't know that the Modern vs. Theistic popularity comparison plays.

Don't misread anything I'm saying with respect to Satanism. I have very broad interested in the world of subculture, counterculture and the occult; Satanism is simply one of the areas that I feel a sub-subculture shouldn't trump or even overshadow a mainstream subculture in encyclopedic form.

I would support a well organized (read: Easy to read/understand) article that might consist of a small 2-3 paragraph intro into Modern Satanism (with a link to Modern (LaVeyan) Satanism) followed by a brief overview of the history of the traditional use of the word 'Satanism' (including the Modern Day Theistic Practitioners and Philosophy of Satanism w/ Links to the Appropriate Articles).

If that works for the current handful of editors we have here now great; My main concern is that we have a coherent article that will allow the common reader to clearly understand what Satanism is, rather than ambiguously focusing on what it isn't. Absinthe (Talk) 17:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't you really mean you want the reader to accept the Church of Satan's definition over the populery known definition?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 20:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be the point... otherwise, why was the article on the Order of Nine Angles DELETED from Wikipedia? Did I miss the discussion on that? 207.34.120.71 20:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey I can help with that question! It might of gotten deleted because it needed citations. See the talk page on Theistic Satanism. I took some edits personally but after talking to people I found out not to, because most of the circumstances were me not knowing or understanding enough of wikkipedias policies and structure. I'm sure if you write an article on ONA and cite its sources it should fly like the rest.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 21:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay....so you disagree with the article. You think its simplistic....so IMPROVE IT. Write it. Fix it up. Edit it. But revert it to a form that confines itself to ONE form isn't the point of Wiki. WerewolfSatanist 21:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What I find overtly amusing is the subtle way they are trying to say the one true Satanism.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 21:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that the former article appeared out of thin air? No, rather it was the work of several people and numerous hours of labor, only to have a handle full of "Theistic Satanists" come in and dismiss it out of hand because "it's biased" and then replace it with an ambiguous page that doesn't cite the first source. So how about you take a little of your own advice and improve the current crap article instead of reverting the one that was built over time with the consensus of the editors here?

Please clarify, "doesn't cite the first source". What exactly are you saying or requesting?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 22:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, everyone was squawking that you have to participate on the talk page to edit or revert, but as soon as someone comes in and actually starts talking about the points of the article and what it should be, etc. the only thing that appears on the talk page is more childish bitching rather than discussion (TunnelsOfSet being the lone exemption in this case).

So either start discussing the merits of what's been proposed or get out of the way. Absinthe (Talk) 21:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please clarifyRev. Michael S. Margolin 22:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yo Abmaster2,000 how is Sinagogue of Satan an irrelevant link? Are you sure you are not editing through personal bias? I request a revert to his action toward SoS 04:54, 17 January 2007 Absinthe999 (Talk | contribs) (removed irrelevant links)Rev. Michael S. Margolin 02:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

All external links were removed; sorry that you lost the link to your personal website. Can we get back to discussing how to best make this article concise and accurate from an encyclopedic standpoint? I've yet to see your input on the current proposal(s) thus far. Absinthe (Talk) 07:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If the SoS website is my personal website than the Church of Satan web site is Gilmore's personal web site.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 15:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My input is keep the article we have now because the one you want is as biased as your last edit. Notice that the only links left though they are internal links point the reader to the church of satan and Karla Lavey's church and no others?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 14:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Absinthe, you were incorrect remove just the Sinagogue of Satan link. Edits like that will not help us achieve a compromise article. However, if we are going to have multiple articles, then the links should go on the appropriate article, not here, so I removed them all. The only links that would be appropriate are links to general overviews which cover all aspects of Satanism, as it is proposed to do in this article, and preferable they should not be on the site of one of the organizations which are in competition with each other. A link to an appropriate DMOZ category might be useful here, though... Tunnels of Set 14:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just coming to inform you that the paragraph that starts off "Belief in any such externalized deities is generally considered grounds for excluding someone as a Satanist..." has a sentence added at the end of it that seriously looks like it wasn't intended to be there, but added by some malicious person. TemporalShift 17:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding internal links proposal

The links that follow pertain to the Satanism article and are internal links. I wish to add them in this order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermetics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosicrucian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_Fire_Club

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordo_Templi_Orientis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesia_Gnostica_Catholica (possibly adding to Churches links)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.M.O.R.C. (possibly adding to Churches links)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_Church (possibly adding to Churches links)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPY (possibly adding to Churches links)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianetics (possibly adding to Churches links)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occult

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magick

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Feed back please.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 04:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. They are not closely enough related. If they were to be discussed in the article, then they could of course be linked to, but see also is not for a laundry list of vaguely related topics. Hellfire Club is the only closely related one. Adding links to organizations which don't identify themselves as Satanic is right out. Tunnels of Set 18:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Set. I added all of them because at one time or another they were accused of being Satanists so I thought they fell within the Christian Persecution zone. Thanks for keeping Hellfire Club. A note on Topy P-orridge has gone through hormoanal treatment to grow breasts and become a woman. He wants to be a living Baphomet, silly yes but no more silly than Manson and his rubber female body. Although I think Manson is the wiser in this case.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

LaVey rejects the Black Mass

CoS practices it's own black mass so is this line missleading?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

LaVey rejects the Black Mass, cruelty to animals, or a literal belief in (or worship of) Satan, instead considering Satan as the human instict within ourselves, which is what LaVeyan Satanism celebrates; the human instinct. Instead he supports a view of human beings as animals and rejects many social structures that inhibit our instincts.158.184.149.13 19:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)