Talk:Satanism/Archive 3

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  CONTROVERSY? 

message: As far as I am aware, the two best (though somewhat out of date) scholarly references on Satanism are _Satanism Today_ by James Lewis and _The Encyclopedia of American Religion_ by J. Gordon Melton.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)
thread_title:  Info from Arther Lyons, _Satan Wants You_, 1988, plus some relevant historical context 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Info from The Religious Movements Homepage,  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  James Lewis's online papers  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dictionary definitions of "Satanism" 

message: 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)
replies: text: I believe there already is one... somewhere... ≈ The Haunted Angel (The Forest Whispers My Name) 12:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  J. Gordon Melton, _Encyclopedia of American Religion_, 1996  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Satanism and the Internet (and external links)  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticisms Section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Focus on Levay? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Satan within Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Ayyavazhi 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lies 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Sinagogue of Satan]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Objectivism 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Set and tax exemption 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Non-Satanic Sects 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Semi-protected

message: I just added a POV-check based on the following statement and those that follow:
"As an aside, culture has made the word "Satanism" what it is today. Thus the word "Satanism" would have never have been birthed into existence if it wasn't for a Christianity that was afraid of a person or group of people who would use the mass, religious garments, sacred scripture, or symbols in order to worship in a way antithetical to the Christian religion and worldview."
- This is a clearly biased point of view from an apologist and besides being unreferenced is an opinion in violation of the [NPOV] rule of Wikipedia. - 11:55EST 28MAR07
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That's actually an excellent idea. -Lvthn13 03:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree! Absinthe (Talk) 06:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Historic Use of the Term 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pure Bollocks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  SO...What happened?  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Enemies of Good 

message: 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)
thread_title: List of groups vanished

message: 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)
thread_title:  Only Two Small Mistakes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This article has been changed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  lucifer/satan 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Maybe a Solution to the Current Issues? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Temple of Set Links and REferences  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bloody Vandalism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  I suggest... 

message: 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)
replies: text: I will happily support this initiative. -Serdan 23:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed WikiProject: Left Hand Path