Talk:LaVeyan Satanism
|
|
| Contents |
Funeral ceremonies
User:212.159.30.47 made some very welcome extensions to the article recently. I do question the last line, however:
- There is not even a Satanic funeral ceremony.
I know that Satanic funeral ceremonies have been performed; it's more that they tend to be created ad-hoc for the individual in question. But one would be correct (AFAIK) in stating that there is no standardized LaVeyan Satanic funeral ceremony. - Korpios 16:28, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Neutrality dispute?
The entire Criticisms section seems to be from the POV of someone with anti-Satanist tendencies, as well as little sprinklings of POV all through the article. DryGrain 16:41, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Hence it's clearly labeled as criticisms. Having created the article, I was pleased to see someone come along and flesh out both Philosophy and Criticisms; IMHO, they did a fairly balanced job. As for that and "sprinklings of POV", do you think you could outline exactly what your objections are rather than jump to label the article with a neutrality dispute header? I'd like to get this straightened out and have the header removed ASAP. - Korpios 17:03, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I can understand how the Criticisms section should be critical; however, the section should be written about the criticism from a neutral point of view, rather than assuming a critical point of view and explaining oneself. I'm assuming you wanted examples of the POV I noticed that was 'not' in the Criticisms section, so here goes. (If you want examples from Criticisms, let me know and I'll shw you what bothers me specifically.)
- It may be surprising to some that Satanism prohibits bad treatment of animals, whilst Christianity does not. - A hint of pro-Satanist POV.
- LaVey did not directly say that women were inferior, but he insisted on them exploiting their "femininity" to gain power and pleasure, rather than what he saw as the feminist mentality of "hating your femininity". - If he never said "Women are inferior", why is the article trying to convince the reader that that is how he felt?
- In this stress on individuality, Satanism is considered part of the Left Hand Path; most major religions are seen as encouraging dull conformity. - More pro-Satanism/anti-other-religion POV...
- ...the group worked with a combination of magick and LaVey's hedonistic, egoistic philosophy. - Seems like 'loaded language' to me; mabye some synonyms that don't seem so much like a derisive criticism would work better?
As I said, other than the Criticisms section, there are only these few sprinklings of mild POV that bothered me.
I have done this same thing on a few other alternative religion articles. I notice that most articles on non-major religions tend to be biased against the religion they describe. When reading them, I try to read it as if I were a follower of it looking for language derisive of it.
On a side note, I've had articles which were completely/mostly my creation get tagged, VfD'd, edited mercilessly, andI have noticed myself becoming defensive of them. I can completely understand how you might feel like that, and as I've had the same thing happen to me, I'd like to mention that I have no feelings of rivalry or anger towards you at all and hope that you don't either.
Thanks, DryGrain 08:27, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- It's more surprise and confusion; I thought tags were last-resorts after discussion failed. I absolutely don't mind criticism and edits; I just want to understand the rationale. :)
- As for the points you raise:
- It may be surprising to some that Satanism prohibits bad treatment of animals, whilst Christianity does not. - You're right; this should be reworded to "Some find it surprising that this form of Satanism prohibits ill treatment of animals." Many expect anything termed "Satanism" to involve some form of animal abuse/sacrifice, but there's no point to blatantly contrasting with Christianity.
- LaVey did not directly say that women were inferior, but he insisted on them exploiting their "femininity" to gain power and pleasure, rather than what he saw as the feminist mentality of "hating your femininity". - I suppose this could use a rephrasing.
- In this stress on individuality, Satanism is considered part of the Left Hand Path; most major religions are seen as encouraging dull conformity. - The second part could be slightly tweaked, but the point should stand; LHPers do typically see "RHP" religions as conformist.
- ...the group worked with a combination of magick and LaVey's hedonistic, egoistic philosophy. - Erm, Satanists view hedonism and egoism as positive traits. :)
- Thoughts so far? - Korpios 14:06, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Everything you've mentioned so far is fine with me, but perhaps we could clarify that hedonism and egoism are considered merits rather than flaws to the average Satanist? Also, the entire Criticisms needs to be gone through.If you don't mind, I'll go ahead and do that, and anything you want reverted, bring up to me here. DryGrain 15:54, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I went over the article and made further edits; how's it look now? - Korpios 09:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm content. :) DryGrain 14:47, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ayn Rand?
I'm not certain that the comparison with Ayn Rand is deserved or welcome. Ayn Rand disapproved of violence in all forms, and would have despised Anton LaVey: she opposed mysticism and mystical practices, even in jest, and she would not have appreciated the idea of 'ghettoising' the country - no uninitated force. 'Selfishness', to an Objectivist, is more than material gain and physical enjoyment: it is creation, enlightenment, understanding, and contentedness with oneself. Additionally, Rand and Objectivists believe that all wealth should be earned: $100 tithings are out.
Egoism and Objectivism are not synonymous - if there is a genuine link to or influence from Ayn Rand, I should like to hear the case. Otherwise I suggest that this reference is removed.
- The article does not compare the Laveyan philosophy to that of Rand, it just says Lavey was influenced by Rand. He must have read her books, or something. Should be okay.
- Selfishness can not be qualified, I'm afraid. Objectivists are rationalists and subsequently they justify their "selfish" saintly behavior as means to a utopian end. It is just as pejoratively selfish for a group of "enlightened" sorts to lobby their brand of utopia as it is for me to Satanically insist on my right to be left alone--"humanity be damned". Gladsome 06:27, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Text should be moved to Satanism article
"LaVeyan Satanism" is a misnomer. The only people that use that term are Satanists that want to differentiate themselves from Satanism as a religion, as founded by Anton LaVey. People who affiliante with the religion of Satanism as founded do not call themselves "LaVeyan Satanists", nor do journalists. The information in LaVeyan Satanism should be moved to Satanism and Church of Satan.
I think that if there is a sub-page on Satanism it should be for groups like the Temple of Set and Dark doctrines that diverge from Satanism as a religion.
Before Anton LaVey used the existing term "Satanism" there was no organized Satanic religion, only Christian heretics or small ill-formed groups. It was used as a stigma to attack people, just as the word Jew used to be and recently fascist and anti-semite.
The Temple of Set does not use the term "Satanism" anymore, referring to themselves as "Setians", though they consider themselves to be a Satanic religion.
The Dark Doctrines are insufficiently important, famous or relevant to constitute more than a short note in comparison to the Church of Satan. I am using the Wiki guides in defining it as such. It should be moved into a subsection
Church of Satan Google "Church of Satan": 48,600 Alexa ChurchofSatan.com: 114,134 links to:129
Temple of Set Google "Temple of Set": 16,700 Alexa Traffic Rank for xeper.org: 608,020 links to: 44
compare the above to the following: Dark Doctrines Google "Dark Doctrins":1,770 Alexa apodion.com: 2,364,173 links to:18
for further comparison, the ONA is defunct organization but has almost as many refrences to the phrase "Dark Doctrines" (a phrase that, in google, brings up articles NOT on SAT/TAN Dark Doctrines:
Order Of Nine Angles Google "Order of Nine Angles": 1,150 no known official webpage
If there are no objections, I will make these changes in a few days... the only thin I could think to leave here is a redirect or something stating that LaVeyan Satanism is a term used by Satanists to refer to other Satanists that are aligned with the writings of Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan. People that use this term usually have a different point of view and want to distance themselves from the prodominant view of Satanism.
- I object. LaVeyan Satanism and the Church of Satan are not one and the same; the former is a religion, while the latter is an organization. An apt comparison for what you're suggesting would be to conflate Mormonism with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — it just isn't so, even if the concepts are related.
- Furthermore, I know several LaVeyan Satanists who do describe themselves as such when discussing their beliefs; I know of many more individuals (myself included) who acknowledge philosophical ties to LaVeyan Satanism while simultaneously acknowledging that LaVeyan Satanism is a religion in its own right (which they do not happen to practice).
- You are also wrong to state that LaVeyan Satanists — or members of any of the groups you identify — do not claim or deserve the mantle of religion, whether or not each one claims the term Satanism.
- Finally, basing your findings on numerical rankings on Google is far from an objective measure of the worth of an encyclopedia article on a subject.
- By the way, would you mind signing your comments in the future?
- - Korpios 03:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Page move
(from WP:RM)
LaVeyan Satanism → Modern Satanism
- Incorrect name was "fixed" by cut-and-paste move while adding new content. Maybe should be move, not sure. Pakaran (ark a pan) 15:43, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- There was no discussion here regarding such a rename, so I'm moving the article back to its original spot. I'll address the comments above regarding having a dedicated article for LaVeyan Satanism separately. - Korpios 03:25, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Ok sorry. I just saw the cut-and-paste move. If you want I can undelete the deleted revisions, or ask someone to. Pakaran (ark a pan) 03:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- No, that's okay; everything seems fine now. - Korpios 03:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Changes
I've done some extensive reworking of this article by eliminating as much POV as I deemed necessary. I would enjoy direct criticism on the content I've included. I am entirely sympathetic to Dr. LaVey and require informed levity from those inclined to disagree with everything that he articulated in his writings and lectures. Any criticisms of what I've cut will be considered provided they are focused on just how the omissions make this a better, more NPOV article. Gladsome 06:27, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Ever since the (IMHO misguided) attempt by another user to merge this article with Satanism, I've been watching recent edits more closely; as someone with a fairly (albeit not completely) sympathetic view of LaVey's philosophy, I've been quite happy with your edits. I'd be interested in the input of someone with no sympathy whatsoever towards LaVey's perspective.
- BTW, is there any specific reason you didn't sign with your Wikipedia username (albeit linking to your userpage)? It caused a slight bit of confusion.
- - Korpios 03:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Change to criticsm (old)
Hello, I'm new to the wikipedia concept.
The changes here were made casually by me a few months back:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LaVeyan_Satanism&diff=7749814&oldid=7126504
I felt that the statement was loaded, and could have been equally applied to political affiliation. The duration of membership is lifelong. Without a formal resignation, actual membership would be considered for that duration. As no numbers have ever been released, there is simply no waying of knowing how long people adhere to the tenants. As membership is also not required for people to adhere to the philosophy or practice th religion, this is simply to vauge of a statement to hold any water.
However, there is a seed of truth in the second part. By the nature of LaVeyan Satanism, youth going through the rebellious phase are likely to be drawn towards the groups image of occultism and iconoclasm, either precived or real. This is not quite the same as the religion/philosophy being a phase, but of the appeal of said philosophy by certain individuals goign through phases. These individuals hardly reflect the real religion/philosophy as thier adherence is mostly in name only, and even then mostly for shock value. Despite this latter point, it is a legitimate criticism to point out the appeal and subsequent outgrowing of the phase, so long as a destinction/disclaimer is made of thier actual degree of understanding and practice.
While that is a good point (second part) the CoS doesn't allow minors to join the CoS, and states that times change, and so do opinions. The fact that these kids go through this stage doesn't have anything to do with the Church (directly at least). they do nothing to attract any form of members, so It wouldn't be completely beneficial to add without pointing this out.
Added, and would like more added to it
I added the god in satanism section (a while ago actually) and it doesn't really have meat. I would enjoy other wikers adding something useful and accurate to it. -- Vellocet Malchickawick
Satanic ethics
Hello, I'am making the nl:Modern_Satanisme page on the dutch wikipedia and I'am wondering, if I can put the ethical rules, the nine satanic statements, eleven rules of the earth and the nine sins on wikipedia. I think there can be a copyright problem an I saw you didn't put it on the page.