Talk:Satanism
|
|
| Contents |
Satanic cults
(Comment: The idea that such cults do not exist is subjective, not objective, and thus does not belong in an Encyclopaedia unless counter-balanced by the opposing opinion.
Fact is, there is significant evidence that such cults DO exist, such as the extensive lists of unexplained missing persons tied to alleged cult sites. And though some cults may not be described as 'Satanic' (they don't worship Satan), there are cults documented to have sacrificed humans to their various deities. For instance, the Ancient Order of Druids certainly did sacrifice humans in England during the late 19th and early 20th century, and it is very possible that similar sects, or perhaps even the Order itself, still do. Though such sacrifices are arguably justified by the fact that they pale in comparison to the mass brutal sacrifices that occured around the world contemporaneously--the First and Second World Wars.
Human sacrifice is an ancient tradition shared by many cults throughout history, including the Druids, the Mayans, the Aztecs, the Scythians, and arguably even the Catholics.
Understandably the idea of human sacrifice is highly controversial, but to many it is still considered a completely acceptable ritual.
The idea that such cults worship Satan is, as aforementioned, often a misconception based upon subjective religious viewpoint.)
- moved above comment from article.
- I think my response would be that the counterbalancing opinion is provided at satanic ritual abuse - is that sufficient? Martin 09:32, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Their very existence is suspect, and more than likely an urban legend. Just because someone labels someone else as a Satanist does not mean they ARE Satanists. Titanium Dragon 11:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
__________________________________________
Brilliant definition so far...
Does anyone have a work of origin for the term "Satanism"? while the Merriam Webster gives a date, it doesn't cite its sources, and it would be nice to nail that down.
Recent edits by 213.65.252.218
213.65.252.218 recently made four edits; while there's nothing wrong with the first two (changing references of "Set" to "Setian Satanism"), the second two (11:01 and 11:27, 7 Jul 2004) are highly problematic:
- The section on "Traditional Satanism" was wiped and replaced with a gratuitously POV section in "Other Groups".
- Material moved to the LaVeyan Satanism article was inexplicably added back to the LaVeyan Satanism section in this article; if there's a link to an article-proper about a given subject (which there is, immediately above the LaVeyan Satanism blurb), the blurb in the more generic article should merely be a quick overview — readers can visit the full article for more information.
I'm reverting these most recent two edits. - Korpios 16:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
August: I deleted the section on Traditional Satanism simply because there is no such thing! Or rather, there is such a thing but it is void of all meaning. I explained that in the "Other Groups" section. Also, the ONA is certainly NOT a group that can make any legit claims about a long tradition. Everything (historical) they say can be shown to be their own invention. Their beliefsystem is also their own invention, try to find Casual and Acasual elsewhere, try to find their silly thing about Lovecrafts "gods" elsewhere ...try to find evidence that, as they say, Baphomet is the name of an old female goddess of blood! Calling ONA Traditional Satanism is outright wrong. Secondly I have to question the reason of a section dedicated to Traditional Satanism. I have already said the word means almost nothing, as a definition. Another point to be made is: In the section below ("Other Groups") a number of gnostic sects, etc. are mentioned. Aren't they, if any, traditional!?!! It makes no sense dedicating a paragraph on Traditional Satanism to the ONA, absolutely none at all.
Recent large deletion by 66.212.4.114
(Section reformatted for better thread-flow.)
I am restoring large sections deleted by User:66.212.4.114. They were deleted and replaced with nothing but the religion headers. Please discuss this change here before deleting large sections with no replacements. - Tεxτurε 20:48, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I brought those grafs back to stubs because they're conjectural, and contain almost no information on actual Judeo-Christian theology, or how the concept of "Satan" operates in those traditions.
- Texture, I've actually gone ahead and reverted back to the state the article was in before 66.212.4.114's edits. The edits made by that user were either POV or flat-out erroneous (or both), IMHO (e.g., changing the very definition of "Satanism" at the top of the article). If said user wants to defend their edits, I'm all for hearing them out. I don't think I clobbered anything in your most recent two edits (as they appeared to be partial reverts, anyway), but I apologize if I did. - Korpios 13:50, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Weird, unfounded, dubious...
Here are items I feel are in need of removal or alteration because they are misleading, or just out-of-place.
Satanism in Traditional Theology
- a. "Conversely enough, .. they are also seen as the people who killed Jesus"
Irrelevent to the subject. Also a topic of great debate. To include the statements about a view that Jews are Satan does not reflect the beliefs of the Jewish person in regards to the concept of Satan, which is what this subpoint in this article is referring to. This will be removed.
- b. "As of 2001, some Muslims..."
This is absolutely and completely wrong. 2001 was not the timing when some Muslims forumulated their opinions about the US. Furthermore to imply that there is a some section of Muslims that revere the US or Cold-War Russia as the Great Satan misleads the reader to think they are something more valid than religious kooks bending doctrine or projecting their emotions into religious teaching. If we are going to do that then we need to include the 1960's Black Muslim movement calling whites "Satan", & other Christian groups calling people incarnations of Satan. The intent of including this view must be tempered with so many qualifiers to dampen it's effect that it may just be best to remove it altogether.
- c. "Logically it can't be an enemy of God... they are probably referring to Jesus"
The debate over contradictory statements w/i the Christian religion is not relevent or helpful in this article. Although I wholeheartedly agree with the statement, it does not help define true-believing Christian's views on Satan. This should be removed.
I will return to do the editing on this article Friday if there are no objections. --Duemellon 14:58, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Updated --Duemellon 16:29, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Don't know if this is worth adding to the article, but just for interest, the British Navy has appointed its first recognised Satanist, and is considering whether to add Satanism to its list of recognised faiths. See BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3948329.stm) Adambisset 11:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Rewriting
Working on a rewrite of this article based on the following (I have currently changed the order of appearance of "kinds"):
"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 here and if a splinter group like Dark Doctrines needs more room, they should establish other pages that focus on their divergant version of Satanism.
Before Anton LaVey used the existing term "Satanism" there was no organized Satanic religion, only Christian heretics or small ill-formed groups.
The Temple of Set does not use the term "Satanist" 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
- Please see my comments in Talk:LaVeyan Satanism, but in summary: your edits are far and away from being NPOV, and as they are unwarranted they should be undone; I will revert the articles. The CoS does not deserve special treatment in an article regarding "Satanism" at-large; it is covered in Church of Satan, and the relevant beliefs are covered in LaVeyan Satanism. Please make a much stronger case than the above (keeping in mind my comments on the other talk page as well) if you continue to object to the state of the articles. - Korpios 20:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The whole Sat/Tan section is awful. NPOV, unsourced in its claims, and full of rampant speculation, it needs serious reworking. It claims to be old - ancient, even. By whom? How reliable are such claims? Many Wiccans claim their religion to be ancient, but it was founded in the 20th century. Also, it is given a bit too much preeminence, especially considering the two most commonly thought of forms of Satanism are of the Gothic (worshipping the Christian Satan, even though it is likely a legend) and LeVayan varities.
- The only site used as a reference for that uses the abbreviation Xians for Christians, and does not seem to be terribly professional. I'd like to see a real source for it. Titanium Dragon 11:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. I have a decent working knowledge of the LaVeyan and Christian/"Gothic" variants, but not of the others; I'd like to see someone with such knowledge update the relevant sections with a bit more in the way of solid backing. I suppose I'll add such research to my To-Do list if no one comes forward. - Korpios 23:44, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Main Trends?
The four "main trends" here seem to be missing something big: theistic Satanism.
Sat/Tan being a main trend seems iffy. Other than Tani Jantsang's and possibly HR Vad's group, I've never seen it espoused as a major philosophy by anyone else. It's vaguely related in the "becoming"/"being" bit to the Setian "xeper" philosophy. But a main trend based on 1-2 groups? That's stretching.
Setian Satanism is debatable, since the Temple of Set did indeed orginate from the CoS, but tends to distance itself from the Satanism label as being too narrow and counterproductive in its semantic baggage. But it's definitely one of the main LHP "trends", so I can see it's place here.
But where's "theistic Satanism?" I've already read the arguments about "modern" vs. "traditional" and I can agree there, but it seems very incomplete to mention something as relatively obscure as the Dark Doctrines and yet make no mention that, alongside the atheistic and nontheistic versions of Satanism there are indeed theistic non-Christian Satanists running around. Some of the "other forms" MIGHT be theistic, but nothing is actually said regarding that. It should at least be *acknowledged,* even if it requires it own Wiki entry for the details (as does LaVeyan Satanism).
I feel that's a large hole in this article and gives the reader an incomplete and skewed view of the religion/philosophy.
- Theistic Satanism is a myth; the only people who claim to worship Satan have been insane and have no organization. The vast majority of people who claim to worship Satan as a god are being sarcastic or are trying to provoke a response. I would argue that this is not even a minor trend among Satanists, because the people are insane. If you were to include this, you would have to include being racist, killing Muslims, ect. as "major trends" under Christianity - they would make up a larger proportion of Christianity than theistic Satanists do among Satanists. Theistic Satanism is not a major trend as far as I have seen, and every source I've found on Satanism dismisses the reality of theistic Satanists. Titanium Dragon 21:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
REPLY: There are Theistic Satanists - Diane Vera has an organization for them. Diane Vera is not insane. She is quite logical.
Sat Tan or Dark Doctrine Satanism is quite well known, especially amongst Satanists themselves. The organization that espouses it is the Satanic Reds - Social Realist organization and, in terms of real number of people, has to-date the most members. The monographs of the Dark Tradition are sold offline and have been on sale and selling for decades. In fact, your "well known" Anton Lavey handed out high titles to the people presenting these monographs. The Dark Doctrines have been around for decades and were around in a form that was not-Satanic before they were presented to Satanists.
In an effort to be sincere about such matters, it would be logical to present the three main types of Satanism out there, since many know for a fact that all other forms of it are nothing but borrowings of these three main types:
1. LaVeyan - whether Church of Satan of First Satanic Church of Karla LaVey (Anton's daughter). I believe you have their urls. 2. Temple of Set or the Storm offshoot group of Zeena Schreck. I believe you also have their urls. 3. Satanic Reds Dark Doctrines which are wholly separate and independent from any of these other organizations that have LaVeyan influences. http://www.geocities.com/satanicreds/faq-html for the information about this organization which, some notice, was "conveniently" deleted by someone, perhaps someone afraid of the numbers in terms of people, not arbitrary hits of some number counter that doesn't even count geocities sites.
There are probably a great many things you have "not heard of."
Sat/Tan
I have heard of LaVeyan Satanism. I have heard of the Temple of Set. I have heard of the Order of Nine Angles. I have heard of dabbler satanists, satanic ritual abuse, etc. I have heard of a few other organisations not here mentioned, e.g. First Church of Satan, and Bambini di Satana.
I have never in my life heard of Sat/Tan or Dark Doctrines. And yet, there is no references to who these sat/tan people are. What are the big names? Major books? Major organisations? The description of them is devoid of all such information. For all I know, sat/tan is the ramblings of some wikipedia user going on about there personal idiosyncratic views.
But then, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Sat/Tan is really big and important. But the article at present gives me no reason to believe that they are.
Unless some actual evidence for Sat/Tan's notability is provided (verifiable names of major thinkers, books, organisations), I suggest all mention of them be deleted.
-- Samuel Katinsky
- There is a link at the bottom of the page, but as for numbers I have no clue. As far as I know they are not a major group, and this has been discussed before on this page. No one seems to know what they are; most likely it is a very small group, and the number of webpages I have found on the subject is small. Additionally, there is a seperate Dark Doctrines article, which I think should be made into a redirect to this article. It sounds to me like someone from a rather small organization wants to make their group more well-known via these means. Additionally, it seems the vast majority of "hits" on this subject are because of other places which have taken this exact article and put it on their own webpages, or because of the words "Dark Doctrines". I vote for the deletion of the Dark Doctrines page and the deletion or severe paring down of this, and to move it down to the "other groups" because it is not hugely important.
- I also think that it would probably be best to put LeVayan Satanism at the top of the group; they are the group most commonly associated with Satanism - the current order seems illogical to me. Possibly, a page or brief bit of writing about the myth of "theistic Satanism" should also be included. Titanium Dragon 21:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I also vote for deletion of the Sat/Tan referenses. -Mikael
- I removed it. Should we should put the Dark Doctrines page on votes for deletion or not. Titanium Dragon 12:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have put a cleanup sign in the article page. I think it's clearly justified in this case. The page is a mess. -Mikael 18:52, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
You should not delete what is, in fact, some of the most popular stuff within Satanism because it is all about the Darkness and the Flame (not about some dinky human philosophy). It is popular within many organizations that are out there and around for decades. To delete information that many people do want to know about is censorship. You have heard of the "First Church of Satan" and yet they ripped off the entire Sat/Tan information from the people that own the copyrights to it - and that is the Dark Doctrine people - Satanic Reds - Social Realists. What are you afraid of? Competition? Anton Lavey certainly heard of the Dark Doctrines and handed out two Magistrate degrees to *non members* for them.
Biased
The article as it stands presents an overly narrow view of the term "satanism". I doubt that most people use the word in the sense of LaVeyism. The article would be better if it addressed the term in its more general sense and relegated LaVeyism to a separate entry.
I have reverted the page to the previous more NPOV view.-FredrikM
Indeed it is biased to delete any form of Satanism that exists out there. The Order of the Nine Angles, for instance, is not an online organization, nor will you be likely to find information on them online, or an access into their organization online. Their own spokespeople have spoken up enough about this matter.
Also, the information on Sat/Tan Satanism has been put back since that, known as "Dark Doctrines" is one of the most popular forms of Satanism out there - it is also not inversion Christianity of any kind.
More bias: The Church acknowledges that few people subscribe to its views, and is not naïve of the fact that most people find the idea of being entirely self-serving to be morally repulsive. As such, though, the LaVeyan Satanist maintains, those who find themselves naturally aligned with Satanism should not adhere to herd mentality and assume there is something ethically wrong with them, but should instead adopt an individualistic, "who needs 'em" attitude, and consequently should strive constantly to stand head-and-shoulders above the so-called moral majority, and as much as possible to exploit their misguided altruism and good will. This seems pretty biased to me. While Satanism may be undesirable to many people (by virtue of its name alone, it has a sort of negative connotation to me, for instance...), Wikipedia is NPOV. Stating that it is a "fact" that "most people find the idea of being self-serving morally repulsive" is not only POV but, judging by the virtually everything I read in the news, completely false. However, I do not feel qualified to edit the article properly, since I know nothing about Satanism. Can someone else do it? MrHumperdink
Strange links
I have cleaned up the links section of the article. I have deleted these two links:
- Maledictum Scavri Valentini (http://www.maledictum.com/eng.htm)
- Ecclesia Tenebrarum (http://www.tenebrositas.org/)
I have not found any reference to these groups except their own webpages and pasted links in online encyklopedias such as Wikipedia. If anyone can find any information concerning these groups, please post it here. -FredrikM
Someone removed all the other information
Someone removed a great deal of information relevant to Satanism; I would ask that they discuss it HERE first, before doing so. I'm going to be putting it back in, because the CoS and Anton LeVay are NOT the only people to claim to be Satanists or who use the term. Titanium Dragon 05:52, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
- I find it interesting how people such as User:Mister White edit this page with an almost sectarian attitude. Maybe the high frequency of such edits is grounds for a section in the article itself? :) -FredrikM
One of the first?
The opening sentence of the section on Philosophical Satanism currently reads: "[...] the Church of Satan (one of the first above-ground organizations to use the term) [...]". Were there any above-ground organizations to use the term before the CoS? —Morning star 16:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nope. It was certainly the first. Are there any contenders? FredrikM 21:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Legal status
The following adition removed, until clarification.
- Satanism is as legally protected as every other religion in the United States (example: a court case ruled a United States military officer could not be discriminated against in any way simply due to his status as a Satanist).
The claim is very serious, and court reference is due. Does it really have a status of religionin the USA? Today any bunch of freaks may proclaim themselves a pet religion. Are they all protected? mikka (t) 21:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, though each religion is technically protected, this is not clear until a court has decided it. Searches of ReligiousTolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org) reveal no information. However, I can find a page from the U.S. Army Chaplain's Handbook about the Church of Satan:
Satanism in Chaplain's Handbook (http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/ChaplainsHandbook.html)
As far as I can find, that's the only resource I can seem to find. That would seem to indicate recognition by the U.S. Army (and thus, gov't), but that's yours to interpret. -- Cabhan 00:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
All religions are equally protected in the United States, as per the Constitution. However, stating it is largely pointless, as it is inherent and somewhat deceptive, as -all- religions are protected in the US (at least, in theory under the law). It doesn't suprise me that someone tried to discriminate against them, but putting it in is like putting it into Scientology - it is redundant. Titanium Dragon 04:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, technically, all religions are protected. However, rules are different in the military. For example, the U.S. government hires a very large number of Christian Priests, Rabbis, and Imams. On the other hand, they hire no Wiccan Priests/esses or Satanist Priests/esses or Santerians, etc. There are religions that are recognized by the government, and there are others that simply exist in the U.S. The issue here is that a claim is made that Satanism is of the former, whereas others believe it is of the latter.
Personally, I believe it is of the latter, as I cannot find any evidence of the government declaring it recognized. If the person who added the statement can defend it, then the statement will be added back into the article.
As a note, I have found a copy of the U.S. Army Chaplain's Handbook:
Chaplain's Handbook (http://www.heart7.net/toc-chap.html)
Cabhan 15:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to keep adding to this, but as per the Air Force Religious Pin article, the only Chaplains recognized by the Air Force are Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim. -- Cabhan 15:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
New Article/Stub
I created the article Religious Satanism, but I don't know much about it. Can anyone help?
Thanks. --Admiral Roo 12:07, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Disclaimer
I came back to find that a disclaimer had been added to the page. Personally, I don't think it's needed, but I changed it to actually reflect a true statement. I'm just wondering if anyone feels it's necessary or if we should remove it.
The disclaimer is in the introduction, where it starts "It should be noted..." -- Cabhan 14:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Satanist link I need people to check out.
As I am not a Satanist, and not exactly very knowlegable in the subject, I need some help from people who can check out joy of satan (http://www.joyofsatan.com) and tell me what its about. I visited it, and from what I can tell it does not belong to mainstream satanism, althoug it claims to be.