Talk:Satanism

See also: Talk:List of Satanists

Adolescent Satanism

I've included references to adolescent pseudo-satanism to distinguish it from the more adult pursuit of rituals, symbolism and philosophies attendant on satanist religious practice.

Calibanu (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)User Calibanu

Sounds reasonable, but it has been removed a couple of times due to lack of citations (I've reverted the removals and added citation notes). Do you have any sources you can cite? Oscroft (talk) 09:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

the new satanists and the new world order.

years ago i read a book called the new satanists, today a lot of people are talking about a new world order that is aimed at contoling the planet. they went by such names as werewolf order, temple of set, they have been described as an offshoot of the orignal church started by anton lavey in the 60's. secret societies like the illuminati,the freemasons, assassins, knights of the round table,knights templar, the order of the black snake ,skull and crossbones,cross of confusion, to cite only some of the secret organizations or lodges that refer to satan or lucifer. satan was a god, the chief god, and fell. hence lucifer was considered to take his place and in most of these aethiestic religious occults considered satan as a force in the universe responsible for the direction and affairs of mankind. satan considered as an evil diety in ancient times he was also called by several other names the accuser and the one who tempted jesus and throughout history people have used him as an evil agent who was capable of spreading evil and carrying out the plans and affairs of humankind. a lot of controversy has arisen on the existence of satanism now seen as a force completley responsible for the invention of evil and the doom of mankind. the crowned prince of evil like the devil belial or leviathan all are neccasary devices or vices responsible for the unspeakable widespread of evil we see all around us. it makes you wonder what this devil is really like and why so many people depend on him for their very existence. i was very intersted in this topic after hearing about cases of things such as satanic ritual abuse (the village idiot usually a fat and middle aged man with a harem of women he could choose from who were more than willing to curry his favour.)or the real cases where the belief in evil caused horrid descriptions about people being possesed and even murdered and mutilated all to satisfy or honour the appetites of those obssesed with their need for evil. kinda strange eh? don. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.0.102 (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

OMG, is this totally, freaking true? Christians, unite! ^_^ Celestialwarden11 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not true. This is Christian propaganda aimed at misdirecting your attention away from the people that are really trying to take over the world, Christians.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

But that is not necessary! We've already taken over the world, twirling our moustaches and laughing MouahahahahahaAA! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah tell that to the Christian heads the Muslims have been collectingRev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, although much of it is propaganda, you cant deny facts that Satanism has led to the most played-out (and most gruesome) deaths. While you can also site cases from other religions, again, its "hard to throw rocks when your made of glass" (as in, Satanism's reputation is bad enough and it wont do much better of them pointing fingers). On the note of Christians and Muslims taking over the world, that was once true, but I think that and atheistic base is actually creeping in on us 0.0 70.45.101.169 (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Dangers, dangers! Can't we just smile towards each other and sing cute songs, Christians respecting Moslems, Satanists and the other way around? Why take the worst psychopaths over the borderlines as representative examples? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Greetings everybody. As a, lets just say a knowledgeable person on the subject I must say that I dont think you have any idea what you are talking about. I am not necessarily saying that you people are stupid nor trying to insult anybody but if you are going to speak of such matters perhaps you should study it better and/or perhaps yourselves as well before saying that Satanism has led to the most played-out (and most gruesome) deaths. I think that for example you have left out Christianitys torture devices, burnings, drownings, et cetera as well as a multitude of other religious and non religious people committing violence in life. That is one part of Humanity. And the Temple of Set and Werewolf Order taking over the world. Sorry but, hahahahaha . In other words, All Muslims are not evil suicide bombers, All Satanists are not evil murderers, Nor are all Christians perfect little Angels. From my standpoint Everybody has the capability for the most gruesome hatred to the most intense compassion, whether you are conscious of it or not. And yes, by the way. Not all so called Satanists have a belief system that has anything to do with Judeo/Christian or biblical beliefs. And yes there are a helluva lot more religions and individual religions and interpretations out there in this world than the major religions. Most of this so called ritual abuse cases have been shown to be coming from the minds of crazed Christians full of ignorance and fear towards mentionings of words such as Satan or Lucifer. There may be a lot of propaganda going on in this world and although this thread started with the new world order and some very inaccurate information from my standpoint im not even gonna go into politics though I could probably ramble on and on and on. Perhaps everybody should ask themselves how much of their own views are the result of propaganda and ask themselves if they can really, really see through their own delusions? Tough question eh? Anyway im getting bored and hungry so I bid all of you, my little deciples, mwuhahahaha Brains to munch on my words.

Satanism

Please, I do not want to bother anyone, but when I was going through the talk pages of a couple of my fave shows: [1][2], it said that Satanism was part of them? Is, like, this really true? Please, respond! Celestialwarden11 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The video of Winnie the Pooh worshipping Satan was a fake, I know plenty of people that could make similar videos. And one group accusing the show/comic W.I.T.C.H. of being Satanic doesn't prove anything. There are a lot of crazy people in the world that accuse all sorts of things of being Satanic (Lawry's seasoning salt, for example). Some people will believe anything just so they can believe that someone is in charge of the world, even if that happens to be Satan. These people are usually likely to lump together various things they know nothing about. I'd bet good money that the group that accused W.I.T.C.H. of being Satanic have never watched an episode of that show. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Phew, Thank God that this isn't true. Now, I can have a smashing time watching the shows without nervousness, yeah! Yahoo! Have a fantastic day, ALL! ^_^ Celestialwarden11 (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Archive

moved 2009 to archive.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation and Starting Over

I've noticed that the whole page has reverted into a gobbledy-gook of subversion ideologies and religious Satanism again. this primarily comes about because there is insufficient consensus about what should be on the page. if you look into the archives you will see the basis for the content of the page plainly extracted from our discussions and pointed out in academic journals. instead, religious interests are repeatedly and routinely inserting their preferences to the content here and making it unreadable and nonsense.

I have noticed no will to cooperate and am not interested in attempted reversions to what i have favoured in the past. I will merely occasionally place my objection here and am willing to continue discussing the subject. you should be paying attention to Wiki standards of notability and citation, not waxing long about your theology, demonology, or sociology without basis. thanks. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Happens now and then in religious articles. I call it street preacher pamphleting and I've also seen it in Hyper-calvinism. I'm considering erecting a task force for dealing with such POV-spamming of Wikipedia. I'll take a personal note for now. Thanks for your notice! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

my pleasure. it's good to know there are others out there with an agenda beyond something personal! ;) here is a link to relevant sources mentioned within the archives to date -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

so far we have not yet agreed as to disambiguation of 'Satanism' or on the emergence of organized Satanism in the 1960s as the departure for religious interests. I would like to begin drawing on our identified sources to substantiate a realistic address to at least this latter emergence and its DECENTRALIZED character:

"Beginning in the late 1960s, organized Satanism emerged out of the occult subculture with the formation of the Church of Satan. It was not long, however, before Satanism had expanded well beyond the Church of Satan. The decentralization of the Satanist movement was considerably accelerated when LaVey disbanded the grotto system in the mid-Seventies. At present, religious Satanism exists primarily a decentralized subculture, not unlike the Neopagan subculture." -- Lewis, James R. 'Who Serves Satan? A Demographic and Ideological Profile', in Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 6, No. 2; June 2001. Web. http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/ivk/mjr/pdfs/2001/articles/lewis2001.pdf (accessed 8/2/10).

we should be able to discern between religious Satanism (a quantifiable category identified by academia) and Christian folklore, adequately evaluated as fused into moral panics within Christian society, and in fact within the same documented source, Lewis provides some help with this, distinguishing what he calls "ritual abuse scare" data from what he has already referred to as data on "religious Satanism".

"Perhaps surprisingly, no serious academic books have been written on this movement. What exists are a number of good scholarly volumes on the ritual abuse scare, such as Jeffrey Victor's Satanic Panic and James T. Richardson et al.'s The Satanism Scare. Beyond a couple of older articles on the Church of Satan (e.g., Alfred 1976) and a relatively recent paper on Satanism in the UK (Harvey 1995), the only extended, academic treatment of organized Satanism is William Bainbridge's now-dated Satan's Power (1978). However, even this book focuses on a single group, the Process Church, which has long since distanced itself from Satanism." -- Lewis, James R. 'Who Serves Satan? A Demographic and Ideological Profile', in Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 6, No. 2; June 2001. Web. http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/ivk/mjr/pdfs/2001/articles/lewis2001.pdf (accessed 8/2/10).

these kinds of sources should inform the primary DISAMBIGUATION rather than the variable alternatives (e.g. 'types' of (religious) Satanism) we have previously featured on that page. at some point in the near future, if nobody cogently refutes my cited data in this thread, i will revise that disambiguation page to reflect this, relegating all 'types of Satanism' to be listed on the (religious) Satanism page itself (which we will subsequently construct). thank you for your cooperation.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

without objection, I will begin a discussion on the Disambiguation page referring to this and perhaps copy this there if there are no other substantive conversations as to its content. issues of NOTABILITY are hamstringing the construction of this page and few are discussing them here.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Satanism: Atheistic/Deistic_Satanism

• Satanism#Atheistic/Deistic Satanism: Shouldn't it be more appropriate to call this section “Non-theism”/Deism Satanism.
• Shouldn't it also be more appropriate to change the word “atheistm” here to “non-theism”: “Unlike Theistic Satanists, LaVeyan Satanists are atheists and agnostics who regard Satan as a symbol of man's inherent nature.”. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• How would that even make sense? Atheism just means you don't believe in a god, such as in the case of Levayan Satanism. Changing it to non-theism wouldn't do anything but confuse, not to mention it isn't a word I recognise.88AdolfLover88 (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

let the LaVeyan Satanists self-describe in conventional language as either atheists or whatever, along with their explanation with what they mean by this. cite their documents. they are widely known. describing them in unusual or uncommon verbiage, especially as it conflicts with or doesn't conform to their own self-description is probably a waste of time. explain that THEISTIC Satanism is what has grown up contrasting itself to LaVeyans and those like them, interested in Satan as a god. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC

• Well, I have a valid question that I can't believe nobody else asked. This is Atheistic (meaning no theism, meaning believe in NO gods/higher powers, as it is understood, though technically it just means "without-knowledge"), yet it's listed as Atheistic/Deistic Satanism. How the hell does that work? How can you be atheist and deist (deism is the belief in a higher power/god(s)/goddess(es)? On top of that, none of the ones listed in this section even believe in any sort of deistic power. When these types of Satanists refer to themselves as their own gods, they don't mean they're actual gods... Technically, if any Satanism was deistic Satanism, it would be under theistic Satanism. Anathematized one (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• A minor point, but I didn't want to directly edit the page since there might be a reason. In the intro-text, when discussing Atheistic/Deistic, the following odd statement is made: "Some Satanists believe in God in the sense of a Prime Mover but, like Atheistic Satanists, still worship themselves..." It is not made clear on this page that atheistic Satanists worship themselves. Is this in fact the case? The notion seems incoherent, as any form of atheism seems to me to imply lack of worship, unless the word "worship" is diluted to meaninglessness by weasel-wordery. A fix for this issue would be to remove the clause "like Atheistic Satanists". Jobriath (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Atheism is a belief in a lack of a deity. Alatry would be lack of worship. Belief in a deity and worship are actually two different things. Apollonius of Tyana and pre-Christian Inuit believed in deities, but discouraged worship of them for different reasons. The Shramana traditions and religions show plenty of examples of nontheistic worship, as does the Cult of personality for figures such as Kim Jong-il. David Hume also argued that many ancient European pagans were really atheistic animists (as many of their beliefs lacked a transcendant creator god), and would have likely leveled the same statement at Shinto had he been aware of it. Atheistic Satanists, according to their own statements of belief (such as the Satanic Bible), see only themselves as worthy of worship. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Problems in the chapter "Symbolic satanism"

The problem is in the symbolic satanism part and the endnotes 11, 12 and 13. None of the sources substantiate two claims made in the section, namely that:

a) "modern satanism" and "symbolic satanism" are indeed "sometimes" used interchangeably

- of course, cats are "sometimes" called dogs, but there is no indication in the sources cited that this is a practise that is even relatively common)

or

b) symbolic satanism involves observance of satanic religious beliefs

- Nothing that the sources 11-13 say would point to the direction that the beliefs symbolic satanists may have are of religious nature, at least not in the sense that religious belief is defined in the wikiarticle religious belief

I removed these claims.

128.214.164.62 (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)npyrhone

the categories are always going to change based on the interests of the religious. cite some sociologist for your categorization please! there are enough now to select from, including James R. Lewis or Jesper Petersen. the descriptions by Satanists themselves are often not too helpful to getting to more than their doctrines and how they seek to portray themselves and their competitors. if i have some time i'll add to this section with something from the "Contemporary Religious Satanism" text edited by Petersen which outlines some excellent options.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

what's more important about this categorical distinguisher is that it does not accept Satan as a literal entity, of any kind, but regards Satan as a symbol. this is asserted regarding the character of Satan in the Satanic Bible ("SB"). Lewis characterizes the SB as important in the development of early Satanism (at least 20th c.):

"[It] appears that 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. (One respondent, noting that he was not a member of any organization, wrote, "[It's] just me and my Satanic Bible.") And whatever LaVey had in mind when he (or his publisher) entitled this publication, in certain ways the SB plays the role of a "bible" for many members of this decentralized, anti-authoritarian subculture.

"This is not to say, however, that Satanists regard the SB in the same way Christians regard the Christian Bible. Many are aware, for example, that LaVey drew heavily on the thinking of others when he composed his "bible." Many have also become aware in recent years that LaVey fabricated a semi-legendary biography for himself (Wright, 1991). However, neither of these facts undercut the legitimacy of the SB because the Satan Bible is not a "sacred text." Rather, the SB is significant because of the philosophy of life it advocates, not because of any divine--or diabolical--authority." -- Lewis, James R. 'Who Serves Satan? A Demographic and Ideological Profile', in Marburg Journal of Religion: Volume 6, No. 2; June 2001. Web. http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/ivk/mjr/pdfs/2001/articles/lewis2001.pdf (accessed 8/2/10).

it's philosophical character is what lends assertions such as that (esp. LaVeyan) 'Satanists don't believe in a being called Satan.' in fact, most religious today probably don't believe in some literal Underworld ruled over by a Jailer anti-God called 'Satan'. Satanists are far less likely to believe in some literalist fantasy. the term 'modern' is unfounded, but 'symbolic' is helpfully descriptive. -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind there are reverse Christians like Tom BlackWood that are hard at work trying to turn Satanism into "Reverse Christianity". Of course I'm hard at work undermining his efforts. I feel that any Satanism that is not based on Christian mythology should simply be called Satanism. Any form of Satanism that is an off shoot or perversion of an existing religion should be regarded as a perversion of that religion and not a form of Satanism.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

if at all possible could you please quote and cite a relevant source for any of your assertions? that's the method by which lasting wiki pages will be constructed, and that's what i was attempting to do above. if you have other sources you like more, feel free to bring them forward and we can evaluate their source and content. thanks!!-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Quote? I'll do much better than that, read his words for yourself voiceofsatanism.com also you'll see he repeatedly states "Satan is coming back" out of all the Christian mythology I've ever read I never read that Satan went anywhere. I think he has Jesus and Satan confused, again supporting my claims. What do you think?Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, a few months ago Diane Vera called me and asked me to stop retaliating against Blackwood's attacks against me and The Sinagogue of Satan of course I told her to go fuck herself.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

http://sosatan.yuku.com/topic/1356?page=-1 http://sosatan.yuku.com/topic/1349 http://sosatan.yuku.com/topic/1354 Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if i was unclear. by "relevant source" i am speaking about a third party such a sociologist or a news article or encyclopedic source covering the subject of Satanism, rather than anything else. if you would take the time to examine pages such as WP:NOTE and WP:NOR, you will see that what passes in the main for 'good' sourcing at Wikipedia isn't web pages or direct quotes from the people about whom you may be making contentions, but instead some reliable coverage of the data in question. most simply will not be able to be substantiated and will be effaced from this project unless we bolster it with citations from sources like what has been assembled here and in the archives identifying as helpful to citations. if you can get my meaning, please contact me through any number of channels we have available. I know we intersect in several zones and i would be happy to discuss this further as we appear to be the only two individuals consistently interested in the contents of this and the Disambiguation page. thanks! -- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This sentence I feel is incorect

"as they believe in the same theology presented in the Hebrew Bible."

I frankly don't belive for a second anyone actualy belives the Judeo-Christian cosmology and chooses to side with the Villian.

Satanists jsut identify who they do worship with The Devil to be seme rebelkous and to atagonize Christians.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.33.65 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a source to cite for that? I've got several books on my harddrive from different books that, while they may contain some originalities, does depict Satan either as the Miltonian falen angel, or (perhaps more in line with historical beliefs about rebellious angels) identifying him with Semyaza from the Book of Enoch. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You can actually use lots of Christian theological debate and thought to justify how they can both believe in the Hebrew Bible and also side with Satan. You see, it's been proposed that Satan, previously known as Lucifer, was sent to Earth to help get it prepared for the arrival of Adom (Adom = Adam = man - technically it means "red in the face" or "light in the face"). Lucifer's job was to teach Adom about God, what the Earth was, that it was Adom's place to rule and that Adom would be he who sat at the right hand of God. Out of jealousy, Lucifer decided to leave Adom as ignorant, because Lucifer (which you can find in the Bible) loved God that much and wanted to be the one to be at His right hand. Lucifer wanted Adom to fall from grace so that he could take their place next to God. It's even been proposed that Psalm 8, while not written by Lucifer himself, is an account of Lucifer's justification to God as to why he rebelled and tried to destroy Adom. Psalm 8 is taken a stance of sort of a plea, questioning God about "what is MAN that You would put him at the highest?" (You can read Psalm 8 here - http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+8&version=NIV ). These people may actually feel sympathy for Lucifer and side with him because of this. Though there are hundreds and thousands of theological arguments that could be made for this, this is just ONE of many. Anathematized one (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Satanism vs Demonism

I would like to point out that this article primarily deals with demonism (interchangeably with devil worship) as it currently stands. The actual website for the church of satan would probably be the best place to review information on satanism as a religion. While many people make demonism and satanism a paralell since the actual church of satan has no link to this I believe it would be unfair to continue to keep the current format as it unfairly paints them as demon worshipers when in fact they don't even believe they exist.

A better option for this page may be to include a link for demonism under the title in case people are attempting to locate demon worship information vs satanism religion. This would allow the link to actual give people current in depth official information on the actual religion without them having to dig through 90% of the article to see 3 paragraphs on the religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.34.248.16 (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. The demonists, as you call them, often refer to themselves as Satanists as well. The Church of Satan website covers a type of Satanism, it isn't Wikipedia's job to make the sectarian decision which brand of Satanism is the most "real" Satanism, just as it doesn't decide whether Catholics or Mormons are the "real" Christians, Sunni or Shia are the "real" Muslims, and so forth. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This is merely another poor attempt by Christians to gain control of the definition of Satanism so they can exploit Satanism in an effort to support and validate their own mythology. Good job at nipping this one in the bud Ian.158.184.48.160 (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

More like paranoia and ignorance of this site's guidelines on your part. See WP:AGF, WP:CITE, and User:Ian.thomson/MeVsXians. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

My apologies on the post location I am new to this. I wasn't attempting to say either is more "real" since my own religion has nothing to do with christianity. I managed to find the reference for LaVeyan satanism through the disambiguouty reference at the top of the article.

References for the OTO and Typhonian Order?!

In pop culture there is no reference to the Thelemic groups Ordo Templi Orientis and the Typhonian Order has being "satanist". If so can we have a properly sourced refrence for both? If not we need to assume some sort of "dirty tricks" at play and have the Typhonian Order section removed.--Ickesshadow (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur, if a souce can not be provided in a timely manner that section should be removed. Azzl9 (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Been done a while ago. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

"O Satan sun Hadit" Liber Samekh Section B158.184.48.160 (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Role of church of satan to occult

what is the role of church of satan to ocultism, black and white magic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.108.130 (talk) 09:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There is not a single school of occultism, but a bunch of different ideas. The Church of Satan is just one of many Satanist groups, but they're atheists, the occult stuff is just to scare people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.156.95.226 (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The church of Satan plays no role in Occultism. They do have a bastardized version of John Dee's Enochian keys in their Satanic bible. Anton changed the angelic names to demon names thus rendering the system defunct as far as what is presented in their Satanic Bible.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

comment

OK look, the entire article on LaVayn Satanism is false. try going to the Church of Satans website for Proper and Correct information on satanism. After all they know their own religion better than any one. the Church of Satan's website gives DETAILED information as to what they believe and all their various customs. Clearly you didn't go to their site for any of your information. If you had you would have listed the Nine Satanic Statements and the Eleven Laws of the Earth which are the "Ten Commandments" if you will, of the Satanic religion.

www.churchofsatan.com The Site also has Multiple contact listing. i sent them an e-mail once and recieved a reply within the hour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki1488 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the article on Satanism in general, of which atheistic Satanism is only a type, of which the Church of Satan is only a group. If you would like to discuss how Wikipedia handles LaVeyan Satanism, try that article's talk page instead, or the article Church of Satan, which also has a talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Lisatree, 23 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The source for citation 36 should be changed from "36.^ Tiffany Evans Claims Rihanna & Others Satanists; Slams “Russian Roulette;” Rihanna’s Devilish History Friday, October 23, 2009, Editorial Staff" to http://truthquake.com/2009/10/23/tiffany-evans-claims-rihanna-other-celebrities-satanists-illuminati-slams-suicide-glamorizing-russian-roulette-devilish-history/ because the article's location was moved to this new domain after the company was changed from peoplemagazinedaily.com to truthquake.com. The article does not exist at the old domain location. Thanks. Lisatree (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done:Or, better yet, I could remove the whole sentence, because there's no way that that article meets reliable sources standards. That's an editorial, it makes claims that simply wearing an eye patch is showing an Illuminati symbol, and says things about Rihanna's intelligence that I can't repeat because they violate WP:BLP. That article has no business being used as a reference for anything. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, you probably believe the only news in the world is what the corporate media tells you, such as CNN or BBC. They're owned by the people in the New World Order. The owners are all members of the Bilderberg Group, which is the main group in the Illuminati New World Order. Wake up and do some research. The only way anyone should be able to be an editor of this page is if he or she has a Ph.D. in religious studies or is a verified leader of the Church of Satan, which you likely are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisatree (talk • contribs) 13:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No personal attacks. If you don't like the reliable source standards for this site, you're free to leave. I don't see any evidence that you're a Ph.D in religious studies, nor that you're a leader in the Church of Satan, so by your standards, you shouldn't be here either. Also, if the New World Order wasn't just a paranoid delusion, don't you think we'd be working for them? Fnord. ;) Ian.thomson (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Yardflamingos, 2 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Satanist don't believe in the Juedo-Christian beliefs. They use Satan as symbolism for self-enrichment.

Yardflamingos (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Read the article, that's LaVeyan Satanism, not Satanism as a whole. Wikipedia does not point to one denomination and say "this is the true representation of this religion." Ian.thomson (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Per Ian.thomson's rationale. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Witchcraft Act

Where the article says - "Anti-witchcraft laws such as the British Witchcraft Act 1735 (repealed 1951), reflected public sentiment against witchcraft and Satanism" - it is factually incorrect. The act outlawed what was seen as fraud i.e. pretending to be able to perform witchcraft for money. Previous witchcraft laws were superseded by this act since the legal establishment by this time regarded real witchcraft as an impossible crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trewornan (talk • contribs) 19:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. Normally, I'd ask for a reliable source, but that part of the article doesn't have a source, so off it goes. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for any breach of etiquette. As a source I suggest http://www.karisgarden.com/cunningfolk/witact.htm although how reliable you'd consider that I don't know. A relevant excerpt:

"no Prosecution, Suit, or Proceeding, shall be commenced or carried on against any Person or Persons for Witchcraft, Sorcery, Inchantment, or Conjuration, or for charging another with any such Offence, in any Court whatsoever in Great Britain. And for the more effectual preventing and punishing of any Pretences to such Arts or Powers as are before mentioned, whereby ignorant Persons are frequently deluded and defrauded;" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trewornan (talk • contribs) 18:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Blogs are usually not accepted (here are the reliable source guidelines). However, the original statement didn't have a source, and the witchcraft act fails to mention anything halfway kinda having to do with something that could be interpretted as something like Satanism, so the statement is gone. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

POV Legitimacy debate

What does the term "religious legitimacy" mean? Does this assume the COS claims theistic Satanism is not legitimate due to alleged lack of sanction or organizational status? What source is claiming the COS or its relative doctrine is labeling any theistic Satanist as false, irreligious or non-Satanic? Is the COS truly concerned with the issue? What sources are there claiming any theistic Satanist or organization is outwardly stating the COS or LaVeyan Satanism is a detriment to true, real and authentic Satanism? The section of Legitimacy debate attempts to address or invigorate historic in-fighting which led to schizm between Temple of Set and COS in the 70's, but there is doubt either theistic Satanist or LaVeyan Satanist is threatened/worried if the other is a representation of genuine Satanism, meaning each understand the other is relative to the title's broader definition.Blackson (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

CoS takes the stance that they are the only legitimate Satanic religion, all others are referred to as pseudo Satanism's. This is the same stance most orthodox religions have taken to discredit other religious groups of the same faith. A good example of this propaganda tactic can be seen performed by the Catholic church against the Protestant church.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Where do they make this statement of sole-legitimacy? The COS does have a concern for pseudo Satanism, yet the reference is to "White Light Mystics who use Satanic trappings" - article first appeared in The Black Flame, Volume 1, #1, 1989. Their motivation doesn't point to ad hominem marginalia, but rather cultic fanaticism. Even when an individual like James Sass uses the term pseudo-Satanism I don't feel he uses it in the spirit to discredit legitimate Satanic organizations, rather he seems to give a heads up or encourages individuals to question facade, I don't get the feeling he's attacking theistic sects. The habit of Satanists attacking COS with the debate over pseudo-Satanism is evident among blackwood and BOS' complaints of the former, but this tactic could be argued as an effort towards traction/attention among smaller sects who seek cool-kids inclusion and greater search engine ranking. My point is a section about legitimacy is a cheap way of saying, "Hey it's cool to rip on the COS, everyone is doing it". In truth it is the lesser known sects who desire more initiates by using sophomoric methods to debunk random charlatans (yesterday it was Manson, then a new Manson then Jay Z and so on), which in any circumstance is P.O.V. If you consider the ONA's take on pseudo Satanism, they simply desire Satanic organizational definitions based in alleged criminal or sinister activity. Again it points to the cool-kids table as if COS just isn't sick, hardcore or murderous enough. I cannot admit I recognize any of these organizations attempting to debunk one another's core doctrine or message. The disapproval amounts to nothing more than social esteem issues as if none of these people truly appreciate how one another dress.Blackson (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that what you bring up is part of the situation but not the whole of it. I know one group that has been around since 1999 that did not and does not attack CoS nor does it have any interest in becoming the biggest or most famous Satanic group. It just wishes to do it's own thing and peacefully co-exist. This group was even on the CoS bunko sheet. It just goes to show you that even the ostracized of our society try to establish a pecking order.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Back to the section in question and the debate of legitimacy. I don't feel the section aides in defining Satanism, its core beliefs, doctrine, ethics or morality/amorality. The section hints of original research, P.O.V. and lacks neutrality. One could elaborate in an attempt to catalog all the instances of legitimacy attacks on COS, but that just misleadingly focuses the article on the COS via trivial data, and if you turn the table attempting to find evidence of COS (or atheistic Satanic organizations) discrediting theistic sects the result isn't encyclopedic, but more of a personal statement on peripheral socio behaviour or random orders. To compare the outcome of smaller Satanic sects discrediting COS to the Protestant Reformation's influence on society is a stretch. My point is there exists infighting within Buddhist and Hindu sects, but evidence is trivial and not a focus within encyclopedic articles. Such articles are intended to define the belief systems not the idiosyncracies of adherents. I'll try and elaborate or catalog objectively every outward instance/claim of pseudo-Satanism, but I really don't feel it defines Satanism. So maybe a separate article might come of it with a link from this article. What I realize as result of this discussion is a tone in this article to forge a definition of Satanism trending towards atypical social definitions avoiding practice, doctrine or core ethics, as if to state Satanism only exists as ether which is misrepresentative and an affront on the tactile or tangible qualities of the belief system.Blackson (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Somebody at one point hoped to link casual albeit premature forms & infighting under one title of pseudo, but the result is awkward. I don't find any significant material that can back up this section and over time this paragraph on sects labelling one another seems less and less relevant in the big picture. The heading "pseudo-satanism" is also misleading because it lumps casual and adolescent in with pseudo. I agree with the relevance of including casual/adolescent, but to say they are fake forms makes the article seem confused in an attempt at apophasis. What I mean is the article should avoid evaluation of this type in steering readers into what any wiki editors believe Satanism is "not". Point being casual/adolescent is NOT a pseudo-satanism, nor are loose unsourced, insubstantial arguments among a handful of practitioners crucial within the motive of defining Satanism to a broad audience in an unbiased tone. I plan on removing the pseudo-satanism heading and weak paragraph mentioning unsourced infighting, leaving the Casual paragraph instead. If anyone can offer a valid citation for the alleged COS vs. Theistic debate then it should stay.Blackson (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

'Before modern Satanism' Section Irrelevant

this section as presented within this article as of this signature should be shifted off the page to something about Christianity, the subversion ideologies of, and resistances to, Christianity by anyone whatever. it is one of the sources (along with the literary, such as Faustian tradition, horror fiction such as Dennis Wheatley, or the more difficult to evaluate Huysmans or Michelet) from which religious Satanists have DRAWN, but should not in fact be confused with the religious groups proper, as these only extended back to the 1960s.

if there is no support for their alignment to religious Satanism (no facets of religion were present and no cults known by the name, no academics such as sociologists of religion identifying these as Satanism per se), then this should be removed completely.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Jules Bois "La Satanisme et la Magie" published 1895 Bois declares that there are three Satans: the Satan of the poor disposed who turn to him for consolation; the Satan worshiped for perverse pleasure by depraved and rich people; and finally, the Satan of the dilettantes who are drawn away from true religion by an intellectual interest in mysticism. He defines Satanism as anything that departs from the worship of One God.Note that Church of Satan and the Singogue of Satan fall under descriptions 2 and 3.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Note also that what we call "Reverse Christians" falls under description #1Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

ONA

I undid the revision by user Self-ref who deleted the Order of Nine Angles section, referring as that user did - without evidence - to the ONA as a faux organization. I refer this user and others to the academic Conference on Satanism in the Modern World held in November 2009 at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology where the ONA was the subject of two academic papers. I also refer this user to the upcoming academic paper by Dr James Lewis to be presented at an academic conference on Satanism that will be held at the University of Stockholm in September 2011 which will detail his research which will include results of the questionnaire he compiled especially for members of the Order of Nine Angles. Given such academic research into the ONA and its members, the statement by user Self-ref seems incorrect, to put it mildly. Pointyhat9 (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Terrsaa, 30 July 2011

Please add MySatan to the list of external links. MySatan is a Satanic Social Network much like the Satanic International Network and the 600 Club which are already included in the section. MySatan is located at http://www.mysatan.net/

Terrsaa (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The links section actually looks like it could do with some pruning. I haven't checked the sites, but I'd guess half of them don't meet the WP:EL guidelines. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 09:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Ian.thomson trimmed the list; with reference to the specific one above, WP:ELNO says that we don't link to social networking sites as a general rule. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly irrelevancy phrasing

Intro, second para, first sentence reads:

Satan, also called Lucifer by many Christians, first

those satanists that in some way can be characterized as Christians, aren't what's regarded as "many". The relevant thing here is whether

1. satanists and luciferanists regard themself being the same kind, and secondarily whether
2. neutral academic sources regard them being the same kind.

That Christians are in a majority is less relevant, since the object under observation is a minority. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Luciferians and Satanists consider themselves "Left Hand Path" but are two very different belief systems. The term Luciferian was first notably used for Blavatsky's Theosophy society news letter "The Luciferian". The term Satanist was 1st used by the Catholic church for extreme heretics and rebels. Christian Satanists do not fall under either of these terms and are labeled by us as "Reverse Christians". Neither Satanists nor Luciferians get their dogma from traditional Christian mythology and or its propaganda.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Status in countries

Is Satanism forbidden by law in the Western World? Because it is described as a non-religious group. I think it is forbidden in African and Islamic countries. But what about Europe and America? 86.80.208.136 (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The First Amendment to the United States of America's Constitution guarentees freedom of religion. Many European countries have similar laws. See Freedom of Religion for more details. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

-Thank you for your answer, but I could not find any thing about Satanism. 86.80.208.136 (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Satanism is a religion. A general statement about religion would assumably apply to Satanism. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

-Alright, but about the status in countries. I still did not find it. Runehelmet (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

1) Satanism is a religion. The Church of Satan is atheistic, but it is still a religion. Other Satanic groups see themselves as left-hand path, but it's still a religion.

2) Most of North America and Europe guarentees freedom of religion, meaning they do not outlaw religious practices unless those practices physically harm people.

3) It therefore follows that countries with freedom of religion would allow Satanists to practice their religion (or lack thereof if Satanism happened to be a non-religious group) as freely as anyone else; i.e. that it is legal, that it is not forbidden by law in the Western World.

I don't see what the misunderstanding is here. Finding out an individual country's stance on Satanism would be easy enough to figure out: look at the article on that country and see if that country's government guarentees freedom of religion. Why the Satanism article would have a per-country status chart or something when no other article on a religion does is beyond me. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Problematic sentence

Generally, those Satanists who believe in the Judeo-Christian concept of Satan are linked into the belief system of today's Judeo-Christian religion, as they believe in the same theology presented in the Hebrew Bible.

This has to be edited. To start with, it gives the impression there exists some sort of a unified "today's Judeo-Christian religion".

As Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk · contribs) brought out in his edit summary and in this discussion on my talk page, it's inaccurate to say "in the Hebrew Bible" when we mean any concept of Satan in any Judeo-Christian religion.

I'll go ahead and be bold and edit those things now but I think this should be discussed.

As far as I know, (that kind of) Satanists take their concept of Satan as he is depicted in Christianity (i.e., what Christians say), not (only) in the canon of the scriptures. There's a big difference, so maybe the Bible shouldn't be mentioned at all. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 17:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Jean and so the other editors are clear on the point I was presenting I'll copy paste part of my comment. "Since the Jewish bible only mentions Satan in Job and as an subordinate of Jehovah not an enemy or adversary of God don't you think it's gross a misrepresentation of the Jewish faith to lump all the christian mythology on it's back?"Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

VERY valid point Rev. Michael.. The lumping of an christian Mythology on Jewish tradition and religion is a misnomer in and of itself. While there are current movements, especially since WW2 and the Holocaust aka Shoah, to bring Judaism and Christianity together as some form of conjoined twins, their sense of faith is much different.

Christianity, centers around the belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and that he was the returning Messiah. This is the main divide between Christianity, as Judaism for the most part does NOT accept Jesus as their Messiah. He was rejected, and by mythology crucified. Now as this stands, it places the divide, centering around Jesus, and not Jehovah, whom is shared by the two paths. There are Messianic Jews, whom are exceptions to this rule, however the average Jew is in essence indifferent to Christianity.

The Relation, of Satan to Judaism is indeed as Michael has stated - Satan, to them, is nothing more than a tempter, and agent of their God. Does Judaism Believe in Satan, As is seen here.

Christianity is the path that created the 'evil' entity of Satan, with the New Testament, and that is not accepted as accurate by Judaism.

On the note of Satanism, being generally accepted as a response to Christianity, I would contend that it is a mixture. Whereas, Christianity is well known as taking Paganism into its beliefs and changing them to suit their aims. This was started by the Catholic Church, in its aim to be Universal , also is guilty of some of the worst crimes against humanity, second only to the holocaust in the inquisition and other crimes (The Holy Inquisition) Christianity incorporated many pagan and otherwise outside beliefs, and demonized the rest. Thus giving rise to the popular notion that anything outside of Christianity as 'Satanic'. Pop culture has also done much to further that sentiment.

The root of Satanism, rests in more of the Judaic version of Satan, as in being an adversary to the Judaic concepts... This is somewhat carried into other Abrahamic faiths, (Christianity and Islam) and that is it. Satan, includes many of the archetypes through out history, that have been demonized by the Catholic/Christian church.

There is a very small minority of people within the Satanic Community, (Where in my opinion, all of this information on Satanism SHOULD be from, not Christian or other outside sources) that even adhere to anything resembling the Christian Satan... That would be next to impossible, as such a person would within days be incarcerated, or worse. Such 'evil' would not be tolerated by the world in general, let alone the Christian majority.

I would suggest, redoing the article with information from people WITHIN the Satanic Community, and not just Anton LaVey either, as he nor his Church of Satan represent Satanism to the fullest - This article, in many ways, represents Satanism as per not only Christianity, Judaism, but also LeVayen Satanism, which are individual issues in and of themselves.

To improve this, there are many authors, who have written within the Satanic Community, that could be used as reference - To get a better grasp of a path that is much more diverse than presented, perhaps there must be deeper research into Satanism, from the aspect of its people.

James L. Nicholson II 20:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by High Magister Nicholson (talk • contribs)

The Catholic church also demonized Pagan Gods such as Astarte and turned her into the demon Asteroth because the cult was too popular to kill so they absorbed it and made Easter. The bunny and eggs were her fertility symbols and to this day most people don't have a clue as to why their children color eggs every year and admire the Easter Bunny.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael, please keep it on topic on how to improve the article. James, your comment is very long. I understand you both have strong opinions on the topic but original research is not useful here.

The article should cover all viewpoints on Satanism, that includes what Christians and other religious people refer to as Satanism; LaVeyan Satanism should also be covered, and all other note-worthy "Satanisms". So I think the article's structure is fine as it is, and I don't think it should be rewritten from the point of view of what some may consider "real Satanism".

I'm not even sure what kind of Satanism you're referring to that hasn't been covered properly, Theistic Satanism is mentioned and even has its own article, Symbolic Satanism is also mentioned.

"There is a very small minority of people within the Satanic Community /--/ that even adhere to anything resembling the Christian Satan..." -- I think "Christian Satan" is redundant, if it weren't for the Bible then Satan as such wouldn't exist. If one is a Satanist of any kind then then they inevitably take at least some of their ideas about Satan from how he is depicted by Christians and/or in the Bible.

At this point I'd recommend you get specific and propose what exactly should be added to/removed from/changed in the article as it currently is; specifically, mention what type of Satanism isn't sufficiently covered in the article or is ignored in the lead section ("Satanism is a group of religions that is composed of a diverse number of ideological and philosophical beliefs and social phenomena. Their shared feature include symbolic association with, admiration for the character of, and even veneration of Satan or similar rebellious, promethean, and liberating figures.") — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 16:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

How about the creation of the word as an accusation by the catholic church to persecute and demonize non Catholics such as the action against Astarte, Jews and Pagans of various cults? Which by the way is still the most used application of the word today. Some historical figures like William Blake adopted the name as an act of defiance against the Church. Most books and references do not cover this aspect of the word because most of the books on the subject are written by Catholics and Christians. Because Satanism has been such an underground movement due to persecution what you ask us to provide is next to impossible but I'll see what I can do.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

reliable source?

Under "LaVeyan Satanism": Is religioustolerance.org a reliable source? TheseusX (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC).

dmoz search list

dmoz Open Directory search result shows list of 587 websites to Satanism, and 294 links within Open Directory five Categories - Society: Religion and Spirituality: Esoteric and Occult: Satanism: Demonolatry: Demons (242), Society: Religion and Spirituality: Esoteric and Occult: Satanism: Personal Pages (21), Society: Religion and Spirituality: Esoteric and Occult: Satanism (12), Society: Religion and Spirituality: Esoteric and Occult: Satanism: Chats and Forums (10), & Society: Religion and Spirituality: Esoteric and Occult: Satanism: Demonolatry (9) ἙρμῆςΚυλλήνη (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And this has what to do with article improvement? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"A satan" versus "Satan"

It is my understanding that, although the usual interpretation is that all references to Satan are concerning the same character, it is equally valid (at least within study of the Hebrew Bible) to regard it as an improper noun meaning "adversary". This general usage refers to any angel meant to question or obstruct any human endeavor. That is to say, David's provoker, Job's doubter, and even the angel responsible for keeping humans out of Eden would all be (potentially) separate beings, and each is "a satan". If this is indeed the case, then certain sections of this article which make the assumption of a single Satan should be rewritten. Alternatively, a note could be added that, for the purposes of this article or within the contexts of these belief systems, that assumption is made. Can anyone confirm what I've said? —Malnormalulo (talk) 08:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The article would need to be re-written if Satanism regarded those satans as separate entities. To claim that, we would need reliable sources saying that Satanists view satan as refering to different beings. The ones we have right now (as far as I can find) portray Satanists as viewing Satan as a proper noun. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, Satanists certainly take that view, but it isn't expressed that way in the article. It's being expressed as absolute fact, not as the interpretation chosen by Satanist theology. —Malnormalulo (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't find any such reading. I did find:

• "LaVeyan Satanists are atheists who regard Satan as a symbol of man's inherent nature"
• "Theistic Satanism (also known as Traditional Satanism, Spiritual Satanism or Devil Worship) is a form of Satanism with the primary belief that Satan is an actual deity or force to revere or worship"
• "Theistic Satanism is theistic as opposed to atheistic, believing that Satan is a real being rather than a symbol of individualism" Ian.thomson (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're understanding my point. I am not saying that Satanists take the view that "ha-satan" could be regarded as an improper noun. My issue is that, in the article (particularly the second paragraph of the intro), in discussing the concept of Satan as it appears in the Bible, the statement is made that "ha-satan" is in fact described throughout the Bible unambiguously as a singular entity. The information on Satanism itself is irrelevant — I believe that this article is making an unfounded generalization of a concept that extends to many other topics in theology and Biblical studies. —Malnormalulo (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)