Talk:Church of Satan

Satanic Bible mention

Satanism and Church of Satan but neither one makes more than a passing mention of The Satanic Bible - which seems like a pretty big oversight. Should this be a separate entry, or go under one of the other two? I'd like to write something for it, but I'm not sure where to put it. RL Barrett 23:25 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

this is from meta wikipedia:

The Church of Satan is in no way connected with the Christian/Islam/Jewish Satan. The Church of Satan is a religion that believes in self freedom. They do not hurt children, animals, lie, cheat, or steal. They have rules against this. The Church of Satan believes that all children are sacred and shouldn't be harmed in anyway. Animals should only be killed in protection or for food. You cannot kill people unless it is in self defense. Yet again I stress, 'Satan' is not the Christian Satan. Just because a word means something in your religion doesn't mean it means the same thing in another. For real information on true Satanism, see http://www.satanism101.com and various links from http://www.churchofsatan.com/.

Ness of <blackmilk.thekult.net> (12.246.119.xxx) 20:54, 22 Jun 2002 . . 12.246.119.xxx (moving essay from the main site)

LaVeyan Satanism reference removal

Removed link to LaVeyan Satanism. This term is used only by people who are not members of the Church of Satan, and as such, is intended to be specifically derogatory. However, as I have no interest in arguing with those who feel it is necessary to use this term, I simply deleted the reference here, which seems fair, given that it is a description of the organization itself. The Church of Satan doesas strictly defined by The Satanic Bible-- this is fact, and not (I think) subject to controversy. A simple visit to the Church of Satan's web site (www.churchofsatan.com) will prove this to be true, if one knows the content of The Satanic Bible.

Also added a statement about membership numbers. Generally, especially with religions/organizations, these kinds of documents tend to include a statement such as, "there are currently an estimated 14,000 practicing [insert religion here], most reside in North America." I thought the lack of such a statement should be addressed--the answer, in this case, being "unknown," as it is strict Church of Satan policy to refuse to provide membership statistics--though spokespersons will often provide vague estimates like "thousands of members" when pressed by journalists. --Sam1023 02:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Temple of Set link removal

Someone added links to Michael Aquino and the Temple of Set without explanation, and I erased them. The Church of Satan is completely unrelated to the Temple of Set. Michael Aquino publishes articles about the Church of Satan on the ToS web site, but this is no more a legitimate connection than linking an entry on Paris Hilton to The National Enquirer or Star. These organizations exist independently of one another, and have for decades. The fact that one claims to have inside information about the other does not legitimize a link between the two. --Sam1023 18:18, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cult?

Seeing as how this "religion"'s "scriptures" have only been around for under half a century, I think this should go in the cult category (besides other obvious reasons). --66.229.183.101 06:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Because it's a relatively new religion, it's a cult? What are these "other obvious reasons?" What traits characteristic of a cult does the CoS exhibit? --� WhyBeNormal ? 00:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The Church of Satan, does not exhibit cult traits. It is a decentralized religion, where no central meeting point or physical place to congregate. Membership does not require any meeting or contact with other Satanists and for the most part this type of group behavior is discouraged. Their emphasis on individuality is inconsistent with cult techniques. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkpalace (talk • contribs) 23:25, 17 February 2006(UTC).

I propose New Religious Movement as more neutral description.

From my own accounts, it has been very rare for LaVeyan Satanists (sic) to refer to Satanism as a "religion," moreso a philosophy.12.96.46.209

I find quite the opposite, that Church of Satan members generally find it derisive when outsiders insist that Satanism does not qualify as a religion but only a philosophy. Anton LaVey himself said very plainly that he intends Satanism to be a religion, and that it qualifies as such by possessing both ritual and dogma. "Dabblers" who likewise attempt to downplay Satanism as a religion are often frowned upon by members of the Church. Given that this article in particular concerns the Church of Satan, I feel it is only appropriate to use the language that they choose for themselves. --Lvthn13 13:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Subjective judgement references removed

There were some value judgements in this article, such as "many people hate the bastard", and "this cult should be banned", that I removed. I am not a member of any organized religion, but promote the freedom to pursue any such religion. Such crude and obnoxious editorial does not belong in a factual Wikipedia article. Shawn 15:12 EST 03.22.05.

Vandalism

I removed a vandal's commentary from this page. Hope no one misses the poorly written rhetoric. :) Heithinn 23.04.2005

I removed some vandalism a few minutes ago, some vandalism that the last editor for the page missed. The vandalism I removed was up for a whole day! Didn't check to see how long the vandalism the other guy removed was there for. But if it's being vandalized that frequently maybe this page ought to be protected. Bluecollarchessplayer 02:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed someone's destruction of parts of the article from April 6, may have removed some small aditions to article in process.Jimhoward72 19:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed vandilism about President of USA in a few locations. M00nh34d 11 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by M00nh34d (talk • contribs) 06:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sammy Davis Jr

I couldn't find any objective proof that sammy davis jr. has any affialiation with the church of satan so I deleted this statment, it seems heresay to me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.132.176 (talk • contribs)

I couldn't find any proof either and it's still on there (or perhaps back on there). I'll delete it again. --Vaughnstull 00:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at a Google Search for Sammy Davis Jr Satanist And you will see countless references to his membership in the Church. There is some discussion that he was only a member as a joke, however it's clear he had an association with early Church members and was a member at one point. Sean Bonner 16:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not clear at all. Just because it returns Google results doesn't make it a fact: it is more likely an urban legend. Something very mundane (like Davis going to a party hosted by Lavey) probably started the rumor. Algabal 06:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the source for Sammy Davis' membership, an article on thesleaze.co.uk. Which is obviously completely made up - like all articles on this site. How could anybody take this serious and consider it a credible source? Just look at the main headline of the page "The Sleaze: Incredible Lies Today - Still Bollocks Tommorow!"

Jayne Mansfield

Jayne Mansfield had a meeting strickly for the purpose of publicity with the CoS founder, she wasn't affialted either, these glaring factual inconsistencies and sensationalist claims make me question the validity of the entire article, I believe it needs to be flagged- 67.169.170.140 04:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

There are many articles and photos showing that Mansfield and LaVey had a more of a relationship than you suggest. While it's debatable that they were every involved romanticaly she definitely had an involvement with the church. Sean Bonner 23:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, while I have been recently questioning all the claims made by Anton, I don't completely fault him or Blanche Barton for promoting his 'legacy' either, it goes with the philosophy of the religion, i.e. no pompous and righteous hypocracy if they were embellishing aspects of his life. But, is there someone out there, who is objective and has the resources that can straighten things out? I tend to dismiss Jayne Mansfield fans protestations as those who are horrified of the idea it might be true, or that it would tarnish their idealized 'Pink' image of her - or to others who aren't so concerned with Jayne as discrediting LaVey. I'm not trying to insinuate this is what was behind the previous comments; could be just an honorable quest for truth, but that is what I initially interpreted them as. Because, on the other hand, I don't take everything Anton LaVey, Barton Wolfe, Peter Gilmore, and Blanche Barton say as gospel either - though I do proudly own (not counting CD's) The Satanic Bible, Satanic Rituals, Satanic Witch, Devil's Notebook, Satan Speaks!, and The Secret Life of a Satanist. Especially in the last one, there are many claims in the chapter: The Devil and St. Jayne, including copies of notes which are asserted to be in her handwriting, and in the center of the book are photographs of Anton with Jayne and her family taken by Walter Fischer. While not impossible, before photoshop it would have been more trouble doctoring them than it was probably worth - if anyone knows someone knowledgeable on the subject of photo analysis, Id like their opinion. Anton too claims that she had the initial meeting strictly for publicity - he never had any delusions about why people were interested intitially. His claims of affiliation happen after that. Don't simply claim there are factual inconsistencies, give proof to debunk the photos and claims of LaVey. Given the topic, were she affiliated, do you honestly think her management wouldn't deny it?! Perhaps a weasel argument, but it casts reasonable doubt for me that those in charge of her memory would have just as likely gotten rid of all evidence especially had she truly been affiliated. Khirad^talk 11:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Charles Manson?

It seems that there was at least some connection between Charles Manson and the CoS, but I haven't found anything conclusive enough to make an edit. Ataru - July 31, 2005

Charles Mansons used the phrase "Hail Satan" in his "Family", this greeting is also used by the CoS. This is the only link that I know of. -Unknown

The link would be Susan Atkins, whom danced in LaVey's Topless Witches' Revue prior to joining Manson. As to her person and the Manson Haight-Ashbury burnout types, LaVey had nothing but contempt for them in his writings. People who go to Ozzfest also give the sign of the horns (which should be done with the Left hand!). That doesn't make them Satanists any more than singing along to Mr. Crowley. Khirad^talk 11:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Oprah

Um, if you happen to see Oprah in history, sorry, that Wikipedia spoof thingy sent me here and I didn't notice the Wikipedia logo. -Unknown

Probanly Encyclopedia Dramatica or Uncyclopedia. They need some content distinction for real articles to stand out as Real. -Unknown

Sources

I removed the tag for "unsourced" because it is entirely unclear what sources the person who placed this wishes to see cited. Virtually all of the information on this page is derived directly from either the Church of Satan webpage, Blanche Barton's books "The Secret Life of a Satanist" and "The Church of Satan" or Anton LaVey's own books, all of which are noted in this article. One could theoretically annotate every fact presented with one of these source citations, but this would be relatively wasteful as 95% of it is immediately verifiable by the CoS webpage. - Lvthn13

What do they believe?

I came to this article hoping to find out about the belief system of members of the Church of Satan. Instead I got an article which is mostly concerned with the structure and administration of the Church. Can anybody say more about the Church's beliefs than "Every individual can be his or her own god and is responsible for his or her own destiny"? Adambisset 08:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The Church of Satan's tenets are found under the article for LaVeyan Satanism. They are separate because membership in the Church of Satan is not necessary to be a Satanist. Your comment, however, suggests that perhaps I should edit the article in the future to make this more clear. - Lvthn13

Thanks! :-) Adambisset 11:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest! It is for interested readers that I put in the effort to maintain these articles and ensure their quality. --Lvthn13 00:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Further efforts to clean up the article; new section added on Church of Satan specific policies and practices, certain sections moved (especially former end paragraph of the history section), others clarified and additional information added. Ongoing effort that may see further revision as time permits. ==Lvthn13 14:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson

Is he really a Reverend in this church? His article says so.--Chili14 01:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson was awarded the title of Reverend by Anton LaVey prior to his death. That title has never been revoked nor has it been surrendered by Mr. Manson. --Lvthn13 03:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably worth noting that the title is simply honorary, Manson plays no real part in the organization.Gray915 22:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms and Opinions

Do the criticisms listed in this article make sense to anyone? I'm quite familiar with Satanism and the Church of Satan, but that paragraph seems to make no real sense. -Unknown

"No heaven of glory bright nor Hell were sinners roast." Grow up man. -Unknown

Lifetime Registration

Just in case I haven't been keeping up, the $200 registration fee makes you a lifetime registered member, yes? I'm thinking to add this to the article. Also, to mention how the fee was upgraded a couple years ago from $100. Tyciol 07:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Question

Where do they meet? Like, do they have churches and things like that? I saw some stuff on TV that would support that they do (footage of Black Masses), and also I saw footage of a priestess in the woods with members and she was holding something in the air, what would that be that they were doing? And also, how do they believe in sin and indulgence but not in illegal activities or drugs or murder or any of that? How exactly are they evil? Also, what do they believe in for afterlife? Thanks, Temp

www.churchofsatan.com

Do some research why don't you.

Autotheism/Suitheism

Would Satanism be considered a form of Autotheism or Suitheism??

--I'd believe so, yes. 70.19.180.162 01:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Witch/Warlock

Unless someone can show a respectable source, i'd like that part of the ranking to be changed as i know that witch/warlock is a Wiccan term, and in my opinion, this only supports the idea that Wiccans are Satan worshippers despite the fact that Wiccans don't beleive in Satan 74.114.224.156 06:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And i'd like to add that as someone who is friends with many Wiccans, and as someone who is somewhat Wiccan theirself, it's a bit irritating to hear "demon worshipper" or "satan worshipper" where ever i, or my friends go.

It's also kind of ignorant to think that "witch" soley belongs to Wicca, as it is a term used in many different forms of Paganism in general (which is not to be confused that I think Satanism is a form of Paganism, which it is not). JanderVK (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Preposterous request... It is an official title within the CoS hierarchy... it should remain as is. Satanists don't expect Wiccans to stop using the term, and it annoys them just as much. 66.56.237.64 10:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LaVeyKnife.jpg

Image:LaVeyKnife.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Satanic bible cover.JPG

Image:Satanic bible cover.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Nine=Ten?

"Satan hates Jessica and looks down upon those who dont"

Is that really part of the Church of Satan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.56.242 (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

501(c)(3)?

So is this church tax-exempt? 74.68.123.162 (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's accepted as a Religion, and so if the Church of Scientology are, then I presume the Church of Satan is also. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The church has activly shunned tax-exempt status as part of it's Pentagonal Revisionism philosophy. It is viable, however, so it is a personal choice as opposed to something foced upon them Devilmaycare (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No listing of Holidays!

The list of observance days seems to be missing - on this Walpurgisnacht, I think that they should be added. Objections? I'll cite this: http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanis1.htm Shamanchill (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

We should definatly list Walpurgisnacht as the aniversary of its founding and as a day of celebration, however we shouldn't realy have a big list of holidays, as they refer to the religion as seen on the Satanism page, whereas this page is about the organisation and its work, rather than its beliefs.