Talk:LaVeyan Satanism

Notice

As you probably noticed if you're reading this, this article has been redirected to Satanism where it rightly belongs. There is nobody who actually calls themselves a "LaVeyan Satanist;" all such persons in fact merely call themselves Satanists, and rightly so. After all, Anton LaVey founded the religion, and there exist no sources whatsoever to suggest that anyone before him ever called himself a Satanist. I welcome everyone who has contributed here to continue their efforts on the article, and contribute to finally bringing reason and sensibility to this series of articles. Thank you! -Lvthn13 06:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Prometheus and Satan; compassion, and charity as a Satanic character trait?

Something that always intrigues me about the Satanists reverance of the mythical Prometheus, is that Prometheus,if not an altruist, was at the very least a blatant self-sacrificing philanthropist was he not? When he rebelled against Zeus and the high gods to bring fire to man, he did'nt have to; but he chose to risk his own ass to help the enslaved humans out, to free them from their chains and bring them liberty, out of his compasion for them. Certainly the Satan character can be seen similarly, allthough unlike Prometheus-, Satan was allready fallen before he did his act, only risked incurring more wath from the tyrant; whereas Prometheus was willing to risk that wrath beeing incurred before his fall{or punishment} by dooing something kind and philanthropic. So, If Satanists love Prometheus so much, why do they so often gloss over this important factor as a Satanic trait? Should blatant compassion and charity then not be considered a Satanic Trait? For example, in the paragrpahs talking about Satan{under "Beliefs"} in the article, it says this about Prometheus and his likeness to the Satanists Satan symbol= "Satan is said to appear in mythology and literature around the world as a trickster, rebel, and hero. Figures such as the Greek Prometheus are said to perfectly exemplify the qualities of Satan, the prideful rebel.", would it not be accurate to add "Figures such as the Greek Prometheus are said to perfectly exemplify the qualities of Satan, the prideful,COMPASSIONATE, rebel.". I know the previous sentence says "hero", but "hero" does not neccaserily imply "compassion", one can be an accidental hero; Prometheus was a hero to human kind via blatant disregard for his own well beeing and blatant compassion for the human race. Figured I might pose this as something for Satanists to ponder; No I'[m not suggesting "altruism", but merely a strong penchant for compassion for the oppressed{etc} as a main Satanic trait and trait in Satanism.--Irreverand-Bill 22:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The question is: so? Satanists may be compassionate if they so choose, or even disregarding their own well-being for a cause that may give them betterment. Satanism does not have any compassion for the oppressed in the sense of some sort of humanitarian organization -- far from it, such "oppressed" should rally together and fight against such. Responsibility to the responsible. Darkahn (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

--

Satanism DID exist for centurys before lavey so enough with your bullshit.

this is LaVeyan satanism and this page is exacly where it should be. Veltiis - 29/12/06

I love the disrespect you theistic fools tend to give. Satanism existed as a prerogative, nothing more. 12.96.46.209 16:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Carducci,Baudelaire, modern Satanism,history/origins of Modern Satanism

Technically Veltiis and , correct me if I'm wrong; but I believe you are both partly correct and partly incorrect. Satanism existed as a prerogative{so far as we know; it could have existed as more, but we really have little proof momentarily} for centuries before Lavey. HOWEVER, Satanism did exist as an underground philosophical/religious movement at least some decades before Lavey codified HIS philosophy and version of Satanism; mostly as either dark pagans whom utilized Satan in their pantheon or at least revered him as a symbol of Promethean enlghtenment and also connected him to Pan in their lown minds, and also amongst non-theists whom liked Satan as a symbol{but it was more individualistic pre-Lavey during those decades, not based on one mans personal philosophy and mix of one mans personal influences}; ALSO, I am unsure of his own direct beliefs, but Giosue' Carducci- the author of "Inno a Satana" certainly displayed a reverance for Satan as a symbol Pre-Lavey, and further his poem seems to be possible more deistic than Atheistic{allthough still "non-theistic"}- given the opening lines "first cause immense; of matter AND reason, od SPIRIT AND sense", or also translated= "To you, creation’s mighty principle, matter and spirit reason and sense". Many Satanists of all stypes believe he was a closet Satanist{allthough perhaps the Poem was his coming out gig}; he exemplified modern Satanism with that poem and his anti-clericlalism,radicalism, and enlightnment type views, and of course his positive view of Satan; he was born in 1835 and died 1907, he wrote the poem in the 1860's. In some ways one COULD see that poem as the pre-Laveyan Satanic Bible. It showcased a pagan and rationalist spirit, and left more doors open for personal intrpretations of where to take ones Satanism{or love for the satan symbol} than did Lavey with his Bible and his mishmashing of his influences. I'm not saying lavey did not have a important role to play in Satanism, but he is one man; his Satanic Bible was HIS Satanism, and Satanism, having pre-existed{at least underground by a few decades at least and possible as far back as when Carducci wrote his poem- over a century before Lavey wrote his Bible- well...that and plagiarized "might is right" by Redbeard} that mens that Lavey is not neccaserily the Father of modern Satanism, nor his book; but that perhaps Carducci is a more fitting faher of modern Satanism, AND more individualistic than Laveys works{which call for certian dogmas to be adhered to allmost dogmatically for one to be recognized as a legit Satanist; wheras pretty much the only thing you can derive from Carducci's poem is that Satan is NOT the bad guy,mindlessly evil felloow of Christian tradition, but rather a natural force-either atheistic or deistic or both= AND a symbol of anti-clericalism,reason,enlightement,ENLIGHTENED rebellion, and so on- the christian satan made a heroic figure like the first few chapters of Miltons "paradise lost"}. Lavey was the first to blatantly call himself a Satanist and to use that opportunity in a time where it wa smore likely to be accpeted, during a very rebellious time- the 1960's, but Carducci did his work much more poetically and at a time where he was much more likely to face harsher feed back by the public and those in power}. Lavey played his role, anf good on him for that; but I contend that Modern Satanism[as a symbolic philosophocal movement, not just a derogatory slander} began with Carducci in the 1860's, NOT with with Lavey a century later. Thoughts? I might add that that poem also displays ethics rather than dogma{which you find in Laveys bible}- "of reason...sense" and more, it displays a very humanistic ethic as well, meaning that one whom would consider Carducci as modern Satanisms father, could refer to the poem when telling people of Satanic ethics, and it makes the ethics more individualistic than Laveys{for example revenge is pretty much a given in Laveyan Satanisms ethics; the poem seems to leave open interpretation on whether that is a positive ethic or not; calling for only humanistic reason and sense" nothing more.; and Laveys implies that magic is real and ritual important-if only as a catharsis; Carducci does'nt seem to speak of such things if I recall correctly, I'll have to go back and re-read his poem}. Carducci's Satanism is more individualist, Laveys contains more dogma and makes Satanism at least having to be base don HIS own intrpretations of Obectivism, revenge, and the other dogmas in Laveys personal Satanism. Again, thoughts?-- I allmost forgot Charles Baudelaire for "litanies of satan"; another influential 19 century poet Satanist, and another father of Modern Satanism.Iconoclastithon 20:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no proof whatsoever Satanism existed as an actual, codified, religion prior to LaVey. Poetic mentions of Satan hardly count for actually being true Satanism. Darkahn (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, read this: http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/RMCarducci.html Darkahn (talk) 08:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadomasochists as theologians?

"Both feel that man makes his own gods and is fully capable of assuming that role for his Self." This really, really doesn't apply to sadomasochists as a group. 12.222.45.85 19:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Funeral ceremonies

User:212.159.30.47 made some very welcome extensions to the article recently. I do question the last line, however:

There is not even a Satanic funeral ceremony.

I know that Satanic funeral ceremonies have been performed; it's more that they tend to be created ad-hoc for the individual in question. But one would be correct (AFAIK) in stating that there is no standardized LaVeyan Satanic funeral ceremony. - Korpios 16:28, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Peter Gilmore is releasing one, along with a marriage ceremony, in his book when he publishes it. ts in the final stages before it is published.

The Satanic Funeral ceremony was kept to the hierarchy of the Church of Satan until recently published in Peter h. Gilmore's The Satanic Scriptures, along with a Satanic marriage ceremony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.188.93 (talk) 22:02, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute?

The entire Criticisms section seems to be from the POV of someone with anti-Satanist tendencies, as well as little sprinklings of POV all through the article. DryGrain 16:41, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hence it's clearly labeled as criticisms. Having created the article, I was pleased to see someone come along and flesh out both Philosophy and Criticisms; IMHO, they did a fairly balanced job. As for that and "sprinklings of POV", do you think you could outline exactly what your objections are rather than jump to label the article with a neutrality dispute header? I'd like to get this straightened out and have the header removed ASAP. - Korpios 17:03, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I can understand how the Criticisms section should be critical; however, the section should be written about the criticism from a neutral point of view, rather than assuming a critical point of view and explaining oneself. I'm assuming you wanted examples of the POV I noticed that was 'not' in the Criticisms section, so here goes. (If you want examples from Criticisms, let me know and I'll shw you what bothers me specifically.)

• It may be surprising to some that Satanism prohibits bad treatment of animals, whilst Christianity does not. - A hint of pro-Satanist POV.

• LaVey did not directly say that women were inferior, but he insisted on them exploiting their "femininity" to gain power and pleasure, rather than what he saw as the feminist mentality of "hating your femininity". - If he never said "Women are inferior", why is the article trying to convince the reader that that is how he felt?

• In this stress on individuality, Satanism is considered part of the Left Hand Path; most major religions are seen as encouraging dull conformity. - More pro-Satanism/anti-other-religion POV...

• ...the group worked with a combination of magick and LaVey's hedonistic, egoistic philosophy. - Seems like 'loaded language' to me; mabye some synonyms that don't seem so much like a derisive criticism would work better?

As I said, other than the Criticisms section, there are only these few sprinklings of mild POV that bothered me.

I have done this same thing on a few other alternative religion articles. I notice that most articles on non-major religions tend to be biased against the religion they describe. When reading them, I try to read it as if I were a follower of it looking for language derisive of it.

On a side note, I've had articles which were completely/mostly my creation get tagged, VfD'd, edited mercilessly, andI have noticed myself becoming defensive of them. I can completely understand how you might feel like that, and as I've had the same thing happen to me, I'd like to mention that I have no feelings of rivalry or anger towards you at all and hope that you don't either.

Thanks, DryGrain 08:27, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's more surprise and confusion; I thought tags were last-resorts after discussion failed. I absolutely don't mind criticism and edits; I just want to understand the rationale. :)

As for the points you raise:

• It may be surprising to some that Satanism prohibits bad treatment of animals, whilst Christianity does not. - You're right; this should be reworded to "Some find it surprising that this form of Satanism prohibits ill treatment of animals." Many expect anything termed "Satanism" to involve some form of animal abuse/sacrifice, but there's no point to blatantly contrasting with Christianity.

• LaVey did not directly say that women were inferior, but he insisted on them exploiting their "femininity" to gain power and pleasure, rather than what he saw as the feminist mentality of "hating your femininity". - I suppose this could use a rephrasing.

• In this stress on individuality, Satanism is considered part of the Left Hand Path; most major religions are seen as encouraging dull conformity. - The second part could be slightly tweaked, but the point should stand; LHPers do typically see "RHP" religions as conformist.

• ...the group worked with a combination of magick and LaVey's hedonistic, egoistic philosophy. - Erm, Satanists view hedonism and egoism as positive traits. :)

Thoughts so far? - Korpios 14:06, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Everything you've mentioned so far is fine with me, but perhaps we could clarify that hedonism and egoism are considered merits rather than flaws to the average Satanist? Also, the entire Criticisms needs to be gone through.If you don't mind, I'll go ahead and do that, and anything you want reverted, bring up to me here. DryGrain 15:54, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I went over the article and made further edits; how's it look now? - Korpios 09:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm content. :) DryGrain 14:47, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ayn Rand?

I'm not certain that the comparison with Ayn Rand is deserved or welcome. Ayn Rand disapproved of violence in all forms, and would have despised Anton LaVey: she opposed mysticism and mystical practices, even in jest, and she would not have appreciated the idea of 'ghettoising' the country - no uninitated force. 'Selfishness', to an Objectivist, is more than material gain and physical enjoyment: it is creation, enlightenment, understanding, and contentedness with oneself. Additionally, Rand and Objectivists believe that all wealth should be earned: $100 tithings are out.

Egoism and Objectivism are not synonymous - if there is a genuine link to or influence from Ayn Rand, I should like to hear the case. Otherwise I suggest that this reference is removed.

The article does not compare the Laveyan philosophy to that of Rand, it just says Lavey was influenced by Rand. He must have read her books, or something. Should be okay.

Selfishness can not be qualified, I'm afraid. Objectivists are rationalists and subsequently they justify their "selfish" saintly behavior as means to a utopian end. It is just as pejoratively selfish for a group of "enlightened" sorts to lobby their brand of utopia as it is for me to Satanically insist on my right to be left alone--"humanity be damned". Gladsome 06:27, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Text should be moved to Satanism article

"LaVeyan Satanism" is a misnomer. The only people that use that term are Satanists that want to differentiate themselves from Satanism as a religion, as founded by Anton LaVey. People who affiliante with the religion of Satanism as founded do not call themselves "LaVeyan Satanists", nor do journalists. The information in LaVeyan Satanism should be moved to Satanism and Church of Satan.

I think that if there is a sub-page on Satanism it should be for groups like the Temple of Set and Dark doctrines that diverge from Satanism as a religion.

Before Anton LaVey used the existing term "Satanism" there was no organized Satanic religion, only Christian heretics or small ill-formed groups. It was used as a stigma to attack people, just as the word Jew used to be and recently fascist and anti-semite.

The Temple of Set does not use the term "Satanism" anymore, referring to themselves as "Setians", though they consider themselves to be a Satanic religion.

The Dark Doctrines are insufficiently important, famous or relevant to constitute more than a short note in comparison to the Church of Satan. I am using the Wiki guides in defining it as such. It should be moved into a subsection

Church of Satan Google "Church of Satan": 48,600 Alexa ChurchofSatan.com: 114,134 links to:129

Temple of Set Google "Temple of Set": 16,700 Alexa Traffic Rank for xeper.org: 608,020 links to: 44

compare the above to the following: Dark Doctrines Google "Dark Doctrins":1,770 Alexa apodion.com: 2,364,173 links to:18

for further comparison, the ONA is defunct organization but has almost as many refrences to the phrase "Dark Doctrines" (a phrase that, in google, brings up articles NOT on SAT/TAN Dark Doctrines:

Order Of Nine Angles Google "Order of Nine Angles": 1,150 no known official webpage

If there are no objections, I will make these changes in a few days... the only thin I could think to leave here is a redirect or something stating that LaVeyan Satanism is a term used by Satanists to refer to other Satanists that are aligned with the writings of Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan. People that use this term usually have a different point of view and want to distance themselves from the prodominant view of Satanism.

I object. LaVeyan Satanism and the Church of Satan are not one and the same; the former is a religion, while the latter is an organization. An apt comparison for what you're suggesting would be to conflate Mormonism with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — it just isn't so, even if the concepts are related.

Furthermore, I know several LaVeyan Satanists who do describe themselves as such when discussing their beliefs; I know of many more individuals (myself included) who acknowledge philosophical ties to LaVeyan Satanism while simultaneously acknowledging that LaVeyan Satanism is a religion in its own right (which they do not happen to practice).

You are also wrong to state that LaVeyan Satanists — or members of any of the groups you identify — do not claim or deserve the mantle of religion, whether or not each one claims the term Satanism.

Finally, basing your findings on numerical rankings on Google is far from an objective measure of the worth of an encyclopedia article on a subject.

By the way, would you mind signing your comments in the future?

- Korpios 03:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Page move

(from WP:RM)

LaVeyan Satanism → Modern Satanism

• Incorrect name was "fixed" by cut-and-paste move while adding new content. Maybe should be move, not sure. Pakaran (ark a pan) 15:43, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There was no discussion here regarding such a rename, so I'm moving the article back to its original spot. I'll address the comments above regarding having a dedicated article for LaVeyan Satanism separately. - Korpios 03:25, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok sorry. I just saw the cut-and-paste move. If you want I can undelete the deleted revisions, or ask someone to. Pakaran (ark a pan) 03:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, that's okay; everything seems fine now. - Korpios 03:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm all for moving it. Darkahn 20:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Changes

I've done some extensive reworking of this article by eliminating as much POV as I deemed necessary. I would enjoy direct criticism on the content I've included. I am entirely sympathetic to Dr. LaVey and require informed levity from those inclined to disagree with everything that he articulated in his writings and lectures. Any criticisms of what I've cut will be considered provided they are focused on just how the omissions make this a better, more NPOV article. Gladsome 06:27, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ever since the (IMHO misguided) attempt by another user to merge this article with Satanism, I've been watching recent edits more closely; as someone with a fairly (albeit not completely) sympathetic view of LaVey's philosophy, I've been quite happy with your edits. I'd be interested in the input of someone with no sympathy whatsoever towards LaVey's perspective.

BTW, is there any specific reason you didn't sign with your Wikipedia username (albeit linking to your userpage)? It caused a slight bit of confusion.

- Korpios 03:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Change to criticsm (old)

Hello, I'm new to the wikipedia concept.

The changes here were made casually by me a few months back:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LaVeyan_Satanism&diff=7749814&oldid=7126504

I felt that the statement was loaded, and could have been equally applied to political affiliation. The duration of membership is lifelong. Without a formal resignation, actual membership would be considered for that duration. As no numbers have ever been released, there is simply no waying of knowing how long people adhere to the tenants. As membership is also not required for people to adhere to the philosophy or practice th religion, this is simply to vauge of a statement to hold any water.

However, there is a seed of truth in the second part. By the nature of LaVeyan Satanism, youth going through the rebellious phase are likely to be drawn towards the groups image of occultism and iconoclasm, either precived or real. This is not quite the same as the religion/philosophy being a phase, but of the appeal of said philosophy by certain individuals goign through phases. These individuals hardly reflect the real religion/philosophy as thier adherence is mostly in name only, and even then mostly for shock value. Despite this latter point, it is a legitimate criticism to point out the appeal and subsequent outgrowing of the phase, so long as a destinction/disclaimer is made of thier actual degree of understanding and practice.

---

While that is a good point (second part) the CoS doesn't allow minors to join the CoS, and states that times change, and so do opinions. The fact that these kids go through this stage doesn't have anything to do with the Church (directly at least). they do nothing to attract any form of members, so It wouldn't be completely beneficial to add without pointing this out.

--Vellocet Malchickawick

• Also, the majority of teenagers these days who hear even a mention of the word Satanism think of Devil worship (which is not entirely true). I actually was drawn to Satanism in a way. My pre-Satanic philosophy was already similiar to LaVeys (I had actually written a small paragraph on my beliefs and I stated that "I am my own God"). When I first bought the Satanic Bible I was expecting Devil worship, but it was not. My friends immediatly left me to get away from what they thought was evil.

Added, and would like more added to it

I added the god in satanism section (a while ago actually) and it doesn't really have meat. I would enjoy other wikers adding something useful and accurate to it. -- Vellocet Malchickawick

Satanic ethics

Hello, I'am making the nl:Modern_Satanisme page on the dutch wikipedia and I'am wondering, if I can put the ethical rules, the nine satanic statements, eleven rules of the earth and the nine sins on wikipedia. I think there can be a copyright problem an I saw you didn't put it on the page.

Copyright and Unbalanced Content

The Nine Satanic Statements, Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth, and Nine Satanic Sins have two major issues:

1) there is no mention of the sourc - these are copyrighted pieces by Anton LaVey from his 'Satanic Bible' and Blache Barton's 'The Secret Life of A Satanist'; they also appear on the Church of Satan website. They should, if appearing in context, appear with the appropriate credit, as they are effectively articles reprinted in full.

2) These three pieces take up a disproportionate amount of space; they do not represent LaVeyan Satanism, only a few of the smaller aspects of it. A comparison would be an article on Christiany which used only 'Psalms' to represent the Bible. I will happily come back and re-write these sections to provide a more general overview of LaVeyan Satanism - but would it be preferable to keep these pieces intact (and create a much longer article around them) or to replace them with more representative pieces and quotes, keeping the article shorter ?

Furthermore, the 'Criticism' section, rather than providing an overview of the criticisms, current and historical, levlled against LaVeyan Satanism, actually reads as a criticism in itself. Also, it is generally more critical of the Church of Satan, which should clearly be under the entry for that organisation, than it is of the philosophy of LaVeyan Satanism, which this article puports to be about. I feel the whole section could be removed; if this is not acceptable, again, I will happily come back to re-write it.

--Euchrid9 09:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

As per the above, I have gone through the 'criticisms' section, and I can find no reason for its presence. For the following reasons, I have removed it:

Firstly, there are no sources or references cited. I have read a lot of Satanic literature, for and against, over the years, both in print and on the internet. I have never seen any of these criticisms before now. If the references and sources can be shown, and the entire section can be re-written so as to be unbiased and relevant to LaVeyan Satanism rather than the Church of Satan, then perhaps it can go back in.

Secondly, I can find no 'criticisms' section for Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or Christianity - why should there be one here? Even having such a section here and not on other pages on religion implies bias and imbalance.

If I get time, I will come back to work on this section a little more, and put in some more references, etc.

• Criticisms removed again, and relevant links put in its place. If someone can argue a good reason for putting a 'criticisms' section here, or can write one that does not appear biased or irrelavant, I would be happy to discuss it. Otherwise, I will check back every so often, and try and update as necessary.

Please check with Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines - the 'criticisms' section is biased (key policies no.2) and potentially offensive (key policies no.4) and there appears to be copyrighted material here (key policies no.3), which I will check out if I get time.

Anyone wishing to put the aforementioned section back again is advised to edit so that it does not fall foul of the above points. Also, please see: Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia is not a democracy for further information which relates to my reasons for continuing to try to keep this section objective and informative!

--Euchrid9 15:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of copyrighted material here. It's original work, actually typed right out of the book. I didn't think that Wikipedia condoned this. Fr0 03:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Magic?

I freely admit that I don't know much about Satanism ,but I had been under the impression that the Church of Satan was materialistic and had no concept of the supernatural. However, the article mentions "magic" several times. Is this actually part of the Church of Satan? It sounds really lame and Wiccan to me. Roland Deschain

if i understand it correctly, "magic" in laveyan satanism isn't what's thought of as magic, as in supernatural power, but is purely psychological or psychosomatic. Gringo300 05:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Gringo is correct. "Lesser Magic" refers to psychology and social-engineering, whereas "Greater Magic" (-usually-) refers to rituals, which of course are merely viewed as psycho-dramatic theatre to invoke emotions in people. One can assume that part of the reasoning behind the use of the word "magic" was to help appeal to the 1960s occultists of the day. Darkahn 21:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Bigbossmatt (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)I'd agree with you Darkahn, as long as you qualify your sentence "...[Greater Magic is] merely viewed as psycho-dramatic theatre to invoke emotions in [the practicioner and not other people]" because if the other people never become away of the Satanist doing a ritual, then how could they be affected by it in any way other than a supernatural way?

Furthermore there is no doubt that many LaVeyan Satanists (to use the wikipedia title) believe in magic in a supernatural sense.

Also the book The Secret Life of a Satanist by Blanche Barton strongly tries to get the reader to accept that LaVey did achieve supernatural acts through magic. I'll refer you to the section which described LaVey cutting up a newspaper, which unintentionally cut through Jayne Mansfield's neck, which was on the other side of the newspaper. In this book, a core book in Satanic literature, the implication is given to the reader that Jayne Mansfield's actual decapitation in the automotive accident was caused by this.

It's my opinion that the official stance on magic being psychosomatic/psychodrama or potentially supernatural is ambiguous if you become familiar with all the core Satanism literature.Bigbossmatt (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

General tone

Some parts of the article seem to push a pro-Satanism stance, and making it sound like Satanists are just out for a good time. I'll admit I' mjust getting acquainted with Satanism on the whole, but it did come off as favoring preachiness over neutrally presented information. Also, the sentence "This is as a reminder that to a Satanist, you are the most important being in the universe, and to honor your own vital existence and your life." Should probably lose the second person, but I can't do it without losing the message.

Do you see any religious article on Wikipedia not written primarily by members of that religion? The fact is that on hardly any other religious article is there a call for the primary editors to include a critical tone of the religion. I defy you to find an article on a major religion where the idea that the article should be anything other than sympathetic to that religion would even be entertained.

Part of Wikipedia's neutrality policy is respect for all viewpoints. In an article on Satanism, therefore, it is entirely neutral that the article would be written in a sympathetic tone as opposed to a critical or negative tone. I also suspect that the mere fact that the Satanism articles are specifically directed to clear up misinformation concerning the religion leads many to believe that they must not be neutral.

However, be aware that this article is on my list of article to massively improve. See my work on the article for The Satanic Bible for example to see what I think a truly quality article on Satanic subjects should be. It is unfortunate that so few editors are willing to take the time to really contribute to these subjects, especially since those that do often face massive resistance. --Lvthn13 08:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Gender

I reverted the minor edit that attempted to use "gender neutral" language simply because it focused on a single section of the article, creating inconsistency. I personally dislike the idea of using clumsy (s)he and he/she him/her throughout an article and feel that the English convention of using the masculine as default gender neutral (a common convention in almost all Western languages) is sufficient, but if someone insists on doing this, it should be done throughout the entire article and not to single sentences so that the article remains stylistically consistent. --Lvthn13 08:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

modern satanism redirecting to laveyan satanism

modern satanism shouldn't redirect to laveyan satanism. laveyan satanism is NOT the only form of modern satanism. Gringo300 03:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually so-called "LaVeyan Satanism" is the only form of Satanism, and is the only religion that can properly be called by that name. Other groups may attempt to co-opt it, but it doesn't follow that they have legitimacy. -Lvthn13 03:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Werewolf says: This is more a rant about Satansim handled on Wikipedia in general.

First off, I'd like to comment that "Religious, Theistic, LaVeyan, Philosophical" are all misleading terms, really. LaVeyan is the only one that makes sense in its context, but thats rarely used by actual LaVeyan Satanists.

In general, the Satanism introductions are confusing. Anton LaVey (meaning LaVeyan Satanism) advanced first the idea that Satan is a Dark Force of nature. Yet thats listed as "religious" or "Theistic" Satanism. Why? Theistic implies a kind of God. Why not just leave it at "Theistic" Satanism as "religious" is innaccurate.

Why not call the LaVeyan article Religious (as it constitutes a religion as well as philosophy) and term the "Religious" article "Theistic." The labels are confusing and the information seems garbled.

A new criticism Section added

Seeing as the old one is gone, I have begun a new one, citing common criticisms. I've attempted to keep it actual Criticisms that are not already explained in the other sections and have tried to remain neutral. Any add ons would be helpful, in the spirit of NPOV. Maybe we can finally clean this up and make it into FA material. WerewolfSatanist 05:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

First Church Of Satan

The Church Of Satan (founded by Anton Szandor LaVey) is neither affiliated with the LaVeyan Church Of Satan, nor with its founder, Karla LaVey.

Karla LaVey's organization uses the Satanic Bible as its foundation, primarily, along with the Satanic Rules and Sins. Hence her church is listed as "LaVeyan Satanism" in Wikipedia. It doesn't mean that its affiliated with any other organization. WerewolfSatanist 18:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject:Left Hand Path

In order to create an organized effort, I've put on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page a proposed Left Hand Path project to try and sort out all the problems we go through and to help properyly cite and protect things. If you're interested just go to the Project Council/proposals page and add your name to the "Left Hand Path" section. Seeing as there's been a wide variety of edit wars, it might be good to get some organization (and possibly administration to mediate conflicts). Just an idea. WerewolfSatanist 16:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems with article

Far too much time is spent on what Satanism is not, reacting to presumed assumptions that a reader might or might not have. The article should directly and clearly define the philosophy put forth by the Church of Satan. No more, no less.

Possible additions might include a reference to Ragnar Redbeard's Might is Right and a more in-depth elaboration of the concept of the Satanist choosing his or her own self as God. TapestryOfFate 19:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally think the article needs to be rewritten. In its current form its not quite as detailed as it could be. The introduction is vague, Satan's role is left horribly undefined when often it was spoken of in way more detail than that one quote gives, and in general things are just short. Perhaps a more comprehensive article based more specifically on the Satanic Bible, interviews with LaVey (in which he speaks of Satan and what the symbol means), and magic. Magic is almost completely not addressed! The Black Mass seems to be the only reference to magic at all! Lesser magic is ignored completely while greater magic is limited to a mockery, and not the constructive powers of what it brings. If there are no objections I can add a section on magic.WerewolfSatanist 06:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Magic

I began a magic section, though improvement is needed. Perhaps a new article could be made to govern Satanic magic? Just a suggestion, but for now sources are needed on the magic section, some of which can be found from the Satanic Bible and Satanic Witch and some which can be found on the Church of Satan website. I'll get on it though help is invited! WerewolfSatanist 22:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Deity worship is seen as an intellectual weakness.

I loved this line when it was formerly in the article. Was it not from a proper source or something, or was it just taken out because it was better elaborated on in the current form of the article (which can't be denied, the article is now much more elaborate and informational than before)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.234.51.57 (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Satanic ethics

Satanism values tangible, real world accomplishment over intellectualization for its' own sake. Does anyone here disagree that this is relevent and worthy of inclusion? Also, the fundamental Satanic view of human beings as "Just another animal" is heavily influenced by Desmond Morris' works. Should a synopsis of his ideas be included to better contextualize the significance of man as an animal?

Rewriting and Improving!

I rewrote the beginning, looking at other featured articles for inspiration. Added in some references, but want to find more. Will continue onwardWerewolfSatanist 01:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Me again. Tommorow I plan on working on more about beliefs, mainly I want to do an actual section on Satan. Any suggestions (or if someone else wants to jump in) go for it. WerewolfSatanist 02:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Added an actual section discussing Satan, which has been curiously absent. I suppose I shall cover "God" next and other such ideas. WerewolfSatanist 14:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Superfluous external links

If no one has any argument, I think I'm going to remove some of the links. Wikipedia is not here to advertise for obscure churches of Satan. WerewolfSatanist 18:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

LaVeyan Satanism is actually athieistic Humanism

LaVeyan Satanism is not Satanism,it is in fact Atheistic Humanism,they beleive in what is good for the individual human,yet they deny the existance of satan or any gods at all and say they are in fact creations of Humans.

To say a deity whose name you use is not a literal being and claim for instance to be a Real Satanist anyway,is as hypocritical as a someone saying they are a Christain but don't believe in jesus or jehovah.

No matter their efforts to whitewash and redefine who and what Satan and Satanism is if you deny he's a literal being your not a real Satanist,and thats also the same as saying every pre-Anton LaVey satanic Order all the way back to the Knights Templars and the Yezidi where in fact not real Satanists,when they infact believed in a real LITERAL SATAN,as their God.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTempleofthefreespirit (talk • contribs)

But Satanism is no longer an exclusive term to Devil-Worship, now the term "Satanism" also applies to the form of humanism that we are familiar with in this sense - LaVey's isn't the only form of Satanism that isn't Devil Worship. ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That is nothing more then people follwing laVey's lead and trying to redefine a word so that they don't have to bend over backwards daily to explian how and why they can be Satanists,and not believe in a literal Satan,and as much as they would like to follow LaVey's dictates that the masses are completely stupid,the sad fact of the matter is that the masses are just smart enough to relaize that a real Satanist does believe in a literal Satan,the masses may not know more then that about it but their smart enough to realize that anyone cliaming to be a satanist that claims Satan is not a literal being is not the real thing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTempleofthefreespirit (talk • contribs)

Without sources, that's WP:OR, and can't go in the article. See WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V - all are policies that impact and more accurately, preclude your changes to the page. WLU 17:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not uncommon to have two different beliefs following the same word. Again, LaVey's isn't the only form of non-theist Satanism. What you added to the article is written within the first paragraph of the article, and the way you were wording it sounded quite POV and riddled with OR. Your personal beliefs on the matter of Satanism is irrelevant. ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then when I get the time i'll just have to drag out the sources. Oh by the way how to i list the souces on the article to go along with any edits i do?

If you wish to refrence something, simply type:

<ref>Your Sources here</ref>

Try to lay out your sources in the correct grammar. ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to use citation templates . WLU 17:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTempleofthefreespirit (talk • contribs)

Also, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). ≈ The Haunted Angel 18:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are Christian belief-systems that reject the notion of Jehova, or Jesus being divine. (Ever heard of The Jefferson Bible?) They have more credence, unlike the imbecilic Theistic Satanism which attempts to poorly mix the Yezidi with the Christian INVENTION of Satanism -- which was never even claimed to be an actual religion, but described the practice of many pagan religions.

Keep the unsourced nonsense to buffoons like Joy of Satan, other random Geocities pages, and MySpace-ran cults, please. We were the first and still, to this day, I know of only so-called "LaVeyan" Satanism actually knowing what the hell they espouse, rather than doing nothing but bad-mouthing the Church of Satan or being ferverent reverse-Christians. Of course, that's not NPoV, but atleast it's actually true. Neither the Yezidi, nor the Templar (unless of course, you are foolish enough to believe the alleged interrogation transcripts) ever truly called themselves Satanists.

It seems the formula for every run-of-the-mill cult these days is to start up a MySpace/free page, pick and mix between Crowley, alleged Templar practices, and the much-embarassed Yezidi, or even take parts of LaVey out of context (the "Black Flame", to my knowledge, was a LaVeyan invention) and then spread their nonsense with the other countless cults on Wikipedia. And, no, "LaVeyan" Satanism is NOT secular humanism. And I'm afraid a vast majority of respectable organizations see Theistic Satanism as nothing but a joke. See http://www.pointofinquiry.org/ and the latest interview between Peter Gilmore and one of the interviewers for further elaboration on the differences between REAL Satanism and secular humanism. Darkahn 19:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please watch the civility - the edit has no risk of standing as is, and unless ToFS has some reliable sources, it's not going up. WLU 20:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

With all the bullshit already heaped on this page the last thing we need is a sad little turf war between people about who's more (or a real) Satanist. Swap emails and/or keep the discussion to verifiable article content. For a little more about what is and isn't appropriate for inclusion here or in the article read WP:SYN, WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SPS and WP:TPG. Also, TotFS I recommend you change your name in accordance with our user name policy (with special attention to point #4 on "Inappropriate user names") and to avoid obvious conflict of interest issues. If you are a single person you need to clear this up as well. If you are a multi-user account for your internet church then that's another issue. NeoFreak 20:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The name I amusing is a single person name!

Have you read The Satanic Rituals at all? LaVey mentions both the Knights Templars and the Yezidi in it as being Satanists,one ofthe rituals used in the book is a Templar ritual according to LavEy,plus he took the sacred text The Al jilwah of the Yezidi and turned it into a ritual.Well with groups like the Joy oF Satan(what i refer to as Clowns for Satan or satanic scientology) around Theistic Satanism is going to have a long up hill run to being seen as the real deal.

And no offense meant but to say the Church of Satan was the first satanic order is in fact revising the whole history of the religion of satanism and erases the satanists that came before like the Yezidi,the Knights Templars and yes Aleister Crowley(if you read Laveys Biography The Secert Life of a Satanist,LaVey makes mention of Crowley,as well as in The Satanic Bible he mentions Crowley as guiding his students in the A.A.,to the point that they end up squarely on the Left Hand Path.

TheTempleofthefreespirit 22:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fully versed in all the literature put out by the CoS with the exception of Gilmore's new stuff (which I could really care less about). I'm fairly well versed in all the peripheral literature. None of this chages the fact that this is not the venue for your dispute about who is the "real Satanist". Satanism is a subjective term wether you like it or not. The only material you should add or discuss is material that is directly relavent and can be backed by a reliable source. This does not include a synthesis or your interpretation of reliable sources. So unless you can find such a reliable source that states "LaVeyan Satanism is athiestic humanism" (which I'm inclined to agree with to a degree) then the point is dead in the water. You also need to read the policy on user names. If you've already read it then you need to read it again. Conflict of interest accusations will plauge your entire stay here and naming your accout after some "church" you've started up in GeoCities or the like is not the direction you want to go. Trust me. NeoFreak 22:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry my comment was meant for Darkahn he or she was the one popping off with the"Theistic satanists are not real satanist attitude",and to Darkahn's remark about there being Christian belief-systems that reject the notion of Jehova, or Jesus being divine,that might be so but thats not Christianity,thats a christian cult based on a modified verison of the bible and usually backed up with a non-biblcal supplimental text!That does not make then Christain but cult based on christain beliefs.

TheTempleofthefreespirit 23:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think I care what LaVey said the Yezidi or Templar were, given the knowledge of the time, while you simultaneously speak nonsensical, unverifiable claims of devil-worship spanning a milennia? I do NOT follow what LaVey said blindly; I have similarities with his PHILOSOPHY, but he was WRONG to call the Templar Satanists given what we know now, he was WRONG to call the Yezidi Satanists given what we know now. Oh wait -- he DIDN'T call them Satanists. The Yezidi were called "devil-worshippers" using the pejorative of Christians, and the Knights Templar, the "standard bearers of Christianity" as he stated in Satanis: The Devil's Mass. Perhaps he thought he spoke the truth then, or perhaps he was using the ALLEGED rituals (ever think of that?) described by Catholic inquisitions for CONTROVERSY -- perhaps he was just inflating the tabloids and devil-worshippers once allowed into the Church of Satan, it doesn't really matter to me.

The only difference between your claims and that of rabbid little angsty-teenagers is that you, to your credit, haven't invoked the Hellfire Club yet. Given your SAME logic concerning the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of variations of Christianity over two thousand years (gnostics, unitarianists, Jew-Christians), you have AGREED with me that your post-LaVeyan philosophy is a PSEUDO-SATANIC CULT based on modified beliefs WE codified, with you using texts ALL after LaVey. Satanism, pre-LaVey, was an uncapitalized pejorative -- a blanket term, like paganism, used by Christians to instill fear. It was not until the thirties when the idea of forming "satanism" as a philosophy was first brought the public mind, not counting the Hellfire Club and other theatrical, rebellious forms of 'satanism' years earlier. It was not until the fifties when new, other theatrical rituals under Satan's name took place. LaVey was the only one with the guts to codify it and make it an actual religion.

Your groups could have taken the high road like the Setians, or even did what the Misanthropic Luciferian Order did and refute Satanism as their name, but only these two groups have proved themselves actual religions beyond simple anti-CoSism. Thank you for falling into my trap and so blindly stating that Christian variations are not really Christian -- using this logic, which I agree with, your psuedo-satanic cult are not Satanists either.

Furthermore, LaVey had great respect for Crowley's writings (I myself am not particularly well-versed in them), but, as he was quick to point out in several essays (some of which are freely availible online), Crowley fell prey to his disgusting addiction. The Yezidis, the Templar, and -- I am going to assume you believe the Masons are descended from them, since only people who believe that there is an illuminati shadow government made up of Jewish Freemasons from Outerspace who also did 9/11 believe them to be Satanists -- have bent over BACKWARDS to show that they are NOT Satanists. Simply because the peacock god holds a name SIMILAR to al-Shaitaan means NOTHING besides a similarity, much like Lucifer being the later-attributed devil name, while in originality it was a Roman divinity. Christianity holds similarities between Ancient Egyptian religion, but that hardly makes them the new breed of Osiris-worshippers.

My overall point is, the pseudo-satanists won out in getting Wikipedia to accept the ridiculously loose definition of Satanism on the primary page, thanks in part due to their mobbing numbers, with only, to my knowledge, two actual Satanists having the time to actively contribute, only one of whom was a member of the Church of Satan. Congratulations. Now, care to back off from outright vandalizing ours with unsourcable, nonsensical statements and work on your own? It's in dire need of it. - Darkahn 05:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

dude i'm not here to argue with you.believe what you want its not my concern. TheTempleofthefreespirit 17:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place to debate, it's the place to suggest improvements to the article. You want to argue about it, go somewhere else. To date, nothing templeguy has said convinces me that his changes to the page should stand. WLU 06:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Templeguy???LOL Dude i'm gonna use that name in a comic i'm working on! TheTempleofthefreespirit 17:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

History

I expanded the history section to include the fact that Anton LaVey wrote books, which was strangely missing, and a secion about various offshoots. Also included a small paragraph regarding Karla LaVey's version of the church, since the article is about LaVeyan Satanism not the Church of Satan. Also included some new references from the CoS web site and the ToS site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiser86 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how the Temple of Set is "Theistic Satanism" when they don't claim that their system is even "Satanism." True, Aquino still uses the terminology "Satanic" in his writings, but generally they identify any contact with "Set" even before the Temple's formation as contact with "Set." To them, Set is the important thing. The Temple of Set's ideas are distinct from Satanism, and I think writing on the matter should reflect this. I don't think that inaccurate information is relevant....especially because its inaccurate. WerewolfSatanist (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Belief

I expanded the belief section of the page. I have removed the separate "God" and "Satan" sections, since non-belief in deities altogether is a single issue, and lack of belief in one leads to the lack of belief in the other. Included a quote for Gilmore's essay, with a reference to the page where it's published, which sums up pretty perfectly the Laveyan idea of Satan. Also reformed the sentences to interlace the various definitions of Satan. On their own they had little importance to LaVeyan Satanism, but reworded the definitions is such a way to stress the historical imagery and etymological influence on the LaVeyan Satan. Kaiser86 (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Invention/inversion

In the criticisms section it says 'A common criticism of Satanism is that it is reactionary and an invention of the Christian churches.'

It seems to make sense to use the word 'inversion' rather than 'invention', although this criticism has already been addressed in the main body of the article. I'll change it for now, although the claim still needs referencing. Calindreams (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's "Invention", though inversion also make sense. The story goes that the term "Satanism" was assigned to a group of followers by the Church itself since they were what, heretics, and it simply stuck. It's certainly also an inversion, obviously...

Disregard. Criticism, not History section. Yes, "Inversion". Yes, a citation would do nicely. --Draco 2k (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't find a citation. I feel that this criticism is only related to Satanism in general and not to LeVayan Satanism. Maybe it needs taking out altogether. Calindreams (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Unsourced statements are generally a bad idea, and even though LaVeyan Satanism is still Satanism... Besides, "a common criticism", "it is though" are all weasel words. Same goes for a lot of later statements. --Draco 2k (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually... The entire section is basically Original Research. There's only sourced statamenet, "LaVey has described his Satanism as "just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ceremony and ritual added" - which can hardly be called criticism at all, the other does not follow from it's source (an interview), and the rest are simply unsourced weasel-worded phrases. --Draco 2k (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing 'Criticisms' section

It's entirely Original Research. The only two sourced statements do not follow from source, or can hardly be called "Criticisms" at all. Here's the deleted material:

A common criticism of Satanism is that it is reactionary and an inversion of the Christian churches. It is thought that because of its chief symbol is that of the enemy in Christianity, it is a reaction against what were social problems at the time, rather than a positive growth.

The symbol of Satan is criticized as deliberately confrontational. Often it is cited as being purely for shock value and having no real purpose whatsoever. Some who agree with the philosophy of Satanism, fall short of calling themselves Satanists because it is seen as simply a rebellion against Christianity and not a valid, stand alone set of ideas. It has also been suggested that much of the power of Satanism was in shock which has waned since the 1960s.[1]

Satanism is also criticized as a recycled version of older ideas such as existentialism and perhaps individualism. LaVey has described his Satanism as "just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ceremony and ritual added" [2]. Critics have suggested that LaVey simply took the philosophy of Satanism from Rand and Friedrich Nietzsche, adding on the symbol of Satan and watered down versions of magical ideas taken from Aleister Crowley.

Signed. --Draco 2k (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Discordianism

Is it just me, or does this sound like a dressed-up version of Discordianism, what with the idea of a counterbalancing anarchic force within the world? I mean, obviously the popes of satanism have an awfully stricter view about individualism and anarcho-capitalism, etc, but that's their prerogative as popes. Anyone get where I'm coming from? 79.72.138.98 (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Bias

"It’s too bad that stupidity isn’t painful. Ignorance is one thing, but our society thrives increasingly on stupidity. It depends on people going along with whatever they are told. The media promotes a cultivated stupidity as a posture that is not only acceptable but laudable. Satanists must learn to see through the tricks and cannot afford to be stupid."

^^ Opinion. Snide. Does not belong on an encyclopedia. See top of page. 04:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.88.69 (talk)

It's a direct quote, yes it does belong here. Zazaban (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Then it needs to properly attributed or rewritten to not seem as an opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.197.21 (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a quote, it is an opinion. Zazaban (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Satanism and atheism are not the same thing

Satanism is not comparable with atheism as the the latter denies the existance of God and all deities, and also it rejects occult powers and practises. Whereas Satanism offers a person the opportunity to become the god of their own destiny by drawing on the powerful forces of energy, normally untapped, within each human being, and projecting this energy outwards so that one can achieve their desires and overcome their adversaries. It's basically the triumph and supreme manifestation of the ego.--jeanne (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Satanists don't actually believe in magic. They just use it as a release. By considering oneself a god, one is saying that he or she is the center of their own universe, not acknowledging that they have are deities.