May 16, 2012

Church of Satan suffers Prejudice and Misconceptions because of its name, says new Study

Peter Gilmore, High Priest of the Church of Satan

A graduate student, Cimminnee Holt, from the Department of Religion at Concordia University, doing a study on the Church of Satan has concluded that the public suffers gross misconceptions about what the group stands for. According to Ms. Holt, the widespread misconception arises from a confusion of the Church of Satan with theistic Satanists who really do worship the Devil as deity.

According to her study, while the word Satan conjures up florid images of evil, gory offerings and babies bred for sacrifice to the prince of darkness, the Church of Satan really is an atheistic group with a philosophy based on its atheism. However, most members of the organization do not reveal their membership or affiliation with the organization for  fear of stigmatization. According to Holt, "Individual members can decide for themselves whether or not to divulge their affiliation but most choose not to go pubic for a variety of reasons."

 

Brief History

The Church of Satan was founded in April 30, 1966, in San Fransisco, by Anton Szandor LaVey,who formed a group called the Order of the Trapezoid, but which later came to be known as the Church of Satan. The founding members of the group included the "The Baronness" Carin de Plessen, Dr. Cecil Nixon, Kenneth Anger, Russell Wolden, Donald Werby and Michael Harner.

The Church of Satan first came to public attention in the year of founding when Anton LaVey, who remained the Church's High Priest till his death in 1997, publicly conducted the marriage of Judith Case and journalist John Raymond and a public funeral of its member Edward Olson. The Church also received publicity from its involvement in a number of movie productions, such as Kenneth Anger's Invocation of my Demon Brother in which LaVey appeared. Anton LaVey was also involved in the production of the famous movie The Devil's Rain in which John Travolta appeared. The group was the subject of a flurry of books magazine and newspaper articles in the 60s and 70s.

According to its current High Priest, Peter H. Gilmore, "Satanism begins with atheism. We begin with the universe and say, 'It's indifferent. There is no God, there's no Devil. No one cares!'"

Beginning from 1975, the Church began going through a new phase in which Anton LaVey began withdrawing the group from the flamboyant public attention it had been receiving due to the novelty of its name and philosophy. The group's withdrawal to privacy led to rumors of LaVey's death and the Church's demise and also rumors of criminal activities within the organization.  Top members of the church, including Peter Gilmore, Peggy Nadramia made media appearances to dispel these rumors and the FBI later cleared the organization of criminal conspiracy theories making the rounds.

After the death of Anton LaVey, in 1997, Blanche Barton became High Priestess of the Church, and in 2001, Peter Gilmore became High Priest and Peggy Nadramia, High Priestess and publishers of The Black Flame, the official magazine of the Church of Satan. The HQ of the organization was moved from San Fransisco to New York City's Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan.

The Church of Satan does not publish membership information, thus, it is unknown how many belong to Church or who its members are, but the church claims that "interest in the Church of Satan and Satanism is growing all the time…"

 

What the Church of Satan Teaches

According to Peter Gilmore, High Priest of the Church of Satan, the primary thesis of the Church is atheistic and as such the church does not worship or promote belief in the Devil, Satan or any supernatural entity, including God. In Peter Gilmore's words "…anybody who believes in supernatural entities on some level is insane. Whether they believe in The Devil or God they are abdicating reason." According to Gilmore, "Satan is a model or a mode of behavior. Satan in Hebrew means 'adversary' or 'opposer,' one who questions."

The Church, in its atheistic philosophical stance, thus, describes itself as an organization dedicated to acceptance of the carnal self. The guidelines for conduct and living by Satanists is contained in The Satanic Bible, written in 1969 by Anton Szandor LaVey. Most of the statements of guidelines appear to be in self-conscious response to the patterns of ethics and morality in Judeo-Christian culture. The guidelines, unlike Judeo-Christian moral and ethical codes, are not strictly binding on Satanists. Satanists do not need to strive consciously to fulfill the guidelines for they merely represent truisms and pithy sayings which reflect an attitude to life and existence.

Some of the beliefs of the Church of Satan are represented in Nine Satanic Statements which outline what the idea of "Satan" means to the Satanists and express the primary ethic of acceptance of the carnal self and its drives as opposed to the christian ethics of self-denial:

1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence
2. Satan represents existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams…

Satanic Statement number 8: Satan represents all the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification.

Satanic Statement number 9: Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years. (It is not certain whether the word "church" in this statement refers to the Christian Church or the Church of Satan)

The Church of Satan lists Nine Satanic Sins which include, Stupidity, Pretentiousness, Solipsism, Self-Deceit, Herd Conformity…Forgetfulness of past orthodoxies and Lack of Aesthetics.

It lists Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth some of which are:

-Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
-Don not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them
-When in another's liar, show them respect or else do not go there
-If a guest in your liar annoys you, treat them cruelly and without mercy
-Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal
-Do not harm little children
-When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask them to stop. If they don't stop, destroy them.

 

Membership

The Church of Satan claims it does not solicit membership. The church has two types of members, Registered and Active Members. Any adult (as legally defined) may be inducted into the Church as a Registered Member for a one-time fee of $200, but to be an Active Member, a person must be personally involved in the Church. Active Membership has five degrees. Members of the Third through Fourth Degrees constitute the priesthood of the Church and may be addressed as "Reverend" while those of the Fifth Degree may be called "Doctor." The Priesthood are the official spokespersons of the Church. Members are evaluated on the basis of accomplishment in secular life and peer recognition within a profession and not by mastery of the occult which the church considers irrelevant trivia. Members are free to keep their affiliation with the group secret.

JohnThomas Didymus

Transmodernist writer and thinker. Author of "Confessions of God: The Gospel According to St. JohnThomas Didymus"

More Posts - Website - Facebook

Auto-Generated Related Posts (Use the Search for Better Results)

  • http://www.artphotowalldecor.com/christian-wall-decor.shtml Art

    Why do atheists need a church? One of the big benefits of atheism is not having to get up early on Sundays!

    • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

      Satanists are not atheists.

      • http://johnthomasdidymus.blogspot.com johnthomas didymus

        You won't understand the Church of Satan till you understand the personality of its founder Anton LaVey–his fascination with the bizarre, and his psychologically manipulative but extremely skillful showmanship. The group is indeed atheistic but Anton LaVey prefers to exploit the fringe fascination with the exotic and bizarre to draw attention to itself. You may read a brief biographical sketch of Anton LaVey here:http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/LaVeyBiography.html

        Satan is a colorful figure in popular imagination and a convenient non-existent being to exploit to the publicity advantage of the group: though the concept of indulgence of the carnal self is consistent with the hedonistic philosophy of traditional fertility cults which Christianity labels "devil worship cults"

        • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

          Maybe not, but I think I recognize Kevin from CFI and many of us went around with him about this there and eventually agreed to disagree or at least stop debating him on it. One does not have to be a theist to be religious. There are non-theistic religious groups- some sects Buddhism and Shinto for example- which have all the trappings of religion. Be that as it may, I'm sure there are some within the group who take it very seriously, including the "9 articles of sin" etc, which makes them have all the dressings of a religion.

    • http://johnthomasdidymus.blogspot.com johnthomas didymus

      "One of the big benefits of atheism is not having to get up early on Sundays!"

      I agree wholeheartedly with you Art–I am agnostic and i look forward to Sundays only because that's the only day of the week i don't have get up from bed before dawn like a vampire!!

  • http://www.goddiscussion.com admin

    Interesting. I did not know anything about the Church of Satan.

    Deborah

  • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

    Yes, all religion is show biz. I agree wholeheartedly with that, but I still have a hard time believing they are atheists. The Church of Freethought or some Humanist Hall (or whatever they want to call it) or an Ethical center is more appealing to me. They have all the elements of a religion, along with a belief, statements of belief, a hierarchy, etc. I hardly believe they are truly atheists.

    That third video and the Black Mass it linked to gave me the creeps.

    • http://www.goddiscussion.com admin

      I agree. Not sure why atheists would need any type of church, satanic or otherwise. It is misleading if they don't believe in satan but have a church named after satan.

      • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

        When you see the videos, it is all misleading- completely misleading and very eerie. I'm not sure what these humans would do. Just as bad of Fundamngelicals.

      • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

        These freaks have "Goth Rosaries":
        http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html

        Scroll down to the bottom and you will see a link to Goth Rosary. Looking at their rituals, priests, witches/warlocks, 9 sins, lesser magic, and everything else, they can't tell me they are atheists. There's just no way. It seems like just another religion and pure deception to say it is not to me. Looking at their videos, I understand how the movie "Rosemary's Baby" was made.

        • Kevin Slaughter

          Mriana,
          How do you define "Atheist"? If you say, "They can't be… There's no way…", then maybe you're definition is not the same one they're using.
          OR, you think they're actually theists, that they secretly DO have a belief in a god or the supernatural. If so, then it seems you fancy yourself a mind-reader!

          • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

            Not like that. It seems to me these Satanists do have a belief and a religion. This to me is not atheism.

            • http://johnthomasdidymus.blogspot.com johnthomas didymus

              As i commented earlier Mriana much of the Devil paraphenalia you see in the "Church of Satan" is showmanship that appeals to those with a fascination with the exotically bizarre and help it draw membership–Did you see that the guy Diablos Rex in the video with devil horns and all!! Provided they are not deliberately trying to hoodwink the public, Peter Gilmore (the high priest of the church) was plain about it–the church is not theistic. You have to consider the origins of the Church in the 1960s drug culture when there was an upsurge of interest in the occult and other alternative exotic philosophies including eastern philosophies to understand the devil showmanship that the church puts up. I recall getting a good scare seeing the movie The Devil's Rain in my teens (LaVey was involved in the production of that movie and i recall the wild publicity in my school days the church enjoyed centred on the personality of Anton LaVey: the public had the impression that the Church was a devil worship theistic group and the church seemed to be enjoying the publicity it brought them. It might be that Holt's study is an attempt by the church to begin recreating its image.

            • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

              @JohnThomas, well that's what Rosemary's Baby is- showmanship, as well as exotically bizarre. I still think there is some belief or some sort in the rituals though.

          • http://johnthomasdidymus.blogspot.com johnthomas didymus

            You have to admit Kevin that the Church of Satan deserves to be misunderstood if it insists on garbing its "atheism" in elaborate devil mumbo-jumbo. I had known about the church of Satan since my teens and i am learning for the first time while writing this report that it is not a theistic cult or a devil-worship group. That shows you just how much the church misleads the public with its emphasis on devil-worship paraphernalia showmanship. The best way for the group not to mislead the public about what it really stands for is to tone down its devil rhetoric even if it does not drop it altogether. I can understand the Church's statement that Satan is a "model" but one tends to miss this information on casual acquaintance with the group because of the excessive emphasis on the fun-game of playing at devil worship.

  • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

    OK I must admit they got me to chuckle when they said, "on earth as in Hades" during their 666 mass. In Greek mythology, that was it and there were various levels to Hades. If you couldn't pay the Ferryman you were stuck and I think it was at this level at least one of the myths had someone return from Hades. There's a lot more to it than that, which made me laugh, but I could not help but think about Greek mythology at that point.

    I still say they are creepy freaks though.

  • Adam

    This article is slightly misleading, in that the title claims that Satanists are misunderstood etc. "Ms. Holt, the widespread misconception arises from a confusion of the Church of Satan with theistic Satanists who really do worship the Devil as a deity" Using basic common sense here, I would suggest that if you don't want to be identified as a theistic Satanist, don't join something called the church of Satan. Furthermore, if the church of Satan don't worship Satan as a deity, why did they bother to call themselves the church of Satan in the first place? Of course people are going to have misconceptions about something with that name!

    • http://johnthomasdidymus.blogspot.com johnthomas didymus

      the article is not misleading i was merely quoting Ms. Holt's conclusion from her post-graduate studies–i go on to give more information about the group so that the reader can form his/her impression

      • Adam

        Sorry, I didn't mean that your article was misleading :) I meant the name Church Of Satan is misleading to those who know very little about Anton Lavey, or the churches principles. Someone who is unfamiliar with their beliefs will of course have misconceptions about the church, purely because it has the name of Satan in it. Apologies if you thought I meant your article was misleading.

        • Adam

          The name of Satan invokes a preconceived fear in a lot of people, so when they look at a church named The Church of Satan, they will draw certain conclusions from just the name on it's own. It's just the nature of the name Satan. Your article was fair and well informed! :)

          • http://johnthomasdidymus.blogspot.com johnthomas didymus

            you are right Adam, i pointed that out to Kevin Slaughter who seems to be defending them–the church of Satan deserves to be misunderstood if it insists on this devil gobble-de-gook ritualism, honestly while reading through their articles of "faith" it all struck me as childish attention seeking behavior– and i don't mean to be offensive to Satanist who might be reading this–only frankly expressing my impression of the "church"

            • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

              Exactly what I'm trying to say, as well as when a Satanist (I think Kevin Slaughter, but don't quote me on that) came to CFI and started a discussion on it. There was a lot of going around as to what The Church of Satan was, much like this. Since we do not wish to drive away people, esp since it is a place of inquiry for everyone, we basically just agreed to disagree in the end.

              Oh I do have a good memory. There was a podcast about it also, but there was a debate happening for a while concerning it: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/2802/ This gives Kevin's side of the story, as well as various other POVs on the topic.

              Point of Inquiry Podcast discussion on the topic: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/2800/

              So it has been well hashed over on CFI and it's forum. Everyone's POVs about it vary, which should be right up the Satanist's alley because there is no herd mentality about it. Noticed, I still called it a religion.

              More on the discussion:
              http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/2830/

        • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

          The Church of Satan is very misleading, IMO.

          • http://www.goddiscussion.com Dakota O'Leary

            To say the least. It's Wicca, turned on its head. Very silly faith IMHO.

            • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

              I have thought that too. I had a brother-in-law who was raised Xian, became a Satanist, and then warlock, in the Wiccan religion. Go figure. He had all his powers and liquids for various stuff, so he did the alchemy too. I teased him a lot and called him Dr. Bombay sometimes too. He knew I was teasing, which is good, because I really didn't mean any harm with my teasing. Just goes to show why I do not see much difference between Satanism and religion.

  • C.H.

    This article has taken the original study out of context; I am the author of the study.
    No where in the original study does it state that Satanists consider themselves victims. See my commentary here: http://zaftigworks.com/2011/06/04/satanists-are-not-victims-more-commentary-on-my-publication/

    Or, better yet, read the original study here:
    http://artsciweb.concordia.ca/ojs/index.php/jrc/article/view/34/11

    • http://johnthomasdidymus.blogspot.com johnthomas didymus

      With due respect Ms. Holt, i do not recall stating anywhere or implying in the article that "satanists consider themselves victims."

      • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

        I did not see it either nor do I recall seeing any reference to the study. So how can you take the study out of context if you did not refer to it to begin with? All it means is, either you did not see the study or you disregarded. I'm willing to bet that you did not see the study, because if you had and it applied to what you were saying you would have referred to it.

        Correction, you did see it and referred to it in the very beginning, but you did not use the word "victim" once.

        • http://johnthomasdidymus.blogspot.com johnthomas didymus

          No, i did not see the original study, i only saw an article by a certain Beth Lewis discussing the study on the Concordia university site where Ms. Holt did her postgraduate study on the Church of Satan

          • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

            Oh. It was cited at the end of the article. Generally, that is how I sometimes get other sources to add to my reports- either in the article or at the end. Sometimes I do a search to find more info on the topic too, if that's the only source I have. It's time consuming. Don't feel bad though. Such things as C.H. pointed out can happen to anyone, but I assure you, I did not see the word "victim" anywhere in your report. As I said, I think if you had saw it, you probably would have added it. I think you did well, despite not agreeing that it's not a religion, so don't feel bad about what you wrote. If you did not see the study, then you did not take anything out of context concerning the study itself.

  • C.H.

    Forgive me, I did not mean to appear accusatory. I am simply trying to get ahead of some of the Internet commentary – as futile as that may be!

    The article by Beth Lewis is here, titled "Sympathy for the Devil":
    http://www.concordia.ca/now/what-we-do/research/20110530/sympathy-for-the-devil.php

    I do indeed understand how it may appear that Satanists decry victimhood – I am simply clarifying that my study does not state that. Whether you or I agree or disagree is irrelevant, but my first duty as an academic is to understand Satanism as it understands itself, and then apply the standards of my discipline. I make no moral judgements, but I do want to be as precise as possible.

    • http://johnthomasdidymus.blogspot.com johnthomas didymus

      Dear Ms. Holt,

      I quote your comment: "I do indeed understand how it may appear that Satanists decry victimhood – I am simply clarifying that my study does not state that."

      I wouldn't hesitate to apologize if my article indeed said or implied that "Satanists decry victimhood" But my article does not say so, therefore i object to your insistence that my article says what it does not say.

      WHAT MY ARTICLE SAYS:

      My article says that you said that many satanists do not openly divulge their affiliation for "fear of stigmatization." While i might not have used the exact words ascribed to you by Beth Lewis in his Concordia article "Sympathy for the Devil?" I am convinced i have translated the meaning of your statements faithfully in my own words: And i quote the words ascribed to you in Beth Lewis' article: “Individual members can decide for themselves whether or not to divulge their affiliation, but most choose not to go public for a variety of reasons,” Holt says. “Openly divulging their affiliation could harm them.”

      Stating that openly divulging their affiliation "could harm them" is equivalent in the context of the article "Sympathy for the Devil?" to saying that satanists are victims of prejudice and that some of them do not reveal their affiliation to the group for "fear of stigmatization." (the words i used in my article).

      That Satanists are victims of prejudice and that they therefore avoid revealing their affiliation for fear of consequences is effectively what Beth Lewis quotes you as saying in his article "Sympathy for the Devil?" and that is all that may article says.

      WHAT MY ARTICLE DOES NOT SAY:

      You claim that my article says that "Satanists decry victimhood." (my dictionary defines "decry" as: Publicly or openly denounce or object to).

      My article does not say that satanists decry victimhood, and if i have missed where my article says that then please be kind enough to point me to that place.

      What my article says is in agreement with what you said in your Zaftig works article titled SATANISTS ARE NOT VICTIMS: And i quote your words: "As I am weeding through the Internet media that have picked up the Concordia NOW news release, several sites have renamed the title, “Sympathy for the Devil”, to something akin to “Satanists are Victims of Prejudice”, and paraphrasing Beth Lewis’ text to emphasize that Satanists do not reveal their affiliation for fear of consequences.That is true. That Satanists decry themselves to be victims of prejudice however, is decidedly not true. "

      You admit that it is true that satanists are victims of prejudice but you object to any suggestion that satanists decry their victimhood. My article does state that satanists are victims of prejudice, BUT NOWHERE DOES MY ARTICLE STATE OR IMPLY THAT SATANISTS DECRY THEIR VICTIMHOOD.

      You may want to read the opening paragraphs to my article in which I refer to the Concordia article on your study. As far as I understand the language used in my article and the words ascribed to you by Beth Lewis, what my article says is in agreement with what you said in your zaftig article and what Beth Lewis' article says that you said.

      I did not read your original study only because Beth Lewis' article contained enough direct quotes of your own words and, thus, all the information i needed to write a brief journalistic report on it; i do not have to read an entire academic paper just to write two paragraphs of news report on it, especially when i have seen comments ascribed to you in relation to the study (I can at least trust that your words would represent your study accurately). Much of the information in my article about the history of the Church of Satan and their creed came directly from their website and from wikipedia as you would have noticed if you clicked on the links in the article.

      sincerely

      johnthomas didymus