Summary: This is one of a series of docs examining the Neopagan perspective
on Satanism. This particular review is of a publication by the
Church of All Worlds.
Keywords: Satanism, Neopaganism, criticism, review
Date: Kali Yuga 49940211 (slight revision 49940927)


*** 1 of 5 ***

Do what thou wilt.

What follows is a critical review of a document I found in a database
supported by people involved with the Church of All Worlds (CAW).

It is somewhat representative of the common Neopagan attitude toward
Satanists and Satanism. This will be a multiple-part series which
also examines the meaning of 'Satan' and 'Satanism' to Christians of
various types and to those who apply the term to themselves (or until
recently did so).

tyagi nagasiva
tyagi@houseofKaos.Abyss.com

The Order of K@s Under Satan (TOKUS) ___________________________________________________________________

Section 1.1 : Neopagans => Church of All Worlds

From:

|_Witchcraft, Satanism and Occult Crime: Who's Who and What's What_
| A Manual of Reference Materials for the Professional Investigator.
| (Fourth Edition - October 1991)
|
|Edited by Otter G'Zell, Church of All Worlds

Article:

|Neo-Pagan Witchcraft vs. Satanism: Confusions and Distinctions
|by Otter and Morning Glory Zell

Otter Zell is one of the founders of CAW, a US-recognized Neopagan religion. Apparently this recognition has also been extended by the government of Australia.

Given this, I think it is a good article to begin the analysis.


|It seems to be necessary to preface every discussion of Witchcraft with
|an explanation that, no, Neo-Pagan Witches aren't Satanists.

As usual, the Zells here participate in the discernment of 'Satanist'
from 'Neo-Pagan'. They seem to think that they understand the entirety
of what is a 'Satanist', as well as what is included in the classification
of 'Neo-pagan'. As you will see here, I don't think that the case they
make within this document (or any I've yet seen put out by a Neopagan)
is convincing in this regard, nor does it really make any sense except to
avoid the wrath of a largely ignorant, Christian social enviroment.


|The Christian anti-God, Satan, has no place in Pagan pantheons, either |mythologically or theologically.

This is a fundamental claim made by countless Neopagans. To support it,
they will have to rely on centuries-old data (quite possibly erroneous)
and very strict definitions which at times defy logical analysis.


|Plainly and simply, Satanism is the
|dark side of Christianity, and Satan is nothing other than the
|collective Id of Christendom.

This is an ambiguous claim, though we can well imagine what is meant
here by 'Satanism'. Like so many Neopagans, the Zells participate in
the conception (certainly faulty in many cases) that Satanism involves
the Black Mass and Christian inversion generally, rather than overt
Neopagan antagonism to a culture which has a largely Christian face.


|Even today, Witchcraft is frequently misrepresented by being confused
|with Satanism.

Note the use of the terms here. The term 'witch' is a rather old one,
often used in Europe to mean 'heretic', specifically during the times of
the Inquisition. Neither did it specifically refer to Neopaganism (as
the Zells don't want to admit), nor has it lost this generic meaning in
the mind of a largely Christian, Euro-American public.


|Often the word Witchcraft is used to represent two
|wholly opposite phenomena:

This distinction is critical and the Zells do not allow it for Satanism.
As the fulcrum of the Zell's assertion, it topples their thesis like
a gust of wind does a house of cards. One may say virtually the same
thing about 'Satanism' as they say here about 'Witchcraft', although
by distinguishing 'their tradition' from anti-social behaviors (planting
them firmly elsewhere), they do a disservice to people that might become
their most strenuous and powerful support.


|the survival of ancient Paganism in one
|instance, and the inversion of Christianity in another.

I think it an academic assumption that no such 'survival' has taken place.
The occlusion and decimation of the European root-religions are all
but over now. More intelligent Neopagans rely more on the claim that
what they do is a 'resurgence' or (idealistically) a 'replication'.

It is quite difficult to know precisely what an 'inversion of
Christianity' truly is. No support has ever been offered in widely-
publicized Neopagan documents for the claim that it would look like
what is today called 'Satanism' by those who practice it. This is
quite similar to the counter-claims posited by 'Wiccans' when their
religion is compared with 'heresy' or 'evil'.


|Let us make it
|clear: a Satanist is a renegade Christian, who, in his rebellion against
|the authority of the church, worships Satan rather than Christ.

Here the Zells do a disservice to themselves, defining for Satanists
the content of their paths. They seem to be willing to accept
the popular Christian definition of 'Satanist' while attempting to
deny the popular Christian definition of 'Witch' or 'Pagan'. It is
my opinion that they cannot reasonably have it both ways. Either
they must simply define what 'Neo-pagan' means and perhaps distinguish themselves from the false characterizations which are levelled upon
them by ignorant Christians, or come to know what the term 'Satanism'
means to those who use the term to describe their own practices/ideas
and then support or oppose them based on this new understanding.


|Such
|people are at times called witches and warlocks in popular books and
|movies but they have little to do with Pagan Witches.

This is unfortunately true. It is my impression that the popular books
and movies point rather directly to the power of what today's Neopagans
would call 'the Crone', and separating themselves from this energy (to
become what some in the Neopagan community now call 'white-light bambi Wiccans') is probably the greatest sacrifice they have made regarding
their personal and social empowerment.


|Satanists, for
|one thing, accept the Christian duality between good and evil; Pagans do
|not. Satanists may choose to worship evil rather than good: but they
|have utterly bought the Christian world view".1

Not only are these definitions limited and ambiguous, they are, in some circumstances, entirely false. There are many Neopagans who have retained
the immature morality-system which they have been raised with. There are countless people who call themselves Satanists who reject the entire idea
of morality as we know it.


|[Description of the meaning of 'Pagan' and 'Neo-Paganism' omitted.]
|
|[Most of the description of the meaning of 'Neo-Pagan Witchcraft' omitted.]
|
|Goddess in the form of the Horned God, who is seen as Lord of Animals as
|well as seasonal ruler of the Underworld.

This is an interesting characterization. Seldom have I heard the claim that Pan (Cernunnos, etc.) was the 'seasonal ruler of the Underworld'. I must
have missed some aspect of European mythos.


|The most familiar version of
|the Horned God is the Greek Pan, goat-horned and goat-hooved, playing
|His panpipes, guzzling wine from His freely-flowing wineskin, and
|seducing nymphs in the woods. He is regarded as lusty and jovial, |epitomizing masculine attributes of ideal father, brother or lover.

Note the society-serving and benign portrayal of Pan here. We are
never told what it is about Pan which inspires 'panic', for example,
nor are we told how Pan has ever been associated with the Underworld
(which, to my knowledge, he has not).


|As the Goddess of Witchcraft is closely identified with the Moon, so the
|God is identified with the Sun. In this way He may be seen
|mythologically as the lover both of the Moon and of the Earth. Another
|of His many epithets is "Lord of Light".

Note the very easy jump to the Solar-Phallic 'Beast' which has been
so well-portrayed by Hermetics such as Crowley. The connection between
Sun, Horns, Goat and Lightbringer would seem an obvious reflection of
Mystery traditions. If these were not 'pagan', then I'm not sure
what they were.


|Every light casts its shadows, and the Lord of Shadows is the other face
|of the Lord of Light. Lord of the Underworld is the title of the God in |Winter when He goes underground with the animals to hibernate. Some |traditions had Him alternate with His brother as husband to the eternal |Goddess. Others, as in the Greek Hades, had a year-round God of the |Underworld.

Again the benign forms of deity. For the Zells, the God of the Underworld
is not responsible for the 'evils' of mankind, even though they might not
wish to call them this. This only leaves the Goddess, yet She is often
only described in benign terms also. So very often Neopagans miss out on
the wrathful and dangerous aspects of their gods, and these often turn out
to be the most transformative.


|The Devil
|
|It is essential to clarify the historic relationship of Pan and the
|Devil, as Christianity has tended to confuse the two, giving rise to the |accusation that Pagans are Devil-worshipers because some Pagan gods have |horns.

Note the use of the term 'Christianity' here. Not only is it ambiguous
(since it is a social tradition and cannot 'confuse' anything), but it
is rather specious, since to the fearful Christian NATURE is evil,
especially that nature which is beyond control. In this the Neopagans
ought to IDENTIFY WITH SATAN AS THE RULER OF NATURE, but they miss this opportunity.


|Once and for all, the Christian Devil is not the God of the
|Witches! The genesis of the Devil comes from a merging of two concepts: |Satan and Lucifer.

There is a case to be made in the field of mythology that the origination
of deities lies in a direct response to temporal and cultural change.
Kwan Yin was once the male Avalokitesvara, for example. There is no reason
to presume that just because Satan is a composite of Pan, Lucifer and
the Hebraic 'Shaitan' we ought consider him more 'Christian' than pagan deities.

It is certainly true that what Neopagans describe as their God/Lord is
not what Christians take to be 'the Devil'. In fact, a comparison of
these two indicates that they are rather opposite deities, perhaps
even two halves of a male god for a culture which is itself divided
as to the role of masculinity (destructive/creative) within it.


|The original meaning of the word satan is
|"adversary", and his inclusion in the Bible represents an attempt by
|later apologists of the Old Testament to justify the more negative
|actions of a benevolent God (such as the persecution of Job) by
|attributing the actual dirty work to a testing spirit; the original
|"devil's advocate". This entity was not considered evil until after the |Persian conquest introduced the Hebrews to the Zoroastrian dualism of |Ahura-Mazda (the good God) vs. Ahriman (the evil God).

Here we have the most pertinent and concise information regarding Satan
and his origins. It is very important that the Zells make note of the
fact that Shaitan was not considered evil by those who originally came
to know him. In fact, it calls into question whether they themselves
have separated from this moral characterization of 'evil' and 'good'.


The important questions to ask are these:

When is a god part of a religious tradition?
When is a god part of the Neopagan religious tradition?
When is a god part of the Christian religious tradition?
Is there any overlap between these in the case of Satan?
And, more importantly for the politics of the matter:
What would it gain the Neopagan community to accept Satanists
(and Jehovah-worshippers?) as part of their tradition?


|This later
|manifested in Christianity as Manichean dualism. The Manichean equation
|was brutally simple: God=Good; Devil=Evil.

Manichaeism was heretical to Christianity as it included Gnosticism,
at least to the Roman Catholic Church. That the Zells don't even spell it correctly might indicate a weakness in their scholarship, though I am not myself versed well-enough, historically, to know the facts of the matter.

Is a heresy recognized by the Christian orthodoxy part of that tradition?
If so, is Neopaganism Christian by virtue of being heretical?
If not, is Satanism a part of something OTHER than Christianity?
What distinguishes Satanism, precisely, from Neopaganism?

It would seem that the answer to the last depends upon what one means
by the term 'Satanism'. The Zells here argue a dead horse. We can of
course be sure that anyone that takes the Christian tradition and turns it
upon its head is simply reactionary and therefore an offshoot of that
which it inverts.

Yet what if Satanism is more than what the Zells have accepted?
They might well be hurting those who practice what the Zells do
not understand as 'Satanism' through their withdrawal of Neopagan
support.


|But it was not until the
|year 447 CE that the Council of Toledo declared the legal existence of
|the Devil as an actual entity, though he was still not thought of as |necessarily manifesting in human form. The Lucifer story is a
|mish-mashed retelling of the Canaanite myth about the overthrow of Baal
|by Mot and the usurpation of Baal's throne by Athar, the god of the
|morning star. The original Hebrew name for Lucifer was helel ben shahar |meaning "son of the day star" (the planet Venus). The name Lucifer
|("light bearer"), a Romano-Etruscan title of the Sun God, was
|erroneously used when the Bible was first translated into Latin.2

Again, very important information. Were these not pagan gods? Does the
manner of a god's creation (through promotion or condemnation) make any difference when we begin to consider the possibility that 'Satan' is a
'pagan' or 'Neopagan' deity?


|Various shadow gods or divine adversaries contributed to the creation of
|the Devil, including the Canaanite Moloch or Mot, the Egyptian Set or
|Suteck and the Roman Saturn. Judeo-Christian theologians placed all
|Pagan gods and goddesses in an adversary position to Yahweh, the god of |Israel, who, as a monotheistic deity, cannot share a pantheon. This is
|a profound cultural difference from Pagan pantheons and polytheistic
|peoples who co-existed together, whether or not in harmony.

Would this not suggest that the god, Satan, then, is the ultimate
adversary to Christianity? Did the Christians not only coalesce what
they saw into a stew of heretical deification, but also give form and
name to that which opposes the most repressive and NONPAGAN elements
of Christianity? Is Satan a Neopagan HERO-GOD?


|Also since
|unbridled sexuality, especially for females, was defined by |Judeo-Christianity as evil, Pagan gods and goddesses who were especially |sexual or sensual garnered the new sect's particular hatred.

Satan is supposed by many who worship him to be the essential god of
the flesh, of nature, and of resistance to oppressive authority. What difference is there between this and Neopagan values? I suggest that
the difference lies in what KINDS of activities are also associated
with Satan, namely the wrathful.


|Pan (who
|instills panic) and Dionysus were neither evil nor adversary deities,
|but because of their riotous celebrations the Devil acquired Pan's horns
|and hooves and Dionysus' ambiguously mad and bibulous nature.

Note that the Zells here continue to participate in the usage of the
term 'evil' by denying that Pan qualifies. Try as they might, Neopagans
still have not escaped the dualistic moralism of their parents.


|This
|final equation of the Pagan Horned God with Satan was not established, |however, until the year 1486, when the Dominicans Kramer and Sprenger |published the Malleus Malificarum, or "Hammer of the Witches", wherein
|they gave the first physical description of the Devil as he is commonly |depicted today, declaring that this was the god worshiped by those they |wanted to call "witches", thereby justifying the centuries of terrible |persecution inflicted upon those who clung faithfully to their worship
|of the elder gods.

The wording here is quite telling, I think. Christians not only WANTED
to call the heretics 'witches', they DID call them this. This was where
the term 'witch' was popularized. Here the Zells make a firm linking
between 'witches' and 'the Devil' in history. I remember no document
in which the heretics of the Inquisition were called 'satanists', but it
has been some time since reviewing historical materials. Perhaps someone
can fill in here where I err.

Surely what the Zells mean by 'witch' and the Inquisition meant while
using that term somewhat different, yet it remains to be seen that the Inquisition of the Church and its great, horrible efforts, did not in effect CREATE the deity which some call 'Satan' and thereby begin a Neopagan sect (perhaps the oldest of those extant) around a deity composed of the
wrathful and sensuous elements of the European, repressed culture.

That the Zells present the fusion of Pan and Satan here with the usage
of the term 'witch' only muddies the issue, especially if it can be shown
(as some claim) that the term 'witch' was largely a Christian invention
also, perhaps, like the various escapades of supposed 'pagans' during
these times, comparable to the Christian fabrication of 'the Devil'.

Where, after all, did the line between 'pagan' and 'Christian' truly
lie, given the amount of time which had elapsed? If the Christian
religion could infringe upon the pagan population and require that they overlay Christian holy days which conformed with ancient pagan festivals
in order to co-opt them, why could it not work the other way around:
all the great pagan gods coalescing within 'Christianity' in order to
pose a lasting NEOPAGAN threat to the oppressive invading regime?


|[Lots of questionable history of 'Witches' omitted.]

It does not speak well for the Zells that they use Margaret Murray as
one of their sources for this essay.


|...Christianity did not
|become the world's dominant religion by peaceful conversion, but by the
|sword and stake. As the legions of Caesar had forged the Roman Empire
|over the dead bodies of countless tribal peoples of Europe, so did its
|heir, the Holy Roman Empire, continue the tradition. Declaring them |"heresies", agents of the Holy Inquisition hunted out and ruthlessly |exterminated every religion, sect or tradition that would not convert to
|"The One True Right And Only Way".

Of this it sadly seems there is no question, though the numbers are still debated among scholars. What did these people call themselves? Surely
they didn't call themselves 'pagans' or 'witches' or 'Satanists'. My
guess is that they called themselves 'Christians', especially after many
years of rule by the Church.


|Witches, however, lived outside of
|any organized religious structure and were largely ignored until the
|13th century, when the Church had finally gained enough power to deal
|with grass-roots Paganism.

They were, if such people actually did exist, which is debatable,
certainly not called 'witches'. This is a broad brush that the Zells are
using here, and they might be hard-pressed to substantiate all of the
details.


|"In the 13th century the Church opened its long-drawn-out conflict with |Paganism in Europe by declaring "Witchcraft' to be a "sect' and
|heretical. It was not til the 14th century that the two religions came
|to grips. . . In 1324 the bishop of Ossory tried Dame Alice Kyteler in
|his ecclesiastical court for the crime of worshiping a deity other than
|the Christian God. . .
|
|[Lots of history of the conquests of the Christian Church omitted.]

Note the presumption here that there were 'two religions'. I'm not aware
that at that time (13th century) there was much left of the indigenous religious traditions. I'd guess that this is another weakness in their
theory. Only of slight importance, however.


|It should also be pointed out that the court recorders at the Witch
|trials were specifically instructed that, whatever gods or goddesses the |accused actually claimed to worship, what went into the record was
|"Satan" or "The Devil".

This says little more. My recall is that there were, largely, few 'trials'
at all, and that these 'court reporters' were simply clerks who were
to detail the confessions extracted under torture. It does seem true that
the group-categorization of all pagan gods as 'Satan' or 'the Devil'
was applied to the confessions, yet this is directly in line with what
was said previously about the theologians' merging of the pagan gods.

Just as when modern Science sees 'psychic' phenomena it describes them
in physicalist terms, so the Inquisition recorded what they thought to
be a fair accounting. This is not a justification for the slaughter,
simply an acknowledgement that their actions where in their twisted
way, coherent.


|And what wonder if some of those who had come
|to believe the Biblical history taught them by the missionaries, monks
|and priests of the conquering faith, concluded that the story must have |gotten it wrong somehow? That if there had indeed been a rebellion in |heaven, it was clearly evident that the winner had not been the God of
|love and peace, as his propagandists claimed, but rather a God of
|cruelty and evil; of war and violence, wrath and jealousy. (This had,
|in fact, been an old Gnostic tradition.)

Indeed, and it gives further support to the notion that Satan was taken
by the oppressed masses as a HERO-god with whom to grapple with their oppressors. Does the fabrication of the CONCEPT of Satan by the Christian clergy give them a sort of 'copyright' on the RELIGION of Satanism?


|The clear implication was that
|the defeated Lucifer must have been the good guy, and surely many must
|have swarmed to his allegiance in this belief.

Again, this merely SUPPORTS the notion that Satanism (in any form) is a Neopagan reaction, perhaps a very healthy one. It is quite possible that
many 'pagan' gods were created and supported through reactionary measures.
Does this make Satan somehow an exception?


|While true adherents of
|the Old Religions certainly knew better, and continued their faith
|entirely distinct from Christianity, there were surely, then as now,
|many ignorant people who were simply too unsophisticated or too
|illiterate to question the Christian paradigm once it became
|established.

This is simplistic and not well-based. First off, the idea that there
existed at this time 'adherents of the Old Religions' is questionable.
Second, it is not likely that there was a very clear line between what
was at that time 'Christian' and 'nonChristian'. Most peasants and
rural folk were ignorant, illiterate, and did not know the first thing
about historical religious evolution through the many centuries prior
to the Inquisition. It may well be a mistake to suppose that such
lines of demarcation between 'Christianity' and 'paganism' existed.
I have yet to see historical evidence that they did.


|And thus did Satanism as a belief and a practice come into
|being, spawned by the Church, and forever to be locked together with it
|in a fatal embrace of mutual antagonism.

The same could be said about 'witchcraft', yet for some reason the Zells
have a desire to save out 'witches' from the reactionary mold. For
example, compare modern Gardnerian tradition with Christian Hermeticism.

From all I've seen, Gardner more or less lifted Hermetic teachings and attempted (likely in a rather reactionary way) to promote a tradition
that purported to carry on what had been persecuted centuries previous
and outlawed mere years previous to his publication.

JUST LIKE ANTON LAVEY, Gardner attempted to take advantage of the loosening grip of Christian oppression and profit from using language which tapped
into ancient revulsion to that oppression. This is not to say that he
did not, simultaneously, create a valuable and important tradition. The
point is that the name which he used was identified within the popular religious culture as that which represented heresy. Only gradually have
the various 'nature-worshipping-witches' begun to turn the spotlight of 'heresy' from the emergent 'witchcraft' and let LaVey and, until
recently, Aquino, take the heat from a society which still finds great
value in that wrathful deity.

Does this make Gardner a 'Satanist'? Does it, by virtue of the language,
make LaVey a 'Satanist'? It all seems to depend on what one means by the
term 'Satanist', and this is the subject of this series, to elucidate
what various groups MEAN by the term.

It is by now evident that what the Zells mean by Satanism is rather in
line with Christian notions, yet they have not told us what Satanists
do, only that 'Satan' is a Christian fabrication. Perhaps they limit 'Satanism' to those rebellious youths who listen to Heavy Metal music
and desicrate graveyards in consternation at their authoritarian parents. Perhaps they are convinced of 'Satanic Ritual Abuse' which is so widely publicized by popular Christian and psychotherapeutic media. We cannot
be sure.


[More interesting 'history' omitted.]

Cavendish, while of repute within the occult world, may not be the best historian.


|Diana, not Satan, is still the real head of the Witches".5

Throughout this essay is the presumption that 'Witches' existed in
Europe at the time of the Inquisition and that this tradition has,
stemming from the ancient and great pre-Christian peoples, somehow
managed to survive to the present day.

To my knowledge, most historians (even those within the Neopagan
academia) think otherwise, and I'd love to see references who were
not biased in favor of this thesis used to support the differences
between 'Satanists' and 'Neo-Pagans'.

It is obvious that the Zells have little or no background in the
study of Satanism. They cite no authorities (Lyons would have been
nice) and simply seem keen to put as much distance between what they
perceive to be a 'Christian fabrication' and their own tradition
as they are able.

I'd imagine that this resembles the various efforts of the Unitarians
prior to their acceptance of Neopagans within their tradition, or the
various incoming Eastern faiths in their encounter with Christianity.
"No, we are not Witches." we can hear them saying. "We understand that
Witches are evil and malevolent. They are not part of our tradition."

Continually I see this phenomenon between religious groups - the
orthodoxy putting pressure on the new to divide so as to be more easily conquered. In this case it is quite possible that by not coming to
understand and accept 'Satanists' within their fold, Neopagans are
slitting their own throats.

Let us hope not.


|Notes and References:
|1.Jong, Erica, Witches (New American Library, New York,1981) p. 52
|2.Zell, Morning Glory, "The Lord of Light", Green Egg, Vol. XXI, No. 82;
|Aug. 1, 1988 (POB 1542, Ukiah, CA 95482) p. 12
|3.Murray, Margaret, The God of the Witches (Oxford Univ. Press, NY,
|1931) pp. 21-22
|4.Cavendish, Richard, "Satanism", Encyclopedia of Man, Myth and Magic,
|Vol. 18 (Marshall Cavendish, NY, 1970) p. 2479
|5.Leland, Charles Godfrey, Legends of Florence, (David Nutt, London,
|1896)
|6.Guiley, Rosemary, Encyclopedia of Witches and Witchcraft (Facts on
|File, NY, 1989)

Hardly an extensive reference list. As I think I've made clear, while
the supposition that this is a scholarly paper is in evident question,
the motivation and method seems rather transparent.

=================================================================

This review was originally transmitted to alt.satanism, alt.religion.all-worlds, alt.pagan, talk.religion.misc, and sent email
to Green Egg. :>

I intend no hard feelings on any count, even while my criticism may be
rather terse. I intend to hit fairly and hard the expressions of all
who say something about Satanism, from Neopagans to Christians to the
those who use the term 'Satanist' to describe themselves, and do not
assume that I have the last word on the matter.

As usual, I encourage response to and debate with my review.

(C) 1994
tyagi nagasiva
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com
TOKUS
EOL

Eddie,
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23

Summary: This is one of a series of docs examining the Neopagan perspective
on Satanism. This particular review is of a publication by the
Church of All Worlds.
Keywords: Satanism, Neopaganism, criticism, review
Date: Kali Yuga 49940211 (slight revision 49940927)

*** 2 of 5 ***

Do what thou wilt.

What follows is a critical review of a document I found in a publication distributed by the Church of All Worlds (CAW). It is somewhat
representative of the common Neopagan attitude toward Satanists and Satanism. This will be a multiple-part series which also examines the meaning of
'Satan' and 'Satanism' to Christians of various types and to those who
apply the term to themselves (or until recently did so).

tyagi nagasiva
tyagi@houseofKaos.Abyss.com

The Order of K@s Under Satan (TOKUS) ___________________________________________________________________

Section 1.2 : Neopagans => Church of All Worlds


From:

|_Witchcraft, Satanism and Occult Crime: Who's Who and What's What_
| A Manual of Reference Materials for the Professional Investigator.
| (Fourth Edition - October 1991)
|
|Edited by Otter G'Zell, Church of All Worlds


Article:

|Introduction

[Much omitted throughout.]

Again we have the CAW folks telling us, with many of their friends, what Satanism is and isn't, this time with a bit more clarity.


|[From the Editor (Otter Zell):]
|...
|In the 1980's, Satanic themes became a significant aspect of the music
|of adolescent rebellion, popularly referred to as "Heavy Metal."
|During this same period, a new form of sadistic and violent crime
|has emerged, involving Satanic elements such as inverted pentagrams
|and crosses carved on the raped and mutilated bodies of victims.

It seems that Otter is content to ascribe a very dogmatic and limited
view regarding what constitutes an 'upright pentagram', and then
associates its 'inversion' with Satanism. As we shall see, he portrays 'Satanic symbols' as 'the antithesis of Witchcraft', which is interesting, given that I know of some witches who use the point-down pentagram in
their work, and even this document he edits points out this fact.

I'm not sure that any of his last sentence is true. It may all be a
Christian media-hype. The 'cattle mutilations' are now, I think,
fairly well-known farces, and I'm not sure any other slew of 'bodies'
has turned up. Corrections welcome.


|The June 1989 issue of *Life* magazine featured a seven-page color
|photo essay on Satan: "Primordial and familiar, fantastic and credible,
|most ancient and foul seducer - his presence is once again among us,
|the stuff of grisly headlines."

It is fairly obvious that, here and below, Otter accepts a Christian
portrayal of Satan, completely. This does appear to be the popular understanding among Neopagans.


|Satanism exists as a perversion or inversion of Christianity, and hence |Satanists invert the sacred symbols of the religion they oppose, such as
|the cross and the Lord's Prayer, which they recite backwards. As Witches
|are the healers and blessers of the new Paganism, their symbols, too,
|are inverted by Satanists.

Here Otter makes it obvious that he is only talking about a very limited
and puerile style of Satanism. It appears that he hasn't done his
homework. Note too the very transparent way in which he is aligning the 'healing Witches' with Christians against this boogyman.


|The basic symbol of Witchcraft is the
|pentagram, or five-pointed star, such as seen on the American flag or
|the top of a Christmas tree. It stands on two points, with one point
|up, and symbolizes the four elements, earth, air, fire and water, plus |spirit. Satanists also use a pentagram, but they invert it, pointing |downward so it forms the head of a goat, the animal reviled in
|Biblical tradition as the antithesis of the "Lamb of God."

|...

|Otter G'Zell, Editor

Note the reference to nationalism and Christianity here. An obvious
ploy to convince Christians. This document is *directed toward
Christians* and contains little information about organized Satanism.
The motive is becoming clear: keep the fundamentalist (f-)Christians
at bay.

Note the reference to 'spirit' and the dogmatism of symbol. Not only
is this a simplistic analysis, it is dangerous in that it appears to be representing an 'authority'. Not all Neopagans accept the notion of
'spirit', though it has been drilled into all our heads by Christians
for a long long time.

Again, Satanists do the 'bad thing' with the 'symbol of good'. This
document is attempting to speak to the lowest intelligence, perhaps
the grade-school, and again implies the target audience: f-Christians.

=================================================================

This review was originally transmitted to alt.satanism, alt.religion.all-worlds, alt.pagan, talk.religion.misc, and sent email
to Green Egg. :>

I intend no hard feelings on any count, even while my criticism may be
rather terse. I intend to hit fairly and hard the expressions of all
who say something about Satanism, from Neopagans to Christians to the
those who use the term 'Satanist' to describe themselves, and do not
assume that I have the last word on the matter.

As usual, I encourage response to and debate with my review.

(C) 1994
tyagi nagasiva
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com
TOKUS
EOF


Eddie,
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23

Summary: This is one of a series of docs examining the Neopagan perspective
on Satanism. This particular review is of a publication by the
Church of All Worlds.
Keywords: Satanism, Neopaganism, criticism, review
Date: Kali Yuga 49940211 (slight revision 49940927)

*** 3 of 5 ***

Do what thou wilt.

What follows is a critical review of a document I found in a publication distributed by the Church of All Worlds (CAW). It is somewhat
representative of the common Neopagan attitude toward Satanists and Satanism. This will be a multiple-part series which also examines the meaning of
'Satan' and 'Satanism' to Christians of various types and to those who
apply the term to themselves (or until recently did so).

tyagi nagasiva
tyagi@houseofKaos.Abyss.com

The Order of K@s Under Satan (TOKUS) ___________________________________________________________________

Section 1.3 : Neopagans => Church of All Worlds


From:

|_Witchcraft, Satanism and Occult Crime: Who's Who and What's What_
| A Manual of Reference Materials for the Professional Investigator.
| (Fourth Edition - October 1991)
|
|Edited by Otter G'Zell, Church of All Worlds


Article:

|'A Brief History of Satanism'
|by Don Hudson Frew
|
|[much omitted]
|...
|
|History of Devil Worship
|
|...what we now understand as Satanism came into being and developed
|during [the Middle Ages], and reached its first real flowering during
|the final years of the Renaissance and beginning of the Enlightenment.

This is very interesting, for it seems to legitimize Satanism as a rather contiuous phenomenon, something which at the very least had a start-
point. As with much of Frew's latter comments, this straight out
distinguishes between Satanism and 'ritual violation'.


|The archetypal image of Satanism, the Black Mass, first appeared in
|France in the 17th Century, during the reign of Louis XIV. It was a
|bored and jaded aristocracy, looking for new thrills and caught up
|in court intrigue, that first thought of combining a blasphemous
|inverted Christian Mass with a secret ring of poisoners to do away
|with rivals at court [known as the 'Chambre Ardente Affair'].

Here Satanism is equated with typical anti-Christian origins.
There is some debate as to whether or not Satanism began earlier than
this, perhaps known by other names.


|It is in the Chambre Ardente Affair that we see for the first time the |familiar combination of: defrocked priests, inverted crosses, poison, |sacrificed children, desecrated sacraments, communion chalices of
|urine and excrement, naked women as altars, and the sexual abuse of
|young girls.

It is interesting to consider the possibility that this sort of practice
was less about opposing Christianity than about counteracting taboo
and social conditioning. Given this, what is here being called 'Satanism' might indeed be a form of 'tantra'.


|From this time on, Satanism would include the parody of
|Christianity with which it has been so identified, and so become the
|illicit thrill of anyone with negative feelings toward the church.

I wonder how supported the claim is that all Satanists opposed 'the'
Church. Perhaps the priests were defrocked because they had found a
new *form* of Christianity which assisted their practice. In this way
I wonder whether Satanism isn't an *advance* on Christianity as
practiced in the 17th Century, in that those who took it up were quite thoroughly indoctrinated to the Christian faith and sought to reach
an equilibrium by engaging taboo activities.


|During the Enlightenment, groups of young noblemen could often be
|found dabbling in "Satanism" as members of clubs such as "The Blasters"
|and "The Sons of Midnight," confining themselves mostly to riding around
|at night and scaring the citizenry, and to throwing wild, orgiastic
|parties.

It is interesting how similar this sounds to modernday American youth and
their counter-cultural habits. Could it be that Satanism arises out of
the mindset popularly called 'adolescent'?


|Aleister Crowley
|...
|Aleister Crowley was not a Satanist, which is not to say that some of his |magical writings haven't been used by Satanists, among others.

This is quite a strong comment. Crowley seems to have identified his Holy Guardian Angel, Aiwass/Aiwaz, with Satan or Set in some ways, and many of
his editors and/or biographers seem thoroughly convinced of his Satanic leanings. I wonder whether Frew was not here attempting to make good with
the more conservative Thelemites and Crowleyphiles.


|Anton LaVey
|
|Satanism did, indeed, "enter its modern era in this country just about 25 |years ago under the theatrical guidance of Anton LaVey..." But it is |important to understand that the Satanism of Anton LaVey bears little |resemblance to anything discussed above, and that the world "theatrical"
|well chosen.

There are certainly some elements which have been kept intact. My understanding (and I'm still seeking confirmation on this) is that LaVey
and the Church of Satan have, at times, enacted 'Black Masses' which used
nude women as altars and could be said to 'desicrate the liturgy of the Christian Church'. This might prove transformational for some of those
who have been raised within strict Catholic backgrounds.


|LaVey, a former lion tamer, circus and revival show organist, and police |photographer, among many other things, founded the Church of Satan, the |largest Satanic organization in the world, on the eve of May 1st, 1966.

There are all sorts of rumors about the occupations which LaVey has
held prior to his settling into the Church. Some claim that one or more
of the above are false stories. I hope so. The more legends and trivial deception about the man, the better.


|Having long been disillusioned with conventional religion, LaVey had
|studied the occult in both the famous books of magic (including Crowley's) |and the carny side-show. He had developed a philosophy of "man as just |another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk
|on all fours..." And he saw that, like an animal, man has engaged in the |same life or death struggle; the survival of the fittest.

I doubt he developed it. Even his 'Nine Satanic Statements' are supposed
to have been derived from popular political writings (Rand). More likely
he merely adopted this philosophy of life as his own and began to call it Satanism.


|What was "good"
|was to indulge the animal nature of man and to be one of the fittest;
|a kind of Nietzchean hedonism, if you will, with a bit of P.T. Barnum thrown |in for fun. With his background in the carny and his readings in psychology, |LaVey realized that a little psychodrama can go a long way towards making
|a person feel good about himself.

The last is an interesting point, and may indicate the connection between
what is called 'stage magic' and 'occult magick'.


|LaVey's philosophy and its racy trappings appealed to both the rich and |successful, who found a justification for the steps they had taken in order |to succeed, and the poor and powerless, who wanted to identify with such
|a group and thereby acquire the same aura of power.

I suggest that it also attracted (and may still attract) those who are interested in exploring the nature of taboo and attempting to break their cultural conditioning. It may also have attracted those who wished to
indulge themselves to enlightenment (often rejected by the puritanical
and ascetic as an 'impossible' or 'ridiculous' task).


|LaVey's main
|philosophical treatise, _The Satanic Bible_, was written as a polemic
|for adults similarly disillusioned with the mainstream and was not
|intended for teenagers, much less to be taken "literally" by them.

This sounds like some sort of protection clause, especially when Frew
begins to talk about the 'self-styled Satanists' that are not part of
some sort of serious organization. Note how the activities and thoughts
of individuals are downplayed as inferior to those of organizations
(especially below).


|(In fact, LaVey has recently expressed great regret for how young people
|are misrepresenting his book, and is taking steps to clarify his message.)

I wonder what, exactly, he thinks that they are misunderstanding.


|Michael Aquino was a good friend of LaVey, and a respected member of
|the Church of Satan until he and LaVey split over theological differences.

My understanding is that this is false, that it was a concern about LaVey wishing to begin charging for various Church activities. At least these are the assertions of Michael Aquino, who is much more publically vocal about
the split-up. I don't remember the LaVey story on this bit of history.


|Aquino left the church and founded the Temple of Set, the second largest |Satanic organization in the world, in 1975. The Temple is much more
|focused on a disciplined approach to magic as a means for succeeding in |life, but otherwise bears a great resemblance to the Church of Satan.

Some organized Satanists might disagree with this, but I have little or
no information about the Church of Satan, so I can't be sure.


|*It is important to understand four things about both of these groups:*
|
|1) While both groups have adopted the image of Satan as rebel-against- |authority, neither group practices the inverted, anti-Christianity
|associated with the Black Mass. In fact, the Church of Satan dogmatically |*dis*believes in the existence of the Devil.

I can't find a more potent point of contention between the Aquino and LaVey clans, an issue which, to me, more firmly supports LaVey as a trickster and therefore as more unique in his approach. In claiming to disbelieve in the existence of that which one worships, what could be more twisted, more representative of that Being who is associated with deception?


|2) A large percentage of the membership of both groups is mail-order
|members, about whom the group's administration knows little and over
|whom they have little control (e.g. a teenager who scrawls Satanic
|graffiti and claims to be a member of the Church of Satan is acting
|without the group's knowledge or sanction).

I'll bet this is true for many groups, and yet it is interesting how
membership in a 'Satanic' organization is given so heavy focus as
instigator of rebellion, rather than a symptom of said quality.


|3) Both groups routinely expel persons if they are found to be breaking
|the law, e.g., using drugs.

I wonder how true this is. Most of the more liberal occult and religious groups only care about the usage of psychoactives when their members
are actually convicted of said activity. Prior to that they tend to
consider it the member's private business unless it impacts the org.


|4) Although these are the two largest Satanic groups in the country,
|the *total number of Satanists in America* has been estimated by
|reliable scholars to be *less than 10,000*.

I wonder what constitutes a 'reliable scholar'. It would have been
nice if Frew were to use *notes* to his cited bibliography. Then many
more of his 'facts' could have been checked.


|Both groups, and the other smaller ones like them, are commonly called |"religious Satanists."

This designation is a compliment, it seems, to the organized Satanists,
in that they are classed alongside Neopagans and Jews and Christians.
Note, however that it is only the groups which are legitimized by Frew's classification.


|The kind of twisted, criminal practitioners that
|Geraldo, Donahue, and others tend to focus on are known as "self-styled |Satanists." It is this latter category of individuals who, getting their |"occult knowledge" from pop occult books, Creature Feature movies and
|(most significantly) Christian anti-Satanism and anti-occult books,
|live up to the stereotype image of the devil-worshipper.

I find this very interesting. The argument against it is one which I think I've heard Michael Aquino give. Why aren't criminals who use the symbols, trappings and mythos of Christianity called 'self-styled Christians'?
I.e. why are they included with 'Satanism' at all except as a result of bias that runs very deep in a traditionally Christian culture?

I do find it wonderful that Frew associates the ideas of those who use 'Satanic' symbols and concepts with Christian anti-Satanist and anti-
occult propaganda. It points out some of the problem which is being
created by the political (and enterprising) campaign.


|These individuals
|are not motivated to commit crimes by Satanism; they are disturbed
|persons inclined toward criminal behavior who find a justification for
|their actions devil-worship.

Here perhaps Frew justifies his usage of the 'self-styled' adjective.
Those people aren't *really* Satanists, they just *pretend* (i.e. they
just fake it in order to justify their amoral misdeeds). I think that
while there is some substance to this, it is more likely that the
motives of the people (often teens) are much more complex.


|Witchcraft
|
|...Satanists often invert and parody the religions of others. A Christian |Priest sometimes wears a black robe, as does a Witch, and so the Satanist |does too. A Christian wears a cross, a Witch a pentacle, and a Satanist... |an inverted cross and an inverted pentacle.

This is of course an overbroad generalization. Perhaps some Satanists
do this, but I'm not sure that the Church or Temple followers do, nor
that all solitaries engage this kind of reactionary attitude. It seems
to me that this is simplistic overstatement.


|Current Status
|
|The current presentation of Satanism in the popular media is inaccurate
|and misleading.

I think that, aside from a large portion of Frew's article, the majority
of this document, which purports to be a *REFERENCE MANUAL* on Satanism,
in many ways equates it with ritual abuse, child abduction and molestation, and, in general, violence.

As such, _Witchcraft, Satanism and Occult Crime: Who's Who and What's What_
is an unfortunate EXAMPLE of this 'popular media'. Why this is the case may be cleared up when I begin to quote correspondence that I had with Otter directly as a result of beginning this critical review series.


| It fosters an image of a single nation-wide cult or network
|(as Ted Gunderson has put it), existing unchanged since the Middle Ages,
|and consciously and deliberately plotting on the lives and minds of our |children. This is hysteria-mongering at its worst. The facts do not
|support the theory.

This is what I have discovered also.


|All that can be said with certainty is that...
|
|1) There is something in our society that is inclining our children towards |violent and anti-social behavior.

It is unfortunate but understandable that Frew would leave the 'something' ambiguous here. He does go on to suggest that the cause may be found in the homes of the people involved, but never begins to examine what that might
be. Also, this statement seems to support the assertion that some sort
of *unusual* inflammation of anti-social or counter-cultural feeling
is emerging from 'our society's' teens. I'm not sure this is the case.


|2) Parents and other caretakers are ignoring the obvious warning signs
|of the problem until it erupts into violence.

This presumes that there is a problem (yet to be shown), that it has
'obvious warning signs' (undescribed), and that parents et al are aware
of them and intentionally ignoring them. I'd like to hear some debate
on these presumptions.


|3) Once an individual has "snapped" and committed a crime, parents and
|others are much more willing to look for the cause and affix blame on an
|evil enemy on the edge of society than they are to look inside the home.

As other K@s Haus denizens have suggested, Frew is content to put the
blame on the *home* in regards influence toward criminality, rather than
on *social institutions* like School, Government, and Church.


|Related to this, it's a lot easier to accept that your child was molested
|by a Satanic cult than to think that it might have been Uncle Frank.

This perpetuates the (possible) myth that children rebel as a result of
being violated. While this may be quite true, I would suggest that
restrictive parenting and an oppressive society might contribute more
toward rebellious attitudes and criminal activity than any more specific
and unusual violation.

What passes for 'parenting' these days is quite violating to the child.

From being confined to a desk and forced to listen to droning adults for

six hours a day, to not being respected enough to have the right to
determine whether one shall engage in physical intimacy, imbibe psychoactive substances, or watch 'graphic' art, children are treated like owned
animals without sufficent common sense or sense of self to make important decisions about their life experiences.

It is perhaps no wonder that they become frustrated and strike out at the society which they may well view is violating or enslaving them.


|Satanism and devil-worshipping are real and they are present around the |country, but they make up such a small part of the problem of violence by
|and against children that we shouldn't let it distract us from looking
|where the problem is much more likely to be caused... in the home.

Never does Frew address what 'devil-worshipping' is or what may be
problematic about its engagement. His link here regarding child violence
seems to support the assumption that 'Satanism' in *some* form, may indeed involve this kind of criminal activity.

Again, that he redirects the attention toward the *home* rather than to
society at large says more about his audience and what he is trying to accomplish (dissuading fundamentalist Christians from bashing supposed 'criminal Satanists').


|Biblography
|
|...
|Satanism
|
|_The Magicians: A Study of the Use of Power in a Black Magic Group_
| by Gini Graham Scott, Irvington Publ., New York 1983.

Interesting that Frew mentions 'Black Magic' only once in his article
and this with respect to 'Middle Age Satanists'. Along with so many
other key terms, he *never* defines it.


|_Mephistopheles: The Devil in the Modern World_, by Jeffrey Burton
| Russell, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY 1986.
|_Satan Wants You: The Cult of Devil Worship in America_, by Arthur
| Lyons, Mysterious Press, New York 1988.
|_The Satanic Bible_, by Anton Szandor LaVey, Avon Books, New York,
| 1972.
|_The Satanic Rituals_, by Anton Szandor LaVey, Avon Books, New York,
| 1972.
|_Satanism_, by Ted Schwartz and Duane Empey, Zondervan Books, Grand
| Rapids, MI 1988 (Note: Recommended solely for material on LaVey
| and Aquino.
|_Satanism in America: An Interim Report_ by Shawn Carlson & Gerald
| Larue, issued by the Committee for Scientific Examination of Religion,
| Berkeley, CA 1988.

I'm impressed at Frew's willingness to look beyond conservative
Christians to discover his information. I wonder why it is that Otter
G'Zell doesn't take the same approach and research the tomes which
Frew references here, adjusting his focus away from such a strong
support of Satanism = Ritual Abuse.

=================================================================

This review was originally transmitted to alt.satanism, alt.religion.all-worlds, alt.pagan, talk.religion.misc, and sent email
to Green Egg. :> I

I intend no hard feelings on any count, even while my criticism may be
rather terse. I intend to hit fairly and hard the expressions of all
who say something about Satanism, from Neopagans to Christians to the
those who use the term 'Satanist' to describe themselves, and do not
assume that I have the last word on the matter.

As usual, I encourage response to and debate with my review.

(C) 1994
tyagi nagasiva
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com
TOKUS
EOF


Eddie,
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23

Summary: This is one of a series of docs examining the Neopagan perspective
on Satanism. This particular review is of a publication by the
Church of All Worlds.
Keywords: Satanism, Neopaganism, criticism, review
Date: Kali Yuga 49940927

*** 4 of 5 ***

Do what thou wilt.

What follows is a critical review of a document I found in a publication distributed by the Church of All Worlds (CAW). It is somewhat
representative of the common Neopagan attitude toward Satanists and Satanism. This will be a multiple-part series which also examines the meaning of
'Satan' and 'Satanism' to Christians of various types and to those who
apply the term to themselves (or until recently did so).

tyagi nagasiva
tyagi@houseofKaos.Abyss.com

The Order of K@s Under Satan (TOKUS) ___________________________________________________________________

Section 1.4 : Neopagans => Church of All Worlds


From:

|_Witchcraft, Satanism and Occult Crime: Who's Who and What's What_
| A Manual of Reference Materials for the Professional Investigator.
| (Fourth Edition - October 1991)
|
|Edited by Otter G'Zell, Church of All Worlds


Article:

|'Defining Occult Crime: the Perpetrators and Their Actions'
|Abstracted from _Occult Crime, a Law Enforcement Primer_
|Published by the State of California Office of Criminal Justice Planning
|1130 K St., suite 300, Sacramento, CA 95814 - (916) 324-9100

Note: no author cited. No date of copyright. If any Satanists have
complaints about its contents there is a public address and ph. # for you.


|...
|Ritualistic Abuse -- Beginning in 1980 with the publication of _Michelle |Remembers_ by Dr. Lawrence Pazder and Michelle Smith, a new type of
|occult crime was postulated: ritualistic abuse. In the book, Michelle
|and her psychiatrist recount how in the course of her continued
|therapeutic sessions as an adult, she recalled involvement in a Satanic
|cult in Vancouver, BC when she was five years old. Her account tells how
|her mother was forced to surrender her for sexual Satanic rituals. Soon |thereafter, similar stories began to appear, linking for the first time |accounts of specifically Satanic involvement to ongoing physical, sexual, |emotional and spiritual child abuse. The result was the emergence of a |particularly heinous type of crime which became known as *ritualistic
|abuse*. The alleged perpetrators of such abuse are most often the Cult |Satanists.

This is very peculiarly worded. Let me quote Arthur Lyons for some
additional material on Michelle Smith:

"It seems that, while undergoing intense psychotherapy with Dr. Pazder
for an assortment of emotional disorders, Smith began to recall repressed childhood memories, which Pazder concluded were the source of her problems. What she revealed to him was that, as a five-year-old in Vancouver, she
had been offered up by her mother to a Satanic cult and forced to
participate in unspeakable rites.

"During a three-month ceremony called the Feast of the Beast, she had
been forced to recite childish rhymes while closed in a coffin within
a grave and been put naken in a cage, the floor of which was alive
with slithering snakes. She had seen robed men and women tear apart
kittens with their teeth. She had been sexually assaulted by both male
and female initiates, including the cult's leader, Malachi, and most
loathsome of all, she had seen babies ritualistically slaughtered and
eaten.

"In the end, however, through prayer, all the cult's efforts to convert
her were thwarted.

"As Smith's mother was long dead, it proved impossible to verify her
story. Despite problems with the horror-filled narrative -- namely,
why the group would allow her to live to tell the tale -- and despite
the fact that such nightmares as Michelle's are not uncommon in
emotionally disturbed cases, Pazder said he believed Michelle's story
to be literally true and helped her to spill out her fantasy in book
form."

_Satan Wants You_, by Arthur Lyons, pp. 140-1. ______________________________________________

I'll be getting more into the ritual abuse network theories of the fundamentalist Christians in later segments of this series. What is
important to note here is that the State of California indicates that
such 'Satanic ritualistic abuse' takes place (and most other law-enforcement articles I've read beyond this appear to contradict this so I wonder
how old it is and whether it is still considered valid). Not only this,
but it refers to 'the Cult Satanists' without defining this in any part
of the text that is included in the CAW 'manual'.

I think it is interesting that the article states that 'a new type of
occult crime is postulated'. It does not go on to make the claim that
such crimes have definitely been proven to exist. In fact, the latter
part of this section seems to indicate that there is no resolution on
the matter even in the criminal justice community (which may have been
true at the time this was written but I think it is likely that such
resolution is quickly being reached -- contrary to the claims of the 'Survivors' -- especially where associated with 'Satanism' as compared
to any other religion.)


|In the broadest sense, *ritualistic abuse of children, adolescents and
|adults involves repeated physical, sexual, psychological and/or spiritual |abuse which utilizes rituals*.
|
|Currently, there is probably no more divisive issue within the criminal |justice community that [sic] that of ritualistic abuse. While no one |disputes the existence or increase of ritualistic abuse, few agree about |several other aspects: the extent of ritualistic crimes committed by
|Cult Satanists; the motivations of perpetrators; and the veracity of the |victims who claim to have survived ritualistic abuse at the hands of
|Cult Satanists.

It is this information which ought to give Otter and the rest of the
Church of All Worlds pause when publishing the statements they do
concerning that with which Satanism is popularly linked. More and
more the justice community appears to be exonerating Satanists - a
repeat of the fight which the Neopagans have had to and still endure.


---------------

|'Principles of Wiccan Belief'
|As Adopted by the Council of American Witches at its
|Spring 1974 Witchmeet, April 11-14, Minneapolis, Minnesota

|...

|12. We do not accept the concept of "absolute evil," nor do we worship
|any entity known as "Satan" or "the Devil" as defined by Christian
|Tradition. We do not seek power through the suffering of others, nor
|do we accept the concept that personal benefits can only be derived
|by denial to another.

This is obviously directed to address the claims made by fundamentalist Christians in an attempt to squelch the religious freedoms of Wiccans
and/or Witches.

------------------

|'Witchcraft, Paganism and the Occult: A Basic Glossary of Common Terms
|and Symbols', by Otter and Morning Glory Zell, Editors, GREEN EGG Magazine
|
|[much omitted]

Here we get into the meat of the CAW bias.


|Athame - A consecrated ceremonial knife used by Witches and magicians; |usually black-hilted. In Witchcraft the athame is *almost* never used
|for drawing blood. Satanists profane it by using it for blood sacrifices.

Note how the Zells use terminology even to slander religious traditions
with which they should be *aligned*. African and Indian traditions still perform animal sacrifices and this is no 'profaning' unless one is biased against such religious practices (such as is the JCI complex). It is unfortunate that the Church does not appear to acknowledge this kinship
with indigenous (pagan?) tradition.


|Baphomet - Goat-headed god of carnal lust and materiality; said to have
|been worshipped by the Knights Templars. Depicted in the Tarot as "The |Devil" trump. Popular deity for modern Satanists and some Witches.

I find this to be very interesting. This comment leaves open to question whether or not such organizations as the OTO (whose reigning Caliph is *identified* by the name/title 'Baphomet') are 'Satanic', since they are certainly not 'Witches'.

As I understand it Eliphas Levi (Alphonse Louis Constant) was instrumental
in promoting the current caricature of Baphomet. Since he was a member of
the Christian establishment (a former deacon) perhaps there is more weight given to the theory that Satanism (and occultism generally) is an *advance*, or at least a tangental strike on Christianity.

Given that Levi is a major force within the Hermetic tradition and that
this same tradition inspired much of what is considered Neopaganism
(notably the more structured forms of Wicca), the association of Baphomet
with Satanism *and* Witchcraft undermines much of the Zell's claims
regarding their difference.


|Black Mass - The ritual most commonly associated with Satanism, wherein
|the Roman Catholic Mass is reversed and profaned. A nude woman forms
|the altar; blood is drunk instead of wine; flesh is eaten instead of bread; |and the Lord's Prayer is recited backwards.

Typical Christian rhetoric, perhaps even folkloric. I've still yet to determine if the Church of Satan ever attempted or attempts to utilize
this tantric rite. I gather that more are beginning to see it this way,
and this, combined with infanticide and cannibalism, is legendary, even
while most Satanists separate themselves from it rather flagrantly.


|Church of Satan - Founded in San Francisco in 1966 by Anton LaVey, who
|taught that Satan is a symbol of the material world and the carnal nature
|of man, embodying "the life, joy, pleasure, and particularly intimate and |important to man." Their scripture is LaVey's _Satanic Bible_. Legally |incorporated in California, the church split into several factions in 1975.

Of course the various factions might not see it this way. :> They might,
as with most other religious sects, merely indicate that the split was a narrowing, a focus upon their particular, pure strand.


|Cross, Inverted - Generic symbol of Satanism. Represents the rejection of |all that Christianity stands for.

Another typical ascription. I've often marvelled how the Sword in the
Stone looks remarkably like a Cross upon a Mount. 'Inverted', the sword becomes useful once more. I'm consistently disappointed in the fundamen- talist approach that the CAW takes to its symbolism (what with 'aright'
and 'inverted' orientations). Combined with its 'good/evil' rhetoric I
wonder how they can claim to honestly fit within the more relativistic
domain of the Neopagan community. In that they are a 'church', perhaps
this is not their goal.


|Demons - Spirits evoked from the human id.

Here's some promise, however. In beginning an orientation with modern psychology, the Zells begin to *say* something with their biased terms.


|Devil - From the Sanscrit *devi*, 'little god' (or from the Greek Diabolos). |In Christianity, an evil spirit (also known as demon, from Greek *daemon*, |meaning 'spirit'.
| The Devil - Christian personification of evil; chief of the demons.

I'm still confused about the root 'devi' and whether this applies. I've
more often heard the connection to 'diabolos'. Perhaps these are different branches off the same etymogical trunk.

It is important to note that all of these terms ('devil', 'demon', 'satan') were derived from *other*, nonChristian cultures. It appears that either
the Zells would like to retain the Manichean moralism so as to prop up their ecological concerns or they have failed to understand the damage which it
may do to others when they don't co-opt the language to an amoralistic usage.


|Evil - Negativity out of balance. The single minded obsession to generate |destruction, pain and cruelty, often for the purpose of gaining power over |others. Anti-life; anti-evolution; anti-consciousness.

I note here that there is no entry for 'Good'. Presumably this is to be another moralistic sledge-hammer.


|Grotto - A Satanic congregation.

I gather this is directly from the Church of Satan. It is weird how at
times the Zells utilize the terminology and theoretics of organized
Satanism and at others disregard it completely. Perhaps there is an
historical relation to 'grottos' which I'm missing.


|Heavy Metal - The adrenalin/testosterone frenzied music of adolescent |rebellion featuring a glorification of sex, drugs and violence with a strong |flavor of black leather/studs, sado-masochism and nihilism. Though
|Heavy Metal music has been cited in teen-age Satanic practices including |human sacrifice, much is harmless and it is important to distinguish between |the different bands. Some, like Metallica, Judas Priest, White Snake and |Motley Crue currently feature lyrics of rape and rampage. Other more |moderate bands like Dio, Kiss and Ozzy Osborne feature quasi-occult themes |strong on raw power and ceremonial magic. Bands like Van Halen and Def |Leppard have safely mellowed.

Note that the Zells appear to reference 'human sacrifice' with respect
to 'teen-age Satanic practices' yet do not give references for their 'citation'. Presumably we can derive these from the balance of the 'manual'.

The Zells are apparently unfamiliar with the earliest manifestations
of the intersection of 'Satanism' and 'Heavy Metal'. Bands like Black
Sabbath (who launched Ozzy Osborne *and* later featured Rainbow's Ronnie
James Dio) and Led Zeppelin (who featured occult themes though less
overt darkness) were the forefront of 'Satanic Heavy Metal', and others,
such as Grand Funk Railroad, Blue Cheer and Deep Purple, gave the movement
its start otherwise.

Despite the implications that there may be 'harmless' and 'harmful'
music, the Zells are just adding their voices to the stupidity of fundamentalist Christians who want to squelch the rebellion of largely adolescent males seeking release from the oppression of parents and
society.

Nowhere is it mentioned the various new forms of music into which the
Sabbath strand has flowed, sometimes called 'Death Metal' or 'Death
Rock', often typified by attention to black clothing, vampirism and anti-consciousness (what the Zells might call 'evil').


|Incubus - Demon in male form that seduces women in their sleep, causing |erotic dreams.

This, with 'Succubus', is a likely leftover from nonChristian folklore.


|Kali - Hindu Goddess of Time, Destruction, Death and Rebirth. The Great |Initiator, Portal Between Worlds.

Note the focus here on *destruction*, rather than Creation. For many Westerners Kali is a very frightening find. That the Zells do Her well
in this context says something for their attitude toward wrathful deities
in SOME (i.e. Eastern, nonChristian) contexts. Aum krim namah Kaliya.


|Left-Hand Path - Occultists who spend their time being destructive, |manipulative and 'evil.' (PEIB) [Bonewits]
| Right-Hand Path - Occultists who spend their time being
|constructive, manipulative and 'good.' (PEIB) Both are patriarchal
|terms that have grown out of medieval ceremonial magick and Qabalism.

More weapons with which to bludgeon the victims of religious oppression.
I had thought that the terms derived from the Hindu tantric rites wherein
the position of adepts has symbolic importance.


|Lilith - Ancient Sumerian Owl Goddess. In Hebrew mythology, She was
|Adam's first wife. Divorced for insubordination, She became the mother
|of demons.

I gather that there are many different versions of this tale, including
that Lilith took leave of Adam herself, refusing to submit to him.


|Magick -...
| Black Magick - Used for blighting and binding.
|Popularly, magick done for 'evil' purposes.

This appears to be more liberal on the part of the Zells, in that the
term 'black' isn't associated *merely* with 'evil'.


|Pan - Pre-Christian Greek God of Wild Nature. Lusty and bawdy, Pan is a |favorite God among many Witches and Neo-Pagans. Goat-horned and goat- |hoofed, the image of Pan was appropriated to form the physical basis for
|the depiction of the Christian Devil.

Here they don't associate him with the Underworld. Again the benign
aspect, lacking connection to 'panic' or some darker, wrathful Pan.
That the favorite mammal of sacrifice is the goat cannot be dismissed
easily when considering this god.


|Pentagram, Inverted - Within a circle, a primary symbol of Satanism. |Represents goat's head, with horns, ears, beard. As the inverted
|cross represents the antithesis of Christianity, the inverted
|pentagram in a circle represents the antithesis of all that Witchcraft
|stands for. (Note: some traditional Witches also use the inverted
|pentagram *with or without a circle* to indicate the Horned God, as Pan.)

Note the ambiguity here, demonstrating the obvious overlaps between the symbolism of the groups. This common usage is not explained here or
anywhere else in this publication. Compare the 'Horned God' hand-gesture
and the 'Satanic Salute'. :::snicker:::


|Process Church of the Final Judgement - Founded by Robert deGrimstone
|in 1968, and incorporating material from the Church of Satan, Scientology, |and the O.T.O. The Process was composed of four separate henotheistic
|cults, devoted respectively to Christ, Jehovah, Lucifer and Satan, which
|they believe to embrace the total of divinity. Their goal was to bring
|about the Omega Point, staming the emergent collective consciousness
|with their imprint. In the early '70s, the Process put out a series of very |slick, expensive publications, and had uniformed recruiters in every
|airport. Then, around 1975, they apparently disappeared, and are believed
|to have gone underground.

This is fascinating to me. I know almost nothing about the Process. Is
it strange that Church of Satan, Temple of Set and Process Church are the
only organizations to make it into this publication? Perhaps these were
the most obvious/publicized.


|Ritual Abuse - Abuse that involves a series of repeated physical, emotional |and/or sexual assualts [sic] combined with the systematic use of symbols, |ceremonies or machinations. (CSER)

A very important definition. It not only separates it from Satanism per se, but it severs the connection between ritual abuse and religion of any sort.


|Satan - Hebrew for "adversary." During the Middle Ages a full Satanic |theology was developed, in which Satan as the Devil became the God of
|evil and ruler of the Christian underworld, Hell. The collective
|Christian Id; the Antithesis of Yahveh.

Here we come back to the Christian Psychology Model that the Church of
All Worlds is keen to promote (and valiantly so!). *Was* a 'full theology' really developed? Or was it a composite of jumbled concepts which have
been gathered together by fundamentalists in their paranoia?


|Satanism - An anti-religion developed in reaction to and as an opposition
|to Christianity. It is the mirror image, the dark side, of Christianity, and |shares the same history, mythology, and world-view as Christianity.
|Satanists regard Satan as equal in power to the Judeo-Christian God Jahveh, |and base much of their mythology on Milton's _Paradise Lost_, wherein Satan |was the loser in a civil war fought in heaven before Creation. Satanists |believe that Jahveh was not necessarily the more noble of the antagonists; |merely the winner, and, disaffected from Christianity, they choose to side |with its opponent, reversing all Christian rites and symbols, especially |those of Catholocism. Distinctions should be made between religious |Satanists, Satanic cults, and self-styled Satanists.

Here the CAW appears to veer starkly away from even its own document, in
that it explains away Satanism as an 'anti-religion' (what could this be?).
The Church (and likely many Neopagans) wishes to flash Satanism (and the
charge which is consistently levelled against it) back upon the Christians themselves. This is the only motivation I can yet discover within their 'information manual'. It is a counter-propaganda tool with which slights Satanists in many ways while offering protection to Neopagans.


|Set - Egyptian adversary God, murderer of Osiris and userper of his throne. |Set was defeated and castrated by Osiris' son, Horus, who lost an eye in the |battle. Some Satanists equate Set with Satan.

Knowing that some Satanists equate Set with Satan, that Set preceded Satan, historically, and that even Shaitan preceded the Christian manifestation of this cosmologic Being, how can the Zells go on proclaiming that their understanding (Yahweh-Id) is the 'correct' version?


|Succubus - Demon in female form that seduces men in their sleep, causing
|wet dreams.

|Temple of Set - Founded in 1983 by Michael Aquino as a splinter group from |the Church of Satan. Aquino, a high-ranking officer in the US Army, is |aligned with Neo-Nazi movements and believes he is the Anti-Christ. |Originally based at the Army Presidio in San Francisco, Aquino was |transferred to St. Louis in 1988.

Note the focus here on the 'Neo-Nazi' associations with Aquino. This was
at one time popular, yet will the Zells also mention the occult history
of the Nazis and attempt to connect the Asatru and various other sects with these same scapegoats? I doubt it. The vitriol between Aquino and Otter
Zell is a story of bitter tactlessness and miscommunication.

=================================================================

This review was originally transmitted to alt.satanism, alt.religion.all-worlds, alt.pagan, talk.religion.misc, and sent email
to Green Egg. :>

I intend no hard feelings on any count, even while my criticism may be
rather terse. I intend to hit fairly and hard the expressions of all
who say something about Satanism, from Neopagans to Christians to the
those who use the term 'Satanist' to describe themselves, and do not
assume that I have the last word on the matter.

As usual, I encourage response to and debate with my review.

(C) 1994
tyagi nagasiva
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com
TOKUS
EOF


Eddie,
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23

Summary: This is one of a series of docs examining the Neopagan perspective
on Satanism. This particular review is of a publication by the
Church of All Worlds.
Keywords: Satanism, Neopaganism, criticism, review
Date: Kali Yuga 49940927

*** 5 of 5 ***

Do what thou wilt.

What follows is a critical review of a document I found in a publication distributed by the Church of All Worlds (CAW). It is somewhat
representative of the common Neopagan attitude toward Satanists and Satanism. This will be a multiple-part series which also examines the meaning of
'Satan' and 'Satanism' to Christians of various types and to those who
apply the term to themselves (or until recently did so).

tyagi nagasiva
tyagi@houseofKaos.Abyss.com

The Order of K@s Under Satan (TOKUS) ___________________________________________________________________

Section 1.5 : Neopagans => Church of All Worlds


From:

|_Witchcraft, Satanism and Occult Crime: Who's Who and What's What_
| A Manual of Reference Materials for the Professional Investigator.
| (Fourth Edition - October 1991)
|
|Edited by Otter G'Zell, Church of All Worlds


Article:

|'The Earth Religion Anti-Abuse Resolution'
|[much omitted]

|Two disturbing trends that have been growing in the United States -
|1) that there has been a rise in violent criminal activity with Satanic |ritualistic overtones.....This final version now continues to be reprinted |and circulated to help clarify the fact that Witches and Pagans are not |Satanists and do not engage in abusive or criminal activities....

|We neither acknowledge nor worship the Christian devil, "Satan," who
|is not in our Pagan pantheons....

The Neopagans run from the label 'Satanist'.

----------------

|[Letter]
|Central Office
|Multiple Personality Dignity
|Loved Ones of Multiples (LOOM)
|...
|It has come to my attention that some fundamentalists and therapists are |exploiting Multiple Personality Disorder (M.P.D.) for unethical purposes. |Such exploitation includes:
|* labeling almost every anxiety as M.P.D.
|* labeling almost every abuse as "Satanic abuse"

Here we have one of the first lukewarm refutations of the 'Satanic abuse' scare. This from an official in the psychological community. Why haven't these items (combined with Frew's article) carried through toward eliminating the more ridiculous 'Survivor' literature?


|* instructing law enforcement officers to label almost every unusual crime
| "Satanic crime"
|* confusing all minority religions (especially Wicca) with Satanism
|* declaring that M.P.D. is proof of a worldwide Satanic conspiracy (sometimes | fundamentalists declare that there is a worldwide conspiracy of
| Jews, Catholics or others who have religious beliefs different
| from the fundamentalists)

Finally someone also notices the frequent 'conspiracy' mindset. The fundamentalist Christian gives away their ignorance through grouping
the Catholics, Jews and Satanists together and the fundamentalist
Neopagan gives away theirs by grouping Satanists, ritual abusers and anti-Christians.


|...
|* having therapy conferences only about abusers who are Satanists and
| ignoring the vast majority of North American abusers who are
| Christians
|...
|The people who _accept_ this propaganda might react in ways that may harm |survivors. These reactions include:
|* less belief of the majority of survivors whose abusers were not Satanists |...
|_Even_ people who _reject_ this propaganda might react in ways that may
|harm survivors. These reactions include:
|* less belief of the minority of survivors whose abusers actually were
| Satanists
|...
|As MPDignity/LOOM participants, personal recovery and recovery of others
|are helped when we:
|* respect the self-descriptions of survivors whose abusers actually
| were Satanists
|* respect the self-descriptions of survivors whose abusers were not
| Satanists
|...
|Dr. Cindee Grace, founder

All in all a fairly balanced overview, though even Dr. Grace appears to maintain that there *are* 'Satanic ritual abuse victims', perhaps with
the caveat that there are 'Christian ritual abuse victims' and 'Neopagan ritual abuse victims', though she doesn't really emphasize this point
very carefully.

-----------------

|[Letter]
|Sandi Daly Gallant

Who? No references! Why should we listen to this person?


|...
|Position on Ritualistic Crimes
|...
|As a clearer understanding of the differences between Paganism, Witchcraft |and Satanism came forth, however, not only were the differences in ritual |practice observed, but the symbolism attached to the various beliefs were |more clearly defined. Over the past several years, when conducting training |sessions, I have gone to great efforts to describe the differences so that |similar mistakes will not be made. At the same time, I have come to look at |this field as an area of study that needs to be approached from a case-by-case |basis, as individuals who incorporate various belief systems into criminal |activity tend, very often, to combine aspects of various faiths, misinterpret |symbolism, create their own symbolism, and pervert the religions to fit their |needs.

Note the focus in the paragraph above on *belief*. I've come to associate
this with the JCI (Judeo-Christian-Islamic) complex rather directly, since
many Neopagans (aside from those who've sullied the resurgent movement) also find a need to escape doctrine and dogma.

It is important that, here and below, this author places the focus on the criminal activities of ECLECTIC individuals, who are already liable to endure scrutiny and bigotry from the groups among which they walk. She does them
a disservice as she implicates them as 'Satanic' and 'criminal' here.


|Neo-Pagans, in the traditional sense, worship nature. Their symbolism |represents man in harmony with nature. Satanism, in the traditional sense, |is a worship of ones-self, and the Prince of Darkness, in various forms.

A wonderful distinction which may indeed describe the entire difference
between the Neopagan and Satanic mind. Neopagans worship nature, Satanists worship themselves. Why cannot oneself be identified with 'nature'? Is
the Neopagan necessarily exempt from narcissistic focus? American culture doesn't seem to reflect this claim. Or is it that the puritanical 'self is
not in nature' paradigm flowing over into the Neopagan mindset?


|Much of its symbolism is created to cause distress and a gap between man
|and nature, with man being the ruling force.

This is a fascinating claim. I wonder how accurate it is, however. Is
the intent a separation of nature and man or a resoluton through conflict
(or through placing the existing conflict in the *foreground*)?


|Although there are certainly
|exceptions to every rule, traditionalists will not usually cross the line
|and mix these belief systems together. Dabblers, on the other hand, |constantly blend the faiths. The majority of criminal acts of a ritual |nature appear, at this time, to be conducted by dabblers or adolescents
|who don't understand the basic differences in the belief systems or the |symbols, and only use them to further their own desires or needs.

Here again we are told that the criminals blend, existing between the orthodoxies, within the 'evil heterodox zone'. My impression is that it
isn't so much a true blend of traditions to which she is pointing but to
a shallow grasping at alternatives to the oppressive establishment within
which these delinquents find themselves.


|To my
|knowledge, no evidence currently exits establishing that organized
|Pagan or Satanic _groups_ have been involved in criminal activity. This
|is not to say that certain _individuals_ associated with such groups have
|not committed crimes. Certainly, within my own Christian faith, there have
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|been many _individuals_ who have perversely interpreted their belief in
|God and used it to justify criminal behavior; however, no theory of criminal |conspiracy in this area has been proven.
|...

Unfortunately self-explanatory.


|Sandi Daly Gallant [signed]

WHO??

---------------

|[Letter]
|School of Religion
|University of Southern California [USC]
|....

Now we're getting closer to some substance (aren't we?).


|STATEMENT ON SATANISM AND NEO-PAGANISM
|
|I am Director of the School of Religion of the University of Southern |California, Professor of the History of Religion, and author (now co-author) |with Harry Partin) of _Religious and Spiritual Groups in Modern America_, a |now-updated textbook in this area for more than fifteen years. In these |capacities I have had numerous occasions to investigate both Satanism
|and the Neo-Pagan movement, including modern Wicca or Witchcraft.

Yes, but what *did* his investigations include? What 'Satanism' did
Robert S. Ellwood look at? Does anyone recognize the name? Has anyone
read his book? References?


|I can assure all concerned that they are quite different, and that |Neo-Paganism is entirely benign in concept and generally in practice.

This is an echo of what the Zells hope to portray. To a certain
extent I can't help but feel that they sell out their religion by
so doing, in that it takes the bite out of any ecological challenge
which they may support against the State, and any self-respecting 'nature-worshipper' would not wish to cut off this 'nonbenign' avenue.


|To be sure, all
|religions, like any human activity, will sometimes attract sociopathic |persons and occasionally they will even find their way into positions of |leadership. But this is far more likely to happen in Satanism than Paganism |because that path, with its overtones of rebellion against God and all that |most people find decent and good, will draw those who share that rage. It |also makes a strong appeal to ego and the lust for power on all levels, |offering power in exchange for submission and sometimes the committing
|of unspeakable acts. Even though some Satanic groups are not criminal,
|they still quite openly center their practice on ego-enhancement,
|interpreted as gaining power and gratification.

Here Ellwood makes a *very* important point, one which could have been made previously if any had taken the time to analyze the characteristics of Neopaganism and Satanism in their particulars. It does indeed seem that
if either are to be associated with rebellion and criminality, Satanism, by virtue of its focus upon adolescence, anarchy and lust, would be more prone
to attract the sociopaths of a community. But is this really true? OR is
it more likely that the 'humble' extremes of a Jones or Koresh would be more likely to result in travesty?


|...
|Any refusal to distinguish between Satanists and Neo-Pagans is irresponsible |and essentially dishonest thinking based on prejudice against certain types |of religious activity rather than sincere investigation and commitment to |truth. It could give rise to the horrors of the witch-hunts of old once again.
|It must be shunned -- like the devil.
|
|Respectfully,
|[signed]
|Robert S. Ellwood

Here, sadly, are words of ignorance uttered by an academe. Even if there is
an absolute difference between Satanists and Neopagans, hasn't he learned
the lesson taught by the Devil, that the energy shunned rebounds in ferocity?

-----------------------

|[Letter]
|Joan Christianson
|SURVIVOR
|...
|STATEMENT ON PAGANS, SATANISTS, AND RITUAL ABUSE
|
|My name is Joan Christianson, and I am a Ritual Abuse Survivor. I was raised |in a family that for generations had been practicing Satanism... the worship |of Satan. I was raised in a family where abuse was the norm: physical abuse, |emotional abuse and psychological abuse.
|
|[Much therapy-abuse Survivor rant omitted.]
|
|Sincerely,
|[signed]
|Joan Christianson

This is an unfortunate case. I am not convinced that her words speak
of Satanism in any manner. She certainly does not care to elaborate
upon why she calls it 'Satanism'.

------------------

|[Letter]
|RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT RESOURCES CENTER
|... Hal Mansfield, Director
|
|SPECIAL REPORT ON WICCA (WITCHCRAFT) AND PAGANISM
|...
|The few links [to cult-related crime] are in the adolescent "Do-it-yourself" |covens in which kids beg, borrow and steal from all sorts of belief systems, |books, movies, etc. For more information on this, we would refer you to our |discussion paper: "Pseudo-Satanism in School Systems Today." The other
|area is involving an individual's own pathological behavior. Almost all |these persons call themselves Satanists. Satanism, whether it's a made-up |system by individuals, an organized group, or a destructive cult, is not |Wicca or Paganism! There is little similarity between them.
|...
|A Service of United Campus Ministry at Colorado State University

Here we continue to see eclecticism equated with malignance. Is it so soon that we shall turn away the 'solitary witches' whose practices shall lean heavily upon 'all sorts of belief systems', flowing like water through the world and possessing the compassion of the tree, the grief of the stream,
the anger of the volcano?

----------------

|[Letter]
|THE INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF AMERICAN RELIGION
|...
|Dr. J. Gordon Melton, Director
|
|STATEMENT ON NEO-PAGANISM AND CONTEMPORARY SATANISM
|
|...
|Faced with a lack of evidence, in all too many cases, fingers have been |pointed to the relatively visible Neo-Pagan Wicca community as the
|source of Satanic activity from the child abuse to the sacrifice of babies. |These accusations have, to say the least been a matter of pain and
|confusion among Pagans and Wiccans who do not even acknowledge the
|existence of Satan, the Christian anti-deity.

An interesting commentary and support for the Zell assertion: 'anti-deity'.


|While mistaking the peaceful, nature-loving and life-affirming Pagan |community as Satanists may be understandable and forgiven when made
|by someone fresh to the issues, it is inexcusable when made by seasoned |professionals, be they journalists, police offices, church leaders, or |psychologists. It quickly becomes purely and simply a vicious example
|of religious bigotry, not to mention an invasion of individuals' civil |liberties.
|
|Whatever the truth or fantasy behind the current claims of Satanic
|activity, I call upon all who would venture into that area of concern
|to refrain from turning it into an excuse for attacking innocent
|people wh have found their religious home in the Neo-Pagan vision of
|Nature and the worship of the Earth Mother.
|
|[signed]
|J. Gordon Melton...
|
|THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN RELIGIONS

When it comes closer to the authorities in the Ivory Towers of law and religion, so the teeth are taken out of the 'claims of Satanic activity'.
It is perhaps strange that the 'Encyclopedia of American Religions'
would associate 'attacking innocent people' with any particular religious
sect. Is Satanism simply the brutish and repressed shadow of the dominant religion in Western culture? Surely many Satanists (some quite eloquent)
would not agree. To whom shall we listen?

-------------------

|Resources and References --
|
|...
|Recommended Reading:
|
|The following books and papers are recommended for further study and research: |
|_Contemporary Satanism_
|Carlson, Shawn and Larue, Gerald, "Satanism in America;" The Committee for
| Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER), Univ. of Cal, Los Angeles,
| Oct. 31, 1988.

Interesting publication date. :>


|Clifton, Chas S., "The Three Faces of Satan: A Close Look at the Satanism
| Scare;" 'Gnosis', No. 12, Summer 1989. (Available from Box 14217
| San Francisco, CA 94114. $4.00)
|Melton, J. Gordon, "The Evidence of Satan in Contemporary America: A Survey;" | A paper presented at the meeting of the Pacific Division of the
| American Philosophical Ass'n, Los Angeles, Mar. 27, 1986. (From
| ISAR, POB 90709, Santa Barbara, CA 93190)

These appear to be some very valuable resources, though as I have not yet perused them I cannot be sure of their quality.


|...
|Satanic Organizations (US only)
|Church of Satan, Box 666, Whitehall, PA 18052; Box 210082, San Francisco,
| CA, 94121.
|Temple of Set, Box 4507, St. Louis, MO 63108; Box 470307, San Francisco,
| CA 94147.

With these we are familiar, though their PA and MO addresses are not
broadly advertized that I've seen.


|Temple on Dieties [sic], Box 4546, Miami, FL 33014.

What??


|Ravenschool, Box 321, Meredosia, IL 62665.

I've not heard of this either.


|'The Black Flame', Box 499, Radio City Station, New York, NY 10101
| (4 issues for $12)

This I've heard of previously, and it does appear to be Satanist in scope.

--------------------------

|A Few Magickal [sic] and Occult Signs and Symbols
|[much, including the symbols themselves, omitted.]
|
|[cross with cross-bar below mid-point of vertical]
|Inverted Cross - Generic symbol of Satanism. Represents the antithesis
|of all that Christianity stands for.

What *does* Christianity stand for, precisely, and what would a tradition
look like which represented its antithesis?


|[right hand, thumb under bent ring and middle fingers]
|Horned God - Represents the Horned God of Witchcraft; Pan or Cernunnos |(Hunting sign)
|
|[left hand, thumb bent over bent ring and middle fingers]
|Satanic Salute - May represent the Devil. Pointed at someone, it is
|used to convey a curse or to ward off harm.

Notice the significance of the right and left hand-associations.
Again the 'Satanic' element is *either* 'positive' or 'negative' in
scope. Just like the 'inverted pentagram'.


|[point-down pentagram with goat-head inset]
|Baphomet - Goat's head inside an inverted pentagram, combining two
|basic Satanic symbols. (Also used by some Witches to represent the
|Horned God.)
|
|[circle with point-down pentagram]
|Inverted Pentagram - Within a circle, a primary symbol of Satanism, |representing the antithesis of all that Witchcraft stands for.
|(Some traditional Witches may also use the inverted pentagram to
|indicate the Horned God.)

How shall we determine when they are Witches and when they are Satanists
if they use the same symbols at certain times? Why do Witches sometimes
use a symbol which is 'the antithesis of all that Witchcraft stands for'?
I suspect a shallow mind.


|[double horizontal bars atop a leminiscate]
|Church of Satan - Symbol displayed in _The Satanic Bible_ above
|"The 9 Satanic Statements."

Yes, but where did it come from prior to _The Satanic Bible_?
Certainly it is phallic, and perhaps kundalinisque.


Summary:

All told, I found quite a jumble of different perspectives on Satanism
within this document, the larger number of them critical of Satan as
Christian and Satanism as dedicated to violence. I was consistently
left with the feeling that this was as much propaganda as Christian fundamentalists were dealing out; that this was a shield, a redirection,
set to cast the rabid dogma upon the heels of the new Satanic organiza-
tions and individuals who appear to have the strength to outlive their
baying chase, yet I suspect that they will not soon forget the dastardly
deed dealt them.

=================================================================

This review was originally transmitted to alt.satanism, alt.religion.all-worlds, alt.pagan, talk.religion.misc, and sent email
to Green Egg. :>

I intend no hard feelings on any count, even while my criticism may be
rather terse. I intend to hit fairly and hard the expressions of all
who say something about Satanism, from Neopagans to Christians to the
those who use the term 'Satanist' to describe themselves, and do not
assume that I have the last word on the matter.

As usual, I encourage response to and debate with my review.

(C) 1994
tyagi nagasiva
tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com
TOKUS
EOF

Eddie,
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23