Talk:Satanism/Archive 4

Neutrality, Disambiguation, LaVeyan Satanism
The last person to screw with this page both Deleted the criticism section AND screwed up the disambiguation page.Consensus has so far said that it is best just to leave it as a disambiguation page and deal with the individual forms of Satanism in separate articles in order to keep things neutral. Thats why I attempted to revert things back to how they were, but as it is I'm not sure HOW and I'll have to rewrite my criticsm section for LaVeyan Satanism....As a note I AM a LaVeyan Satanist and am trying to improve the individual article on LaVeyan Satanism with the criticism section in an attempt for neutrality which the last user to revert (not you Zoe but the other guy) has utterly ruined. WerewolfSatanist 22:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase what I said (But leave my intial reaction): This is kind of a work in progress. No its not perfect yet, but why just revert things to the way they were? Why not instead create a general page for Satanism first before jumping back into a rather biased account of Satanism? WerewolfSatanist 22:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC) 9

I was wondering if there was some kind of agreement that allowed the last revert, and if not perhaps we need to have some kind of help from a wiki mediator.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 23:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a question. Since the majority of editors agreed to work on this project in the aim of how it was before the current revert is there any way to protect their work and efforts?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 00:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DR Dispute Resolution for you Rev. It might help. Until that is sorted out I'll add my Criticisms once again.WerewolfSatanist 00:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-01-03_SatanismRev. Michael S. Margolin 01:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Major edit
I agree with the criticisms that "Satanism" should be a much broader article than LaVeyan Satanism. So I replaced the original text with text from the Satan article. The original text, I moved to the "LaVeyan Satanism" page. Hope this is fair. Please note that LaVey and the Church of Satan are still mentioned prominently on this page.

---=-

Why is there a "church of satan" banner on the page ???

ENOUGH WITH THEM TRYING TO MONOPOLIZE SATANISM!!! REMOVE IT!!!! --veltis-

It doesn't belong on this page, true, but there are better arguments than propaganda of anti-Christians. Darkahn 08:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I said, this isn't the way to do it. Look at Whatlinkshere. This article is old. Aran|heru|nar 07:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Current opinion?
Sorry about being absent for a while, everybody. I've been too busy working on the article lists to actually notice what's been happening to the articles during that time. I feel extremely stupid about that, by the way. Anyway, with perhaps some reservations about the paragraph on Satanic crimes, which I acknowledge may well not belong here, the article looks pretty good to me, other than maybe lacking sources. I think that it's basically a decent job of covering the subject. Other opinions? Badbilltucker 20:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Satanic crimes should be there for it is an excellent example of how the Christian religion uses the word Satanism to manipulate the masses to persecute non Christians. And thank you for all your help.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 20:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I left the banner there because I thought it had more than one Satanic group on it. By all means, feel free to change whatever. The symbol looks cool--apologies if it is too LaVey specific, maybe somebody would prefer a different one?

The Levi Baphomet with other Satanic groups and people added to the banner would round it out. As is the banner only reflects CoS and the LaVey Legacy. Though on this one I'm not complaining, just trying to help. And BadBillTucker feel free to try and get an SoS article made if you still want to. More than happy to help with any info you need.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * On Satanic crimes, wasn't there a French Satanic child-molesting ring that got charged a year or so ago? As I recall, there were dozens of them. A big part of the scandal was how the high-ranking townspeople had hushed it up. (Some of them were in the cult.) Wish I could remember where this was... ====

They were not a Satanic group. Just poor French community exploiting their kids to gain alcohol, cigerettes and in some cases food.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Pardon the pun, but where in the hell is this article getting at hundreds of people being convicted for SRA? As I recall, the FBI released a report stating there was not a single proven case of SRA in the USA. While obviously certain cases were 'interpreted' by the media as SRA, they were certainly not in the number of hundreds. Care to put up some sources? Lastly, I prefered the disambiguation page. I also fail to see the logic behind the statements that LaVey was a spokesman for Satanism as a whole, as this article suggests, or that his works are somehow viewed by the devil-worshippers as controversial. Aside from a very few cults, most of them don't pay any attention to LaVey whatsoever. LaVey did not believe in forms of Satanism. Devil-worshippers to him were worse than the Christians. Darkahn 08:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a mental hospital I believe in New York ran by Christians that got busted for implanting false memories that was about 8-9 years ago. After that bust the whole SRA push died. I'm not gonna attempt to write history for I'm not a historian, I'm sure if anyone is interested in the facts they can easily be dug up on the web. One more note on this subject, Thelema Lodge in Berkley California was raided durring this witch hunt along with a few other O.T.O. camps around the bay area which resulted in false chrages, police brutality and a Law Suit in which the O.T.O. and private parties involved won not only a finacial settlement but all charges were droped. Again showing how the Christian religion uses the word Satanism to scare the lemmings into violating the rights of non Christians.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Whose idea was the "Ceremonial Bible Burning" link? I've never encountered anyone that does that. Sounds like an exposingsatanism.org kinda thing. WerewolfSatanist 02:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Phunting 01:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)== Revert war goes on ==

Is there anyway to put an end to the church of Satan zealots from reverting the Satanism article?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The article can be semiprotected, but that requires administrative intervention and generally someone coming close to violating the three-revert rule. Badbilltucker 22:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Any posibility of you getting that rock rolling Bill? And can any of us revert it back to the non bias version without looking like vandals?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 23:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not the best person to do the reverting myself, based on my limited knowledge of the subject, and I don't want to mistakenly include any of the wrong info. One could revert the vandalism, and then file a request for semi-protection at Requests for page protection, requesting either semi-protection or full protection. Beyond that, the Resolving disputes rules come into play. For this to work, we have to engage in an attempt to resolve the dispute short of official involvement. This could involve seeking an advocate. I have contacted one and hope to be hearing from GuyIncognito shortly. Badbilltucker 23:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Bill I'm posting this url so you and everyone else involved can receive their compliment for working together to try and make a nonbiased Satanism article and two, the mediater might be a good person to tap. I hate to cuz I don't wanna bug him, I was awfully thankful for his help the last revert I just hate to ask him again.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-01-03_Satanism Rev. Michael S. Margolin 00:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I detested that so-called "unbiased" version of the article. It was pure bollocks. Hundreds of SRA convictions? Please. I am of the belief that a disambiguation page is still the best way to do it and keep it "neutral." And, with all due respect, there have been more vandalizations by both kids and Theistic "satanists", who put more effort staking the claim of them being "true satanists" rather than editting their own article, than their have been by CoS-affiliated individuals -- so far, I only know of one here.Darkahn 06:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem still remains that the church of Satan's definition of Satanism is not the predominate one, and the article as you like it, makes it look like it is. Thus a misrepresentation of the facts. Yes the Church of Satan I will admit is the most known, but their definition of Satanism is the least known, least used in any context, therefore should not dominate the article as it does in the way you want the article. As for any of the editors that agreed to make this a non biased article claiming "True Satanism", SHOW ME, that whole True Satanism is from CoS and why they and you want to dominate the definition of Satanism to furthermore make the lame ass claim as being the one the true, the just as the stuck in the mire of trying to dominate reality as all the other old world religions.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 07:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You know I never actually saw where it said "SRA convictions." Really guys. Whats the big deal? Why is it that people can't worry about improving the articles rather than arguing over semantics? So separate everything and have an unbiased page to give a general overview. If you don't like it than IMPROVE it, don't replace it. Everybody is actually working to improve these articles. If the "SRA convictions" bothers you cause it is not factual, then take it out. Cause you're right. Quote FBI reports. But don't replace and articles just becuase you don't like them. 64.5.145.74 14:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote this tonight. I'm not saying this is what should be posted. I'm merely offering it as a possible rough draft we can all be happy to work with and from. So save any desire to chew me a new asshole, I have enough new assholes. And please remember I'm not a technical writer I'm a fucking poet god damn it. The only technical writing I ever did was the SoS manifesto but even that to me was chess and poetry. OK enough disclaimer here is what I offer.

Satanism has a very broad and varied definition. Most commonly used in the context of devil worshiper. Wheather it's used in the context of self proclamation or as an accusation to justify persecution by various religions around the world that have an antithesis to their belief. Though predominant in dualism such as Christianity it can also be found in monotheism such as Judaism and Islam as well as indigenous religions around the world. As far as Satanism as an organized religion, and used in the context of self proclamation, the most popularly and widely known groups are the Church of Satan founded by Anton Zandor LaVey in San Fransisco California in 1967. They also have their own definition of Satanism which is basically Atheism and is based on their Satanic bible. The next two most popularly known groups in Satanism are the Ordo Templi Orientis (Aleister Crowley )and the Temple of Set (Michael and Lilith Aquino), but these two groups fall under Satanism in the context of an accusation, for neither group proclaims they are Satanists but other religions accuse them of being Satanists. The third most widely known group in Satanism proclaims they are Satanists, they are the Order of the nine angles, ONA. Like the Church of Satan they have their own definition of Satanism which is the antithesis of Christianity.

This space reserved for anyone that feels their group is more known or has more members than the Sinagogue of Satan which boasts well over 4,000 world wide.

Unlike the aforementioned groups is the Sinagogue of Satan. Again they have their own definition of Satanism which is nihilist in nature and based on its self canceling philosophy. SoS based their religion on freedom of religion as an act to undermine all religions including itself. Therefore not all of its members are Satanists and besides not accepting donations or charging for membership explains it's growth world wide and members in almost every religion including self proclaimed Satanists of various definitions.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 04:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Technically, it is not a disambiguation page unless it reads like this:

Satanism can refer to: ... etc.
 * Article 1, description 1
 * Article 2, description 2


 * Tunnels of Set 04:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

See, even Set points out the possibilities are endless! Thank you Set.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 05:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As someone new to the veritable war that seems to be raging here, I'll give my view. Personally I feel a proper disambiguation page would be the most sensible thing to do, ensuring that nobodies definition is regarded as the 'true' definition. Quite what are the objections to this? Regarding the above statement I think that to just state the CoS is "basically Atheism and is based on their Satanic bible" and to mention nothing about doctrinal beliefs of OTO and ToS but then to wax lyrical over SoS does seem rather biased towards the latter. Personally I've never heard of SoS (though I hardly claim authority on the subject), I'm skeptical therefore that it should have such high seeming priority. Oh and it should be ‘whether’ in the second line, not ‘weather’.

Regardless, I think the article as it stands at the moment is significantly worse than it was when I last looked.Phunting 01:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You missed worshiping, worshipping. Also you overlooked that space open for more prominate groups let alone the disclamer stating rough draft. Also as you can see, if you'd add to my rough draft using your critisms it would make a great article. Expand on CoS, Expand on O.T.O., T.o.S., O.N.A., and leave out Sinagogue of Satan, at the same time, to do so would be editing history to suit your personal bias.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 05:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. I left out ignorance to be polite.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 05:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"You missed worshiping, worshipping." Not sure what you're referring to here. I mispspelled worshipping besides using the wrong weather.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 15:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Also you overlooked that space open for more prominate groups let alone the disclamer stating rough draft." Not at all. I appreciate you did leave that element. I also understand that it was a draft, which is why I commented on what elements I felt needed re-drafting! I don't advocate leaving out SoS at all, I just stated as it stands the article seems inappropriatly weighed towards it. I also assure you I have no personal bias here, or desire to edit history as you put it. I am not a CoS member, or a member of any other such organization for that matter. I just have an interest in the subject and would like Wikipedia to have as good an article on it as it can.

"I left out ignorance to be polite."- Not sure what you mean by this either?... Phunting 13:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC) "Personally I've never heard of SoS (though I hardly claim authority on the subject)"Rev. Michael S. Margolin 15:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ignorance? Quite possibly. However I have never seen the organization referenced in a book, magazine, article, program, news story or website aside from wikipedia. If you could provide a reference from an independant source (ie not a website created by the organization or something editable like wikipedia) I would of course take it back. Phunting 17:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Brown, Seth (2004). Think You're the Only One? Oddball Groups Where Outsiders Fit In, pp. 99-100. Barnes and Noble Books. ISBN 0760757089Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Footage of Michael Margolin on Out & About with Roger Martin Episode #157 Angels Among Us / Pagan Day Festival.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.leagueofsatanists.com/revmikeinterview.htmlRev. Michael S. Margolin 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The Mad Poet, CD http://www.theophanyrecords.com/madpoet/Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Anton LaVey
The reason I edited the Anton LaVey paragraph was 1 the complaint here on the talk page of using the term spokesperson. He was a spokesperson for his own brand of Satanism but not all Satanism. But he was a Satanist and the most prominately and widely known one. I hope you guys like this small edit if not I understand again I was just trying to help.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 05:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems good to me, though I think we could just put it in the past tense with was. Don't see why we need is, and was. Tunnels of Set 06:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As we both know I'm a poet not a technical writer, and thank you for your feed back. I used "is and was" as an alusion to he passed. My way of respectfulling alluding to his departure from this plain of existance much like Robert Anton Wilson who was currently released from the pain of Polio and not to brag but another noteable I befreinded but that was over 20 years ago and before his reocurent affliction. I watched his "Maybe Logic" a couple months ago, (Great a must see for everyone)as usual it was great but I did not know about his new bout with polio and was to say the least messed up for a few days from seeing him that way. I'm just glad he isn't in pain anymore and for the record Rob is my favorite Buddhist.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 07:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Satanism project group proposal
Instead of the on going revert war can we form a project group to work out and create a Satanism article? Also if we can do this is there any way we can get protection for the artical while it's being worked on? I feel if we work together instead of argue over symantics and revert war we could make a good non biased article especially if the group is made up from several different Satanic groups including CoS.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that anyone who does not engage in the discussion can and should be reverted until they do. Tunnels of Set 20:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and thank you for your help.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Besides me, anyone else getting tired of this revert war?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 15:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

We could report this as vandalism seeing as most of the reverts back to the older article see no discussion. Also, I find the idea of "recruiting on their own message boards" amusing when the only people editing this article seem to come from no common message board. I only went onto the Rev's website to talk after I began editing this article. Long after.

On another note....THERE IS A TALK PAGE. State your complaints. Thats the POINT Of a talk page. To discuss and logically portray your point. There is also a LHP Work Group now, meant to help bring together people and suggest new ideas for articles. Talk and discuss there. Mediation has already suggested the generalized form of the article. Leave it at that. WerewolfSatanist 00:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * WerewolfSatanist, I'm glad that you are amused by the "recruiting on their own message boards" comment. What amuses me is that even though the posts on the message board in question make it quite clear that there is a uniformed effort to "takeover" this article that you would insist that this isn't the case.


 * Recruiting? no we are not like you, yes I have been giving the play by play on the Sinagogue of Satan message board ( it's more entertainment than anything else) but show me where I asked for help in this little war of ours on my message board. Telling people to do their wills is not comanding or even manipulating them is it? Told ya we are not like you. And like it or not some Sinagogue of Satan members such as myself call themselves Satanist and CoS don't get my little red card till they give me a Million dollars tax free.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 03:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If it is the majority consensus of people who edit this article that is the barometer for what happens here, then perhaps I should do the same thing and we can add 40 or 50 new editors to this project who disagree with your definition of "Satanism". Is that the direction this article needs to take in order to get a factual and stable entry here? Let me know.


 * Not to come off as being insulting here, but if the Church of Satan religion is a new religion, how come you want to resort to the same tactics as old world religions?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 03:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My main point of contention with this current entry is that there is no basis to include subculture Satanism as the main staple for the Satanism entry, other than to serve the purposes of those who are editing the article here. I am NOT pro-CoS in any way; however I would very much like to see the term properly represented. Absinthe  (Talk) 01:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Then include subculture Satanism, to do that you do not have to revert the article to the aformetioned biased version. But you will have to get creative and do something besides critique.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 03:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * By reverting, you are essentially creating a duplicate article of LaVeyan Satanism. Please stop. Tunnels of Set 01:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What she said and Set if you're not a girl I'm mega sorry Bro!Rev. Michael S. Margolin 03:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * They LaVeyan Satanism article should be deleted then, as it is a redundant article for Satanism (I don't know who created it). Stop what? Stop letting a small handful of people hi-jack a Wikipedia entry? Not a chance. The current article is ambiguous, doesn't tell the reader what Satanism is whatsoever, other than to say what it isn't, and provides nothing of value to Wikipedia readers. At the very least the former article made clear what Satanism was and offered the reader information on the subject. Absinthe  (Talk) 01:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No it should not be deleted. It should be there for people to go to from the Satanism article to learn more about him and the CoS. Is that too simple or what?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 03:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Then discuss what you think is missing and collaborate on adding it. Reverting to an old version of the article is not a way forward. It will not achieve what you want. Tunnels of Set 01:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds great in theory Tunnel, the only problem is that the old article was fine but it just had to be reverted incessantly because it was a "Biased Church of Satan definition" and rather than say what the PROBLEM with the old article was, specifically; those who had a problem with it merely created an ambiguous page that linked to Theistic Satanism thus allowing the editors here to link to their own website. So I would like to know what the issue with the correct (former) version of the Satanism article is.


 * When you say correct, don't you really mean, the one, the true? And you're not biased?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 03:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Even the mediation of 1-3-07 couldn't cite a specific issue with the article other than to say it was continuously being reverted (I wonder why) and they didn't like the definition. So I'm all ears, let's here what the problem with the old definition is, and why it's absolutely necessary to have a painfully ambiguous page for a main Wikipedia article. From there, I’m completely open to create an informative and neutral page to clearly communicate to the Wikipedia readers what Satanism is. Absinthe  (Talk) 02:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Easy, the old version defines Satanism as the religion created by Anton LaVey. That is false. Satanism as it is most commonly known was created by the Catholic Church. They even wrote masive works as to what Satanists do and how they worship. Need I really cite the masses of Catholic and other denominations propaganda that were and are the birth words of the monsters they created and we so strongly fight to distance ourselves from, even to the point of attemping to manipulate an online encyclopedia.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael, first of all, it isn't necessary to reply to each and every post with a simple-minded one sentence response.


 * Simple-minded? Resorting to insults already?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 04:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You can just as easily formulate one large thought with multiple points that you wish to retort to.


 * I'm a Satanist, I don't live by your rules!Rev. Michael S. Margolin 04:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, please for the love of god learn basic elementary school punctuation and grammar, and don't forget your spellchecker; you are just making yourself look silly, and I for one feel embarrassed for you.

No, my grammer may suck but I'll always be a better poet than you. O I left out and Chess player like the game your losing to me nowRev. Michael S. Margolin 04:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Now on to the larger point. Subculture Satanism (Theistic Satanism, Setianism, Devil worship, Luciferianism, etc, etc, etc.) is a contemporary byproduct of Satanism and not the other way around. These masses of “Catholic and other denominations propaganda” (improper punctuation intentionally used) are nothing more than archaic hate-mongering establishments that tried to conjure false propaganda to support their various causes. In modern times the followers and protagonists of these various movements are largely used as a response to modern day religion and as a vehicle with which to rebel. Modern Satanism (aka LaVeyan Satanism) is the only mainstream and modern movement to have a solid, traceable foundation of a religion/philosophy that we can point to and say, “yes, this is Satanism as it is known to the 20th and 21st century.” And as inconvenient as it might be for you, this is the best and most accurate way we can describe Satanism from an encyclopedic point of view.

Now, I would have no problem adding a section about Subculture Satanism to the proper version of the article, however I doubt you (or your friends) would allow the article to exist long enough for anyone to do that. You see the only thing you seem interested in, is making sure that the Modern (read: LaVeyan) version of the definition for “Satanism” is not the definition here, and that your outdated, obscure, and inconsistent definition of Satanism is. Absinthe (Talk) 03:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are so poor at attempting to manipulate reality you expose your guilt.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 03:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else, interested in actually discussing the article, want to take a stab at this? Absinthe  (Talk) 04:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * CheckmateRev. Michael S. Margolin 04:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Get Gilmore in here, he knows who I am, get him in here, and I so pray he is better than you, if not I'll tear up this little red card. Out of sheer shame! I'll even post the pieces for the whole world to see.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 04:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"Get Gilmore in here, he knows who I am, get him in here, and I so pray he is better than you, if not I'll tear up this little red card. Out of sheer shame! I'll even post the pieces for the whole world to see."

So much for maturity, being "neutral" and simply wanting to give unbiased articles to Satanists and nuts alike.Darkahn 17:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Maturity has nothing to do with neutrality and you still suck so bad at trying to manipulate reality you resort to name calling, you are not the person to judge maturity little boy. "Satanists and nuts alike."Darkahn 17:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Rev. Michael S. Margolin 04:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Next step
If this article is going to be the jumping off point, and not going to be reduced to a simple redirect page, then I'd suggest going the route of a one or two paragraph summary of each of the subarticles, with the tag at the top of each section, like this:

LaVeyan Satanism
blah blah blah .. simplistic summary .. blah blah blah

Theistic Satanism
blah blah .. simplistic summary .. blah blah blah

etc. I suggest ordering in terms of historic order (date of founding of first group espousing type) or, if there is disagreement about that, alphabetic... Tunnels of Set 05:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 1871Rev. Michael S. Margolin 05:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes it is better to let sleepping dogs lay. Especially when it has three heads compared to your one.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 05:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Tunnels, I like the fair minded place that you are coming from. Let me throw this out there as food for thought and get some feedback. Modern Satanism is a mainstream subculture. What I mean by this, is that when Rolling stone does an article on Satanism, they are referring to the philosophy that was born in the counterculture movement of the 60's. When artists, actors, celebrities, and most often times writers/authors talk about modern Satanism in America, they are referring to Modern Satanism (LaVeyan Satanism). When someone finds out that one of their favorite musicians or celebrities are a Satanist, they might come to Wikipedia to find out what this belief is all about and what it entails.


 * Now, I'll be the first one to tell you that when it comes to joining an organization to consecrate who you are or what you believe that I personally think it is very silly. A philosophy is a lot bigger than some "club" that you join just to prove to yourself that you are a . I would just like to see the popular and contemporary use of a word, that describes a philosophy, be accurately described, in encyclopedic form, here at Wikipedia.


 * When you mention Satanism in the mainstream press or the subculture press, most people in the know, know you are referring to the Satanism that was born in the counterculture movement. And Modern Satanism is that definition which most people are looking for when they come to Wikipedia. Now the 4 or 5 people here that are monitoring the article daily aside, the vast majority of those who describe themselves as a Satanist or describe someone else as a Satanist, are describing the philosophy of Modern Satanism. I think it’s only fair to accurately define this term using the media, subculture, and the vast majority of its practitioners as the barometer, rather than what the sorely disproportionate sampling of editors here think it is or should be. That’s just how I feel. Absinthe  (Talk) 06:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you said "Most people in the know" which implies that your and CoS's definition is not the common definition. Also the rolling Stone's magazine article was an interview with Anton LaVey therefore of course the article is going to reflect the CoS definition. For the tenth billionth time, your definition is not what the majority of people around the world think of when they hear or see the word Satanism. To try to push your definition here is merely attempting to manipulate reality to make your definition become the popular one. As I have shown you, I'm here to prevent that. Furthermore the only encyclopedias that define Satanism as you do got their feeds from Wikipedia.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 15:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Michael, the only thing you are here to prevent is a productive and healthy discussion. So from here on out when I say things like, "Let me throw this out there as food for thought and get some feedback", I mean everyone except you. Your broad sweeping statements are unfounded; you are more concerned with appearing to be right than you are with bringing something of substance to the discussion, and it’s clear from visiting your website that the only part of Satanism that interests you is the ego gratification you get from calling yourself the Dark Lord High Priest Magus Guru God of the Underworld. So please, leave the discussion for people who have a genuine interest in the welfare of the article, k? Absinthe  (Talk) 15:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Show me where I call myself Dark lord or magus or even guru for that matter. Again your attempts to manipulate reality merely expose you and your aims for what you really are and are trying to achieve.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 17:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Absinthe, defining a term simply by its popular definition is not encyclopedic. An encyclopedia has to generalize to embrace all views. Really, the most popular definition of Satanism in most Christian minds is not the one you would want to start out with, is it? Because let's face facts, that's the most common view in popular culture. I still think this article should start with a general definition acceptable to everyone, then break out into a paragraph or two on the distinct views, but let all the details of those views be in the subarticles. Personally, I think the influence of LaVey is fading fast. What you say was true in the 60s, 70s and even 80s, but things changed in the 90s, and the fields in much different in this century than it was then. Tunnels of Set 16:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm in full agreement with Tunnels of Set.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 17:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Tunnels, I might have to agree with you as it pertains to popular perception of Satanism. I was more referring to the informed perception/understanding. By informed I'm simply referring to anyone who has an understanding of the LHP, Occult, or general Subculture savvy.


 * I don't know that I agree with your statement regarding the LaVey's waning popularity in the 90's as there was a massive resurgence of Satanic interest in the 90's in the mass media and pop culture (partly thanks to the music industry) as well as the various subcultures. And while I don't see the interest in Satanism in the 2k era increasing, I don't see a dramatic downfall. With that said I also don't see any increase in the interest of Theistic Satanism, so I don't know that the Modern vs. Theistic popularity comparison plays.


 * Don't misread anything I'm saying with respect to Satanism. I have very broad interested in the world of subculture, counterculture and the occult; Satanism is simply one of the areas that I feel a sub-subculture shouldn't trump or even overshadow a mainstream subculture in encyclopedic form.


 * I would support a well organized (read: Easy to read/understand) article that might consist of a small 2-3 paragraph intro into Modern Satanism (with a link to Modern (LaVeyan) Satanism) followed by a brief overview of the history of the traditional use of the word 'Satanism' (including the Modern Day Theistic Practitioners and Philosophy of Satanism w/ Links to the Appropriate Articles).


 * If that works for the current handful of editors we have here now great; My main concern is that we have a coherent article that will allow the common reader to clearly understand what Satanism is, rather than ambiguously focusing on what it isn't. Absinthe  (Talk) 17:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't you really mean you want the reader to accept the Church of Satan's definition over the populery known definition?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 20:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be the point... otherwise, why was the article on the Order of Nine Angles DELETED from Wikipedia? Did I miss the discussion on that? 207.34.120.71 20:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey I can help with that question! It might of gotten deleted because it needed citations. See the talk page on Theistic Satanism. I took some edits personally but after talking to people I found out not to, because most of the circumstances were me not knowing or understanding enough of wikkipedias policies and structure. I'm sure if you write an article on ONA and cite its sources it should fly like the rest.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 21:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay....so you disagree with the article. You think its simplistic....so IMPROVE IT. Write it. Fix it up. Edit it. But revert it to a form that confines itself to ONE form isn't the point of Wiki. WerewolfSatanist 21:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What I find overtly amusing is the subtle way they are trying to say the one true Satanism.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 21:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you think that the former article appeared out of thin air? No, rather it was the work of several people and numerous hours of labor, only to have a handle full of "Theistic Satanists" come in and dismiss it out of hand because "it's biased" and then replace it with an ambiguous page that doesn't cite the first source. So how about you take a little of your own advice and improve the current crap article instead of reverting the one that was built over time with the consensus of the editors here?

Please clarify, "doesn't cite the first source". What exactly are you saying or requesting?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 22:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, everyone was squawking that you have to participate on the talk page to edit or revert, but as soon as someone comes in and actually starts talking about the points of the article and what it should be, etc. the only thing that appears on the talk page is more childish bitching rather than discussion (TunnelsOfSet being the lone exemption in this case).


 * So either start discussing the merits of what's been proposed or get out of the way. Absinthe  (Talk) 21:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please clarifyRev. Michael S. Margolin 22:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yo Abmaster2,000 how is Sinagogue of Satan an irrelevant link? Are you sure you are not editing through personal bias? I request a revert to his action toward SoS 04:54, 17 January 2007 Absinthe999 (Talk | contribs) (removed irrelevant links)Rev. Michael S. Margolin 02:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * All external links were removed; sorry that you lost the link to your personal website. Can we get back to discussing how to best make this article concise and accurate from an encyclopedic standpoint? I've yet to see your input on the current proposal(s) thus far. Absinthe  (Talk) 07:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If the SoS website is my personal website than the Church of Satan web site is Gilmore's personal web site.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 15:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My input is keep the article we have now because the one you want is as biased as your last edit. Notice that the only links left though they are internal links point the reader to the church of satan and Karla Lavey's church and no others?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 14:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Absinthe, you were incorrect remove just the Sinagogue of Satan link. Edits like that will not help us achieve a compromise article. However, if we are going to have multiple articles, then the links should go on the appropriate article, not here, so I removed them all. The only links that would be appropriate are links to general overviews which cover all aspects of Satanism, as it is proposed to do in this article, and preferable they should not be on the site of one of the organizations which are in competition with each other. A link to an appropriate DMOZ category might be useful here, though... Tunnels of Set 14:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just coming to inform you that the paragraph that starts off "Belief in any such externalized deities is generally considered grounds for excluding someone as a Satanist..." has a sentence added at the end of it that seriously looks like it wasn't intended to be there, but added by some malicious person. TemporalShift 17:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding internal links proposal
The links that follow pertain to the Satanism article and are internal links. I wish to add them in this order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermetics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosicrucian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_Fire_Club

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordo_Templi_Orientis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesia_Gnostica_Catholica (possibly adding to Churches links)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.M.O.R.C. (possibly adding to Churches links)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_Church (possibly adding to Churches links)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPY (possibly adding to Churches links)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianetics (possibly adding to Churches links)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occult

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magick

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Feed back please.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 04:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no. They are not closely enough related. If they were to be discussed in the article, then they could of course be linked to, but see also is not for a laundry list of vaguely related topics. Hellfire Club is the only closely related one. Adding links to organizations which don't identify themselves as Satanic is right out. Tunnels of Set 18:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Set. I added all of them because at one time or another they were accused of being Satanists so I thought they fell within the Christian Persecution zone. Thanks for keeping Hellfire Club. A note on Topy P-orridge has gone through hormoanal treatment to grow breasts and become a woman. He wants to be a living Baphomet, silly yes but no more silly than Manson and his rubber female body. Although I think Manson is the wiser in this case.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

LaVey rejects the Black Mass
CoS practices it's own black mass so is this line missleading?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

LaVey rejects the Black Mass, cruelty to animals, or a literal belief in (or worship of) Satan, instead considering Satan as the human instict within ourselves, which is what LaVeyan Satanism celebrates; the human instinct. Instead he supports a view of human beings as animals and rejects many social structures that inhibit our instincts.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 03:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection removed
I've removed the semi-protection from this page; please encourage all new users and even IP editors to discuss any edit warring here first, and keep up the vandalism fighting. -- Nataly a 03:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Metal & Satanism
First of all, "Black Metal" is a misleading term to describe metal and satanism because it isn't just black metal thats satanic, there are several sub-genres (not the entirity of each sub-genre, just a few bands among them) of "Heavy Metal" that supports satanism, and its not just heavy metal, instead there have been several musicians of other genres to do this as well. Secondly, it wasn't black metal artists that invented that "devil-horned hand signal," it was the "Traditional Metal" artist & musician Ronnie James Dio. And finally the "hand signal" wasn't invented to mean "Hail Satan!," it was based on the ancient superstition of the "Evil Eye," and it was never used (as far as I know) to mean "hail satan," in fact, it is used as a salute  among the "Metalhead Subculture." These statements within the article are misleading and greatly stereotypes both heavy metal and satanism, therefore I demand that they are either taken off the article, or modified in some way to be more correct, if this does not happen within a week I will do this myself!-Anonymous 2:48, Mar. 27, '07

Autotheism/Suitheism
Would Satanism be considered a form of Autotheism or Suitheism, maybe??

After reading the definitions, I'm inclined to say yes, from several different Satanic Systems including LaVey's. Being that you are your own God "LaVey". From the Masonic/Hermetic/Thelemic Satanism, it is becoming God. Much like Paul in the Sci fi "Dune" So from those sources I'd have to say, yes it is.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sinagogue of Satan
Ok I fixed the url also wondering if there are any other problems with the listing. Note the other groups listed are in full support of SoS including an interview by The League of Indy Satanists. Also we are the only religion listed in Theistic Satanism that has a Citation. And I can add more citations if need be. Feel free to explain to me why Sinagogue of Satan should not be listed along with the other groups listed.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 23:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies for removing it - it had been removed in the past and I assumed there was some sort of consensus reached on why it shouldn't be there, and I'd just missed it. I'll leave it's place there up to someone else. ≈  Th e H au nt ed A n ge l  23:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No need, but thank you Haunted. The link was missing the n in sosatan, so I figured in good faith that was most likely the problem.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 23:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed your site and I will remove it again. Your site has already failed the criteria of notability and it is a members only site which excludes it from acceptable external material availble to the average reader. Please do not re-add the site. I also recommend you review our policy on conflict of interest as the founder of this site/organization. If you have any additional issues feel free to hit me up here or on my talk page. NeoFreak 04:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, where does it say members only anywhere on my site?
 * As for notability if we are not noteable why do the other sites listed not only know about us but actively support us, including interviewing me? Are you sure your not editing through personal bias? Also as stated further up we are the only group in Theistic Satanism with a citation. Funny you have to make up a lie like we are a members only religion, oops you said site in either case you are wrong we are not members only and I'd sure love for you to show me and the other wikki editors where you got we are members only.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 16:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Are we talking about the same page? Once you reach the front page the only sections you can access without a membership is the message board and the external links. This is the criteria on the page for membership:


 * IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ


 * 1) YOU MUST BE 18+
 * 2) Write a detailed essay in your own words about the meaning of the main page.
 * 3) Fill out the questionnaire honestly (all fields MUST be filled).
 * 4) Making sure your email address is correct helps a shit load too.
 * 5) Be Patient!


 * If you would read our policy guildline on external links and our policy on conflicts of interest you would find that this is not an appropriate place to plug your website/church. I removed quite a few other sites from the list as well because they also were not appropriate. We don't need everyone and their brother's personal splinter church they started as an external link here. Please do not re-add your website. If you would like feel more than free to request a third opinion. NeoFreak 18:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, ignore the Nav Bar for a minute, there are a few links to other pages on the main page, for some reason though, they aren't all on the Nav Bar. It seems that it's a legit site, which just happens to have a member's only section, as most sites do. ≈  Th e H au nt ed A n ge l  18:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for being impartial and honest Haunted. I'll let neo mull over your words before I take any furthur action. I'd also like to point out that Haunted is not a member nor a friend of mine. But he has shown me he is not biased, thus has gained my respect.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you refering to Margolin's essays and the amazon.com link? I'm not seeing anything else Angel. I'm not seeing the encyclopedic content. I'm also not sure what "actions" you want to take Mr. Margolin. Maybe you could clear up what it is about your website that makes it needed in the external links section? NeoFreak 19:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, look at it this way: it's the official site for the Religion, and although there arn't many pages apart from contact and Member's-only part, there is a lot of content on each page. For example, I bet that if you took all the content on the main page, and divided it up into four or five more pages, there would be no complaint. ≈  Th e H au nt ed A n ge l  19:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a million and one "offical sites for religion X" started by guy Y on the internet. It doesn't mean that we need to link to all of them. The only content available to a reader are some essays on Margolin's topics of interest. The rest is in the members only section (I'm not sure what is even in there, which is the point). An external link has to be accessible to the average reader and directly related to the subject material. This is a 90% members only website of Margolins that he uses to advertise his church. We don't know anything about this church because it's already been deemed non-notable when its entry was deleted and it supports no reliable sources to verify anthing about it. It's basically a blog and for all we know it could just be Margolin and a couple friends, not to mention the huge conflict of interest issues. See what I'm saying here? NeoFreak 19:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You do have a good point - but it's hard to draw the line where something becomes notable. Personally, as Margolin is a somewhat famous Satanist, I'd say the Sinagogue is just notable enough. The points you make are indeed valid, but now it seems to come down to a thing of notability. ≈  Th e H au nt ed A n ge l  19:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a notability issue but not just a notability issue. Frome the external links guidline:

Links ot be avoided:
 * Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
 * Links mainly intended to promote a website
 * Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content.
 * Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser. (registration required)
 * Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. (forum)
 * Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. (he;s not a recognized authority regardless of what he seems to think)
 * And finally: Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.


 * From the external links section on conflict of interest and self promotion: Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines.


 * All rolled up into one sentence from the link: A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article.

The point I'm trying to make is that this is a very clear cut case and these rules and guidlines were established a long time ago just for these exact types of sites. This is not the "Sinagouge of Satan" article is is an general topic article on the subject of Satanism. NeoFreak 20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I have to admit you make a valid point. It's very debatable, indeed. Hmm, I may have to vote in favour of you now, but I'm still on the fence. ≈  Th e H au nt ed A n ge l  20:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the article is a general topic article on Satanism and Singogue of Satan has members in other groups of Satanism including CoS it makes sense for SoS to be inlcuded in the external links especially since some of the groups listed have Sinagogue of Satan in their links. Besides the fact that some of the other groups listed openly support the SoS. As for notability perhaps you should read my user page. Yeah I was even on TV a couple times. Also SoS is in a book published by Barnes and Noble, thus the citation, might I point out again we are the only group with a citation in Theistic Satanism.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 20:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you didn't catch my previous post? I'll let you go ahead and read over it again. NeoFreak 02:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See discussion in Theistic Satanism "Liber of the Goat", or should I copy paste it here?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 04:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

regarding removal of talk page content
removal of talk page content will not be tolerated, lest it be considered prejudice or discrimination. furthermore, all talk on this page regarding the delay in the removal of content of this page will be accomplished ASAP, as this page has been under reviewal since Feb 2007AD. conclusively, any further attempts to sustain the non-verified content or likewise the SUBJECTIVE nature of the content will be in violation of the Wikipedia policy. Good Day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfd101 (talk • contribs)


 * Talk page info may be removed if it is deemed nonsense; although I'm not saying that's what your posts are - I actually havn't been following your edits. ≈  Th e H au nt ed A n ge l  23:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

explaining latest revert
The reason I reverted the edit was because almost all, if not all Christianity preaches that all the other religions of the world were created by Satan to keep man away from the one true religion "Christianity". Since that is the case I thought the person that was offended by the original text was acting out of religious bias with his edit.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

L Ron/ Scientology
The quote about L Ron by his son is interesting, but I wouldn't say it is all that relevant to an article on Satanism, for it to be quoted this fully.Merkinsmum 16:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it helps support the small section on Crowley. I understand that it takes away the focus on LaVey but it sure makes the article look less biased.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 22:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be expanded upon to provide a context to allow the reader to determine its relevance to the topic - preferably within a greatly expanded Satanism article (as suggested by someone else, above). If Scientology actually is "Satanism", that would be a real mind-blower of a revelation. As it stands right now, however, I think it's a terribly contentious thing to put in this article. Bare minimum, it at least demands a functioning web link and/or a properly-formatted citation. I'm even sorely tempted to post that comment in the talk section of the Scientology page, to ask for review and comment - except I think that would cause a flood of Scientologists to come over here and cause hell, which, again, proves how contentious the quote is. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Specifically, please read Ronald DeWolf to see how the context is problematic. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The more I leave this article alone, the worse it gets. C'mon now. What does L. Ron Hubbard have to do with Satanism? Thats just nuts. I'm all for including Crowley, but lets talk about the things that he did that influenced Satanism (Do as thou will is often cited as influential). From waht I've read of other Wiki articles, it being scholarly and well written is just as important as whether or not it is biased. WerewolfSatanist 17:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with you wolf at the same time L Ron said himself that the only good things in scientology he got from Crowley. Also a little known fact outside of Thelema but well known inside Thelema is that Crowley proclaimed Hadit to be Satan, it is in his foot notes on "The bornless one" thus you do have Crowley invoking Satan much like Aquino's and LaVey's Set. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk • contribs) 18:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this addition is seriously non -NPOV as well as being quite irrelevant to the subject of the article. The theology of Scientology is dealt with elsewhere (not too sympathetically) and this claim might be usefully added there in context (or rejected as reflecting an extreme minority POV). Imagine if this was being said about a Jewish, Moslem or Christian leader. Finally its a big data dump copied verbatim from a copyrighted source. I'm going to delete the whole thing. --Simon Speed 13:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with this statement here. "Imagine if this was being said about a Jewish, Moslem or Christian leader." L Ron called himself the AntiChrist also the article was his son recalling his fathers claims. It seems you are partly basing your edit on political correctness, which is neutrering our culture. I have no problem with your edit, just your explanaition of your action.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If opposition to bias is political correctness then so be it. Scientology = Satanism is a pretty hard-line POV, I've not heard it from any mainstream critic of Scientology. And I've only heard Scientology's spriritual practices described as fraudulent, not magical (black or otherwise!). Are these simple recollections? A biographer working to academic standards would place such contentious claims in context. Perhaps we should include here the claim that the Pope is the Anitchrist which is currently discussed on the Anti-Catholicism page. --Simon Speed 22:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A son recalling his own fathers claims is nothing like calling the Pope the Antichrist. As for your question about should the accusations of the Pope being the Antichrist be in the article, it is in a way, for the word Satanist is most often used as an accusation. It would make an excellent example of that use for the word.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's inherently stendentious/POV/fringe to call someone the antichrist. Maybe he did say it personally but are their sources other than his son, or anyone, going 'I heard him say...'.  For instance I don't thing L.Ron said that in dianetics or other sci books- or his religion wouldn't be even as 'acceptable' as it is.  The son is clearly a biased source (not saying he's wrong/lying, but he seems to hate his dad.) he accuses L.Ron of having had an abortion fetish or something!  If the sci editors saw this it wouldn't last long.:)  Yet on the other hand -Ha:) now I want to read the son's book/interview.Merkinsmum 19:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This is Beautiful
Satanism" is a term which has been used since the end of the Middle Ages

[citation needed] use for Citation "The Encyclopedia of Witchcarft and Demonology" by Rossel Hope Robbins, Crown Publishers New York 1959 Library of Congress C C # 59-9155

to describe a number of different belief systems in a number of contexts. People claiming to be Satanists, or outsiders claiming to describe Satanism, ascribe a wide variety of beliefs to Satanism. At the same time there is no established, common sense of this word. These range from the obviously fanatiс sects to the groups of people in search of themselves; from the literal deistic worship of a spiritual being (Theistic Satanism) to the monography of the atheistic philosopher; from a subversive ritual performance stressing the mockery of Christian symbols (most notably the Black Mass) to denying all rituals; from the claimed rediscovery of an ancient but misunderstood religion

This I have a slight problem with. (e.g. Setianism, associated with the Egyptian god Set who is conflated by some with the biblical Satan) to the exaltation of hedonistic recreation and the celebration of selfishness and pleasure.

I've told you guys a Zillion times Crowley Proclaimed Hadit the winged globe Satan in his footnotes to the Bornless one in "Magick in theory and practice" dover press. I understand Mr. LaVey and Mr. Aquino popularized the Set Idea but neither one ever cared to do their homework to any extant. Hell on this point I even argue with Crowley for I declare Bes as the Egyptian Satan, and if any of you bother to scrape that surface you'll quickly see why. Anyway love the new intro, hope I didn't violate anything or anyone.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 01:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually from what I've read, they did their homework very well. Aquino has at least two long rants about the subject, citing different books written by historians and Egyptologists. LaVey, though he never was too big into citing sources (though many of them can be found in the back of the Satanic Witch), seems to have used credible information, nonetheless. It checks out, anyway. Of course, another character that definitely fits the concept of a devil is Apep/Apophis who was identified with Set when Set was really, officially demonized. As for Crowley, well he didn't seem to have too deep of a take on Egyptian Mythology. After all, his interpretations of "Horus" are based primarily on Horus the Younger (the Osirian Horus), even though Crowley was inspired to write the Book of the Law by a stele depicting Horus the Elder (pre-Osirian cult). Check out The Prince of Darkness: Radical Evil and the Power of Good in History by Jeffrey Burton Russel. WerewolfSatanist 02:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Commonscat
There's now a Wikimedia Commons category "Satanism", if anybody cares... AnonMoos 02:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Brainless bigotry removed.
REMOVED: "In other words for this relegion the satanists are so desprait to get what they want that they don't know that there going to pay for it in hell. These people are blind in thinking that they are going to get this and not have to pay anything. Well they are WRONG you are being lied to. Who ever folows this relegion doesn't even know. Butt I guess it's there life they are doing not mine.-The Order of Soul Takers"

Not only is this obviously biased, its horribly misspelled and nonsensical.

--67.149.227.159 13:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

False and misleading statement
LaVeyan Satanism (the only textually codified and/or officially organized form - i.e the only religious branch) Sinagogue of Satan is organized, legally accepted and has it's own Satanic code which can be found in the "Book of the goat". I posted this to discuss this issue before I edit the false claim/statement out.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The Sinagogue of Satan is codified in it's manifesto as well.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I belive the term "LaVeyan Satanism" in this context refers not specifically to the Church of Satan, but all non-thiest forms of Satanism - which would include the Sinagogue. ≈  The Haunted Angel  Review Me! 01:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, while I'm at it, could I request the link to your Sinagogue website, please? If it would be against Wikipedia policy to leave it here or on my talk page, feel free to email me (the link can be found on my talk page). ≈  The Haunted Angel  Review Me! 02:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This makes it look like CoS is the only Satanism, (the only textually codified and/or officially organized form - i.e the only religious branch) and we both know that is the intent of the author. We also both know though it is in context with LaVeyan Satanism that is not what this article is about, but that is what the author is attempting to make it into.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Scratch that, I found the link on your user page. ≈  The Haunted Angel  Review Me! 02:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I made my edits any wikipedians that wish to argue or discuss my actions, feel free to do so here. NOTE; to any editors that have been keeping up with this article I wish to use the material I removed as evidence that the CoS or CoS fans have been exploiting wikipedia in attepmt to monopolize Satanism or what Satanism is suppose to mean to the general public.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Before I remove this, anyone wish to tell me the religions of Egypt, Greece, Rome and Gnostics were not Carnal including various indiginious peoples. This line is mega pov and is false and misleading. (for them the term Satanism indicates "the first carnal religion in human history.) for the rest of the world it means that the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Gnostic, relgions never existed.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 23:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

For an example from Wikkipedia's own pages just one of many religions that were based on carnal desires long before the Church of Satan existed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eros Rev. Michael S. Margolin 23:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

OK Haunted Angel I took out your false and misleading statements and left the rest as you requested.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks. ≈  The Haunted Angel  Review Me! 22:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Last revert was understandable but the reason I edited that section was this sentence, "(Theistic Satanism), which is often actually Enki worship" that is not true or even close to being true and is extremely misleading. I will remove it, please feel to discuss anything I do here.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, I read that and was gonna' remove it myself - guess I forgot =/ Go ahead, that statement is OR anyway. ≈  The Haunted Angel  Review Me! 01:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Absinthe999 links
The links you keep adding cannot be in the article for any and all of the same reasons www.sosatan.org cannot be added.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So essentially what you are saying is "If I can't have my link here, then no site can be linked, unless an admin over rules me"? Is that more or less it?

The primary difference between the 2 sites I linked up today and your site, is that they are both the official forums for the two major churches (which *are* linked in the article.) I know you're butt hurt because your attempts at using wikipedia for self promotion were shot down, but I don't think this is the appropriate way to pout about it. Absinthe (Talk) 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your use of the term "butt Hurt" exposes you for what you are and shows you violate wikki's policies. Also those forums can be reached from the sites that are already in the list. It is you that is using wikki for promoting, as any editor or admin with an unbiased eye will and can see. Also your "pout" comment further exposes you. Funny it is you that is kicking and screaming, and whining, not me.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I notice you have still yet to address the main question put to you (It's in the fist sentence of my response, if you need to help jog your memory.) Is there a reason you aren't answering it? Absinthe (Talk) 21:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If I may answer for Margolin, not that I really want to get involved a great deal, is it doesn't really matter who removed the link. The point is that if he removed the link for one reason, even if it is the same reasons that his link was removed, it still means that it's a valid reason. If he did remove it for the reason you suggested, think of it as him doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. ≈  The Haunted Angel  Review Me! 21:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason behind his removing the link isn't clear, nor is it necessarily a valid one. The reason he cited was they "cannot be in the article for any and all of the same reasons www.sosatan.org cannot be added." I have no idea exactly what that reason is.


 * But since you've jumped right in, maybe you can answer tha for me? Absinthe  (Talk) 21:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I'd like to stay out if this crap. I used to know why his link was removed (as I actually removed it once), but have since forgotton, as it's been the better part of a year. However, what I was trying to do was provide the reasoning from his POV - if they are removed for the same reason, and the removal of his was valid, then it would mean the removal of yours also is. ≈  The Haunted Angel  Review Me! 22:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Translation: "I don't know, but it must have been valid"?? Are you kidding me? Absinthe  (Talk) 22:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I've read Absinthe999, all of The Haunted Angel's comments are logical and valid. Perhaps it is you that needs to get their mind right.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it's a simple case of it being so long ago that there's no need for me to remember, especially when the case hasn't been brought up in a long while. Don't get me wrong, I'd have love to had the SoS site up, I quite enjoy it - but the point of Wikipedia policy is one that matters. Before assuming that I'm ignorant enough to say "I don't know, but it must have been valid", perhaps you should assume good faith here. ≈  The Haunted Angel  Review Me! 22:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Haunted, good faith isn't what I was getting at. I've never seen anything other than good faith (and as Margolin points out, logical and (usually) valid posts from you.)


 * I was merely pointing out that you were blindly defending something that, by your own admission, you weren't familiar with, which made me wonder why you bothered replying in the first place. That's all. Absinthe  (Talk) 22:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I was trying to provide Margolin's POV here - it wasn't me who originally claimed that Margolin's site was against Wikipedia policy, I simply remember when it was removed, and remember it was removed for valid reasons. But the whole point of me trying not to get involved here was because I've since forgotton where the line is drawn between how valid a site is or not. It's been generally agreed upon that the link to Margolin's site shouldn't be here, and by logic, if yours was removed for the same reasons his was, then that'd mean that yours shouldn't be linked either. But before we get into the discussion of how valid your site is in comparison to his, I'll remind you that I've all but forgotton the policy on where the line is drawn, so I'm not going to argue how "wrong" your link is. As I said, I'd rather not get involved on that discussion. ≈  The Haunted Angel  Review Me! 22:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Blindly? no no no, The Haunted Angel is far from blind and is dealing with this situation very lucidly. He has been on top of this article and confrontations for a very long time. What you fail to see is your piss poor attempts at manipulating reality through Wikkipedia are over. You guys even tried to whipe out world history with your, "The first reigion based on carnal desire". So much for Egytian, Greek and Roman religious practices. Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Margolin: What the hell are you babbling about? Are you drunk?

"Drunk?" Resorting to name calling now are we? I'd like to point out we have a hostile editor that obviously thinks he can push his POV by badgering any and all opposition to his POV. That is all for now.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Margolin: It was a question, not a statement, try to keep up, will you?


 * Haunted: These aren't my sites. And the reason the links (CoS, and FSC's forums) were removed, has still yet to be established. And if history is a prediction of the future, I don't suspect I'm going to get a (coherent) reason out of Margolin (and *that* is what not having good faith looks like). But all this energy that has to be spent to put in even the smallest of change is far from worth it, so forget the whole thing. Except to say it's no big wonder why the current state of this article is so poor. Nobody can get anything changed without a massive bitch fight! Absinthe  (Talk) 22:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just discovered that if you go to the top of this talk page, to the Sinagogue of Satan topic, you'll see why it was removed to begin with. As for arguing over the slightest change; yeah, it may sound petty, but if it violates policy (I'm not saying that yours does, I'm simply saying IF), then the argument may be necessary, to help the article become more organized. ≈  The Haunted Angel  Review Me! 23:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Haunted: Fair enough with regard to wiki policy. I'm right with you on that one. The links added were for the official forums of the two main Church's which have plenty of content, resources, and articles on both. This satisfying the notability and content issue that Margolin's site was facing.


 * Again, I'm leaving it alone for now, unless you feel differently; but I do appreciate your attention with a fair minded approach. Absinthe  (Talk) 23:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Haunted Angel, as you have seen from what I've removed from the article and the points I've made to justify their removal you can clearly see this article was severely manipulated by Church of Satan fans and or members. Also those being the same admins and editors that justified Sinagogue of Satan be kept out of the article even though we are the only Group listed in Theistic Satanism and with several reverences including Barnes & Noble. This article states that the definition of Satanism comes from mainly two sources Lavayan and Theistic but because of Bias editors and admins at that time they removed anything that wasn't acceptable to the CoS as it still is now as far as external links.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

One more thing Absynthe999, I did answer your question, you were just too busy trying to brow beat me to see it.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, pretending this didn't happen is not going to work.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

baised
i think this article is almost baised...please make it at least semi-baised-(btw i'm very baised by this article)...please make more netural,it looks like its making s-uh,this religion look to changgled,make it more "unbaisy'..(i mean make more statements about devolment,and less on its disadvantages and "bad effects"96.224.176.40 (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

PROCEED TO ARCHIVE 5