Talk:Satanism/Archive 5

See also?
Someone recently added Atheism and Humanism to the See Also section. I did not immediately see the connection, but I'm not familiar enough on the topics to make a judgement. These should either be removed or some text added to the article making reference to these topics.82.130.34.32 (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be from LaVeyan Satanism and does not pertain to all forms of Satanism, do as you will.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being silly, but why isn't "LaVeyan Satanism" mentioned in the See Also section? It would be something to see wouldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WerewolfSatanist (talk • contribs) 06:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you suggest "LaVeyan Satanism" and "Theistic Satanism" be entered into "See also"? The article states that Satanism comes from mainly those two sources. You're not trying to manipulate the article to the LaVayan side again are you?Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it didn't cross his mind, or maybe he just doesn't take theistic satanism (devil worship) seriously? Why must you always assume sinister intentions from anyone who doesn't share your POV? Sheesh. Absinthe (Talk) 04:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

To quote you, "or maybe he just doesn't take theistic satanism (devil worship) seriously?" That would expose him for editing from his and or a groups POV. Which is most likely why he didn't answer my question. As for your, " Why must you always assume sinister intentions from anyone who doesn't share your POV? Sheesh." LOOK WHO IS CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK! You accuse me of exactly what you and yours are guilty of! And if you didn't suck so bad at trying to manipulate reality that even a blind monkey can see it, I wouldn't be busting your tiny little nuts, like I've been for the passed few years.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

One more thing Absinthe999 anybody that reads the "LaVeyan Satanism" discussion page can see not only your guilt but the attempted take over of the "Satanism" article was a group effort, all signed and dated by your own hands.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I will remove the link to Atheism. It is simply incorrect to assosiate "Satanism" with atheism and offensive. This kind of association is usally made by religious fundamentalists that wish to discredit Atheists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gscheitben (talk • contribs) 02:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the link to Humanism for the same reason. Breithamhain (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed link to Humanism again. Someone has suggested it has a 'similar philosophy' to satanism, but has failed to explain that similarity or include it in the article. And, in fact, I believe the link was added by an unidentified user who has been warned numerous times for 'disruptive' edits. If you want to re-add atheism and humanism to 'see also', then you really need to explain why they fit here. Breithamhain (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Melek Taus
For your information, the Yezidis do not really worship the devil, but were accused of doing so by non-Yezidi Muslims and later (in the 19th century) Christians. Melek Taus ("Peacock Angel") is really a positive angelic figure, though Yezidis will (in European languages) refer to him as "the devil" to avoid a taboo on his name, or in conformity with the naming habits of outsiders. Interest in the Yezidis among occult-oriented Westerners rose with the writings of (just to name a few) Ethel Drower, Robert E. Howard (Conan fights Melek Taus in one pulp comic), and of course Gurdjieff (who mentions them in Meetings With Remarkable Men.) Dawud (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's an excellent example of how the the word "Satanism" has been used through the years and the book I used as a footnote firmly supports this example. Which by the way is how the word "Satanism" is most offten used, including today.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fact, not opinion
This was removed and the person that removed it called it an opinion. Even Thelema can be considered Theistic Satanism for Aleister Crowley’s Liber SAMEKH contains this phrase “Thou Satan-Sun Hadith that goest without will“ Hadith being one of the three Egyptian Gods in his “Book of the Law“. This is not an opinion it is fact, backed by citation.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolute Falsehood
In the third paragraph it is stated and I quote "The term LaVeyan Satanist, is used by adherents to clarify that they support the ideologies in the writings of Church of Satan founder Anton Szandor LaVey.[4]" The reference for this statement is a site not officially endorsed by the Church of Satan. It should be rewritten entirely to reflect the fact that no member of the CoS referse to him/herself as a "LeVayan" Satanist but are often labeled that by others, or it should be deleted entirely. Stelionis Ignigenae (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Theistic Satanists don't call themselves Theistic Satanists but were labeled that by LaVeyan Satanists another label that was created by the CoS was Pseudo Satanists, perhaps if the CoS stopped trying to monopolize Satanism by labeling we can all go back to being just Satanists. I also noticed the Gilmore interview is on the Satanism article and not on the LaVeyan Satanism article where it is more appropriate.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not know the origin, but User:Diane Vera, who runs a Theistic Satanism website, would probably disagree with you. The interview is perfectly appropriate here, as well as on the LaVeyan Satanism article since it fleshes out the topic.  --David Shankbone  21:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Ms. Vera is a personal friend of mine and I highly doubt she'd disagree with me, but I'll ask her. If you notice my wording "More appropriate" I'm saying it's more suited there for it is directly connected with the Church of Satan than Satanism in general. I notice you still have not added it to the LaVeyan Satanism article and I don't have the time to look through the history to see if it was ever added there.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Another thing I forgot about David is in your interview with Mr. Gilmore you stated Diane Vera was an editor in Wikipedia and asked him what he thought of her. If I recall correctly he labeled her "Stupid" and labeled any Satanism other than Church of Satan Satanism, "Pseudo". Such a stance is so biased it makes more sense for it to be in an article that is directly tied to it, such as the LaVeyan Satanism article. This article is about Satanism, the word and or groups secret or open are far broader and older than LaVey's philosophy. The word "Satanism" alone is for sure, and it's use through the century's. Therefore they "CoS" have no claim to it other than using it themselves.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Bias is allowed in notable subjects; it is not allowed in how we write the encyclopedia. The idea that one branch of Satanism would claim to be the best doesn't mean it should be unused on this page or any other.  Since the Church of Satan is the most well-known of the Satanic strains, it is more than appropriate.  This article itself is miniscule for such a rich topic and could be expanded better to discuss the various strains of Satanism.  Let's not adopt the problematic lazy Wikipedia thinking to make an article less relevant because all topics are not dealt with appropriate.  The idea is to expand the article so that appropriate weight is given to all relevant topics, not to contract it so that we have universal ignorance on the article.  --David Shankbone 

17:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"The idea that one branch of Satanism would claim to be the best doesn't mean it should be unused on this page or any other." They don't claim they are the best, they claim they are the only. You should know this from your own interview with Mr. Gilmore.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they claim it in a "we're the best" kind of way. It's not that they deny other claimants exist.  They simply think they are "the way" like any other.  --David Shankbone  14:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

David, if what you say is true, then they would not label all others as pseudo.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What members of the Church of Satan call others, or are called by others is not the point. The point is that the page has a factual inaccuracy, the members of the CoS refer to themselves as LeVayan Satanists. It would be acceptable to write that though members of the CoS do not refer to themselves as LeVayan Satanists, others do so to make a distinction. In fact you could expand this article to include a whole section on label Shennanigans. Sorry it took so long for me to get back to this, I have other things to do but will try to remember to come back here and discuss this further. Stelionis Ignigenae (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a good idea but for Both LaVeyan and Theistic for both just call themselves "Satanists"Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Then a whole section addressing this will have to be written. I can do this, and if anything is found objectionable feel free to edit and or discuss it. --Stelionis Ignigenae (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh Dear!
I would have hoped that from a collection of individuals who should be striving for perfection, the page dealing with their philosophical outlook would have been to a much higher standard. It is disorganised, filled with speculative assertations and contains totally irrelevent information (and an irrelevent photograph). Ladies and Gentelmen I KNOW you can do better. I propose a major rewrite, which if nessecary, I will take the time to do.

Apex156 (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The article will most likely need a 3rd party non bias person to write it, any and all help would be appreciated.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And for crying out loud, scholars have been talking about Satanism for at least 150 years (long before the 1960s). Would none of the editors out there care to mention the historical satanism of the last few hundred years? When an article about a 1891 novel like La-Bas links to Satanism, because the novel La-Bas discusses satanism, they probably weren't intending for the reader to encounter a discussion about "Theistic Satanism" versus "LaVeyan Satanism". And that's just one example! There are *hundreds* of articles that link to Satanism, and they expect the reader to find information about *historical* Satanism (which spans hundreds of years, and is intertwined with the history of Europe and the Roman Catholic Church), and not New Age movements which began developing in the 1960s alongside role-playing games such as "Dungeons and Dragons".Jimhoward72 (talk) 08:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What you would call historical Satanism is more accurately referred to as the History of Christian Heresy. People like La Voisin and members of the Hellfire Club were Christians who were practicing heresies for fun and/or profit. I agree there should be an article on such things, but if we included everything labeled Satanism by any given Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion then three fourths of Wikipedia would be on one page.--Stelionis Ignigenae (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe I worded myself wrong. What I meant to say, is that this article (like any article in a normal encyclopedia) should be written by people who know how to read about and analyze history, and historical phenomena, correctly.  Reading about and analyzing the history of Satanism, would mean that you have read and understood what scholars have been writing about the history of Satanism.  This is a specific list of books, which have been written over the last 150 years or so (you can find bibliographies of these books in places like "The Satanic Cult", by Zacharias, "The Satanic Mass", by Rhodes, some of the books of Richard Cavendish, and more recently "The Lure of the Sinister", by Gareth Medway (to name just a couple of books from a very long list)).  A person who has not read and understood at least a handful of these books, is not capable of writing an accurate article on Satanism, however well they may be able to quote the Satanic Bible or whoever else their current favorite modern "Satanist" may be.  And, if you have a section of the article dealing with modern Satanism (let's say, LaVey and after), it should be written by someone who is able to look at the phenomenon of modern Satanism objectively, let's say, from the point of few of "modern religious history" (again, Gareth Medway would have a bibliography for this). Or are you suggesting that those hundreds of articles that link to Satanism are really linking to the wrong thing?  I think my suggestion to re-write the article from a historical perspective is the correct solution to that issue (in other words, those hundreds of articles are actually correctly linking to Satanism, and it is the article itself which needs to be fixed).Jimhoward72 (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

AgreedRev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone up to the task is more than welcome in my opinion. --Stelionis Ignigenae (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd happily volunteer. There was another fellow about a year ago who wanted to take on this project as well. However, the proper treatment is a historical & comparative article - and that would end up causing a revert war with the CoS children who have constantly barged in and rewritten "Satanism" articles to suggest that their little for-profit California cult is the only historical manifestation of "Satanism". You'd really need someone with admin rights and the ability to ban, in order to pull off a proper article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

First Line is False
"the Satanist plays the role of the adversary to spiritual creeds, espousing social Darwinism, hedonism, Randian Objectivism, and atheism."

-ATHEISM is not related to Laveyan Satanism at all, if the editor had read the Satanic Bible, maybe he/she'd know that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.61.57 (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

are you the guy i was arguing with?

related or unrelated, whats your proof that laveyan satanism has nothing to do with atheism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homor (talk • contribs) 08:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

regarding a recent arguement.
me and a user on a fourmare having an arguement on atheisms role in satanism, i used wiki as a source.

he made that edit to prove a point that wiki can be filled with mis infromation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.158.197 (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * He's right. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only misinformation but also exclusion due to personal and or group bias. Now the "Joy of Satan" is once again in the external links, a group that has far less noteriety than the Sinagogue of Satan. And for the record I'm not the person that put Sinagogue of Satan in external links so that reason won't fly. Funny how that edit goes on unoticed and unrevised for weeks now while when SoS is entered it is removed the same day if not in a few hours after it was entered.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, Rev! You remember me - I rescued the ONA's article from AfD, and didn't even have to kill anyone to do it. What kind of Satanist are you if you're still fighting to add your mentions and website links after over a year? :-) AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A very stuborn one. But I'm not trying to add my my info, it's already in Theistic Satanism and my own user page which gets vandalized as well. Which shows for some reason some people are trying to keep us hidden. Nor was I the one to submit it. I'm the one that is trying to point out the hypocracy and bias of some editors. That was the reason for this post. How can you folks allow Joy of Satan and keep out Sinagogue of Satan? Seriously if noteriety is the reason than the reason is bullshit for SoS is far more noteable than JoS. Also we are the only group with 3rd party citations in published books and mentioned by many other Satanic groups. Also remember I'm the one that stood up for ONA's inclusion so I'm not here on my behalf alone. I'm here trying to break a bullshit monopoly created by CoS fans that made the article look like Satanism was created by the CoS, which some of us know is bullshit. If I was here to advertize SoS than I'd have been gone along time ago. If you go back through the history you'll see that SoS's inclusion was always secondary to the real goal of making the Satanism article more about Satanism in general as opposed to an article that looks like a cheer leader page for the CoS.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Satanism article does really have to be blanked and re-written from scratch, that's for sure. If it still stinks like this in the future, I'd be up for it - just not now, too busy. Someone else could be bold and attempt a complete re-write themselves, though. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Temple Of Set
Why has no-one mentioned the Temple of Set? All the religious scholars I know (me included) view it as the second major Satanic denomination, after CoS. So, why has it been left out of this article? 220.233.178.130 (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I can only speculate but in the article before the revamp it stated ToS proclaimed they were not Satanists thus justifying their exclusion. I guess Aquino being a co founder of CoS and then later leaving to make ToS is not history worthy in some editors opinions. That or someone or group is attempting to hide any and all groups but one, so that it appears CoS is the only Satanic group that exists.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Members of the CoS did try to provide articles in the past, but due to vandalism and petty arguements on discussion pages justifying said vandalism they eventually moved on to more fruitful pursuits. Being a member of the CoS, I can guarantee I'm the only CoS member editing that I know of, and I encourage all "Satanic" groups to show all they have to offer. The faster undesirables are funneled into other groups the better. --Stelionis Ignigenae (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"The faster undesirables are funneled into other groups the better. --Stelionis Ignigenae" When one starts to discriminate, where does it end and who is next? Also if you are the judge, what happened to freedom of the individual? Let me guess, freedom of the individual as long as he or she adhears to your laws, that's slavery.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow... um... I guess you don't like Nietzsche.... AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh please, for most people the application of the word individual is a sick joke at best. The only reason I can see someone discouraging discrimination based on reason (and not artificial pedigree) is when they know deep down in their hearts they are full of it. Freedom is not free for all and anything goes. Freedom is a privilege and with privilege goes responsibility. If people want to have the privilege of calling themselves members of the CoS, then they have to live up to certain standards and agree with the basic dogma. It is that simple, we are very public about being elitists, we are not a populist movement. Not to worry though, I won't come back to this page and spoil your cleverly hidden advertisement for your little Sinogogue, I now understand why presenting Satanism on wikipedia is a waste of time. --Stelionis Ignigenae (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

People don't want to call themselves members of the Church of Satan, in fact the majority of the occult community considers them a joke. People that are Satanists do wish to call themselves Satanists without being labeled pseudo by the Church of Satan for not being a member and or not accepting the Satanic bible. As far as, "with freedom comes responsibility", that is written very clearly in the SoS manifesto. As for advertising I would not be here if that was the case. As far as elitists that's merely a false hierarchy to feed your insecure ego. I'm here to put people and movements like you in checkmate, the real reason you're running away. For as much as you squirm and cry and accuse me of what you and yours are guilty of, you laid your king down thus admitting defeat. Now move along little doggy.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"People that are Satanists do wish to call themselves Satanists without being labeled pseudo by the Church of Satan (. . .)" - Margolin: That's right and may be the reason, why the Temple of Set doesn't call itself "satanist" anymore - In fact they are and should be mentioned as such, if even the Church is! Has it been erased?

Greetings from Berlin! - 15. Sept. 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.253.229 (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverse Christians
Well here is an opportunity for both the LaVeys, and the Theistics to work together to heal a sore spot for both. I made a "Reverse Christian" article because the term is linked in the Satanism article. Of course it was objected to. But the editor is civil and replaced my text with an extremeley watered down version. If you like my version better please feel free to edit it etc. and bring it up to wiki standards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reverse_Christians Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article and talk page are gone, and are not worth the time. --Stelionis Ignigenae (talk) 08:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, 99.9% of the misconceptions about Satanism come from Christian propaganda. The monsters they accuse us of being are their own creations. The most known example of this is Richard Ramirez. If this article can't be written due to political correctness, "It's offensive" then I fully agree it's a waste of time for wiki will never let it fly. But that does not negate the importance of the subject to both Theistic and LaVey style Satanists.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC) It's not a matter of "Christians lying to misrepresent Satanists", it's a matter of Christians teaching their people what Satanists do. And when they lose their faith they do exactly what they were taught. But you are right, since even you didn't see this plain as day, it is trully a waste of time.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a Neologism and pejorative of minor importance. If a Christian decides to commit blasphemies in his religion, that just makes him a blasphemous Christian. If he breaks the law, that makes him a criminal, deserving of swift and merciless punishment. If Christians are lying to misrepresent Satanists and Satan theists, then I doubt there would be any in their audience who would have the intelligence or desire to do the research. As I said, waste of time. --Stelionis Ignigenae (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Undo of "Trivia"
This section, apart from being almost complete gibberish, relates gossip. Since gossip is not pertinent information to the subject, I undid the edit. --Stelionis Ignigenae (talk) 07:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Groups alleged to have practiced Satanism
The section on "theistic Satanism" said it included pagans worshipping Pan, and the Yezidi. Neither of these groups usually view themselves as satanists at all, so I've created a section at the bottom which briefly mentions groups who have been called satanists, why they might be called that, and whether they are. special, random, Merkinsmum  19:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Church of Satan misrepresents itself as the only true form of Satanism when all the evidence proves it is a fraud!
May 21, 2008

I was informed that the edits have to be "neutral", thats fair. But, my last edit of the "Satanism" article was "neutral" and it was removed by "the Haunted Angel" for not being neutral, I even cited the sources that prove the Church of Satan is a fraud and only continues to exist as a post-LaVey LaVeyan fan club. Even if this were the true reason my edits were removed was it also necessary to also remove my addition to the article in regards to a sect of Satanism that is not already represented on that article (known as "Purist Satanism") and to remove my ability to re-add this addition? I believe that is a little more excessive then is necessary.

Reverend S. Robb Founder & Grand Master Darkside Collective Ministry International

Administrator, Black Ribbon Campaign for Occult Education —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucifer02 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I can help both you and wikipedia. To help you understand Robb, a short history. I came here a few years ago because someone gave me a link. I Jumped for joy seeing an article on my religion in an encyclopedia. The person that sent me the link didn't tell me anything about the encyclopedia so I had little to no knowledge about it or how it works. But when the article disapeared I started learning in a very rude way. Do not fight with these people, work with them. From what I've learned one of the problems with your post is you posted it, thus "Self Promotion". That whole CoS is a fraud attack is viewed as POV, Point of View, it also displays personal bias, thus not acceptable. And last but not least, not notable, I haven't even heard of you. So don't take the actions of the editor that undid your article personaly he was just doing what he saw needed to be done.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Lucifer; firstly I'll just let you know that it wasn't me that reverted your edit, it was NeoFreak, as can be seen here, but allow me to take the time to explain to you why it was reverted, as if NeoFreak didn't revert it, I would have anyway - firstly, your first edit added a few weasel words in there - such as "allegedly" - which constitutes as breaking the NPOV rule. Secondly, you changed it from being "supporters" of Anton LaVey to "worshippers" - I can assure you, we do not worship Mr. LaVey at all. Next you said that The Satanic Bible is plagiarized - again, opinion, unless a reliable source is bought forth - even then, we wouldn't say it IS plagiarized, we'd say there have been accusations of it. The other form of Satanism you added, I admit I have yet to fully investigate; the fact that it hasn't been added before may make me think it is non-notable - there are a lot of Satanist religions, and not all can be listed as being notable enough, unfortunately. Later, you added some comments about LaVey being exposed as a fraud by the FBI, the police, and many others, again, without any reliable source. This could constitute as slander (Wikipedia's rule is that all comments on living people's must be strongly backed up - but I think it should also apply to deceased people just as zealously, such as with LaVey). That's pretty much the basics, so let me direct you to this article which should help you understand more as to why your edit was reverted. Happy editing ≈ The Haunted Angel  01:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The fraud is still getting all the credit
According to archeological evidence Satanism has been practiced, in a crude form, since at least 10,000 B.C.E.

Yet, in the late 1950s a man by the name of Anton LaVey starts what he called a "Witchcraft Workshop". At the suggestion of one of his "students", LaVey started the Church of Satan, in 1966, and receives another suggestion, this time by an AVON BOOKS executive, who is hurting for a best seller, to write a bible for this "new" religion. In 1969, this bible is finally published. But, what the majority of it's readers didn't know (many still don't even know), LaVey didn't write any of this book. To anyone with pre-LaVeyan knowledge of literature... or Satanism for that matter... what LaVey had published was, in fact, material plagiarized from several different writers (Ragnar Redbeard, Friedrich Nietzche, Aliester Crowley, Ayn Rand, and many more). The worst thing was that not only did he not cite these other mens work, LaVey also bashed several of them verbally and in some of his later publications.

As if that was not bad enough, LaVey claimed that he worked with the SFPD, the SF Orchestra, and a strip club in which he claimed he met a regular stripper name Marilyn Monroe. But, according to SFPD records LaVey never worked with them in any capacity. The SF Orchestra reported that they did not even exist during the period that LaVey claimed to have played the oboe with them. And, the owner of the strip club reported that there was no one by the name of Anton LaVey working at his club, nor did Marilyn Monroe (or her pre-fame personal, Norma-Jean Baker)!

Further, in a 1980 joint-interrogation of Anton LaVey, conducted by the FBI and Secret Service, he said:

"...STATED THAT HE IS WELL AWARE THAT MOST PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH THE CHURCH OF SATAN ARE IN FACT "FANATICS, CULTISTS, AND WEIRDOS." HE STATED HIS INTEREST IN THE CHURCH OF SATAN IS STRICTLY FROM A MONETARY POINT OF VIEW AND SPENDS HIS TIME FURNISHING INTERVIEWS, WRITING MATERIAL, AND LATELY HAS BECOME INTERESTED IN PHOTOGRAPHY." [FBI file# SF89-289]

In relation, the Church of Satan, itself, is being run as if it were an Anton LaVey fan club. Satanists do not subscribe to the practices or claims of the Church of Satan. Yet, the media still fuels the flames of this fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucifer2007 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Rev. S. Robb [Lucifer2007]

Even if you gave them this, http://www.churchofsatan.org/aslv.html it wouldn't matter Rob, like most things in the public eye wikki articles are a popularity contest.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation Needed? Oh please...
I removed the "Citation Needed" tags for the well understood historical statement that Pan Worshippers were often called satanist and that Satanism is often used as a prejoritive term for people who's religious beliefs are misunderstood.

I'm an Atheist who absolutely despises satanism and even I've been called a Satanist, and I suspect so has members of virtually every minority religion who have made their religious views public amongst fundamentalist Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.84.190 (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's a well understood historical statement then it should be easy to provide a cite to a reliable source. Please add the info instead of removing the tag. DreamGuy (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Disbelievers...
I went to the Church of Satan website and, though i love God, found 11 rules of a satanic earth. The last 3 are:

9. Do not harm little children.

10. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.

11. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

I still love God but don't think those rules are too bad --OvErUnDeRtAkEr (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * even the 'destroy him' bit? You know that as a Christian you should love your enemy and if he hurts you, turn the other cheek, shouldn't you?:) Just to say that not all Satanists would follow all of the statements above.  We're a very varied lot.  If someone 'bothered' me he'd have to bother me pretty hard for me to try to 'destroy' him. Of course I agree with the other two though. Sticky Parkin 01:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. I meant all but that.--OvErUnDeRtAkEr (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

darkside/purist satanism
This is spam and I think the link should be put on the spam blacklist. I'll try and do that tomorrow. Sticky Parkin</b> 01:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

CoS is trying to push it's POV again
So I reverted and fixed their attempt at manipulating reality with a few minor edits. Objective reality only works when everyone is fooled into believing it, much like when the Catholic church killed people for saying the world is round.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The CoS would be the protestants though lol, Theistic Satanism has been here longer so of course is the Catholics in the analogy.:) (or maybe I'm showing both my biases there.:) But for this we need a Satanism forum lol.  What I will say is that person's effort was so blatant I doubt it would meet with many administrator's approval. <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Sticky</b> <b style="color:#FF8C00;">Parkin</b> 15:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

External links - Absinthe v. Rev Michael
I did not add www.sosatan.org check the history and you'll see it wasn't me, I did edit it to reflect it is the SoS manifesto. Absinthe999 is determined to make this article a Church of Satan "Anton invented Satanism" article, as he has attempted to do so many times in the past again check history.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Comunication and diplomacy, what a concept. And the external links look so non bias in their order even the ACLU would be proud.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

05:28, 18 December 2008 Absinthe999 (Talk | contribs) (12,493 bytes) (let Michael Margolin add his site to wikipedia again) (undo)

Not interested in adding an article on Sinagogue of Satan, again for the record I'm not the one that added it in the 1st place but I am interested in working with people to maintain a non biased, diverse, fact filled, article on Satanism.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no stake here, and I am uninterested in who added it or did not. It appears to be a decent link to include, and until a policy/guideline argument is raised to remove it here on the Talk page, I think it should stay.  I'm open to changing my mind - but i want to know why I should.  --<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  07:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just read through the history between Absinthe999 and Rev. Michael. Since this is a long-standing feud between both of you, and apparently has gone on for awhile, I propose this suggestion to avoid further complicating this with admins, etc.:  neither of you make any changes to the external links of this article at all.  From here on out, create a new thread to propose future link removal or additions, using guidelines for external links.  You both are free to do as you wish, but I suggest you heed my advice and use brevity and substance to persuade us to your point of view.  The conversation a year ago I linked to above infers there was a previous decision regarding this link; please include a diff to that previous discussion, Absinthe999, if you wish to use it to bolster your case.  Prior consensus may be enough to decide this, assuming it is still relevant and community standards have not changed.  --<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  07:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

HS David, Absinthe999 called me the other night and I do believe we have reached a sort of peace. ISNRev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent news! <font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  06:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

PROCEED TO ARCHIVE 6