I have been following modern Satanism since its boom in popularity in the 90's, and have declared myself satanist for nearly as long.
I have noticed something though, despite my admiration of the Church of Satan for their groundbreaking actions in such a media fueled time, where thought process was founded in television talk shows and evangelistic church persuasion, I have recently however noticed a lack of, well much at all from the church itself as a contribution to Satanism since Anton's Death. Very little in the way of overtly public presence, the type of presence Anton seemed to enjoy in his day.
The newer movements such as the Satanic Temple are however quite active in their goals for fairness in the terms of freedom of religion as oppose to the idea that that particular bill only applies to abrahamic religions..
In the wake of their efforts, a divide has become obvious between The Church of Satan and The Satanic Temple. the temple gives the impression that the church just wants to be the final say on what satanism is. The church claims the temple is just using satanism as a soapbox for civil rights preaching.
Has it really come to a ''who was here first'' thing?
I have my own thoughts on the subject, I am however curious if anyone else has noticed this, and if there are any other opinions, either in agreement or contrast.
Sign In
The actions of various Satanic organizations.. | Forum
Anna
Sep 19 '14
In the wake of their efforts, a divide has become obvious between The Church of Satan and The Satanic Temple. the temple gives the impression that the church just wants to be the final say on what satanism is. The church claims the temple is just using satanism as a soapbox for civil rights preaching. Has it really come to a ''who was here first'' thing?
The Church of Satan condemns all rival Satanic organizations. It's not only the Satanic Temple but also the First Satanic Church, the Modern Church of Satan, the Temple of Set, the Sect of the Horned God, the ONA and all theistic Satanic Churches and organizations. The CoS also accepts only Satannet as the only legitimate Satanic network and all other websites, like this one or 600 Club, it considers to be bogus ones and pseudo-Satanic.
They officially claim all these organizations are not really Satanic because they misinterpret Anton LaVey's philosophy. They are pretty orthodox and dogmatic in their attitude.
The Forum post is edited by Anna Sep 19 '14
Member sonofject
Sep 19 '14
I would tend to agree with your sentiments, mikeG, in that there is a divisive separation of ideology and progression between various satanic organizations. To be frank, I think it really boils down to the resources available nowadays and an organization's ability to use those in a proactive and progressive way. Certain collectives missed the boat with the shift in the way people represent traditional occult groups, the shift being from a more closed, exclusive organization to a more inclusive, open one. It's fairly easy to be an aficionado as opposed to a hardcore occultist when the focus is garnering popularity and awarenes.
Before the 90s, before social networking, it was difficult to meet like minded individuals and be representative as a 'satanic' group focused on learning and enriching theosophical/occult paths. Churches and groups of various ilk were very selective of membership and worked in the shadows to advance their presence. Today, technology consolidates education and traditional history and makes it more accessible to the mainstream. Anyone with a cult of personality can represent whatever they deem to be occultism. It isn't hard to jump on the bandwagon of being politically active while representing religious beliefs, as opposed to being a steadfast elitist resistant to progressive change. And there, I feel, is the core of the division in ideology.
Before the 90s, before social networking, it was difficult to meet like minded individuals and be representative as a 'satanic' group focused on learning and enriching theosophical/occult paths. Churches and groups of various ilk were very selective of membership and worked in the shadows to advance their presence. Today, technology consolidates education and traditional history and makes it more accessible to the mainstream. Anyone with a cult of personality can represent whatever they deem to be occultism. It isn't hard to jump on the bandwagon of being politically active while representing religious beliefs, as opposed to being a steadfast elitist resistant to progressive change. And there, I feel, is the core of the division in ideology.
Member Epicurus
Sep 19 '14
You hit the nail on the head AnnaCzereda I saw some real paparazzi on the COS regarding what goes behind closed doors.
badasstattooz
Sep 19 '14
Great points, actually... amazing points. I am glad I asked, as there are a few things in there I never considered, namely the technological era in which Anton published his material, and how different is was than today.
I myself tend to lean toward the more Atheistic Satanic ideologies that still embrace the fantastic ''magic'' even if only a means of self deceit in the form of ceremony to invoke emotions in accordance with directed will.
I do however, feel that perhaps Anton's core ideology of individualism is a bit degraded when one begins to attempt to determine who is the better anti-Christ, although I am sure Anton would be happy to see such a degree of public disapproval of Christianity that there are so many Satanist that they argue amongst themselves.
That said, I have always had a difference of opinion with those who claim modern Satanism but end up, in reality worshiping demons. Not saying they are wrong, just not my cup of tea, I don't require that level of spirituality.
I will never attempt to discredit the belief system of other individuals, Christian, Jew, Flying spaghetti monster, theistic Satanist or Laveyan Satanist, as I am Satanist, and at no point do I feel that a belief system is reason alone for the admonishment of a person/persons. (they tend to give plenty of other reasons for disassociation).
It seems strange at least, that The Church of Satan, the founder of this ''belief system'' would be so judgmental of other Satanic Religions, After all, LaVeyan Satanism is barely a religion by all definition, and more a philosophy as we see ourselves as gods in response to the idea of the fantastic deities of theistic religions, in irony, sarcasm and conceit. The idea that some men need a Jesus or Allah to approve of their hellish actions is deplorable, but necessary to separate the wolves from the sheep so to speak and allow us to be Satanists in the first place....
I am getting off topic, I guess my point is The Church of Satan seems a tad lazy as of late and the Satanic Temple seems to be pulling the weight for all Satanist whether they like it/them or not.
I am all for maintaining strict integrity of Satanic principal, I am just beginning to wonder which ''principal'' is the most productive.
I myself tend to lean toward the more Atheistic Satanic ideologies that still embrace the fantastic ''magic'' even if only a means of self deceit in the form of ceremony to invoke emotions in accordance with directed will.
I do however, feel that perhaps Anton's core ideology of individualism is a bit degraded when one begins to attempt to determine who is the better anti-Christ, although I am sure Anton would be happy to see such a degree of public disapproval of Christianity that there are so many Satanist that they argue amongst themselves.
That said, I have always had a difference of opinion with those who claim modern Satanism but end up, in reality worshiping demons. Not saying they are wrong, just not my cup of tea, I don't require that level of spirituality.
I will never attempt to discredit the belief system of other individuals, Christian, Jew, Flying spaghetti monster, theistic Satanist or Laveyan Satanist, as I am Satanist, and at no point do I feel that a belief system is reason alone for the admonishment of a person/persons. (they tend to give plenty of other reasons for disassociation).
It seems strange at least, that The Church of Satan, the founder of this ''belief system'' would be so judgmental of other Satanic Religions, After all, LaVeyan Satanism is barely a religion by all definition, and more a philosophy as we see ourselves as gods in response to the idea of the fantastic deities of theistic religions, in irony, sarcasm and conceit. The idea that some men need a Jesus or Allah to approve of their hellish actions is deplorable, but necessary to separate the wolves from the sheep so to speak and allow us to be Satanists in the first place....
I am getting off topic, I guess my point is The Church of Satan seems a tad lazy as of late and the Satanic Temple seems to be pulling the weight for all Satanist whether they like it/them or not.
I am all for maintaining strict integrity of Satanic principal, I am just beginning to wonder which ''principal'' is the most productive.
Member Epicurus
Sep 20 '14
I think that non-denominational Christians are right about one thing, on the point that where there is the word "Religion" it mostly refers to Religion power, corruption, imposing on others. I suppose if one searched on facts about the Church of Satan it would fall into the same category as Religion. I am not saying this myself but X members that create websites containing facts (mails) about what really occurs there. Well people then should make their homework to figure out these things.
The Forum post is edited by Epicurus Sep 20 '14
Member sonofject
Sep 20 '14
@ mikeG I actually like the way TST is rustling the jimmies of conservative Christian education moralists. They are quite successful in reaching between the worlds of politics and entertainment media and making an impact. In LaVey's time, the climate was rife with religious imposition, he and others like Aquino were bashed mercilessly in talk show interviews, no one took them seriously out of fear and persecution complexes.
In a political sense, in this day and age, those tables are turning. Popular talk shows make light of the actions and humorously depict the hypocrisy of Christian fundamentalists in a rational, impartial way. Very proactive way to raise awareness. I think the momentum gained by these actions has the potential to shift the critical mass of religious oppression seen in today's society, enough for intelligent, educated people to see both sides of the issue and raise a legitimate debate.
In a political sense, in this day and age, those tables are turning. Popular talk shows make light of the actions and humorously depict the hypocrisy of Christian fundamentalists in a rational, impartial way. Very proactive way to raise awareness. I think the momentum gained by these actions has the potential to shift the critical mass of religious oppression seen in today's society, enough for intelligent, educated people to see both sides of the issue and raise a legitimate debate.
The Forum post is edited by sonofject Sep 20 '14
Member Epicurus
Sep 20 '14
I was referring to Zeena Schreck -LaVey,Nikolas Schreck, John Allee,Aquino they are all ex members of COS. The most important thing is that one stays in the left hand path and think with logic,reason and individuality.
Chapter Head JamesSTL
Sep 20 '14
Satanic "organizations" are something of an oxymoron, IMO.
Smorgasbord rules apply: Take what you want, and leave the rest.
Mine is ultimately a solitary path. I have learned much from the writings of LaVey, Aquino, Myatt, King, Leved, et al.
As I have from many more sources not immediately associated with "Satanism": Plato, Zola, and all the usual suspects (Nietzsche, Rand, Spengler, Machiavelli).
My 2 cents.
Chapter Head JamesSTL
Sep 20 '14
Additionally, letting any type of party line stifle one's pursuits toward greater understanding and worldly fulfillment is very un-Satanic.
"If you don't get it now, you never fucking will!"
Owner Zach Black
Sep 20 '14
I do not feel you need to join a satanic organization. But I see no issue with doing so. I am part of three Satanic organizations. Satanic International, The Satanic Temple and the Sect of the Horned God. Simply to show my support and respect for what they do. But first and foremost I represent myself.
Member Berardo Rodriguez
Sep 21 '14
Birds of the same feather flight together, mammals of the same skin flock together, like minded people , same thinking philosophy rational animals are being gathered together with a purpose, but it doesn't take away their individuality to persuade their own goals, just by being part of this wed site I take part of the gathering , I feel proud of being part of this, and I still have my freedom.
Anna
Sep 21 '14
Birds of the same feather flight together, mammals of the same skin flock together, like minded people , same thinking philosophy rational animals are being gathered together with a purpose, but it doesn't take away their individuality to persuade their own goals, just by being part of this wed site I take part of the gathering , I feel proud of being part of this, and I still have my freedom.
Being part of some network is a bit different from joining an organization. You sign up for a website to have a discussion with other people. They don't have to have the same views as you. For example, on a science forum people gather to discuss various topics related to science. The only thing they have in common is interest in science. That's all. In all other ways they are different. However, there is no point in joining some organization if you don't agree with its main tenets, its goals and actions.
Of course, you can still have your freedom if you join an organization. It all depends on your attitude.
Member Khandnalie
Sep 21 '14
I think a lot of it boils down to the Satanic perspective on groups. The CoS side of things is very much a lone-wolf deal. Their organization is kind of structured to discourage grouping, and they have even dismantled their grotto system. A lot of their communiques and whatnot seem to actively discourage any kind of attempt to form groups or Satanic social circles. Meanwhile, on the TST side of things, you have other organizations that acknowledge and encourage the desire to form groups. They organize and communicate, and encourage associations to form. They are generally a bit more open and fluid in nature.
As for me, I see absolutely zero problem with joining and supporting groups, especially if you have an agenda. I recognize man as a social animal - we rarely do well in any kind of isolation. People have social needs. Groups can just plain ol' feel better. So long as you remain aware of yourself, indulging in that feeling isn't a bad thing. On top of that, groups get things done much more effectively than individuals in most cases. Never underestimate the power of people in even moderately large numbers. So long as a group's goals are reasonably in line with yours, I see no problem with joining and supporting it.
nith
Sep 21 '14
I have hung about with a few different groups but normally for not that long and have not joined any. For some they feel need for a group and then look for one (or many) that fits. Others find a group of people they get along with and enjoy either the people or the group idea, so they join.
There is also the third type that is often bypassed or forgotten about (and like it that way), they may look like they fit in well with the group but have no intent to stay around for long periods of time. These types of people often deal with groups when there is a need and move on afterwards. They are the type of person who might turn up to a rally or even start one but if anyone tries to trace a group background, they will not find one.
I have no issue with people liking to be parts of groups or run under a single header. I do avoid becoming part of those groups though and some take great offence to me not jumping at the chance to run under their label and leadership. I don't actually mean to offend by not joining and often spell it out in advance that I'm not looking to carry one of their membership cards.
Often I hang out with some people because they interest me and they happen to be part of a group.
tgmondalf
Nov 3 '14
I can't help but note what AnnaCzereda said above, "They officially claim all these organizations are not really Satanic because they misinterpret Anton LaVey's philosophy." - because I find that it seems even though CoS has become more dogmatic, that Magus Gilmore has strangely misinterpreted the words of LaVey himself. I'm currently re-reading it now after having read it once back in 1987 and I'm finding that while I think after the Satanic Panic the CoS needed someone like Gilmore, that he's misinterpreted some things himself. Most notably, that Magus Gilmore says Satanism is "specifically" an Atheist Religion. Yet, Anton made it very clear that to him it was Humanism+Ceremony+Dogma. While Humanism will most often encompass Atheists and Agnostics, it does not make it specifically atheist and LaVey seemed to be open to a broader spectrum of of Satanism than just atheism and agnosticism too.
tgmondalf
Feb 3 '15
So far EVERY commentary they've posted on it says they 'do not want ANY monuments representing religion on state capitols' etc - separation of church and state - They have made this glaringly clear!
tgmondalf
Feb 6 '15
Yes, Greg, I've been watching them a long time and feeling much as you do now I joined late last year! \m/
RileyHeadwind
May 3 '17
I'm late to this thread but just wanted to say I became a member last month.
Owner Zach Black
May 4 '17
I'm late to this thread but just wanted to say I became a member last month.Member to what? The network is not the same as official membership into the organization. Unless I know you by another name? Ooops my bad you are talking about the TST. I thought you were talking about this....
https://www.satanicinternationalnetwork.com/social/forum/topic/153
The Forum post is edited by Zach Black May 4 '17
