Path: shell.portal.com!shell.portal.com!not-for-mail
From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nocTifer)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan,alt.satanism,alt.magick.tyagi,alt.religion,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage
Subject: Org Satanism/Christianity (was Re: Shared Mythos (was Re: ...))
Date: 12 Jun 1996 11:16:54 -0700
Organization: Portal Communications (shell)
Lines: 458
Sender: tyagi@shell.portal.com
Message-ID: <4pn1im$5mn@jobe.shell.portal.com>
References: <4naih2$nab@a3bsrv.nai.net> <Pine.OSF.3.91.960517093338.16193B-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> <4nkcho$6t1@insosf1.netins.net> <Pine.SOL.3.91.960527185057.6623E-100000@gladstone> <31MAY199613005774@hdc2>
Reply-To: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nocTifer)
NNTP-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com
Xref: shell.portal.com alt.pagan:162016 alt.satanism:44996 alt.magick.tyagi:8449 alt.religion:2322 talk.religion.misc:223719 talk.religion.newage:52489

kaliyuga
49960612 AA1


[unknown:]
|>|...do you therefore equate Satan with Set?  If not, are you calling 
|>|yourself a Satanist using the COS defintion rather than the TOS?
 
"Mr. Scratch" <scratch@gladstone.uoregon.edu>:
|>If you will put aside the organizational infighting, you will see that 
|>the two are not mutually exclusive.  Take your pick at to the definition 
|>you wish to use:  I am Satanist by either standard.

I will watch for clear expressions of these definitions.  At present it
appears that the ToS excludes on the basis of religious involvement, and
so if you considered CoSatanism to be religious you could not be a 
simultaneous member the ToSsers.


jk1604@hdc.hha.dk (Hr. Vad) posts:
|COS versus TOS? A hard look comparison and bottom line view.
|by Tani Jantsang

First serious review of TJantsang (apologies for previous name-flutzing).
I'm going to delete most of this in favor of what I see to be the main
and relevant points (I read it all first ;>)).  

This comparison is very helpful, but not really "hard-line" as it doesn't 
discuss the positions of power and how authority works within the orgs.  
It does not really look at their 'bottom lines' either, since it doesn't 
discuss the comparative experiences of members (through interviews) or 
look at the financial statements of either org.  

Instead we have an apparent commentary from INSIDE the org-complex (at 
least the CoS), from one who claims to have seen both orgs operating.  
This is valuable, and Jantsang's commentary is important in comparison 
to some of the more coherent ToSsers (Scratch, Balanone), even while it
should not be misconstrued anything SCIENTIFIC (in a way TJ wishes to 
support).


She writes:
|...lots of religions out there ...the major ones are no longer what one 
|might strictly call "religious" because they are more like cultural 
|things, family traditions, even cohesive units for ethnics....
|All of these three Western religions tend, today, to view the overly
|religious type as "unhealthy."...  All of them have humans exclusively 
|being created or tampered with or fixed or cursed by some disincarnated 
|entity-being. These are CRACKPOT religions! They often have crackpot 
|Prophets.

So here the battle begins, in a definition of the term 'religion'.  TJ
appears to accept a meaning of 'religious' somewhat more strict and
apparent than is conventional in society today.  

Yet the focus is again upon someone *ESLE* or upon some absolute which 
she doesn't mention yet we must infer.  I shall try to represent the 
alternative to her other-centraism while agreeing with much she 
has to say.

From the foregoing we see that TJ appears to have some sort of ideal
where 'religion' is concerned, esp. in that there may be 'CRACKPOT'
religions (compared to the AAS's stance on religion which she calls 
"almost religious").  That is, we are given a range of usage of this 
term and in most cases there is no positive meaning defined.

Throughout her writing I am reminded of idealistic elitism and its
condemnation of the 'unillumined' or at least the 'intentionally
deceptive'.  This seems also to be a common position of speech 
amongst Satanists as we identify with the Oppressed or Deceived.


|...the American Atheist Society...  This society can hardly be called 
|a cult.  You can join, support, speak for them or not. They sell books, 
|there are no coercive tactics to get people to join and no one cares 
|if you quit or turn against them. They are a group of Freethinkers 

It would appear that for TJ the AAS represents a kind of prototype
Satanic group or principle and contains the following from her review:
flexibility of membership, lack of coercion of membership, support of
diversity of thought ("Freethinkers").  These qualities hardly represent
a comprehensive analysis of her Satanism, yet they do appear to be
commonly valued in Neopagan and Satanic movements.


|but they DO have one thing that is not Satanic. They have a strong 
|humanitarian and ethical, even moral, stance that they take that 
|OFTEN goes against nature and natural law when it comes to humans. 
|They do not regard man as exactly like any other animal ...

It is here and elsewhere that I find a consistent linkage between
nature and Satanism.  TJ portrays it as it emerges as the religious
establishment's enemy here (an entity which I contend is valuable
to learn to discipline or temper, yet as the focus within mystical 
and general ascetic groups shifts towards overt repression and
personal disempowerment, this is contrary to many people's idea of
their Satanism, which appears to be TJ's main point about religion).

In this way we are discussing two principles which TJ and other 
Satanic authors seem to be whitewashing in support for their 
political rivalry: discipline and indulgence.  

Here, and in the subsequent article I shall review momentarily, TJ 
argues on the side of 'INDULGENCE' and against what some religious 
would call 'discipline', 'tempering', or, as TJ argues against it 
later, 'ABSTINENCE' (illustrated by LaVey's 'First Satanic Statement').

I agree that quite often Satanism includes a greater focus on indulgence
and aesthetics than their contrary, and yet I do not feel that this
emphasis arises from the inherent supremacy of indulgence, but instead
in response to the obvious fascination for ascetic withdrawal (and with
attempting to pass this off as the standard) which Western religious
culture (particularly in the US) consistently displays.


|...the Church of Satan ...compared to ...American Atheist Society 
|...are laid back and are NOT a cult in any form and DO NOT 
|use coersion or bother you if you quit or turn against them. 

This is a claim about the character of the Church of Satan as an
organization, not about Satanism generally (though the latter is implied).

As such we can understand when TJ goes on to argue in support of the
differentiation of the CoSatanists from the ToSsers on the basis of
BEHAVIOR and relative focus of DOCTRINE.  While TJ yet retains a
devoted focus upon one paradigm-set (apparently the hard-scientist) as
dominant ("true"), she valuably illustrates differences of character
which are important in a first look at the organized Satanists (as
lab animals, if you like :>).


|The Church of Satan can be shown to be in line with HARD-sciences 
|which are not humanitarian or ethical in any sense and which are 
|the literal bane (and the biggest satan of all) of the religions, 
|not so much the Jewish one, but the two Christian ones. 

My own experience of the text by LaVey and company do not support
the extent of this assertion, though it does appear that the CoS
may have some sort of 'platform', well-explained by their High
Priest in his publications.  

In this way the only fair comparison is between what we take to be 
"HARD-sciences" and what is said in these texts, performed in their
'labs' and results from their studies.  TJ did not set about such 
an exposition and as such this constitutes a weakness in her support
of the Church of Satan (since the CoS may well be something in-between 
or entirely different from the 'religions' and the HAAS from all we
can tell with what she has given us).


|Their use of Satan can be seen on many levels: all the way from
|dark-HIDDEN-force-in- nature which permeates and motivates all of nature,
|which is a perfect definition of Second Law of Thermodynamics in
|chemistry (and biochemistry) and viewed as Entropy in hard physics....

HARD-scientists do not generally mythologize the forces of nature
except in very general and folklorish ways ('Mother Nature' or
'in the interests of the individual') which allow a familiarity 
with the phenomena in question due to thematic cues.

Ideally any organization which supports such things as 'magick' and
'intentional belief during ritual' and claims (or has claims made for
it) that it aligns itself with Hard Science must somehow extend beyond
the popular culture of the science with which it compares itself, since
modern Science has not been very kind to the occult sciences and arts,
its preliminary evaluation based on incomplete and faulty premises.


|...Similarly, Satan can be viewed as that purveyer of UNDEFILED truths, 

The object of religion (be that god or force or whathaveyou) 
is traditionally associated with 'truth', at least in the West.

That TJ focusses so heavily on modern Science as revealing this 
'truth' demonstrates the religious (materialist) zeal which appears 
to parallel such certainties.  In this way the EMOTIONAL character
of her text appears to be representative of the convert, and the 
INTELLECTUAL character appears to fall somewhere between what she
is calling 'religious' and what we may call 'Hard Science-based'.

Taken purely at face value this might be dismissed as more rhetoric
designed to persuade and deceive (Satanic propaganda -- a very 
important commodity, especially when it blatantly represents itself 
as such).  

Yet, TJ's more salient point is about HONESTY and SINCERETY.  That the 
religious engage in what some Muslims call 'concealment' (taqiyya) or 
what many Satanists prefer to call LYING to preserve themselves and 
insidiate their cosmological preferences into the greater community is 
very important and illustrates a relationship with oneself that is 
emphasized in my own form of Satanism: MARTYRDOM -- the honest 
expression of feelings and thoughts in words and actions despite the 
condemnation we may receive at the hands of our enemies.

This martyrdom has been part of a great many Western religious currents 
and is today utilized mostly in monikers, symbols, vestiments and semantics 
(i.e. on a surface level) while often re-interpreting the labels of 
condemnation to suit one's needs (for more on this see the writings of
The Orde of Kaos Under Satanism surrounding 'the Great Martyrdom Cult').


|...Satan is a symbol of rebellion in the sense of the Founding Fathers: 
|...Satan can be seen as a politically oriented figure as most of the 
|creative writers in the "Satanic School" have seen it, a champion of 
|free speech, speaking what's in your heart, freedom of expression, 
|and revolt against all forms of tyranny and oppression. 

Of course the "Satanic School" is a metaphor for the current of Satanism
which has welled up through the cracks of religious fundaments since
time immemorial, identified by its association with the Underdog, the
Oppressed, the Condemned, etc.  This has operated as much in Western
religion in its redefinition of terms and symbolism (see how this
process appears on a psychosocial level in _Faces of the Enemy_ by
Sam Keen) as it has in the East with their adoption of the vestiments
of the convicted as their ecclesiastical standard, and yet it becomes
expressed overtly to the social consciousness only in the West.

Here TJ points again at an important element of Satanism: the struggle
of the individual against the forces which oppress hir.  Here the myth
of Lucifer or Iblis is often used to illustrate not only the oppresive
authority (in the form of the Hebrew god) but the repercussions which
opposing the Demiurgos (world-creator) may lead us to bear (alienation,
condemnation, castigation, etc.).


|...there is no way one could possible call the Church of Satan a "cult" 
|of any sort or even lump it technically into the category of a religion. 

Except that we might understand modern science to be a kind of 'religion',
again depending on how we define our terms.  There do appear to be some
qualities which the modern Scientific establishment retains which are
characteristic of religions and even of cults, for example.  Coming to
this conclusion, surely as the CoS associates itself with the rampant and
at times idiotic materialism of modern Science so it may be qualified as
'religious' also.
 

|The Church of Satan offers rich psychodrama and literary imagery
|for anyone who wishes to BE a religious Satanist: something the 
|American Atheists would never do. 

We might presume that this mention of ritual plays and poetic 
expression implies their use as raw materials for the construction 
of one's own form of Satanism.  This I would encourage, though I 
can't be sure the CoS goes this far.  In any case, TJ's point is 
well-taken and contains a contradiction to her ealier claims -- 
one meaningful and important.

She doesn't want to "technically lump" the CoS into "the category of
religion", and yet she appears to wish to convey something which she 
DOES find valuable about religions to the reader: aesthetic and
poetic expression within psychodrama and literary imagery.  We might 
infer that the CoS is a temple of materialism which values and 
praises human life in both its indulgent and ascetic means (though
TJ appears to want to distance herself from the latter).

Precisely where this differs from the "religion" which TJ strives to
move away from is merely implied through her description of 'cults'
(a terms whose previous usage merely complicates our understanding)
and their relationship to the individual.  

The differentiation of qualities of groups over time given the 
standardization of names and reflections provided by members and 
associates is typically fomented within the very medium which she 
chooses to emphasize in the Church of Satan, and it is quite obvious 
to this student of religion that the plays and poetic scripture of 
which she writes are the fruit of all religions (at times becoming 
the tools of politicians, at times not).

In this way she is not arguing strictly FOR those elements, but for
their LIBERATION, the liberation of the human and the religious
elements of religion FROM the religious culture.
 

|...the joy of a Yule celebration and the fun of a Santa mytheme, the 
|Church of Satan doesn't deprive anyone of anything, but offers up 
|alternatives IF one chooses to go that route.

Freedom of choice in religion.  This is not offered as part of the
benefit of the AAS and, what I understand about the Temple of Set indicates
that 'competing religious involvements' must be terminated in order to
continue a member of the Temple.  As regards other religions TJ's
exposition here is concrete, since most religious of which I am aware
appear to prefer uniformity of celebratory symbolism and rhetoric and
identity SOLELY within that religious group.

Then again, at least in America we are supposedly guaranteed freedom
of religion (where it does not conflict with law, and this is the 
major battle yet to be fought), yet few take advantage of this liberty.


In her analysis of the Temple of Set, TJ takes a rational and yet
antagonistic attitude which in some measure derails her efforts as she 
becomes a mere Propagandizer of CoSatanism.  Yet she does make some 
important points and these I'd ferret out as I'm able.

What constitutes a "1:1 correspondence" is irrelevant to this researcher.
I drop these claims in examination of the general comparison regardless
of its 'ratio of consistency'.

|...the Church of Satan and the hard sciences which can be compared 
|to the "doctrines" of the American Atheists. Likewise, their 
|methodology is the same. 

We are not told of the 'methodology' of the AAS, or indeed of the
Church of Satan.


|...the matter of "humanitarian values" owned by the American Atheists 
|but not owned by the Church of Satan OR by hard-sciences.

My interpretation of this is that the CoS does not have the same (or
perhaps any) shared value-system which it promotes, and yet there is
a faction of Satanists (some who claim membership in the CoS) which 
argues for ethical standards (often naturalistic, 'Darwinian Socialist' 
or those of 'might makes right' throwbacks of primitive society).  We
are left to assume that the CHARACTER of association resembles that
of the scientific community: largely academically-involved, rather than
politically or moralistically.


TJ's main point in comparing the two popular Satanic organizations is
to parallel it with Fundamentalist Christianity:
|...like believing that Fundamentalists grew naturally out of the 
|America Atheists. IMPOSSIBLE! 

|Fundamentalist Christianity does not flow out of Atheism! 

|Fundamentalism and Setianism are not just a denial of nature and their 
|own animal nature.  Both are a DENIAL of REALITY!

|...Setianism is IDENTICAL to Fundamentalism with a few qualifiers. 
|Satanism is identical to Atheism with a few qualifiers. One does 
|NOT come from the other. One is not related to the other.

Yet to support this point she offers little information about why
these broad generalizations must hold true, only some pointers in
the terms of social dynamics and doctrinal focus.  The terms of 
dispute which are being used here: 'fundamentalism', 'denial of
nature', 'denial of reality', 'atheism', etc., allow us to infer a
great deal of possible meaning from TJ's rhetoric, including that
Satanists in their rudimentary organizational efforts have rather
handily duplicated the Great Christian divide (along the lines of
the Reformation).

TJ is telling us about how she sees the ToS and Christianity with
respect to one another, more than she is demonstrating any kind
of necessary relationship among them or what the proper types of
analogies ought be.  It would take a long long time to really do
this subject justice, and TJ's text is more of an opinion review
and propaganda document from the front lines than it is a serious
and 'scientific' paper (I would not emphasize this except that she
places such a firm emphasis herself on modern Science and so I wish
to emphasize this INCONSISTENCY and/or FAILURE).


|...the Temple of Set and ...  HARD-CORE Fundamentalist Christianity! 
|...a Stoic God a literal Being-Entity-GOD. ...against carnality. 

|One has Stoic God making all life but making humans sinful. The other has
|all life evolving but Stoic God making humans outcasts in nature. 

|...preach against "the world," one in the form of "stay clear of the 
|damned" and ..."avoid mundane people." 

|...CULT complete with ascetic rules, divine revelations and secrets 
|one must strive to attain.... 

|...encourage spending money on prayer meetings or mystical meditations 
|in order to further DENY the carnal animal in the person.

|...believe their God created or interfered with making human beings.

|...crackpot evolutionary theory with only the MINOR details varying. 

|...divine revelations. ...the striving to perfection and insist that 
|man is not perfect as he is but sinful/outcast. 

My brief review of ToS documentation does substantiate this criticism.
It is true that these are extreme interpretations of the stated ToS
positions, but this does not make the opposition perspective evaporate.

I also find it interesting that there is a heavy focus on science, from
'Social Darwinism' to 'evolutionary theory' and 'Hard-Science parallel'
within BOTH organizations.  The materialist-basis is difficult to ignore,
even while the Setians seem to want more than this, something they'd
probably say was also a part of human beings (whether 'natural' or not).


[most of the irrelevant ad hominems omitted]

|...the Temple of Set came into being from the minds of a group of 
|schizophrenics as sick and demented and mentally diseased as the 
|earlier Gnostic dualists were.

This tells us nothing about the dualists but more about TJ herself.


|...Protestanism ...Catholicism. are so different. Did one "grow out 
|of" the other or did a bunch of Catholics REVOLT?   A bunch of 
|Catholics revolted and threw out every single Dionysian AND feminine 
|idea that the other had.  Catholics because a syncretistic religion 
|containing many varied groups of ethnic people combining native 
|folklore with the Mary first and Jesus second mytheme and hundreds 
|of Saints. Here one can clearly see two TYPES OF PEOPLE that split 
|away from each other. Easy going, flowing, joyful types in the 
|Catholic groups versus Victorian ethic, work-ethic, joyless types in 
|the Protestant group. ...Catholic clergy were truly learned men at 
|the time with access to ancient doctrines and books and capable of 
|speaking Greek and Latin.  Protestant clergy came out of the bohunk 
|variety of backwoods farmer, uneducated and stupid. 

More support for the laughing Satanists who think that 'organized
religion' is an oxymoron and that the silly feuding between the
CoSatanists and ToSatanists is a reproduced pattern found in most
religious fractionalization (exemplifying the needs for an organization
more inclusive and one attempting to find something better).


[lots more wonderful text about 'facts' omitted]
|...when Anton LaVey says, "This Diabolicon is like the Books of Mormon 
|or the Necronomicon of Lovecraft" he means what is obvious: the book 
|is tomfoolery, fakery, crackpot Mormonism or pure fantasy invention 
|as Lovecraft did which only crackpots would believe is real....

Interpretation is where this debate turns and shifts.  It is part and
parcel of Western religion to interpret phenomena from the standpoint
of one's self and one's identified tribe.  Only LaVey can say what
LaVey meant, even if he lies about it later.  Only Aquino can say what
Aquino understood, even if he lies about it later.

Treating scriptures of other people as tomfoolery, fakery and crackpotism
may have its advantages.  Perhaps this is another of the values demon-
strated by Satanists: the ability to ridicule and separate oneself from
religious identity while intentionally clinging to its structure as it
manifests within our lives (compare this with Zen Buddhists burning 
statues of the Buddha or the Taoists who smell tao in their feces).

Treating scriptures of ONE'S OWN in the same manner, in a time and place
according to our desire, can also be of benefit, and is perhaps the
most obvious indicator of consistent Satanism.


|...this needs to finally be told, set straight, and made more than
|clear without resort to flaming.

Hehehe, well you've made your attempt and a good one.  You offer letters
in a manner not unlike those of Paul to the various peoples of his day,
exposing them to knowledge and opinions perhaps otherwise unrepresented
to their ears.  You initiate a herd-movement of intellect within the
forum this appears, only occasionally pointing toward the objectivism
and empiricism of the Hard-Science with which you wish to associate.

My review of your documents continues next post.

tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com
nocTifer
-------- copyright 1996 tyagi nagasiva