Recently Julian Karswell, a LaVey-based symbolic Satanist, has posted friendly comments both
here on this blog and
on my LiveJournal blog. I appreciate his friendly attitude, although he and I evidently disagree on many things.
Like many of today's public or semi-public LaVeyans, he seems to see his Satanism primarily in societal and political terms, as an advocacy of political views consistent with LaVey's attitudes. Of course, this implies a definition of "Satanism" itself as "the worldview of Anton LaVey," a definition I staunchly reject.
I was intrigued to come across the following admission
on Julian Karswell's website, regarding one of his societal goals: "This cannot be achieved under the name of Satanism."
In general, I've noticed that LaVeyans (and even some non-LaVeyan Satanists, for that matter) have a knack for picking political agendas which, in most cases, not only "cannot be achieved under the name of Satanism," but which also cannot be achieved without the support of all those right wing Protestant fundamentalist/evangelical Christians who believe that Karl Marx was a Satanist.
This leads me to ask two questions:
1) If your social and political agenda "cannot be achieved under the name of Satanism," then why call it "Satanism" at all?
2) What kind of political or social agenda
could be achieved under the name of Satanism -- or, at least, would
not be significantly hurt by association with the label "Satanism"?
I'll leave it to Julian Karswell, and to any other LaVeyans who happen to be reading this, to try to answer the first question. I'll try to address the second question, which I personally find much more interesting.
To what kind of social or political cause could the figure of Satan, seen in a positive or at least non-negative way, actually be relevant and appropriate in a way that large numbers of people could appreciate?
The only conceivable such cause, in today's world, would be one which calls public attention to the threat posed by the growing power of those religions which believe in a Devil (as a figure of absolute evil), i.e. the more
conservative forms of Christianity and Islam. A successful "Satanism"-related social movement would need to focus on
- and satirically revel in
- the way in which many of the values of modern secular society are vilified by fundamentalists, both Christian and Muslim, as "Satanic." (Sort of like the Church Lady, for those old enough to remember.) It would need to appeal to a significant fraction of the many people who do
not believe in a Devil.
And the vast majority of such people are leftists, liberals, or political moderates. For the most part, they are
not right-wingers. Thus, LaVey's right wing views, on many issues, are completely counterproductive in terms of a social agenda that is, in any way, publicly identified with a label like "Satanism."
By the way, Julian Karswell's campaign "against charities involved in social intervention," if successful at all, is likely to affect primarily secular charities. It is not likely to have much effect on religious charities, especially fundamentalist/evangelical-oriented charities, except perhaps to cause some reshuffling of personnel. Thus, its main social impact would be to strengthen fundamentalism.
P.S., 5/17/2008: Julian apparently lives in the U.K., judging by the U.K. references in many of the posts on his blog. As I'll explain later, it does make sense to me for Satanists
in the U.K. to support what are now considered right wing positions on various issues, such as immigration policy. But things are very different here in the U.S.A. More about this later, probably on my Wordpress.com blog.