Christine O'Donnell's alleged "little midnight picnic on a satanic altar"

Lately, quite a bit of mass media publicity has been given to Christine O'Donnell's claim to have "dabbled into witchcraft" and "had a little midnight picnic on a satanic altar" on one of her first dates.

It is clear that the "witch" she allegedly dated was not a serious practitioner of either Wicca or Satanism. As far as I am aware, no serious practitioner of any variant of Wicca or Satanism would have a picnic on one's altar.

To put her claim into context, we should note her tendency to confuse Satanism with not only Wicca but also rock fan culture. Back in 1997, in the Washington Post (15 June 1997), Christine O'Donnell made some pretty far-fetched claims about the alleged mass popularity of Satanism among young people. (See Remembering Christine O'Donnell: Praising Helms, Missing Lenny and Squiggy, and Worries of Rampant Satanism, Right Wing Watch, September 15, 2010.)

See also more about Christine O'Donnell on one of my other blogs.

P.S.: I just now posted comments (here and here) in reply to some nonsense about Satanism in the comments area of this page about Christine O'Donnell on Crooks and Liars.

How bigotry against Muslims threatens Pagans and Satanists too: an example

The Green Bay Gazette has a Guest column: America needs to have the real debate on Islam, in which one Dan Linssen said the following on August 20, 2010:

When our founding fathers drafted the First Amendment to the Constitution stating "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," they likely viewed religious diversity as variations of the Judeo-Christian theme prevalent throughout Europe and the colonies at the time. But things are much different today.

So, the first question we should be discussing is: Do we really mean "any" religion? Satanism is on the rise in countries like Poland, and it has become so prevalent that its practice is now allowed in the British Royal Navy.

What if the Aztec religion, complete with horrific human sacrifice and its policy of conversion or death, suddenly enjoyed resurgence? What if some religion worshipped a god of fertility and practiced pedophilia?

Do we truly believe Americans should be allowed to practice any religion? If not, we are abandoning a founding tenet of American liberty. And where do we draw the line?

I'm guessing the majority of Americans have limits to what they believe is acceptable as religion. But that's not what we espouse. We need to resolve this dichotomy.

First, "human sacrifice" and child molestation are not allowed under U.S. law, period, not even in the name of religion. Dan Linssen is grossly ignorant of constitutional law if he really thinks these are unsettled questions. He needs to look at, for example, the Supreme Court decision in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993), which ruled on the legality animal sacrifice.

The 1993 Supreme Court ruling held that no law can single out animal sacrifice. But animal sacrifice can still be prosecuted under other, more general laws, e.g. against cruelty to animals, depending on the locale. Thus, animal sacrifice - at least of some species of animals - might be legal in many rural areas, where hunting is allowed and where people are allowed to slaughter their own farm animals, but still illegal in most urban areas. The point is that animal sacrifice must be subject to the same laws that govern animal-killing in general, whatever those laws might be. (See my page about animal sacrifice.)

Laws against murder and child molestation are general. They do not single out any religion. Thus, no religion is allowed to commit these crimes as part of its religious practice.

Be that as it may, the worship of "fertility gods" need not entail "human sacrifice" or child molestation. Nor does it typically involve such activities, at least in today's world. Ditto for Satanism. See the Church of Azazel statement against violent crime and vandalism, for example. There are plenty of law-abiding Pagans, and there are plenty of law-abiding Satanists too.

By the way, the decision by the British Navy to allow a Satanist to practice his religion does not imply that Satanism has become "prevalent" there.

Anyhow, Pagans and Satanists should take note of the following: See how Dan Linssen appears to be using the current wave of anti-Muslim scaremongering to argue that the government should consider taking away our rights too. And indeed, if even the constitutional rights of Muslims can be abridged, then all the more so can the rights of smaller religious minorities. We must stand up for across-the-board religious freedom, limited only by generally applicable laws with a secular purpose.

(Dan Linssen himself seems educable, though. On his blog, he does not come across like a full-blown religious right wing demagogue. However, it is highly likely that plenty of right wing demagogues will be using arguments similar to his in the not-too-distant future.)

More on the definitions of "Satanist" and "Pagan" - response to Chell

In the comments below Hrafnkell's post Are Satanists Pagans?, someone named Chell wrote:

From Diane's post:
"The vast majority do NOT simply accept Christian beliefs except for siding with the Other Guy."
To believe in the "Other Guy," don't you have to accept at least some Christian beliefs? Where is the line drawn on those beliefs, if at all? So for Satan to exist, Christianity must be correct.

Wrong. First, many Satanists are atheists who don't believe in any gods at all, but see Satan as only a symbol. Among theistic Satanists, who do revere Satan as a deity, there are many different theologies. For examples of some of these theologies, see What is Satanism?. See also The varieties of theistic ("traditional") Satanism.

And if it is, Pagan Gods must not be worshipped.

Since when were Satanists noted for retaining Christianity's prohibitions?

Chell has a blog of her own, called "Chell's Roost." In a post titled Is this even possible?, she wrote:

Christianity is considered a monotheistic religion. But a post on Hrafnkell’s blog, a blog linked from there, and some e-mail chitter chatter has me thinking about this. In Christianity, it is believed there is one God. Yet Christians might pray not only to Jesus, but to Mary or saints (some derived from Pagan Gods) the way they pray to God, and might even honor them the way a Pagan might honor a God. This, to me, smacks of worship. How can Jesus or Mary answer a prayer that they cannot hear? And is it not divinity that gives them the ability to hear and answer those who call on them? Even if their divinity comes from their “one” God, that of Pagan Gods does not. To call on a Pagan God, does one not have to first believe in that God, even if he has relabeled her a saint? So do Christians actually worship beyond one God?

First, not all Christians pray to saints. As a general rule, Protestants don't and Catholics do. Furthermore, Catholic theology makes a distinction between "dulia" and "latria." (See the online Catholic Encylcopedia article on dulia.)

My question here is about polytheism. Along with the question on Hrafnkell’s blog about the possibility of a Satanist being a Pagan, can a Christian be a Pagan? That seems a preposterous stretch, like asking if red can be green,

A more interesting question is what Chell thinks of the African diaspora religions and other similar hybrids of Christianity and non-Abrahamic religions. Also, what does Chell think of the Western occult tradition?

Gwydion Tiamat's precaution against hate crimes against Satanists and Pagans - P.S. to my response to Hrafnkell

In a comment beneath my previous post, "Are Satanists Pagans?" - response to Hrafnkell, Hrafnkell posted a link to the Washington Post article A Capital City With The Devil in the Details? by Dan Morse, Wednesday, April 9, 2008; Page C01.

The relevant part, on page 2 of the article, says:

The Washington Monument ... was described by Bay, the South Carolina author, as a filthy, phallic and satanic homage to the god Baal.

Unlikely, said an avowed Satanist from Laurel.

He agreed to meet at the Washington Monument recently, strolling up the Mall in a long black robe and passing through a throng of sun-drenched tourists. A government contracting employee, the 37-year-old spoke on the condition that he be identified only by his satanic name (Gwydion Tiamat). Friends' houses have been firebombed, he said, and they're just pagans.

A husband and father and the director of the East Coast office of the Brotherhood of Satan, he said "a couple of thousand" Satanists live in the Washington area. This is a group that is widely misunderstood, he said: Members don't sacrifice cats; they're not out to hurt people; they simply acknowledge that humans are carnal animals and enjoy the freedoms and indulgences that flow from that understanding. "Having a whole Sara Lee strawberry cheesecake, for example," he said.

And in one sense, he mused, while looking toward the Lincoln Memorial and the infinite regions beyond, McCain is right.

"Satan," said Tiamat, "is everywhere."

I find nothing here contradicting my earlier interpretation of Gwydion Tiamat's remark about his friends who were "just pagans." Again, it seems to me he's saying not that these particular friends of his were also Satanists, but that, if even his Pagan friends' houses got firebombed, then he, as a Satanist, would be in even more danger.

I seriously doubt his estimate of "a couple of thousand" Satanists living in the D.C. area. I think a couple hundred would be more like it, if that many.

There are, after all, far fewer Satanists than modern Pagans, even in anonymous media like Internet forums. I've seen estimates of between half a million and a million modern Pagans in the entire United States. I would not expect the number of Satanists to exceed 5% of the number of modern Pagans, which would give us a maximum of 50,000 Satanists in the entire U.S.A. More likely I would expect there to be between 10,000 and 20,000 Satanists in the entire U.S.A.

The Washington Post article starts out as follows:

Presidential candidate John McCain keeps calling Washington the city of Satan. Turns out he's not alone.

"McCain was right," said David Bay, speaking by phone from Lexington, S.C., where as director of Cutting Edge Ministries he has long asserted that Washington's streets are positioned to usher in Lucifer as "the ultimate master of Government Center."

...

Using Dupont and Logan circles as northern points, Bay instructs, you can trace various interlocking streets to form a demonic pentagram, one that bores directly into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

This is followed by a brief summary of typical anti-Masonic claims, followed by a brief retort from a Mason.

"Are Satanists Pagans?" - response to Hrafnkell

On a Google/Blogger blog called "A Heathen's Day," Hrafnkell wrote a post titled Are Satanists Pagans?, which begins as follows:

The claim made by David Bay, of Cutting Edge Ministries, that the Washington Monument is "a filthy, phallic and satanic homage to the god Baal" is rightfully dismissed by Gwydion Tiamat, a self-professed Satanist. He wisely chose not to go by his given name because, as he says, friends' houses "have been firebombed." And anyway, as he says, "they're just pagans."[1]

Footnote [1] refers to "Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, May 10, 2008, "D.C.: The devil's City?" by Dan Morse. Originally published in the Washington Post" - an offline source, apparently. Anyhow, Hrafnkell goes on to say:

My jaw dropped. Satanists are Pagans?

Are they?

Did Gwydion Tiamat say his friends were Satanists? Or did he perhaps mean to say something like, "Look what happened to my friends who not even Satanists, but just Pagans. All the more so am I in similar danger, as a Satanist"?

Since the source is apparently offline, I can't easily look up the original context to see what was actually meant. Oh, well.

Next, Hrafnkell goes on for a while with the usual Pagan spiel about how Satanism is not Pagan.

Hrafnkell, please read my article What is Satanism? . Note especially the following:

There are many kinds of Satanists.

For most of the past forty years, the most public Satanist spokespeople have been atheistic symbolic Satanists, who do not believe in or worship Satan as a literal entity, but who regard Satan as a symbol of independence, pride, individual ambition, etc. The best-known symbolic Satanist organization is the Church of Satan, founded by Anton LaVey.

There is now a growing movement of theistic Satanists, who do believe in and revere Satan as a deity.

There are many kinds of theistic Satanists. The vast majority do NOT simply accept Christian beliefs except for siding with the Other Guy. The beliefs of most theistic Satanists are based on sources other than just Christianity.

...

Many theistic Satanists are polytheistic and regard both Satan and the Christian "God" as just two of the many gods. Some believe that all the gods, including both Satan and the Christian “God,” are really just very advanced extraterrestrial humanoids. Others are polytheistic in a more traditional spiritual sense.

Hrafnkell, please see also the following articles of mine:

• A Critique of Wiccan and Other Neo-Pagan Disclaimers About Satanism


• Satan and "Evil" in Christianity (and Satanism)


• Is Satanism a "Christian heresy"? Is Satanism "Abrahamic"?


• Is Satanism "Pagan"?


• Isaac Bonewits and "dualism"

I would suggest that you also read other pages in the section To Wiccans and other Pagans and occultists on my Theistic Satanism site. Most of it is addressed to Wiccans, but much of it is relevant to Heathens and other hard-polytheists too.

Laurie Cabot, "expert" on "non-traditional faiths"? - blooper on animal sacrifice

The news story What washed up on the Keansburg beach? by Alyssa Passeggio (Bayshore Courier, New Jersey, U.S.A., May 9, 2008) reports the discovery of animal remains along Keansburg beach, including (1) garbage bags of headless chickens and (2) bones and hooves of deer, goat, or sheep. Cops think these are animal sacrifices and have arrested two Aborishas (Santeria practitioners).

The news story mentions a similar finding last year, on which Laurie Cabot (a well-known modern Pagan Witch) is paraphrased as blaming "a ritual performed by individuals practicing Santeria, San Paulo, Voodon or Satanism."

It's possible she was misquoted. But, if Laurie Cabot really did say "Satanism" or even "Devil worship," then she's utterly wrong.

The vast majority of Satanists, even most theistic Satanists, staunchly reject the idea of animal sacrifice. (See Animal sacrifice and Satanism on my page about Animal Sacrifice on my Theistic Satanism site.)

And the small minority of today's theistic Satanists who perform animal sacrifices would be unlikely to sacrifice chickens, sheep, and goats in particular, for reasons I explain here in my longer post on my LiveJournal blog: Laurie Cabot - willfully ignorant about Satanist views on animal sacrifice?

Anyhow, I also question the cops' claim that the recent New Jersey incident, in particular, has anything to do with a Santeria sacrifice. Garbage bags seem like a very non-traditional - and not very reverent - way to dispose of a sacrifice.