Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 42
The entire topic of Satanic belief, Satanic religious practices and ritual crime
is an abyss of bigotry and ignorance because of thousand-year-old
superstitions and misunderstanding. Satanism has reached the limelight, and
remained there, because of religious arrogance and intolerance through which
tiny bubbles of truth must perilously percolate [sic] if they are to break onto
the surface of the public mind. Hopefully, this report will be one of those
bubbles and, undoubtedly, this exposed will be quite controversial.1
It should be controversial, but not merely for its audacity. Indeed, the report‟s third
impressive trait is its most important one -its pretentiousness. This shows through in many
ways. The first is its claim to objectivity and scholarship. The second is the moral
indignation it assumes when attacking those who attempt to address satanist influences.
The third reflection of the authors‟ pretensions is clearly discernible in the manner of their
attack on specific individuals: they use a blatant argumentum ad hominem approach rather
than a coherent dissection of the claims of specific individuals. In the process, they
misquote some sources, fail to verify others, and falsely expand their few accurate charges
to include people who are not guilty of the errors alleged by the report. This mode of attack
pervades the report and is accompanied by an equally pervasive, and equally shoddy, strain
of pseudologic.
The CSER report addresses a wide array of categories, people, incidents and statements. To
justify their selection, the authors of the report, and the authors of two of the three
appendices, cite the analytic tool known as Ockham‟s Razor. “Ockham‟s Razor,” the report
states, “is a rule that is used in science, and many other endeavors, that helps sort the
truth from nonsense. It stipulates that when several explanations could explain a SCA of
facts, the one that is most likely to be true is the explanation that is simplest.”2 The authors
then provide us with what amounts to their analytic theme. Emphasizing the importance of
their views by the use of italics, they declare: “Never attribute to international Devil-
worshipping conspiracies what opportunism, emotional instability and religious bigotry are
sufficient to explain.”3 This statement claims the mantle of scientific precision, introduces a
powerful straw man -“international Devil-worshipping conspiracies” -and, in a particularly
scurrilous implication, declares that all concerns about Satanism merely reflect
“opportunism, emotional instability and religious bigotry.”4 This audacious assertion is more
clearly emphasized in the report‟s Abstract. After informing the reader that Gerry O‟Sullivan
“investigated the backgrounds” of those whom the report challenges, the Abstract states:
In addition to presenting an analysis of the allegations made by conspiracy
theory advocates, this report also documents the insanity, severe emotional
problems of some, the thinly disguised extremist Christian agenda of others,
the opportunism of a few and the self-guilt purging crusade of the rest. The
anti- Satanism hysteria that is sweeping the country is being fueled by people
for whom facts have little meaning. They invent “facts” to try and [sic]
marshal the public‟s support on the side of unreason.5
Such extraordinary use of the ad hominem tactic serves the report s need to avoid logical
debate. An examination of the analytic tool, Ockham‟s Razor, explains why the report rests
upon such polemical tactics rather than honest debate.
Ockham‟s Razor derives from the logical principles developed by William of Ockham during
the early fourteenth century. His attempt to revise the assumptions underlying medieval
realism in no way encompassed the report‟s rejection of fact, evidence, and analytic reason.
Ockham‟s effort: .presupposed and was based on the principle that the human mind can
directly apprehend existent individuals and their sensible qualities, and that it can also
directly apprehend its own acts.”6 Ockham should be seen, and used, not as a grammatical
impediment to due investigation, but in the service of a true .economy of ontological

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 43
commitment” through which extraneous arguments are bypassed. This did not imply any
denial of facts or truth. It encouraged reliance on logically grounded assumptions and facts
“established by evident experience or evident reasoning.” The CSER report violates this
insistence on fact and reason. A few examples of their ad hominem approach will illustrate
its deficiencies.
Ad Hominem Approach of CSER
1. On page 22 of the report, the authors declare that retired police Captain Dale Griffis
“claims that nationwide 50,000 children and teens are killed annually during satanic
human sacrifice rituals.” [Emphasis theirs.] In a telephone conversation, followed by a
written confirmation, Captain Griffis acknowledged having played a taped report by
another investigator, which included this claim, during a conference in Buffalo, New
York. This conference is the one cited by CSER. Griffis pointed out, however, that his
comments about the tape strongly challenged the 50,000 figure. What he said at the
conference was that such figures require validation, and that none is available. However,
the CSER source, a Buffalo reporter, did not even attend the conference. The report also
places Griffis at a 1989 conference sponsored by the organization Bothered About
Dungeons and Dragons (B.A.D.D.), at which time he allegedly repeated his remark
about the 50,000 sacrifices. In point of fact, Griffis had cancelled his appearance at that
conference due to an injury and had remained at home on the advice of his physician.
2. Also on page 22, Patricia Pulling, founder of B.A.D.D., is quoted as having claimed that
“the number of Satanic sacrifices could be as many as 10,000 sacrifices per year -
perhaps more. We have no way of knowing.” [Emphasis theirs.] What is left out is the
tone of that interview. Pulling says that her statement was made during an exchange in
which she was emphasizing the dangers of exaggeration, and that it was with a
demeanor provoked by frustration, incredulity, and satirical defiance that she pointed
out to CSER‟s source, reporter Rex Springston, that no one could answer his pointedly
loaded questions about the number of satanic sacrifices. As Pulling recalls, her answer
was along the lines of, “How should I or anyone else know? There could be 10 or there
could be 10,000. We am dealing with a clandestine activity. We have no way of knowing
the exact numbers.” This is a far cry from claiming 10,000 or more sacrifices per year.
And, Pulling adds, no one from CSER contacted her before reprinting Springston‟s
account of the story. (Nor, to the best of our knowledge, did CSER bother to contact any
of the other individuals whom their report attacks. They did, however, see fit to send a
draft of the report to Michael Aquino, high priest of the satanist Temple of Set, and
invite his comments on their work -which were extensive and, not surprisingly,
laudatory.)
3. The reports comments on Maury Terry, author of The Ultimate Evil, combine all its
polemical tactics in one concerted attack. On page 96, the report asserts that Terry used
“strangely interpreted evidence” and egregious leaps of logic.” It also maligns Terry‟s
use of what it calls experts with dubious opinions and affiliations.” The report claims that
Terry was sued by the Ordo Templi Orientis (O.T.O.) over comments he made about that
organization in his book, The Ultimate Evil, and that the case was settled out of court.
One of the alleged ten-ns of the settlement was the deletion of all references to the
O.T.O. from future editions. This is simply not true. Terry pointed out in a telephone
conversation that the paperback edition of his book, released in 1989, contains all the
original O.T.O. references. Terry also noted that the CSER report was marked by a
conspicuous absence of comment on the hard evidence presented in the book, much of
which has been borne out by recent developments in the Roy Radin murder case in Los
Angeles.