Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 48
In their summary of the report published in Free Inquiry, Carlson and Lame refer to
Satanism as a „benign” religion which has been “unfairly maligned and much
misunderstood.”26 Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary defines the word “benign”
as signifying “kind ...gracious ...generous ...beneficial.” Satanism fits that description only
in regard to its own members‟ belief that their deity is a good and gracious god --to them.
However, in its outlook on humanity in general, Satanism is essentially misanthropic and
predatory. In the seventh of his “Nine Satanic Statements‟ Anton LaVey declares that
“Satanism represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than
those that walk on afl-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual
development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!”27 In other words, according to
LaVey, the hallmarks of our humanity -our reason and self-awareness -serve only to mark
us as vicious, predatory beasts whose aim in life should be to dominate others. Nowhere in
any of the “satanic literature” is there any statement acknowledging the existence of human
rights, whether natural or “God- given.” Satanists believe in “rights” only for the satanic
“elite.” The “legitimate” Satanist “churches” must avoid outright violence and illegality, as
well as exhortations to same, in order to stay in business. But their philosophies clearly
demonstrate an “us-versus-them” mentality in the form of contempt for, and hostility
towards, non-satanists.
The CSER report claims that the “modem era” of Satanism was inaugurated in this country
in 1966 with the founding of Anton LaVey‟s Church of Satan.28 Even if this rather arbitrary
assertion is true, it no more grants LaVey the right to establish the definition of “Satanism”
than does a similar Johnny-come-lately position entitle the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
Day Saints to rewrite the definition of Christianity. The report, however, blithely assumes
that it does -and then proceeds to contradict itself as it lists the following tenets and
conditions of “Satanism”:
1. Satan is the symbol of rebellion against authority inverted anti-Christianity
associated with the Black Mass is not practiced. In fact, the Church of Satan
disbelieves in the existence of the Christian Devil.29
“Rebellion against authority” is a broad term capable of both praiseworthy and sinister
applications. The irrationalist in Dostoesky‟s Notes from the Underground declares, “What
do I care for the laws of nature and arithmetic, when, for some reason, I dislike those laws
and the fact that twice two makes four?” This, too, is “rebellion against authority” -the
authority of reality -and it is essentially this sort of rebellion that is practiced by the
followers of LaVey and Aquino.
In regard to the Black Mass, it has indeed been performed in the Church of Satan, and
LaVey‟s The Satanic Rituals contains a full-length Messe Noir. Michael Aquino notes that
LaVey explains in the Satanic Bible that the purpose of a Black Mass ritual is to:
purge participants or onlookers of any conditioned fears they may have as a
consequence of old superstitions or indoctrinations. Once he has seen his
sacred cows trampled upon with impunity, he will never feel quite the same
about them again, no matter how artificial he recognizes the desecration to
be.30
Lest we confuse this process with harness “psychodrama,” Aquino then goes on to discuss
“an excellent example of a “Black Mass” technique in George Orwell‟s 1984, wherein the
magician O‟Brien forces his victim/student Winston Smith to “trample upon the sacred cow”
of his love for Julia,” thereby destroying the “illusion” of that love.31 The fictional O‟Brien is
not the only “magician” to have recognized the effect of such an “initiatory” experience. In
The Informed Heart, Bruno Bettelheim, writing of his experiences in the Nazi death camps,
notes that new prisoners were “initiated” through a pattern of torture, abuse, and
exhaustion intended to traumatize them and break their resistance:

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 49
The guards also forced prisoners to hit one another and to defile what the SS
considered the prisoners‟ most cherished values. They were forced to curse
God, to accuse themselves and one another of vile actions, and their wives of
adultery and prostitution ...any failure to obey an order ...or any help given
a tortured prisoner was viewed as mutiny and swiftly punished by death.32
Are these the beliefs and practices of a “benign” alternative religion? Hardly. Such nihilistic
exhortations are not novel, nor do they lack ambiguity. Indeed, it might be said that the
Satanists and their ilk are attempting to perform a “Black Mass ritual” on our entire
civilization. Church desecrations and heavy metal music may be only portents of what Dr.
Carl Raschke, in his book Painted Black, calls the satanists‟ policy of “cultural terrorism.”
The predatory nature of the abuses reported by Bettelheim are paralleled in the cases of
apparent satanic activity. A taped interview with a teenage girl raped by four of her
teachers, and left unreported because of her family‟s fear, is chilling in its details. She
describes how they ritualistically positioned her, glacially drank in her vulnerability and
terror, appeared to violate her according to a hierarchy of rank, and, when done, viciously
employed a broom handle so violently that it broke! Without a note of concern for their act,
and with an arrogance and confidence borne out by her family‟s silence, they left her where
the violation had taken place.33
CSER‟s report repeatedly claims and implies that no facts exist which can demonstrate a
satanic intent based upon Anton LaVey‟s books, The Satanic Bible and The Satanic Rituals.
The many reports of the presence of these books among the personal belongings of young
criminals is dismissed as coincidence or, at best, a reflection of a curiously anarchistic and
fruitless search. Besides, the report contends, Satan is merely a metaphorical figurehead to
the Satanists and therefore cannot function as the source of a genuine religious impulse. To
demonstrate the inadequacy of this position it is merely necessary to go to the source. Here
is what Michael Aquino, formerly LaVey‟s protégé/colleague, has to say about the Church of
Satan and Satan himself, quoting from the introduction to his religious statement, The Book
of Coming Forth by Night:
In its formative years the Church of Satan took an essentially metaphorical
approach towards the being from whom it took its names. “Satan” was the
term representing, it was thought, simply the principle of carnality. Such
rituals and ceremonies as the Church first celebrated, therefore, were
conceived as illustrative, inspirational, and allegorical. At least, that‟s the way
it all began.
“When he is called,” Eliphas Levi once observed, “the Devil comes and is
seen.” And in that prosaic statement lies a truth whose implications challenge
the rational constructs of the most exacting intellects. The one common
feature to all the gods of all the nations of history, it may be said, is that they
do not come and are not seen.
Satan, however, did come to the Church of Satan -first as the faintest of
atmospheres in its ceremonies, and ultimately as a metaphysical presence
whose expression of being was awesome, exhilarating -the very fire of life to
those who took his name as a part of their own and called themselves
Satanists.34
Such “sacred” revelations were not, of course, to be shared with the “profane.” So while
LaVey continued to preach the gospel of symbolism to the ignorant masses, the Church of
Satan‟s select” inner circle hugged their secret to their bosoms:
Satan is the symbol of the self, then, as it should be within the Satanist. But
this symbolism is only part of the truth, because man‟s very ability to think