Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 50
and act in disregard of the “balancing factor” of the Universe necessitates a
source for that ability. And that source is thus the intelligence that made the
Church of Satan far more than an exercise in psychodramatic narcissism. It is
the intelligence of what mankind has personified as the Prince of Darkness
himself -no symbol or allegory, but a sentient being. This was the central
“secret” -and the heart -of the Church of Satan. With the irony that so often
accompanies great truths, it was proclaimed in the institution‟s very title yet
in its simplicity it confronted such a massive psychological block in the minds
of even some of the most dedicated Satanists that it remained unnamed and
unacknowledged. In the discussions and debates which regularly surfaced, it
would be referred to obliquely and in hesitant tones. Eventually Anton and I
spoke openly to one another about it, but only at times and in places of
sacred significance to us.35
So much for the CSER report‟s contention that Satanists do not worship Satan.
It is true that church and cemetery desecration might be the product of merely rebellious
teenagers. But repeated incursions into a Pennsylvania Catholic church, noteworthy for the
patterned drippings of black candle wax around an impromptu bed, violations of the altar
and tabernacle, “calling cards” of amulets, books, and an altar stone stolen from another
church, point toward more design and intent than one would expect from a drunkenly
spontaneous group of young “rebels.”36 Is it not reasonable, then, to deduce that an
adolescent perpetrator of an act of extreme violence is probably acting out, no matter how
indirectly, an act of Satanically inspired predation?
To continue with the CSER report‟s assertions:
2. A large percentage of the membership consists of mail-order members, about whom
the groups‟ [sic] administration knows little and over whom they have no control
(e.g., a teenager who scrawls Satanic graffiti and claims to be a member of the
Church of Satan is acting without the group‟s knowledge or sanction). Members who
are found to be breaking the law and who are more closely associated with the
Church of Satan than being simply a mail-order member are expelled.37
This statement raises more questions than it answers. If this policy is characteristic of the
Church of Satan, what, then, are we to make of the Temple of Set -headed by Michael
Aquino, a former Church of Satan leader -which takes pains to contact and supervise even
its isolated “mail-order” members and requires extensive correspondence and participation?
Does this put the Temple of Set outside the definition of “Satanism?” And if a kid with a
Church of Satan mad-order membership desecrates a church but doesn‟t get caught, does
that mean he is still technically a “real” Satanist because he is, after all, a member of a
“recognized” satanic church? Or that “closely associated” Church of Satan members are
“real Satanists” until they get caught breaking the law and are expelled? Are members of
non-public, non-Church of Satan-affiliated groups “true Satanists” so long as they don‟t
break the law?
The report parrots the claim of LaVey and Aquino that a “real” Satanist would never commit
a heinous crime such as human sacrifice. Anton LaVey claims that his Satanic Bible
expressly forbids actual human sacrifice and therefore cannot be cited as an influence on
Satanism-fixated people who kill. However, LaVey himself seems a bit cavalier about how
literally that admonition is to be taken. In an interview published in the August 10, 1986,
edition of the Los Angeles Herald Examiner, LaVey was asked about an instruction in The
Satanic Rituals calling for a human arm or leg bone, which is to be waved about in the
course of one of the rites. “I figured people would get the bone someplace other dm by
Hling a person. But if they‟re going to kill, I hope they at least get a deserving victim,”
LaVey cracked.38 Lest this be excused as a mere slip of his tongue, in an interview in the

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 51
“Modem Primitives” issue of Research LaVey elaborates on his view that those he deems
“stupid” should be “put to the flamethrower, regardless of race.” “Satan knows we sure
need a good thinning-out process,” LaVey fulminates. “Every time there‟s a disaster... I
start tallying things up and wondering not that it was such a tragedy, but wondering only,
“So few? Is that all?”39
3. The total number of Satanists, people who are recognized by one of the Satanic
churches as being a member is most likely to be between 10,000 and 100,000 in the
U.S.40
This example of CSER‟s scientific precision, with its 90% margin of error, is used to defend
the notion that Satanism is a well-established alternative religion. From where, however, do
they derive these figures, and how are they documented? Just what constitutes a
“recognized Satanic church?” Are they limiting this to the Church of Satan and Temple of
Set and claiming these groups can boast a combined membership in the tens of thousands?
Or are they including neo-Nazi, Church of Satan-affiliated groups such as the Abraxas
Foundation and the Werewolf Order? Furthermore, cults are notorious for inflating estimates
of their membership for publicity purposes, and Aquino claims in his book The Church of
Satan that LaVey did so regularly. Yet, while the report‟s authors blithely attack the
opponents of Satanism for inflating their figures on sacrifice, breeders, and occult-related
crime in general, they accept these grandiose figures without comment.
In short, CSER‟s attempt to define Satanism fails because it too neatly circumscribes the
issue and applies only to a very few selected cases. A proper definition must incorporate the
essentials of a given concept. For example, the essential defining factor of Christianity is the
belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ. It is not equated with the peculiar tenets of any given
Christian sect. There is absolutely no justification for claiming that the assertions of Anton
LaVey or Michael Aquino constitute the definition of “Satanism” or are valid for anything
outside of their respective sects. They are certainly not grounds for discarding 2,000 years
of common usage. CSER‟s re-defining of the ten-n crates a floating straw man and a red
herring.
Error Number Three: The Empirical Evidence
Working off this “definition,” the report claims that there are no substantiated cases of
Satanism-inspired murder. Here they are in disagreement with, to give just one example,
the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which in August 1986 upheld the conviction of self-
proclaimed Satanist Scott Waterhouse for the strangulation murder of 12-year-old Gycelle
Cote. The appeal had centered on the prosecution‟s disclosure of Waterhouse‟s satanic
beliefs. In the course of the trial, the state introduced into evidence portions of Anton
LaVey‟s The Satanic Bible. In a tape-recorded conversation played at the trial, Waterhouse
stated that Satanism represents the darker side of humanity and urges indulgence of man‟s
carnal needs rather than abstinence, which certainly sounds like an accurate presentation of
key features of LaVey‟s philosophy. The appeals court concluded that:
As to identity, the evidence described above demonstrates that as a believer
in Satanism, defendant could view commission of the heinous crime involved
in this case as a means of achieving “physical, mental or emotional
gratification.” Similarly, he could believe that a demonstration of strength by
total domination of a weaker person would bring “reverence among men” at
the expense of one who, being weak, deserved his fate. It was for the jury to
decide whether such motivations were actually at work in this case, but the
evidence of satanic beliefs is certainly probative of motive and, therefore, of
the identity of the perpetrator ...On the issue of intent ...the consistency
between the circumstances of the crime and Satanism‟s emphasis on sex
[Waterhouse had masturbated over the body], destruction and denigration of