Comments on: Spreading the word on satanism

By: martin de winter

martin de winter — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:55:35 +0000

i totally appreciate this article. funny i only discovered it today. i appreciate it for the fact that i am indeed a laveyist. i have been called a satanist my whole life (without being one) for my love of music, art and anything different. i cant recall a single time whilst growing up that i even considered the devil as a god and i still dont. my decision to become a laveyist was out of anger and doubt in what i see as a merciless christian god. truth be told the “evil” religion is what made me grow as a person and also made me stronger and in a sense more respectful to others (if they are worthy). i think that people have been placed in boxes for too long and yes it is my human right to choose not to be in that christian box. i urge people to do research on this belief system and most will be suprized with what they discover. thank you

By: Pepper-Spraying Streakers at Shofar

Pepper-Spraying Streakers at Shofar — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 07:51:47 +0000

[...] I certainly support religious freedom. It’s the only way. And I’m glad it sounds like Shofar does the same. Though, I can’t help but wonder how many Shofarians took part in the mass hysteria that led to the firing of the reporter Deon Maas, when he wrote a column campaigned for religious freedom? (For those people not aware of that event, I’ve found an English translation of the column that got him fired.) [...]

By: Thomas Wood

Thomas Wood — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 09:30:15 +0000

This article doesn’t really appreciate the fact that “Satanism” is not an organised movement. Despite what many think I doubt very much that there are shady groups of hooded satanists sacrificing kittens to the devil. If you’re talking about the late Anton LaVey and the church of Satan then that is altogether different. LaVey did not believe in the devil or the supernatural. He believed that Satan represented a counterbalance to the faux selflessness of Judeo-Christian morality. The Church of Satan was established in the late 60′s in SanFrancisco slap-bang in the middle of the summer of love. It should be properly understood as a product of the sexual revolution, a response to the stifling moral certitude of middle America. There were plenty of other strange groups in SanFrancisco at the time who wanted to justify sexual self-indulgence. The Church of Satan was just one of those. They were hippies and hardly scary satanists. The kind of ‘satanism’ practised by this girl in Pretoria is an expression of teenage angst that is unique in Christian communities. During the 90′s it was commonplace to find satanic graffitti and tales of satanic cults in the mass media. Much evidence has come to light that this ‘satanic panic’ was utter nonsense. It should certainly not constitute a crime, but neither should it be considered a religion in any conventional sense. I very much doubt that the Church of Satan has an outlet in Pretoria North!

By: Mandrake

Mandrake — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 06:58:11 +0000

Good point, but we have one of the most stiff-headed societies and people like the comfort that their ignorence provides them.

But then again i’m still afraid of burning at the end of satan’s trident…

By: Richard Catto

Richard Catto — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 04:52:00 +0000

I’m talking to Deon Maas (whose words I quoted) AND I’m talking to ANYONE who thinks having a prohibition on drugs is a good idea.

It is a singularly bad idea. If you don’t understand that, it’s because you haven’t paid any attention in class.