Zaftig Works

Hawaii Conference

06 Jan 2012 Leave a Comment

by Zaftig in Church of Satan, Research, The Religious Studies

I will present my paper, “Death and Dying in the Satanic Worldview” at the Hawaii International Conference on Arts and Humanities this week. Click on the photo to view full program details.

On the itinerary are watching lectures, blowing off other lectures, lounging on the beach, snorkeling, hiking a volcano, sleeping in, lounging by the pool, attending a luau, drinking at Tiki bars, mailing postcards to make people jealous (jealous, oh so jealous!), and finally, applying sunscreen, thickly and often. How do you say “academia score!” in Hawaiian?

Santa Satan and Stuff

22 Dec 2011 Leave a Comment

by Zaftig in Church of Satan, Research, The Religious Studies

Grad school and civilian life have saturated my time this semester, so the posts here have been meager. But in keeping with my chosen area of “expertise” (that is, my prime area of academic interest is Satanism, specifically the Church of Satan), here are a few interesting updates on popular depictions of the Church of Satan.

To begin, the following article by TMZ titled, “Church of Satan: Tim Tebow’s Delusional … BUT IT’S WORKING“. This short piece is concerned with the recent attention received by Tim Tebow, an athlete in the midst of football winning season, who attributes his team’s winning streak to a direct link to God’s favour. TMZ, most likely assuming that they would get a response pitting God versus Satan, contacted by email the Church of Satan for commentary on Tebow’s position as a divinely blessed athlete. Peter H. Gilmore, the high priest of the Church of Satan, instead provided commentary on how useful the idea of a god can be to one with talent and drive. Full article below, comments in brackets are my own:

God is not helping Tim Tebow … this according to a rep for The Church of Satan [Small correction: throughout this text the reporter presents Gilmore as a representative, that is, one of many. But more accurately he is the sole high priest.].

But there is a devilish twist … the rep tells us Tim’s faith COULD actually play a significant role in his success on the field.

TMZ spoke [emailed] with Magus Peter H. Gilmore — a [the] high priest in the Church — who tells us it doesn’t make sense to say God is helping Tim win games … because that would mean God’s actively making other teams lose … and why would God do that?

But what does make sense is Tebow’s mental state — Gilmore tells us, “Those who have a winning attitude tend to do better, and whatever fuels such team spirit, be it religious fervor or simply an overwhelming desire to succeed, is the real source for success.”

Gilmore adds, “Satanists are atheists, and we would consider any triumph to rely on a combination of skill and luck – most certainly not in any form of supernatural intervention from either Heaven or Hell.”

Gilmore highlights the Church of Satan’s atheistic worldview, but with the additional qualifier that the notion of divine interference helps mentally. That is, fervently believing that you are divinely gifted can enhance your performance. The idea of a god is a tool. A tool to be used to achieve your goals. It is a theistic twist on having a positive attitude that helps with winning, as any sports psychologist will insist.

Another tidbit of popular representations of the Church of Satan comes from the comedian John Hodgman – entertainer, Daily Show correspondent, the “PC Guy” from the Apple adverts, and author of the book, That is All. Promoting his book on the Craig Ferguson show, Hodgman details his correspondence with the Church of Satan.

There is a fantastic essay by Anton LaVey titled, “The Whoopie Cushion Shall Rise Again”, from The Devil’s Notebook, which speaks to the emphasis on humour within the Satanic worldview. In it, LaVey concludes:

“Too long have curses and anger been wasted on deserving victims whose most devastating insecurities could be brought forth by a harmless practical joke — one which a more secure person would accept with mild annoyance at worst and amusement at best. Those who deserve ridicule have been living in a climate that provides relative immunity while their pomposity has gone unchallenged and even encouraged. Satanists are anathema to the pious, the sanctimonious, and the hypocritical. They should also be the nemeses of the pompous. Satanists — Atten-shun! Right shoulder Whoopie Cushions!To the rear — harch!”

I am not surprised that the Church of Satan championed Hodgman’s sense of humour. Many times I have come across Satanic literature that laments self-righteous and sanctimonious attitudes. Life is serious enough. Find humour wherever you can.

Finally, the Church of Satan has recently updated their online presence with a Tumblr News Feed, and an Official Church of Satan Facebook Page. There are many FB pages claiming to be the Church of Satan – none are in any way affiliated with the CoS except the one linked here.

As far as popular representations of the Church of Satan go, the past month has demonstrated some rather accurate portrayals. Internet feedback being what is it, grossly uninformed or downright ridiculous commentary is always present. It cannot be avoided, but it can be relegated to the category of essentially useless data.

To conclude, in the spirit of the season – that is, gluttony and greed and sloth, those wonderfully indulgent mortal sins – Merry Christmas!

Satanism Conference

29 Sep 2011 Leave a Comment

by Zaftig in Church of Satan, Research, The Religious Studies

This past weekend Stockholm University hosted a Conference on Satanism:

Satanism is a subject that has always drawn a lot of media attention
as well as interest from the general public. Scholarly studies of the
subject, however, have more often focused on socially constructed “Satanic Panics” than on Satanism as a religious alternative in itself. Recently, this has begun to change, and anthologies such as “Contemporary Religious Satanism” (Ed. Jesper A Petersen, Ashgate, 2009) have started to fill the gaps in scholarly knowledge concerning Satanism. A further attempt to remedy the situation was made when the first ever international scholarly conference on Satanism was organized in Trondheim, Norway, in 2009. The conference was a great success, and resulted in an anthology that will be published by Oxford University Press later this year. In September 2011, we welcome you to Stockholm, Sweden for the follow-up to 2009′s gathering of specialists.

Keynote speaker: Marco Pasi

Unfortunately, I could not attend. I had heard about it a little too late to submit a paper and then collect the funds. In two years there will be another one, and I will plan ahead of time. Rarely will I get an opportunity to be exposed (or even present my research) to other scholars working on the same topic, albeit with different foci. Hashing out ideas among peers is the best way for any scholar to hone their analytical skills, force you to become more precise, concise, and clear, and to readjust your positions if the evidence suggests it necessary. Some of my classmates/colleagues tend to shy away from academic debate, but I have always welcomed it. The true challenge for any scholar is to consider different perspectives, and when you disagree, to ask yourself if you fully understand what it is you oppose? And why? Academic conferences are one of the few places where scholars can voice ideas in progress, receive feedback, and ultimately produce more critical work.

I’m coming for you guys in 2013!

Feminist Hermeneutics Are Somehow Not As Titillating

06 Jun 2011 Leave a Comment

by Zaftig in Church of Satan, Research, The Religious Studies

Derek Abma, from Canada.com, was also in contact with me regarding my research. He asked for a spokesperson from within the Church of Satan. Since I cannot ethically provide that information, I informed him that he must ask the Church of Satan administrators directly. I also sent an email to the administrators informing them that I had spoken with Mr. Abma. I do not know if direct contact was ever made. Mr. Abma’s piece here contains an interview from Scott Robb, a self-identified Satanist from the Canadian-based Satanist Church.

He is, however, not a member of the Church of Satan.

In order to help explain what this means, I will reprint a section of my study’s methodological approach:

My initial research into the Church of Satan began in 2006 with a short paper designed to illustrate the inherent problems in conducting Internet research on New Religious Movements [NRMS]; inconsistencies, contradictions, schisms, mudslinging, inaccuracies, and inflammatory accusations from journalists, ex-members, anti-cult groups, and various critics of NRMs all contributed to a murky and overwhelming area of research. There are scarce academic sources for reference on the CoS, and the few existing scholarly works are surface studies based on Satanic Literature, Internet research, and pan-Satanism sources (Lewis 2001, Petersen in Lewis and Petersen 2005). The Church of Satan website, commenting on James R. Lewis’ efforts at Internet research for a “Census of Satanism”, states that, “we think it worthwhile that true Satanists should steer clear” as Lewis involves other groups that self-identity as Satanists that are unrecognized by the Church of Satan (Church of Satan, Pages/News44, 2010). There are a number of these disparate groups that self-identity as Satanists. The great majority of these factions are theistic Satanists, that is, they believe in the existence of a spiritual Satanic entity. As such, they are diametrically opposed to the atheistic stance of the Church of Satan, which views Satan as a symbol and as a metaphor for how they see themselves. As far as my research has ascertained, theistic Satanists are primarily (although not exclusively) active on the Internet, as opposed to physical assembly, have several unorganized divisions with multiple nuances of how the entity of Satan is perceived and understood, and have ephemeral philosophies that are influenced by the writings of Anton Szandor LaVey and other occult authors (Lewis 2001, xiv). As such, the various theistic Satanic groups are omitted from this paper because their understanding of ritual, death, and the afterlife is then atypical of members of the Church of Satan.

Scholars of New Religions Movements (such as James R. Lewis), as well as theistic Satanists, have tended to refer to the Church of Satan as LaVeyan Satanism to distinguish it from theistic Satanism (2001, xiii-xiv). It is, however, significant to note that members of the Church of Satan do not self-identify as LaVeyan Satanists but simply as Satanists. Since the Church of Satan was the first organized Satanic religion, founded and based on the book The Satanic Bible by Anton Szandor LaVey (first published in 1969), the members of the Church deride the need to use labels applied by external social scientific categories or their theistic Satanic detractors (Gilmore in Shankbone 2007).

Current High Priest of the Church of Satan, Peter H. Gilmore, explains, “We don’t think [theistic Satanists] are Satanists. They are devil worshippers, as far as I’m concerned” (Quoted in Shankbone 2007). Perhaps more delicately phrased, the Church of Satan concludes that since they were first to codify Satanism as a religion, they hold the rights to the moniker of Satanist and the strong symbolism and responsibilities attached to the label. As James R. Lewis writes in his book Satanism Today: An Encyclopedia of Religion, Folklore, and Popular Culture,

“However one might criticize and depreciate it, The Satanic Bible is still the single most influential document shaping the contemporary Satanist movement. Whether LaVey was a religious virtuoso or a misanthropic huckster, and whether The Satanic Bible was an inspired document or a poorly edited plagiarism, their influence was and is pervasive” (xiv).

For these reasons, within this essay the terms Satanism, Satanic, and Satanist will refer solely to members of the official Church of Satan, as established by Anton Szandor LaVey, and systematized in the prime text, The Satanic Bible.

Mr. Robb claims to be an ex-member of the Church of Satan, and left to begin his own church. Given that my study included solely Church of Satan literature and interviews, I cannot vouch for Robb’s statements as I have not studied pan-Satanism. I do not protest Mr. Robb’s inclusion in the piece, but I do object that it is unclear that my study is outside the auspices of Mr. Robb’s comments. It is the equivalent of asking a Baptist to comment on Catholic dogma. Although I fully understand that journalists who are not engaged in the academic study of religion would not necessarily be able to distinguish this nuance.

I have written many papers on differing topics over the years, none as titillating as the Church of Satan, and I am aware why this “sensational” topic garners so much attention. There is a certain, understandable, journalistic salivation surrounding this whole thing. Part of me chuckles at the thought of asking reporters if they want to hear my comparative analysis of medieval exegetes and contemporary feminist hermeneutics on the book of Esther. Somehow I doubt that that conversation would make it into print.

CNN Coverage: On The Importance of Precise Terms

05 Jun 2011 1 Comment

by Zaftig in Church of Satan, Research, The Religious Studies

CNN has picked up the story, and rewrote their own piece. This reporter/blogger (Eric Marrapodi) has clearly actually read the original study. Refreshing.

I realize just how much of an academic I have become as I read through the viral internet commentary. For instance, Marrapodi uses the term “faith” to describe Satanism. This is an inaccurate use of the term. I do not mean to accuse Marrapodi of negligence, as he obviously did his homework. I am simply stating how much my own perspective has changed regarding the precise use of terms; my training has cemented the fact that I must use exact, clear, and appropriate terms for my study. “Faith” is inaccurate because there are no base presuppositions that Satanists are required to believe; there is no extraordinary claim that requires faith. There is simply a statement that, in all likelihood, there is no god, no devil, and no spiritual dimensions to humankind. I could not apply the term theology either, as there is no theos.

Dogma, philosophy, and that wonderful polyvalent social scientific word, worldview, are more appropriate to apply to Satanism.

If I have had seven years of higher education (so far, many more to come) wherein professors push you to become better by being critical, explicit, meticulous, and make absolutely certain that your claims are unambiguous, well defined, and properly supported, I realize just how much of a nitpicking snob I can be when I read misuse of terms, even when I have no other issues with the text; the CNN piece is fair and balanced and well written. Bravo.

Considering that I am a person who has lived in places with no plumbing, that I dropped out of high school at 14, and worked full-time as a nanny for a decade, I am constantly surprised as how my person has changed and become something entirely unexpected; from welfare brat to this bizarre place wherein my cloistered study in an area few people even knew existed is now on CNN’s website. Life is funny like that.

Satanists Are Not Victims: More Commentary On My Publication

04 Jun 2011 Leave a Comment

by Zaftig in Church of Satan, Research, The Religious Studies

“Our religion does not require martyrs.”

— High Priestess of the Church of Satan, Peggy Nadramia

As I am weeding through the Internet media that have picked up the Concordia NOW news release, several sites have renamed the title, “Sympathy for the Devil”, to something akin to “Satanists are Victims of Prejudice”, and paraphrasing Beth Lewis’ text to emphasize that Satanists do not reveal their affiliation for fear of consequences.

That is true. That Satanists decry themselves to be victims of prejudice however, is decidedly not true. Satanists are fully aware that their name and symbolism is ill-understood, and refrain from openly divulging affiliation based on the reality of this. They categorically reject notions of grand ideals of universal acceptance.

Satanic literature and commentary from Satanists themselves clearly reject any notion of victim mentality. Administrators stress that membership is kept in strict confidence, and individuals who wish to divulge their affiliation are acting alone, as evangelism is not a requirement. “Satanism is not a cause,” states High Priest Peter H. Gilmore (churchofsatan.com/pages/politics). Individuals who wish to represent the Church publicly in media are free to apply to the central office, but no member is mandated to openly defend Satanism. It would be considered unSatanic to argue for Satanism if that act caused undesired consequences (loss of employment, social ostracization, etc.).

I bring this up because no where in my original study does it use the word victim – to do so would be to misrepresent Satanism – although I admit that I did not expand on this topic a great deal. So noted for future works.

This whole experience of having my work – which was insular, unknown, and specific to only me and my few supervisors for a long period of time – be spread across the Internet, even only minimally, is certainly a learning opportunity. It demonstrates how information plays that child-birthday-party game of “telephone”, where an original work is morphed and mutated into something entirely different: emphases added or omitted, texts misquoted, sentences taken out of context, etc. In the social sciences, we observe this phenomena throughout the ages, through the lens of a somewhat detached academic. Our training includes the mandate to “go to the source”. The closer to the source, the better the chance of unveiling the original meaning. This original meaning is not necessarily the “truer” meaning, in the theological sense, but more a method to track the evolution of ideas throughout time and locations. Older manuscripts contain references to the time and circumstances in which they were produced, and later copies have altered translations, either subtly or overtly. Scriptural analysis is designed to figure out the motivations for these changes. Could it be scribal error in translation or intentional change to emphasize a contemporary concern? It is precise and intricate work.

I wonder, in a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand years, if there are such things as “ancient” Internet archives, how scholars will weed through the muck of the current overload in information. While social scientists often lament the lack of the popular voice in historical documents, intensely examining surviving texts for small indications of actual hoi polloi opinion (not imposed by the condescending elite), future ones will lament the overwhelming amount of useless popular drivel, and will focus their training on finding a clearly explained and thoughtful text, somewhere out there in this infinite blogosphere.