SJK> Balanone: You deleted the mention of the distinction between "modern" and "traditional" Satanism. Why?
Only because it's highly questionable whether there is any "traditional" Satanism. It's fairly easy to track examples of literary Satanism (eg: Huysmans' La Bas), and we can find things which various occultists like Aleister Crowley and Eliphas Levi borrowed from literary Satanism, but there's no reliable evidence that any tradition of Satanism really existed (most people now consider the claims of the Inquisition and related witch hunts to be horribly unreliable). Are you aware of any evidence which has escaped my notice?
SJK> Also, I've never heard of a distinction between "religious" and "philosophical" Satanism. I understand what you are getting at, but (unless I misunderstand what you are saying) a lot of people would classify "philosophical" Satanism as just a different type of religious Satanism.
Philosophical Satanists do not believe in Satan, and are often atheists. I don't see how they can be classified as religious. These are now the majority of the membership of the Church of Satan, which loudly proclaims its atheism (as do most of its members).
SJK> As for the "Rebellious Christian" type you refer to, can you point to any actual examples of them, except maybe as an overlap with the "Rebellious Adolescent"? (And, to be neutral, a lot of people would argue that all Satanists are "rebellious Christians", although they may deny it.)
Definitely there is an overlap between them and the rebellious adolescent. Many of these continue well past what most people call adolescence. There are a couple of examples that can be seen on the alt.satanism newsgroup, a number have tried to gain admittance to the Temple of Set under the wrong impression that it would be a suitable group for such people, and I've heard stories from various Pagans about such people they have run into. This is probably an open question, partly dependent on how someone defines "adolescent."
As for neutrality, there are many Satanists (a numerous minority) whose religious background is not Christian (or who have no religious background), and therefore they can't be rebellious Christians.
SJK> Also, some distinction should be made between Satanism and demonolatry. And some mention of Satanic Ritual Abuse and "psychopathic Satanists" (individuals who use satanism as a cover or excuse for criminal activity). -- SJK
Recently saw a page on demonalatry, so that's been done. Agreed: there should be an article discussing the SRA hysteria (more a hysteria and scam than anything involving Satanists). Yes, there should probably be some discussion somewhere of psychopaths and/or criminals who use satanism as a cover or excuse for their criminal activity (I'd rather they weren't called "psychopathic Satanists," since they are almost universally psychopathic criminals who just happen to use satanic trappings as part of their M-O).
I'll revisit the article from time to time, adding some of these mentions based on research (digging things out of my archives) as I figure out how to say them from NPOV.
Secondly, most of the Church of Satan may not view themselves as religious, but most outsiders (i.e. religion researchers) classify them as religious satanists, even though they are well aware they don't believe in a literal Satan or any other deity. The practice of magick classifies them as religious, at least according to some (though I admit not all) definitions of religion. -- SJK
I dislike the term "so-called" (anything), unless you can also state why these so-called whatevers are not whatever. So, if there are so-called traditional Satanists, then we need to explore a) what is a traditional satanist, and b) why do or don't these people we're discussing qualify under that term.
Would something along the lines of this draft paragraph come close to explaining this?
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)