FA+
Shop
Coming Out
12 years ago
It must be emphasized that:
We are not an official Church of Satan group. We are not here on behalf of the Church of Satan. We are not a "Satanic Community."
We are a group on FurAffinity that are made up of individuals who follow the Church of Satan and the works of Anton LaVey. "Many Satanists enjoy having and holding Satanism as a kind of personal, private gem intended just for them."
"If you decide to come out, it should largely be because you feel it'll enhance or improve your key relationships, or help to expand your world and your opportunities."
"If you look within these pages and see yourself; if you find its principles to be those you've lived by for as long as you can remember; if you feel the evocation of an overwhelming sense of homecoming, then you will have discovered that you are part of a scattered meta-tribe, and the proper name for what you are is 'Satanist.'" -High Priest Peter Gilmore
There are two types of Satanists: dormant, and practicing. Since Satanism represents a certain personality type and outlook on life, one could be a practicing Satanist without even realizing it (dormant). Therefore, "practicing" Satanists have merely acknowledged the presence of and their belonging to the Satanic meta-tribe. Once somebody accepts the label of Satanist, they may be driven to express their beliefs openly, or confide their beliefs to friends and family. "Coming out," however, is both inadvisable and unnecessary.
Practicing Satanists have come to the realization that they have been Satanic their entire lives (after all, Satanists are born, not made). Therefore, those who come out as Satanists are simply summarizing themselves in a way society thinks is scary and taboo. "Because Satanism prizes pragmatism and self-preservation over all else" (Troj), alienating your friends, family, and the rest of society is inadvisable. Furthermore, Satanists have no reason to come out. We are not in the business of evangelizing; you are either a Satanist, or you are not. Advertising yourself as a Satanist invites all the wrong people into our circle.
If you feel the need to express your Satanic allegiance, you are not only inviting self-destruction, but you are also making a mockery of the elitism and exclusivity that defines our meta-tribe. If you have a craving for such negative attention, you could do better with a trip to Hot Topic. If you decide to come out as a Satanist, take care not to sully our group's image and composition.
Hail Satan!
"If you decide to come out, it should largely be because you feel it'll enhance or improve your key relationships, or help to expand your world and your opportunities."
"If you look within these pages and see yourself; if you find its principles to be those you've lived by for as long as you can remember; if you feel the evocation of an overwhelming sense of homecoming, then you will have discovered that you are part of a scattered meta-tribe, and the proper name for what you are is 'Satanist.'" -High Priest Peter Gilmore
There are two types of Satanists: dormant, and practicing. Since Satanism represents a certain personality type and outlook on life, one could be a practicing Satanist without even realizing it (dormant). Therefore, "practicing" Satanists have merely acknowledged the presence of and their belonging to the Satanic meta-tribe. Once somebody accepts the label of Satanist, they may be driven to express their beliefs openly, or confide their beliefs to friends and family. "Coming out," however, is both inadvisable and unnecessary.
Practicing Satanists have come to the realization that they have been Satanic their entire lives (after all, Satanists are born, not made). Therefore, those who come out as Satanists are simply summarizing themselves in a way society thinks is scary and taboo. "Because Satanism prizes pragmatism and self-preservation over all else" (Troj), alienating your friends, family, and the rest of society is inadvisable. Furthermore, Satanists have no reason to come out. We are not in the business of evangelizing; you are either a Satanist, or you are not. Advertising yourself as a Satanist invites all the wrong people into our circle.
If you feel the need to express your Satanic allegiance, you are not only inviting self-destruction, but you are also making a mockery of the elitism and exclusivity that defines our meta-tribe. If you have a craving for such negative attention, you could do better with a trip to Hot Topic. If you decide to come out as a Satanist, take care not to sully our group's image and composition.
Hail Satan!
Hail!
Bullshit: prove it.
And what about those who died before Satanism even existed: is it fair to ascribe that label to them in hindsight just because that person's values were close enough to an ideology more commonly recognized today?
Sorry, I don't buy it. Just because one lives with an implicit set of beliefs doesn't mean there's always an explicit set of matching beliefs out there, and especially with something as specific as LaVeyan Satanism--which DOES have doctrines e.g. is a religion--making the link between someone who possesses some qualities of a Satanist i.e. is implicitly free willed, individualistic, etc. and an explicit satanist who embodies all qualities of a Satanist is a fallacy.
Personally, I think people can be de facto Buddhists, or de facto Christians, as well, and all that means is that those individuals really seem to embody and practice the core principles of the religion in their daily lives, without a lot of effort and stress, and often, without intending to practice that specific religion or philosophy (which is why they're "de facto").
I don't think anyone is saying that there's ALWAYS an explicit set of beliefs to match an implicit way of being. I don't think that's necessarily true. But, there are people whose natural way of being syncs up with the core tenets of a philosophy or ideology.
For me, the more important point is that Satanists aren't made. When people don't naturally grok Satanism, and they get it into their heads to "become" Satanists, it typically ends in tears.
When I look at Satanism, I see a specific set of doctrines and beliefs that couldn't have possibly be emulated by someone without prior knowledge of Satanism's existence. It'd be like calling the Marquis de Sade a de facto Satanist because of his libertine sexuality and blasphemic writings, but ignoring the fact [LaVeyan] Satanism didn't even exist back then e.g. he couldn't possibly be one.
People can absolutely embody the basic essence or "core" of a philosophy, without officially practicing, believing in, or even, necessarily knowing about that philosophy. You don't have to practice every little jot and tittle of an ideology to "get" the big picture of that philosophy.
Christianity is about more than just Christ; it's about Christ's teachings. I know non-Christians who manage to embody Christ's teachings a hell of a lot better than a lot of Christians. I'd tend to think of these people as de-facto Christians.
Likewise, Buddhism is actually largely about non-attachment and total awareness (among other things), and people can actually manage this without necessarily "being" actual, practicing Buddhists who practice very little jot and tittle of Buddhism.
De-facto Satanists are people who have generally lived their lives in a manner that most Satanists would call or recognize as "Satanic," because that lifestyle generally runs parallel to Satanism's overall understanding of and approach to the world.
You see "a set of doctrines and beliefs that COULDN'T POSSIBLY be emulated by anyone without prior knowledge of Satanism" because you don't grok or relate to Satanism. It's foreign to you, so you assume it has to be similarly foreign to others.
Let's not let this degrade into who-said-who's: ultimately, I think it's unfair to call someone a follower of x-religion "in essence" or "de facto" or whatever term one prefers because they "embody the basic essence... of a philosophy." When one does this, that is, affirms the whole "born v. made" theory, it's impossible not to abstract the ideas of a religion the supposed "de facto" individual embodies, and the further those ideas are abstracted, the less they become a "de facto" x-ist/ian and the more they are of another thing.
If we said, for example, that Elvis Presley was a "de facto" punk rocker because of his provocative, sexually suggestive stage presence and songs that at times sounded "punky" with a tight rhythm, quick tempo, etc. then we'ed might as well group punk into rock 'n' roll. But that wouldn't happen because (a) there's a lot of other factors that'd immediately drop Elvis off of any sort of respectable "punk rocker" list and (b) because the pun kgenre has specific elements to it that, while being similar to other genres, is a distinct musical style.
Likewise, I could be the most self-reliant, self-focused individual on the planet, hate Christianity and pedophiles alike, but labeling me as a de facto Satanist would be about as accurate as being labelled a de facto libertine, or a de facto atheist, or a de facto normal person who doesn't fuck kids.
Abstraction: that is the problem here. There's legitimate prototypes and then there's just stretching it.
I even know some de factos who didn't show much interest in Satanism when it was presented to them, because they didn't feel that their way of life needed a "name" at that point.
People's practice of and interpretation of Satanism can certainly change over time, as well, and I know a few very intelligent, very on-top-of-it people who've told me with zero malice that they've outgrown that particular label.
So, while there might be a general "Satanic personality type," there's certainly a lot of wiggle room under that umbrella.
McRoz sez:
<<If we said, for example, that Elvis Presley was a "de facto" punk rocker because of his provocative, sexually suggestive stage presence and songs that at times sounded "punky" with a tight rhythm, quick tempo, etc. then we'ed might as well group punk into rock 'n' roll. But that wouldn't happen because (a) there's a lot of other factors that'd immediately drop Elvis off of any sort of respectable "punk rocker" list and (b) because the pun kgenre has specific elements to it that, while being similar to other genres, is a distinct musical style.>>
But, isn't this a slippery slope argument, basically? "No one can use this metaphor, because someone might use it stupidly?"
When it comes to music, it's probably more fair to talk about influences. Punk has a certain rhythm and a certain aesthetic style that Presley didn't have, even though Presley might've helped open the door for genres like punk.
Well, and this isn't like Mormons posthumously baptizing Ann Frank as a Mormon. Satanists aren't necessarily saying that Ben Franklin was, should have been, or necessarily would have become an active member of the CoS for sure; what they're saying is that his approach to his life was noteworthy and admirable, and that he serves as an example and a role model for others.
They're saying that he understood and appreciated ideas and truths that Satanists understand to be at the heart of what they call Satanism.
Citing a non-practitioner as an example of something the real practitioner should aspire to become or embody isn't new. Members of lots of different religions and philosophies do this all the time.
McRoz sez:
<<ikewise, I could be the most self-reliant, self-focused individual on the planet, hate Christianity and pedophiles alike, but labeling me as a de facto Satanist would be about as accurate as being labelled a de facto libertine, or a de facto atheist, or a de facto normal person who doesn't fuck kids.>>
Well, and those things aren't mutually exclusive. All of those statements could be fair and accurate.
You could even say that that person was a de facto Objectivist.
(Additionally, the MOST self-focused person on the planet would probably be a malignant Narcissist, and I don't mean just de facto ;) ).
The general point about Coming Out is a good one. Young people in general often feel compelled to "express themselves" to everyone around them, and they make the mistake of believing that a conviction, taste, or belief held privately is somehow less "authentic" or "real" than one that has been revealed to the world. Nothing could be further from the truth!
Some young Satanists who are working within a narrow Christian framework will also get it into their heads that they need to "witness" or "proselytize," in order to spread the un-faith of Satanism. This misses the point of Satanism.
Because Satanists are largely born, and not made, people will either grok and resonate with it, or they won't.
If you decide to come out, it should largely be because you feel it'll enhance or improve your key relationships, or help to expand your world and your opportunities.
Although I don't consider myself a satanist, really, I do agree that many of the ideals behind it are worthwhile goals in life, and I could be said to be a "dormant" satanist in the sense that I strive for some of the things many satanists seem to also strive for... or *should,* given the philosophy behind it. However, I was not "born" a satanist. I have had my life philosophy and personal belief system change drastically over the years, all because of my own consideration of morality over very specific ideas... it's not that I was lying to myself or didn't believe fully in what I did/how I was doing it before. I realized how my actions were affecting myself, other humans, other animals, and the world at large, and I altered them because of reason and compassion.
Satanists aren't born unless they're raised satanist. The more intelligent and thoughtful ones, I'd argue, are self made.
Non-Satanists will typically find Satanism inherently objectionable or confusing, and they'll typically have lots of questions and caveats.
Wannabe-Satanists will often attempt to practice or "follow" Satanism as most people practice or "follow" Buddhism or Christianity, so they'll ofter pester seasoned Satanists with questions about the "right" way to do this or that, the penalty for "sinning," and whether the ritual will be ruined if their candle is mauve instead of red. They'll come into it with this implicit assumption that "Satanicness" is something one must work to embody or acquire, through careful, deliberate adherence to the doctrine.
This is totally the wrong way to go about it!
Of course, as you study Satanism, you will come across new ideas and concepts, and that will shape your outlook and your application of Satanism over time. I first encountered Satanism as a middle schooler, so you can bet your boots that I'd never heard of things like "solipsism" before!
But, the point is, the core doctrine is something that should intuitively make sense when you first encounter it; it shouldn't be something that you have to force yourself to adopt.
Sorry for the confusion--I forget I can reply to individuals on journals, and not just threads!