School of Satan?

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

  • Earlier this year in Orange County, Florida - in order that a balance opportunity for religious education be given to schoolchildren - a judge allowed this:-

    "Florida schoolchildren are being handed a colouring book which shows off the beliefs and values of one of today’s lesser-known religions – worshipping the devil.
    The Satanic Children’s Big Book of Activities offers simple, educational exercises, such as drawing an inverted pentagram round an image of our dark master, Satan.
    The book, produced by the Satanic Temple, is actually being handed out in schools – but the point isn’t to make youngsters offer their souls to the Dark One.
    The book was produced after Florida’s conservative Christian school board allowed Bibles to be handed out in schools, but banned atheist books such as ‘Why I Am Not a Muslim,’ and ‘What on Earth is an Atheist?’
    Thinking on their feet, local anti-religion groups produced the Satanic book of activities – which the religious school board is now obliged to hand out
    .

    Whether this results in a new crop of souls pledged to Lucifer remains to be seen"


    SEE LINK:-


    IMO
    "
    Whilst not agreeing with the content of the topic - the Principle is a sound one - Freedom of speech allows opinion, and we are ignorant without education.

    When it comes to Faith however there is great hypocrisy - a number of Religious tenet promotes - "You are an individual,-. But - follow this pathway".
    As one of Pagan (Not Satanist!!) My Credo is a simple one "Harm No one - But Take No Shit! - It's my Hippie roots/rite of youthful passage
    Be it Christian, Catholic, Buddhism, Muslim, Rastafarianism etc = any other form of Spiritual solace - that to me should be in an environment of appropriate surroundings - Schools are for academic enlightenment - and whilst the case could be put that it has a influential effect on Historical, Geographical, Political understanding - then it follows that "Allow one, Allow all" is a reasonable one"
    ..... Comments and Thoughts? = Welcome

  • I find it fascinating that a country that has the separation of church and state enshrined in its constitution can even be discussing this.

    I agree that an academic approach to belief systems informs our understanding of human affairs and the way our societies are organised, but to allow schools to become recruiting grounds for a single expression of the spiritual is detrimental to the individual and to society. It seems to me that a religious school can be a very bad deal for the individual, particularly the dissenting or the questioning, whilst society suffers when there is too much homogeneity.

    On the contrary a religious institution given carte blanche to indoctrinate children is very much to the advantage of maintaining the status quo in terms of the distribution of power.


    Schools have a moral, ethical and, in many territories, a legal responsibility to prepare children to know how to deal with a world heated up by conflicting ideologies. That humanism and atheism are excluded from due consideration is at best unethical. Still ... I can't think of a time when honesty and ethics have had a large part to play in education - and I have been involved with schools over most of my working life, many of them as a teacher.

  • Interesting, but i have just been to watch the birthday of a drum. The deer hide soaked in the font overnight at the church in the centre Avebury on the eve of the solstice. I cant help but think that the church is bending either in desperatation or in an awerness that people will change and find their own path regardless.

  • Is that a Christian drum, then, Dave? Did they bless it, as it was in the font? It was obviously well baptised if it was in there overnight...


    As for the more serious topic of which this thread is about, I think all schools should be secular. If parents wish to teach their children religion, it should be done in their own church or at home, not included with the education of factual matters.

  • Funny, i like your style - it made me smile.:)


    No, it was a drum full of spirit, crafted by a self-shamman who seemed adept. He crafted the hide over Saracen stone outside in the graveyard eased in alignment by the lady vicar. And no one is buried under Saracen. All good and all smiles. But it happened !!



    Yeah, secular schooling. It is weird that it isn't. And yeah, church has done much harm to my brethren and yet i would rather someone of connect to something than someone devoid of anything. I mean i can work with god, god head or self. just not plastic materialism - spirit devoid.


    But, i hear you and it is truth that you speak. Why they still try to plant their seed is obvious: like a hook in the mouth that stays like the fish, and then at darkest hour they reel it in. That is why!!

  • Any book should be allowed in the interests of freedom of speech. What's notable is the authorities acknowledging it as a religion. They zoomed straight in on that one, probably missing a load of others on the way.


    But schools have always had an obligation to teach children to be good and right. The teachings of all other religions are a matter of personal philosophy, but satanism teaches pure evil and offers no virtue on any level. Surely the opposite of what teachers expect of their little cherubs..?


    Do we have a God-given right to worship satan?


    The difficult thing is that the main body of protest against this ruling is probably from Christian factions, mainly on the far right. And which free-thinking liberal would join hands with that? (Maybe we should?)


    'Tis a bit of a quandary to be sure.

  • I would question whether there is any historic 'Satanism' as such. The term has generally been used by religionists against their opponents of every kind, be they another established religion, an opposing branch of their own religion, or for pagans and atheists.


    Contemporary 'Satanism' is of quite recent origin, made more popular by people like Alistair Crowley, but not existing as an established 'church' before about 1948.

  • I am not sure that Crowley ever had anything to do with Satanism. As far as i was aware Satan is a construct of the x-ian church and is a figure that they use to 'push' their beliefs, or a figure used by those based in Christianity who have decided to work things an odd way around.


    Admittedly, Crowley started out as Plymouth brethren and so, who really knows what went on, he certainly was an entertaining figure though, one whose ego seemed to have played as much with the work that he did. But as he was aware of that i can only guess that some of it was an act to stir up the pot, as it were.


    I figure that Orange county is playing a clever game, by reinforcing that Satan will get you if you do not believe, or 'heck' believe in Satan and then we'll hoover you up at some later date when you repent. Sort of like McDonald's opening up a health food shop down the street to their hamburger one. 'they' have been running that franchise for a looooong time.

  • Crowley didn't 'push' satanic beliefs, I'd agree. But he was a very colourful figure in his time, and certainly brought many to venture more deeply into the 'dark side' of the religious fantasy, and so influenced those who came after him, including some eminent satanists.


    'Do as thou wilt' (shall be the whole of the law), became his byword, and supposedly a moral law of his own form of religion. He was probably branded a satanist by the popular press, but did not go greatly out of his way to renounce this view.
    Incidentally, 'Do as thou wilt' is probably a truncation of an earlier gnostic libertarian expression: 'Do as thou wilt, and it harm none'.

  • Shooting from the hip here:


    It seems to be a good, and quite original observation, that satanism didn't exist until the 1948 legalisation of witchcraft (what they meant by witchcraft we don't exactly know). This was actually a major historical victory for the liberation of all pagan and earth-based practises, after centuries of oppression. You could say it was the very point where a new era of light began for the world.


    That the life and works of Crowley were revealed to the public, or at least a greater public, at this time I suggest was an attempt by the more conservative factions to show the liberation of witchcraft as a bad thing - 'now look what you've done' 'is this what you want?'. After all, it was mainly in the tabloids, wasn't it?


    But it didn't work because ultimately the light of goodness entered the world from that point on.


    Therefore I propose that the factions opposing the 1948 repeal knew what such liberation would mean for the world, and for them; And to oppose such goodness makes them the true agents of darkness, churchmen or not.


    How does that sound?

  • Sounds good!!
    That crowley's take on Rabelais's way of life in the temple of the Thélèmites would, should ever such a thing occur, be a compulsory module to take in the university of Hippy:hippy:;). i mean, 'do what thou wilt' is the hippy law, right? lol.


    To unshackle self from ego, false personality, expectation, assumption, ever lead to anything other than love.


    Follow love,
    be love,
    make love.


    And so, the full Crowley's law goes 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will.' the whistle blew and the hippy era flower opened and started to blossom, flower, and continues to shine...


    Orange county isn't blossoming by including books on satanism, just playing an old and long game of polarisation of the same religion. man, imagine if they were offering to teach 'do what thou wilt', Jeez, that would freak out those closed dark minds.


    Peace, love
    :)


    - - - Updated - - -


    Sounds good!!:)




    That crowley's take on Rabelais's way of life in the temple of the Thélèmites would, should ever such a thing occur, be a compulsory module to take in the university of Hippy:hippy:;). i mean, 'do what thou wilt' is the hippy law, right? lol.


    To unshackle self from ego, false personality, expectation, assumption, ever lead to anything other than love.


    Follow love,
    be love,
    make love.


    And so, the full Crowley's law goes 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will.' the whistle blew and the hippy era flower opened and started to blossom, flower, and continues to shine...


    Orange county isn't blossoming by including books on satanism, just playing an old and long game of polarisation of the same religion. man, imagine if they were offering to teach 'do what thou wilt', Jeez, that would freak out those closed dark minds.


    Peace, love
    :)

  • As far as I know, Crowley was never a Satanist. He was a general student of all things mystical, though apt to waft a bit of fire and brimstone for effect. He may well have once described himself as 'the great beast' (I once read that he equated the number 666 to represent the sun), but his works we're not evil. The media interpreted it as evil (mediaeval / media-evil). They described honest-to-goodness pagan practises as evil, as if the liberation of witchcraft had unleashed the beast.


    I think I've said this already haven't I..

  • You must remember that Crowley loved and courted publicity, even bad publicity. He was a well-educated man who must have had a very good idea of the effects he was creating, and rather loved it. So far as I know, he never directly denied being a satanist, even to the 'shitty little papers' as the Duke called them. I think he preferred to create an aura of ambiguity about what he was, it suited him, and it suited his purpose.
    So far as popularising 'satanism' goes, in the years leading up to 1948, and for some time after, the author Dennis Wheatley brought out a good many novels on the black arts, which sold incredibly well. 'The Devil Rides Out' being probably the best-known, of course. (I used to love these as a kid; particularly the rude bits:reddevil:).
    Incidentally, Wheatley had read and studied Crowley pretty thoroughly, both biographies and work, and had a good working knowledge of what Crowley was about.

  • Re Keith's last post (quoting is messy):


    If you're saying Crowley And Wheatley were famous before 1948, that blows my previous theory apart.


    I knew Crowley was active before then, but I was suggesting that his celebrity only came after. If DW was publishing satanic verses before 1948, we can't say satanism didn't exist before then.

  • I think that your 1948 theory has a lot to it. Just that this stuff has been going on, in the occult (hidden), since the start of humanity. After 1948 there has been a lot of light shone into those dark corners and the realisation that the 'workings' all kind of align and so a new paradigm emerged in the 'new agers'. I mean what a time to be alive!!, it is all there waiting to be read and learnt.lol. I don't think that Crowley was a satanist, just a very clever man, whose workings got woven into the fabric of his act ie to hide you are either the grey man in the room or the buffon, either way you get to work 'cloaked' as it were. Crowley went on to influence the church of scientology and more, i mean there are still a lot of thelmites around, and in not wanting to piss any of them off ;-). I would only add that gurdjieff, an equally if not more weighty a figure, was reputed, on having met Crowley, to have 'seen' in him and said that he was pure eveil. Who knows. But yes, i would love it if this stuff was taught in schools. Shine a light in and on and give everyone the chance to see what they are capable of and therefore responsible for. It will happen, just not sure when and so a book on satanism, while not my topic, at least opens that library up for other titles.

  • Re Keith's last post (quoting is messy):


    If you're saying Crowley And Wheatley were famous before 1948, that blows my previous theory apart.


    I knew Crowley was active before then, but I was suggesting that his celebrity only came after. If DW was publishing satanic verses before 1948, we can't say satanism didn't exist before then.


    Yes, he - Crowley - was well famous before 1948, or, in the view given by the press, infamous might be more accurate!
    Dennis Wheatley was writing well before then, and worked for British Intelligence during WW2. During this period he actually met Crowley, toward the end of the latter's life here.


    But many of Crowley's works only reached a 'popular' audience after his death, and Wheatley was one of those who helped this come about, by including a few books of Crowley's in a series of works about the occult that he - Wheatley - publicised. Once people had read one or two of these, they may have been interested in digging deeper into the stuff that Crowley had authored since the late 1890's.


    So there is something to the theory that this kind of stuff started to 'come out' to a more popular audience after 1948, especially with the huge wave of paper-back book publishing that took place in the 50's and 60's, making a great deal of the previously written word available to a much wider audience. Instead of a few thousand better-off arty toffs buying a book, it was there and available for the millions of less well-off folk.

  • Well written, sir.


    Ok, up thread you said satanism wasn't an established church until about 1948, and I pointed out that was the year that laws against witchcraft were repealed (at least in UK). I now wonder what you mean by "established church", simply because i don't know of any.


    I also wonder how far back records of definite devil worship go in history. There are mentions of Beasts, Lucifers, and Balz'bub in at least three different 'bibles', but what is the history of worship of such?


    (We must, as mentioned, be aware of the Christian church's re-interpretation of all pagan activity as devil-worship)

  • The trouble is about this teaching is "Who will choose/decide" what is and what is not learning books " ...As many things are seen as dark and "School Of Satan" or should i re word to "Spawn of Satan" if your eyes mind open to learn "/read this etc etc . ..As coming from a culture now here in UK that just Simply having Fun Fun and Dressing Up in "Halloween" by the little cutie kids and ok ok me too haha Is Seen As "Devil/Satan Worshipping and Celebrating The Devil/Satan etc .Solstice..Beltane Etc Etc Are All Forms of Devil Worship ..That are feeding the Young Beautiful Minds and Old Beautiful Minds are being Herded into "Forced Thoughts...Forced Beliefs" etc etc:) ..As People have closed minds and Fear Darkness/Devil/Satan etc etc ...


    Even the Stones (Henge) ...People stupid minds say and call them "Devil/Satan Stones and Devil/Satan Worshippers :(( ..Not Often On School Trips Lists .


    And Devil worship as peeps call it ...was the First form of Worshipping ..Beforw Mans Godds etc....Go Seek The Hidden Truths .. And Look To the Paintings and Stones/Megalithic Periods and Ancient Before Mans World (Unknown/Who And See The Drawings and Beautiful Symbol And Signs Before Books ...and Ye Shall Find What Ye Seek !! Bounce Bounce hahaha :)


    And The Big Question Is .."Devil Worship etc" Comes in All Faces/Tribes/Cultures but who see's it as That? As what is Devil Worship? Or Seen To Be .. To Some Is Not To Another ...And There Are More Things, Powerful Beings Out There ..That Are Worshiped...Who They Call Devil...But The Devil Has Many Faces, Many Looks ..So how can We Or People Know..Or Not ...As Mans World See,'s Through His Own Eyes As,To Who What Devil Worship Is ..But What Of Those Who See Not Through Mans Eyes...To Them "The Devil And Devil Worship...Looks Both Different As Well As It Worshipping ....Mans Eyes... Stereotypes/Labells Even The "Devil. .Satan And Worshiping And Its Worshippers And The Teachings Etc"...So Do We Really Know ??...To Fully See ..You Have To "SEE" And Have "Sight First" And Close Your Eyes And Mind To Mans World ..Then You "Truly See" And Find Your Seeking Truths And Knowledge...As Not All Is Written Right In Books As It Is Written By One "Set Of Eyes" !!..hahaha:)

  • 'those that would decide' always have a mission in mind that others should follow, so, yes, perhaps these things should be discovered individually or when ready a teacher appears.


    That fear is the evil in the world, or leads to the control dramas that cause a mechanical - non conscious behaviour which are evil actions and so i guess that could be called satanism. But words shift like sand and meanings differ depending on the angle that they are approached from. To 'see' is to be aware. For even in the blackness there is light; light of a purest intensity, and even in the whitest of light there is black. For me, it is all the same. All part of spirit and so we are best to limit our experience to our own path.

  • Hah, Danann, you have a seer's mind behind the bounce, bounce, fun exterior! Respect!


    With regard to the establishment of a 'religious' church of satanism, the first in modern times appears to be in Ohio, USA, in 1948:
    'Although the public practice of Satanism began with the founding of The Church of Satan in 1966, historical precedents exist: a group called the Ophite Cultus Satanas was founded in Ohio by Herbert Arthur Sloane in 1948.[2]'
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism



  • Looking for historical precedents, we have to ignore most of the christian era, because the christian churches tended to label anything they did not like or could not understand as 'satanism' or devil worship, as they so labelled the gnostics.


    The gnostics bear some study, although they are linked closely to the beginnings of the christian era. There were many gnostic schools or belief groups, with a wide range of ideas, some of which were anathema to the established christian church. Amongst some of their ideas was that which defined the demiurge as a local, imperfect god, rather than the perfect god of the christians. Such a belief was, to christians, utter blasphemy.


    This gnostic idea (Which is quite understandable if you have read the christian old testament and the character of its main god, Yahweh) went along the lines that we live in an evil imperfect world, created by an inefficient, jealous, and flawed overlord, who thinks himself lord of the universe, but is in fact only a very minor deity in space and time.


    As can be imagined, this idea went down a bundle with the christians, who thought they worshipped the lord of all creation, and saw themselves as slaves of the Most High. Some gnostic sects thought the established christian church was worshipping the wrong deity, and that Lucifer, who had tried to free humanity from the thrall of Yahweh, should be praised instead.
    So the gnostics were eventually suppressed, and by the end of the 13th century few still existed.

  • Funny, or like the church exists in a sort of non deist theurgy - that god or gods created the world and then pissed off down the shops and never returned, but us just left with lucifer as the 'joint rolling' baby sitter.:):)

  • Yes, it sure looks that way. There is a legend - or fantasy - that the Els, Ela, Elohim, whatever, made humankind as a higher animal, after many experiments, and left us to evolve, supposedly under the watchful eye of demigod-like beings lesser than themselves. But these eventually argued as to the purpose of the experiment, and how much - or how little - they should intervene. They warred amongst themselves and eventually left. We have been in the brown stuff ever since.


    I used to study this stuff when I was younger, but never got any clear answers. So much has been changed - or deliberately evolved - in the books of all religions, that it's difficult to separate fact from fantasy, because most of it is fantasy, in some form or another. Obviously a few decent ethics survive in most religions, but these are recognisable anywhere, not just in religions.


    Along with the religions go the fantasies, folk-tales, sagas, and fairy-tales of every race in every land. All as believable as any religion, and some much more so. The Nordic legends of the Ice-Giants sweeping all before them, for example, may well be a historical personification of the glaciers moving south.


    Satan really only originally meant the 'adversary', the opponent, the one who had gone astray. So it was easy to pin this on anyone who you may not have agreed with.

  • Great postings folks = Good to know that there is educated knowledge and free-minded conclusions drawn in an objective manner without prejudice = wiTch = Nice :)


  • Hahahahahaha i am soooo Bouncie Bounce happy...me As you Truly honour me by Gifting Me with your "Respect " bounce bounce bounce hahaha:)) Thank You xx


    As it is sooo hard for me to put my thoughts into words that make sense as to say and see what i am trying to say .."I know...I think...I see" ...as living with two very ancient deeply strong spiritual tribe/people and learning their ways teachings beliefs and they way they speak as using natures spirits and powers of sights ..and things unseen to many and thoughts beliefs unseen etc etc to many before tick tocks and mans books and big words is very hard muddles for me ...So you beauriful word of "Respect" to me ....Was very big meaning kindly to me coming from.a man as yourself of Mahoosive Learning And Knowledge and Teachings and All Wisdom Of all In World And Outer World Beyond The Beyonds :)) ....So thank You ..(((,Big Hugggs))) bounce bounce hehehe :)


    And i will lookie look wide eyes and ears at you blue links and learn new teachings and thinkings:)) bounce bounce hehe ....I lovzzz to Learn and See And Explore All New Things ...hahaha:))

  • Danann, behave yourself!:)


    I'm just another ordinary guy on here who likes to think a bit, but I feel I can often grasp what you are saying in a kind of holistic way.
    When I am reading what you have written several times over pretty slowly, I am finding what you are saying falls into place much more clearly, so I am kind of hearing what you are saying behind the slightly dis-jointed words that you may have written down. And there is much goodness and wisdom there; your difficulty is, as you say, in putting it across without using big descriptive words.
    I think you are improving though, and everyone here:hippy::beard: is very glad to have you here:).