Satanism and satanic ritual abuse

Huh… A very intriguing read to say the least.


A couple of weeks ago I was asked to review a document on Satanism and Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) in South Africa. I looked at the document, asked the opinions of some academic researchers who were more familiar with the topic than I was, and then sent my comments to the authors. I don’t want to say any more about the document and my comments on it here — it’s up to the authors to decide what they do with them.

But the document did set me thinking about the topic generally, though not for the first time.

A few years ago, prompted by reports of satanic ritual abuse in the media, I wrote an article Will the real satanists please stand up? Until a few weeks ago that was the article that had got the highest number of readers of this blog in a single day, so the…

View original post 1,020 more words


4 thoughts on “Satanism and satanic ritual abuse

  1. Seems to me to be way-out, ill-founded foolishness whose main purpose is to portray Christianity in a negative light and through innuendo and irresponsibility infer what cannot be inferred through knowledge or logic, and then calling it an interesting concept and worthy of thought. It would be like me posting an article: “is Rana a lesbian, and merely getting married as a cover? Is she in denial?”, and then proceed to give examples of some who have undoubtedly done this very thing, bring in psychological studies, on and on – though there is zero basis in reality and no reason in reality for the claim of lesbianism, much less your marrying a man to hide it. It would be utter nonsense to write an article like that. But if I did, followed by another asking if many fantasy writers are, in fact, homosexual, followed by another article suggesting that many people with blog sites have them in order to press people to their gay and liberal viewpoints, would you not wonder, at some point, what was driving me? And through suggestion and innuendo, though completely groundless, would I not be associating you and your name with something that is false, and would it not begin to shape people’s thinking toward you? Would you not say that at a root level, these articles are dishonest and deceptive? Then when I get an angry email from you (or maybe a lawsuit!), I say, “I never said you were a lesbian! I was just tossing out an interesting concept to stretch our thinking and imaginations! (And lets not turn this into a debate about homosexuality, which would divert from my point, as well as the point of the main article)

    • If you have an issue with the article, take it up with the author, not me. If you have an issue with the fact that I reblogged the article, what am I supposed to do? Curb what I post or what I reblog just to make you comfortable? I posted a quote from Mother Teresa not a few minutes before finding this article, reading it thoroughly, and reblogging it. I’ve also posted poetry having nothing to do with this religious back and forth, a post on the song Blurred Lines and the stupidity of modern feminism and sexism, and a picture from Norman Rockwell. I post what interests me, as well as reblog what intrigues me. I have no agenda behind this. You are the one making a habit of only acknowledging those posts which go against your belief, and taking those posts as a hidden agenda of attack against your belief. That’s not my fault and it’s not my problem.

      • Rana,
        This is your site; I’m just commenting on what interests me in making comments, even as you post what interests you. I must confess, however, that though I appreciate variety, and can appreciate differences of opinions, that I sometimes don’t understand the purpose of articles like this one, where even the author concedes, “This is not fact; it is a half-baked hypothesis.” I guess I like to begin with things that at least one of the posting parties takes seriously, rather than nonsense for he sake of tossing it out there – hoping that sense will somehow come from non-sense. I don’t know, I guess its part of the same mentality that order comes from disorder, life from non-life, and consciousness from the unconscious. Maybe it is the overriding, pervasive string and theme that starts to stick in my craw. Sometimes I feel that the deluge of the unknowable and unmeasurable is an attempt to throw what is knowable and can be analyzed by logic into the great big soup pot of the unknowable, where it is kept safely distant from all analysis. The only way I know how to make sense of non-sense is to repudiate it. It’s just part of my nature – much more than most people – to refute what I do not believe is true. What is true of your posts I notice, and perhaps appreciate, but does not usually illicit a response from me unless it is somehow eye-opening. Perhaps this is both a strength and weakness of my nature. Could you just think of this comment as feedback from one of your readers?

        • True, it isn’t fair for me to be upset that you do not comment on those posts, and I am not, becuase that is not my point. Your first comment here suggests that the only thing I post are subtle messages against Christian thinking, and that every post I make has that hidden agenda behind it. Your entire example is about making an initial statement of falsehood and then providing hidden meaning behind all other posts in order to support that original statement. You are suggesting this is what I am doing by making that example. I see no other way to interpret your example.

          Just because this article is a hypothesis does not mean the author doesn’t take the topic seriously, as it is a very serious topic worthy of investigation. It doesn’t mean the author doesn’t care about what he is writing. It does not mean he did not do his research. It means that he knows there is more to the story, there is more information to be collected to finalize any kind of perspective he could give on the subject. He is not in South Africa, he has not experienced a satanic ritual first hand, nor met those who have performed them. Additionally, the man writing this article is an Orthodox Christian, key being Christian. This article is not a, “way-out, ill-founded foolishness whose main purpose is to portray Christianity in a negative light.” It is a Christian, after being prompted to write on satanic ritual, studying and making a hypothesis about the reasons behind satanism, satanic ritual, and abuse of those rituals, in the confines of one country.

          You say, “Maybe it is the overriding, pervasive string and theme that starts to stick in my craw. Sometimes I feel that the deluge of the unknowable and unmeasurable is an attempt to throw what is knowable and can be analyzed by logic into the great big soup pot of the unknowable, where it is kept safely distant from all analysis.” Is this a comment about my blog or the world in general? I take no offense if it is referring to my blog, I just don’t see what your point in saying this is. You know very well that I do not believe god to be knowable in our lifetimes, and so those who consider god knowable (you) come into this blog and the religion-focused posts therein and find discussions on the unknowable (me).

          As for taking your comment as just feedback from one of my readers, I am. And my response is that you are reading too much into a hidden agenda that is not there. I am telling you there isn’t one. If you do not want to believe me, then so be it. If the topic of unknowable is getting on your nerves, then don’t read my posts. I’m not making you stay here. You are more than welcome to stay, more than welcome to share what you consider truth and discuss.

*Insert your thought here*

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s