***********************************************************************
  *   From:THE DRUIDS PROGRESS, Report #7. The DRUIDS PROGRESS is       *
  * published seminannually (Gods Willing) and is sent primarily to     *
  * the subscribing members of ADF. For Further information write:      *
  *   ADF, PO Box 9420, Newark, DE, USA 19714    (include a SASE).      * 
  * All Items acredited to "the Archdruid" have been written by and     *
  * are (C) 1990 by P.E.I. Bonewits. All items created by other         *
  * parties are (C) 1990 by them. All opinions expressed, save those    * 
  * specifically attributed to the Board of Trustees, are the opnions   *
  * of the individuals expressing them and are Not official ADF         *
  * policy.                                                             *
  *    Reprint Procedure: Neopagan, Druidic, Midievalist and all        *
  * cultural publications may reprint any material written by P.E.I.    *
  * Bonewits, but his copyright notice must appear in full. If more     *
  * than 250 words are excerpeted, one cent per word should be donated  *
  * to ADF.                                                             *
  ***********************************************************************

  
                  THE ENEMIES OF OUR ENEMIES
                
                By Adr. Isaac Bonewits (C) 1990
 
   In DP #6 I discussed the phenomenon of fundimentalist Christians starting
religious freedom groups, suggesting that it would be unwise for Neopagans
to assist them. Elsewhere in this issue I'd like to lift up the 
fundimentalist rock and see what's crawling around underneath it.
 
   I've been inspired to write this essay by the astonishing news that a
civil liberties coalition of Neopagan and othe roccult groups in St. Louis,
Missouri, - The Alliance for Magical and Earth Religions, or "AMER" - has
Michael Aquino's Temple of Set (an ultra-right wing offshoot of Anton 
LaVey's Church of Satan) as an active member and his wife Lillith Aquino as
one of their directors! Surely, I said to myself, they've got to be kidding...
 
   Like most Neopagans, I believe that toleration in general is A Good Thing,
Unlike some, however, I also think it can be foolishm when exercised too much
towards those who would like to destroy us. For example, when I go to a
Pagan festival, I don't mind Budhists, Agnostics or liberal monotheists
showing up to check us out. Yet I feel violated when fundimentalists arrive
with intent to spy upon us, to convert us, or to interfere with our activities.
I have much the same reaction when I see Satanists at our festivals or in
"Our" bookstores trying to recruit new members.
 
   Some Satanists will claim that, like Neopagans, they are an oppressed 
religion, that they are misunderstood, that they are the victims of the
Christian press. They will quote the old saying, "the enemy of my enemy is
my friend," and argue that we should become their allies. All of which makes
sense only if you are ignorant about both Satanism and Neopaganism.
 
   As I have written elsewhere, there are several kinds of Satanist: One
type is the Liberal Heterodox or punk Satanist. These are the anarchist sorts,
generally young, who stress the revolutionary or Luciferian side of the
Satan myth. They are essentially rebelling against subservience to the
Christian God, the sickness of Christian morality, and their parents. A
sizable proportion of them might have become Neopagans if they had heard of
us first, and some of them convert later on. As far as I can tell, they seem
to grow out of being Satanists when they finish adolescence.
 
   Another type of Satanist is the Conservative Orthodox or Fascist sort,
generally older, uneducated, and unsuccessful (the basic KKK or American Nazi
Party recruit), though their leaders can be quite clever and successful.
These are the right wing Satanists who like to stress the might-makes-right,
dictatorial side of the Satan image. Major denominations would include the
Church of Satan and the Temple of Set, both of whom are careful to 
distinguish themselves from the other types.
 
   A third kind of Satanist is the "Sincere sociopath" (Paul Suliin's term),
or crazy kind. These folks are obsessed with the deathm torture, rape, and
madness parts of the Satan archetype. Usually from extremely dysfunctional
families, these people have grown up being told that they are evil, so they
try to fulfull everyone's expectations. They tend to commit various horrible
crimes in Satan's name, and sometimes belong to one of the other sorts of
Satanism as well. Right wing Satanic leaders, when speaking for the public
record, always deny that the sincere sociopaths are "real" Satanists, much
as other Christians disown criminal behavior by people calling themselves
Christian.
 
   Another category of Satanists (who seem to be mostly imaginary), is the
supposed global conspiracy of child molesting, kidnapping, human sacrificing,
cannibalistic, multigenerational criminals who haunt the dreams of
fundamentalist Christians and Gerlado Rivera. The primary evidence for this
conspiracy comes from people who believe themselves to be "ritual abuse
survivors" and from Christian preachers who claim to be ex-leaders in the
conspiracy. Of course, the accusations of incestous orgies, human sacrifice,
and cannibalism have been laid against many minority religions over the
centuries, including the early Roman Christians themselves, Jews, "witches",
and various heretical groups. These claims serve mostly to whip up public
hyseria against the chosen target groups, in this case modern Satanists, who
can be easily and deliberately equated with Neopagans and New Agers.
 
   Some of the survivors do appear to have been through some kind of horrible
experiences that their minds have chosen to interpet as Satanic Rituals, just
as others with similar stories have interpeted their experiences as
encounters wityh UFO's. Unfortunately, hard evidence, in the form of actual
bodies or the names of real people who could be arrested and charged with
crimes, just doesn't exist. I suspect that the survivors were actually
molested and tortured by their own parents or local religious leaders, and
their memories became distorted by their childhood ideas about evil, in order
to explain their suffering to themselves. One telling example of how this
process can work is that of an Orthodox Jewish abuse survivor, who believes
she was tortured by people in Nazi uniforms (in the U.S. in the 1960's). She
had no mental equation that "evil people = Satanists," so she insterted the
images of what she did have : "Evil people = Nazis." On the other hand, the
sorts of crimes reported are well within the might-makes-right morality
that many Satanists promote, and I have no doubt that more than a few Satanists
have taken advantage of their "moral freedom" to commit atrocities, even 
against their own children. I just don't believe that these psychos constitute
an organized conspiracy.
 
   As for the professional "ex-Satanic High Priests," they seem to be short on
evidence of their claims too. Oddly enough, although some of these preachers
have confessed to multiple felonies on nationwide television, none has ever
been arrested, nor have any of them gone to local police and confessed their
crimes. Subsequently, none has ever served prison time for deeds that would
normally put themn away for the rest of their lives. Apparently, if you claim
to have reformed yourself and become a good Christian, you no longer need
to pay your debt to society, no matter how terrible the crimes you've
admitted. Any of you attending public lectures by such "ex-Satanists" might 
want to bring this up with local law enforcement officers and, if possible
under local laws, make citizen's arrests - I for one would love to see such
liars forced to testify under oath in a court of law.
 
   This brings us to the last, and by the largest, category of Satanists: the
fundimentalist Christians themselves, who spend all their time inflating the
image of Satan, feeding psychic energy into the archetype, and publishing
detailed descriptions of the sorts of evil acts that devil worhsippers are
suuposed to engage in - descriptions that other sorts of Satanists are only
too eager to imitate.
 
   We Neopagans are constantly having to explain to the general public that
Satan is a figure in Christian Mythology, that our deities are far older
and more powerful, and that you hvae to be a Christian or a Moslem in order
to worship the Devil because nobody else believs in him. We know full well
that the fundamentalists are activelky working to blur the distinctions
between Satanism and Paganism in the public mind, and we should know that
having a cozy relationship with Satanists is going to play right into the
Christian smear campaign.
 
   So why are we tolerant of obnoxious, unethical, or nasty behavior when the
people involved are calling themselves Satanists, when we wouldn't cut
fundamentalist Christians engaging in the same kind of behavior so much slack?
Granted, Satanism is a part of the occult comunity, since its the "occult"
or hidden side of fundimentalism, and advocates the practice of various sorts
of ceremonial magic. As we know, the occult/magical/metaphysical community
comprises a wide variety of organizations and individuals - good, bad, ugly,
and just plain weird. We don't have to be friendly to all of them, nor accept
them as equalks or allies. Neopagans have enough trouble with interacting
with those Meseopagans (such as Crowleyites, Odonists and Voodooists) who
engage in activities of which many Neopagans disapprove, without allying
ourselves with and defending a bunch of jerks, fascists, and psychopaths who
have publically and proudly announced their allegiance to the the supreme
figure of evil in Western culture.
 
   I don't care of it's possible to come up with rational-sounding arguments
that the Devil isn't really such a bad fellow, or to claim that you're really
worshipping the Norse deity Loki, or the Egyptian god Set, or various
Lovecraftian critters, and that they were all victims of bad public relations.
Such arguments don't change the subconscious images that most people 
(including the Satanists) have of these entities, nor the flavor of the 
psychic energy that they tap into. Nor does it matter that public 
representatives of Satanic organizations are frequently charming and 
charismatic individuals - so was Adolph Hitler. And I don't care if some
Satanists are really proto-Pagans - we can give them the information they need
to mature without having to pretend that their juvenile sophistries deserve
respect.
 
   Lets review the facts about the origins, philosophy, and character of
Satanism...
 
   ORIGINS: Satan as a demigod was created to besmear the Palepagan horned
gods and to fulfill the necessary role of the Evil God who fights their Good
God. A deity of absolute evil makes no sense in a polytheistic system, only
in a dualistic one. All the difference forms of Satanism now active in the
West are branches of conservative Christianity. Satanism as an organization
was created by Catholicism as an inverted version of itself, with a little
help from leftover Gnostic heretics (see the books of Jeffrey Burton Russell
for details). It was the Christians who defined the practices, symbols, and
beliefs of Satanism in the first place, while the writings of modern Satanists
have mearly given a "blackwash" to the fundimentally Christian concepts
involved.
 
   PHILOSOPHY: Satanists are obsessed with forcing everyone into simplistic
Christian/Islamic dualism, just as other fundamentalists are. That's why
they insist on lumping the "White Witches" and Neopagans in with their
official enemies, the Christians, whenever they're not trying to recruit us
as allies. LaVey's latest propaganda book (The Church of Satan, supposedly by
"authorized biographer" Blanche Barton) actually goes so far as to denounce
several well known Neopagans (including yours truly) by name in the same
paragraph with fundamentalist Michael Warnke and competitor Michael Aquino
(Who stole most of LaVey's membership). Most Satanic "philosophy" simply
consists of turning Catholicism or other forms of conservative Christianity
upside-down and inside-out (as if thats going to be an improvement),
advocating hedonism, and adding some warmed-over quotes from Crowley,
Nietzsche, or Hitler to the mix. Way deep inside, it's shallow.
 
   CHARACTER: Most Satanists actively approve of behavior, magical and
mundance, that Neopagans consider to be unethical and immoral. Some Satanists
are just as evil - in every interpetation that the Neopagan Community would
agree upon - as the members of the Inquisition, Hitler's stormtroopers, 
Stalin's secret police, or Central American death squads. There is nothin in
Satanic belief (left wing, right wing, oor sociopathic) to seperate the
genuinely evil from the mearly obnoxious; anything you can get away with is
approved of by the God of Evil.
 
   Neopaganism is less than thirty years old - fifty if we count the early
Mesopagan Wiccans. Many of us have deliberately identified ourselves with
the historical victims of Christian persecution - witches, magicians, 
heretics, and heathens - in part, as a way to extend our psychic history.
So it's a tempting argument to say that we also have to identigy with every
other group that gets denounced by fundamentalists, such as gays, femminists,
high school biology teachers, communists, murders, rapists... whoops! Do we
really want to defend genuinely evil people simply because the fundamentalists
have attacked them? Should we offer support to individuals and organizations
who advocate ideas and actions we consider evil, just because we have no legal
pr6of that they have gotten around to acting on their proclaimed beliefs yet?
 
   Over the years, I have met scores of people who called themselves Satanists
I even called myself one for eight months when I was 17 (see "My Satanic
Adventure", Gnostica, 1975). I learned back then, and subsequent experience
has reiterated the lesson, that most people who practice Satanism are
fundamentalists in drag. Once in a while I would meet a genuinely nice, if
confused, person in a Satanist group, but they usually wound up dropping out
and joining some other path. The overwhelming majority of Satanists I have
known were sleazy, manipulative, cruel, and unethical. I can't think of a
single reason why we should make them feel welcome in our community, or why
we should make their activities any easier, or why we should help their
groups to grow and prosper. If the Satanists were ever to conquer the world
(Goddess Forbid!), they would herd us into ovens just as quickly as the other
fundamentalists would.
 
   Now, I firmly believe that people are entitled to have whatever religious
beliefs they wish, no matter how wr6ng or foolish I might consider those
beliefs, because I want other folks to extend the same freedom to me. I don't
believe however, that people have a right to enshrine their religious beliefs
into civil law and force religious minorities to live accordingly to the
majority's theological opinions. Nor, do they ahve a right to use their beliefs
as a cover for committing what driminologists refer to as "crimes with 
victims" - murder, rape, stealing and polluting, for example (as distinct from
"victimless crimes" covered by most sex, drug and gambling laws). The basic
"don't kill, rape, steal, pollute," etc., sort of moral code, necessary for
the physical welfare of any group of humans (and the Earth) is not a
specifically religious one but it is (or should be) a universally agreed-upon
set of survival principles.
 
   The distinction between crimes with and without victims is not always clear,
since some people have very broad definitions of what constitutes victimization.
Some Christians feel victimized when their children are taught evolution, some
femminists when they see PLAYBOY on sale at their locale convience store, and 
some Neopagans when not given equal media time to counter evangelical lies
about Paganism. In each of these cases, the persons feeling victimized
objects to a pluralistic society in which others, perceived as both evil and
powerful, present ideas the "victims" find offensive. Feeling victimized,
of course, is not the same thing as being a victim, although it's usually
a component of the experience.
 
   Defining freedom and rights in a pluralistic society is not always easy.
Some fundamentalists believe that freedom of religion means that they should
be able to establish a theocracy and prevent "sinful" behavior by others.
Censorship advocates believe that freedom of expression does not include
the right to disseminate ideas and images they consider evil. Many people
believe that freedom to assemble is only for "good" people and causes, or 
that the right to keep and bear arms is only for state-approved soldiers and
police soldiers.
 
   Neopagans are duotheists and/or polytheists. Our religious beliefs usually
approve of pluralism and toleration, and most of us don't seem to have too
much trouble living surrounded by people of other faiths, as long as they
aren't trying to interfere with our freedom of belief and practice.
 
   After some long, emotional discussions with my spouse (who is a fervent
Civil libertarian) I'm forced to reluctantly admit that exactly the same 
reasoning holds whether we're dealing with Satanists or other Fundamentalists.
We don't have the right to exclude them from our public events nor to prevent
them from shopping in our stores, nor to keep them from talking to the media,
much as we might like to. We must honor their constitutional rights to
practice their religion. But we don't have to be helpful to them in the
process.
 
   If a Satanic group or individual is being discriminated against in such
a way as to make legal action appropriate, they can always call in the
American Civil Liberties Union, who will defend just about anybody with a
good constitutional case. If they are having a public relations problem,
they can bloody well hire an advertising agency to explain that black is
white and evil is OK. Either way, there is no reason for us to spend our
miniscule funds on defending them.
 
   SO. How exactly can we make it clear to Satanists that they are not wanted
in our community? As Deb puts it, "How do we express our disapproval and
give it clout, without violating their rights?" Her solution : "We do it just
as our Pagan Ancestors did - by shunning. We don't have to be respectful or
friendly to Satanists. Shunning is ethical and legal, and no one has a civil
right to be liked."
 
   What does shunning as a tactic mean? Here's one example : Neopagans who 
own occult shops should not sell copies of 'The Satanic Bible' or other
Satanist literature, provide tools that can normally only be used for magical
malpractice (granted, a tricky judgement sometimes), nor allow local
Satanists to use our stores to teach classes or to recruit new members. Of
course, we can't keep Satanists completely out of our ships. We have to allow
them to come in and buy other books and products, just as we would allow 
Christians, Jews, or Buddhists to do so, because to discriminate against them
economically would violate their constitutional rights (besides, some of 
those proto-Pagans might be amoung them). But we don't have to make the
practice of Satanism easier for them.
 
   Unfortunately, we can't simply exclude Satanists from attending public
Pagan festivals, for reasons both constitutional and practical (as Deb puts it,
"What are you going to do, have attendees all sign oaths that the aren't
Satanists?" - and Satanists would hardly be bothers about lying, now would
they?). But we do not have to go out of our way to make Satanists feel
comfortable or respected, and we do not have to give them space on our program
schedules. If a group of Satanists want to set up a recruiting table at a
Neopagan Festival, an anti-Satanist table should be set up right next to it,
with lareg signs indicating that the festival organizers do not approve of
Satanism. Knowledgeable people should talk to anyone who seems to be taken in
by the Satanists. The same procedures would hold for other Christians showing
up at public festivals. (As I understand it, the only way that you can legally
prevent attendance at an event on the grounds of religion is when that event
is a private, invitation-only party. Those of you with a background in civil
rights legislation may be able to determine if there really is any way to
exclude fundamentalists from Pagan festivals).
 
   Those of us who interact with the mainstream media can and should refuse
to ever defend Satanism. We can and should publically take the stand that
Satanism is stupid, unimaginative, uglym and destructive - and that just like
fundamentalism of which it is an integral part, Satanism is the enemy of the
Goddesses and Gods we worship.
 
   We sure as Hades shouldn't join in public relations or civil liberties
coalitions with Satanists any more than we would with the Inquisition or the
Ku Klux Klan (join the ACLU if you like, I did). Such coalitions can serve
only to benefit the Satanists who will cheerfully hide behind the (very
slightly) superior public image that years of hard work have won us, and the
fundimentalist Christians who will point to such coalitions as further "proof"
that Neopagans and Satanists are identical. We have absolutely nothing to
gain from letting the Satanists ride on our coattails, and everything to lose.
 
   At least some of the enemies of our enemies are our enemies - not our 
friends. It's about time that the Neopagan community closed our ranks against
them. ADF already has provisions in the By-Laws to enable us to legally
exclude "individuals practicing creeds inimical to Neopagan Druidism" such as
"varities of conservative monotheism, atheism, demonism, racialism, or
other such faiths", from our activities and our membership. As pluralists, 
we're perfectly willing to let our members, guests, and even our clergy, belong
to a wide variety of other religions. But in ADF, as I think it should be 
throughout the Neopagan community, fundamentalists, whether they are wearing
crosses or goat heads, are simply not welcome, and never will be.
 
  
                                 #30#