Did the Christian Right (or its equivalent at the time) freak out when this song was released? Was there controversy on the level of John Lennon’s comparison of The Beatles’s popularity with that of Jesus? Anybody remember from their own experiences, or from what they’ve since read?
There was no organized Christian Right at that time – they were still known as the Silent Majority in those halcyon days. The Christian Right as a movement started more late '70s, early '80s with Jerry Falwell (“The Moral Majority”).
twicks, Ph.D, Sociology of Religion, expertise in American religious history
I don’t remember any uproar, and why should there have been one? It assumes there is a devil, and that he’s a bad dude. Not real controversial to the Christian right.
The fundies were not a big problem back then. The only uproar I remember concerning god stuff was when Lennon said the Beatles were more popular than Jesus. But that was mainstream Christians.
Really, I don’t think SftD would raise any hackles even today. It isn’t really very sympathetic to Old Nick, after all.
I think there was some controversy in New York City when some police didn’t want to be assigned to protective duty for their tour because of the line “Just as every cop is a criminal.”
I’m sure some other individual comments and denunciations also occurred, but none that stand out in my memory.
It was much more difficult to get widely dispersed groups organized and into making a fuss without true nationwide provocation. The Viet Nam war, yes. Rock lyrics, no. The 60s really were a better decade. 
So close to Old St. Nick, hm?
There were a few fringe preachers who made a fuss about rock lyrics, especially those mentioning Ol’ Scratch, but hardly anyone took them seriously.
I don’t recall much of any hue and cry when Beggar’s Banquet came out (with Sympathy for the Devil on it.)
It’s interesting that their previous album also had a “demonic” reference, too: Their Satanic Majesties Request
Damn fine albums, though. Add Let It Bleed and you’ve got the Rolling Stones trifecta.
A big part of the answer to the OP’s question is how much things had changed in American culture (and beyond) between 1966 (the Lennon - Jesus thing) and 1969 (Sympathy).
As a child born in 1970 who grew up learning a lot about the '60s, I have always been amazed at how quickly the changes came in those two or three years. Compare it to a similar time span later on – say, 1982 to 1985 – and it’s almost depressing that things have generally been so tedious since then. I do understand that the fall of the Soviet Union, and 9/11 and its aftermath, were momentous periods as well, but music and culture (in the English-speaking world, at least) has been pretty much treading water since the late '60s.
Case in point: By the mid-'70’s, when a member of the Rutles claimed that they were bigger than God, no one even noticed.
Ahh, the legend that will last a lunchtime. 
I think that’s the point - the ‘60’s viewed from today seemed to have lasted at least 20 years - I mean, look at the arc of the Beatles’ development from Love me Do to Abbey Road - did that really only happen in about 8 years?
So the distance between the Lennon/Jesus kerfuffle and Sympathy seems to have been a huge distance.
I don’t remember any big deal either. Remember though, the Beatles were the nice, well behaved group, and the Stones were the bad boys (singing things like Lets Spend the Night Together.) So singing about the devil was true to type.
Rysdad - Satanic Majesties a good album? It gets a lot better on CD where you can easily skip the boring, pretentious tracks, and has some good stuff, but hardly anywhere close to Sticky Fingers.
According to my Mother, everybody freaked out whan all of this sort of music came out and nobody listened to it, it was all garbage, just like nobody went to Woodstock or did drugs in the 60s.
Well, I guess I was pretty enamored with She’s a Rainbow and 2000 Light Years from Home, but I’ve got to hand it to you, Sticky Fingers is probably more accessible overall. Brown Suger, Sister Morphine, Wild Horses and the rest still rock heavily.
Still, I like the eerie, proto-psychedelia of Majesties.
Hm. I need me some new CDs.
That doesn’t fit my recollection. No one even mentioned it at my Methodist church, and I don’t remember anyone in school relating it being an issue in their churches (this was in the D.C. metro area). It wasn’t until I met a gal from Meridian Mississippi that I heard of a reaction, which was a gathering there at which people burned Beatles records. I associate that reaction with fundamentalists, of which the D.C. area had blessed few.
slight hijack, but as long as we’re on the subject, can anyone tell me what the line “I laid traps for troubadors who get killed before they reach Bombay” is a reference to?
I get all the other historical references in the song (Pontius Pilate, Anastasia, the Kennedys etc etc), but I’ve always wondered about significance of the trapped Indian troubadors.
Excuse me Twicks, but “Silent Majority” did not refer to the Christian Right/Moral Majority. Silent Majority refers to the majority of Americans who view the Christian far right born agains as complete nutjobs. If we’re gonna quote rock lyrics, check out punk anthem “Wake Up Silent Majority” by TSOL. Silent Majority was a rucurring punk theme throughout the 80’s
I remember the term “silent majority” being a favorite term of the pro-abortion groups.
IIRC (and it’s totally possible I don’t, I was still a kid myself in the '60s), “Silent Majority” was Agnew’s term for the middle-of-the-road sorts who, unlike the “rowdy minority,” supported the Nixon administration’s war policies. You’re correct, China Guy, that it wasn’t used specifically with regard to Christians – in either direction. At that point, Conservative Christians were a pretty invisible group, esp. politically.
I don’t know anything about punk, but if the term was picked up by them, it was done so later, and done in the context of the Nixon-Agnew usage.
Paging samclem …
And Diceman – I don’t recall it being used in the abortion debate by either side.