# Value (or not) of the Satanic ethic **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 11, 2010, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/value-or-not-of-the-satanic-ethic/556743 "2010-10-11T02:24:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/value-or-not-of-the-satanic-ethic/556743/41 "2010-10-13T05:45:08Z")
> [@Argent Towers](#): > > I agree with the above and I would say that the “Church” of Satan does a great disservice to what is essentially a very solid, modern, humanist philosophy by wrapping it up in Satanic packaging. > > LaVey was apparently too kool, too much of a bad-boy, to just advocate a modern, intelligent, common-sense ethical code on its own merits; he had to make it SATANIC. > > That, to me, is pretentious. He used the word because he liked its subversive, “fuck you” quality, but you’re right that the word hurts more than it helps because people think he was advocating literal devil worship. There were probably better, less misleading and more literally descriptive words he could have used, but then again, Anton LaVey was a guy who thived on shocking the squares. Nice to see you back, by the way, **AT**. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/value-or-not-of-the-satanic-ethic/556743/42 "2010-10-13T13:42:15Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > I agree with the above and I would say that the “Church” of Satan does a great disservice to what is essentially a very solid, modern, humanist philosophy by wrapping it up in Satanic packaging. How is that a disservice? It is no different from taking a solid, modern, humanistic philosophy and wrapping it in Christian packaging. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/value-or-not-of-the-satanic-ethic/556743/43 "2010-10-13T14:03:57Z")
As some posters like **Measure for Measure** have said, I think the whole thing is theater and hucksterism. The whole “If someone bothers you destroy them” is clearly not serious. It’s just there to shock people and sell books. In reality, I’m sure Lavey wouldn’t “destroy” anyone who bothered him, but would use the same appropriate measures we all use. That said, I prefer self-defence to turning the other cheek, so I guess I side with Lavey over Jesus on that score. Also, I’ll have to remember to bring up rule 8 when one of our frequently pitted posters gets pitted. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/value-or-not-of-the-satanic-ethic/556743/44 "2010-10-13T16:29:35Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > > [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > > > I agree with the above and I would say that the “Church” of Satan does a great disservice to what is essentially a very solid, modern, humanist philosophy by wrapping it up in Satanic packaging. > > How is that a disservice? It is no different from taking a solid, modern, humanistic philosophy and wrapping it in Christian packaging. It’s doing a disservice because people _already_ think that Satan is bad. Do you see what I mean? When Christianity is _already_ the _dominant_ religion and has been for hundreds of years, declaring yourself a Satanist if you don’t actually worship the Devil is just a cheap shock tactic, a real-life act of trolling, designed to shake up “the system” and say “in your face, squares!” I think it’s reasonable to assume LaVey only picked “Satan” to be the theme of the vaguely humanist ethical system he created because it would shock the “squares,” impress the edgy kool rebellious people, and possibly get him laid. It’s a fairly reasonable, sensible, humanist philosophy. But the religious people are going to discredit and reject it because it is associated with Satan. The intelligent humanist people are going to reject it because it’s so obviously a ploy to get attention and try to seem edgy. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/value-or-not-of-the-satanic-ethic/556743/45 "2010-10-13T20:06:57Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > I think we’re all worse off by having people around who refer to their homes and apartments as their “lairs” (especially when they then have the gall to preach that pretentiousness is a sin). I wonder… I had completely missed that part. So are they teasing people like me who missed it? Really, it would be like me calling my place the Fortress Of Solitude, while scolding someone for being over dramatic. It has to be some sort of joke. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/value-or-not-of-the-satanic-ethic/556743/46 "2010-10-13T20:11:28Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > > [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > > > I love how with this religion, like all others, there’s interpretation. > > > > “Well, what does destroy mean exactly?” > > > > I also love **Curtis** saying that certain rules are overly excessive whereas he’d probably say that the parts of the Bible that recommend death as the answer to a whole bunch of relatively minor offenses are metaphorical. Or _something_. > > Mosaic laws are NO LONGER IN EFFECT at least as regards to punishment. There are scads of people who would idsagree - the christian right still wants to hold to Leviticus and the ban against teh gay. Seems the rules that CERTAIN people want to put on others are still around, and only the ones that would apply to THEM are “no longer in effect”. It also makes a real mish mosh out of that whole literal inerrant “thing”. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/value-or-not-of-the-satanic-ethic/556743/47 "2010-10-13T20:34:13Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > As some posters like **Measure for Measure** have said, I think the whole thing is theater and hucksterism. The whole “If someone bothers you destroy them” is clearly not serious. It’s just there to shock people and sell books. Then do you think there’s even a point to discuss the tenets as a serious philosophy? I mean, sure, many folks can take its core seriously and run with it, but that really wasn’t the intent of the founder, was it? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/value-or-not-of-the-satanic-ethic/556743/48 "2010-10-13T21:01:35Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal. > > How do you know when to make the mating signal, though, if you can’t make any advances until the other person makes the mating signal? A complete explanation is detailed in Rule 22. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/value-or-not-of-the-satanic-ethic/556743/49 "2010-10-13T21:08:39Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > > [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > > > As some posters like **Measure for Measure** have said, I think the whole thing is theater and hucksterism. The whole “If someone bothers you destroy them” is clearly not serious. It’s just there to shock people and sell books. > > Then do you think there’s even a point to discuss the tenets as a serious philosophy? I mean, sure, many folks can take its core seriously and run with it, but that really wasn’t the intent of the founder, was it? What difference does that make? LaVeyan Satanism **does** have tenets, which have value or not on their face, and which we can meaningfully discuss on their merits. I mean, Christianity started out as a prank too, didn’t it? Remember when Jesus rose from the tomb, returned to His Disciples and said “Gotcha!”? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/value-or-not-of-the-satanic-ethic/556743/50 "2010-10-14T07:13:37Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > I agree with the above and I would say that the “Church” of Satan does a great disservice to what is essentially a very solid, modern, humanist philosophy by wrapping it up in Satanic packaging. Without the Satanic wrapping, Anton Lavey would have just been an organ player at 2-bit SF bar. The medium is the message! Wearing a cape was a fashion choice. Holding a Satanic Wedding was the idea of a journalist friend of his. After the media-fueled ceremony LaVey said, “We really pulled it off…[and you can bet the rubes are gonna come back for more](http://www.sfweekly.com/1998-07-01/calendar/the-satanic-verses/).” He was right. The 9 Laws of Satanism were dreamed up in 20 minutes while listening to Chopin (although a familiarity with Nietzsche also helped). The Satanic Bible draws from “…[books by Aleister Crowley and Ayn Rand and an obscure writing from 1896](http://www.sfweekly.com/1998-06-17/news/has-the-church-of-satan-gone-to-hell/4/).” Bio: [http://www.donaldtyson.com/lavey.html:](http://www.donaldtyson.com/lavey.html:) At various times LaVey would claim that Satan doesn’t exist in the commonly accepted sense or that he was a Jungian archetype. LeVey’s daughter maintained that he worshiped the power of Satan, whatever that means. "Once, when asked how he could reconcile the worship of the Devil in an organized Church of Satan with his proclaimed disbelief that Satan even exists, LaVey gave a characteristically cynical reply. He said “calling it a Church enabled me to follow the magic formula of one part outrage to nine parts social respectability that is needed for success.” " That said in time, “LaVey came to genuinely believe that his message of aggressive self-interest was a way for individuals to achieve freedom and happiness in their lives. He saw Satan, not as the tempter of mankind, but as the spur to human self-improvement.” ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2010, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/value-or-not-of-the-satanic-ethic/556743/51 "2010-10-14T15:48:40Z")
> [@Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](#): > > > [@SteveG1](#): > > > > You know, it does seem familiar… It pretends to appeal to the “bad guys”, and talks in terms of extreme selfishness and sense of self worth, and “how to be a clever evil guy”, but in the end, it strongly resembles Macchiavelli. Sort of a “do the right thing because it benefits you” approach. > > Machiavellians who feel the need to have a group to validate their beliefs. > > “Repeat after me: I, fill in the blank, am stronger/better/smarter than the others, so my will be done. But I recognize that being kind to children and small animals will win me brownie points and keep the peasants with pitchforks from my door.” When I was younger, I had a friend who said he was a Satanist. (Yes, he was a friend…he was a bit weird and, I imagine, could be quite scary - over 6’6" tall and very muscular - but if I was ever in trouble he would have been the first I would want at my side.) Whether he really was a Satanist or not, I don’t know. I never really asked him much about it and he never really talked about it much. However, the quote above {I, fill in the blank, am stronger/better/smarter than the others, so my will be done} did seem to be his world view. He seem to label people into inferior/equal/superior categories. If you were deemed inferior\* then he did really seem to expect that you should do his will. Only threat of society punishment probably stopped him. He ended up dying in his late twenties in a bar fight. \*Not just physically. I was puny physically compared to him but he treated me as equal. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/value-or-not-of-the-satanic-ethic/556743/52 "2010-10-15T01:48:19Z")
[quote=“Try2B\_Comprehensive, post:37, topic:556743”] > [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > Without punishment, how can they be taken seriously at all 😕 > > Yes, I am making fun of **Rand Rover** 🙂 No, you are making fun of yourself. ---
**Author:** ![Illuminatiprimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/illuminatiprimus/32/11520_2.png) [@Illuminatiprimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Illuminatiprimus)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/value-or-not-of-the-satanic-ethic/556743/53 "2010-10-16T08:10:40Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > > > No, you are making fun of yourself. > > Given that “without fear of punishment from god there can be no true morals” is a frequently espoused Christian notion, and you’re a committed poster child for Christianity (whether or not you’ve said those exact words on this board), he really is making fun of you. And rightly, I’d say. ---
**Author:** ![Ranchoth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranchoth/32/1066_2.png) [@Ranchoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranchoth)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/value-or-not-of-the-satanic-ethic/556743/54 "2010-10-16T10:14:44Z")
[QUOTE=Satanism] 1. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food. [/QUOTE] This one needs some work. What if the animal is hopelessly hurt or sick, and I just want to put it out of it’s misery? What if I kill it so that it can be somebody _else’s_ food, or because it’s attacking someone who’s not me? Is it okay if I kill it for it’s fur or leather, as long as I eat the rest of it? Does “unless you are attacked” count as the animal destroying my crops, or my property? Do microbes count as “animals”? Strictly speaking, am I allowed to _torture_ an animal as long as I don’t _kill_ it? If I kill animals to use them as ingredients in _medicine_, is that close enough to “food” to qualify? Does “non-human animals” mean “all non-_homo sapiens_,” or “all non-_genus homo_”? (That last one is academic, admittedly) Does machine, silicon-based, or AI “life” count as an “animal”? I’m taking it animal testing is out—but can I loophole this by using animals that would attack me normally, or by tweaking the definition of “attack” (e.g. “people are dying of cancer, and I need to test this cancer drug out on rats. By allowing the rats to live without being tested on, people will die without the new drug. Thus by continuing to live, the rats are causing harm to people, thus are ‘attacking’ them, therefore I’m justified in killing them via testing the drug on them.”)? See, this is why you DO need jurists, I’m afraid. Whether they be a judge, Rabbinical student, or obsessive nerd with a technical manual and a splatbook. At least during the design phase. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2010, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/value-or-not-of-the-satanic-ethic/556743/55 "2010-10-19T20:00:30Z")
I think Satanism is a religion for people who want attention, but are afraid to go to the extent of actually cutting themselves. > [@](#): > > 1. Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked. > > **So why did he write the Satanic Bible? Who asked him?** > > 1. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them. > > **This is a main commandment? Lavey doesn’t strike me as a guy with a big Dear Abby problem.** > > 1. When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there. > > \*\*See above. Lair? Maybe you need to vacuum a bit more often. \*\* > > 1. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy. > > **Thanksgiving must be a real treat at your house, Tony.** > > 1. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal. > > \*\*Here I thought Satanists never got laid because they were _poseurs_. But they were just waiting for a note. \*\* > > 1. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved. > > \*\*P.T. Barnum founds a church, and a new adherent to that church is born every minute. > \*\* > 7. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained. > > **If you wait until the magic spell works before your criticize it, you will be waiting a good long time, I grant you. So this one seems redundant.** > > 1. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself. > > \*\*What happened to the stuff about treating guests cruelly? Why did you invite them in the first place? Geez, Tony, make up your mind. > \*\* > 9. Do not harm little children. > > 1. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food. > > \*\*Why? What’s wrong with hunting? \*\* > > 1. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him. > > **Unless he is bigger than you are. What do you do then, sell him Amway?** Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/value-or-not-of-the-satanic-ethic/556743/56 "2010-10-20T01:06:32Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Yes, I am making fun of **Rand Rover** 🙂 > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > No, you are making fun of yourself. Go to The BBQ Pit to make fun of other posters. Knock it off, both of you. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![falcotron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3ab097/32.png) [@falcotron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/falcotron)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/value-or-not-of-the-satanic-ethic/556743/57 "2010-10-20T22:48:14Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But, it is not supposed to; Satanism does not even purport to be a religion of universal value, it is an elitist creed meant for persons of certain character, of noble souls in an old-school (possibly Bronze Age) aristocratic sense… > > 1. Are the rest of us any better off or worse off for having that Satanic elite in the world? The reality is that the “Satanic elite” are generally not the elite in any true sense of the word. There are a handful of LaVeyan Satanists who are the equivalent of rock stars within some minor niche–people like [Boyd Rice](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyd_Rice) or [Thomas Thorn](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Thorn), who you’ve probably never heard of. I think Karla LaVey claims that Alice Cooper is a follower, but he denies it. Anyway, that’s about as close to elite as you get. Most Satanists I’ve known have been people of around-average intelligence, strength, etc., doing low-end white-collar jobs, with no extraordinary influence on their communities. Honestly, out of all of the Crowleyan occult groups out there, you’d probably find less of an “elite” membership in the CoS/FSC than in most. So, the rest of the word is pretty much not affected by this “Satanic elite” at all, beyond the spectacle of LaVey himself in the 60s. I suppose having Karla LaVey and Blanche Barton around in the 80s and 90s to combat the paranoia over Satanic child molestation was a positive effect, but that’s about all LaVeyan Satanism ever did to or for the world. Also, although LaVey often said that Satanism is a religion only for the elite, some of his statements weren’t consistent with this. For example, “The primary goal of technology should be the development of artificial human companions, so each man will have absolute power over someone else.” Unless Satanism is a religion for all, why would this be a good thing? ---
**Author:** ![falcotron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3ab097/32.png) [@falcotron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/falcotron)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/value-or-not-of-the-satanic-ethic/556743/58 "2010-10-20T23:09:39Z")
> [@statsman1982](#): > > On the matter of the rituals and the theatrics of Black Masses, Gilmore says, effectively, “All religions are about show business. We are the only church that admits it.” This was the major bone of contention that split up the Church of Satan after LaVey’s death. LaVey’s daughter Karla insisted that the “show business” is a way of getting the word out, and has no value in itself. LaVey’s on-again/off-again girlfriend Blanche Barton insisted that the “show business” is the entire point of the Church. Karla interpreted this to mean that Blanche was only in it for the money (the fact that the two of them were fighting over a will that Blanche had forged probably had something to do with it…) and went off and started her own Church. [QUOTE=BigT] As for the creeds, it’s obvious how often the idea of being “evil” is presented in them, while still telling them to do good things. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=AClockworkMelon] The really funny part is that from the sounds of it the Satanic church might be more ethical than the Catholic one. [/QUOTE] Back in the 90s, LaVeyan Satanist Thomas Thorn and his band The Electric Hellfire Club were on tour. When they got to DC, they realized that they’d lost the “ritual knife” they used as part of their stage show, so the manager of the club lent them a knife from the kitchen. One of the roadies accidentally packed it as they were leaving. When they arrived in Philly, Thomas discovered the knife, and went into a panic. He called everyone he could think of, from his manager to his record label, insisting that someone had to overnight the knife back to DC, because otherwise he’d be repaying generosity with evil, and that would be against his most fundamental beliefs. This, even after we had the club owner call him and tell him not to worry about it. Of course, two hours later, Thomas was on stage in his makeup pretending to murder his girlfriend and exhorting the crowd to cry out in Satan’s name. I should also mention that I once asked Thomas why he joined the CoS instead of a less-ridiculous Crowleyan occultist group like OTO. I expected his answer would be, “OK, yeah, it’s for the show business.” But no, the answer was, “The OTO rejected me.” ---
**Author:** ![Fried\_Dough\_Ho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Fried\_Dough\_Ho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fried_Dough_Ho)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/value-or-not-of-the-satanic-ethic/556743/59 "2010-10-20T23:15:58Z")
> [@falcotron](#): > > I should also mention that I once asked Thomas why he joined the CoS instead of a less-ridiculous Crowleyan occultist group like OTO. I expected his answer would be, “OK, yeah, it’s for the show business.” But no, the answer was, “The OTO rejected me.” That surprises me but I wonder what year that was. Nowadays, the O∴T∴O rejects nary a breathing body… ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/value-or-not-of-the-satanic-ethic/556743/60 "2010-10-20T23:18:06Z")
> [@falcotron](#): > > This was the major bone of contention that split up the Church of Satan after LaVey’s death. LaVey’s daughter Karla insisted that the “show business” is a way of getting the word out, and has no value in itself. LaVey’s on-again/off-again girlfriend Blanche Barton insisted that the “show business” is the entire point of the Church. > > Karla interpreted this to mean that Blanche was only in it for the money (the fact that the two of them were fighting over a will that Blanche had forged probably had something to do with it…) and went off and started her own Church. From Jesus Christ to Martin Luther in one generation! 🙂 > [@falcotron](#): > > I should also mention that I once asked Thomas why he joined the CoS instead of a less-ridiculous Crowleyan occultist group like OTO. I expected his answer would be, “OK, yeah, it’s for the show business.” But no, the answer was, “The OTO rejected me.” Makes you wonder what are the OTO’s criteria. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/value-or-not-of-the-satanic-ethic/556743.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/value-or-not-of-the-satanic-ethic/556743.md?page=4)