You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

21721092? ago

Part 4

In State v. Freeman, 559 P.2d 152 (1976) it was the opinion of the expert witness that revenge was the motivation for the murder that the defendant was being tried for, and noted that the defendant had underlined certain passages in the Satanic Bible addressing vengeance and revenge. He stated…that the language, “not only sanctioned revenge, but required it.”

In Childs v. Duckworth, 705 F.2d 915 (1983) the plaintiff Donald Childs, an alleged member of the “Satanic Church,” brought a Civil rights claim, requesting permission for various Satanic items, including the Satanic Bible, which the appellate court denied. Childs confessed to having sacrificed cats and pigeons and casting spells to retaliate against others. The Warden and Director both stated that Satanism was not recognized as a religion by that Institution. The Court stated the authorities had legitimate reason for denying inmates request and it did not deprive him of his Constitutional rights.

In Doty v. Lewis, 995 F. Supp. 1081 (1998) the court ruled that a ban on high security prisoners possession of candles, incense, Baphomet tapestry, and Satanic religious tracts, which advocated retaliation, sacrifices, spells and racial separation, did not impinge on plaintiff Doty’s free exercise rights, given rational reasons related to prison security for banning materials, and despite the prisoner’s sincere belief in the Satanic religion. Materials requested were not essential to practice his religious tenets, and there was a rational connection between restrictions of these materials and prison security concerns.

The inmate had thirty-one disciplinary actions reflecting an escalation of violence and aggression each year, and he was trying to engage other prisoners in violent behavior. It was thought that the Satanic Bible in the hands of this particular prisoner would endanger the security of the prison.

The appellate court stated the Satanic Bible presented a serious threat to the safety and security of the prison, that the book condoned human sacrifice and the book’s philosophies were blatantly “vicious,” “selfish,” and brutal.” The book “advocated hurting someone, who in the opinion of the Satanists, deserved to be harmed and destroyed.” The plaintiff Doty admitted that he had engaged in “sacrificing cows.”

In Burton v. Frank, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9603, the prisoner’s request for the Satanic Bible was denied because the prison had shown that inmates possession of the Satanic Bible posed a threat to the prison’s legitimate interest in maintaining security and promoting rehabilitation. Passages from the Satanic Bible book were quoted:

“The only time a Satanist would perform a human sacrifice would be if it were to serve a two-fold purpose; that being to release the magician’s wrath in the throwing of a curse, and more important, to dispose of a totally obnoxious and deserving individual.”

At least one Satanist inmate engaged in a ritual in which an effigy was tortured and “murdered.” The appellate court stated that the Satanic Bible outlined procedures for destroying enemies through the use of effigies.

The prison’s position was that the Satanic Bible promoted “violent and illegal” behavior, and that “manipulation, disregard for laws and authority, self-indulgence and revenge,” were inconsistent with criminal rehabilitation. The court also noted that other Satanists in this particular prison kept a notebook, called the “Book of Shadows,” which was filled with murderous language.

Note: The Church of Satan claims they have never been associated with any criminal activity. However, that is incorrect. Followers of Anton La Vey have routinely requested the Satanic Bible while in prison, and in the majority of cases their requests have been denied. As of 7/4/07 a Lexis Nexus search revealed more than 30 appellate decisions in which the Satanic Bible was mentioned. In Maine vs. Waterhouse (1986) the appellate court quoted passages from the Satanic Bible to prove and uphold the satanic motivation for the crime. In Adoption of Quentin (1997) the appellate court noted the perpetrator had read the Satanic Bible.

[The source of cattle mutilations has remained unsolved in the United States which makes the admission of the sacrifice of a cow in Doty vs. Lewis a point of interest.] See “Mutilated Bull: No Blood, No clues,” Gallup Independent, May 5, 2007; “The Truth is Out There,” The Gallup Independent, May 5, 2007]

Ser Part 5