Oh and by the way, before someone mentions it, not all references to Lucifer in less-than-absolutely-negative light mean that the belief is satanic. They might consider him anything from an archetype of a rebel who decides to turn against purely dogmatic views to a tester (perhaps this is the true meaning of the Creme's oft-discussed quote about "Luciferic initiation").
In fact, Lucifer was originally an angel, and I don't mean "before the fall," I mean in the Hebrew Bible, see Book of Job for example. Were the Torah worshiping Jews Satanists? I strongly doubt so; yet they considered Lucifer to be in the "employ" of God, and so do Muslims. And isn't it a much more "monotheistic" way how to look at this problem than what Christians do, who made over the years Satan into a manichean anti-God? Obviously either is illogical if taken literally (since that would imply God is not a loving God, to say it in short), but that's another matter entirely.
Obviously, Lucifer is a difficult subject. My take on it is that whoever claims he can "bargain" with him in other than a very subtly metaphoric way is probably in error (not that it's impossible, it just does not lead to enlightenment), so are they who claim to worship him, but that's also not set in stone; but neither is the satanism of such people set in stone, being in error does not mean being evil, it just means that their esoteric doctrine has been confused, and that is all.
The rule is: If you hear about someone "being satanic," "eating babies," or "worshiping a Donkey" or whatever, nine times out of ten it is a slander born out of ignorance.
And by the way if I see one more reference to "Theosophy inspired Hitler = Theosophy is eeeeveeeel" or similar piece of logical prostitution based on lack of understanding, I think I am going to puke then and there.
