Hello, I am new to the forums here. I think that the statue of Vlad is very beautiful and I wouldn't mind owning one myself, however, I don't quite understand why Vlad Dracula was chosen as the first satanic saint.
I am confused because, to me, I don't think he was very satanic, in certain aspects anyways. He tortured animals, was a christian crusader, tortured and killed maidens who had lost their virginity, and according to an ancient pamphlet, "He also roasted children and made their mothers eat them."
I think the statue is great, but I am confused on why he was chosen as the first satanic saint.

From what I read, it looks like Satanic Saints are (to be) chosen on their personification of a Satanic ideal, and not necessarily their entire personality. If you read about The Marquis de Sade, it becomes more likely that this is the case .

"Satanic Saints" is the name of an art collection. It is not an official list of Satanic Saints put forth by the CoS, in a simliar fashion to the Catholic Church. Instead, it is an art collection whose subjects is chosen by the artist, presumably based on historical figures he considers to have Satanic qualities.

Look at it is way, I would title a collection of oil painting "Modern Christian Saints" with each painting displaying a Moral Majority leader in the act of an unsavory activity with was reported by the media. For instance, I could depict good ole Rush strung out on his oxycotin with pills all over the floor. But it would not imply that a church had recongized him as a saint. Get the drift?

On a side note, much of what you have said Vlad Dracula did sounds like ancient propoganda, not historical fact. He was an iron fist ruler, but their is a reason he is considered a hero in his native country. He rose up by the power of his sword, willpower, and desire to make homeland great once more, and it could be said that the latter was accomplished by him. Can you see how that can be considered Satanic?

yeah I agree, well I do believe there is some evidence to most of the statements, but the last one, the one about feeding kids to their mothers is probably untrue.
I understand what you mean.
Still I believe it to be somewhat of a poor choice, since he did not agree with most of the tenets of satanism, or so I've read.

Despite all the myth and legend and possible exageration, Vlad Tepes being a cruel ruler and a defender of Christianity is an historical fact.

But I think the objective of the "Satanic Saints" is not historical but aesthetical. The characters chosen are not Satanic in a historic, but symbolic way. Perhaps in real life those guys were less Satanic than Mother Teresa, but the impression they left in the collective mind of humanity is a Satanic one.

Personally, I don't think anyone can be called a "Satanic Saint" The term itself is a contradiction.

That is also how I understood the project. Many of the christian saints were far from perfect as a whole, but were often selected for an admirably high level of a certain trait. Hence the well-known phrase "patron saint of."

Vlad's corresponding trait was justice, I believe.

I think people are overlooking naamahpink's post.