Editing Satanic panic (section)

===Polarization===

There was never any consensus on what actually constituted Satanic ritual abuse.<ref name=deYoung2007>{{cite journal|last=de Young |first=Mary |author-link=Mary de Young |year=2007 |title=Two Decades After McMartin: A Follow-Up of 22 Convicted Day Care Employees |url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYZ/is_4_34/ai_n25466116/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080925172921/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYZ/is_4_34/ai_n25466116/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1 |url-status=dead |archive-date=September 25, 2008 |access-date=August 11, 2008 |journal=Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare |volume=34 |issue=4 |pages=9–33}}</ref> This lack of a single definition, as well as confusion between the meanings of the term ''ritual'' ([[Ritual#Religious perspectives|religious]] versus [[Ritual#Psychology|psychological]]) allowed a wide range of allegations and evidence to be claimed as a demonstration of the reality of SRA allegations, irrespective of which "definition" the evidence supported.{{sfn |Bibby |1996 |pp=205–13}} Acrimonious disagreements between groups who supported SRA allegations as authentic and those criticizing them as unsubstantiated resulted in an extremely polarized discussion with little middle ground.<ref name=Fraser>{{cite book |last=Fraser |first=GA |publisher=American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc. |year=1997 |title=The Dilemma of Ritual Abuse: Cautions and Guides for Therapists |pages=[https://books.google.com/books?id=4CMHRXz5qsQC&pg=PA105 105–17] |isbn=978-0-88048-478-7}}</ref>{{sfn |Edge |2001 |pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=LLOtSiH2E1cC&pg=PA362 362–63]}} The lack of credible evidence for the more extreme interpretations often being seen as evidence of an effective conspiracy rather than an indication that the allegations are unfounded. The religious beliefs or [[atheism]] of the disputants have also resulted in different interpretations of evidence, and as well as accusations of those who reject the claims being "anti-child".{{sfn |Edge |2001 |pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=LLOtSiH2E1cC&pg=PA362 362–63]}}{{sfn |Clapton |1993 |pp=18–22}} Both believers and skeptics have developed networks to disseminate information on their respective positions.{{sfn |Bibby |1996 |pp=27–28}} One of the central themes of the discussion among English child abuse professionals was the assertion that people should simply "believe the children", and that the testimony of children was sufficient proof, which ignored the fact that in many cases the testimony of children was interpreted by professionals rather than the children explicitly disclosing allegations of abuse. In some cases this was simultaneously presented with the idea that it did not matter if SRA actually existed, that the [[empiricism|empirical]] truth of SRA was irrelevant, that the testimony of children was more important than that of doctors, social workers and the criminal justice system.{{sfn |Clapton |1993 |pp=18–22}}