A serious study of joke religions

[Isparklaria]

I think this paper would be a good subject for Occams.

https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/9336/Thesis%20Laurel%20Narizny.pdf?sequence=1


Abstract: Not all spiritual activity is commonly acknowledged as
“religion.” In a broad sense, religion is defined as the various ways
humans negotiate their relationships with the transcendent, whether
alone or in communities. The struggle to reconcile traditional pre-
modern religious ideas about the world with the postmodern worldview,
heavily influenced by the “deep play” that uses humor to break the
hold of logic on the human mind, has given rise in the past sixty
years to a new phenomenon: joke religions. A synthesis of occulture,
counterculture, carnivalesque inversion, and vernacular reactions to
institutional religions, joke religions are “authentic fakes” that are
simultaneously authentic religions and humorous satires of other
religions. They can be subdivided into satirical religions such as
Discordianism—sincere religions, focused heavily on deep play, that
can provide genuine religious experiences—and parody religions such as
the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster—insincere, atheistic,
extended parodies. Since there are virtually no scholarly works about
joke religions as of yet, this paper is intended to be a starting
point for future research.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I.
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
II. THEORETICAL
BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A. Defining
religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
B. The role of humor in
religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
C. Defining satirical and parody
religions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
III. SURVEY OF JOKE
RELIGIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
A.
Discordianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
i.
History, Publications, and Organization . . . . . . . . . . . .23
ii.
Mythology and Worldview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
C. Church of the Flying Spaghetti
Monster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
D. The Center for Duck
Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
IV.
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57

[Clogtowner]

Hi y'all - I like jocularity in religion - let's do it.

On Jul 2, 7:28 am, Isparklaria <michaelcop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think this paper would be a good subject for Occams.
>

> https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/9336/The...

[Muddle Head]

Below are questions for the Occams discussion on Monday.

Questions that I have relating to the paper A Serious Study of Joke
Religion

1. The author claims that one of the functions of religion is to
negotiate a relationship with the transcendent. What in your opinion
is a meant by a transcendent? Is such an experience possible? If so,
is such an experience ever desirable? Is it ever undesirable? If you
attend religious worship services, do you ever attain a sense of
relating to the transcendent through such services or through other
religious activities prayer? Do you ever experience a connection to
the transcendent through other “nonreligious” activities
2. Suppose transcendent is simply defined as going beyond the limiting
restrictions that our ideology, religious or secular, and upbringing
places upon our experience but doe not necessarily have anything to do
with the supernatural. Some people, myself included, believe that this
is an acceptable definition of transcendence. Caught as we often are
in the world of verbal thought (speaking to ourselves), we often miss
the depth and beauty of everyday experience. Though we are not
normally aware of it, from the earliest age, we have learned to filter
our experience. As William Blake wrote, "If the doors of perception
were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite. For
man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through narrow
chinks of his cavern." Suppose that what Blake describes as “cleansing
the doors of perception” is a great transcendence. Suppose also that a
small and commonly occurring transcendence is simply experiencing
something new that makes ones world a little wider and perhaps wiser
too. Do you believe that such and experience ever worth having? Do you
have these types of experiences from religious activities, meditation,
playing or listening to music or creating or observing another art
form? Do ever have these small transcendent experiences from love, sex
humor or any other activities. Do they help you grow or serve any
other useful function in your life?
3. What in your opinion constitutes as religion? Does it have to
include belief in supernatural entities? Can Disneyism be considered a
religion as the paper suggest? Does humor have a place in a religion
and in your religion? Did you know that the Bible has much humor of
various types in it? If you don’t believe this or have an interest in
the subject, here are a few of many links:
http://www.geocities.com/binnyva/bible/articles/humor.html,
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/economic/friedman/bibhumor.htm,
http://www.funtrivia.com/trivia-quiz/Religion/Humor-in-the-Bible-308568.html.
4. Suppose predestination to heaven for the elect is true as Ephesians
1:4 (According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of
the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in
love) and many other Bible passages indicate? What then is the purpose
of religion? In that case it is certainly not to one to heaven.
Suppose there is no heaven? In that case, one of the working purposes
of religion cannot be to get to heaven. In either case one of the
useful purposes of religion can be still be transcendence. In that
case is a satire religion such as Discordianism a valid religion? In
the paper on Discordian claims that Discordianism is better than
religion. Do you agree? Why or why not.
5. The author claims that parody religions, such as Pastafarianism,
are cynical and that the purpose of these religions is to restore the
balance between cynicism and faith. Do you believe that blind faith of
the type demanded by some religions has a place in science? If so why?
If not why? Do you believe that reasonable faith and reasonable doubt
have a place in decision making in the day-to-day world? What is the
difference, if any, between reasonable faith and blind faith? What is
the difference between “good faith” as in good faith negotiations and
blind faith? Do you have blind faith in your predestination to heaven?
If so does this blind faith help you to live what you consider a
better life? If yes, what do you mean by a better life? For example,
are you less anxious and as a result happier and more open?

> > 57- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -