Talk:Parody religion

	This Religion related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Offended I am

I'm deeply offended* at the suggestion that the Church of the SubGenius is somehow less theologically less valid than, say, Aum Shinrikyo, just because it's FUNNY. --Gulik 19:25, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

(*Lie)

More liberal deceit I see! Aschlafly 20:28, 4 July 2007

O_o

....

I'm SO disappointed you're not the real thing. But Schlafly'd never argue in any forum where he's not assured of getting the last word. --Gulik 19:36, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Oh yeah? Block him Karajou. Aschlafly 20:38, 4 July 2007

Yeah. Eat him goats And which category should SubGenius go under? --Thunderkatz 21:03, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

A sub-category, surely? human^{be in} 00:29, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

This list is hopeless incomplete

Shouldn't we list Judaism, Christianity, and Islam here? I'm so confused! Which is parody, which is not? Guide me (L)Andru Jimaginator 12:21, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Look to the Law of Poe for help my son.--Bob^{bing up} 13:07, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

It looked like it might be interesting or yea, verily, mind opening, but I thought it might make me a liberal or cause my loins to burst into flame, so I didn't read it. I am pure now. Thank you. Jimaginator 16:40, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

You must gird up your loins and be prepared for these Liberal Lies. Yea, verily so that your loins become truly flame-proof. In fact, well girded loins will prepare you for most eventualities.--Bob^{bing up} 16:48, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Scientology

we may all hate it but it Aint a parody religion.Waronstupidity (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure is. L Ron may seem weird, but he invented a religion to muck with people's heads, and succeeded. For the win, as they say. ħuman 09:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

that is what you think.......... i aint a scientologist but calling it a parody religion is quite dumb.Waronstupidity (talk) 09:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

and stop with the Self righteous atitude.Waronstupidity (talk) 09:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not just what I think, it is clinically obvious. L Ron made up a set of memes that would become a "religion", and did it so well it worked. He'd be proud to see the morons adhering to it today were he still alive. ħuman 09:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

.......... you look like andy.Waronstupidity (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

dont state your opinion as fact.Waronstupidity (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

there a global idea behind Scientology while other parody religion is just here for the lulz.Waronstupidity (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

And you don't think L Ron started SC as a joke? If so you a moron.... he was exploiting his SF skills and experimenting on the human race. Did well, if you ask me. ħuman 10:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

and you are acting like a self righteous brat...... Scientology aint a parody..... parody are official and obvious like the pastafarian.Waronstupidity (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

i never insulted you so keep your insult to yourself.Waronstupidity (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Scientology have a global idea behind it. its not just for the *lulz* like the pastafarian.Waronstupidity (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

if Scientology a Parody then so is every religion since its pretty much the same.......... and you know it.Waronstupidity (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Study it first. L Ron exploited the human mind by inventing a "religion" that is obviously a parody of most religions. ħuman 10:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

ok... im going to be more mature and let miss right win.......Waronstupidity (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is that L Ron performed an experiment, and it sort of succeeded, by making a fake/parody religion. He was a SF writer, after all, not a "messiah" type. I think he just pwned some losers into "following" his made-up religion. ħuman 10:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Does Scientology "mock" other religions or does it "ape" them?

We state in the intro:

• A parody religion is a fake religion that mocks the principles, beliefs, and self-righteousness of other religions.

Does Scientology "mock" other religions or does it "ape" them? Discuss.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice of you to not use "add new section" and EC me. Yes, SC does all that. The practitioners just don't realize it. It's the most subtle fake religion in existence, unless you count Mormonism. ħuman 10:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I specifically remember using "add new section", so your EC has other causes I'm afraid.

Oh fuck off, I got EC'd and all there was was this new section. ħuman 10:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Human but I most definitely used "add new section". I suspect that it is time you went to bed. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the lead to address your whining. ħuman 10:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but isn't that moving the goalposts a little?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)\

No, that's called "improving the article" to get past some prat's whining. ħuman 10:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It could be moved to the "joke religions you can take seriously" section? Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but I still maintain that SCology is a fake religion, just better done than most. ħuman 10:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Mormonism aint fake........ human im starting to think your anti semit.Waronstupidity (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

ancient egyptians buried mormon book in manchester... sounds like not faking --91.145.72.188 (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

To answer my own question, I don't think that Scientology is actually a "parody" religion in the sense that it was invented to make people laugh at religion and its believers treat it as such. On the other hand it's clearly an invented religion rather than, say, an "organic" one, and it seems probable that Hubbard invented it with some cynical end in mind. Whether that cynical end was to make money, to parody religion or to achieve some other objective is another question.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to include it on this page, if only for reasons of snark. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

to those who hate Mormon, its not because you don't believe in it that its fake........Waronstupidity (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

False dichotomy? (or whatever the term should be)

Within our list of parody religions, we have a sub category "parody religions that can be taken seriously." I noticed that Haruhiism is listed in the general list and not in the can be serious list, but I was once friends with someone who genuinely took Haruhiism seriously (for all I know, he still does to this day; I wish I was still in touch with him- I would ask him). My point is, who are we to say which paraody religions could or could not be taken seriously? I propose we remove that particular subcategory heading, or at least change it to something like "parody religions that are commonly taken seriously." Rand0 (talk) 07:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Some people are apt to put some serious stock into the idea that Madoka sacrificed herself and gave up her body to save humanity from curses and despair.

Dudeism

As someone who will join Dudeism, like, when I get around to it, I have to protest this classification. It is not parody, it is a way of life man. Lgs (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, (upcoming) dude, that’s, like, your opinion, man. Lookin’ forward to seeing you among the faithful, btw. Laid back regards from an ordained minister of, what has it been, 15 or 20 years now? Honestly, I’m to lazy to check up on the exact duration right now. ScepticWombat (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

It should at least be moved to "parody religions that can be taken seriously" to sit alongside Church of the SubGenius and Discordianism, all of which are taken at least semi-seriously by some people. (And is Tertullian not often misquoted as saying "credo quia absurdum"?). --Gospatric (talk) 09:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, btw, and just for good measure and in the interest of disclosure, I was the one who added Dudeism to the list. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Really Reformed Church of Wikipedia

The article has been moved to WikiCommons - would changing the link 'work'? Anna Livia (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Would 'further details available on (WikiCommons) link [url here]' be appropriate (as I would do it myself then). Anna Livia (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Reworking

This is a mess. A lot of the religions seem to be obscure in-jokes, and the structure is problematic, but some topics are legitimate.

I'd suggest dividing to cover separately:

• fictional/parody religions in literature/film/etc (Vonnegut, Jeff Vandermer, Weeds, etc) in one section
• parody religions created as deliberate parody/mockery not part of a fictional world, e.g. pastafarianism, in another section
• parody religions based on books/art/literature that don't feature in the original work (e.g. Dudeism) but are more like aspects of fandom than religion
• acknowledged parody religions which have some real-world adherents (no matter how jokingly), e.g. Satanic Temple - try and provide statistics
• religions which may or may not be parodies (Scientology)

And maybe reference non-parody secular churches like (arguably) Unitarian Universalism and Sunday Assembly.

I've no idea if any of the Pokemon or anime references deserve to be here; the Church of Pac-man at least has some mention in well-known publications.

The article should try and analyse and explain, not just list in-jokes with no explanation. This article is so that old most of the people who know the in-jokes have long since left RW. I couldn't figure out Inglip at all. --Annanoon (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 15:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)