Parody Religions (SubGenius, etc)

[Bohandas]

Is it ok to bring up things like the Church of the SubGenius that are presented in a religion-like format but are explicitly intended as a joke or satire?

On most forums I wouldn't ask but I've gotten burned on weird interpretations of the religious discussion rule here before so I gelt it would be better to check.

[Rockphed]

Is it ok to bring up things like the Church of the SubGenius that are presented in a religion-like format but are explicitly intended as a joke or satire?

On most forums I wouldn't ask but I've gotten burned on weird interpretations of the religious discussion rule here before so I gelt it would be better to check.

I ... I don't think that is a good idea here. The mods occasionally stress that it is "Real World" religions that are out of bounds, so while I suspect that you could probably sneak a mention or two of a parody religion under the radar, it is likely to be a close thing. After all, just because you think something is a harmless parody does not mean that people who are devout about their religion will not see it as a horribly offensive parody of their religion. I'm not saying that religionists will be offended, just that they might not take your comments in the light you mean them.

I suspect that part of the reason for the "no real world politics or religion" rule is that people with different experiences in politics and religion frequently have vastly different reactions to things. Specifically, what someone on one end of the political/religiosity spectrum will think light-hearted ribbing, someone on the other end might find horribly offensive and vice-versa.

[Bohandas]

I ... I don't think that is a good idea here. The mods occasionally stress that it is "Real World" religions that are out of bounds, so while I suspect that you could probably sneak a mention or two of a parody religion under the radar, it is likely to be a close thing. After all, just because you think something is a harmless parody does not mean that people who are devout about their religion will not see it as a horribly offensive parody of their religion. I'm not saying that religionists will be offended, just that they might not take your comments in the light you mean them.

I suspect that part of the reason for the "no real world politics or religion" rule is that people with different experiences in politics and religion frequently have vastly different reactions to things. Specifically, what someone on one end of the political/religiosity spectrum will think light-hearted ribbing, someone on the other end might find horribly offensive and vice-versa.

Not in the context of mocking people, in the context of the Religions of Order and Chaos thread. Because chaos is kind of SubGenius' thing, and the organization's official publications call it out as a joke several times so I figured it might be ok to bring up ("This church...will someday be the greatest joke ever told" -Book of the SubGenius pg 191; "'BOB' is not the answer" -Book of the SubGenius pg 191; "an inherently bogus religion" -pamphlet 1 page 2; "not tax exempt" -pamphlet 2 page 11)

EDIT:
Furthermore it has been established that fictionalized versions of deities and concepts from real world religion (such as the OotS version of the ancient norse pantheon, the Marvel comics version of the same, the Stargate version of the ancient egyptian pantheon, the D&D versions of the norse, egyptian, babylonian and greek pantheons, and Robert Howard's fictionalized version of Crom Cruach

[Anymage]

Practically speaking, you can get away with mentions of/allusions to most religions so long as it's not too in-depth or doesn't rile anybody up. The only problem with mentioning subgenius or discordianism as reasons why people might find a chaos religion attractive is that they're a little on the old side and many younger forumgoers might not know what you're talking about.

Chapter and verse from their literature is closer to the line, in the "probably won't draw down mod attention, but would be totally justified if one dinged you" sense. There exist people in the real world who find D&D religions satisfying, and there are people in the real world who identify with these joke religions. Mentioning them should probably be okay, maybe providing a link so that the curious know what you're talking about. But talking about how fantasy people should follow a real (if joke) faith comes too close to talking about real people following said faith.

[Rockphed]

Furthermore it has been established that fictionalized versions of deities and concepts from real world religion (such as the OotS version of the ancient norse pantheon, the Marvel comics version of the same, the Stargate version of the ancient egyptian pantheon, the D&D versions of the norse, egyptian, babylonian and greek pantheons, and Robert Howard's fictionalized version of Crom Cruach

Previous mod comments have been that the line is real-world vs fictional. So if you are using a fictional version of a religion, go ahead. I think they have even said that if you want to use a fictional Catholic Church in a play-by-post game you are free to do so so long as it (and all discussion thereof) remain completely fictional. You can also have your play-by-post game involve killing (or working with) Nazis or Communists or Free-masons or Imperial Japanese or MI6 or Mormons or Andrew Jackson's Ghost or whatever, again, so long as they remain completely fictitious and you don't get into a discussion about how any of those things really behave. Even in threads dedicated to historical games, like Europa Universalis or Crusader Kings, the mods have occasionally popped in to gently nudge the discussion away from how the historical stuff really worked. I think I once even saw a mod post a good 2 paragraphs of red text telling us to knock off discussing papal succession from the 14th century (which probably crossed both the politics and religion lines).

[Roland St. Jude]

Practically speaking, you can get away with mentions of/allusions to most religions so long as it's not too in-depth or doesn't rile anybody up.

Sheriff: You might "get away with it," if it goes unreported, but it's still against the Forum Rules. Please don't discuss, mention, refer to real world religion here, regardless of the reason, depth, or context.

The only problem with mentioning subgenius or discordianism as reasons why people might find a chaos religion attractive is that they're a little on the old side and many younger forumgoers might not know what you're talking about.

Chapter and verse from their literature is closer to the line, in the "probably won't draw down mod attention, but would be totally justified if one dinged you" sense. There exist people in the real world who find D&D religions satisfying, and there are people in the real world who identify with these joke religions. {snipped} But talking about how fantasy people should follow a real (if joke) faith comes too close to talking about real people following said faith.

Sheriff: I think what it comes down to with "joke" religions is that you are still discussing a real world religion. It may have sincere followers, ironic followers, or both, but by presenting it as as religion, it's put itself in that category of things that is problematic here. Ultimately, I think we'd take each instance on a case-by-case basis, but you'd be better off just avoiding it. As always, when in doubt, leave it out.