___________The Origins :____________
How to define them thus rationally without falling in the sectarian excess ?
We saw on the page " is the pastafarism of religious nature? " How the sociology defined the religion.
The Monster is sly and inconsistently drunkard, we know it, and it created a heap of weird cults, from which the reach escapes us. Thus let us see how HE transmitted us a knowledge pataphysics through His scientific Noodly Touch in the sociological works:
Brief reminder and introduction :
The religion is the demonstration(appearance), by the construction of a totem identifying the group, Of the will of this group to want to exist and to perpetuate itself. It is The metaphoric figure of the soul of the group and the individuals who compose it, of the power superior than the moral values (even amoral) of the group practice on the individualities.
In it, the definition of the monk exceed a narrow conception of the monk limited to the only religions "officially " recognized as some. The science, the atheism, the democracy, the secularism, and any social movement training(forming) identifying totems (the reason, the tolerance by examples) work exactly on the same model as the official religions, both in their genesis and in their sustainability. *
Results from it that a religion symbolizes the group which defines itself by its totem, and especially that there is a hierarchy between the religions (including secular as the atheism).
Indeed, the totems of Lutheran, the Calvinists, the Mormons, the Anglicans, the Catholics, the Jews, the Muslims, the atheists, the Buddhists, etc. represent only their community.
On the other hand, religions such as secularism, democracy, science, humanism, etc. include under their authority and moral values all these gathered(combined) communities. This way they are religions of superior value, in the sense that their values are imperative upon all other communities. The taboos and the obligations(bonds) of the first ones(nights) are imperative only to its restricted community, while those of the seconds stand out to all.
We shall thus dismiss back to back atheists and believers in their claims to want to impose their values in while appropriating sécularisme and science in their profit. The atheists and the believers do not have to take advantage of the science to impose their views(sights) to the others. The science cannot either confirm, or counter formally god's reality... Moreover the sociological science would give rather reason half to the believers onto this point: if god would be only the metaphoric representation of the group which worships it, god exists well as real metaphor and concreet of this community, nevertheless at this level with minima,
Two exemples :
The atheists having for totem the reason can claim that this totem being common to all, this would confer on them a superiority superior to the other worship. But not, sociologically their values has theists stands out that to their restricted community. Because count believers think of being able to always reconcile reason and faith. Just the atheists can aspire, and only aspire, that their values are more solid than the alternate religious, and will eventually stand out later.
Pastafarians has for totem the secularism, but even if this totem is common to all, all do not adhere to the pastafarism which thus remains a restricted community, subjected to the common tolerance inter-community of the secularism, which they recognize moreover.
Also let us note certain number of "trans-religious" cults such as sports and the others cultural activities, the followers of which can also be of any other religion, political or philosophic sensitivity. This cults raises more from the sensibility than from the intellect, and focus more on the report of the individual with its animistic gregarious need, its report with an imperceptible collective soul. This cults thus trains(forms) footbridges between the various cults "reasoned " and structured intellectually, and especially question the infulence of the intellect about the " collective faith " by advancing highly-rated passionate of this last one: even in the most rational cults there is a passionate dimention, and this cults allows to investigate this dimention by freeing it of any idea of rationalisation prerequisite. This cults are often imperceptible moreover in the short-lived character, but nevertheless necessary, of some.
These last ones not incrivent not so much in a religious hierarchy in term of categories of polulation subscribing to it.
* Please note : whyever this sociological conception of the religion, including the communities of type secular as religions, does not it thus stand out in the public opinion ?
Because let us be clear, Durkheim and his(her) following ones demonstrated well that these social phenomena "seculars" were indeed catégorisables in religion by their phenomenologies.
Simply because the "official" religions are not absolutely anxious to see decreasing at the level of simple social phenomenon, and their prégnance on the social allows them to impose their former conceptions of the religion. Also the rationalist and the other scientists (whatever for some of these last ones?) are not more anxious to see assimilating to archaic social movements, for them, and have just as much of social weight to block the road to this abstract generalization. Furthermore that would place them directly there concurence nun with the official religions while it would dethrone them of a certain elitism on the religions, so as to consider that some are religions of upper order.
How to embellish with images this aspect: in the Australian and Amerindian totémism there are usual animals there totem, crowned, but for all that they are crowned only for every clan, remaining vulgar for the other clans. Every animal totem thus has values has another time sacred and vulgar for the whole tribe including all the clans.
Mean that an animal cannot be categorized as animal because it is dedicated by such or such clan is a scientific heresy, because an animal remains scientifically an animal for the biologist about is the sacred value which imputes it ideologically such or such group.
To say even that a "secular" religion cannot be classified in the same category as the "official" religions because it would "be vulgar", while the science confers it the same phenomenology as on these "official" religions, participle of the same narrow-mindedness, very little noodly.
Let us get to the heart of the subject : Origin of the religious nonsense.
In the Australian totémism, in the clan of the totem of the kangaroo, the members of the clan consider as lived by the soul of the kangaroo which they worship. But to be kangarooes and regenerate their soul kangaroo as such, it is necessary to them to sacrifice an animal regularly to ingest it together and recapture so this soul in them.
Problem : to kill their animal idol is taboo... Ouch !
It is thus necessary that members of the other clans, not subjected to this taboo kills it for them and their offer in sustenance, in return. As a matter of fact the Australian polytheism offers one an exchange of friendly services mutual processes to every religious group, and it is admitted as such.
In the modern "official" worship, the worship is practised in the form of unique thought, excluding from quite other religion - even if schism can appear between diverse communities of the same group, the Christians live nevertheless as globally Christians, and the Muslims as globally Moslem, subjected in even taboo fundamental thus-.
The essential taboos thus remain taboo for all, and the malpractice of the taboo, was by another cult, is lived as a mean action there in itself.
Let us take Christ in example. without its initial sacrifice its worship would not have been able to develop : It is the center of the development of the worship. At the same time, it was taboo for the first Christians to sacrifice their god's own representation, although Judas, " the traitor ", participated in it. Godless Jewish and Roman were needed thus indeed the help of to bring to a successful conclusion this dirty work so that the worship originates and continues.
Except that this malpractice of the taboo by the other clans, which is considered as being obvious, and necessity, to the Australian, is lived as a mean action by the modern worship. The help of the godless is thus lived there in a paranoiac way: other one, foreigner in the worship is decked out by the role of the miserable, rather than by that of assistant there normal and necessary.
The responsibility of the community which calls of these wishes this exogenous participation to the foundation of the worship is in kind denied in its legitimate necessity by demonizing this intrinsic necessity in external fault to the group. This way the Judaism, in the sacrificel myth.
What forget the modern religions, it is thus highly-rated metaphoric of the role of the miserable, that would thus be treated(handled) like a theatrical direction, more than to take literally.
The dogmatic reading of the role of the miserable is thus the first perversion of the deep sense(direction) of the exogenous sacrificial necessity by the foreign clans. In fact, the religious foreigner is necessary for the ritualisation of the worship, thus the polytheism is necessary in itself there, and without exaggerated demonization of the other cults.
This negation of the positive role of the exogenous malpractice of the taboo (which is not one because exogenous) by demonizing it calcifies the collective by highly-rated paranoiac sound. And naturally this hardening is attributed not to this negation, but to the malefic role of other one so introducing a mortiferous vicious circle, because paranoiac.
A mortiferous cult : Patriotism
The mortiferous consequences of this negation is perfectly illustrated by the patriotic cult of nations in Europe, which found its logical conclusion in the European collective suicide committed during the first two world wars.
The cohesion of nations so built there on the idea as the miserable it was the foreign countries which it is necessary to fight. To create this cohesion in front of internal dissensions due to the negation of the responsibility sacrifficielle, the systematic bias was there to be threats external to fight.
Republican France assumed its internal dissensions brilliantly, but in a a little aggravated way. Having settled(adjusted) only its dissentions, it thus was only answering the attacks of the other patriotic nations. Expantionistes aims in Europe were the object only of its emperors, no republicans. This said it is necessary difficille not to sink into the collective madness when it arises and France was not the last one in patriotism. But let us remain patriotic, the miserable it is German obviously, it is simpler seen like that.
Germany, split at first, and profoundly divided between Catholics in the South and Protestants in the North, no batit its unity that on an aggravated patriotism so hidting its internal dissentions.
A cult rather successful : The democracy .
In democracy, various political clans are in confrontation.
It is rather taboo to criticize the essential values of its own camp: its totem in kind.
On the other hand the opposite camps, not subjected to the same taboo, try by all the means to shoot down its ideology, its totems as a matter of fact. Making it the so broken taboo allows the attacked(affected) clan, not only to defend its totem by reaffirming the values concerned to its totem, but also "to digest" by ingestion of the so shot down totem the relevant criticisms of camps opposite, bringing a revitalization by updating of its own values which would lose of their vigour if the others had not killed it by their criticisms.
The digestive communion is possible only by the death of the totem operated by the opposite clan. And, actually, it is the democratic tribe in general that is globally revitalized, by the vigour generated by these respective ritual killings of the totems of every clan.
In fact, every totem needs to be killed regularly, and alternately, to be reborn each of its ashes such the phoenix. It is why the democracy is condemned for the political alternation, and we see very how much a democracy such as Russia calcifies in the nepotism of party by the lack of alternation.
Let us see this under another angle.
The cult of the revival of the nature
The Australian aborigines celebrate the revitalization of the nature in the rainy season.
But at a closer look, it is of the another revitalization question of which it is. At the same time ceremonies ritualisent the communion of the clan which revitalize by ingesting its totem, and also associate it the initiatory rites of the young generations, so marking the revitalization of the clan by the contribution of " new blood " within it. In kind the cult of the revitalization of the nature is only the metaphor of the cult carried in itself in its regenerative values of the group.
But we can also say that if the rainy season marks the revival of the nature, it is good with regard to another element which is its decay during the dry season, which symbolizes the decay of the group due to the lack of faith in the community.
Always the same symbolism: the totem has to decay to be reborn of these ashes, thus well die to be so offered to the communion of the clan (food of the animal totem is sensible to have virtues regenerator on the population of the animal totem, and the aforementioned animals prosper effectively upon the arrival of rainy season, that falls very QED).
The dry season is thus so essential in the cult as the arrival of rainy season. If it did not exist it would be necessary to invent it. And it is that happens under diverse forms in the oppositions of the strengths of the good and the evil (gods and devils), ying and yang, cycles of lives and deaths (weedings births initiations deaths), of the political alternation, etc...
Other example of successful cult :
The cult of the sport
A rested cult is celebrated to every sports team by its own supporters. The interest is here that the cult is totally absurd but and melts again all the same every clan. Little in the style of the totemic clans, the interest is not so much in the totem who to be few only an insignificant bird, or a not aggressive species of ants, it has value that in the fact that all become identified in the common totem so establishing the community. A weak team can even if to be proud of having defended well itself in front of a strong to undo it : the important is to defend its (totemic) colors and not so much to win. To mark a simple point is a victory in itself. And as usual a dry period (without point) is necessary for the revitalization brought by the arisen of some later points. Loser or winner, what matters is more the celebration of the tribal sport thus, as federative cult, as of the cult of the supported clan team.
In Bouthan, ritual competitions of archery are organized between rustic communities, once the year. The one who wins the competition is sensible to benefit from better harvests for year to come. It is so important that we hesitate not to cheat by putting rags soaked by menses in trees covering the access path of the rival teams to weaken their luck. Then we do not know if the winners benefit from better harvests, but a matter is sure, the winning community is proud to have won, and each of his members claims of this clan with all the more fervour ; the revitalization of the clan and at least assured for lack of revitalization of the nature.
Bouthan sends archers' team to olympics, and some claim that the stakes which they put it is of another nature than other teams... But is it so sure as it ?
The first religious and social matter madness and nonsense consist in denying the peremptory necessity for the diversity of the difference, and especially that not to subscribe all to the same taboos… What scleroses the capacities of rejuvenations of each clan by defending nozzle and nail the totem, which needs to die to reappear of its ashes to be réintrojecté positively in the collective.
In the second nonsense rises which consists in taking with the foot ground the taboo of sacrificial criticism of the totem in imposing it to the other clans, rather than to take this criticism exogenic like an essential component and necessary to the worship: And demonize the role of malicious, to do it rather in a literal way than in a metaphorical way dramatized and lived like such.
Difficulty of Pastafarism
We can estimate thus better so the stakes in Pastafarism.
It is a question of participating in the sacrificial rite of the other congregations (for us too the secular or laic but in each its investments). What thus means so much trying to remove them, for what to try to make them resourcer by developing them by attacking lethally (by the irony) their paranoïac sectarian dogmae. This to allow them to reach a more metaphoric vision of their cults, more respectful exogenous faiths by not imposing them their own taboos in particular those to criticize them from the outside in a constructive way.
The major difficulty lives(lies) exactly in the paranoiac propention of these congregations to demonize every exogenous criticism, who tenderait to confine us in the role of the "miserable" in a literal way. And the difficulty and not to sink, let us mousaillons, in this literal role that they would like to impose us.
It is a question for us, at the same time not to abound in the sectarian refusal of these congregations which demonize us (and of their part and ours also thus), but also while staying in the necessary sacrificial critical aspect of their paranoiac dogmae. But this aspect has to stay in the metaphoric plan: we owe réafirmer constantly that the criticism does not as long aim at demolishing the other congregations by the criticism that to free them of their paranoiac sectarian faults, who can only make them better them so by getting fresh ideas.
Then to stay in the playful, light plan, it is a good matter: it remains difficult to take itself seriously this human comedy when we play the clowns, and to be crucified in return, is'nt it my Monster ?
And can the Efesmism be criticizen ?
And what else ? How we could manage to find a criticism in front of such a concept of immense purity ? Finally if there is who have time to lose, why not?
Godless religious in false idols say to us that they serve us to test our tolerance, our propention to refuse the religious metaphoric necessity (it is the hospital which messes the charity), and our claims consider just taken from the thigh of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The non-believers want to make indispensable with us by criticizing our guilty indulgence with worship in the strange myths as much as improbable (strange... you said strange... ?). What allows us effectively to notice that our faith is strong, because we are right and what they have all twist... Yargh !