According to Dorris Donnelly, humor is essential to getting the most out of religion. In support of this argument, she makes the assertion that "you may have all the solemnity you wish in your neckties, but in anything important (such as sex, death, and religion), you must have mirth or you will have madness" (G. K. Chesterton). This statement begs the question: without humor, what would our world be like? Certainly one that would be less creative and colorful, one that would force us to suppress the things that differentiate us. Humor and religion are generally thought to be "estranged bedfellows" (Capps, 414) they are not enemies or allies, yet "both have aged, something has come between them"(Capps, 414). Which is the same conclusion we can come to in our analysis of comedy in religious contexts. The two entities, though often believed to be antithetical to one another, in reality work together quite well despite their differences. 

 

      Humor is human, it is how we explain, how we cope and how we understand. For some, it is more important than others, and though preferences may vary in large ways, it is important to remember that it all serves the same purpose. It is all meant to inspire happiness and positivity in those who are experiencing it, and the hope is that after a joke is made someone might be a little happier than they were before. And that's all that really matters in terms of comedy, whether it is viewed holistically or from a business standpoint. It is all about audience. The person appreciating the comedy is the most important person in the equation, whatever the audience likes is the rule. Playing to/with those expectations is where comedy happens.

       Admittedly, I began this project with an already formed bias against religious comedy. It seemed to me that the comedy generated in the narrow context of the morals and fear associated with religion, was simply stale and un-exciting. I thought that due to the circumstances religion often creates in terms of limiting what its followers should and should not do, comedy would be sacrificed for content. The content of the safer humor would always take precedence over a joke that may be funnier and also more controversial. Though my preferences for more vulgar and experimental comedy haven't changed, my judgment towards other kinds of comedy has. The function remains the same regardless of the content, the point in all cases is to make people laugh. If people want to do that through the lense of religiosity, so be it.