Groverastrianism and Other Non-Existent Sesame Street Religions

A Facebook friend of mine said that she "wants to found a religion based on Sesame Street." This got me to thinking about what some possible SS-related religions might be like. I came up with a few ideas based on some of the more popular characters.

Elmoism: expounding on the inherent joy found in all of creation
----
Grouchianity: rejects all luxury, focusing instead on the purity and goodness of the mundane (i.e., trashy); adherents are encouraged to live in squalor
----
Cookie-do: advocates a hedonistic lifestyle as the path to true happiness (especially cookies)
----
Countism: members worship order and organization; obsessed with counting all of Creation
----
Berternism: idealizes the concept of two and the salvation of always having a trusted counterpart
----
Groverastrianism: seemingly simple, actually a highly intellectual religion; a continuous examination of conceptually opposite ideas (light vs dark, near vs far, hot vs cold, etc.)
----
Bigbirdathāgatagarbhasutra: a religion of endless questions on all aspects of life (Who am I? Why am I here? What is death? What is life? Why am I different from others?)
----
Snuffleupagusianity: belief in a friendly, benevolent being who happens to be invisible to most of the world; often thought to be imaginary (NOTE: may be too similar to existing religions for your taste)

----

Earlier today I had the thoughts "Which of these relates to my current religion?" and "If you took away everything I believe now and I weren't a practicing Roman Catholic, which of these would I choose?"

There's an obvious insinuation that Snuffleupagusianity and Christianity match up, what with the nice, invisible being factor. There's a bit of Elmoism, as were are supposed to take delight in God's creation (to an extent).

Catholic joke: A Jesuit, a Benedictine, and a Franciscan are reading prayers in a chapel when the lights go out. The Jesuit gets up to see what the problem is, the Benedictine recites the prayers from memory, and the Franciscan praises God for the darkness. (ah, Catholic humor...)

There's also a bit of Grouchianity when you consider the monastic life and the vows of poverty taken by religious orders. Many saints got to be that way because of the simple lives they led, often in filthy conditions. You might throw in a bit of Berternism when considering the Old Testament's praise of finding a good wife or husband. Pretty much any major religion answers the questions asked by Bigbirdathāgatagarbhasutra. The Baltimore Catechism starts out with:

1. Who made us?

God made us.

2. Who is God?

God is the Supreme Being, infinitely perfect, who made all things and keeps them in existence.

3. Why did God make us?

God made us to show forth His goodness and to share with us His everlasting happiness in heaven.

So that relates to the first question. What about the second question? If I didn't believe what I believe now, which one would I choose? Probably Groverastrianism. I wrote what I thought (at the time, it's probably crap now) was a really good paper in college that talked about something similar to the examination of contrasting ideas. Is there really such a thing as darkness, or is it merely the absence of light? Is cold really just the absence of heat? If these things don't exist, why should we identify them with names in the first place?

The Greek philosopher Parmenides had the idea that the two paths of inquiry concerned that which is and that which is not. The first is the only viable path, because there cannot exist anything that "is not." I was really taken with reading his ideas at the time. Groverastrianism would give me a reason to look into thinkers like Parmenides more often. I could also examine sayings like "Absence makes the heart grow fonder" and ask questions like, "Does this mean that the absence of physical presence itself creates an increase in emotional or spiritual presence? Does this contradict the idea that there is nothing that 'not is'"?

That might be fun.