This was something that piqued my interest as I was reading Frye's Myths chapter, especially regarding how we touched on religon yesterday. It's in the passage where Irony is being discussed.

"The satirist may feel with Lucian that the eliminating of superstition would also eliminate religon, or with Erasmus that it would restore health to religon. But whether Zeus exists or not is a question; that men who think him vicious and stupid will insist that he change the weather is a fact, accepted by scoffer and devout alike. Any really devout person would surely welcome a satirist who cauterized hypocrisy and superstition as an ally of true religon. Yet once a hypocrite who sounds exactly like a good man is sufficiently blackened, the good man also may begin to seem a little dingier than he was." (Anatomy of Criticism, pg. 231--232)

This actually makes me wonder if perhaps there are what Frye would call "really devout" people today practicing "true religon". If there are they're being crowded out by those who cauterize hypocrisy and superstition. But there probably are, and then I get to thinking "Then what is 'true religon'?" perhaps true religon arises from the same level of conciousness where anagogy is begun to be comprehended. I don't know what that level exactly is or could be designated as(and I'd probably doubt anyone proclaiming at the top of their lungs that they were the ones who knew). But if authentic faith can be helped by those who poke moking fun at human constructs, then let's bring out some more noble wits to do just this.

Or I could just be babbling.