Back from the Edge

OK, I understand from some of you that my last post was a little out there.  Lets back it down a bit.  The de-wonked version is basically a question of whether religion is an all or nothing game?  Can you be a Sunday Catholic, Jew-ish, or a wine, but no pork Muslim?

My thinking has always been that since Il Papa (the Pope) has been pretty clear about who makes the rules for Catholics, the word Islam actually means to "submit" or "surrender" in Arabic, and observant Jews will make you feel guilty for even looking at a lobster or a pork rib, there is not a lot of flexibility.  In the prophetic words of Mr. Cleaver (Eldridge, not Ward), you are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem. 

This all or nothing approach always seemed to me to be the only intellectually honest way to go.  How can you "believe" in something where the adherents are telling you to have "faith" and to trust them that they are right, when you fundamentally disagree with some of the tenets?  Why would a gay man or woman want to worship in a Catholic church when the undisputed leader of the faith condemns them for who they are.  That is not to say they cannot believe in Christ or build their own faith system that is not in conflict with their sexual orientation.  Rather, some gays use the "I'm good with all of it except the part where they say I am broken" argument.  Now, I am using gays as an example, but the same logical flaw would apply to pork eating Jews or the one that really confuses me, feminist Muslims.  Other than that, how was the play Ms. Lincoln? 

So how does this tie back to the Theory of Bulk and my last (apparently incomprehensible) post?  What I am trying to explore is, "am I wrong?"  I realize the easy answer to that question is usually, "Yes, put down the whiskey bottle and get some sleep."  Hence, the reason these posts are usually early in the morning (its Saturday, cut me a break).

So, can you order religion a la carte even if the menu clearly says "no substitutions," and the restaurant is not known for their flexibility?  My argument against this approach was that if you took religious leaders at their word, there is no flexibility.  The rules are the rules.  You can break the rules (in fact, most sects assume you will), but you need to admit it and seek forgiveness (for which they do a brisk business selling).  It just sounded like a great business model to me:  set unreasonable goals, promise great rewards, assume people will not meet the goals, and then sell them a ride to the finish line. 

If you take some and not other parts (without creating your own deal, a la Joseph Smith), are you still getting value? Is there some scientific or logical basis to follow this path?  Can you recite the Kaddish and then have a Sausage McMuffin without being a hypocrite? 

As always, I look forward to your input (in this space or by email if you prefer to be less public).

Be bulky,

Larry