practicing religion as statutory interpretation

this is something that really illustrates how much legal thinking and terminology has permeated my mind... i don’t think i’ll ever be able to de-program myself and purge my existence of the language. but then again i think part of the point of slapping down ridiculous amounts of money was to get this lens, right?

anyway, the point is that the legal lens is here to stay. i mean i can’t even watch the daily show without thinking of the legal dimensions of jon’s jokes! so i don’t think it should come as a surprise that i gained a new perspective on religion…

i think it happened from the very first day when we talked about the case of the speluncean explorers (for those poor souls not familiar with this staple of legal education: this is a hypothetical case that traces out some broad themes of legal theory and statutory interpretation through the precarious fate of a bunch of explorers who eat one of their compatriots while stuck in a cave).

the way i see it religion is essentially about rules. people have different attitudes towards the rules. some people adopt a 'plain meaning' approach to their sacred texts. other’s look to the text for general guidance and choose to follow the ‘spirit’. but the purposive approach can never be quite determinative because how can we truly know what the original purpose or intent is? we can look to the ‘legislative history’ for guidance and study ‘precedent’ from courts of public opinion and private spirituality… at the end of the day it is really helpful to have the tools of statutory interpretation so that you can work out your own “interpretation” and don’t have to follow someone else’s .

and that ladies and gentlemen, is a very crude sketch of my theory - i wonder if it makes sense to anyone other than myself...