The cardinal line

Each religion has a cardinal line prescribing the minimum conditions that define its interface boundary. It could be a well written scripture like the Bible or the Koran or a collective conscience drawn from many scriptures as in Hinduism [like an open source movement].
The cardinal line is meant for the majority who do not have either the time & opportunity or the intellect & wisdom to contemplate transition towards the Ultimate Truth.
Hence, these minimum conditions stress more on behavior than on attitude. The prescriptions constitute the dos and donts - rites, rituals, and moral codes.
Staying on the right side of the cardinal line allows people the leeway to define the individual way of life in context. For example one can be comfortable chanting the gayatri on way to work or do pujas with woolens in winter.
There are the inevitable debates on the rigor of adherence but the exchanges are rather civil because the protagonists know that they are essentially on the same side.
However the person who chooses to cross the inviolate clauses of the cardinal line subscribes to a life of misery.
Marrying out of religion is one such clause. It leaves the person out in the cold without reference points for guidance. I would advocate conversion to the spouse’s religion in such an instance. It is warmer to be inside some line than out.
This cardinal line theory also explains the shrill arguments of the outsider disparaging the insiders on the degree of their shift away from the pivotal coordinates. There is a vast difference from the secular posturing of the insiders and the outsiders.
The insider’s stance is an indulgence, an intellectual [though, in my pov, misguided] pastime and would effortlessly shift gear when it applies to self.
The outsider’s is the cry of a tormented soul. And my reply to that is ‘You may argue that I am inside only by a fraction but I am still inside and you are outside.’