The average Christian fundamentalist is akin to a lawyer, referencing statutes, examining the facts, and supposedly drawing firm conclusions about guilt or innocence based on the written legal language and the application of sound logic. Where the typical, religious legalist parts company with the law profession is in the matter of cross examination or rebuttal from an opposing attorney. Instead they want to cite their case, declare case closed, and deny anyone else the right to even present a counter argument.
If our public prosecutors could operate in this fashion, they would be largely successful in conviction but would the cause of justice be better served?. No one seems to think it is appropriate to allow one sided legal arguments in applying the law in secular life, so why should we allow anyone that privilege in religious discourse dealing with legal matters (the rules and obedience thereto)?
If the fundamentalists insist on making salvation a matter of obeying the rules (doctrinal points), then that insistence demands that they address all the legal issues raised by their rules and any subsequent argumentation. If not, they exalt themselves way above what we would remotely permit in the secular judiciary. Why do we allow such presumption out of religious judges? Are we so afraid of their displeasure and by extension God's that we permit these self proclaimed agents of God to dictate our beliefs without submitting those beliefs to any real scrutiny or daring to raise an objection.
Men so religiously cowed are begging to be victimized, and we see evidence of that happening all around. It is time to send these lopsided religious lawyers back to law school to learn a thing or two about proving their case legally.