Religious rigidity is not something that is widely accepted in society. People have become too fearful of someone knocking on their door and pushing religion on them. Likewise, people see religion as too organized and archaic, questioning why they have to believe in an invisible presence that is looking out for them or abide by rules and commandments to be accepted into an invisible eternity. In Flannery O’Connor’s “Parker’s Back” and Eileen Pollack’s “The Rabbi in the Attic”, there is a gross imbalance of rigidity and laxness among the main characters (Curtis, 1998, pp.167-185, 236-266). In O’Connor’s “Parker’s Back”, O. E. Parker is the typical rebel who makes his own rules and says or does what he wants, not thinking about consequences. His life takes twists and turns that even he cannot foresee. For instance, he gets his first tattoo, joins the Navy with false information, and meets his wife, Sarah Ruth, who is a strict Christian. He is lacking in knowledge regarding Christianity and it is apparent in his responses to Sarah Ruth’s comments about salvation. His position on this subject is that he does not “see it was anything in particular to save him …show more content…
She does not seduce him or push herself on him, but has restraint. She believes in the sanctity of marriage before lying with a man in the back of a truck. As rigid as she is, she chooses to marry Parker, overlooking his lack of salvation, his foul mouth, and how his body, minus his back, is full of tattoos that she sees as sheer vanity. She shows disgust in them and comments on what Jesus will say about his life. She states, “At the judgment seat of God, Jesus is going to say to you, ‘What you been doing all your life besides have pictures drawn all over you?’” (Curtis, 1998, p. 175). She makes a good point, however as the story unfolds, her rigidity is only on the surface and underneath the hard exterior is a laxness from