Like I said, I suspect that which is economically efficient was presented as “the word of god” in most major religions because enforcement is so inexpensive. Like I said, it is a heck of a lot cheaper to tell someone that they will burn for eternity at the hand of an all-knowing deity for wrongdoing than it is to catch them in the same wrongdoing.
As for the different religions grating on each other– I think most religions are amazingly coherent. The basic family structure is largely the same. The respect for human life is largely the same. The belief that there is a common good is largely the same. The belief in fundamental respect for the rights of others is largely the same. The belief in the rule of law is largely the same. There might be some discrepancies around the fringes (e.g., Islam and polygamy), but all major religions have more in common than not.
As for restrictions on divorce being “arbitrary,” society has every right to forbid uneconomical practices. We can’t buy some recreational drugs, but we can buy others. Fourteen year olds can’t drive. Teenagers can’t buy alcohol. Face it– every regulation is in some sense “arbitrary.” Some of them make a lot of sense, some of them don’t. But every law is “arbitrary” at some level.
In the case of divorce, it costs a heck of a lot more money to raise kids in two separate households. That is money that could be spent elsewhere. It is legitimate for society to restrict that which costs an excessive amount of money.
As for rising up, we elect officials who make the judgment calls as to what the arbitrary rules should be. There really is no one to blame but ourselves.
