That most of the [kosher] laws are divine ordinances without reason given is 100 per cent the point. It is very easy not to murder people. Very easy. It is a little bit harder not to steal because one is tempted occasionally

Has it ocurred to anyone else that our friend here (an anonymous rabbi) is tallking nonsense? It is not easy not to murder people. People get murdered every day. Nor is it easy not to steal, especially if one lives in grinding poverty.

One thing about the blogging the Bible series in Slate that made me widen my eyes was that he considered the story of Abraham and Isaac as having a much greater emotional impact than Noah and the Flood. It seems to be a demonstration of Stalin's observation, "one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." I wonder if he'll have the same reaction to the story of Jepthah. He also seems to be setting himself up for the the extreme Zionist position that Israel / Palestine is "Holy Land," something that is required to be occupied only by Jews in order to obey God's Commandments.

</offtopic>

I think that's a very good point. In my comment, I was thinking more along the lines of an elected official. When someone like Bush gets elected, you tend to lose a lot of trust in the system. In fact, any elected official still has to prove him/herself to all of those who didn't vote for him/her.

Now, this of course doesn't mean I'll blindly mistrust someone like Bush, either. If I run into him on the street and he suddenly yells at me to "Get down!" I'll obey him on that. A safety matter like that is something I'd trust him on. I don't trust him so much in running the country, and if he plans to lead the country into another war, for instance, you can expect me to speak out about it. (Which is not to say that a just war (read "defensive war") is out of the question; I'll just be speaking out in favor of it then.)

A large part of the reason for those "unreasonable" commandments, the ones that the only reason you do them is because you were told to do them, is not to prove how "obedient" you are; it's to prove that you are "one of Us". To show everybody that you are willing to do something to belong to the group, no matter how silly.

That's a very interesting suggestion. I believe Dawkins' essay makes the same point: that bizarre religious beliefs are, in some sense, markers of fitness just like the peacock's tail - a costly handicap that only the truly strong can bear. "Strong" in this sense should probably be construed to mean something like "loyal" - the "fitness" could be the memetic fitness of a religious group's beliefs.

For Philip:

Obedience to duly constituted authority is an important virtue. A clear hierarchy and chain of command is an essential part of a working organisation in many fields of human endeavour, from the military to the realm of science. Not that one should not question such authority when appropriate, and of course one should not obey a command which violates the moral code.

That last, qualifying sentence is precisely the point I was aiming at with this post - that there are many religious people and groups who believe precisely the opposite, that authority should not be questioned but should be unconditionally obeyed. That is the type of "commandment" that should be rejected. As the C.S. Lewis quote shows, for example, some theists hold the opinion that obedience is intrinsically a good thing, regardless of whom one is obeying or why. This opinion is not just wrong, it is dangerous.

We will probably always need some form of hierarchy in human society, which is precisely why we need to exercise due vigilance and proper skepticism of those who are in power to ensure they stay within the rationally prescribed limits of that power. Too many people hold the view that the authorities deserve to be obeyed because they are in authority. The correct view is that they should be in authority only if they deserve to be obeyed.

For Infophile:

This makes me wonder: Is it this very religiously-ingrained obedience that is causing many people these days to simply say things like, "I think we should follow Bush because he's the President," and other statements of blind obedience?

Fortuitously, I intend to address that exact question in an upcoming post in this series, "No Messiahs". I think that's an excellent point: it's probably no coincidence that most of Bush's following comes from those very fundamentalist sects that have the habit of unquestioning obedience most strongly ingrained.

In response to Philip: The reason we should obey in matters indifferent is based on trust. We should (hopefully) have an innate trust for those in authority that they do know what's best, and have a reason for their laws. But trust must be earned, and the first thing any leader should do is build trust. If they expect obedience simply by virtue of being the leader, they should expect to be questioned at every turn. It's the unfortunate indoctrination to always obey which means that these types of leaders don't always get questioned.