laws and mores

Thus, an incredibly manipulative relationship exists between the religious leader and the congregant.  Which is not necessarily to say that every religious leader is evil.  But the structure of the relationship is inherently unhealthy.
We have said that the function of the religious leader, in part, is to enunciate rules or mores.  More can be said on mores.   Mores, commandments and laws are among the means by which the "and" holds human society together.   As we have said before, there is strength in numbers.  It is thought that at some point, the earliest single celled creatures banded together for protection and divided the labor to form multicelled creatures.  So it is with human society.  A society with a police force and an army can ward off individual thiefs or small sets of invaders.  An anarchistic society cannot.   And as society has grown,  as the division of labor has grown and as relationships have become increasingly complex, it has eventually come to be recognized that a formalistic set of mores and laws, set forth in writing, is needed to define and interpret what can and can't be done and how to handle disputes.   Thus, religious tracts have been written and codified, and secular laws have been enacted.  In a theocracy, the definition, enforcement and interpretation of laws has been left to the clergy.  In a secular society, it is left to legislators, executives and lawyers.
Legal disputes can be defined as a clash of differing sets of "ands".  They thus bear a resemblance to war, and it is not uncommon for lawyers and litigants taking cases to trial to say they are going to war.