text: Good points.
  "...to what extent is practicing one's religion parallel to a game?" I would suggest that it has value rather as metaphor, if only because the "difference" is or should be so clear that the lessons are or should be obvious. Fact is, some, actually treat life as a game and "rules" are tools, weapons, weaknesses even. 
  I see the article more about how one approaches rules rather than their source or of questioning them. For example, does the "legitimate authority" own them, as in umpire or referee. One could go a bit further with the more recent introduction of "challenges" and "replays" that suggest that "arbiters" of rules and authorities are indeed accountable - under certain conditions, of course .
  I think "we" have a problem. Self-appointed intellectuals tend to begin with lofty concepts and pseudo commentaries and fail to recognize the real-life sources of learning of fact, principle, reason and conclusion, not to forget collegial discussion. Seems "edict" suffices.