Arguably one of the functions of religion is to induce people to work for the benefit of the larger community at the expense of themselves and their family. That's not an insignificant feat given the evolutionary pressures to cheat the community for the benefit of yourself and your relations.

It shouldn't be surprising that religion will, on the one hand, pay lip service regarding familial obligations, while ultimately emphasize attending to the community's needs and propagation of the religion. Often times the latter (community and religion) will be defined in terms of familial obligations. And familial obligations (especially filial obligations, e.g. obeying your parents) serve to prime people's acceptance of external authority, such as adoption of framing devices and conceptual models.

I'm not trying to be cynical. The tensions are obvious and must be resolved somehow. Sometimes inevitable contradictions must be swept under the rug or explained away. And often times one role serves multiple, seemingly contradictory functions. The complexity is compounded as the self-identifying community grows larger and deeper.

Religion is hardly the only area of social life that must handle these issues, and I don't mean to bash religion or to circumscribe the roles and functions of religion. Similar tensions and contradictions can be found _within_ family life.

In any event, like a Zen Koan if you think to literally about the problem--filial vs individual vs community obligations--you'll miss the forest for the trees. I don't think there's an answer except to accept the contradiction and attempt to maximize service to your obligations (in as much as you accept them). Obviously how you qualitatively and quantitatively measure things will strongly dictate where the optimum is, and different religions will counsel different equilibriums for identical circumstances.