I'm not quite sure I see the connection between infant sacrifice and infant baptism. The latter is far less -um- deadly. And let's not get started on abortion.

Wolfgang, I mean that macro evolution can not be proven by repeatable experiment because you would have to repeat the history of the planet, which is not possible. I was objecting, not to evolution per se, but to Naemanson's narrow definition of "science." Geez, you guys, just go ahead and PROVE my "sacred cow" comment by getting all worked up over evolution, okay?

And by the way, I didn't say any particular scientific theory is a sacred cow (although it is clear from this thread that macro-evolution is), but rather science as a whole. So much so that some people think the only truths are those that can be proven scientifically. They (luckily for them and us) don't live this in their day-to-day lives, but they have it as part of their personal philosophy, so to speak.

The question about bullet-proof-ness is not a question of ethics ("moral positions"), as Naemanson discussed, but rather one of consistency. Had this guy ever seen someone bullet-proofed by a jujuman before? Had he ANY reason to think that bullet-proofing was something that jujumen were qualified to do? As I pointed out before, the reaction of the villagers -- who presumably didn't at that moment cease to believe in jujumen in general, just this one in particular -- shows that the jujuman in question was making claims he couldn't live up to, and that this is unacceptable for jujumen. If he had said, "Jujumen can do a lot of things, but we can't make you bullet-proof," I doubt they would have tried to kill him.

On murder in pre-agricultural societies: see Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. This was not the first place I ran into this fact; rather that was in a copy of Science News from 1984 or 1985. But I don't have that to hand; whereas the book mentioned, I just read this past month.

Great discussion, guys.

Alex