Science recognizes answers to questions, expresses skepticism, and pursues proofs of the answers. Religion recognizes answers to questions and accepts those answers on faith, without proof and without skepticism. I have no problem with that except that nobody asks for the credentials of the person providing the religious answer.

I told someone once that I would be willing to believe and willing to accept a religious vocation but the Old Man himself has to assign it. I accept no intermediaries.

"I'm not quite sure I see the connection between infant sacrifice and infant baptism. The latter is far less -um- deadly."

My example was intended to be one of rituals that are important to particular religions. There is, as you point out, a world of difference. But if we are going to question one ritual we need to question them all. We then need to create a yard stick by which we can measure them. My yardstick would be the amount of harm done to others. Since baptism does no harm I can safely ignore it. Since the Taliban does not allow medical treatment for women I would fight against that. My analogy is flawed for there are whole cultures of Muslims who are not fundamentalists and in whose societies women are not abused.

And Alex, if you want to see a sacred (science) cow being defended in full fury you need to listen to scientists with opposing theories. It gets pretty bloody (metaphorically).