While I agree that belief systems are an inherent part of human culture, I don’t agree that simply subscribing to a belief system places one above inquiry or criticism. Particularly when that belief system has the potential to have a substantial affect on my life and the the lives of my family.

Recently in my state, a law has been enacted that the Christian bible will be taught as “literature” in public school. This is no attempt to improve literature standards (there are far better works already in use to which more attention should be focused) but, rather, an attempt to insert Christian ideology into the public school system of Texas. A school system which to which a large majority of children are from Christian families but which is also populated by Muslims, Jews, Native Americans, Hindus, atheists, Mormons, Scientologists, etc.

This is but one, single example of a “belief system” attempting to insert its superstitions into my life.

I have not only the right, but the duty to speak out and, yes, I have a clear bias: toward reason and logic.

What you’re criticizing me for is not maintaining an objective stance, but as I’ve already stated: the objective position was removed from me by O’Gorman when he favored the very superstition that is attempting to affect me.

Have not rulers of the past consulted astrologists?

Sure. So have the rulers of the present. And they’re utterly wrong to do so since those consults potentially affect the lives -the lives- of their constituents. And I don’t mind judging them as wrong and superstitiously ignorant. And I’m happy to call upon my academic experience and knowledge to make an argument against them.

In contrast I do see a strange bias in Linda Herrick’s comment. Carl’s right but… what? Is it bad taste to point out the flaws in O’Gorman’s reasoning? Or is this a personal matter where one individual gets to define what it is permissible to say about the large diversity of beliefs we collectively describe as “Christian”? “You shouldn’t say that, even though I agree with it, for reasons I haven’t specified,” seems terribly arrogant to me, but not every branch of Christianity takes the humility thing seriously.

There is a problem in insisting on special respect for a religion. Not only do you end up giving privileges to a religion, but it’s to a very specific form of that religion. There are no generic Christians, but competing sects of Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant varieties. In the case of Linda Herick it would see she would lend political weight to the more militant forms, rather than Christians who follow a more humble and questioning path.

I do, however, admit to being somewhat harsh in my questioning of O’Gorman’s qualifications, but he did state at the outset that his goal (and I’m paraphrasing) was to use an anthropological approach to exploring religion and his failure to effectively do this leaves one to wonder why.

My anti-Christian bias was not my choice. It was thrust upon me by O’Gorman when he used only explanations that fit the versions of ritual and sacrifice that he wanted to be true. My aberrant examples likewise aren’t my choice but, again, the responsibility of O’Gorman who implied the Christian religion no longer engaged in the sacrifice of life. I know of no other method of describing such a sacrifice without describing such a sacrifice. Aberrations? Most definitely. It isn’t the norm of modern Christianity to sacrifice the lives of others for religious purpose. But the doctrines do allow for it and can easily be interpreted to encourage it.

My point was to show that aberrations exist throughout human history and prehistory and Christianity has no corner on the market of righteousness or aberration.

I also freely admit my bias against Christianity. I’m biased against it in the way I’m biased against astrology and psychics. I bear no ill-will toward Christians, astrologers, or psychics until they begin to demonstrate a deleterious effect on society. If astrologers are being consulted by politicians for advice on foreign policy -I’ll be the first in line to criticize them. When psychics trick the hopeful and needy out of thousands of dollars, I’m willing to criticize.

Most importantly, however, I think that if you’re going to profess to examine religion under the lens of anthropology, you must, necessarily, use the whole microscope. O’Gorman ignored much of the existing work in anthropology. If I had to guess why, I would suppose it was because he’s Christian and has an agenda to support and/or justify.