Animism has no distinction between profane and sacred. Everything from a grain of sand on the beach to unfathomable abstract concepts is sacred. Thus, while you can technically hunt an elephant in a different way as the Pygmies do, for Pygmies it's a no-go. Each and every part of the ritualistic way they hunt serves an utilitarian purpose. Similarly, Aborigines and their “sacred songlines” serve a very practical purpose of navigating the bush (IIRC songlines refer to particular treks) and their creation myth is closely tied to natural landmarks. Again, a navigation tool. (However, it has to be noted that in current day and age both groups are already influenced by surrounding cultures. I didn't look exactly deep into Aborigines, but I provided some examples in the case of Pygmies – use of cannabis and circumcision. Thus, in our age, it’s almost impossible to find an example of original animism uninfluenced by worldviews it birthed.)
In case of Pirahas, the absence of concept of time causes them to have no creation myth, which in turn makes Pirahas ultimately pragmatic. As far as Pirahas are concerned, trees in the forest simply are and always were. Pirahas don't bother with explanations, they care only about current state of affairs, which makes them almost immune to ideological brainwashing (e.g. they were interested in Jesus only until they found out that none of the missionaries has met Jesus personally).
Animism is also specific in that every member of the tribe has direct access to all of reality. You may argue that the existence of shamans goes contrary to such statement, but shamans are nothing more than members of a tribe who excel at navigating certain parts of reality. A tribe may have a shaman as it has an expert tracker or hunter, but every member of tribe goes on a “spirit hunt” as part of their initiation, learns how to track and hunt animals, and so on.
If you read carefully what I have written in those articles you reference, you will find out that humans started to distinguish between sacred and profane only with advent of polytheism, when shamans, who became priests, inserted themselves as sole mediators between the parts of reality they navigate and the rest of the world. And yes, I approached this from the standpoint of socioeconomic structures because I was interested why is there such a perversion as hierarchic caste society.
That's why I also contrasted Puebloans with Iroquois. While the former are full-fledged animists, the latter already have a rudimentary form of polytheism where shaman has a prominent ceremonial role and the rituals already show a detachment from practical day-to-day life. And that subsequently shows in the social structure and lifestyle of both respective groups. If you only take issue with the fact that I use the term “Katsina religion”, that's just a matter of semantics. But I admit, perhaps I should be more careful and exact in my choice of words.
Now, while it's true that only “few would argue that tribal music, dancing, art, and myth-telling are common or profane rituals,” I am definitely one of those few. After all, we have secular tribal music (ever been at rave party?), ball seasons (look specifically at their opening ceremonies), elaborate (secular!) marriages, enormous trove of (not only Hollywood) myths, and so on and so forth.
As for Dawkins, I’ve never read anything from him beyond some popular quotes, and they didn't exactly inspire me to look deeper into his work as I don't subscribe to his rather narrow view which said quotes quite sufficiently reveal. So, I was not aware that he, too, sees modern religion as mind virus. Well, in this particular instance, I agree with him.
In any case, if you insist on treating animism as religion in the vein of Western anthropological tradition, then you simply must find another category for everything from polytheism onward, because if animism is religion, those moralistic blood sacrificial cults (i.e. modern religion) are something different. And it has to do with the fact that their empty rituals, indeed, lack a clear utilitarian purpose in day-to-day life. On the other hand, secular rituals as they exist today, lack the “ideological depth” which those animistic ones provide and which incite the individual to treat the whole world, at least in ideal case, with respect and dignity (though I must add that they are certainly better off than their “sacred” counterparts).
Well, but as the current state of affairs attests, that split of modern religion off of animism and separation of sacred from profane is a great tool to subjugate the population and lock it into oppressive hierarchic structures. Ask me once again why I consider it to be an aberration :D
