There are many other practices that believe baptism to be a spiritual death and burial, arising in newness of life. It's seen as a representation of one's belief and obedience to the call of God's will. A baby knows nothing of it's meaning, so it's meaningless to be done to a baby.
Just stop calling them fundamentalists. If extremists are worse than fundamentalists, and these are fundamentalists, then who are the extremists? Draw a distinction between what they are and what they call themselves. Think about it.
What a sad, sad world we live in when these guys wield such influence on the lives of rational people. The "review" of Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation would have been funny if it made any sense. Not that I actually expect most Xians (a great many don't need to because they aren't hostile to non-belief, and those who are hostile just don't want to hear about it) to take time to check out the opposing arguments, but it's still sad to see. My personal favorite might have been the first one: "No, everyone is born Christian. Only later in life do people choose to stray from Jesus and worship satan instead. Atheists have the greatest "cover" of all, they insist they believe in no god yet most polls done and the latest research indicates that they are actually a different sect of Muslims."
Yet religions need to be organized to spread the teachings of the spiritual leader. Usually it's the successors' zealotries that ensures future followers. I think the flaws of organized religion are there for everyone willing to see, but it's also fair to recognize that those flaws were at one point strengths when those cults/schools were at its infancy. It may also become a strength down the line. The trait that makes humanity and civilization possible above all is the ability to forge social networks. Is that trait the root of religion, or has religion successfully exploited it? Cults of personality and idealistic fervor (such as extreme nationalism or secularist revolutionaries) share similar shortcomings as fundamentalist organized religions. But is religion just as bad as you're portraying it? Any organization that survives hundred plus years will have traditionalist forces that believe they are correct. Otherwise, those ideals would be erased like a Wikipedia entry. I think understanding those traits can make it easier to breach dialogue with fundamentalists or even soften up personally entrenched feelings against religion as a whole. A good majority of believers don't share the same compartmentalization. I think your writing displays a concern that the Church/Synagogue/Mosque itself will possess you and strip away your independent will because you don't have a problem with the teachings of some leaders. However, there are secularist organizations that wouldn't be a problem to anyone if people joined in flocks. Who wouldn't want to volunteer in groups to clean up beaches or help the elderly? Joining those good groups are encouraged because we feel that they are in short supply. Because of a past of broken or unearned trust, there exists a double standard in many atheists. I think it would be a great discussion draw out the issues underlying them.
Criticism doesn't seem to help anything. It divides and doesn't help people see hypocrisy, bitterness, or hatefulness. Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives, but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them. As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd. “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?” They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust. When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?” “No, Lord,” she said. And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.” Everybody one of us can be represented in that story, which person are you?
The church is a strength since it helps spread the message, even though that message is inherently warped (sometimes significantly) in doing so? That seems a tad hard to swallow. I don't think jesus would give a rats ass how big christian "religions" have become if none of them truly grasp what he was teaching. I don't think jesus or buddha or vishnu were advocating isolation from society. Precisely the opposite - a complete "oneness" in humanity. Religion, as a collectivist and inherently bigotted system by its very nature draws a line between "us" and "them". You could say "that's just human tendency", which would simply prove the point that religions make a mockery of the teachings espoused by their founders (god). You are to elevate yourself above your selfish ego, not systematically strengthen it. Agreed. Which is frightening. Churches/pastors should be nothing more than guidance. Not the sole suppliers of truth. They are warped by their own organizational power structure, which mandates a single point of view - it's intellectually and spiritually subversive. How are you supposed to "find god" if looking for him/her yourself is discouraged? This sentence is confusing. Can you restate it? I fail to see a conenction. "Clean our beach" groups don't claim to be the "only path" to clean beaches, and condemn the "save the dunes" club to hell. This is almost assuredly true. And I welcome said discussion. It makes me a better person.
