Actually, the Justinian Code, dating from the late Roman Christian Emperor--and practiced throughout medieval Europe up into the Reformation (and why they burned heretics) made RE-BAPTISM a capitol offense, not simply being baptized later than infancy. Of course everyone was expected to baptize their infants, and to not do so was seen in those days as a form of political rebellion--treason, besides heretical. I do not think however not baptizing infants was automatically punishable by death--what was shocking (and REALLY considered heretical, treasonous and schismatic) was being baptized as an infant and then being re-baptized as an adult. Such people, named Anabaptists in the Reformation, were indeed executed.
As a pedo-baptist, what I would like from baptists is an acknowledgment that my baptism (and that of the great majority of Christians today, and throughout history) is an authentic baptism--even though they firmly believe infancy is not the best time for baptism.
I may be wrong, but I believe that even in baptist churches, if a person, baptized there as an adolescent, later becomes authentically born-again (due to a false conversion earlier) they are not required (though they may be permitted) to be baptized again. The earlier baptism is valid, even though at that time they were not actually committed personally to Christ. Practice may vary from church to church, but this scenario sounds likely. In any event, unity in the gospel could be increased if, while sticking to one's conviction on when baptism should be administered--others' baptisms are recognized--conditional, of course, as it should be for everyone, that a person has evidenced a personal committment to Christ. I recognize a baptist's baptism as valid, all I ask is that he do the same for mine--even though he himself does not practice or approve of infant baptism.
To just throw some fuel on the fire let me make a couple more points, using the logic from the article:
1)There is no example of women taking communion or being baptized in the New Testament (even though it has been universal practice, as far as we can tell, from the beginning). Should we therefore deny communion and baptism to women?
2) There is also no explicit command to serve communion to women or to baptize them...only universal practice, so, since its not in the bible, why should we do it?
3) Many baptists think that once they are baptized, they are definitely going to heaven, and they apostatize, due to such false assurance. Same issue as with those baptized as infants....
Obviously, I'm not calling for #s 1 or 2, it's just a way to make a point. If something is not specifically exemplified or commanded in the New Testament, that alone does not make it wrong.
Because Baptism does not impart Grace (not salvational) I don't get "bent out of shape" over infant Baptism. If done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost I don't see why it would not be "valid". However, the distinction I see between "Believer's Baptism" and "Infant Baptism" is that in "Infant Baptism" the individual has no idea what's going on, has no say in whether they want it done or not, and has not thought through why they should be baptized.
As a Baptist, I've been a member in churches that you must have had a believers Baptism to be a member and also in churches where this is not a requirement. I prefer the churches that require it, but that's a personal preference.
3) Many baptists think that once they are baptized, they are definitely going to heaven, and they apostatize, due to such false assurance. Same issue as with those baptized as infants....
I've never seen this, but anything is possible. I've been a member in a couple Baptist churches and in all of them there was a process to being allowed to be Baptized. You must make a public declaration of Faith and repentance. Then you must attend Baptism classes, typically 2-3 months on Sundays, and then you would be Baptized.
Baptist churches are in a free association with one another. They are not a part of a centralized command and control structure. Thus some practices vary from church to church. It's pretty safe to say that in those that require classes no one is confused about the difference between an ordinance and a sacrament.