This is the case all across the religious spectrum.
If you are arguing that a specific religion has a specific practice that is noisome to them in the extreme, that can actually be dealt with openly in almost all cases ~ I used types of infant baptism, and the baptism of the dead.
Christianity has addressed the infant baptism over the centuries and some groups go out of their way to avoid drowning babies. Others just defer baptism until it may be done safely. Others do nothing.
Issue is still there. It gets discussed. Changes are made. No one's fundamental religious beliefs (revealed truths) are challenged. Baptisms proceed.
Whether you like it or not religion is to its practitioners a body of facts, so you'll just have to settle down and get along with religious people. They simply don't accept what you think as logic.
Um, I wasn't arguing anything. I just told eastforker that he wouldn't be able to win the debate he seemed to be embarked on. I wasn't involved in any discussion of baptism, drowned babies, or anything else. All I said was most people understand what a person means when they say religion is based on faith and is not something that can be definitively proven, but some people do not accept that such a statement applies to their religion.