"You don't seem to realize that many religious people fully realize the shortcomings of their religious organizations, and work hard to resolve those problems."

But many don't, and I'd bet that the latter far outnumber the former. Big religions are institutionally authoritarian. There are strict membership rules and severe penalties for apostasy, either on earth, in the afterlife or both. There are many entirely arbitrary rules, mostly to do with matters sexual, religions' favourite subject, used to control the flock. Hundreds of millions of members of faiths do NOT question their religions at all. It's implied to them that you mustn't question what's divinely-constituted. Actually, if that wasn't the case you'd have no religions at all. You really can't justify religions' hegemony by claiming that an articulate minority dare question it. And the great implication of opposing heresy laws is that you're really saying to people of faith that neither you nor your chosen deity is immune from insult or ridicule. And that is exactly how it should be. Finally, you will not find Fry, Dawkins, Hitchens or me attacking or ridiculing people for holding irrational beliefs. You will find them attacking or ridiculing those people who choose to go large with their evidence-innocent beliefs, and you will find them arguing coherently and challengingly. Nothing shallow about them, and, far from being fundamentalist, they revel in and celebrate their uncertainties: Dawkins always insists that he doesn't know whether there's a God or not. That's why they worry you so much, admit it.