I'd agree that it was worth making the distinction if anyone else actually understood it. It's so much easier for the world at large to fit people, including and especially themselves, into pigeonholes and leave everything there for ease of reference. Personal faith throws that all out of whack and most people don't like it, and that has to be taken into account in any debate on faith, religion and what have you that goes public.

Even then, it's hard to sit there and say "Personal faith: good -- organised religion: bad" because of all those schisms I was talking about. Different priests, ministers, vicars or whatever preach subtly different messages to their congregations. Organised religion is by and large a group of people with possibly radically different interpretations of the dogma involved, and it seems to have its rules set by peer acclimation -- if not by design, then by the fact that the outward face is always the majority. If the majority is bigoted, judgemental and violently oppressive, then that is what the religion will become to people. That's just someone's personal faith preached, taken up and made large.