I wanted to share a great post about those who seek to ban books with messages they dislike. I particularly like how blogger A.M.B. said this:
If the mere exposure to new ideas is enough for those old beliefs to crumble, then its proponents should stop to consider why their beliefs aren’t more persuasive. In my opinion, an idea that can’t withstand a fair debate isn’t an idea worth passing onto the next generation.
This is an excellent point. Why would someone be afraid of an idea? If one disagrees with an idea, one ought to be able to explain why, with a reasonable argument, no? Rather than condemn ideas outright, as if ideas were so dangerous as to require putting them away on a high shelf, why not just rationally debate them? Do book-banners perhaps lack debate skills? Or do they seek authoritarian solutions to what could and should be democratic decisions?
MonkeyMoonMachine 
I’m glad my post resonated with you! I suspect that book challenges often stem from fear, and it’s easier for people to be afraid of ideas when they have difficulty with critical thinking. These skills don’t develop in a vacuum. It’s a process that requires the exposure to new ideas.
As I think more about this, I wonder if maybe people who assert ideas in, or about, faith, don’t feel they should have to defend those ideas with reason?