Challenge to Beliefs? - God Forbid!

In my random wanderings of the delightful destroyer of privacy and "permission to nose" granter, Facebook, I discovered a group which asks that its members "Plz condemn" a new book which has been discovered that, in the words of the group's title: "CHALLENGES" a particular religion's holy book. (I shan't say which because the point I'm making could be applied to any religion.)

Oh dear. Note how it does not say "mocks" a god, "insults massively" a belief system, or is "abusive" to believers of a particular faith. No, it says "challenges".

Are we really at the stage now where people are so insecure about their faith that any challenge to it is a humongous threat sent from the pits of hell which must be destroyed as fast as possible?

To amuse (or perhaps irritate) myself further I browsed through the discussion board in this particular group. I was indeed irritated, though not at all surprised, to see that one member had merely suggested that others might want to obtain and read this book, to discover for themselves the extent of the "damage" to their faith, and had, as a result, sparked outrage. This is perhaps even more disturbing - it is the role of a believer to not only condemn any challenge to their faith vehemently, but to do so without even examining or looking into the item in question.

Most religious believers are, of course, guilty of this at some point or another. But it is such ignorance and foolishness that creates unnecessary conflict. A religious belief or doctrine system is, by nature, opinion - it is faith, and not, therefore, fact. As a result, it will inevitably face challenege. To suggest that any challenge ought to be condemned is simply preposterous.

However, I will let such groups and such opinions speak for themselves. After all, if believers of a certain faith react with panic and outrage to a mere questioning of their beliefs, does that send positive signals about their security?

Start "rethinking", says Blair

The reader will doubtless be aware of the former PM Tony Blair's comments regarding the Pope's stance on homosexuality, and his belief that the Catholic Church ought to start "rethinking" the issue, and become more liberal-minded.

Imagine my ambivalence towards this man and this incident as a partly but not entirely liberal Christian and Anglican, with views on homosexuality, Catholicism, and the place of politics in religion...and vice versa.

On the one hand, I agree, in the most part, with what Blair has said. I don't see it as being unfair to suggest that the Catholic Church might want to rethink its stance on an issue which it has held for centuries, irrespective of the distinctions between contextual and universal truths, or literal vs allegorical truths, or alternative perspectives of approach to particular Biblical passages. Furthermore, such strong anti-homosexual views as those expressed by Pope Benedict last December isolate ca. 10% of the population, and almost by default exclude them from the organisation - and for that reason, also, Blair's point is reasonably valid.

Hmmmm...

But on the other hand I do feel a little uncomfortable about Blair telling the Pope what to do. For a number of reasons.

1. He isn't PM any more. He's...actually, what is he now?
   
2. Even if he was, politics is somewhat "poking its nose" into the affairs of religion, which therefore begs the question, ought religion/the Church be entitled to have a greater influence in politics?
   
3. The word 'hypocrite' springs to mind (as do a number of other terms). It is interesting that now all of a sudden Blair has the boldness to take the moral high ground on an issue, when his views on potentially even more important affairs (abortion, for instance, is a biggie - a biggie for which Blair, I might add, expresses full support) are perhaps not as widely accepted as morally stable.

So, in summary: valid opinion, but expressed by an unsuitable spokesman!