I've read the books and they certainly don't challenge my faith in any way. They're not really my favorite pieces of literature, theological or otherwise... though the first book is by far the best.

It doesn't trouble me that Pullman kills 'God' in his book (since his god looks nothing like the real one) or that he calls the Big Evil People the Magisterium.

But are we supposed to do something less than take the author at his own words? He has said himself that this is his atheist response to C. S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia. He said of the trilogy that he is "trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief."

Regardless of whether he is successful, and despite the books' theology, it's hard to honestly say that they were intended to be theological.

I am not suggested that the book be banned or that parents should stop their children from either reading the books or seeing the movies. I'm just saying that it seems odd to assume that the author isn't being honest when he speaks about his own works.

By theological, I mean that it might add something, as the author of the article suggests, to theology, which generally seems to be the field of people who are interested in learning about God, not trying to kill God.

Milton's "Paradise Lost," for example, though inherently heretical by orthodox Christian views, is still highly relevant to theology. Heresy is still concerned with learning about God.

Pullman's books seem unconcerned with learning about God, and Pullman himself seems unconcerned with God (except that he wants to undermine God). I suppose perhaps the books might seem theologically useful in helping to describe how God isn't... No theology I have ever read would describe a Creator so limited as the usurping angel in His Dark Materials.

I just think it's misplaced judgment for us to try to treat the books as anything other than what they actually are.

So what? A woman, and of all things a woman married to a potential presidential candidate, carries a legal concealed firearm! Egad!

What's your point? My mom hates guns and just the other day she was talking about how she really, really hopes our local judges (she's the president of the local county bar association) carry concealed weapons.

Isn't this a little sensationalist?

I own a 20 guage shotgun and a .22 revolver!

And I keep them hidden away in a locked closet in my basement!

I MUST BE A VIOLENCE-LOVING PSYCHO! BEWARE!

Anonymity is what tempts people to be irresponsible in online discussion... not what protects their right to say what they really want to say.

I mean, unless (in the case of the Internet) what they mean to say is "FUCK YOU DYKE" and "SUCK ME" and "LOL IM GOIN 2 KIL U BITCH."

In the era of the Internet, anonymity is used as a weapon as often as it is used as a shield. Give me good old-fashioned uncomfortable face-to-face discourse any day.

Unfortunately I don't own a web camera of any type and see no reason to ever buy one. Plus camera blogging is to online journalism what CNN is to the New York Times: Half the information in twice the amount of time.

Yeah, you're right, Janet Huckabee is not a pizza delivery guy (gal?) But she is Janet Huckabee. And in case you hadn't noticed, that makes her wife to one of the leading contenders for the presidential candidacy (whether any of us like it or not). She has far more reason to carry a concealed weapon than most people. You never know what kind of nuts are out there. And if the nuts are "packing heat," I don't see why there is such a problem with leveling the playing field.

I think liberals' biggest problem with guns these days is just plain, uninformed fear. I know a lot of people who are afraid to touch a gun because they think holding it the wrong way will get someone killed. They think that if they even touch the trigger, it will fire. And they then go on to assume that guns are unpredictably dangerous, that they are unsafe in anyone's hands, and so on. The only thing dangerous about guns is when dangerous, stupid, or uneducated people use them. The answer to this problem is not fear but information. Even if you don't think you'll ever use a gun, you should learn how one operates and use one at a range a few times. In the hands of a rational and experienced gun user, a firearm is not a mysterious and frightening agent of doom but just a cold piece of metal that can be manipulated in a pefectly safe manner. Perhaps if liberals became better acquainted with the relatively simple mechanics of firearms, they would begin to realize that it's not guns that are dangerous but the people who use them.

When I say the people that use guns are dangerous rather than the guns themselves, I of course am referring to dangerous people who use the guns, not to normal gun-users.