Werd.

Pullman FTW.

Love

Even us theists (some of us) agree with him.

@2 - his point is commonplace, but the delivery is extraordinary. I think that's the point.

SOLD!

Amen indeed!

The Hitchens line about Pullman's work dissolving the frontier between adult fiction and juvenile fiction is the most wonderfully backhanded compliment. One of the sadder things that ever happened to a book is the "Golden Compass" movie they made with all those stars a couple years ago. Tricky to handle the didactics without spoiling the story, as I'm sure Pullman would be the first to say "duh" to.

Felt a bit like Lloyd Dobler dinner scene dialog at the end there.

Via BoingBoing? I can't even click on that because it's too wonderful & rich.

@11: meaning, time problem.

EXACTLY. Some Christians are constantly whining and playing the victim because they seem to think that their ideas are somehow exempt from anyone's criticism merely because they're "rooted in the Christian faith."

They've been needing to man up on this for a while. You can't suggest to other people that they should live by your rules - or that you have a relative monopoly on truth, or on faith - and not expect some people to disagree. And when they disagree, you cannot and should not expect to silence them.

I will never challenge their right to have stupid and outdated ideas. In fact, I'll defend it, and I'll defend it literally with my dying breath. A Christian's right to faith, to controversial ideas, and to express them, is absolutely and totally unalienable. But that also doesn't mean I won't challenge their stupid ideas when they arise or are preached at me.

We've all had our values attacked, or beliefs challenged. We know it's personal. It's certainly not comfortable. Nor is it necessarily fun. We all wish we could go through life with everyone agreeing with us and embracing what we say without critique. But most of us try to respond to criticism like adults. And they need to grow up.

Pink Shirt Day is on Wednesday, April 14, 2010.

http://www.pinkshirtday.ca/

Savage and all the other SLOG crusaders should get behind this.

@ 14: Can't seem to open the link right now. Does it have something to do with the IRS?

Clap. Clap. Clap.

I imagine someone offended by "Scoundrel" has more important things to worry about than some author, though I doubt they would realize that.

I'm rather offended by that answer!

Sorry, but the entire Conservative movement, along with fundamentalism of all stripes, is based on being offended. It's a big part of the victim culture they so carefully cultivate. They reinforce it by the use of projection (i.e. taking their bad instincts and projecting it on to everyone else)

I point to Fox News for proof of this. They're always offended about something.

He has me interested in reading it.

I don't like Pullman as a writer, not because of the ideas he espouses, but I agree with this completely. Nobody forces anybody else to read anything - at least in this part of the world. If you are reading it just so you can be offended by it later, then what's the point?

@23, you can always use the word if you're willing to risk the consequences - the trouble with the word is that it's pretty much just an emblem to rally together people who want to beat us, silence us, and keep us from equality under law. The word isn't the problem, it's that those so keen to use it have darker intentions than speech.

When they put up the website address for the book, www.thegoodmanjesusandthescoundrelchrist…, it made me imagine John Goodman playing Jesus.

Yes, Davy Jones, in answer to both your questions, that's exactly what we mean. Now what exactly was it that you meant?

Yes, yes, yes!!!

it's easy to agree with this philosophy when you also agree with the subject at hand (religion)... it's a bit tougher when you're on the other side of that (people that say hateful things about gays for example)... but that's the real test. You get to respond of course with any thoughts of your own that you might wish to share, but you don't get to stifle the hate, or hate speech, of the others who hate you or hate your belief... right?

@20 Catalina,
I disagree. The Conservative movement doesn't have a locked hold on being "offended". Nor does Fox News. One should read the NY Times Op/Ed page.

You're not offended that Pres. Obama has the same definition of marriage("between one man and one woman") as Carrie Prejean has (bad vocabulary notwithstanding)?

You're not offended that Pres. Obama sent 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan or continues to prosecute the war in Iraq? Cathy Sheehan clearly is offended. She declared Pres. Obama a "war criminal" in last Saturday's paper.

I could on but I contend that you or any liberal, leftie could be easily offended. And, I am all right with that. That BTW, I call political discourse. It's been mentioned on this thread already but it was essentially said by Voltaire two centuries ago "I categorically disagree with you. But, I will defend to the death your right to disagree or offend". Or, something like that.

I don't need to read Pullman to know he has a point.

@29 - Stifle? No, you don't get to do that. You can do all kinds of things to prevent people from acting on those kinds of opinions, but you can't do anything about them holding them, or saying so.

Lots of things people say repulse me and make me want to make damn sure they have no influence over our society or laws, but I would never argue that they can't say those things, or write books about them, etc.

It definitely gets into a grayer area when you look at things like inciting violence, but those situations are pretty different than writing a book that offends someone.

glad to hear that Anthony, my comment wasn't particularly aimed at you - sorry if you took it that way - my point was that there are a number of people out there who are all for free speech until the speech is something truly offensive or hateful to them - then the tune starts to change pretty quickly - and well before anything that might be perceived as inciting violence. Someone above mentioned Voltaire's well known thought on the subject, which is about as succinct as you can get on the idea - In my opinion the value of free speech is only upheld if you accept/tolerate the hate of others (or any other emotion for that matter, but hate seems most to the topic) and only acting on hate is a legitimate area for individual, social or governmental response - as to when incitement becomes actionable - well, there's the rub, but from my personal perspective a lot of people don't bother to differentiate between offense and legitimate fear of harm.

it was cindy sheehan, dumbass.

Lark, dear, of course people get offended. That's part of the charm of being a human.

But the conservative movement is constantly ginning up fake offense. That offense is used to deflect blame for conservative policies, and to give weak-minded people (conservatives) someone to blame their personal failings on. If you never have to take responsibility for anything, because everything is always somebody else's fault (be they blacks, gays, women, Mexicans, Arabs, etc) it makes for a life of self-righteous offense, and very little internal conflict.

This is way late, but yer opinion on "free speech" gets changed after spending enough time in a country that had to undergo "denazification." (And then seeing what happened to neighboring countries that didn't undergo it as well, such as the former East Germany and Austria.)

"Free speech" is a little simple, easily abused, and could use some rigor.