Vegonomics

A number of people, from family to friends to total strangers, have asked me, essentially, "Why are you vegetarian?" Then, as they see me struggling for words, they usually provide multiple-choice answers: "Health? Spiritual reasons? Animal welfare? The environment?" (Okay, very few people actually know about the environmental benefits of vegetarianism, but some have indeed included it.)

I'm always thankful for the multiple-choice format, because my answer is always the same: "Yes!"

They are all good reasons, of course, and it's fun giving cryptic answers. But I never hear the follow-up question that I hope to hear, so I'll ask myself right now:

"Do you really think it matters?"

Let's face it, we live in the United States in the early 2000's, where eating meat is still a deeply ingrained part of our culture. It is a right, and also an expectation, to some degree. The amount of meat consumed in America is not affected significantly by my efforts.

I recognize the power of the masses, and I know that the masses are made up of individuals capable of making their own choices. I can choose to be a very tiny part of a very large problem, or a very tiny part of the solution, I suppose.

Glazed with a Layer of Abstraction

I recently read an odd description of the Thai relationship to meat. (I found it in a Thai cookbook, so it has to be true.) Apparently, because many Thai people are Buddhists, and Thai Buddhists are taught not to kill animals, that they are used to having meat chopped up into small pieces, so that it doesn't look like animal parts.

I don't know about the Thai, but this is certainly true for most of us Americans, right? I recall a particular meal when I was a boy: I was given a whole chicken leg, both the thigh and the drumstick. I discovered that I could make the joint move, just as the chicken had done when it was alive. I was "grossed out" to say the least. Throughout most of my life, meat has been presented as unidentifiable pieces: Fillets, patties, chunks, tenders. That chicken-leg was an eye-opening experience for that chubby little city boy.

To add to the abstraction that is "meat," much of the meat we eat retains, conveniently, the names derived from French livestock: Beef, Pork, Veal. I recall learning that we call chicken "chicken" and turkey "turkey" because the French would not eat such fowl [sic] creatures. But, for the most part, we Americans eat an abstraction called "meat" which is far removed (at least, in our minds) from animal flesh.

Back to the Thai. Why would a Buddhist not be allowed to kill an animal, but still be allowed to eat it? Buddhists around the world, and within America, have numerous approaches to diet. The Buddha, himself, was not a vegetarian. He died from a bad bit of pork. You may have also read that the Dalai Lama is not (or is no longer?) a vegetarian. Vegetarianism is not prevalent amongst Tibetan Buddhists, and for good reason. How easy do you suppose it would be to grow crops up in the Himalayas?

The Thai Cookbook approach has a flaw. (For the record, I don't think the cookbook was written by a Buddhist Thai. All the more reason for it to hit closer to home.) If you eat meat that isn't recognizeable, are you a vegetarian?

"So, why bother?"

In order to avoid killing animals, I don't ask for meat in my food.

By not eating meat over the last few years, I have probably "saved" one cow (I was never a big beef eater), and dozens (perhaps hundreds) of chickens.

"Well," you say, "But someone else would just eat those chickens instead!"

The Law of Supply and Demand

I was sitting with a wonderful friend and highly respected colleague of mine at a restaurant close to his home. We ordered, and I asked for a pasta dish that came with chicken, and I asked to have it without chicken. Simple enough.

My friend ordered his dish, and then he added "I would like to have Rob's chicken."

Quite logical from a business expense perspective, whether or not it was his turn to buy! And, could he not have proclaimed "Besides, the critter is already dead!"?

No. We know from the simple law of supply and demand that they'll only manufacture McNuggets as long as we continue to order them.

I use my friends mild "faux pas" as example, only. I was not the least bit upset, nor did I comment. Besides, he enjoyed the extra chicken, and--for all I know--he may have felt a little short of dietary protein. Nor does it bother me to watch people eat meat, even a big juicy steak.

I do, however, think that our American society (i.e., its individual citizens) ought to examine the industry's treatment of food animals when making those dietary choices. Reality may be painful, but it's the only route to informed decision-making.

"Re-cy-cling?" -- Montgomery Burns, The Simpsons

A while back, I heard a story about a woman who sold a 40-year-old fur coat that she had inherited from her mother's estate. She was berated by animal-rights activists for selling fur.

What nonsense. She was selling from an existing supply, and satisfying someone else's demand without harming a living animal. It's not perfect, but it's a start.

Nobody's Perfect

I do know of vegetarians who prefer their food to be prepared so that it cannot come in contact with any meat products, such as the grease remaining on a fryer. Personally, I'm not one of them. What I try to do is reduce the demand for animal products. (For me, the ethical and "spiritual" benefits lie in avoiding harm to others. Sure, I'd rather that my garden burger is not swimming in grease, but that's the health thing.)

It's basic economics. Eventually my grocery store stops carrying things we (as a community) don’t buy. Eventually farmers will use their lands for something much more productive and healthy. Eventually. Give it another one or two hundred years.

I enjoy looking for simple ways to reduce the overall amount of suffering caused by my actions. I can't force anyone else to do the same (I would have to break the precept in order to enforce the precept, and we have too much of that going on in the world already), but I feel compelled to be this miniscule and insignificant lack-of-contribution-to-the-problem (for lack of another precise term).

A Yearly Ban on Tofurkey

What a wonderful holiday, Thanksgiving! It's a chance to give thanks for your great fortune to be living with a high degree of wealth and comfort (if you're able to read an English BLOG, you're probably in darn good financial shape), and to simply be alive! It's also the only nationally recognized four-day weekend, and the start of the Christmas shopping season!

If I’m invited to Thanksgiving dinner, I can let the hostess know that she doesn’t need to count me when calculating turkey size. And, when the plate goes around the table the second time, I may grab a slice of turkey for myself, anyway, if there’s enough for everyone. "What?!" The bird is already dead, and it has been offered to sustain my life.

I’m expecting this to seem hypocritical to some. Well, we must all make these choices for ourselves, of course. I suppose I would call myself (if I must use a label) a "mostly-vegetarian." I discourage the suffering of animals for my benefit, but will not always turn down fish or fowl when it is subsequently offered.

(Aside regarding labels: I've noticed that there is a way to let people know without labeling myself, and it truly seems to put people at ease with my choices. Rather than "I'm a vegetarian" I often say "I'm eating vegetarian these days." Labels (nouns) sound so permanent. It's as though we limit ourselves, and listeners instantly share that limited image of us.)

I have heard that the original disciples of the Buddha, when they went begging for food, were allowed to eat meat as long as it was not killed specifically for them (i.e., leftovers were okay). I've used a "rule of thumb" that is almost the opposite of that: If I forgot to tell the host at a dinner party that I'm a vegetarian, and the cook has prepared something for me, with meat, I'll eat it. I would rather skip being a vegetarian for a day than make my host feel incredibly uncomfortable.

Apparently my hero, Robert Aitken (my, how my heroes have changed over the decades), has a similar take on this. I don't recall the exact quote (or where I read it), but to paraphrase: The creature is already dead; the hostess is not.

Beef and pork are another story: For me, mammals are out. I find it far too unhealthy (animal fats), risky (mad cow), and repulsive to eat a creature that is so similar to us biologically.

Don't get me wrong: When I'm watching you eat your filet mignon, butterflied and cooked medium-rare; I'm more apt to drool than to turn my head in revulsion. And don't get me started on the joyous childhood memories of McDonald's cheeseburgers! But those joys have been replaced, and I really don't miss 'em. Much.

Apply Gentle Pressure

Christmas 2004: I was talking to Mom before Christmas and she said that we would be having some homemade stew before going to see A Christmas Carol. I let her know that I was vegetarian, and that I could not eat pork and beef. She let me know that I would be able to remove the meat from the stew. That was fine, and I told her so.

The night of the play, she had a wonderful, savory vegetable stew waiting for us! (No meat.)

Thanks, Mom. Essentially, I didn’t make it an issue, and she didn’t make it an issue, either. Mom’s great! :) I hope Dad didn't miss the meat too much. He has made so many sacrifices ove r the years, but his tend to be less obvious. Dad is great, too!

And, yes, I had some turkey with my Christmas meal. Just a little, and with much gratitude to the poor fat bird who gave its life for mine.

All -isms please report immediately to the Iron Cage of Death

There's been a recent upheaval in my "spiritual backyard," so to speak. Apparently there is a movement in Gujarat to declare Buddhism and Jainism as sects of Hinduism.

I have yet to read the numerous related articles at http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/, but I wanted to record my first impressions upon reading the headlines. (Yes, a very dangerous thing, that. I've been so wrong so many times when guessing at the contents of articles based on their headlines.)

Disclaimer: In fact, I should clarify that the following is not my opinion of the events in Gujarat. Religious freedom, and the rights of people to identify their own selves, are critical human rights. If they are being interfered with, this is certainly a serious issue. But the following is not meant to be so serious...

I practice and study a particular flavor of the Buddha-dharma known as Zen. I want to take a moment and reflect on all the traditions that have molded (contributed to, transformed, mutated, enhanced, rarefied) the original teachings of Siddhartha Gautama into what I get as American Zen:

Siddhartha lived in a time and place where Hinduism thrived. He often used Hindu terms (even Hindu gods) to express his knowledge.

As Buddhism washed repeatedly over China, it picked up various Chinese influences, including Confucianism and Taoism. Ch'an Buddhism was particularly influenced by Taoism. And as Ch'an rode its Eastbound tsunami (repeatedly) into Japan, it picked up a bit of the Shinto traditions, and certainly a strong dollop of potent Japanese culture.

Looking at all this, I suppose I could either lament, or rejoice.

Lament that the pure and original words of the Buddha have been through such a thrashing that I could never recover their wisdom. Perhaps I should look elsewhere? The earliest writings in Pali or Sanskrit? Sure, that could give me a better idea of what he actually said and did. Right?

We need only look at today's media battles, e.g., CNN vs. Fox in the Iron Cage of Death, to know that words--even when originally issued in a familiar language and recorded earnestly--are open to interpretation. Of course, the Buddha spoke repeatedly, in different ways, in order to convey his realization. But which sutra is the Pinnacle of Wisdom? Which sect of Buddhism is the One True Buddhism?!

Bah! I choose to rejoice. I've found some wise words that resonate, if you'll pardon the new-agey term. (What a perfect description, though: resonate...) Your Mileage May Vary. Find what resonates in you!

I am currently reading an old Tricycle article by Stephen Batchelor, who is quickly becoming one of my favorite Buddhist authors. In the article, he makes the argument that traditions are inherently living and changing (and dying) things, and that this includes Buddhism. He likens it to members of a family: There is a resemblance, but each is an individual. (I can't find a copy of the article on the web, probably because I'm reading the Winter 2000 issue. Don't ask... :-)

Wisdom is all around us, in all traditions. Is it any wonder that The Golden Rule is so similar in numerous traditions? (The Buddhists use negation: "Do NOT do unto others what you would rather NOT have done unto you. Like, um, waterboarding." Okay, I added that last part. So many of us learn best from examples. I'm hoping the Bush administration reads my blog. HAR! HAR! *snort!*) Look at the similarity between the Ten Commandments and the Ten (Five/Eight/Dozen/Baker's Dozen) Grave (Moral/Pure/Enumerable) Buddhist Precepts, particularly that one special principal that might translate into blogspeak as "Please STOP f***ing killing each other, right now!" Perhaps adding "I mean it, dude. YOU. STOP."

Buddhism is, after all, pragmatic stuff about reality, here and now. If awakening were metaphysical, and beyond the reach of us ordinary humans, the Big Guy wouldn't have bothered speaking at all. Remember, he thought about it for a while. "What can I possibly say about this?!"

So, do I care if someone starts calling what I've been studying and practicing "Hinduism"? Nah. It's really more Taoism anyway! ;-)

Of course I care. But I also try to remain aware that American Zen has probably adapted and evolved in the great leap over the largest pond on Earth. How not?!

I'm happy to have the Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, and Christian traditions (raised a Lutheran!) each providing their wisdom to the subjective synthesis that is my personal spiritual path. Yes, it is subjective. There's no other choice, really. Your religion is what you take it to be. As any good Zen teacher will tell you (in their own words, of course), "You are your own teacher!"

Satorix, the Nirvana Pill! (Part I)

You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

-- Morpheus [Wachowski A. and Wachowski L. (1999) The Matrix.]

Could we, one day, invent a pill that gives people an enlightened state of mind? And, if such a "Nirvana Pill" were available, would you take it?

While catching up on some copies of Scientific American that must have arrived during an exceptionally busy time, I found an intriguing article by Scientific American's resident skeptic, Michael Shermer. The article was about seemingly metaphysical phenomena such as out-of-body experiences, and the sense of "oneness with everything" that long-time meditators occasionally experience.

Apparently, these phenomena can also be induced through external physical stimuli. Dr. Shermer tells us, "Neuroscientist Michael Persinger, in his laboratory at Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario, for example, can induce all these perceptions in subjects by subjecting their temporal lobes to patterns of magnetic fields. (I tried it myself and had a mild out-of-body experience.)" (Shermer)

The article explains that there is a small section of the brain critical to your sense of physical orientation. During meditation, this area quiets down, as it would while you sleep, and you may experience a sensation of floating, or perhaps, "oneness." No matter how real the sensation may feel, even the recipient's own descriptions often revealed an illusion of sorts. One woman said she could "see myself lying in bed, from above, but I only see my legs and lower trunk."

Ask yourself:

Did this brief article just debunk meditation? Or, worse, all spiritual pursuits?

What if all perception--our entire experience of life, in fact--could be altered via physical means? Where does that leave my trust of my senses, and my reality?

"Whoa!" ;-)

---

• Shermer, M. (March 2003). Skeptic: Demon-Haunted Brain. Scientific American <Click here for article>
  
  

A Merry Buddhist Christmas

We recently watched one of my all-time favorite Simpsons episodes, called She of Little Faith. Lisa has a crisis of faith and subsequently converts to Buddhism. Marge makes a bold, loving, and hilarious attempt to win Lisa back during the Christmas season, but it backfires and Lisa runs away on Christmas eve.

Lisa then visits the Springfield Buddhist Temple where Lenny, Carl, and Richard Gere are meditating, and she receives some excellent advice:

Gere: ...Buddhists respect the diversity of other religions, as long as they're based on love and compassion.
Lisa: Wha...?!
Gere: It's true. So why don't you go home? I'm sure your family really misses you.
Lisa: I can really celebrate Christmas?
Gere: You can celebrate any holiday. And, you know, my birthday is August 31st.

I have to confess, with a little selfconscious embarrassment, that Lisa Simpson is my favorite cartoon superhero: Her moral compass seems to be aligned with my own. And, in the aforementioned episode and others, whenever she takes her progressive leanings too far, she learns important lessons about tolerance and moderation. Yet she is always able to stay true to herself. (See Lisa the Vegetarian and Lisa the Iconoclast for examples.)

Which brings me to my own (disjointed) thoughts on Christmas:

Schitzophrenic Santa

For me, there have always been two sides of Christmas: There is the spiritual side, with august Christmas Eve church services, the wonderful story of the nativity, and some of the most spiritually moving music ever written. Then there was the celebratory side, with Santa, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, the Christmas Tree, gifts, feasts, candy, rum and eggnog.

Now, in twenty-first century America, the holiday seems a bit more...bipolar.

Less is More

As a child, both my joy and anxiety regarding Christmas revolved around gift-giving. Even before I had any money to spend, I wanted to find things that my family members would really want. When I finally got a salary, I went a little wild. It was certainly fun to buy people the things they most wanted, but it can also make them feel a little uncomfortable.

I eventually landed in a relationship with a true shop-a-holic. I discovered what the phrase "desires are inexhaustible" could mean when taken to the extreme. What's the point in trying to make someone happy with gifts, if, on the day after Christmas, they're still wanting? What's spiritual about enabling someone's addiction?

I was beginning to think society would eventually reach the point where we would all simply transfer funds to each other, and the goal would be to transfer more into the recipient's account than he or she had transferred into yours. Pretty cynical, eh?

Just within the past few years, my family has done away with most Christmas gift-giving. Most of our family can afford to buy for themselves whatever they need, and also most of what they want. Plus we're geographically dispersed, so it's difficult to pick up on subtle gift ideas. When every need and want can be met by visiting an on-line store, where's the challenge?

Instead we search for fun, light-hearted, inexpensive gifts based on a simple theme. One year the gift was limited to "Christmas-themed" items. This year was "food and drink" year, though we weren't able to participate due to the prohibitive cost of airfare. Next time that happens, I think I'll recommend "charitable donation" year. I can get all my shopping done on-line at Oxfam.

Christmas gift-giving (both the celebration and the shopping) is now more fun, and less stressful.

Christmas Without Christ?

Christmas is as religious or as secular as a family decides to make it. Those who have turned it into a political argument are spoiling the fun for everyone.

Of course, Christmas is a Christian holiday. But so many other religions have joined the season of celebration by increasing the celebratory fervor around December holidays. In some cases, those holidays were once rather subdued occasions.

In some ways, Christmas isn't becoming a secular (effectively non-religious) holiday, but a pluralistic (multi-religious) celebration.

I can understand, even relate to, a concern that Christmas could become spiritually compromised--watered-down, so to speak--by pluralism. The birth of Christ is a deep, holy, stirring event! Why would a belief in a different tradition be seen as a denial of what's considered holy to others?

Secular Is as Secular Does

Before my Christian friends worry too much about spiritual compromise, I would remind them of a few historical notes regarding Christmas:

In this country, and in others, it used to be blasphemous (and illegal) to celebrate Christmas. Puritans and other groups were big on the stoic. "No more fun of any kind."

Also, it's on the wrong date. I recall learning that the birth of Jesus of Nazareth was likely in the Spring, not the Winter. December 25 was originally the day that the Romans celebrated the Winter solstice and the birth of Mithras, who had some connection to the Sun (which becomes stronger after the solstice).

The Christmas Tree? Totally pagan.

And then there's Santa Claus, and the shopping, and the gift-giving, and the dancing and revelry (rum and eggnog...Mmmmmmm!). Various traditions from around the world, all frowned upon by the Puritans, the same folks who gave us Thanksgiving. Maybe they just felt the pressure, knowing that Christmas was just a few shopping weeks away...?

It's a Huge Celebration! Secularists didn't make Christmas into a commercial holiday. No one watches Miracle on 34th Street and thinks "Those damned secularists! Look what they've done!" Do they???

Sugar Plums and Pluralism

Christmas has changed so much over the centuries. Would it be so bad if everyone around the world joined in and declared it a multi-religious celebration of peace, joy, hope, tolerance, the birth of a wise man (or God, depending), patience, shopping, economic growth, and gift-giving?

I'm not trying to push a naive idealism here. I just don't think we have a lot of actual control over our own evolving culture. I think Christmas is headed that way, and we can either embrace the lively growth of American culture with joy, or we can be miserable, cranky grinches for the rest of our lives.

Jesus, The Buddha

There are numerous studies, theories, legends, and myths connecting Jesus of Nazareth to Buddhism. Some suggest that his teachings were influenced by the Far East. Others suggest that he may have inspired stories of Avalokiteshvara, the Bodhisattva of compassion. (At some point the female image of Kuan Yin morphed into the male image of Avalokiteshvara. Talk about cultural changes!)

Any historical flow of ideas in either direction could explain some interesting similarities between the teachings of Jesus and those of Sidhartha Gautama. For example, The Golden Rule, which has been attributed--in one form or another--to numerous wise men throughout the ages, and exists in every major tradition.

There is a different explanation that, in the absence of scientific data, I find more spiritually motivating: The truths uncovered by both the Buddha and the Christ are universal, and universally available to us all, regardless of tradition or belief.

The historical Buddha was probably not the first, and was certainly not the last, to awaken. Nor would he be the last to do so outside of the lineage of his teachings. Good ideas are often realized independently by numerous people. A lot depends on how vocal they are, and whom they piss off.

Emphasis on the divinity of a historical individual tends to reduce the impact of the lessons. We seem to fall into a hero-worship trap: "Oh, those are special teachings, and I'm not worthy, so I won't even try to fulfill them." Or worse, "I am loved and forgiven, so I can break the rules and get away with it." And the latest cop-out: "Those are great ideals, but we have to be realistic!" Is life and death and war and peace so much harder now than it was then? Or was Jesus just wrong?

I don't think so. To me, and to many Buddhists, Jesus was a Great Buddha, one of a handful over the millenia who had the insight, and the gumption to share that insight. He is known as the Prince of Peace. Why isn't our nation of mostly Christians known as the Country of Peace? Why don't we have a Department of Peace?

Too idealistic? I'm not suggesting we have to be perfect. I'm suggesting we try to live up to the ideals we claim as our own.

Too political? Yeah, you got me there. Apologies.

Have a very Merry Christmas!

Happy Holidays meets Merry Christmas in the Iron Cage of Death

I wasn't going to say a single word on the subject. I wasn't really sure what I could add to the debate, anyway. But I was just at the grocery, and had a revealing conversation with the lady at the checkout.

Long ago, she had moved to the States from Poland, while it was still under communist rule. She was worried that she was seeing a familiar trend here in our country, regarding this whole "Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas" debate. I pressed her for more details, and she said that she worries about a small, ultra-liberal fringe that is trying to take away our freedom of speech, and secularize our lives. She claims--and I have no reason to doubt her--that she was told not to say "Merry Christmas" to customers. (She did not make it clear whether that was stated by management, or by an irate customer, but either way, it upset her.)

We "progressives" have been blaming the conservative right for making a lot of noise this year about this non-issue. Were we wrong?

Is it possible that we as a nation have become so polarized that we're pitting the First Amendment against itself? Freedom of speech vs. freedom of religion?

Do the secular liberals want us to stop saying "Merry Christmas" in public? Or do the neocons want us all to celebrate the holy days of Christmas as they do?

Both? Neither?

Hmmm...

It's "separation of church and state" not "separation of church and citizen."

Separation of Church and State is a good idea. Those who drafted the Constitution knew it, and felt so strongly about it that they included it at the very top of their list. Now it's arguably the single most important issue in politics today. Our feelings on this one topic affect what we think about every big news issue right now: Iraq, terrorism, abortion, prayer in school, evolution and Intelligent Design, gay rights, and, apparently, how to wish happiness upon another person.

After all, isn't that what we're trying to do? Do you say "Merry Christmas!" or "Happy Holidays!" as a wish for the happiness of the recipient, or as a challenging statement to identify whether the other person is friend or foe? The former, of course! If you say it like you mean it, who could possibly be offended? Let's try it out:

Human #1, with a genuine smile, says: "Merry Christmas!"
Human #2, with equal authentic enthusiasm, replies: "Happy holidays!"

End of scene. No altercation, no argument, no fisticuffs, no hurt feelings, no offense. Just two people wishing each other a joyous season. Who is reading more into it than that? Who is hoping there is more to it than that? Are we so bored or repulsed by the real news (Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iran, Iraq, and Iraq) that we have to rant about this?

Some people are just too darn sensitive.

I've always liked the phrase "No offense is given where none is taken." Okay, it's a Vulcan phrase from a Star Trek novel (Kirk-era), but it's a good sentiment nonetheless. I worry about people who are easily offended by words. I'm even more worried about those offended by kind words, like "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays."

We've always had loud, hypersensitive fringe groups in America. Perhaps it's the noise level that makes the fringe seem so large and frightening.

Or, perhaps the set of people who would agree with, say, Radical Idea #1282 is rather large. In fact, it's possible that both extremes exceed 50% of the American population. "Humbug!" you say, "Where did you learn math?!"

Consider: Given a particular issue, and despite the freakish absolutist rhetoric of both extremes, there is a kernel of truth on both sides, and most of us can recognize that truth long enough to follow the argument. At least at the moment. If we happen to be answering a poll at that moment, well... Let's try it. Imagine that you were asked to respond to the following survey:

How many of the following statements do you agree with? (If you want to be heard on our radio program, you have to answer quickly.)

• I believe in a higher power.
• All life is precious.
• Children should not witness perverse sex acts on TV.
• Freedom is worth fighting for.
  
• We must strive to end poverty in our nation.
• We must feed the hungry.
• We must encourage democracy in other nations.
  

See? It's not even necessary that we be stupid or easily persuaded. We're smart, and we can see both sides of an issue. Perhaps we become polarized only when we're told about the growing threat "over there" on the other side of the aisle.

We become afraid of the growing fringe "over there", and respond by adjusting our opinions away from "them," thus increasing the size of our own fringe group. Polarization almost seems to feed on polarization, until there is only "us" and "them," only Red States and Blue States. But it really starts with fear at the individual, personal level. Fear fed to us by someone else (politician, parent, friend) who has drifted off into the fringe.

It takes curiosity and courage to see our own mental machinations, and to settle down and think rationally about an issue.

Back to saving Christmas...

So is there common ground? Sure! And the First Amendment guarantees it, without conflicting with itself, at all. The government isn't supposed to do anything to establish a state religion. Simple and clear enough. This isn't an attack on one particular religion, or on religiously-minded politicians, private schools, or charities. Nor does it imply that you can't wish someone a Very Merry Christmas. Freedom of expression, at its very best, in fact!

May I offer a compromise? When speaking, we can try to speak from the heart. If we're generous and true with our wishes for the happiness of others, they'll be able to tell. And when we receive such a wish, we can take it in the spirit it was intended, not as a challenge to our beliefs. If you want to offer "Merry Christmas" then do so.

People can boycott a store for posting signs that say "Happy Holidays." Others can boycott the store down the street for saying "Merry Christmas!" They're just stores after all. You get to vote with your dollars. But with other people's hearts, it's not such a simple transaction.

I would guess that, from a business perspective, "Happy Holidays" would be a better financial choice, overall. It covers Thanksgiving, New Years, and everything in between. It covers Christmas, Chanukah, and a myriad other holidays that are growing in popularity because other folks want to celebrate simultaneously with their Christian neighbors. And why shouldn't they? It's a festive time! It can remain thus, if we open our hearts and release those pent-up fears.

Let's have a Merry Christmas!