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!"

The Marriage Amendment is already unconstitutional

The president firmly believes that marriage is an enduring and sacred institution between men and women and has supported measures to protect the sanctity of marriage...
-- White House spokesman Ken Lisaius

Yes, the need to defend marriage and family from people who are trying to establish monogamous relationships and stable families--i.e., "the gays"--has again superseded the importance of war in Iraq, global environmental disasters, marital infidelity, and divorce. Queers, ladies and gentlemen, are The Greatest Threat to Civilization! Or so it would seem, if you listen to the latest carefully prepared Presidential speeches.

What a pickle for gay people! We're not allowed to get married, but we're off-handedly criticized for our sordid lifestyles. What's a guy to do...?

Focus on "Family"

But marriage is about families...children! Yes, those adorable little bundles of economic potential. From a social standpoint, they're what keeps civilizations going. It's no wonder that politicians are all in a fuss to make sure there are plenty of little ones to keep the economy going, at least until the current batch of politicians has served their terms.

I'm being unfair? One thing has been made very clear recently: Most of us are not planning for the long-term. Ten years from now? Barely on the radar. 100 years? Why give it a single thought? You'll be dead anyway. In about 150 years, you and (almost?) everyone on the planet today, will be dead. (And I'm an optimist!) Most politicians can barely see beyond the next election. It's hard to take seriously most of what they say or do.

I love kids. My niece is expecting, and I hope that there is plenty of healthy food and clean water and clean air and wild spaces for her child to grow. That's why I'm a progressive: It's not because I expect the world to coddle me. I keep hoping the current population of the country will become a little less selfish, take care of the world, and leave something for my grand-niece-or-nephew to enjoy. And for your children and grandchildren, too!

Anyway, this proposed amendment can't be about children. No one is insisting that married couples procreate. No one has to sign a contract saying "we will do our very best to have children so you can have your tax base in 20 years." I know plenty of people who were allowed to get married even though they couldn't (or wouldn't) have children.

So, what's a family? What exactly is this sacred union that we're trying to defend?

I remember thinking about writing something last time President Bush brought this up, but I was too busy, and the topic faded from sight. I suppose I should have known that I merely needed to wait for another election year.

Sacred Is As Sacred Does

In the quote at the top of this post, the emphasis is mine. Finally, someone is being honest about the real issue.

"Sacred..." we're told.

sacred

adj 1: concerned with religion or religious purposes... 2: worthy of respect or dedication... 3: made or declared or believed to be holy; devoted to a deity or some religious ceremony or use...

-- The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition

Of course! This debate is about religion.

This marriage issue has always been an issue of religion, and finally the administration has held out the cards for all to see.

It only becomes a political issue inasmuch as religion intrudes upon the political machine. We suspect Bush's heart isn't in it. Apparently a friend of his claims that he doesn't give "a s--t" about the gay-marriage issue. Unfortunately, he does care about pandering to the "religious right," and winning elections. Somewhere along the way, Bush squandered all of that good political capital, and is now trying to buy it back.

Have our ultra-conservative, ultra-wealthy citizens decided to declare a State Religion? Or could it be ordinary human nature, repeating itself as it has done throughout history: The need to be right?

Doctor, It Hurts When We Do This

The uber-conservatives are clearly arguing for their ideology. And they certainly have the right to do so. But they're not being forthright about their agenda. Legalized gay marriage is no real threat to the establishment of a family.

These folks need to focus their kindness and compassion on the psychological dysfunction that creeps into marriage. Let's face it, any relationship is tough work. The rewards don't simply appear, nor do the problems dissipate, just because a religious figure blesses the union. Marriage is where the hard work begins, if it hasn't started already.

Us gay people are really not trying to interfere with other folks' rights, or families. No, we're just trying to discourage the physical violence that killed Matthew Shephard and others. We, too, have the human need to survive.

We may not have suffered nearly 1/1000th as much as black folks have in this country, but wouldn't it be nice to avoid the suffering before it rips our country apart (again)? Just once, can't we circumvent the true evils of bigotry and hatred before we have to look back in shame and disbelief? I'm not suggesting that the conservatives are conspiring to cause harm. I doubt it's ever the wealthy-and-comfortable who directly promote violence. Violence seems to appear, rather, where and when minorities are not truly protected by equal rights and equal enforcement.

And no, I'm not being overdramatic. I have about 10,000 years of human history and pre-history backing me on this. Minorities don't actually have to cause trouble in order to attract the hatred of others. They merely have to be perceived as aberrant.

Did I mention that I'm an optimist? ;-) Well, I'm not trying to predict some doomsday scenario. Just trying to point out the subtle trends of civilizations in general.

God Bless the Pluralists

It's okay that President Bush allows his decisions to be informed by his faith. But this proposed amendment clearly crosses the line, and forces The People to agree with his beliefs (or those of his "base," if we're to believe he doesn't give "a s--t").

The Founding Fathers were apparently more forward-thinking than today's politicians. Fortunately, they gave us a simple amendment, the First Amendment, that protects us from the establishment of a state religion.

Marriage Proposals

Regarding the legal definition of marriage, we have only two legitimate choices available to us as a nation:

One: We broaden the definition of "marriage" to include any two non-blood-related consenting adults who choose to establish a family based on mutual love and caring. (Please, let's just keep the whole polygamy issue separate. It is a separate issue, and should be examined frequently. But I'm talking about gay marriage here, and I'd like to stay on-topic. Also, in case you're not following my argument, farm animals are not able to consent. And children are not adults. All these things are off the table. Are we clear? If you're into either of those, please seek professional help.)

Two: We acknowledge that "marriage" is a sacred religious bond, and allow only religious figures to perform marriages. A marriage also includes a civil union. I've heard it said that, currently, the legally and economically important part of the ceremony is the signing of certain legally binding documents after the ceremony. We can still let that be a part of the marriage ceremony, but let's call that a civil union license; separate from, or included within, a marriage license. And let's allow any two consenting adults to join in a civil union. A Justice of the Peace can perform civil unions. Religious leaders can perform civil unions or marriages.

Either one of these choices puts the question of whether or not to marry two people of the same sex onto the clergy, where it belongs. If you want to marry someone of the same sex, your clergy will decide if you can.

In other words, if we're going to make it an issue of religion, let's put all the cards on the table, and let each religious group decide what's right for them.

My Country, Right or Left

I recently heard Bill Bennett say (on the Daily Show) that all religions agree that marriage is between a man and a woman. Not true. Mine doesn't. Oh, and thanks for bolstering my argument that it's a religious debate, Bill.

If the marriage amendment were ever to pass, it would be in violation of the First Amendment. It isn't likely to pass, but it doesn't seem to want to die either. The fundamentalists in this country see themselves as answering to a higher authority than the United States Constitution. And, in some sense, they're correct: They are answering to their own human need to be right.

As adults, we need to get beyond that base need, and instead behave in ways that will cause the least amount of harm to all The People.

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!