Writing bad checks is a federal offense. Did you forget that? Jesus doesn't mean turn the other cheek and get walked on. You should have gone to the police.

It would have been wrong for Anne and her deacons to have beaten the fifty dollars out of the crook. It would have been silly to mount a public campaign to expose the crook. It would have been expected to report the petty crime and leave it at that. She could even forgive the criminal after doing her civic duty and have all her goodness bases covered.

It was wrong, though, for her to go back to the crook and tell him he didn't do anything wrong.

Keeping pride and anger in check is important, but that can be accomplished without encouraging thievery. Report the crime. Deal with the missing funds. Forgive if that's your thing. Then let it go. Letting go is the remedy for anger and pride, but regardless of how you feel, the situation must be dealt with.

Anne's actions amounted to self-flagelation at the expense of other potential victims. That seems like bad judgement. Crowing about her righteous obsequity to the Internet was a demonstration of self-righteousness, also known as pride.

Penance to be assigned: learn how to respond to your (sometimes justified) anger with better judgement, reduce your need to validate your actions, and think of the consequences for other people before you validate a bully's actions.

As other people have noted, to confuse turning the other cheek with french-kissing the criminal is a particularly ironic concept in the context of society and history.

I appreciate the fact that you are willing to do your best impression of Jesus, but Jesus Christ, are you kidding me?

When the moldy sleazeball gave you a check for $50 that was known to be bad, he committed a crime. Your stop at the "money-changers" to cash his worthless check was cut short. You should have continued on to the State Attorney's Office, and I'm sure THEY would've known how to handle this. (Deprivations of liberty have wonderfully salutary effects upon behavior.)

Hell, even Jesus kicked up a fuss when he saw injustice. When did you get the idea that being a doormat for a thief was more beneficial than taking the carpet man to the cleaners?

Grace1 says we should re-read this sentence in order to get Lamott's point: "We're invited more deeply into this mystery on a daily basis, to be here as one-of; a mess like everyone else, and not in charge. That's why we hate it. "

Well, I've read it over and over again (heck, I even reread Lamott's shitty little ditty), and I still think it's a load of crap. And the idea that"you are no more likely to be right than the person who offends you" is so clearly wrong in this situation that even to suggest it is ridiculous.

Being a christian, or just a "good person" doesn't mean being a doormat who apologizes for being fucked over. Sheesh!

This is Anne Lamott's usual space cadet grasping to attach profundity to mundane experiences, usually with a dose of willful bad judgment thrown in.

A reader reminds us to, "(R)emember that she's a real person whose feelings might be hurt by such meanness." I would suggest that maybe we critics are just hoping for flowers and an apology.

The carpet merchant is aware that he has received kindness and forgivenness from someone who clearly had other options. An experience like that can begin to change a person's heart and outlook. It has the potential to be a catalyst for profound change, or to attach itself to other isolated incidents until none of them look like flukes, and he begins to perceive the world as a kinder place where it's safe to be kinder himself.

Are we so literal-minded that the story doesn't work for us unless the guy breaks down and apologizes?

I adore Anne Lamott. I have searched every week hoping she would return. I am grateful to her thoughts on how to get through our present political regime. But oh.... this piece has me wondering how Anne is doing.

God does not require us to celebrate people's illusions of themselves, including those that carpet guy might tell himself to make his behavior alright (if she fell for it, she deserves what she gets; I deserve the money however I can get it). This is not forgiveness, nor an acknowledgement of carpet guys fuindamental humanity and onenness with the rest of us. This is called enabling someone to live in their delusions of adequacy. There is no point to being angry, threatening or to make a suffering out of this experience. One can without rancor simply call the police and report a bad check. For good measure, you can send carpet man some blessings that his life go better in the future.

Beyond that, I find myself asking what is Anne's motivation for writing this piece. I confess I have been through periods where I confused forgiveness with inaction or even what I call "radical love." In those moments I have found myself constructing the same kinds of rationales Anne constructs in this piece. But deep down inside, I know it is a lie (in terms of my own deep feelings) and every time I try to explain to others my radicalloveness, what I really want is a confirmation that what I did was more OK than my deep gut is telling me. Beyond that -- isn't the very writing of this story of carpet guy a bit of (unconscious) revenge after all? Carpet guy could be anywhere but likely near where Lamott lives.... How long to figure this out.........

This article isn't about the carpet guy. It isn't about fifty bucks. It really isn't about whether turning the other cheek means letting people take advantage of you, either.

MY RAGE TOOK ME INTO A DARK PLACE. Read that line again. MY RAGE TOOK ME INTO A DARK PLACE. MY RAGE TOOK ME INTO A DARK PLACE. MY RAGE TOOK ME INTO A DARK PLACE.

The real question this article tries to address is that dark place. How do you escape it? How do you turn away from it? Is it worth abiding in that dark place just to get your fifty bucks back?

Is justice better than mercy?

As usual, Annie Lamott doesn't tell the rest of us to do the exact same thing she did, nor does she give herself saintly bonus points for doing what she did. She just told a story about a choice she made.

What's grimly funny is that the article sent so many furious letter writers into their own dark places of rage. I wonder why so many people are so FURIOUS about this article? Lamott didn't sacrifice baby kittens to Satan . . .she just did something unexpected to get control of her own rage.

Ah well. You go, Annie. Do you think it ever gets easier to stay out of that dark place when somebody screws you over? Gee it would be nice to just not even go there, no matter what anyone else said or did.

--Karen S-M