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?

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.

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.

"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. "

For those of you who were angered by this column, angered by the very idea of apologizing after being treated unfairly (or by being foolishly kind after a foolish purchase), read that sentence again.

I invite all of you to give it a try, just once during this holiday season. You are not in charge; you are no more likely to be right than the person who offends you. Practice being kind; apologize even if what the other did was worse than what you did. You can choose peace rather than this. If you feel worse afterwards, then don't ever do it again. But just try it once. I think that you will be suprised.

Good tidings of comfort and joy.

The day I read this piece I decided to let go of a particular situation that had been giving me some heartburn. I realized the energy I was expending trying to resolve the unresolvable was making me angrier than was really necessary. I get it. Thank you.

This is exactly what Jesus was talking about when he said "Turn the other cheek" "Give them your coat as well." "Walk two miles". If we just treat people fairly, and expect the same, what is special about that? Christianity ought to be about being unreasonably loving, inappropriately kind. Every time I read a column by Anne Lamott, I am challenged by her faith. Thank you, Anne, as always, for your willingness to be so nakedly honest and vulnerable.

Clearly the best thing about this article by Lamott was the hilarious companion piece written by kmm, supposedly written from the point of view of the guy working in the carpet shop. Reading that almost made up for reading Anne's self-congratulatory tripe. Almost.

Not being an expert in Christian theology, maybe I'm missing something here, but I fail to grasp how Christianity dictates this particular response. I can see deciding to give up one's anger and walk away from the fight. I can even see writing a note saying, "Your check wasn't covered at the bank; obviously your business is in pretty difficult financial straits, so I understand now your reluctance to part with the money. Obviously you need it more than I do." But to APOLOGIZE for what was at every step perfectly reasonable behavior? Please. She's perpetuating a passive, victim mindset that says it's just not "nice" to stick up for yourself.

Lamott seems to feel that the mere experience of anger, and its expression, are inherently evil, when in reality anger is a normal, natural part of the range of human experience. She might as well be saying, "I'm sorry my skull was so hard that you hurt your hand when you punched me in the head. My fault entirely! Let me pay your hospital bills."

Maybe I'm not Christian enough. Maybe I'm too old school' when it comes to being 'dissed'. But there is no way on heaven, earth, or a carpet shop that I would have written this thieving jackass a sorry note for intentionally writing a fraudulent check to me. By this stage, it had gone far beyond money: he has broken the law multiple times throughout this saga, and yet he gets to guilt-trip you at the end of it all. I am now in my dark place in sympathy for you in this situation. I live in New Zealand, Anne, but if you give me this jerk's phone number, I humbly offer to take up the battle for you! You don't have to get angry. Just be relentless: like the Terminator. I'm kidding.