Thanksgiving, I should note, is most Americans' favorite holiday precisely because it transcends ethnic and religious distinctions. (Although I did witness a scene in which a mom who had spent three days cooking was reduced to tears by a vegetarian daughter-in-law who refused to eat a bite of anything because the cook had, inadvertently, poured some turkey stock into the lovingly prepared mushroom risotto and ginger-carrot soup. But I wasn't the cook or the daughter-in-law, so I enjoyed myself thoroughly and took sides by eating two helpings of risotto and commenting on how much better it tasted with the stock.) I like Thanksgiving too, as a reminder that there's always something to be grateful for even when times seem toughest.

Christmas (and, increasingly, Chanukah, because of the Jewish attempt to compete with the overwhelming Noel juggernaut) are fraught with even more tension because the expectations are higher. The gift that shows we are loved or unloved! The expenditures we can't afford! The memory of the wonderful family holidays we used to have (when we were about eight years old). The memory of terrible family holidays that someone is bound to reprise. The airport hassle. The exhaustion. The person you want to throttle who says, inevitably, in a sentimental rather than a sardonic tone, "Christmas comes but once a year."

Christmas can also create extra tensions in the growing number of families with interfaith marriages. Many Jews (even nonobservant, secular Jews) are uncomfortable in the presence of Christmas trees and creches. And some Christians are uncomfortable in the presence of Jews who are uncomfortable in the presence of trees and creches. I have a few atheist friends who turn their backs on Christmas and, in a blaze of ideological purity, only celebrate the Winter Solstice, but I'm not one of them. Why? Because it would upset my mother and certain other family members. Incorruptible principles must be sacrificed to family peace, and that's probably what makes so many families so cranky at what is supposed to be, as the incessant modern carol goes, "the most wonderful time of the year."

And remember: Christmas comes but once a year.

Now for something completely different....

I am grateful that the majority of bloggers on my thread, who, whether they agree or disagree with what I have to say, take care to make their arguments without personal invective--toward me or their fellow bloggers. Happy Thanksgiving to you all. Unfortunately, not everyone understands the difference between intellectual disagreement and sheer nastiness.

Ironically, last week's angry comments on forgiveness were among the most uncivil in recent memory. My opinions are strongly held, and I expect that the opinions of those who respond will be equally strong. What is unacceptable in a comment is an attack on personal character--my own or that of other bloggers--rather than an attack on the opinions themselves. Here's the difference. If you say that "atheism is a morally bankrupt philosophy," fine. But if you say, "Susan, you're a morally bankrupt and bitter person," this is only an admission of unwillingness or inability to support your own opinions with serious intellectual arguments. It is entirely possible to sharply criticize Christianity as a religion without attacking individual Christians (although what high-profile Christians do in public life is fair game), just as it is possible to dissect atheism without demonizing individual atheists.When you attack other bloggers as "obsessive-compulsives with paranoid tendencies," as one person did last week, you are engaging in playground taunts rather than real discourse.

Equally unacceptable are comments with a clearly bigoted agenda. Here's one example from last week: "OH GOOD! Another opportunity for a Jew and her ever-ready posters to blast away at Christians. As the whole world gets more anti-semetic [sic]. Doesn't seem wise." This is, in fact, an anti-Semitic slur. Such comments belongs on a crackpot anti-Semitic Web site, not here. As do some of the blanket indictments I've seen of Muslims on this thread.

Many bloggers pointed out that the Internet is a forum permitting people to say pretty much what they want. True, but there's a catch. The Web permits people to say what they want without revealing their identities. They can never be called to account for the quality of their logic or their writing. That is why anonymous testimony could never be considered credible in a courtroom. That's why some of the most thoughtful comments on this blog--from religious believers as well as atheists--come from people who write under their own names instead of hiding behind screen names to spew forth venom. Free speech is not just a matter of expressing one's opinions but of being willing to defend them and stand by them in the open. Thomas Paine didn't write The Age of Reason under a pseudonym, and that is why he died penniless in the nation he had done so much to inspire during the revolutionary years. Yes, a number of great authors, such as George Eliot, have written under pseudonyms in the past--in her case, because people didn't take the writing of women seriously at the time. But the masking of identity on the Web serves a very different purpose for some bloggers: it enables them to use language and express opinions for which they would be penalized if they expressed themselves in real, as opposed to virtual, society. Use a racist epithet on the campaign trail, and voters penalize you. Use it on the Web, and there are no consequences.

Before hitting the "Post" button, I would suggest that you ask yourself whether you would be proud to have your children, your colleagues at work, and your friends read what you have written if they knew that you were the author. Think about it while you're gnawing on your drumstick and trying to get through the day while remaining on speaking terms with every member of your family.