Stationery solutions for those looking to keep the practice and art of paper communications alive.

In this day and age of mass emails, tweets, Snapchat, and every other form of digital communication some are choosing to go old school with pen and paper. There’s a snail mail revival afoot. Sending a card, a letter, a note of thanks is a much more personal way to let your loved ones know that you care and are thinking of them.

The more high tech we get, the more important it is to hold onto special traditions that can become even more special when it’s so super easy just to click a button to send someone birthday greetings.

But what are the stationery must haves to keep on hand for sending everything from letters to thank you cards?

Stationery Must Haves

1. Basic Rustic Stationery Set via Pinky Promise Bargains

You will want a basic everyday writing set to have on hand for last minute birthday greetings, to send best wishes on a friend’s new job, or to just keep up with your penpal. This rustic set is full of charm, but versatile enough whatever your needs.

2. Personalized Heart Stationery via Find Penny Paper Co

On the other hand, some personalized stationery might work just as well for your note writing needs. No matter your taste in fonts and decorations, there’s a set to match your style.

3. Flat Chevron Notecards via Hedoe Paper

There are two different styles of notecards–flat and folded notecards. Flat notecards are perfect for a quick note to a friend.

4. Folded Notecards via Pink Lily Press

Pretty folded notecards are a quick solution when you need a thank you or birthday card. Keep different designs on hand to tuck in with a birthday present or along with a host gift.

5. Printed Notepad via naomilynn

Not only are notepads a handy way to jot down some notes, but they can also act a stand-in for notecards and other stationery.

6. Thank You Cards via missive

Don’t forget your manners! Thank you cards are a stationery must-have and letterpress thank you cards are even better.

7. Bear Postcards via Bearly Southern

Sending a postcard is a fun way to send quick greetings to a friend. These quirky postcards would do the trick to send good cheer to a friend.

8. Kraft Paper Envelopes via When it Rains Paper

And it is always a good idea to keep extra envelopes on hand when writing letters or to send photos and other keepsakes. These Kraft paper envelopes are a practical stationery solution.

Related on EcoSalon

Mind Your Manners: The Lost Art of Handwritten Thank You Notes
Mad Men Your Workspace: Vintage Office Supplies
15 Ways That Are Better for Corresponding Than Email

The post 8 Stationary Must-Haves for Old-Timey Communication Lovers appeared first on EcoSalon.

Email is old news, and it’s getting less efficient by the day.

Chances are, you’re still using email for all kinds of communication throughout each day – personal letters, quick messages, business communications, group memos and sending files. But there’s also a good chance that email is far from the best way to accomplish that communication. It’s impersonal and inefficient, and you’re taking a chance of getting lost in the shuffle of coupons, inane chain letters and invitations to enlarge certain anatomical parts. Here are 15 alternatives for online use and off, for both business and personal purposes.

Letters

Sending a personal note to a friend or family member? If your message is longer than a few sentences, do it the old-fashioned way.  Now that letter writing has nearly died off altogether, receiving a hand-written letter in the mail is like getting a gift. It’s nice to be able to hold something in your hand, but there’s more to it than that. Something about the blank pages of actual stationery encourages us to be more poetic with our language, to meander a little in our correspondence, share more of ourselves than we would when staring at a blinking cursor on a computer screen.

Texting

For those moments when your message just can’t wait, nothing beats texting. It’s quick, it’s short and you can be pretty confident that your recipient will see it fairly quickly. It used to be that texting was reserved for people you know well – like friends and family – but its use in the business world has grown a lot in recent years. While texting can be great for messages like the time and place to meet a client, keep it brief and save serious or sensitive topics for phone calls or face-to-face meetings.

Chat

Don’t rely on email when you just need some quick back-and-forth communication. These days, most of us don’t compulsively check our email like we used to, especially when our inboxes are packed with junk and messages that are pretty low on our priority lists. Gchat, Skype and Facebook Messages are just a few options that are superior to email when you need to ask a quick question but aren’t on familiar enough terms to text.

Facebook Messages

Considering that pretty much everybody is on Facebook, it’s not surprising to hear that the social network’s messaging system is quickly replacing email altogether for many people, especially teens and twenty-somethings. Facebook Messages essentially combine email, text and chat into one place by offering real-time threaded conversations that can be sent and accessed across a range of devices, including phones. Even people who aren’t on Facebook can communicate through Facebook Messages by sending email to your own personal Facebook email address, which has recently been foisted upon you whether you like it or not.

Postcards

Who says you can only send postcards when traveling? If you’ve just got a short message that you don’t mind being seen by various mail carriers and processors across the country, jot it down on a postcard. Stationery stores are packed with pretty postcards and note cards, and hunting down just the right one for your recipient is half the fun.

Postagram

No need to go through the trouble of finding a place to print out your photos while you’re on vacation, or even hunt for the perfect postcards so you can send them to loved ones back home. An app called Postagram turns any of your Instagram photos into a postcard and sends them to the addresses of your choice for just 99 cents. It’s even more personal than choosing a pre-made image, putting your own unique spin on the sights you’re seeing.

Dictation Apps

There’s a time and a place for writing email, and the driver’s seat is not among them. While multi-tasking and driving is probably never the greatest idea, you can fit in a few extra tasks using one of the many dictation apps available for smartphones. Dragon Dictation is one popular choice. You simply speak your message into your phone, and the app turns it into text that you can send via email or any other communication service you like. GoogleVoice, which offers basic call/text/voicemail services, has similar capabilities. You can even set it up to take a call from your cell number, transcribe your message and store it in your Gmail.

Video chat

Maybe it’s not correspondence in the conventional sense, but if your messages don’t contain specific instructions or anything that would need to be written down, video chat is a great alternative to email. It gives back all of those irreplaceable face-to-face signals that you’re missing in text, like tone of voice and body language.

Surprise Packages

The only thing that’s better than receiving a hand-written letter in the mail is finding a package on your doorstep, marked with the return address of somebody you love. And sometimes, “just because” gifts are better than birthday gifts, simply because they’re totally unexpected. Send something meaningful along with that letter. But don’t forget the letter.

Twitter Direct Messages

The fact that you’re limited to 140 characters per tweet is what makes Twitter work the way it does: you’re forced to condense your communications down to the absolute basics. The same goes for direct messages, or DMs, sent to other Twitter users. Twitter DMs can be another quick and efficient way to get across a small amount of info. The only limitation, aside from the fact that you can’t be sure your intended recipient is actually checking them, is that DMs can only be sent between users that follow each other.

Google+ Hangouts

Get up to 10 people together to talk business or just catch up using Google+ Hangouts. This group video chat service replaces Google’s 1:1 video chat, Google Talk, and was recently integrated right into Gmail. The catch? You’ve got to have a Google+ account. It’s a pretty nice feature that Facebook has yet to offer, and there’s no harm in signing up for Google+ just to use Hangouts.

Three.sentenc.es

Take the short-is-better spirit of Twitter and apply it to email by limiting yourself to just three sentences. A service called Three.sentenc.es cuts out all the unnecessary information and pleasantries that normally accompany an email, saving time for both sender and recipient. Like Twitter DMs, it forces you to keep your message short. While you could argue that this terse style of communication could lead to dumbed-down language and social blunders, three-sentence emails could certainly help you avoid an intimidating pile-up of unread messages in your inbox.

Yammer

For in-house business communications, email can be a pretty inelegant and inefficient solution. Enter services like Yammer and Chatter, which aim to bring conversations, content and business data into one place where everything is updated in real time. Essentially, they’re like a private Twitter or Facebook for companies. Accessible through the web, mobile phones or desktop applications, these services are essentially virtual offices that replace email altogether for many companies.

DropBox

If you need to send large attachments, email definitely isn’t the best way to go. First of all, it’s slow, and has a fairly small maximum file size. But more importantly, it’s not secure. DropBox is just one of many services that enables quick and easy file transfers from one device to another, and from one user to another.

GoogleDocs

Hopefully you’re not still emailing documents with multiple contributors and/or editors between a group of people, dealing with all of the headaches that come with multiple versions of the same document. This practice has gone the way of newsgroups and AOL chat rooms. Use GoogleDocs instead, where you can create, share and collaborate on documents, which are stored online for easy access from anywhere in the world.

Photos: MartinaK15, postagram, thomcochrane

The post 15 Ways That Are Better for Corresponding Than Email appeared first on EcoSalon.

What the world needs now is love letters, sweet love letters.

Before heart emoticons, relationship status updates, and sexting, there was a simple way to express love: the handwritten note. It sounds dated and antiquated now, which is probably a sign that the world desperately needs to bring it back.

Enter, The World Needs More Love Letters project, a worldwide community of “love letter writers” who compose and leave behind anonymous handwritten love notes in places where people who need them may find them. Started by Hannah Brencher, the project has brought more than 1,600 love letters into the world in the four months it’s been in existence.

Brencher is quick to clarify that the intention of the More Love Letters project isn’t to bolster profits for the U.S. Postal Service (though romantic notes are certainly a sexier use of the USPS than paying bills). Instead, it’s to spread love in a world devoid of it, and bring magic to people where they least expect to find it.

The More Love Letters project is as much about loving yourself as it is about loving others. Brencher’s latest initiative asks letter writers to turn their attention and affection inward. Through the entire month of January, writers are encouraged to jot down their hopes and goals for the new year on their very best stationery, and send those letters to the More Love Letters Time Capsule in a self-addressed stamped envelope. In 2013, the time capsule will be opened, and the letters returned to their authors.

“Our plan is to hold these love letters all year long,” Brencher writes on her blog. “Compile them all into a big ol’ box labeled: DO NOT OPEN UNTIL JANUARY 1, 2013. And, in 365 days from now, we are going to mail those love letters back to you. Sealed and ready to be opened by the very same person who wrote that letter back in 2012, though maybe you’ll be changed. Maybe you’ll see life differently.”

To learn more and get involved, visit the More Love Letters project online.

Image: Sayed Mostafa Zamani

The post This January, Send Yourself a Love Letter appeared first on EcoSalon.

Editor’s note: Laura Hooper Beck is a vegan writer, the founding editor of Vegansaurus, Editor-at-Large for VegNews Magazine, and the community manager of VegWeb. Laura tweets @mrpenguino. We appreciate her constructive contribution to this important conscious lifestyle issue.

The Conscious Case Against Veganism is missing a critical element: the author’s understanding of “veganism.” The “fundamentalist” “orthodoxy” of “illogical presuppositions” she references is a straw man. “Veganism” as a concept doesn’t equate to a religious cult; there is no leader, no book of dogma, no retribution council (except maybe internet comment threads.)

The simple and classic definition of veganism is that you don’t consume or use products derived from (non-human) animals. As the concept evolves, veganism has come to mean living in a manner that does not exploit animals. Regardless of the minute variance in definitions, the basic premise is that vegans seek to do as little harm to animals as possible.

The author isn’t arguing against the concept of veganism, only justifying her own personal choice not to be vegan. The “conscious case against veganism” is really just an argument in favor of what’s lately termed locavore, which doesn’t logically equate to the opposite of vegan. The article quotes Slate’s Christopher Cox as saying, “Eating ethically is not a purity pissing contest,” and I have to ask, why is she making it one?
Point by point, a vegan response:

SAD

How are the rampant abuse and toxic methods in our mainstream food supply chain a case against veganism? Do these problems not occur in non-vegan food production? Quite the contrary, meat and dairy industries are some of the biggest offenders of workers’ rights and environmental degradation.
The author’s SAD stance is simply an argument for knowing where your food comes from. You can both be vegan and be an educated consumer.

Oysters

I’m unsure where the author got her rosy research on oyster cultivation as a panacea for ocean ailments, but disease and over-harvesting have contributed to the functional extinction of oysters in many places. A Nature Conservancy study found that overfishing and coastal development have caused 85 percent of natural oyster reefs to disappear, making their ecosystem one of the most threatened in the world. In addition, oysters provide habitat for many marine species, and so destroying their populations endangers other animals who DO have documented nervous systems. And if the concern is “local” or “sustainable,” an extremely small percentage of commercially available oysters are harvested in that way.
That said, you could be an almost-vegan who DOES eat oysters, but that doesn’t make a case for not eating cows and pigs. I’m not sure what the author’s point is here. Because oysters maybe have no feelings we shouldn’t be vegan?

Vegan Meat

Vegan doesn’t mean you abstain from processed foods, it means you abstain from animal body parts. As above, the availability of vegan meat substitutes on the market might make it easier for many people to transition to a more humane diet, and they’re just a small part of the variety of foods available to a vegan. That said, compare the ingredients, practices, and nutrition in a Field Roast sausage to that of a Jimmy Dean, and let me know which you feel more comfortable eating.

Wool

As a justification, the author links to an article about organic wool within this same blog, which asserts that organic wool equals cruelty-free. In reading the wool fact sheet that isn’t clear.

Confusing sustainability, organic, and cruelty is an increasingly common fallacy in this genre. As seen with Horizon and other “organic” dairy and egg farms, organic rarely equates to humane. Buying “sustainable” wool in no way confirms the wool is cruelty-free.

As far as I know, there are no legal guidelines for “humane” wool, and even if there were, I certainly wouldn’t trust industry regulation. Profit over animal welfare is the standard, in almost every relevant industry.

Backyard Chickens

Backyard egg production: the trump card for every Slow Foodie worth their weight in bathtub-fermented kombucha.

Chicken hatcheries, where most people can access chicks, are the avian equivalent of puppy mills. Males who don’t produce eggs are often buried alive in dumpsters. Lucky ladies who survive are thrown in boxes and shipped via USPS to their new homes, often packed with extra chicks as “packing peanuts,” since it’s assumed a few will die in transit.

And if you do have all the resources to give hens a safe haven (which is no easy task), they only lay eggs for a few of the ten or so years they live. Would most people continue to expend the effort and resources to keep them as revered pets? Considering the cost-benefit analysis of owning chickens who don’t lay, we’re guessing they’d end up in a coq au vin with a side of quinoa and local kale.

Compound this with the fact that unwanted male chickens are often abandoned at animal shelters, and raising one’s own chickens suddenly seems a lot less ethical.

Honey

Honey is hardly the most divisive issue between vegans and omnivores; a distal argument at best. Further, to say that procuring local honey is the opposite of eating large production sugar from the third world is just a fallacy. Most vegans I know consider this a C-list issue.

Goat Milk

Wait, I’m confused. Because we’re the only species to consume trans fats and high-fructose corn syrup, we should also drink the milk of other species? I don’t see the connection. But onto goats.

In order for lady goats to produce milk, there needs to be baby goats (you may remember this from our own species’ 6th grade sex ed.), and for goats to regularly produce enough milk to share with their friendly human “companions,” they need to be pregnant a lot. What happens to the male offspring of continually pregnant goats? Most small-scale (read: happy clover fields) goat farms can’t assimilate the kids, and they end up in less accountable locales. Clearing off suburban hillsides, maybe. Or curry.

Vintage Leather

I know a number of vegans who recycle leather goods from their pre-vegan days, and nobody’s been kicked out of the club yet.

Some vegans see it more as conserving resources than directly contributing to animal death and torture, others see it as promoting and validating leather and steer clear. Vintage leather doesn’t make or break a vegan, it’s a matter of personal choice. Personally, I leave the used leather for non-vegans, and buy the used everything else. It’s true, vegans need to be careful about where our clothing comes from, as does everyone else. This isn’t a specifically vegan issue, it’s a first-world issue. We all need to vote with our dollars.

Conclusion

I’m missing the part where the article lists good reasons to eat cheese, eggs, or wear wool–it just proposes scenarios where these products might be procured more humanely. What are the actual reasons to consume these products? Because it tastes good and it’s more socially acceptable? Those don’t really stand up to the many compelling reasons to be (or at least try to be) vegan.

The author recounts an experience of veganism as “evangelical” and “fundamentalist” and that’s too bad. It should feel good not to exploit other beings whenever possible, and it shouldn’t feel like an excommunication if you don’t succeed 100% of the time. Striving towards veganism is what author Kathy Freston calls, “progress, not perfection.” It’s impossible to be 100% absolute purist vegan (the bacteria we inhale, the animals killed during the farming of even organic plant foods, the tires we bike or drive on), but we have an ethical opportunity to champion a lifestyle that aims to harm the fewest sentient beings possible.

Image: Valerie Everett

The post The Conscious Case Against Veganism: A Reader Rebuttal appeared first on EcoSalon.

Dear Editor,

My name is Leslie Hicks, and as a blogger in the eco-friendly sphere, I have read and enjoyed many of your columns, most recently the piece on AT&T vs. Verizon and their respective environmentally-conscious efforts. Most of the time, I find your columns to be interesting, informative, and I reference them often in my own tweets (@LeslieJHicks). Because I do read your posts often, I felt, as a reader, both qualified and compelled to inform you that the article by Libby Lowe, titled “Jesus, Enough with the Chicken,” is not only inaccurate in several respects, it’s embarrassingly misrepresentative, and reads more as a tantrum, which I’m sure was not Ms. Lowe’s goal.

Firstly, the title of the piece is not only blasphemous in a thoughtless effort to employ a pun, it’s insensitive. I don’t know how much of the Bible or how much about Christianity any of you have actually read with an open mind or with a desire to truly understand what you’re attacking so carelessly, so I’ll explain exactly what I mean. Blasphemy is defined as “1 a: the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God, b: the act of claiming the attributes of deity 2: irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable,” which is exactly what your title does (except for claiming attributes of deity). In case you’re unaware of why exactly invoking Jesus’s name in such a way is blasphemous, and thus, offensive, allow me to direct you to the place in the Bible which clearly spells it out—this site lists the Exodus 20:7 passage in many different translations, which is sure to get the point across. You may want to pay strict attention to the NIV, The Living Bible, and Revised Berkeley translations. The sentiment is paralleled in the New Testament as well (Ephesians 4:29, Colossians 4:6). At the very least, the piece’s title is unfortunately negligent of professionalism, and at worst, blatantly disrespectful to a figure Christians recognize as Lord. Do you want to take that stance as a publication?

A second issue I take with this article is that it grossly misrepresents Christian values. For one thing, the term “Christian values” links to another obviously slanted article on a religiously-themed amusement park, as if to conveniently, albeit ignorantly, sum up Christian values in that post. Could someone please do me the favor of pointing out one Christian value in that article (and I don’t mean what you think or have heard from anti-Christian, misinformed activists are Christian values, I mean values that actually exist, substantiated by Biblical evidence)? Also, no one is “hiding” behind Christian values to fuel “bigotry,” sorry. In fact, most Christians, Christians who adhere to the principles and commands outlined in the New Testament, (as most educated Biblical scholars know to be the standard by which we’re to live our lives, not the Old Testament, which is present and still useful for prophetic examples, for historical records, and useful accounts of actions), will not shy from telling anyone that being homosexual is an abomination (also repeated in the New Testament, not just in Leviticus, as some confused reader argued in a comment).

Since true Christian values appear to be unknown or disregarded by your writers, I’m happy to share some that apply to this column/social conflict: God created us male and female to be husband and wife—Genesis 2: 18-24, Matthew 19: 4-5; engaging in homosexuality is an abomination and gross repudiation of God’s law—Romans 1: 18-32, 1 Timothy 1: 5-11; homosexuality is a sin, yet can be forgiven like any other—Romans 3:23, Acts 26: 17-18; Christians are to love all people (John 13:34-35, Romans 13:8) but to not take part in or support sin (Ephesians 5:11, 1 Timothy 5:22); God is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), but will not tolerate sinful behavior (see Romans passage). True Christians, on the basis of Biblical doctrine, do not seek to dehumanize or mistreat homosexuals—we love them as fellow human beings, and will be the first to agree that bullying is never acceptable. However, a belief system is not synonymous with bullying. We simply do not accept a homosexual relationship as legitimate or recognizable on the level of marriage. As long as you’re entitled to support same-sex marriage, we’re entitled not to. A truly non-bigoted organization cannot argue that, especially if the organization it opposes is a privately-owned company with the same rights to religious freedom and freedom of speech. Not agreeing with the company’s mission statement is one thing—maligning that company as “bigoted” is entirely another.

Of course, I cannot speak for every individual that claims to be a Christian, I can only speak for myself and for what the Bible says or logically implies. I certainly do not condone each and every group or organization that claims to be Christian or to be upholding Christian values—indeed, some are indisputably racists, child molesters, bigamists, etc. However, an honest and critical thinker will hesitate to apply the word “Christian” to any that eschew Biblical doctrine but instead construct their own religion and ordinances.

I’m fully aware that very few people actually consider the Bible to be a true, reliable, and revelatory guide for living, but rather regard it as a simple collection of stories. You’re entitled, as free agents, to believe whatever validates and serves you the best—and, I’m sure, you do. However, it’s not just the Bible that says homosexuality is unnatural—science refutes many of the propagandist claims for its inherent nature and inevitable expression. Of course, the strongly suggestive lack of evidence for genetic inheritance of homosexuality has been largely ignored by the homosexual and advocating community. Please also note in the above article the mention of the inaccurate compound word “homophobia,” which, intended to describe one who is discriminatorily averse to the homosexual lifestyle, literally means an irrational fear of homosexuals, which is not the same as the lack of acceptance based on principle, and is likely nonexistent entirely.

Homophobia is not the only misnomer being employed among the homosexual-rights activist community. So too is “bigot” and “bigotry,” which is specifically used by your own Libby Lowe (and in your publication’s flurry of tweets as well). She describes bigotry as a deplorable mindset against the homosexual community. However, a cursory search of the etymology of the word “bigot” clearly reveals that the word was initially used as a snub of religion by the French. Curiously, that original use and context would in fact put you and anyone else who expresses contempt for and intolerance of religious ideology (“we won’t coddle,” as your tweet says) in the line of fire for being actual bigots. Bigotry isn’t confined to Christianity, as you allege—it applies to anyone who is obstinately devoted to their own prejudices, beliefs, opinions, politics, etc., and intolerant of others’. You could be accused of the same mindset you blindly accuse Christians of. Plus, the earliest English use carried with it the connotation of a religious hypocrite, which also doesn’t apply here, since any sincere, practicing member of the Christian religion which condemns homosexuality is hardly a hypocrite—he or she is a strict adherent.  No one who reads and lives by the Bible can credibly also say that being a homosexual is perfectly acceptable.  Too, bigotry has also been historically applied to those who harbor prejudice against a certain creed or racial/ethnic group—and, since homosexuality is not a religion, race, nor is it inherent, it’s not on par with the preceding categories and thus is (conveniently) misused as a term for the strong conviction that homosexuality is wrong. And let’s not forget that prejudice means the uninformed, preconceived adverse opinion of someone or something. One would be hard pressed in light of another’s Biblical study and scientific knowledge to correctly say that anyone who is opposed to homosexuality is uninformed or ignorant.

The bottom line is Ms. Lowe and whoever else rallies behind her article are fundamentally wrong—the article’s claims are uninformed, unsubstantiated, and lack depth. And, it’s clear that this piece isn’t really about the food chain at all, but rather just another seized opportunity to picket for unquestioning acceptance of a lifestyle just because it’s allegedly widespread (homosexuals make up a very small percentage of the American population, contrary to pop culture portrayal, as the NHSLS found) and popular to do so. The folks who seem the most uncomfortable, actually, are Ms. Lowe and her enablers—uncomfortable with companies that exercise their religious freedom, which Ms. Lowe claims to like, yet…puzzlingly does not like when it allows those who are opposed to homosexuality to promote their beliefs. That’s ironically, inconsistently intolerant if you’re honest with yourselves.

In closing, I’d like to again state that I respect you as columnists, and I will likely continue to enjoy reading some of your articles. If you truly value your readership and are truly non-discriminatory as your attack on “discriminators” would imply you to be, I’m confident you’ll not only respect and honor my arguments, beliefs, and opinions, you’ll have the courage to publish them. Courage is, after all, part of having a heart, isn’t it?

Sincerely,
Leslie Hicks

From the author, Libby Lowe:

Leslie,

I appreciate that you took the time to share your views, but I think you missed the point of my piece. You say that I misrepresented Christian values. I wasn’t trying to represent Christian values, I was representing my values.

I am suspect of anyone stepping up to explain or represent the beliefs of an entire group – be it a religious, political or otherwise collection of like-minded (not single-minded) people – no matter how many quotes you have to try to support your points.

I’m not going to get into a debate with you about homosexuality in the bible or whether sexuality is genetic. I assume agreeing to disagree will be the result of any debate we might have, but I will say that being informed doesn’t get you off the hook. Your statements about homosexuality, no matter how you couch them in niceties about loving them as fellow human beings, make your position clear. Call it intolerance, call it bigotry, use whatever word you like, but homophobia is homophobia and it hurts people.

You say that it’s clear my story isn’t really about the food chain, but “rather another seized opportunity to picket for unquestioning acceptance of a lifestyle.” I say that your letter isn’t really about my story, but a seized opportunity to promote intolerance in a far
more transparent way than a little text on a sandwich wrapper.

Yes, I am uncomfortable with Chick-fil-A’s corporate belief system. But I do believe the organization has every right to put those beliefs out there. In fact, I am glad to know where they stand so that I can make an informed choice as a consumer.

Libby Lowe

From the editor:

Leslie,

The EcoSalon motto, “Have a heart,” does indeed stand for courage, including in the face of discrimination, which is why we would no sooner have a “heart” for homophobia than we would for pollution. Chick-Fil-A’s environmentally negligent fast food business model, coupled with the organization’s activism against civil rights, is a perfect example of the kind of unenlightened, unsustainable activity we find indefensible.

I must take issue with your interpretation of our motto, as if embracing a life lived from the heart – that is, bravely, generously and consciously – would cover all opinions and beliefs simply because they exist, regardless of their validity. EcoSalon is no more obligated to “honor” intolerance of an adult individual’s consenting habits in the bedroom than it would be to honor creationism as a debate, sexism as a precedent, or racism as mere prejudice.

While religious belief is a fundamental right and one we clearly support in this piece, there is simply nothing morally courageous about homophobia, however gently it is applied. Therefore, we appreciate you expressing your views, but remain unapologetic in our criticism.

The heart of EcoSalon beats for progress.

Sara Ost

Have something to say? Speak up! Letters to the editor can be sent to editor@ecosalon.com. Submission is no guarantee of publication. Letters may be copy edited for grammar and clarity.

Last month’s letter: Flowery Feminists

The post Letter to the Editor: To Parse, Perchance to Judge appeared first on EcoSalon.

The post Letter to the Editor: Flowery Feminists appeared first on EcoSalon.