(05-27-2009 08:05 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  there are definite benefits to society, and to people's lives, of NOT working year-round. I think this case is much easier to make for someone not living paycheck-to-paycheck.

I agree. Time off is good for people individually, and it's good for society. I would say that holidays (even more than vacation days) are especially good:
- holidays are more beneficial for individuals, because they tend to be more respected: you don't have to ask permission to take July 4 off, the way you do to take a vacation day, nor do you feel guilty for taking it; and
- they are more beneficial to society, because they promote civic and communal activity. It's hard to have a block party or family reunion or soccer tournament when you are taking some random Tuesday off; but if everybody has a particular day off, it's a lot easier. And communal events are good.

And I am pretty sure that holidays are NOT economic losses, as people spend like crazy on holidays.

OptimisticOwl- great post.

I'm intrigued but not totally sold on the idea. I would want a detailed analysis of all the consequences, intentional or not. With everything else going on, it doesn't strike me as a front-burner issue. I'm curious how seriously Congress is considering it. At this point it's just a bill with only two cosponsors. I don't believe Obama has commented.

(05-27-2009 08:12 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  OptimisticOwl- great post.

I'm intrigued but not totally sold on the idea. I would want a detailed analysis of all the consequences, intentional or not. With everything else going on, it doesn't strike me as a front-burner issue. I'm curious how seriously Congress is considering it. At this point it's just a bill with only two cosponsors. I don't believe Obama has commented.

Thanks.

I agree, not a front burner issue. I just don't think there are very many businesses with 50+ employees that don't already provide vacation pay, and most of those that don't would adjust, primarily by providing it, but some by cutting workers.

I am wondering how businesses with some or all seasonal workers would be counted. If you have 25 full timers, but in peak season you add 30 employees for a few months, does that then make you liable for vacations to all 55 of them? If so, I would think they would be careful not to exceed 49, even if it meant turning away a little business.

Even though it is not a front burner issue, i expect it will have widespead support. Who could be against vacations? It's like opposing stiffer penalties for drunk drivers - no political gain there.

(05-27-2009 08:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Who could be against vacations?

Okay, I'm sold.

(05-27-2009 02:30 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  I am pretty sure that holidays are NOT economic losses, as people spend like crazy on holidays.

Trouble is, then *someone* has to work on the holiday to take that money. I still try not to go anywhere on holidays, because I remember (for example) how much it sucked to have to work on 4th of July at summer jobs as a college kid.

There are holidays and there are holidays. Nearly everybody gets off New year's and Christmas (although the latter may eventually go away if we continue the separation of church and state quarrells that are now in the christmas display category). Fewer people get Columbus Day, President's Day, even Memorial Day. Some holidays seem to be pretty much restricted to banks, the post office, and government employees. But somebody works on every holiday, the police, firemen, food service employees, etc.

One thing I did in my businesses was to give each employee their birthday off, with pay. If it fell on a weekend or midweek day, they could take off a Monday of Friday instead, at their option, or, also at their option, they could come in to work, enjoy an office Birthday party with their coworkers (at my expense), and take off early. Of course the options would have to be made ahead of time. It was a very popular arrangement.

(05-28-2009 11:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  There are holidays and there are holidays. Nearly everybody gets off New year's and Christmas (although the latter may eventually go away if we continue the separation of church and state quarrells that are now in the christmas display category).

I doubt Christmas is going away for a long time. While some companies may choose to replace traditionally religious holidays with flexible holidays so that persons of all faiths may have their holy holidays off, Christmas has enough cultural tradition that too many workers will use their optional holidays on Christmas Eve/Day to have keeping businesses open on those days make any sense.

(05-28-2009 11:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  One thing I did in my businesses was to give each employee their birthday off, with pay. If it fell on a weekend or midweek day, they could take off a Monday of Friday instead, at their option, or, also at their option, they could come in to work, enjoy an office Birthday party with their coworkers (at my expense), and take off early. Of course the options would have to be made ahead of time. It was a very popular arrangement.

I find this interesting. A lot was made about Obama urging everyone to take MLK day as a day of volunteering. I think that's great, but working in the nonprofit world and having worked on some big volunteerism projects for nonprofits, I can tell you that a one-day, all-hands-on-deck call is a really tough thing to deal with and generally leads to inefficient use of volunteers as well as a take away feeling of "I didn't really do anything so they clearly don't need the help" among the volunteers.

As a result, I'm a bigger fan of urging people taking their birthday off in order to try out a new (or even continue an old) volunteer opportunity. Why birthdays? Because they're evenly distributed throughout the year, thus not creating the mad rush that a national day of volunteering does. I myself use one of my two "personal holidays" that we have at my office to get my birthday off for that purpose.

(05-28-2009 12:17 PM)texd Wrote:  

(05-28-2009 11:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  There are holidays and there are holidays. Nearly everybody gets off New year's and Christmas (although the latter may eventually go away if we continue the separation of church and state quarrells that are now in the christmas display category).

I doubt Christmas is going away for a long time. While some companies may choose to replace traditionally religious holidays with flexible holidays so that persons of all faiths may have their holy holidays off, Christmas has enough cultural tradition that too many workers will use their optional holidays on Christmas Eve/Day to have keeping businesses open on those days make any sense.

I agree about the long time. I doubt we will see this in your lifetime, and you are much younger and healthier than I am. But we will be much farther down that road at the end of your life. For one thing, you mention all faiths, but the challenge is coming first from those of no faith. Even now, Christians are mocked and denigrated, (I never hear the words "Religious Right" without a sneer) and this will only increase as christianity dwindles in importance in our population. I think this eventually happens, but not for a long time. I will be long gone, gone to meet my Maker( can I say that here?). Maybe the battle in half a century is between Islam and atheism.

(05-28-2009 12:17 PM)texd Wrote:  nonprofit

Technically, shouldn't that be "not-for-profit"? GM is nonprofit.

Jes' funning wi' ya.

(05-28-2009 01:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-28-2009 12:17 PM)texd Wrote:  

(05-28-2009 11:36 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  There are holidays and there are holidays. Nearly everybody gets off New year's and Christmas (although the latter may eventually go away if we continue the separation of church and state quarrells that are now in the christmas display category).

I doubt Christmas is going away for a long time. While some companies may choose to replace traditionally religious holidays with flexible holidays so that persons of all faiths may have their holy holidays off, Christmas has enough cultural tradition that too many workers will use their optional holidays on Christmas Eve/Day to have keeping businesses open on those days make any sense.

I agree about the long time. I doubt we will see this in your lifetime, and you are much younger and healthier than I am. But we will be much farther down that road at the end of your life. For one thing, you mention all faiths, but the challenge is coming first from those of no faith. Even now, Christians are mocked and denigrated, (I never hear the words "Religious Right" without a sneer) and this will only increase as christianity dwindles in importance in our population. I think this eventually happens, but not for a long time. I will be long gone, gone to meet my Maker( can I say that here?). Maybe the battle in half a century is between Islam and atheism.

I'm not so sure Christmas holiday, per se, will go away. It may be given a more secular title by some businesses/governments (like Easter break in primary and secondary school became spring break, even though the timing hasn't changed), but I doubt that it will disappear in my lifetime. The time off is rather ingrained and somewhat useful for certain businesses. IMO, the only thing that would drive it to change is if the primary and secondary schools change their school calendars to not be off around those times.

(05-28-2009 06:57 PM)gsloth Wrote:  I'm not so sure Christmas holiday, per se, will go away. It may be given a more secular title by some businesses/governments (like Easter break in primary and secondary school became spring break, even though the timing hasn't changed), but I doubt that it will disappear in my lifetime. T

They beat you to the punch. It's "Winter break" in HISD.

I must be tired, not thinking of that. Though I was intending it more on the day of change in name (like Good Friday, if you still get it, goes by something else now). Still no excuse for the confusion - thanks.

(05-28-2009 01:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  the challenge is coming first from those of no faith. Even now, Christians are mocked and denigrated, (I never hear the words "Religious Right" without a sneer) and this will only increase as christianity dwindles in importance in our population. I think this eventually happens, but not for a long time. I will be long gone, gone to meet my Maker( can I say that here?). Maybe the battle in half a century is between Islam and atheism.

I find this kind of false-martyrism to be a little ridiculous. Christians are mocked, sure, but so are non-believers, muslims, jews... you don't have the market cornered on religious intolerance. When was the last time we elected an avowed athiest? If you want to go into politics in this country, the safe road is to join a nice protestant church and just go along with it. The scene from the movie 'Contact' always comes to mind (when Ellie has to admit to being an athiest and is barred from being the representative of the human race).

The "religious right" is said with a sneer because it usually refers to those who manage to divorce true morality (avoidance of causing suffering in others) from what they call such, usually tripping over themselves to judge and condemn in the process (you know, the things we're not supposed to do as Christians). If the RR term had the connotation of "those darn people that are always turning the other cheek, forgiving, and giving to the poor"... well we wouldn't be having this discussion. It does not, in my opinion, when used by liberal-commies like myself, merely indicate those who are right-leaning AND religious, but the self-righteous yet unabashedly ignorant, sheltered, and judgemental, and frequently hypocritical subset thereof.

I'm sure zoroastrians are also concerned about their dwindling numbers - they really seem to have given way to these new-fangled religions! Truely, do you have any facts to back up your claim that christianity is dwindling? The % numbers might be down a bit (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm) but how much of that is the effect of immigration? I also wonder about the number of people who in the past would have pretended to go along with their family religion because it was easier than being labeled a "non-believer" or "cheri's son who doesn't go to church."

I doubt very much that even 300 years will even be sufficient to stop Christianity from being spread (or Islam, or buddhism, etc). In terms of "attacks" it has certainly survived much worse, and unless you fear a sudden outbreak of extreme rationality, humanity's need for religon of some sort will remain.

Are you by any chance a fan of Bill O'Reilly?

Emmie,

I'm quite certain I'm well to the right of you on fiscal issues, though I doubt there's much space between us on social issues, and I'm defnitely religious. That would probably put me in the "right-leaning and religous" subset of the RR, not the group that you find offensive (as do I, for the most part).

I think a big part of the problem that Christians have is that the kind of slamming Christianity that goes on now is something that did not happen historically. I've got a few years on you, and when I was in grade school, we learned that religious freedom meant that it was okay to be Baptist or Presbyterian or Methodist, or even Roman Catholic, but that was about as far as it went.

As someone with Jewish first cousins on my father's side and Syrian second cousins on my mother's side, I was probably always exposed to a bit more religious variety than most of my contemporaries. From my travels, and particularly from the work I did with (primarily Asian) religions while involved in naval intelligence, I've probably always been more open minded than most on these issues.

Out of all this, I've chosen Christianity for my own faith walk because it has always seemed like the one that fit me best. Within Christianity, I've pretty much always stayed with the Anglican tradition. I like being Catholic but not Roman. That's where I started life, and nothing has ever come along that struck me as being better. Not that other religions don't have things to offer, but I just don't find their complete reality to be as appealing as where I am now.

(05-28-2009 11:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Emmie,

I'm quite certain I'm well to the right of you on fiscal issues, though I doubt there's much space between us on social issues, and I'm defnitely religious. That would probably put me in the "right-leaning and religous" subset of the RR, not the group that you find offensive (as do I, for the most part).

I think a big part of the problem that Christians have is that the kind of slamming Christianity that goes on now is something that did not happen historically. I've got a few years on you, and when I was in grade school, we learned that religious freedom meant that it was okay to be Baptist or Presbyterian or Methodist, or even Roman Catholic, but that was about as far as it went.

As someone with Jewish first cousins on my father's side and Syrian second cousins on my mother's side, I was probably always exposed to a bit more religious variety than most of my contemporaries. From my travels, and particularly from the work I did with (primarily Asian) religions while involved in naval intelligence, I've probably always been more open minded than most on these issues.

Out of all this, I've chosen Christianity for my own faith walk because it has always seemed like the one that fit me best. Within Christianity, I've pretty much always stayed with the Anglican tradition. I like being Catholic but not Roman. That's where I started life, and nothing has ever come along that struck me as being better. Not that other religions don't have things to offer, but I just don't find their complete reality to be as appealing as where I am now.

Interesting... I also grew up Catholic-with-a-big-C and am now in an anglican church! You may be right about not being too far apart. I do remember my mother had to explain to me why Kennedy being elected was a big deal - at that age I had no concept of religious intolerance at all. Having gone through a very agnostic phase, I guess I would just say I felt a lot more ostracized then than I do now, but perhaps I have never had much sensitivity to it. Do you have any examples of main-stream christian bashing? (I mean aside from the feaux-controversies stoked by our wonderful network news about the death of christmas and other silly nothings). I'm simply interested in what exactly you and OO mean by that.

I don't know whether I buy into the idea that Christian-bashing is some sort of organized conspiracy (like the "war against Christmas"). But in general, Christianity itself wasn't criticized a generation ago. Maybe some criticisms of specific denominations (I'm sure the RC's would have gotten a lot of bad pub for their pedophile priests, for example), but nothing like some of the stuff today.

In the 1950s, nobody would have suggested "winter holiday" instead of "Christmas break," just as nobody would have suggested "spring holiday" instead of "Easter break." It's subtle, but there are distinct differences. The idea of religious freedom was that you could belong to any denomination you wanted to, not that you could be a Buddhist. By the way, this kind of ethnocentric viewpoint gave us some real problems in Vietnam. You could call it a comedy of errors, except people died as a result of the mistakes.

I think that those whose frame of reference is the 1950s see much of what goes on today as an attack, because it is so far removed from their norm.

When my son was in Japan, he became interested in buddhism. His mother became hysteric. I sent him a copy of "Living Buddha, Living Jesus" by Thich Nhat Hahn. He read it and decided that he was a Christian. Buddhism is conceptually quite different from Christianity; many would probably consider it to be more a philosophy than a religion, particularly those who define religion in terms of having equivalent components to Christianity.

Of course, spring break in the south no longer coincides with Easter very often.

(05-27-2009 08:05 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  I didn't catch that the amounts worked out the same. I thought you were implying a financial incentive to work year-round (thus being analagous to my situation with my dad).

I think it's clear that people do need time off, and using the example of a housekeeper, who is likely a low-skilled, low-income type person as an example of people choosing to work year-round is bad because those people may feel they have no choice. You're ignoring the fact that there are definite benefits to society, and to people's lives, of NOT working year-round. I think this case is much easier to make for someone not living paycheck-to-paycheck.

I'm not 100% for this legislation, by the way. I often enter a discussion and take a devil's advocate position, especially (no offense) around here where there is such an echo-chamber effect with about 90% of you guys being on the conservative side of things (admittedly center-to-right, with some variations, but still largely conservative). It's not fun to debate that way.

I would rather see some way to prevent employers from requiring a year-round work schedule. Unfortunately, if you simply say that "you can't fire employee X for taking their allowed vacation", you'll still have the problem of it being something rewarded with e.g., promotions, etc. on a "voluntary" basis, so I'm not really sure what is appropriate.

A big problem here is that we don't have any factual data about what amount of vacation time is good for a person, their family, and society. I suspect an amount greater than zero, but I can't prove it.

Aside from the arguments about unfairness to the self-imployed (I have no insight there), what exactly do you guys think will be the negative consequences of such a law? Besides "I don't get to do exactly what I want to do?" (which I'm not saying is invalid, just the only thing I've heard).

I confused you... poor writing, sorry... I DID imply an advantage to working year round, because it cost me money to replace her when she was on vacation... frequently more than I paid her, and frequently for less "personalized" service. She is still free to take time off, but I don't have to pay her for that time AND pay someone else... instead, I pay her a little more spread out over a year, and then only pay one person when she takes vacation... much easier for me to budget. MANY employers would do as I suggested in the second response... and offer 50 weeks pay divided by 52 weeks for 50 weeks of work with 2 "free"... not really a deal.

MY problem is with businesses being forced to pay for people's lifestyle choices. Sure, vacations are good for people... but some need more than others. As an employee, you are free to make choices about vacations. Why shouldn't employers?? If you don't like the choices, then you can work for someone else. I realize that there may not be many job alternatives all the time, but why should we mandate something like that?

(05-28-2009 11:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't know whether I buy into the idea that Christian-bashing is some sort of organized conspiracy (like the "war against Christmas"). But in general, Christianity itself wasn't criticized a generation ago. Maybe some criticisms of specific denominations (I'm sure the RC's would have gotten a lot of bad pub for their pedophile priests, for example), but nothing like some of the stuff today.

In the 1950s, nobody would have suggested "winter holiday" instead of "Christmas break," just as nobody would have suggested "spring holiday" instead of "Easter break." It's subtle, but there are distinct differences. The idea of religious freedom was that you could belong to any denomination you wanted to, not that you could be a Buddhist. By the way, this kind of ethnocentric viewpoint gave us some real problems in Vietnam. You could call it a comedy of errors, except people died as a result of the mistakes.

I think that those whose frame of reference is the 1950s see much of what goes on today as an attack, because it is so far removed from their norm.

Kennedy was one of the first politicians to successfully run as a uniter of minorities to create a majority... at least form my perspective. Since then, minority groups have learned to band together in similar fashion to over-rule the majority.

The largest demographic in the country is hetero white Christian males... yet they don't make up 51% of the population.

(05-28-2009 10:44 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(05-28-2009 01:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  the challenge is coming first from those of no faith. Even now, Christians are mocked and denigrated, (I never hear the words "Religious Right" without a sneer) and this will only increase as christianity dwindles in importance in our population. I think this eventually happens, but not for a long time. I will be long gone, gone to meet my Maker( can I say that here?). Maybe the battle in half a century is between Islam and atheism.

I find this kind of false-martyrism to be a little ridiculous. Christians are mocked, sure, but so are non-believers, muslims, jews... you don't have the market cornered on religious intolerance. When was the last time we elected an avowed athiest? If you want to go into politics in this country, the safe road is to join a nice protestant church and just go along with it. The scene from the movie 'Contact' always comes to mind (when Ellie has to admit to being an athiest and is barred from being the representative of the human race).

The "religious right" is said with a sneer because it usually refers to those who manage to divorce true morality (avoidance of causing suffering in others) from what they call such, usually tripping over themselves to judge and condemn in the process (you know, the things we're not supposed to do as Christians). If the RR term had the connotation of "those darn people that are always turning the other cheek, forgiving, and giving to the poor"... well we wouldn't be having this discussion. It does not, in my opinion, when used by liberal-commies like myself, merely indicate those who are right-leaning AND religious, but the self-righteous yet unabashedly ignorant, sheltered, and judgemental, and frequently hypocritical subset thereof.

I'm sure zoroastrians are also concerned about their dwindling numbers - they really seem to have given way to these new-fangled religions! Truely, do you have any facts to back up your claim that christianity is dwindling? The % numbers might be down a bit (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm) but how much of that is the effect of immigration? I also wonder about the number of people who in the past would have pretended to go along with their family religion because it was easier than being labeled a "non-believer" or "cheri's son who doesn't go to church."

I doubt very much that even 300 years will even be sufficient to stop Christianity from being spread (or Islam, or buddhism, etc). In terms of "attacks" it has certainly survived much worse, and unless you fear a sudden outbreak of extreme rationality, humanity's need for religon of some sort will remain.

Are you by any chance a fan of Bill O'Reilly?

I've been out, not ignoring you. I seem to have stepped on a whole nest of your hot buttons. In some ways your response brings a smile to my face. i will attempt to respond to your statements in the order presented.

1. My "false martydom" and i "don't have the market cornered" on religious intolerance. You seem to have somehow made the assumption that i was complaining as a representative of the Religious right or Christianity, when in fact i making an observation as an outsider. While a titular Christian, I have not set foot in a church other than for weddings or funerals since 1989.

2. I am glad you confirm that "Religious Right" is said with a sneer. I was hoping it wasn't just my imagination. Now I have the testimony of a self-described liberal-commie that it is so.

Although you don't bring it up, I think the decline of respect for Christianity and the rise of disrespect for the religious right started with Roe v. Wade. You referred to the RR as ignorant, judgemental (!) and hypocritical - usually these words come up as part of the abortion debate.

3. Zoroastrians. I have always understood this religion to be dwindling because they do not allow conversions. My limited knowledge of their faith leads me to believe they make a lot of sense.

4. Proof of dwindling. Well i don't have much other than what you provided right after your question. I guess i could find some, but I really don't see the need. I don't know why immigration would bring the percentage of christians down, considering how much of it comes from mexico and other predominantly christian countries. But I have heard/read many times that most christian denominations are shrinking, that other religions are gaining. That is my feeling.

5. 300 years. I guess we will each have to project what we think will happen, since the odds of either of us being around then is very low. But I think Christianity will be a minor religion by then, in the world certainly, in the USofA (if it still exists), probably. i don't think rationality will be the cause, unless you are confusing rationality with atheism. I think Islam will dominate it, with the help of atheism and apathy. Bleak, I know. JMHO.

6. Bill O'Reilly. I guess it depends on your definition of "fan". I watch his show on an irregular basis, I generaly enjoy it when i do, but i do not agree with all his positions and I don't like all he says, and sometimes i don't like the way he says it. But overall, not bad. I am guessing you are equating Bill O'Reilly "fans" with the ignorant, judgemental (!), hypocritical subsets you mentioned? Or am I responding to a stereotyping with a stereotyping?

Emmie, I generally enjoy your posts. You ask good questions and give some different viewpoints. Thanks for that. As i said, i think I hit a hot button or two. I have tried to respond to your statements about my statements reasonably and rationally. And friendly.

(05-29-2009 01:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I've been out, not ignoring you. I seem to have stepped on a whole nest of your hot buttons. In some ways your response brings a smile to my face. i will attempt to respond to your statements in the order presented.

1. My "false martydom" and i "don't have the market cornered" on religious intolerance. You seem to have somehow made the assumption that i was complaining as a representative of the Religious right or Christianity, when in fact i making an observation as an outsider. While a titular Christian, I have not set foot in a church other than for weddings or funerals since 1989.

2. I am glad you confirm that "Religious Right" is said with a sneer. I was hoping it wasn't just my imagination. Now I have the testimony of a self-described liberal-commie that it is so.

Although you don't bring it up, I think the decline of respect for Christianity and the rise of disrespect for the religious right started with Roe v. Wade. You referred to the RR as ignorant, judgemental (!) and hypocritical - usually these words come up as part of the abortion debate.

3. Zoroastrians. I have always understood this religion to be dwindling because they do not allow conversions. My limited knowledge of their faith leads me to believe they make a lot of sense.

4. Proof of dwindling. Well i don't have much other than what you provided right after your question. I guess i could find some, but I really don't see the need. I don't know why immigration would bring the percentage of christians down, considering how much of it comes from mexico and other predominantly christian countries. But I have heard/read many times that most christian denominations are shrinking, that other religions are gaining. That is my feeling.

5. 300 years. I guess we will each have to project what we think will happen, since the odds of either of us being around then is very low. But I think Christianity will be a minor religion by then, in the world certainly, in the USofA (if it still exists), probably. i don't think rationality will be the cause, unless you are confusing rationality with atheism. I think Islam will dominate it, with the help of atheism and apathy. Bleak, I know. JMHO.

6. Bill O'Reilly. I guess it depends on your definition of "fan". I watch his show on an irregular basis, I generaly enjoy it when i do, but i do not agree with all his positions and I don't like all he says, and sometimes i don't like the way he says it. But overall, not bad. I am guessing you are equating Bill O'Reilly "fans" with the ignorant, judgemental (!), hypocritical subsets you mentioned? Or am I responding to a stereotyping with a stereotyping?

Emmie, I generally enjoy your posts. You ask good questions and give some different viewpoints. Thanks for that. As i said, i think I hit a hot button or two. I have tried to respond to your statements about my statements reasonably and rationally. And friendly.

hmm, numbering is easier than quote insertion... let's see:

1) Your tone in the original post comes off as offended & threatened, sorry if I jumped to the conclusion that you were defending your own culture or faith. If not, I'm honestly not sure why you care? Do the number of Christians mean anything to you beyond an academic question?

2) "liberal commie" was tongue-in-cheek. I'm socially liberal, economically agnostic. "Liberals" is often used on talk radio and fox news type media in a similar fashion to "religious right". Do you take offense at the sneering tone when the former is used in those places? I was trying to point out the narrowness of the term. I rarely use it myself.

3) My point was that religions come and go, but religious sentiment generally doesn't. Unless you have a good argument for having the state particularly promote christianity or any other religion, I see no point in having religiously based federal holidays (though, as civil liberties offenses go, this is about as low on the list as you can get).

4-5) Your concerns about other religions gaining share is certainly legitimate, but I just really doubt the numbers of agnostics/athiests will rise. Biologically speaking, that number seems to be constant. 'Rationality' is usually the argument for people losing religious inclinations. If the world really goes to hell in a handbasket as many of you seem to predict, I would expect religious feeling to rise, as they have in almost every major disaster/depression in history. I have a hard time believing that islam can beat out christianity but that might be my personal bias. We could use a Rice religious studies major here!

6) Ah, Bill. I used to watch him back when I was a young conservative. I can actually credit him with helping me decide I wanted no part in "parties" and to always register independent. Not because he is one (hardly, except for token issues), but because I couldn't believe his ability to ignore facts and arguments against something he'd already decided was true, based on political parties. Plus, he's a jerk. :) But his whole manufactured "war on christmas" thing just takes the cake.

I suppose it is a "hot button" for me in that my opinion is fairly strong, and I have thought about it a lot for personal reasons. People find me to be a bit "challenging" in these situations... if my post was a bit of a polemic, I apologize.