Gavmacp, //So of all the obviously tedious things I mentioned you only focus on The Christmas Day thing.//
Well, I suppose we focussed on that because we're talking fundamentally about religion. However, if it interests you, I do care about the source of the things I buy. Having said that, whilst it would be wonderful if we could improve the lot of people who work in poor conditions and for little reward, if we morally condemn from our comfortable lofty heights and boycott the products they supply to us without really considering the consequences of potentially removing the workers' sole source of income, we are doing them no favours because without that employment, albeit meagre, they and their families would very likely starve. That is the reality.
//What scares me about people is that given certain circumstances quite reasonable people could be burning there neighbours house (which they may of lived beside quite happily for years). This has happened to many times and not just because of religion.//
As I said before, one wrong does not negate another. The difference between politics and its associated socio-economic structures, and religion, is that people will accept changes to the former, and indeed encourage change, whereas there can be no adjustment to the latter. Religious dogma is set in stone. Books such as the bible and the koran are considered by most of the people that adhere to them to be the word of God, and as such, those works, and the words they contain, however an individual or a religious organisation may interpret them, are untouchable and unalterable.
If you think about it, the people who strap bombs to themselves or fly planes into buildings, are not generally employed in Third World sweatshops - and the Ku Klux Klan and the Church of Latter Day Saints are both founded on Christianity, but neither can be said to have an unblemished record on human rights. Where hatred for their fellow man is concerned, the history of those two organisations puts them pretty high on the list.
Religions contradict one another enormously. Nevertheless people who avidly follow one will often vehemently defend all others, regardless of the brand and without a thought of any negative impact 'faith' brings to the world, against the argument of the atheist, simply because it is 'religion'. They will sanctimoniously condemn the actions or the doctrine of a different 'faith', but when faced with criticism from the outside, the religious are united - and that, to me, makes no sense at all. Whereas, as you say, some reports suggest that the religious are healthier in body, looking just at the examples I've given above, the claim that they are healthier in mind is, in my opinion, highly debateable.