While reading Joe Burris' article on New Year's Day, I was dumbfounded by the conclusions that were being drawn by the professors at JHU who are proposing a new calendar ("JHU professors propose new calendar," Jan. 1). They claimed that mistakes are made in scheduling with the current calendar but would be eliminated with their calendar, that there should be no objection from the religious community with their proposed changes, and that "everyone" would quickly memorize the calendar.

It all sounds like scientists who want things neat and controlled and who are uncomfortable with the messiness of dealing with "human activity." The reality is that people will always make mistakes when it comes to scheduling, no matter what calendar we use. Please tell me what the difference is between an event that happens the second Tuesday of every month versus happening on, say, the 10th of every month, which is what the new calendar is proposing. If people can't remember the event is on the second Tuesday, why would they remember the 10th?

As a clergy person, I have an objection to Christmas always being on a Sunday. It makes for a very heavy work load every year instead of every 6 years.

Finally, on a personal note, I like having my birthday fall on a weekend. But with the Henke-Henry calendar my birthday will always be on the same day, and if not on the weekend, I will never again have a birthday fall on a weekend day.

The diversity which the Gregorian calendar brings to every year provides spontaneity and fun in looking forward to dates. The H-H calendar would instead be predictable and boring. I think the proposal for the new calendar has more to do with whether you like spontaneity or predictability, and has less to do with being a better way of measuring time.

Rev. Cathy Oatman