Far-right indoctrination in Texas schools.

[Jon Miller]

Besides, the A.D./B.C. nomenclature is, if anything, wrong. Nobody accepts that Jesus, if he existed, was born in the year 1.

It doesn't change the fact that that is why the particular date was chosen and it is ridiculous to say otherwise.

JM

[Boris Godunov]

It doesn't change the fact that that is why the particular date was chosen and it is ridiculous to say otherwise.

JM

1. Nobody is saying otherwise. Using CE/BCE isn't meant to deny the reason the Gregorian Calendar was devised. Who has ever claimed that?

2. The only people who care why it was chosen are Christians whose feelings are hurt by the change, and I don't see why that should matter to scholars, who are free to use whichever nomenclature they wish, since both are commonly accepted in academia.

[Drake Tungsten]

Besides, the A.D./B.C. nomenclature is, if anything, wrong. Nobody accepts that Jesus, if he existed, was born in the year 1.

BCE/CE has the exact same problem, you ****. It's exactly the same as BC/AD, expect for the stupid PC name change. And WTF does "common era" even mean?

It doesn't change the fact that that is why the particular date was chosen and it is ridiculous to say otherwise.

Exactly. One point for JM.

[SlowwHand]

1 A.D. = After Death, not birth date.

[Boris Godunov]

1 A.D. = After Death, not birth date.

Oh ****ing hell Sloww, are you kidding us?

[Boris Godunov]

Besides, the A.D./B.C. nomenclature is, if anything, wrong. Nobody accepts that Jesus, if he existed, was born in the year 1.

BCE/CE has the exact same problem, you ****. It's exactly the same as BC/AD, expect for the stupid PC name change. And WTF does "common era" even mean?

How does it have the same problem? If anything, it's the recognition of the very problem. Except for a mistake by religious folks, there's no real reason to distinguish between BC and AD. But since the Gregorian calendar does dominate, it wouldn't be feasible to institute some mass change of the year numbering system.

That doesn't change the very real problem for a Jewish rabbi saying "In the Year of Our Lord" by using "A.D." If Christians were expected to use an abbreviation that actually meant "Praise be to Allah," I am pretty sure they'd throw a fitabout it, no matter how old it was.

"Common Era" was derived from "Vulgar Era," which was the first usage of this kind of nomenclature.

It doesn't change the fact that that is why the particular date was chosen and it is ridiculous to say otherwise.

Exactly. One point for JM.

Which, as I said, only matters to Christians who get all whiney that not everyone uses the nomenclature they want. Boo-hoo-hoo, get the sand out of your vagina.

[Drake Tungsten]

How does it have the same problem?

They're both based on the (most likely inaccurate) birthdate of a person you don't believe in. BC/AD at least has the intellectual honesty to admit that, however, whereas BCE/CE is the worst kind of lazy, PC tripe. If you're going to abandon the Christian dating system, fine, but actually ****ing do it. Don't slap a stupid new name on the same old Jesus-based system and expect non-retards to think it's a good idea.

Which, as I said, only matters to Christians who get all whiney that not everyone uses the nomenclature they want. Boo-hoo-hoo, get the sand out of your vagina.

I'm a pragmatist, not a Christian.

[Boris Godunov]

Yeah, already answered those points.

The fact that anyone gets worked up over BC/BCE vs. BC/AD is in and of itself retarded. Why should people care which one is used? Only an idiot wouldn't be able to understand what was being talked about, so it's not as if it's a barrier to communication. The only people I see worried about it are the types who bemoan the "secularization" of society in general and feel Christianity deserves some sort of special status. BC/BCE has been used for quite a long time in scholarship, so *****ing about it is pointless. It's become a perfectly acceptable nomenclature, it's always going to be around... so too bad, so sad.

[Drake Tungsten]

Why should people care which one is used?

Because there's no good reason to abandon the longtime standard for some bull**** PC equivalent. It would be like changing the name of "Thursday" to "4th Day" because you don't want to offend people who don't believe in Thor. Why should anyone care about that? They mean the same thing and "4th Day" is more inclusive!

[SlowwHand]

Oh ****ing hell Sloww, are you kidding us?

Pretty much, yeah.

[DaShi]

Why should people care which one is used?

Because there's no good reason to abandon the longtime standard for some bull**** PC equivalent. It would be like changing the name of "Thursday" to "4th Day" because you don't want to offend people who don't believe in Thor. Why should anyone care about that? They mean the same thing and "4th Day" is more inclusive!

When we're all speaking Chinese this won't be a concern.

[MrFun]

I'm agreeing with Drake in this thread.

[Elok]

Yeah, already answered those points.

The fact that anyone gets worked up over BC/BCE vs. BC/AD is in and of itself retarded. Why should people care which one is used? Only an idiot wouldn't be able to understand what was being talked about, so it's not as if it's a barrier to communication. The only people I see worried about it are the types who bemoan the "secularization" of society in general and feel Christianity deserves some sort of special status. BC/BCE has been used for quite a long time in scholarship, so *****ing about it is pointless. It's become a perfectly acceptable nomenclature, it's always going to be around... so too bad, so sad.

If people shouldn't care, why are you arguing? I'm perfectly fine with a secular society, and in fact prefer it, but I object in principle to taking a descriptive label and replacing it with some silly generic hooey to spare feelings. The fact that it implies acceptance of Jesus...in a dead tongue...in abbreviated form...well, that's hard to take seriously. I'd be perfectly okay with switching to years after the Hegira, or the original Jewish calendar, again in principle (not counting the hassle of relearning all the dates, etc.).

[Ben Kenobi]

Besides, the A.D./B.C. nomenclature is, if anything, wrong. Nobody accepts that Jesus, if he existed, was born in the year 1.

Just as everyone accepts that Rome was founded in 753 BC?

Quibbling over 1 AD vs 4 BC makes about as much sense as quibbling 758 and 753. The point is still the same. The date symbolises the birth of Christ.

[Boris Godunov]

If people shouldn't care, why are you arguing?

I'm not arguing for one over the other, I was responding to people who seemed to vehemently care about it to the point of anger. Personally, it makes no difference to me which is used. I use BC/AD myself because it's what I'm used to. I just don't see the point in getting all hot and bothered about something that has been a longstanding practice in Academia.

But I certainly do see it as valid that devout Jewish or Muslim scholars would not want to use words, in whatever language, that mean something that is blasphemous to their faith. In that respect, the change is utterly harmless. As I said, I doubt a lot of Christians would want to use words that meant "Praise to Mohammed" or "Jesus Isn't God" whenever they needed to give a date, even if it were in a "dead language."

EDIT: Also, I have to note that on further reading, it was Christians who started using "Common Era," and they did so many, many centuries ago. Even official Catholic writings use "Anno Domini," "Christian Era," "Common Era," and "Vulgar Era" interchangeably. So really this is all much ado about nothing.