CE/BCE vs AD/BC

[Nathan F]

OK, what is your opinion on the new year naming system?

I personally think it is stupid, I mean, it is based off the same thing as the old Anno Domini (AD) and Before Christ (BC), no matter how PC they try to make it.

I mean, I know of separation of church and state and all, but the same system has been used in official circles of secular governments for hundreds of years, why change the nomenclature of it now? As I said, it is still based off the Christian Anno Domini/Before Christ syestem, just with a different name.

[StimNeuro]

OK, what is your opinion on the new year naming system?

I personally think it is stupid, I mean, it is based off the same thing as the old Anno Domini (AD) and Before Christ (BC), no matter how PC they try to make it.

I mean, I know of separation of church and state and all, but the same system has been used in official circles of secular governments for hundreds of years, why change the nomenclature of it now? As I said, it is still based off the Christian Anno Domini/Before Christ system, just with a different name.

Leave it as BC/AD. There really is no point in changing the names, as you said.

[Montcalm]

OK, what is your opinion on the new year naming system?

I personally think it is stupid, I mean, it is based off the same thing as the old Anno Domini (AD) and Before Christ (BC), no matter how PC they try to make it.

I mean, I know of separation of church and state and all, but the same system has been used in official circles of secular governments for hundreds of years, why change the nomenclature of it now? As I said, it is still based off the Christian Anno Domini/Before Christ syestem, just with a different name.

Its funny i was sure AD stood for After Dinner

[Joe]

Aw, hell, I honestly don't give a damn. Whatever.

[Sea Skimmer]

I really don't care. But I don't see much reason to change it, as Nathan F has pointed out changing the names doesn't change the fact that the zero mark is still religious in basis.

[Durandal]

OK, what is your opinion on the new year naming system?

"New"? It's been around and in use for quite a while.

I personally think it is stupid, I mean, it is based off the same thing as the old Anno Domini (AD) and Before Christ (BC), no matter how PC they try to make it.

Yes, because the fields of history and anthropology should all be forced to passively support Christianity with their dating systems. I suppose that if the unit for energy had originally been the "Jesus" and physicists wanted to change it, you'd be adamantly opposed . I notice that it's often white, Christian males who are most often the ones who whine about something being "politically correct." Gee ... I wonder why that could be ...

I mean, I know of separation of church and state and all, but the same system has been used in official circles of secular governments for hundreds of years, why change the nomenclature of it now? As I said, it is still based off the Christian Anno Domini/Before Christ syestem, just with a different name.

Translation, "Yeah, I pay lip service to separation of church and state, but I don't really care about it as long as it's my religion being endorsed."

We've been using the seven-day week system, too, but that doesn't mean that it'd be acceptable to call Sunday "Yahweh Day" or something similar. The point is that these things have become too ingrained into our culture as a whole to changed, so they're no longer exclusively Judeo-Christian-Muslim concepts. So why not call it "Common Era" and "Before Common Era"?

[Joe]

OK, what is your opinion on the new year naming system?

"New"? It's been around and in use for quite a while.

I personally think it is stupid, I mean, it is based off the same thing as the old Anno Domini (AD) and Before Christ (BC), no matter how PC they try to make it.

Yes, because the fields of history and anthropology should all be forced to passively support Christianity with their dating systems. I suppose that if the unit for energy had originally been the "Jesus" and physicists wanted to change it, you'd be adamantly opposed . I notice that it's often white, Christian males who are most often the ones who whine about something being "politically correct." Gee ... I wonder why that could be ...

I mean, I know of separation of church and state and all, but the same system has been used in official circles of secular governments for hundreds of years, why change the nomenclature of it now? As I said, it is still based off the Christian Anno Domini/Before Christ syestem, just with a different name.

Translation, "Yeah, I pay lip service to separation of church and state, but I don't really care about it as long as it's my religion being endorsed."

We've been using the seven-day week system, too, but that doesn't mean that it'd be acceptable to call Sunday "Yahweh Day" or something similar. The point is that these things have become too ingrained into our culture as a whole to changed, so they're no longer exclusively Judeo-Christian-Muslim concepts. So why not call it "Common Era" and "Before Common Era"?

This is another one of those pointless issues that will just reinforce the popular negative perception of atheists/secular humanists if pursued too aggressively.

[Queeb Salaron]

What does this have to do with politics? Move this to SLAM or something.

[Darth Wong]

What's the harm from changing it? Oh yeah, it will offend a lot of close-minded assholes.

[Durandal]

This is another one of those pointless issues that will just reinforce the popular negative perception of atheists/secular humanists if pursued too aggressively.

Of course it is, but that doesn't mean that there is some sort of intrinsic value in keeping it around. He asked whether or not we should change it, and we should, eventually. But atheists have bigger fish to fry, at the moment.

[RedImperator]

This smells like the Pledge of Allegiance thread coming back...

In academic writing, it's important to use neutral language wherever possible, especially in the humanities where you're already handicapped by the inability to be fully objective. BCE and CE let you get around the incongruity of describing events that took place in, say, Ming China as taking place "in the Year of Our Lord, 1457" or whatever. So they're better academically. As far as popular use goes, it's not worth the bother trying to get it changed. BCE and CE will probably slip into quasi-common usage eventually, but not totally displace BC and AD.

[Joe]

This is another one of those pointless issues that will just reinforce the popular negative perception of atheists/secular humanists if pursued too aggressively.

Of course it is, but that doesn't mean that there is some sort of intrinsic value in keeping it around. He asked whether or not we should change it, and we should, eventually. But atheists have bigger fish to fry, at the moment.

Agreed. Fish like Michael Newdow.

[Admiral Valdemar]

There is no need to change it, it makes no difference and besides, the original version is shorter to write.

Logically it is still superior, I couldn't care less about it's religious origins, it's not like I'm rooting for metric time even though I prefer the metric system.

[Nathan F]

OK, what is your opinion on the new year naming system?

"New"? It's been around and in use for quite a while.

Not as long as the old system.
[quote[

I personally think it is stupid, I mean, it is based off the same thing as the old Anno Domini (AD) and Before Christ (BC), no matter how PC they try to make it.

Yes, because the fields of history and anthropology should all be forced to passively support Christianity with their dating systems. I suppose that if the unit for energy had originally been the "Jesus" and physicists wanted to change it, you'd be adamantly opposed . I notice that it's often white, Christian males who are most often the ones who whine about something being "politically correct." Gee ... I wonder why that could be ...
[/quote]
WTF? I simply said that it was based off the same thing. There is a bit of a difference between saying the power of that lightbulb is 30 Jesuses, and using the time AD and BC to differentiate between the current calendar and the old calendar. And as I said, it is still based off the same thing, and no matter what you name it, it is still talking of the same thing. Dude, don't be so anal-retentive.

I mean, I know of separation of church and state and all, but the same system has been used in official circles of secular governments for hundreds of years, why change the nomenclature of it now? As I said, it is still based off the Christian Anno Domini/Before Christ syestem, just with a different name.

Translation, "Yeah, I pay lip service to separation of church and state, but I don't really care about it as long as it's my religion being endorsed."

We've been using the seven-day week system, too, but that doesn't mean that it'd be acceptable to call Sunday "Yahweh Day" or something similar. The point is that these things have become too ingrained into our culture as a whole to changed, so they're no longer exclusively Judeo-Christian-Muslim concepts. So why not call it "Common Era" and "Before Common Era"?

Huh? Quit twisting my words. I said what I mean. I think that separation of church and state is central to a fair government, but changing the name of something like AD and BC (of which most people don't even know what they mean) to something like BCE and CE is just somewhat pointless. To get it completely away from the Christian parts, you would have to start a completely NEW Calendar from the current Gregorian calendary.

As you said, they are so ingrained in our culture that they have lost most Judeo-Christian connotations, so why change them?

As I said, it is possible to debate without being a jerkwad about it.

[Durandal]

Not as long as the old system.

So that means the old system is better?

WTF? I simply said that it was based off the same thing. There is a bit of a difference between saying the power of that lightbulb is 30 Jesuses, and using the time AD and BC to differentiate between the current calendar and the old calendar. And as I said, it is still based off the same thing, and no matter what you name it, it is still talking of the same thing. Dude, don't be so anal-retentive.

I see you didn't bother reading my last paragraph.

Huh? Quit twisting my words. I said what I mean. I think that separation of church and state is central to a fair government, but changing the name of something like AD and BC (of which most people don't even know what they mean) to something like BCE and CE is just somewhat pointless. To get it completely away from the Christian parts, you would have to start a completely NEW Calendar from the current Gregorian calendary.

Don't be absurd. Everyone knows that "BC" means "Before Christ," but most just assume that "AD" means "After Death." I explained that we don't have to necessarily move away from the concept, just completely remove any Judeo-Christian connections from it.

As you said, they are so ingrained in our culture that they have lost most Judeo-Christian connotations, so why change them?

Well let's see ... oh that's right, because the government has to use that date system because that's the one all its citizens use. However, the government must also be religiously neutral. Therefore, the only way to retain religious neutrality is to strip "Christ" and "In the year of our lord" out.

As I said, it is possible to debate without being a jerkwad about it.

You called the idea "stupid" and tried to degrade it by claiming that it was political correctness, which you implied is a bad thing by default. I'm sorry, but I have little tolerance for assholes who write off every attempt to separate church and state or respect minority rights as "political correctness," regardless of their intrinsic merits.

[Hamel]

BC/BCE rocks some christian socks

It's yet another small step for mankind.

[fgalkin]

OK, what is your opinion on the new year naming system?

I personally think it is stupid, I mean, it is based off the same thing as the old Anno Domini (AD) and Before Christ (BC), no matter how PC they try to make it.

I mean, I know of separation of church and state and all, but the same system has been used in official circles of secular governments for hundreds of years, why change the nomenclature of it now? As I said, it is still based off the Christian Anno Domini/Before Christ syestem, just with a different name.

I don't care either way.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[The Duchess of Zeon]

What's the harm from changing it? Oh yeah, it will offend a lot of close-minded assholes.

The reference to God in the dating system is the only reference to God in the Constitution, which has been reasonably argued as to therefore have absolutely nothing to do with God in a religious context. Though it is pointless in debating terms, in that context changing the dating system could look bad/make for bad PR.

[The Yosemite Bear]

It confuses folks who are old like me.

[Nathan F]

It confuses folks who are old like me.

Old people, or mostly harmless nutcases?

[The Yosemite Bear]

A little of both

[Queeb Salaron]

We can't change to BCE/CE. It would be a milestone. Remember what happened to our computers on the LAST time-oriented milestone? The Y2K bug. What will the computers have to say about it?

joking, guys.

[weemadando]

CE/BCE is the currently accepted academic standard...

[Durandal]

It confuses folks who are old like me.

Old people, or mostly harmless nutcases?

Heh, reminds me of Homer Simpson's words of wisdom.
(In a comforting voice) "But Dad, you're old. And old people are useless."

[His Divine Shadow]

I just think AD and BC sounds better, and we're used to it, if you don't like the religious implication, make AD mean something else.

Im sure we can find some workable substitutes whilst keepping the AD/BC.
Or we can use AC/DC