Royal Ontario Museum abandoned Christian dating system for James ossuary
Posted on 03/03/2005 6:10:29 PM PST by A. Pole
BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
B.C. not P.C. for students
Educators' move to change 'Before Christ' to 'Before Common Era' sparking outrage
In what's perceived as a case of political correctness trumping history and everyday usage, students in Australia are now seeing the calendar term B.C. – which stands for "Before Christ" – being replaced with BCE, meaning "Before Common Era."
"This is political correctness gone mad," Shadow Education Minister Jillian Skinner told the Sydney Daily Telegraph. "You ask the average mum and dad out there how they refer to time and calendars, they will use Before Christ [B.C.]."
The change by the Department of Education was first noticed during this week's English Language and Literacy Assessment test, as 157,000 students in New South Wales were presented with the new term.
A history portion of the test described an ancient flooding problem this way:
"A government surveyor stood beside the Nile River looking worried. Beside him stood his assistants, carrying his equipment. The year was 590 BCE."
A footnote was included to explain to students that BCE means "Before Common Era" (also known as B.C.).
"This is a case of history being rewritten and abandonment of the use of a calendar which has been around for centuries on the basis that the term might offend someone," Skinner told the paper.
She says she's spoken to parents and other educators who are extremely angry over the move.
The headline in the Telegraph declares: "'Mad' bureaucrats censor Jesus Christ."
"They probably replaced an imagined potential controversy – the use of the term B.C. – with a real one," Steven O'Doherty of Christian Schools Australia told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. "The fact that they've taken it away has now generated the very controversy they may have been hoping to avoid."
While B.C. is used in normal language as a historical and scientific chronology guide, BCE is often footnoted in international academic, scientific and museum contexts.
New South Wales Education Minister Carmel Tebbutt admits her department changed B.C. to BCE, but says it was done without her consent.
"The point I've made to the department is that both terms are in usage," Tebbutt told ABC. "I'm completely comfortable with that. But if a text actually has B.C. in it, then we should be leaving it as B.C. We shouldn't be changing it to BCE."
The case is reminiscent of a December 2002 controversy in North America.
As WorldNetDaily reported, the Canadian museum displaying an ancient box purported to be the ossuary of Jesus' brother James was no longer using the Christian designations of B.C. and A.D. to mark the calendar, opting instead for more "modern and palatable" terms.
Royal Ontario Museum abandoned Christian dating system for James ossuary
After a long internal debate, the Royal Ontario Museum decided to change "anno Domini" – Latin for "in the year of our Lord" – to C.E., referring to the "Common Era." It also shelved B.C. in favor of BCE.
''A lot of people accept the reality of Jesus as a historical figure but don't accept him as Christ, and to use the words 'before Christ' is really quite ethnocentric of European Christians," Dan Rahimi, the museum's director of collections management told Canada's National Post. "And to use 'the year of our Lord' is also quite insensitive to huge populations in Toronto who have other lords."
Hmm, why "Before Christian Era." is to be better than "Before Christ". The established usage is shorter and more elegant.
Next on the agenda is the dedication of young schoolboys to the Goddess Khali and the adoption of the rat as the national symbol of prosperity.
Good Grief!
Before long, some nervous ninny will be "offended" at the sight of a Christian church, and demand that they should be banned.
Then again, these are the kind of people who enjoy listening to themselves talk, so they'll consider it no chore.
At the instant that I hear "BCE" (before calendars existed or before common era) or "AD" (after dating), I immediately turn a deaf ear or turn the channel. I don't wait one second. I have never seen such academic arrogance and nastiness as the deliberate anti-Christianity involved. Academics should be ashamed of themselves.
I saw some nutcase on Hannity & Colmes last night arguing against the use of BC. He said that it its important to use the PC alternative because BC is not inclusive of all the non-Christians.
It was nauseating, and vomit-inducing. Basically it has now gotten to the point where to recognize the events which precipitated the change in historical dating is to be guilty of being insensitive to non-believers.
Even if this is so, then so what? The only people who get offended or upset by such things are people who go looking for things to offend them. To hell with such people! To set policy by such standards it to unconditionally surrender to the dogma of PC diversity.
Didn't you know, "Thou shalt not offend or make uncomfortable or be insensitive to non-Christians" is one of the commandments of the PC Diversity religion to which the left bows down to?
I thought in Canada it was always referred to as BCE -- "Before Christ, Eh?"
Sorry, but I think some of you are over-reacting. The use of C.E. and B.C.E. took hold in academic, particularly theological, circles, mostly among people who have no antipathy toward our faith. The simple fact is that various scholars studying written materials and other matters of ancient history are from a variety of faiths. I see this terminology not as p.c. overkill, but just common courtesy. Flame away.
Just doing your small part for the good of the whole. This is the most ridiculus nonsense I've ever heard. Why do we Americans feel such a strong need to be PC? Other countries do not bother.
Somehow we have determined that,one,everyone has a "right" to be not offended by anyone or anything; and that, two, "offense" shall be determined by the eye of the beholder.
It's ultimate subjectivity and empowerment to the unbalanced. All they need to do is cry "offended" and the rest of society must bow to their command.
I'm cool with "Before Christ Existed".
Or "Before Christian Era" (Since Christ has always existed)
My opinion on this matter (and I'm an atheist):
1) The majority of the general world population continues to prefer the usage of 'AD'/'BC'--and many are not even familiar with the 'CE'/'BCE' designations.
2) The specification of the Gregorian calendar rightfully resides with its inventor: The Roman Catholic Church. No changes to the specification of the Gregorian calendar have been authorized by the Pope since the introduction of the calendar. Therefore, 'AD' and 'BC' are still formally correct--and 'CE'/'BCE' are not.
3) The principle of reciprocity requires that each culture respect the standard conventions and usages of all other cultures, provided this does not involve the violation of rights. Since Jews (for example) have no right to not be offended by whatever name Christians choose to use for the eras of their calendar (just as Christians, Hindus, Muslims and atheists have no right to not be offended by the implications of the phrase 'anno mundi,') Christians have the right to name the eras of their calendar whatever they wish, and other cultures are required by the principle of reciprocity to respect it. Just because the names of certain cities in Thailand can be easily taken as vulgar words/phrases in English does not give English speakers the right to dictate to Thais what they call their cities. By the same principle, no one has the right to dictate to Christians what they call their calendar eras--and any attempt to do so is both ill-mannered and offensive.
It must also be mentioned that the stated reason by Jews for their unwillingness to use the designation 'anno domini'--namely, that they do not believe that Jesus is their 'lord'--is inconsistent and hypocritical. No one disputes their disbelief, nor their right to disbelieve (certainly not I--I'm an atheist.) However, Jews also do not believe that Yahshuah is 'ha Mashiahh' (that is, that Jesus is 'the Christ', both 'Mashiahh' and 'Christ' mean 'Annointed One,' a term with special significance in both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures.) Consequently, to be logically consistent, Jews should also be unwilling to use the label 'Christian' in reference to the (self-proclaimed) disciples of Jesus, or to use the term 'Christ' to refer to the central figure of the Christian religion, since they emphatically do not believe this person to have been the Annointed One, nor that those called Christians are in fact the disciples of 'the real' Annoned One (who is yet to come, according to Jewish belief.) Therefore, failure by Jews to avoid all reference to the term 'Christ,' in all its forms (including 'Christian Era,') is thus blatantly and inarguably hypocritical, and renders their objections to 'anno domini' doubly offensive.
Of course, Christians also have no right to force others to use their calendar (or to follow their naming conventions.) Consequently, each individual is free to use whatever calendar and/or era names he/she thinks best. Nevertheless, a public school system should teach its students to use the linguistic conventions that are normative in the culture at large.
So, it's now 2005 After Common Era? ACE?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.