B.C. not P.C. for students

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 3, 2005

[MarkL]

I guess I never understood the big deal. I first heard the term "BCE" in grade school... But then I was going to a Jewish day school, and it was explained that BC and AD referred to religious events involving Jesus, and while it wasn't really appropriate for us to use those terms (and that at school, we should use "BCE" and "CE"), we may need to use BC and AD in order to communicate with others. But that for "internal use," we should only use "BCE" and "CE."

To me, this meant that pretty much the whole world used "BC" and "AD," and that we'd need to get used to it. That there was no great conspiracy to convert us. I just wish that these people would spend their time not looking for things to get upset over.

Mark

[A. Pole]

Japan, China, and all other non-western civilizations have adopted our dating system. However, using the term "Common Era" is a good compromise.

What is the concession from the these countries doing this compromise? That they count years from the birth of Christ and recognise it as their own (common)? Who did the negotiations in our name? If we did not agree for the compromise what "Japan, China, and all other non-western civilizations" would do? How do they monitor the compliance?

[sittnick]

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.

Excellent post! I might only add that we Christians are not offended by the day Wednesday (after the "god" Woden), the month March (after the "god" Mars). I didn't even try to get the seller to change the name of the Mercury I bought a few years ago!

[Right Wing It]

In a nation of majority, why do we try so hard to please the minority?

[zeugma]

Ask any astronomer, and they will explain to you why scientist us the Julian date for all event timings.

Uh, because math with calendar dates and time sucks? I hate doing time conversions because you are looking at a calculation involving 3 different bases. Base 12 (or 24) for the hour, base 6 for tens of minutes, and base 10 for minutes.

When you start talking about weeks, months, and years, things can get weird fast!

Then again, if you want to talk about duration, and you are doing it on a computer, you have to know about your Epoch date. On my computer, if I ask it the date, it actually converts the number of seconds since midnight, Jan 1, 1970 to a date that is actually meaningful to a human being.

Dates and time are fun :-)

And to stay on topic with the post, the idiots who are trying to push "BCE" are lying to themselves and everyone else, since they are still counting from an approximation of Jesus' birth.

[eccentric]

If one doesn't subscribe to the religious connotations, then the "historical" connotations are moot at best, and laughably absurd at worst,

Not moot. Because whether a person is Christian or not, the fact is that the world change because Jesus Christ was born (around that year.) As the peom states: "All of the armies that ever marched, and all of the navies that ever sailed, all of the parliaments that ever sat and all of the kings that ever reigned, have not affected the life of man on this earth as much as that One Solitary Life

[infowarrior]

Not moot. Because whether a person is Christian or not, the fact is that the world change because Jesus Christ was born (around that year.)

I reiterate, if one denies the religious connotations, then one can just as easily contend that Christ was never even born, and therefore of absolutely no historical signifigance whatsoever. So, who is trying to fool whom here?

the infowarrior

[TChris]

"The fact that they've taken it away has now generated the very controversy they may have been hoping to avoid."

Oh no, they're not trying to avoid controversy, but to stir it up. In the name of keeping the religious from imposing their will on the public, the athiests get to impose theirs with impunity. They will rub our noses in it as they do.

[free_life]

Another option they could use so as to recognize their lord is: WS - with satan

[ohioman]

Well...I dare you to make me stop using BC.

[eccentric]

Okay, the 'myth' or 'legendary' figure was supposedly born around that year. Then the teachings and followings from that real person, legend, or myth changed the world more than anyone else's.

Like the others have been saying, we have other calendar names based on people, myths, and legends. (Was someone reading my Christmastime tirades?)

[Jeff Chandler]

Excellent post. Solid reasoning.

One does not need to be a Christian to recognize the folly of the P.C. crowd, or the fact that the radical left is as intolerant as they claim others to be.

As a matter of fact, there are logical nonreligious arguments for most of the public policy positions taken by the religious right, and most of the positions taken by the left are emotion and ideology driven.