Posted on 06/15/2006 5:05:48 PM PDT by xzins
Political Correctness Takes a Hit in Kentucky Schools
School Board Retains Traditional Historic Designations B.C. and A.D.
By Jim Brown and Jody Brown
June 15, 2006
(AgapePress) - A conservative advocacy group is praising the Kentucky state school board for refusing to add the secular terms "Common Era" and "Before the Common Era" to school curriculum. The board has voted 10-0 to continue using the designations "B.C." and "A.D." to mark historical dates in textbooks and tests.
The unanimous vote overturns an April decision in which the board proposed changing the acronyms to "C.E." and "B.C.E." Since that decision was made, however, six new members have been appointed to the 11-member board by Governor Ernie Fletcher. A spokeswoman for the governor, who is an ordained Baptist minister, says Fletcher did not tell them how to vote on the matter.
But Associated Press notes that the April decision had drawn criticism from some ministers and religious groups who complained that it was an attempt to sterilize a reference to Christ. Richard Nelson with the Family Foundation of Kentucky says the board was responding to that criticism.
"The average Kentuckian felt that this was just another attempt to impose political correctness on our school children here in Kentucky schools -- and so there was an outcry," says Nelson. A spokesperson with the state Department of Education, he shares, indicated that office had received about 900 pieces of written testimony on the proposal, "most of it which was against the proposed change," he adds.
Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst with the Foundation, describes the board's turnaround as perhaps the "shot heard 'round the world in the battle against political correctness" in schools. He says those same Kentuckians who wrote to the Department of Education expressing their views were demonstrating they are "tired of seeing schools give in to every politically correct trend that comes down the pike."
Nelson notes an irony in one aspect of the debate. He accuses those who favor a change in the dating system of conducting a "sham" because they still use the birth of Christ as a reference point.
"I think it's disingenuous for these politically correct folks who want to impose this upon us [to be] saying [they] want to be neutral," he states. "Well, they're still using that central dating point in history, which is 2,006 years ago is when we recognize Christ was born -- they still want to use that but change the terminology."
Respectively, the designations "B.C." and "A.D." stand for "before Christ" and "Anno Domini" -- Latin for "in the year of the Lord." The terms "Common Era" and "Before the Common Era" are still being used in some Kentucky colleges and universities and on college entrance exams.
No, Augustus did not start a dating system. But neither did baby Jesus.
The dividing line need not be a significant moment. Since there was no earth-shaking event on Dec 31, 1 BC/ Jan 1, 1 AD it really doesn't matter.
Too bad it wasn't Lexington Kentucky. It would have complimented that observation with a little more historical reference.
I am? Where did I say that?
Get real. Nobody except a few scholars knows who he is.
I pity the ignorant fool who doesn't even know who Caesar Augustus was.
But censors like you - apparently somebody who doesn't like Christianity - would like to blot out history in order to further your anti-Christian bias.
You make a lot of ASSumptions.
If a Buddhist and Hindu are living in America, they get our culture and it has a calendar that goes AD/BC. That's just the way it is.
"Scholarly?"
Is there something more "scholarly" about saying 1776 AD than 1776 CE?
That's just sleight of hand for SOME reason. I suspect the reason is secular materialism's hatred of Christianity and all things Christian.
Actually, my preference would be to push the zero point back far enough that we would never need to use negative numbers.
Bingo. The dating system was devised with reference to Christ's birth. The only reason for changing it now -- substituting a historical even that was contemporaneous with Christ's birth -- would be to try to downplay Christ and Christ's role in the development of Western (read: Christian) civilization. It's all about memory holes. Winston Smith (in "1984") would recognize what these folks are doing.
You nailed it.
You mean they can actually find a publisher who uses BC and AD?
Funny. I went to Catholic school for my entire school life short of college and we heard BC and AD once maybe twice a year. I think this is getting a bit much. Although, I guess it makes a great story. It is funny how our country has gone wacko on both sides.
These are Southern Protestants and not northern Catholics. I went to school down South and saw only BC and AD.
The thing that really got me was a Catholic priest who liked to use BCE and CE.
I always tell people the "C" means "Christian". In one sense, I guess it does.
"The era that began with the establishment of the Roman Empire by Augustus in somewhere between 15 and 1 B.C., which was a far more significant event than the birth of Christ."
If you believe that you have chosen the first half of your nick quite well. Rome, not Caesar Augustus the individual, definitely had a strong influence on the development of Western civilization, but to suggest even that was of greater import than the life of Jesus is, well, luncacy.
Redcloak:"I thought that it was "Christian era" and "before Christian era"."
I remember, when the acronyms CE and BCE were introduced, that is exactly what they meant. Only later was the word "Common" substituted. Can anyone else recall that being the case?
I fear it is worse than that, Skydancer. "Orient" is derived from the Latin "oriri" which meant "to arise". Thus "orient" referred to the direction from which the sun arose, or the East. To ban the word "Oriental" is to display an ignorance of the origins of our language, something which does not surprise me when talking about any government official here in WA.
Footnote:since I am in pedantic mode, I should add that "Occident" comes from "occidere", meaning "to set" and refers to the direction in which the sun sets.
Class dismissed.
I have always understood BCE to be "Before the Common Era", but if you Christians want to hijack this, too I guess that's your business.
Really? You were around in the early 1700s???
Quote heard on the radio: "This (BCE & CE) is a solution in search of a problem" LOL!
Christian Era and Before Christian Era does have the ring of a certain kind of humorous justice, doesn't it?
The point in my mind is that it's a little ignorant to say "1776 is still 1776 BUT we're more scholarly."
Rotflol!! The ignorance is hysterical.
"I have always understood BCE to be "Before the Common Era", but if you Christians want to hijack this, too I guess that's your business."
I am not attempting to hijack anything. My first encounter of the terms "CE" & "BCE" did have the appellations attached that I noted
"Really? You were around in the early 1700s???"
If that is an historically accurate statement, then I stand corrected, and willingly admit so. I never saw the terms used until sometime in the 60s, and assumed, incorrectly it appears, they were the latest salvo by the secularists in their war on Christianity. When the terms originated hardly seems a matter of overwhelming importance in any case, though their intent does.
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.