What about months of the year, as many of them pertain to Roman Gods? Or how about Monday, which refers to a Germanic God, or Thursday, which is Norse? Or do you refuse to name the planets, which are named after Roman Gods?
This is where O’Rielly gets his ammunition.
The Norse names for days of the weeks do not reflect the imposition of an active, majority religious view on a minority and none of them carry an implication about who “the Lord” is.
I would also point out that no ancient, Scandanavian religious cults have carried out any inquisitions or pogroms against Jews in the last 2000 years. When the religious convention you are being asked to adhere to requires you to show deference to a religion which has historically persecuted the group you belong to, that puts just a little bit of an edge on it.
So, what’s the rule? You can’t use mythological terminology until it becomes a minority?
That just means in a couple hundred years, we’ll have to switch back to AD/BC, when all the Xenu worshippers are laughing at the Jesus/Zues/Odin characters,.
I’ve been told the name Morechai dericves from Marduk, the Mesopotamian chief god. Possibly it derives from a theophorous name. But when it was used, Marduk-worship was certainly a majority religion.
How about cereal, derived from Ceres (although cereal’s a very recent name)
If you really want to get technical, the names are ultimately based on planet names. In many cases, they are deities, but not in all.
Sunday (Sun)
Monday (Moon)
Tuesday (Mars)
Wednesday (Mercury)
Thursday (Jupiter)
Friday (Venus)
Saturday (Saturn)
Wether the english word is based on latin, norse, etc, it still remains a reference to the planet (or star) in question.
The rule is that the government cannot endorse any particular religious view on any other. The days of the week have no relationship to any active religion and do not amount to an endorsement of Norse mythology.
I think you’re also forgetting that this is not about what whether BC/AD is merely permissable in public school textbooks (I doubt many people really care very much) but whether the state is allowed to mandate such a use and to actively punish any school district who uses non-Christian dating conventions.
So consider a school district that chooses, without any state mandate, to assign a textbook that uses the BC/AD convention. Can a student be heard to complain that this is an establishment of religion and successfully sue the school district, forcing them to abandon the textbook?
Why or why not?
I guess the argument could be made. I don’t see how the state can force a kid to call Christ “the Lord” if he doesn’t want to. It might be more a question about what convention the students are forced to use themselves. I think a stronger case could be made for an establishment violation if students were mandated to use BC/AD in their own research papers, for instance.
Whether a suit would be successful is a different issue. SCOTUS has already shown a reluctance to correct minor Establishment violations.
BC? BCE? I suggest we see if this guy can tell us what A.D. stands for before we allow this thin to move the legislative gas chamber. Bet he can’t!!!
It’s ridiculous anyway because isn’t this the 4th age? Maybe the 5th?
In 1958, Tolkien wrote that we were living in the end of the Sixth Age, or possibly the beginning of the Seventh.
I think we should go back to dating by the Years of the Trees.
And Rootin’ Tootin’ Representative Sensenbrenner, too. One of the biggest “pro life” schmoozers (or is it schnauzers?) ever to hit DC. (He’s only “pro life” as long as the living critter ain’t been born yet. After that, they’re on their own.)
He’s married to a college classmate of mine. When we were going to school together, she definitely had more sense.
I like BC but don’t like AD; I think BC and BCE are somewhat disingenuous. BC is purely descriptive and if you’re going to base the calendar around Christ, might as well be open about it. AD, however, is clearly religious in nature. Personally I’d like to see BC and ACB, ‘after Christ’s birth’.
As a one time history major I remember being offended by having to use BCE and CE. I never did. One time I spelled out *Anno Domini * BEFORE the year in a paper. The teacher never remarked on it.
I find it idiotic to impose a new name for the way we reckon the year while keeping the premise for its division. If you want an analogy, I would be like me moving to Israel or a Muslim country and wanting them to change their ways. That would be ridiculous.
Basically, by saying “In the Common Era” and rendering dates in the Western reckoning, you are implying that this is the common way to reckon the years and the other forms are NOT common. That’s even more presumptuous!
Face it, you are in the West. You speak in a Western tongue in a Western culture. Christianity was and in some ways, still is central to that culture. Get over it. I did.
Prediction: Academics will stop using BCE and CE due to irrelevance.
I think they should just figure out exactly how long ago the big bang was, then start numbering from there. Sort of like the Kelvin temperature scale. Then you can write 1/5/1,248,234,345,998 on your cheques.
The Gregorian Calendar is the common way to reckon the years. Although there are still a number of calendars in use on this planet, the Gregorian Calendar has clearly become the common reference calendar, and even in places which use other systems (e.g. the Islamic Hegira calendar) the Gregorian date will also often be given for reference, as on Al-Jazeera (it’s the year 1427 since the Hegira, and also 2006 of the Common Era), or in connection with financial and business reports, as on that link to a Thai newspaper, which shows the year as “2549” in the Thai calendar–but also notes that today is February 22, 2006 for foreign exchange rates and stock market reports. This is the web page of a newspaper in Iran, an officially Islamic Republic. Note the date at the top of the page.
I take it you agree with the bill then? Mandating public schools must only use textbooks which employ BC and AD under penalty of fines?
I’d be inclined to predict exactly the opposite. The trend seems to be that more and more non-Christian and non-Western scholars are joining the increasingly globalized world of academic publication, and they have no objections to the BCE/CE notation. At the same time, older Western academics who have habitually used the BC/AD notation continue to move into retirement.
The BCE/CE notation has already evolved from a somewhat quirky “alternative” format to a widely recognized standard that is now spreading even into general and school-text publications. I think it’ll just go on spreading until it’s nearly universal.
I have literally, dozens and dozens of academic history books on the shelves and maybe 10% use the BCE/CE misnomer. Most are recent, that is, from and 90’s or updated therein.
I studied mostly European history and in particular Late Antiquity and Middle Ages. As far as Late Antiquity goes, Peter Brown is one of the major scholars. He puts A.D. before the year. Geary does the same. Rosenwein does the same. Sealey in “A History of the Greek City States” does the same. The list goes on and on but I just wanted to list a few examples of modern historians bucking the politically correct trend.
I remember a few years back, the history channel was using it a lot in its programming. Now, not so much. In fact, I would say that using this misnomer is in the decline even in academic circles. Problem with it is that it has no relevance in the culture it serves. Remember when the French tried screwing with the names of the months and the years? How long did that last? I think it ended in the month of Thermidor.
Who came up with BCE/CE anyway? Which historians? I’m curious to know.
P.S. I don’t think you should be fined for having it in a textbook but I do think that you are a major douche-bag for trying to force feed political correctness down a entire society’s throat.
It was not European historians, but Middle Eastern religious archaeologists and scriptural scholars. It was used as a term that was mutually acceptable among teams of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim researchers that was introduced (or, at least, made current), in the 1950s. So, it predated “Political Correctness” by over 20 years (and has now been in use for nearly 50 years). It is also, despite your persistent misrepresentation, not a “misnomer,” unless you really believe that the Gregorian calendar does not represent a “common era.”
Given the huge number of peoples across the globe, particularly in government, business, and communication, who identify the current year as 2006 when marking dates, even when they are located in cultures that have (and follow) their own calendars, it is clear that your insistence that the terms are “misnomers” is mere petulance.
Well, Peter Brown was born in 1935, Patrick Geary around 1948, Barbara Rosenwein about the same, Raphael Sealey around 1930. These aren’t young scholars “bucking the politically correct trend”: these are senior scholars, in their fifties through seventies, who are simply continuing to follow what used to be the current trend when they got their degrees several decades ago.
There’s nothing at all wrong with that. My own brilliant and beloved graduate advisor, who recently passed away at 72, always used the BC/AD convention too, because it was what he was used to. But it doesn’t contradict my point that the present trend is toward increased acceptance of the newer BCE/CE convention, and that as senior scholars retire the older convention will become less common.