You want to talk about inappropriate terminology?
Maybe we could discuss the stupid use of the term “political correctness” to describe any development that some reactionary moron diagrees with.
Are government employees allowed to say ‘goodbye’ in official communications? I’m just thinking about the origin of the word.
The detail you seem to be missing is that the premise for the division is wrong. It’s a mistake. It’s historically inaccurate. It would be bad scholarship to count from the wrong year. BCE/CE allows them to preserve the division already in use without having to preserve the historical mistake.
No, it’s not like that at all. For one thing, no one is trying to prevent you or anyone else from using BC/AD. It’s just that most historians (many of whom are Christian) have chosen to adopt a less loaded and less inaccurate convention. No one is being forced to do it. The issue in the OP is not whether people should have to use the “Common Era” convention but whether public schools can be punished for using it.
For another thing, “the West” is not a theocracy. The US, in particular, is a secular state, not a Christian one. The US even goes so far as to forbid he state from endorsing any particular religious view. That means the state is not allowed to force people to say Christ is “the Lord” if they don’t want to.
It is the MOST common dating system.
I live in a secular country with freedom of thought and freedom of speech and I will use whatever dating convention I feel like. Get over it.
You need to get some more recent books. I hardly ever see BC/AD any more. BCE/CE has become the convention even for many Christian Bible scholars.
The History Channel used to make more of an effort to show legitimate scholarship. Now it just panders to the lowest common denominator. People who want to watch specials about the search for Noah’s Ark respond better to BC/AD. The History Channel is popular entertainment, not a scholarly journal.
I have no idea what you think you mean by “relevance to the culture” but it has become standard in academia. The “relevance” is that it avoids religious assumptions and it avoids using a convention based on a historical mistake.
Who is trying to force you to use the “Common Era” convention? The “forcing” here is only coming from the religionist side.
“I’m a free man! I’ll conform to any damn convention I like!” seems to contain a shade or two of irony. I Just felt like mentioning it
Buh?
Yes, a free man may indeed conform to any damn convention he likes.
Where’s the irony?
Would you say it was ironic if I said I was “free” to practice whatever organized religion I chose? Is a choice only “free” if it does not conform to any convention at all?
So the solution is to merely rename an inaccurate reckoning by changing its name? I’m not following the logic here. The division is the division. It has come down to us through the ages. William the Conqueror invaded England in A.D. 1066. Now if I stated that to a Elizabethan Englishman, he would agree. Same goes for a Victorian. The reckoning is what it is, it is something we have in common with other ages. The division is not “wrong” it is merely a system inaccurately fixed. Kind of like the date for Christmas. We know it’s wrong but it still has meaning. So the system you advocate simply rides piggyback on something else. Personally this fact alone is enough to doom it because its irrelevance is built in.
Since we are on that subject, let me tell you what I think this whole BCE/CE ballyhoo is all about. It’s a continuing effort by those who are part of Western culture but take exception to Christianity. Once again I will say as an incontrovertible fact that Christianity was and is still in some ways, at the center of Western Culture. You don’t like it but guess what? That’s the facts.
Less inaccurate? Why divide the time line then? Isn’t a division in and of itself a needless complication… Like a double negative.
A theocracy like say, Israel or Iran? Yes I agree with you, and another thing central to the formation of the West is democracy.
Well I’m sure Brown, Geary and the rest don’t have protégés. How many senior scholars are in their 30’s? How many of these ultra-hip dinosaur killers are there? I mean, as long as they use BCE/CE they’re credible right? I’m sorry if I can only give you examples five to ten years old. I only graduated two years ago so I’m hopelessly behind. I mean, some of these guys are the current leading experts in their fields. I’m not talking fuckin Edward Gibbon here.
Sorry all, the Sausage Creature post above is me, The Highwayman. Sorry once again.
And I bet that more than 98% of this entire society doesn’t give a goddamn whether we use BC/AD or BCE/CE or even knows what BC and AD refer to as it stands. Besides, come on, we’re replacing that elitist and foreign Latin with good old God-fearing English.
For many, yes. There’s no reason to change the division itself since it would be massively inconvenient to do so but it’s perfectly reasonable to continue to use the numbers that most people are accustomed to without preserving the inaccuracy of the premise. It is the “common” method of dating and it does not have to be called anything more than that. Of course, this is a completely voluntary decision. No one is trying to make it the law or anything and you are free to use whatever convention you want or make up your own.
Exactly. It’s a common convention of dating based on a mistaken premise. There’s nothing wrong with continuing to use those numbers but most academics now choose to refer to it generically as a “common” reckoning rather than to perpetuate the error of its premise (and as a means to recognize that not everybody thinks Jesus is their “Lord” but that doesn’t seem to be a politeness that you have any interest in).
Yes it is. It’s at least four years too late.
In other words it’s wrong.
Not if you’re not a Christian and it’s ridiculous to demand that historians writing about history should have to use a historically innacurate convention in how they write about it. Historians do not say that Christmas is the birthday of Jesus either, you know.
I don’t know what you think you mean by calling it “irrelevant,” but it has become the standard in academia and shows no signs of changing. You are quite misinformed if you believe otherwise but that doesn’t mean that you are not free to “Anno Domini” at people all you want personally. Nobody cares.
How do you explain that the convention was started by and continues to be used largely by Christians? What is your evidence that those who started the BCE/CE convention “took exception to Christianity?”
You’re obviously deeply afflicted with CPC and you’re making an irrelevant point anyway. The “Common era” convention has nothing to do with anyone giving a shit one way or the other about Christianity. It is grounded in two primary motivations. 1). To avoid perpetuating an erroneous premise as to its date of reckoning and 2.) to adopt a convention which would be religiously neutral and could be used by Jewish, Muslim and “other” academics without discomfort. It’s also completely voluntary. No one is trying to force YOU to abide by it.
Most dating conventions do require some kind of significant date to reckon from. We have no way figure an absolute “Day One” of the universe so we have no choice but to use a division. The BC/AD division is one which we have inherited and which would be too inconvenient (and rather pointless) to change so the logical solution is to keep the numbers and just call it the “common” system of dating which it is. Of course the division is arbitrary but any division would be arbitrary. It’s irrelevant that it’s arbitrary.
And secularism.
Do you think it’s only young guys who use BCE/CE? You are quite mistaken, I assure you. The BC/AD convention has become rather quaint in the last few decades.
This is simply more of the nonsense that brought us a non-existent “War on Christmas.”
Do you have anything besides you own personal bias that demonstrates that anyone using the newer nomenclature “take[s] exception ot Christianity”?
Given that the largest number of people who originally used the phrase were Christian religious scholars (who certainly outnumbered their Jewish and Muslim counterparts), your claim is silly on the face of it. Certainly Christianity is at the center of Western Culture (and thanks to the jib and, later, the steam engine and the effective use of gunpowder, Christian culture has a significant hold on every other culture in the world. (After all, that is why everyone has begun using a Christian calendar for international reckoning of time.)
What has “really” happened, (as indicated by actual events rather than odd speculation), is that Christian religious scholars adopted a new nomenclature to identify dates when working among scholars of other faiths for whom “the year of the Lord” was inappropriate and the practice has rather slowly moved out from that circle of religious scholars to other disciplines that recognize that that phrase might be less than respectful.
Since no one is compelled to use the new nomenclature, a choice to use it may mean any number of things and each person would need to be queried as to why they have chosen to use it. (On the other hand, we have certainly encountered religious-oriented bigots, from these very boards (a long since departed notorious anti-semite) to the Wisconsin legislature, who have demanded that only the older nomenclature be used, so the only hostility on the issue that I have encountered, previously, has been associated with the group that you appear to be joining, here.)