I agree with all this. The fact that i’m an atheist doesn’t change the fact that the division of time as we currently use it reflects important developments in the history of religions in general, and Christianity in particular. And Christianity was not only a dominant historical presence in Europe, but an important one elsewhere.
I could be convinced, i think, that using a different scale might be appropriate when discussing the history of, for example, east and south Asia (i don’t know enough about the history of those places to be sure), but for the most part Common Era and Christian Era are perfectly reasonable, IMO.
I can’t find the page, but someone created a new calendar (complete with 13 months, IIRC, so there was none of this mucking about with months of different lengths) where it began on July 20th, 1969. So, here’s a page on a proposed metric time system, instead.
There is no goal to “squeeze out Christ.” There is a difference between recognizing the historical significance of Christianity (which no one denies), and expecting non Christians to recognize Jesus as “Christ.”
Like I said above, you may use whatever convention you wish. Nobody is trying to stop you. I personally have no problem dating things from the dawn of the Christian era, and I have no problem with other people using BC/AD, but I don’t need to be poked at by ignorant morons like Grossbottom because I prefer to use the more objective (not to mention more accurate) convention.
Gah. There you go again. Not “I don’t have a goal” but “there is no goal”. I’m just wondering whether it’s possible for you ever to qualify any of your sweeping declarations as non-universal. I mean, who do you think really believes you when you drag your broom from one end of the landscape to the other? Your response is boogerish. I referenced no one in particular, made no generalization about everyone, and even conditionalized it. Therefore, I would wager that out of the billions of people on Planet Earth, at least one or two indeed have a goal to “squeeze out Christ”, rendering your proclamation false.
BC and AD are subtle but constant reminders for historians and their students, of the widespread and continual dominance of Christianity in the Western world. Part of the problem with this is that Christianity dominates our culture(s) and our way of thinking through subtle, minuscule assumptions like this: that good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell, that there is an evil force which maliciously intends to draw us off the path of righteousness to serve it, that the righteous minority are prosecuted by the powerful forces of darkness, that world unity is a precursor to widespread disaster, that the appropriate response to a difficult and/or life-threatening circumstance is to call out for the help of a single force of love and kindness that rules over the earth, that women who take control of their sex lives are immoral, that men should make decisions for women (don’t believe me? read it–it’s in the Book!). These things, individually, range from the pointless to the mundane to the serious, and several of them have no real negative effect on a society governed by human law, individually, but their collective penetration into our cultural mindset makes it difficult to keep Christianity as a whole from having undue influence in places where it shouldn’t–politics, interpersonal and intercultural relations, the study of history, etc. It’s also worth noting that every child studies ancient history quite a bit before s/he graduates from high school, and bombarding them with BC and AD–while by itself such a mundane and pointless thing as to be considered completely unimportant–contributes to the overall penetration of Christianity in places where it doesn’t need to be.
What I’m trying to say is, as an individual concept, using BC and AD is fine–a little iffy from a humanist perspective, but laughably insignificant in terms of its actual effect. But it’s one of many straws on the camel’s back, and those of us who advocate CE and BCE* don’t want to risk it being the last straw. YMMV and, even though this is the Pit, I honestly hope I haven’t offended anyone here.
Only for lack of better alternatives, in my case.
Funny that you post this right after someone came in with a cite that “common era” has been in use for three centuries, before anyone ever thought of hugging trees. Not to mention that it’s a specifically Abrahamic (Christian/Jewish?) invention.
Eight, actually. “Years ago”.
That’s etymology, and it’s different–not only because the names have no semantic connection with the things they’re named after in the minds of people who don’t know or care (while everyone knows, in at least a vague sense, what BC and AD mean, and are reminded of it every time they use it or see it used), but because none of those religions has a recent history of dominating the Western world and sending millions of heretics to burn, hang, lose custody of their children, etc.
I think that the use of conventions like BC and AD automatically carry a connotation of being centered around Christianity, while the mere fact that our current year is 2007 years after an important date in Christianity doesn’t. I’m willing to be proven wrong, of course, but I don’t think people think about Jesus when they hear “2007”, “1998”, etc.
There’s also the UNIX calendar/clock, which counts the time elapsed since 1970, a much more important date to a guy like me than whenever some dude put on a tacky crown and got nailed to a plank.
Indeed… it’s almost as though your statement were made completely of air.
I’ve been irritated by Diogenes’s “sweeping generalizations” on many occasions too, but in this case, shouldn’t you at least provide evidence that some living person, rather than a hypothetical construct, actually is “trying to squeeze Christ out of the picture” on this issue, before you tear into him for providing an alternate explanation?
There’s probably at least one or two people who think Daylight Savings Time is an atheist plot to make Christians late for church one day a year. Does that make it equally worthy of consideration?
So I guess you’re fucked everytime someone uses anno domini. Your academic rigor requires you to start counting from the death of the alleged son of god, and you only have ten fingers.
(1) For there to be an alternate, there must be at least two in total. “There is no goal” — what Dio said — is not providing an alternative; it is, in fact, declaring all alternatives to be nonexistent.
and (2) the whole point of the CE/BCE construct is to accomodate the non-religious and religious people who are not Christian. “Since only one out of every three humans on earth is a Christian, some theologians and other authors felt that non-religious, neutral terms like CE and BCE would be less offensive to the non-Christian majority.” (Cite).
The fact of the matter is that the construct originated in theological writings as an application of the Golden Rule. (Op. cit.) The idea is indeed to remove references to Christ as a favor to others. But as I’ve pointed out (as does the cite), it doesn’t really work because of how it can be read: “Christian Era”, etc.
Sure it does. It’s written CE/BCE, and the reader is free to insert whatever he wants into the initialisms, be it “Common Era”, “Christian Era”, “Cool Era”, “Communist Era”, whatever.
[…sigh…] Check the context. Obviously, I meant that it doesn’t work as a means to remove Christ from the concept. The reader could have done the same thing you’re talking about with the old initials as well. BC = Before Coca-Cola, AD = After Dr. Pepper.
You can sigh until you run out of breath, but they’re two completely different things. BC/AD include Jesus-as-Messiah in their very definition, and thus are inextricably tied to the two initialisms, no matter how hard any individual student tries to convince herself that they’re about soft drinks. CE/BCE do not include Jesus-as-Messiah in their definition, and thus those who wish them to be Christian can add Christianity to it if they so desire, without having to force the issue on anyone else. Sounds like a win-win to me.
That’s one of the weirder assertions I’ve ever seen you make, and you’re a smart guy. A better analogy would be to say that replacing “Christmas break” with “winter break” doesn’t actually reduce the Christianness, because “winter” is an acronym for “When Iehova Nears, Tears Eventually Reduce” (because in the Latin alphabet, Jehovah begins with an I). Which, if you want it to be, sure, it is, for you, but you and I both know that’s not what “winter” originally meant.
BCE officially and originally stands for “Before the Common Era”. That’s its number one official real verifiable meaning. Thus, non-Christians, or Christians who don’t like mixing their religion with their dating scheme, can use it at least relatively happily. It’s WAY less Christian than AD/BC, even if there’s an alternate acronymization of BCE that re-includes Christianity.
And, I gotta say, in general, your incessant and ruthless seeking-out-of and bloody-shirt-waving-concerning situations in which Christianity is being oppressed is tiresome and beneath you.
I don’t think that it would be possible to prove you wrong, but I will say that I’ve thought a lot more about what all of these abbreviations stand for SINCE BC/BCE became common usage than I did before. The year itself doesn’t remind me of Jesus, and back when we all used BC/AD it was rote and I never thought about it much. Now when I see BC/BCE, I think “oh, yeah, that’s what we have to do now because we can’t refer to Christ.”
