NationStates Jolt Archive

I had to do a history lesson in one of my reading classes last week. I wrote up the vocab, and a definition for each on some big posters. One of the definitions I got from a book mentioned a date, 700 B.C. Now, I know that B.C. means "before Christ" and that A.D. is anno domini which is "in the year of our Lord." But, I also know that I'm in a public school and the labeling has since been updated a bit to B.C.E and C.E. meaning Before Common Era and Common Era. Essentially they mean the same thing, but they are politically correct for the secularists. So, thinking to update the definition a bit and turn it into a valid definition, I changed B.C. to B.C.E.

I wouldn't think that would be a problem, but when we got back our reviews, someone wrote that she thought I "misspoke." She "wanted to point out that R_____ misspoke a bit when introducing 'B.C.E.' as 'Before Culture Era' - I've never heard of it used that way - (??). 'Before Christ' is the historically (correct) wording!! :)"

I laughed when I read it. I mean, I would think that someone who had successfully made it to college would at least have had enough history classes to recognize what B.C.E. was and maybe enough tact not to try to "correct" me on a matter of faith. What do you think?

In general, BC. Too many people are unfamiliar with the other. I use BCE with people when having a more serious discuaaion on a historical topic, because it seems more disinterested than a Christian dating system.

A.b.c.!

Both

I prefer BC and AD, because I think BCE and CE are just anal retentive political correctness. But she was a fool for attempting to correct you when you were, in fact, correct, and should have not been so eager to jump on you for what would be a very minor correction even if you were wrong. She should have paid more attention to the material you were presenting, not your abbreviations.

A.c./d.c.

I'll open by saying that I am an atheist with absolutely no feeling of affection for christianity, so I am not saying this out of dogma or anti-secularism.

B.C. is historically correct term. B.C.E. is a pointless change intended to comfort the uber-sensitive secularists. The dividing line we call "B.C." (or B.C.E.) is a marker of when the christians beleive their god-man existed. It does not indicate a common era beggining. The two "Era" system is stupid in history anyway. I prefer to mark an incident as being X-years before present, since that is the critical information, and not how far away it is from some mythical God-Man or from some so called "Change of Era."

The problem with suggesting a change of era is that era's don't suddenly switch, they change through gradual change of culture, and so marking an event as a "dividing line." is mislabeling and confusing. Nothing of great historical import happened during the "Change of Era" change (though Rome does become an empire close to it, but there is still at least a quarter of a century between the event and the divider.) A better divider could be the "fall" of Rome (1520 years before present.) or perhaps the begining of the Renneissance, both of which DO mark a major event.

I just want to point out that this whole "BCE" thing is irrational and pointless.

* Saying BCE "Before Common Era" still measures time the same as "BC -- Before Christ". Sure, you're taking out the "Christ" part, but you're still measuring time by him!

* Every world government ahears to the standard international date format of BC/AD. While there are other calendar systems in use here and there, no official business is done in them on a global level (or usually even national).

* If one wants to be secularist, one needs to eliminate the names of the days while one is at it. (Friday = Fria's day. Thursday = Thor's day...)

In summation, look at http://www.religioustolerance.org/ce.htm for their take on it. I consider this the usual politically correct GARBAGE that is being forced upon society by an overly zealous left wing.

Perhaps if we all spent time BEING tolerant instead of talking about it, it wouldn't be neccesary.

The point I'm making is that you do NOT have the right to not be offended. It is not in the Constitution, nor anywhere else. Not in the US? Fine. Show me where in your nation's documents you have the right to not be offended, and I'll seriously consider moving there. Or sending you Rosie O'Donnell.

I'm all for TOLERANCE. However, tolerance does not mean devolving into a 1984/Orwellian "doubleplusgood" language tempest. How would you feel if my religious group (all 3 of us) decided we were offended by the existence of the word "purple" and demanded it now be called "dark interwoven pink and blue" for the sake of being PC? Absurd? Open this Pandora's Box and there is no end to it.

BTW: There are many other calendars in use. A good place to see what day it is at: http://www.ecben.net/calendar.shtml . (Though it does have some broken links).

... I'm sorry, this is just nails across the chalkboard for me. I do not mean to offend anyone by this post.

In summation, look at http://www.religioustolerance.org/ce.htm for their take on it. I consider this the usual politically correct GARBAGE that is being forced upon society by an overly zealous left wing.


I agreed up until that sentence there, then you dissolved into nonsense. The "Left Wing." is not the group of bleeding heart morons who sponsor this particular batch of nonsense. The "Left Wing" is a much broader scope than that.

As an atheist, yes, I do find it offensive that the common speech includes religious terms that exclude my beleif (or lack there of). I do think that it is wrong to let religion rule culture, but I also realize that my complaint about the force feeding of opinion is also created in the opposite. Unfortunantly there is no fair compromise and so I figure I'll be the mature one and shrug and say whatever.

I agreed up until that sentence there, then you dissolved into nonsense. The "Left Wing." is not the group of bleeding heart morons who sponsor this particular batch of nonsense. The "Left Wing" is a much broader scope than that.

As an atheist, yes, I do find it offensive that the common speech includes religious terms that exclude my beleif (or lack there of). I do think that it is wrong to let religion rule culture, but I also realize that my complaint about the force feeding of opinion is also created in the opposite. Unfortunantly there is no fair compromise and so I figure I'll be the mature one and shrug and say whatever.

I'm only saying left wing, becuase I've yet to see a right winger say "BCE".
Of course, I've yet to see some right wingers use dental floss, too. ;)

B.C. and A.D. are the more generally accepted terms. I didn't hear C.E. and B.C.E. until I took an anthropology course at the university.

Now, the whole debate over whether this is designed to surpress religion or as a way to secularize history is bullshit, IMO. That would be a small, insignificant step in a long journey that involves fighting some of the most passionate people and powerful institutions in the world. I really don't think it matters how you define the times, since in the end it is still based on the birth of a religious figure. Only if people tried to change the step-over point from B.C.E. to C.E. to more accurately reflect culture changes by moving it from Jesus' birth to some other event would I concede a conspiracy to secularize history.

* Saying BCE "Before Common Era" still measures time the same as "BC -- Before Christ". Sure, you're taking out the "Christ" part, but you're still measuring time by him!

What about the fact that there is no definite year of Jesus' birth? Technically, when we say the year, we oughta add + or - 7 years to the end of it. If we do find out, are you going to change the calendar so that we keep it in line with his life? Saying BCE at least pins down a specific year that is not dependent on someone's life.

* If one wants to be secularist, one needs to eliminate the names of the days while one is at it. (Friday = Fria's day. Thursday = Thor's day...)

Sure. Wednesday is hard to spell anyway.

In summation, look at http://www.religioustolerance.org/ce.htm for their take on it. I consider this the usual politically correct GARBAGE that is being forced upon society by an overly zealous left wing.

Religious Tolerance is a good site. At least they show all views of an issue before making arguments instead of some other blatantly biased sites.

Perhaps if we all spent time BEING tolerant instead of talking about it, it wouldn't be neccesary.

Well, wouldn't this be an example of intolerance of people who don't believe in Jesus?

The point I'm making is that you do NOT have the right to not be offended. It is not in the Constitution, nor anywhere else. Not in the US? Fine. Show me where in your nation's documents you have the right to not be offended, and I'll seriously consider moving there. Or sending you Rosie O'Donnell.

The ninth Amendment of the Constitution of the U.S.: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Since no one has yet to make a law against being offended, I guess I have that right. Not to mention, if people couldn't be offended, there would be a lot of court cases that would have to be thought out again.

And for the record, I wasn't offended by her, I just thought it was funny.

I laughed when I read it. I mean, I would think that someone who had successfully made it to college would at least have had enough history classes to recognize what B.C.E. was and maybe enough tact not to try to "correct" me on a matter of faith. What do you think?

Up until I took a Freshman History course in College I'ld never heard it. After getting my degree, I rarely see it outside of professional history papers. I use BCE/CE for papers and BC/AD for general correspondence and conversation.

The problem with changing the dating system is that it really screws over anyone who wasn't raised with it around. Cultural resistance would be insurmountable, because people (understandably) don't want to memorize a whole new set of dates for everything that has happened. A much easier way to resolve this issue, I think, would be to find some other historical event around 0 A.D. that we could base the calendar on.

Up until I took a Freshman History course in College I'ld never heard it. After getting my degree, I rarely see it outside of professional history papers. I use BCE/CE for papers and BC/AD for general correspondence and conversation.

I can understand if some people have never heard of it before. In this specific instance, she is in her third year of college and had to have taken at least one World History course. Every professor here at least explains what BCE and CE are if they don't use them consistently. Not to mention when I read it aloud, I read it as "Before Common Era" rather than BCE.

BCE isn't fluent in common speech, BC is. nice and compact.

What about the fact that there is no definite year of Jesus' birth? Technically, when we say the year, we oughta add + or - 7 years to the end of it. If we do find out, are you going to change the calendar so that we keep it in line with his life? Saying BCE at least pins down a specific year that is not dependent on someone's life.

Why 7?
Nope. But since the world's already calibrated the calendar to a certain year, what's the point of pretending it's not dated from what it's dated from?

But it *was*.

Sure. Wednesday is hard to spell anyway.

Yet, oddly, no one seems to be proposing that. Hmm.

Religious Tolerance is a good site. At least they show all views of an issue before making arguments instead of some other blatantly biased sites.

Heh. You're entitled to your opinion, but I found that link to be a piece of revisionist drivel.

Well, wouldn't this be an example of intolerance of people who don't believe in Jesus?

Nope. The existance of something does NOT automatically disenfrancise another. Consider this: if what you are saying is so, then clocks discriminate against late people, so we need to do away with time. ;)

The ninth Amendment of the Constitution of the U.S.: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And that still doesn't say you don't have the right to not be offended.

Since no one has yet to make a law against being offended, I guess I have that right. Not to mention, if people couldn't be offended, there would be a lot of court cases that would have to be thought out again.

And for the record, I wasn't offended by her, I just thought it was funny.

A law against being offended? Hmm. That's pretty easy: 1st Amendement: Right to Free Speech. :p

Can you name one of these cases?

I agree with using BCE and CE because doing otherwise deliberately excludes other religions, but Christianity is so ingrained in our lives that we hardly notice, much less complain about it. The year is 2005 -- entirely based on Christianity. That is never going to change.

I could care less about the BCE/CE labels - they are pointless and there is not much point in changing now. The tradtional labels are more widely known and used. Plus, you don't have to spell them out, merely using the acronyms leaves them politically correct because there is no religious connotation in its letter form.

When I think BC, I think of the Flintstones. When I think of BCE, I think of medieval paintings of saints. Since the medieval period is neither BCE nor BC, whereas the Flintstones are clearly BC, I think that BC is correct.

BCEand CE just to piss off you Xtians. Plus its new and cool

I don't see how BCE makes any sense or is any less of a religious term... if people want to use it as a political statement (or to keep PC, perhaps to avoid getting fired), that's fine. But the meaning is still the same. I use BC/AD because it's clear to everyone, not just those in circles where mention of Christ in even an indirect way is taboo. BCE isn't any less offensive to someone who'd be offended by BC anyway, I'd bet. They can use the Chinese numbering system or something.

The point of BCE and CE is to create a standard international date system while maintaining a West-centric worldview.

Every culture has its own way of measuring time. The BC/AD, BCE/CE divider is important because it give an arbitrary point in time to measure against. Without an arbitrary starting point there is no way to accuratly date dcoments.

Western Cultures have been using the same divding line for centuries. However, this Christ-centric dving line might not have been as agreeable to Asian, and Middle-Eastern cultures. BCE/CE is an international standard that everyone can agree on.

The point of BCE and CE is to create a standard international date system while maintaining a West-centric worldview.

Every culture has its own way of measuring time. The BC/AD, BCE/CE divider is important because it give an arbitrary point in time to measure against. Without an arbitrary starting point there is no way to accuratly date dcoments.

Western Cultures have been using the same divding line for centuries. However, this Christ-centric dving line might not have been as agreeable to Asian, and Middle-Eastern cultures. BCE/CE is an international standard that everyone can agree on.

That's fine, but you're still using the Christian distinction of time, whether you call it BC, BCE or ZH. I don't see the benefit of changing the letters in any case, if Year 1 is that of the birth of Christ.

I have no problem with the use of B.C., as it implies nothing (except that a guy named Christ lived, which I don't dispute). However, I am Jewish, not Christian--therefore will not use A.D., which translates to "in the year of our lord." He's not *my* lord, and therefore, why should I speak (or write) as if he was?

I don't debate that some guy called Jesus Christ lived, nor that he represented a vast shift in human culture and society. For that reason, I don't mind using his life as the turning point, nor do I mind others using A.D.--but for myself, it's the literal meaning of the term I object to. I use BCE because it is the natural complement to CE (using BC and CE makes little sense--if I'm going to cite an era as common, I may as well cite the other as before the common one).

I can't speak for anyone else, but that's my take on it, anyway. Maybe it'll clear something up, for those who claim only uber-secularists who're trying to mass political correctness use BCE/CE.

When I think BC, I think of the Flintstones. When I think of BCE, I think of medieval paintings of saints. Since the medieval period is neither BCE nor BC, whereas the Flintstones are clearly BC, I think that BC is correct.

Spook, you are beautiful.

Anyway, you are all missing the most critical piece. It does not matter whether you use BC/AD or BCE/CE. What matters is:

When you use AD
It comes AFTER the year.

As in: "This year is A.D. 2005."

I use BCE/CE. It's nonsense to say that Jesus Christ was born 6-8 years Before Christ. It's just stupid.

Sure, the Christians chose the point of origin along the time line, but they chose wrong. One arbitrary point is as good as any other, though, so I'm happy to use the same numbers as they do. But I won't call it BC/AD and perpetuate a boneheaded miscalculation.

I use B.C./A.D. but I think B.C.E./C.E. is more formal. Either way it does not bother me.

I just want to point out that this whole "BCE" thing is irrational and pointless.

* Saying BCE "Before Common Era" still measures time the same as "BC -- Before Christ". Sure, you're taking out the "Christ" part, but you're still measuring time by him!

* Every world government ahears to the standard international date format of BC/AD. While there are other calendar systems in use here and there, no official business is done in them on a global level (or usually even national).

* If one wants to be secularist, one needs to eliminate the names of the days while one is at it. (Friday = Fria's day. Thursday = Thor's day...)

In summation, look at http://www.religioustolerance.org/ce.htm for their take on it. I consider this the usual politically correct GARBAGE that is being forced upon society by an overly zealous left wing.

Perhaps if we all spent time BEING tolerant instead of talking about it, it wouldn't be neccesary.

The point I'm making is that you do NOT have the right to not be offended. It is not in the Constitution, nor anywhere else. Not in the US? Fine. Show me where in your nation's documents you have the right to not be offended, and I'll seriously consider moving there. Or sending you Rosie O'Donnell.

I'm all for TOLERANCE. However, tolerance does not mean devolving into a 1984/Orwellian "doubleplusgood" language tempest. How would you feel if my religious group (all 3 of us) decided we were offended by the existence of the word "purple" and demanded it now be called "dark interwoven pink and blue" for the sake of being PC? Absurd? Open this Pandora's Box and there is no end to it.

BTW: There are many other calendars in use. A good place to see what day it is at: http://www.ecben.net/calendar.shtml . (Though it does have some broken links).

... I'm sorry, this is just nails across the chalkboard for me. I do not mean to offend anyone by this post.

Wow, I love you. Seriously you just said everything i think perfectly! You are my hero.

One reason I prefer BC/AD is because when spoken, it flows better than BCE/CE. I'm not really bothered by the trivial historical quirks and meaningless miscalculations in our calendar system. After all, November means "9th month" and December means "10th month" in Latin but these sidenotes have long ceased to have any significance. Likewise the fact that Jesus wasn't born exactly before the first millisecond of the first year AD doesn't mess up our timekeeping. BC/AD is just a convenient timekeeping convention that we really don't have to bother looking too much into.

*sighs* Points at my post, above.

While I see Markreich's points, I'm a bit disheartened that people would still quote him as accurate, given my reasonable explanation (and I'll revise my statement--I can't speak for everyone, or even nearly everyone, but the majority of my family members and friends use BCE/CE for the same reasons; I'm not alone in my reasoning).

Or perhaps my explanation is *not* reasonable, and therefore does not stand in the face of Markreich's post?

Correction: On page two, rather than "above."

The main issue I have with the new "BCE" system is that it is simply a cosmetic change. Changing the name of Friday to "that day which ends the workweek" doesn't change the fact that it's still Friday. Simply changing Before Christ to BEfore Common Era doesn't change the fact that the date is based on a guesstimate of the time of Christ's birth.
One can't avoid this, even by choosing another significant event in that year.
The fact of the matter is, the entire calendar is already a christian adaptation of the old roman calendar. A reform commissioned by Pope Gregory XIII is responsible for the current system.
If one wants to remove any sense of religious bias (and frankly being offended by a calendar is just plain weak), one has to create an entirely new system. The change to BCE just comes off as useless pandering.

BC isn't a big deal.

AD is obnoxious as hell.

The main issue I have with the new "BCE" system is that it is simply a cosmetic change. Changing the name of Friday to "that day which ends the workweek" doesn't change the fact that it's still Friday. Simply changing Before Christ to BEfore Common Era doesn't change the fact that the date is based on a guesstimate of the time of Christ's birth.
One can't avoid this, even by choosing another significant event in that year.
The fact of the matter is, the entire calendar is already a christian adaptation of the old roman calendar. A reform commissioned by Pope Gregory XIII is responsible for the current system.
If one wants to remove any sense of religious bias (and frankly being offended by a calendar is just plain weak), one has to create an entirely new system. The change to BCE just comes off as useless pandering.

Again, I point out that it's not the use of Christ's birth as the turning point to which I (and many of my family and friends) object, but rather the literal translation of A.D. How is it useless to call it something besides "in the year of our lord," when the only objection to the system is that, if I didn't use CE, I would be forced to refer to Christ as my lord?

I can think of two reasons to prefer BC/AD to BCE/CE. The first, which has already been stated numerous times, is that people are more familiar with BC/AD and it's really pretty meaningless to start calling dates BCE if you're going to use the same historical event as your dividing point (not that the year 0 actually corresponds to either Christ's birth or death, I think he died in 4 or 6 AD, something like that). Besides, BC is shorter than BCE, and the point of an acronym is to be brief!

But my real reason for preffering BC to BCE is that it has a stronger historical significance. I'm an athiest, but I appreciate that the term has some cultural significance and isn't just a completely arbitrary divide. The BCE/CE terminology is intentionally devoid of meaning, and I think that's a bad thing. Personally, I enjoy seeing words that have meaning beneath the surface - it's the same sort of pleasure that comes from seeing a word and understanding its etymology.

Anyway, anyone who is offended by something as small as a date making reference to christ really needs to be offended more so that his skin thickens up a bit.

Maybe people who have problems with the "our lord" thing can just translate Anno Domini as "In the Year of Dominus" where Dominus is a random Roman man named Dominus who was born around the same time as Jesus.

Maybe people who have problems with the "our lord" thing can just translate Anno Domini as "In the Year of Dominus" where Dominus is a random Roman man named Dominus who was born around the same time as Jesus.

Ah, but that's not what it means. I don't change translations to suit my purposes.

I just fail to see why people have a problem with *others* using BCE/CE. I wouldn't ask anyone else to switch away from BC/AD, if that's what they prefer. So why do people object to my using BCE/CE?

The only possible answer I've come up with is a lack of clarity, but that can easily be fixed--it's happened to me numerous times. People who did not know what I meant by CE have simply asked me, and I've told them. Problem solved.

Ah, but that's not what it means. I don't change translations to suit my purposes.
Yeah, I was just fooling around.

Ah, but that's not what it means. I don't change translations to suit my purposes.

I just fail to see why people have a problem with *others* using BCE/CE. I wouldn't ask anyone else to switch away from BC/AD, if that's what they prefer. So why do people object to my using BCE/CE?

The only possible answer I've come up with is a lack of clarity, but that can easily be fixed--it's happened to me numerous times. People who did not know what I meant by CE have simply asked me, and I've told them. Problem solved.
Well, while I don't outright object to the use of BCE/CE, I really like the older terms better, and it would make me sad if they went out of use. :(

So you should use BC/AD so that I don't get sad! :D

Yeah, I was just fooling around.

Ah, sorry! I'm too used to debating with people so devoid of a sense of humor that I hardly see the jokes anymore.

I always write BCE, but I don't complain when I see BC/AD

I use B.C. and A.D. in English but e.a.a. and j.a.a. (closer to BCE and CE) in Finnish instead of eKr and jKr (before Christ, after Christ)

Before the Common Era bizznatches!

Pigs will fly before I use BCE and CE.

Pigs will fly before I use BCE and CE.

I promise you that at least two pigs have flown in a jet before.

Convert!

What about the fact that there is no definite year of Jesus' birth? Technically, when we say the year, we oughta add + or - 7 years to the end of it. If we do find out, are you going to change the calendar so that we keep it in line with his life? Saying BCE at least pins down a specific year that is not dependent on someone's life.

There is absoultely no way to know the exact year of his death, but the calendar we use is still based on the general time period. After 2000 years, how much of a difference does 7 years make? All adding or subtracting 7 years would do is cause mass chaos and confusion. Saying BCE just wastes a little more energy tying to type that last E.

Eh, you're all wrong, it's currently Heisei 17. ;)

Silliness aside, it's actually quite interesting what happens when you move to a country that doesn't use the Christian years in most things. When I first moved to Japan I had trouble remembering what Heisei year it was, now I have trouble remembering that it's 2005, so who cares about the AD, CE, CIA, ABCDEFG?

Eh, you're all wrong, it's currently Heisei 17. ;)

Silliness aside, it's actually quite interesting what happens when you move to a country that doesn't use the Christian years in most things. When I first moved to Japan I had trouble remembering what Heisei year it was, now I have trouble remembering that it's 2005, so who cares about the AD, CE, CIA, ABCDEFG?
I have trouble remembering it's 2005 and I live in the US. :(

I can think of two reasons to prefer BC/AD to BCE/CE. The first, which has already been stated numerous times, is that people are more familiar with BC/AD and it's really pretty meaningless to start calling dates BCE if you're going to use the same historical event as your dividing point (not that the year 0 actually corresponds to either Christ's birth or death, I think he died in 4 or 6 AD, something like that). Besides, BC is shorter than BCE, and the point of an acronym is to be brief!
There is no year zero, it goes from 1 B.C. to 1 A.D. And it's generally believed that Christ lived to be 33...ish...which would put him dying at around 34 A.D.

There is no year zero, it goes from 1 B.C. to 1 A.D. And it's generally believed that Christ lived to be 33...ish...which would put him dying at around 34 A.D.
Ok, I was a little careless with my dates, but Christ wasn't actually born in 1 A.D. Here's a link that puts his birth someone between 7 B.C. and 1 B.C.:http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0004.html

So he would have died somewhere between 27 A.D. and 34 A.D., we really don't know. My point, that the year probably doesnt actually correspond to Christ's birth, still stands.

Ok, I was a little careless with my dates, but Christ wasn't actually born in 1 A.D. Here's a link that puts his birth someone between 7 B.C. and 1 B.C.:http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0004.html

So he would have died somewhere between 27 A.D. and 34 A.D., we really don't know. My point, that the year probably doesnt actually correspond to Christ's birth, still stands.
Yeah, if you look at coins with Herod and whatnot, it seems He was probably born around 7 or 8 B.C. But I was going with the assumption that the 1 A.D. was right, to save me the trouble of typing all that.

I prefer the BC/AD system. Mainly because it's shorter, and because latin is cool. :D

Yeah, if you look at coins with Herod and whatnot, it seems He was probably born around 7 or 8 B.C. But I was going with the assumption that the 1 A.D. was right, to save me the trouble of typing all that.
Heheh. Yeah. I don't really care about the specific year either. I just was mentioning it in passing. But this all just helps highlight my main point! I think it's cool that the B.C./A.D. terminology has enough history to it that you can argue about it and think about it. There's some history in the terms! I think that the B.C.E/C.E. terminology is bland and uniteresting by comparison, and I'd rather not switch over. :D

Ah, but that's not what it means. I don't change translations to suit my purposes.

I just fail to see why people have a problem with *others* using BCE/CE. I wouldn't ask anyone else to switch away from BC/AD, if that's what they prefer. So why do people object to my using BCE/CE?

The only possible answer I've come up with is a lack of clarity, but that can easily be fixed--it's happened to me numerous times. People who did not know what I meant by CE have simply asked me, and I've told them. Problem solved.

For the same reason why some people get upset when one says "Black" instead of "African American". "Black" is the correct term, as I have yet to be called "Slavic American" by anybody, much less a black person.

Eh, you're all wrong, it's currently Heisei 17. ;)

Silliness aside, it's actually quite interesting what happens when you move to a country that doesn't use the Christian years in most things. When I first moved to Japan I had trouble remembering what Heisei year it was, now I have trouble remembering that it's 2005, so who cares about the AD, CE, CIA, ABCDEFG?

Yet Japan does use 2005 for business and all international work... no one talks about it being Bengali year 1406. :D

In my opinion, B.C.E. and C.E. is nothing more than politically correct bullshit. There's no reason to change, so I stick with B.C./A.D.

personally i'm going with BC, just cuz its what im used to...

that or a.f.i.
either way, 'sall good

Why do people keep bringing up the idea of adding or subtracting years from the current figure 2005? The use of BCE/CE doesn't change the numerical date, or anything at all about the calendar--it only changes the meaning behind the acronym used to modify the date.

1198 AD = 1198 CE. 463 BC = 463 BCE.

The fact that "it would be ridiculous to change the system, even though it might be a few years of" has no bearing on the discussion, unless your point is that we shouldn't use BC/AD or BCE/CE!

I had never even heard of BCE/CE until I took a World Religions course in college... Back in 92... When did that whole thing start?

I had never even heard of BCE/CE until I took a World Religions course in college... Back in 92... When did that whole thing start?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

The term has been in use since the late 19th century and is common in academic circles worldwide.

more:

Common Era
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Common Era (CE) is the period beginning with the year 1 onwards. The term is synonymous with "Christian Era" and also Anno Domini (AD) (Latin for "In the year of [our] Lord"), so named because the Christian calendar considers Jesus to have been born in that same year, thus "Common Era" is sometimes used as a religiously neutral alternative.

The term "Common Era" refers to the same time period described by the Gregorian calendar, which is the world's de facto standard calendar system. The names of the 12 months and seven days of the week within this system predate the Christian Era, but the Gregorian calendar's salient feature – and the one prompting the coining of the term "Common Era" – is its system of numbering and naming years using the presumed birth year of Jesus as a starting point.

I chose BC/AD because it's the only thing I understand. :p

Both my family and the church I grew up in used BCE/CE because they claimed it was more correct. I don't really give a shit either way I'm just used to using the BCE. I'm an atheist but I just don't care if there are religious references or wording in terms. It would be so much easier for me if we got rid of this era crap. I understand it but I have to think about it slightly more.

I use BC and AD informally. When I teach however, I use BCE and CE. That is because when I teach history I like to put it into context, and always do a brief description of what else was happening around the world at the same time. It also allows me to introduce the concept that the measurement of time is a cultural concept and not an absolute. I introduce the whole issue of BC/AD and BCE/CE with some info on Mayan calenders, Chinese calenders and so on. I don't do it just to be secular...(though that does influence my decision a bit), but rather because it tends to be the accepted historical framework, and they'll be seeing it in college or university ANYWAY, and if you explain it well, it really isn't all that confusing.

Now that I've read through the fors and againsts...I'm frankly surprised that there is so much controversy around this term. They are fairly interchangeable. You want to know what is more annoying? The fact that two countries in the world still use the damn Imperial system! Cripes...talk about getting confused! What? It's 40 degrees outside? Man, I'd better turn on the air conditioning! Wait, that's not Celcius? So what the hell?

I prefer BC and AD, because I think BCE and CE are just anal retentive political correctness.

ditto.
'Nuff said.
I LOVE YOU, STAN LEE!
oh, and sinuhue, I sent you a telegram because I'm nice like that.

While it may have started as political correctness, B.C. and B.C.E. has become the internationnal notation so that everyone can agree on the frame of reference. As such, I'm all for it.

Oh, and those who argued for BC and AD because it what they're used to: I believe that's a lazy argument. People were used to the Imperial system and learned the metric nonetheless. It's even easier here as you don't have to change any dates.

But, all in all, I don't care which one people use.

While it may have started as political correctness, B.C. and B.C.E. has become the internationnal notation so that everyone can agree on the frame of reference. As such, I'm all for it.

Oh, and those who argued for BC and AD because it what they're used to: I believe that's a lazy argument. People were used to the Imperial system and learned the metric nonetheless. It's even easier here as you don't have to change any dates.

But, all in all, I don't care which one people use.

INCORRECT.

The UN and EVERY nation on Earth uses BC/AD, (including Israel), on official documents.

I find that arguement a little hollow: how about if I started a movement to rename the word "cracker" (which is derogatory to non-colored people) to "miniture baked good"? :rolleyes:

Neither! I would prefer BN/AN Before Niini After Niini.
That should set the world in order.

Really don't care. As long as everybody knows both of them
Unlike she who tried to correct you

As a datum, it is news to me that the "C" in CE/BCE is "Common" (or, indeed, "Cultural" or "Change of"). I learnt it as "(Before the) Christian Era".

And whereas Christians might find offence with "Common Era", I've always thought it nice that the version I have always known, allows both those who are Christian ("Yay! Our own era!") and those who are not Christian ("Well, it did become the time of the Christians, regardless of whether there was ever a Christ...") to accept it.

I use BC/AD in ordinary use (as if I use them regularly, which I don't), despite/because being Agnostic and really not convinced about whether the Christ or Domini existed, never mind whether he was born 4 or 7 or 11 years out of alignment with the Venerable Bede's calculations... I can take or leave the (B)CE notation, really. As I don't deal with history on a daily basis, I don't really use them enough to get into any other habit than the 'default' one.

What is so "common" about the "common era"?

BC or BCE?
WGAS?

What is so "common" about the "common era"?

it's common to all the countries of the world. Whatever country you're in, even if some cultures in it have their own year-numbering system (like the muslim AH), you can use the CE year and it be recognised as correct.

INCORRECT.

The UN and EVERY nation on Earth uses BC/AD, (including Israel), on official documents.



The UN has official documents dated BC?

I find that arguement a little hollow: how about if I started a movement to rename the word "cracker" (which is derogatory to non-colored people) to "miniture baked good"? :rolleyes:
If everybody jumped on board, why not :D

That's how language evolve, after all.

The UN has official documents dated BC?
The UN might. For example, a resolution condemning the taliban regime for destroying Buddha dating back to 300 BC.

Funny that in Poland (90% of Poles declare Roman Catholic faith) we say n.e (naszej ery, our era) and p.n.e. (przed naszą erą, before our era). And it has been so since I remember.

I was under the impression that BCE/CE stood for Before Christian Era/Christian Era, which made sense to me. Get rid of all that annoying Latin. Now I'm confused, if it means Common Era. I don't want to live in an era that's thought of as 'Common'.

I'm not a religious guy but I use B.C. and A.D. becuase hey, they are just a couple of freakin' letters. It doesn't matter to me what they stand for, they are basically tools with which to tell the time/date. You don't see guys with no arms complaining that clocks have 'hands' do you? Seriously, do you? It's the commonly used term, stop looking so much into it.

Anyway, if it were up to me, years would just be numbered according to which WrestleMania it is. E.G. This would be the year 21. As for those years before WrestleMania was around.......those poor people!

Funny that in Poland (90% of Poles declare Roman Catholic faith) we say n.e (naszej ery, our era) and p.n.e. (przed naszą erą, before our era). And it has been so since I remember.

The question is, did that exist in the language in the pre-Communist era?

BC/AD.

BC/BCE is the sort of ridiculous, meaningless change that gives "politically correct" a bad name.

I mean, like it or not, it is the hypothetical birth of Christ that marks the BC/AD divide. This event, myth though it may be, is firmly located in history.

Meanwhile, what event instigates the "Common Era"? Why do we locate the beginning of the "Common Era" at year 1? There's no reason for this renaming aside from removing Christ from BC. (There's a way it's even less PC: while BC/AD links the calendar to Christianity, BCE links the "common era" to Christianity, as though lil Jesus somehow unites everybody.)

Anyway, this BCE business is like renaming Thursday because of its connection to Norse myth.

EDIT: I see I'm repeating a lot of what Markr. said earlier. Also as to this UN thing, I'm sure there are tons of UNESCO documents on historical locations and artifacts that use BC.

The UN has official documents dated BC?

Ayep.

Examples:
http://www.un.int/armenia/arm/en_history.html

(www.un.int is the United Nations.)

Or:
UNESCO (United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization)
Ancient Musical Instruments Exhibition from 3000 B.C to the Seventienth Century
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=16537&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

If everybody jumped on board, why not :D

That's how language evolve, after all.

Ah, but it's not a point of language, now is it? It's a CULTURAL point. And I find it to not be double-plus-good. :p

I had to do a history lesson in one of my reading classes last week. I wrote up the vocab, and a definition for each on some big posters. One of the definitions I got from a book mentioned a date, 700 B.C. Now, I know that B.C. means "before Christ" and that A.D. is anno domini which is "in the year of our Lord." But, I also know that I'm in a public school and the labeling has since been updated a bit to B.C.E and C.E. meaning Before Common Era and Common Era. Essentially they mean the same thing, but they are politically correct for the secularists. So, thinking to update the definition a bit and turn it into a valid definition, I changed B.C. to B.C.E.

I wouldn't think that would be a problem, but when we got back our reviews, someone wrote that she thought I "misspoke." She "wanted to point out that R_____ misspoke a bit when introducing 'B.C.E.' as 'Before Culture Era' - I've never heard of it used that way - (??). 'Before Christ' is the historically (correct) wording!! :)"

I laughed when I read it. I mean, I would think that someone who had successfully made it to college would at least have had enough history classes to recognize what B.C.E. was and maybe enough tact not to try to "correct" me on a matter of faith. What do you think?I hadn't heard of the BCE term before I got to uni. I'd always used BC and AD.

And when I was in school, BCE stood for Before Christian Era.

The only reason that BCE is used is because some sda little people are jealous that their religion/nation/ideology did not produce one of the most importnat people of the last 200 years. they are just jealous because christians write nad wrote the history books and so they want to have their mark. The historians felt BC and AD were good enough so let's not change them.

The problem with changing the dating system is that it really screws over anyone who wasn't raised with it around. Cultural resistance would be insurmountable, because people (understandably) don't want to memorize a whole new set of dates for everything that has happened. A much easier way to resolve this issue, I think, would be to find some other historical event around 0 A.D. that we could base the calendar on.
To my knowledge bugger all happened around that date. Anything you could possibly find would not be as important as Jesus (this is from a non-religious guy).Why change it anyway? There is no reasion to change such a great system to appease PC whingers and people who dislike Christianity.

BC/AD.

BC/BCE is the sort of ridiculous, meaningless change that gives "politically correct" a bad name.

I mean, like it or not, it is the hypothetical birth of Christ that marks the BC/AD divide. This event, myth though it may be, is firmly located in history.

Meanwhile, what event instigates the "Common Era"? Why do we locate the beginning of the "Common Era" at year 1? There's no reason for this renaming aside from removing Christ from BC. (There's a way it's even less PC: while BC/AD links the calendar to Christianity, BCE links the "common era" to Christianity, as though lil Jesus somehow unites everybody.)

Anyway, this BCE business is like renaming Thursday because of its connection to Norse myth.

EDIT: I see I'm repeating a lot of what Markr. said earlier. Also as to this UN thing, I'm sure there are tons of UNESCO documents on historical locations and artifacts that use BC.
You can't give PC a bad name because it didn't have anything good to turn bad!

I agreed up until that sentence there, then you dissolved into nonsense. The "Left Wing." is not the group of bleeding heart morons who sponsor this particular batch of nonsense. The "Left Wing" is a much broader scope than that.

As an atheist, yes, I do find it offensive that the common speech includes religious terms that exclude my beleif (or lack there of). I do think that it is wrong to let religion rule culture, but I also realize that my complaint about the force feeding of opinion is also created in the opposite. Unfortunantly there is no fair compromise and so I figure I'll be the mature one and shrug and say whatever.
Just grow up. Christians are in control and so what they sya goes. Most people like the systam and don't care if you're offended. worry about something that is a real threat top your atheism e.g. religious (esp. muslim) fundamentalism.

Is anyone else still in this conversation?

"B.C. or B.C.E?"

Non-issue. People who get excited over something like this need to transfer that excitement to getting a life.

You can't give PC a bad name because it didn't have anything good to turn bad!

Good one! Jerk.

Changes like policeman to officer or chairman to chair are beneficial and long overdue. See also "colored," "negro," "gimp," "crip," "invert," "Nancy," etc.

It isn't until you get into stuff like "BCE" or "personhole cover" that you enter the George Carlin territory where PC gets taken to ridiculous extremes.

Why do new people inevitably make the same points, without taking the time to read previous reactions to them.

I still ask anyone to explain the problem with individuals using BCE/CE, if they prefer to do so?

Or, put more concretely, while I don't care what *you* use, AD means "in the year of our lord." Jesus is not my lord, therefore, I do not use AD. If you have no problem with that translation, either because Jesus is your lord, or simply because you don't mind referring to him in such a manner, that's your choice, and I heartily support your use of AD. Furthermore, using BCE does not require that one feels that there is a problem with basing the system around Jesus' birth. In fact, there is no problem with using the birth of Jesus as a turning point--because, historically, it was, and the very way BCE is defined reflects that!

How is that a matter of political correctness? Or a reaction to Christians "being in control?" Or jealousy? Need I continue naming unjustified claims that have been made?

Why do new people inevitably make the same points, without taking the time to read previous reactions to them.

I still ask anyone to explain the problem with individuals using BCE/CE, if they prefer to do so?

Or, put more concretely, while I don't care what *you* use, AD means "in the year of our lord." Jesus is not my lord, therefore, I do not use AD. If you have no problem with that translation, either because Jesus is your lord, or simply because you don't mind referring to him in such a manner, that's your choice, and I heartily support your use of AD. Furthermore, using BCE does not require that one feels that there is a problem with basing the system around Jesus' birth. In fact, there is no problem with using the birth of Jesus as a turning point--because, historically, it was, and the very way BCE is defined reflects that!

How is that a matter of political correctness? Or a reaction to Christians "being in control?" Or jealousy? Need I continue naming unjustified claims that have been made?

It's a matter of political correctness by defintion! The entire planet's dating system goes by the BC/AD system. The name change only takes out the name of a religious figure. QED.
(Before you cite other calendars: none of those are used in international relations or trade.)

So: I find Relgious Liberty to be offensive to be a concept that "disenfranchises" people. Say Branch Dividians. Therefore, I will now only refer to you by the name "Henrietta's half eaten tuna salad". Have a nice day.

(Go back and read my post back on page 1 or 2. Ends with "nails across the chalkboard. :)

A.c./d.c.
Yeah the real change of era
BeforeAC/DC AfterAC/DC
OR
BBS ABS

R.I.P. Bon Scott

Why do new people inevitably make the same points, without taking the time to read previous reactions to them.

I still ask anyone to explain the problem with individuals using BCE/CE, if they prefer to do so?

Or, put more concretely, while I don't care what *you* use, AD means "in the year of our lord." Jesus is not my lord, therefore, I do not use AD. If you have no problem with that translation, either because Jesus is your lord, or simply because you don't mind referring to him in such a manner, that's your choice, and I heartily support your use of AD. Furthermore, using BCE does not require that one feels that there is a problem with basing the system around Jesus' birth. In fact, there is no problem with using the birth of Jesus as a turning point--because, historically, it was, and the very way BCE is defined reflects that!

How is that a matter of political correctness? Or a reaction to Christians "being in control?" Or jealousy? Need I continue naming unjustified claims that have been made?
Well, personally, as I've said before, I think that C.E./B.C.E. is really bland and lacking in significance, and I generally prefer terms that have some history and more than one level of meaning.

I disaprove of the use of C.E./B.C.E., because I don't like to let politcal corectness sap the life out of language. I imagine that someday if I have children, they'll ask me what the B.C. and A.D. stand for, and they'll learn a little about latin, a little about history, and a little about religion that way (and since they'll be raised athiest, they'll need every oportunity to learn about religion).

Of course with B.C./B.C.E. I'd have to explain that it used to be B.C./A.D., and maybe they'd learn something about how silly people are too, so it wouldn't be too great a loss.

Here's the deal...

B.C. and B.C.E. are both correct. However, to any rational being who thinks that drooling is socially unacceptable, the birth of Christ initiated the Common Era. You don't need to be a Christian, atheist, agnostic, Deist, or anything to recognize that. As usual, suck-up, liberal, Communist bastards are trying to change the way we think with puke-inducing "political correctness" [puke].

And anyone who says that using the B.C. system is religious because it indicates "a belief in the existence of a historical Christ who cannot be shown to have existed" is an idiot, not worthy of any attention. When confronted with such Stupidity in human form, turn the lights off and walk out of the room.

They mean the same thing, but let's use B.C. instead of B.C.E., just because we want to defy the slime-ball elitists.

The United Socialist States of Chinooke would like to state their view:

We are a people who are very atheist, and don't like people pushing their religious beliefs upon others. Thus we can understand the change to B.C.E and C.E. That being said, to change to that from the "traditional" B.C/A.D would require us to completely reform the western calender. The idea that we are in the year 2005 is based on the idea that Christ was supposedly born 2005 years ago - although it is debated he was in fact born 4 years prior.

Basically if you are going to do this right and be uber politically correct, one must reform the calender to a date we can agree on? As it is, other societies run on their own calender which is in relation to their historical events or ideologies. Although that being said, they are really only recognized in their respective countries because of the western calender is so wide spread.

You will not be able to reform these other calenders into one amalgamation - and should not be done in order to preserve these cultural differences which are rather symbolic for their respective peoples.

I am all for being politically correct to and extent, but at the same time, - even being an atheist - we must acknowledge that we conform to the monotheistic Jesus based calender, and thus using the terms B.C and A.D are "technically" correct, but should not be enforced by any manner, and those who wish to use B.C.E and C.E should be able to as they wish. I just don't know if it can be accepted as a standard, at least not for a while. It will probably end up so, but it usually takes the - excuse me for being blunt - Jesus freaks to accept any change in their ancient and backwards religion.

Late,

Recognizing the fact that there was a guy named Jesus who walked around preaching in ancient Judaea (a historically correct statement) is not the same as saying that he is the son of God (a religious assertion).

We don't have to cater to over-sensitive morons who don't like historical facts! It still surprises me that there are people stupid enough to make random, automatic connections between historical facts and religious assertions.