BBC to scrap the use of AD and BC,polical correctness gone mad.

Jimoslimos

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

We use IST

Yahew wrote: »

only in summer.

Yahew wrote: »

I bet there is a later law where they changed that. Either that or we are ignoring Irish standard time ever since despite it being legal. If it were so then Ireland would be at 4pm when the UK is at 3pm in winter. not seeing it.

Edit: looked into it. Ireland was following the UK which removed winter time for two years in 1968, reverted in 1970.

I've always understood the difference between Irish and British time as follows

Summer:
Britain = British Summer Time, BST (GMT + 1hr)
Ireland = Irish Standard Time, IST (GMT + 1hr)

Winter:
Britain = GMT
Ireland = Daylight Savings Time, DST (IST - 1hr OR GMT)

For all intents and purposes the times are the same and the difference is mainly semantics BUT technically we are at GMT+1

Mike 1972

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Here's a question - would all those who are objecting to religious references give back their saint-related and religious-related holidays ?

No problem. I prefer to take my holidays at times agreed between myself and my employer

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Are there any plans on the horizon for the renaming of Christmas?

Im sure the Daily Mail will be running making up a story on that in a couple of months

Naomi00 wrote: »

Those people really need to get a life and stop being offended by two three letters :rolleyes:

FYP!

Seachmall

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Here's a question - would all those who are objecting to religious references give back their saint-related and religious-related holidays ?

We can remove the Religious connection without removing the holiday.

But to be honest I don't particularly care, the history of the country is Catholic and I'm fine with that. As long as it remains tradition and keeps out of the Public Sector.

Jake Rugby Walrus666

In the twentieth turning of the seasons since Tal the elder passed into the under realm of the final feast there did come a great upheaval in the political correctness verily unto the point of the ailing mind that wanders in the meadows of unending confusion.

loreanatus

Bride2012 wrote: »

I think that Australia changed it recently too.

Thats ABC not BBC right? Or I mean ABCE not BBCE, its a little confused...

Cabaal

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

And they would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling kids.

Don't forget about that strange talking dog, he's always messing with my plans

Batsy

Seanchai wrote: »

And why, ten years after the € was created, has the BBC not found computers with the € sign - why do all articles spell out 'euro' rather than use €?

What's the point of buying a computer keyboard with a euro sign when, in a few years' time, there'll be no need for it when the euro has gone? It's not often I agree with the BBC but, fair dues, I agree with them there.

Notice how I say "euro" instead of using the symbol. That's because there is no euro symbol on this keyboard, either.

Batsy

Mena wrote: »

This is just the rest of the world catching up.

The "rest of the world catching up"?

What nonsense.

BC/AD is in global use because it is a term used in the Christian calendar and Christianity is a worldwide religion.

Although, that PC nonsense is what I expect from the world's most PC organisation. Watching the BBC you'd be forgiven for thinking that every school pupil in Britain was a Muslim girl wearing a headdress and that every male is homosexual. They've even made Doctor Who homosexual.

Batsy

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'm not saying anything any is relevant is irrelevant. I'm just asking you what the problem is with changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE, so far, you haven't given an answer.

Do you know why you have a problem with it?

Why change something that isn't broken?

Batsy

Originally Posted by zerks
and anyhow it's not even offensive

I don't think it matters whether or not non-Christians find BC/AD offensive.

The fact is that Britain is a Christian country - 71.6% of Britons said they are Christians in the 2001 census - and the BBC is the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation and, therefore, the vast majority of the license fee payers - those who keep the BBC running - are Christians. The BBC should remember that it is an organisation representing a Christian country and should stop pandering to the people of other faiths, especially when the people of other faiths don't pander to Christians.

The other fact of the matter is is that the PC Brigade are only scared of offending certain groups.

They don't like offending non-Christians, gays, non-whites and women, but they don't give a damn how offensive they are about whites, Christians, straight people and men - but especially white, male, straight Christians (the PC Brigade especially hate those).

For example, I find the hijab offensive, but would the BBC ban the showing of it on their programmes? Nope. Because it's choosy about who it doesn't want to offend.

Snakeblood

Never mind, just remembered I don't care.

hooradiation

Batsy wrote: »

They've even made Doctor Who homosexual.

Must you always lie?

sensibleken

bloody political correctness!

Did you know you cant even stand in a playground masterbating then rubbing the resultant semen on the yarmulke of a nearby Jewish boy whilst simultaniously defecating on a cartoon of Muhammed conducting a late term abortion on a down syndrome prostitute, in rhythm with the national anthem sung in an effeminate voice... without the bloody PC brigade breathing down your throat, saying 'uh you cant do that its offensive to swedes!'

political correctness gone mad

wasper

zerks wrote: »

The terms AD and BC have been used to describe the timelines in Christianity for about 1500 years but have now been deemed offensive to non Christians.

How much more of this craziness do people in The Western world have to put up with as those who feel they know best foist these rulings upon us,even other faiths see this as stupid.You wouldn't see a Muslim country changing things like this and anyhow it's not even offensive.

Like it or not the Islands of The UK and Ireland are predominantly Christian but the UK seems to go out of it's way to pander to religious political correctness instead of letting folk practice their own faith,so long as it's not extremist rhetoric just let people on with it.At least we haven't really seen such things over here yet but as is usually the case,if Britain sneezes we catch a cold so to speak.
It seems to be a type of religious health & safety gone mad.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2041265/BBC-turns-year-Our-Lord-2-000-years-Christianity-jettisoned-politically-correct-Common-Era.html

(Waits for the "Not another Daily Mail article" comments)

But in muslim countries they use BC & AD. This has nothing to do with muslims, its just some people assume others will be offended

sensibleken

wasper wrote: »

But in muslim countries they use BC & AD. This has nothing to do with muslims, its just some people assume others will be offended

No they havent. the BBC havent changed anything. The entire article is a lie and even the article itself admits its a lie. no ones offended apart from idiots who believe what they read in the daily mail

Paparazzo

H2UMrsRobinson wrote: »

I actually can't remember the last time I was required to use either AD or BC in general day to day life. Impact this article has on 99.9999% of population ? BIG FAT ZERO !

It doesnt matter if it's not important or not. This is a Daily Mail article, if you're not angry about it, it has failed in it's duty.

hooradiation

Paparazzo wrote: »

It doesnt matter if it's not important or not. This is a Daily Mail article, if you're not angry about it, it has failed in it's duty.

The Daily Mail exists only to help people with their Two Minutes' Hate.

Batsy

Seachmall wrote: »

We can remove the Religious connection without removing the holiday.

So you want to celebrate Christianity's two most important religious festivals - Easter and Christmas - but take away all their religious connections?

Yeah, another great loony lefty idea. Let's all have Good Friday off work so we can stuff our faces with Easter eggs as long we don't mention to anybody that we are actually marking Jesus's crucifixion.

Good Friday is a religious day. The whole point of the day is to mark the crucifixion of Christ. You can't have Good Friday without its religious aspects.

sensibleken

Batsy wrote: »

So you want to celebrate Christianity's two most important religious festivals - Easter and Christmas - but take away all their religious connections?

Yeah, another great loony lefty idea. Let's all have Good Friday off work so we can stuff our faces with Easter eggs as long we don't mention to anybody that we are actually marking Jesus's crucifixion.

Good Friday is a religious day. The whole point of the day is to mark the resurrection of Christ. You can't have Good FRiday without its religious aspects.

too right. we should be celebrating jesus flaying, torture and death with chocolate eggs and other delicious treats. just as the apostles did

Batsy

Terri26 wrote: »

TheReligious Education (for Junior Cert) textbooks use BCE and CE

That's because they are as PC as the BBC (or should that be PCC?).

Batsy

sensibleken wrote: »

too right. we should be celebrating jesus flaying, torture and death with chocolate eggs and other delicious treats. just as the apostles did

The last time I checked Good Friday marks the crucifixion of Christ and Easter Sunday marks the resurrection of Christ. They are religious holidays.

Or, at least, that's what I was taught at school. Maybe my RE teacher was wrong.

Snakeblood

Batsy wrote: »

Good Friday is a religious day. The whole point of the day is to mark the crucifixion of Christ. You can't have Good Friday without its religious aspects.

Yes you can. I do. you're talking bollocks mate.

Good Friday's true meaning is the search to find some form of alcohol.

Batsy

My name is URL wrote: »

It's not really a secular standard though, is it? All they're doing is changing the terms used to describe the date. It's still tethered to Christianity.

Our whole calendar - the Gregorian calendar - is based on the traditionally reckoned year of the conception or birth of Jesus, with AD counting years after the start of this epoch, and BC denoting years before the start of the epoch. Using this method, it is now the year 2011 AD.

Therefore, if the highly sensitive PC Bridage think the Gregorian calendar's BC and AD need to be got rid of then in case they "offend" people then logic dictates that our whole calendar needs to get rid of in case calling this year 2011 "offends" people.

Why do they suppose that BC and AD offend people but 2011 doesn't?

sensibleken

Batsy wrote: »

The last time I checked Good Friday marks the crucifixion of Christ and Easter Sunday marks the resurrection of Christ. They are religious holidays.

Or, at least, that's what I was taught at school. Maybe my RE teacher was wrong.

your right. the reason we eat chocolate eggs is because when jesus resurected he hatched out of a dinosaur egg and was black. but you cant say that because of the bloody PC brigade.

if the bloody PC brigade loons want to celebrate religious holidays without going to church then they should be forced to have lie ins on easter sunday and forced to eat bacon sandwiches and get a blowie while good honest white hardworking white people enjoy communion wafer and kneeling!

Batsy

Snakeblood wrote: »

Yes you can. I do. you're talking bollocks mate.

Good Friday's true meaning is the search to find some form of alcohol.

Good Friday is a religious festival whose true meaning is to mark the crucifixion of Christ.

It's just that some people use the day off work to have a piss up.

Governments didn't invent Good Friday just to give people a nice day off work.

Snakeblood

Batsy wrote: »

Good Friday is a religious festival whose true meaning is to mark the crucifixion of Christ.

It's just that some people use the day of work to have a piss up.

So you're saying you can have good friday without religious meaning, you just don't like it.

sensibleken

crucifiction or drinking. I know which one i'd prefer. crucifiction everytime! I mean the body on jesus! am i right sisters?

Batsy

Originally Posted by Peep O'Day
and please inform us as to when christ was born so?

Most scholars say Jesus was born sometime between 6BC and 4BC:

Two independent approaches have been used to estimate the year of the birth of Jesus, one by analyzing the Nativity accounts in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew along with other historical data, the other by working backwards from the estimation of the start of the ministry of Jesus, as also discussed in the section below.

In their Nativity accounts, both the Gospels of Luke and Matthew associate the birth of Jesus with the reign of Herod the Great, who is generally believed to have died around 4 BC/BCE. Matthew 2:1 states that: "Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king" and Luke 1:5 mentions the reign of Herod shortly before the birth of Jesus. Matthew also suggests that Jesus may have been as much as two years old at the time of the visit of the Magi and hence even older at the time of Herod's death. But the author of Luke also describes the birth as taking place during the first census of the Roman provinces of Syria and Iudaea, which is generally believed to have occurred in 6 AD/CE. Most scholars generally assume a date of birth between 6 and 4 BC/BCE. Other scholars assume that Jesus was born sometime between 7–2 BC/BCE.

The year of birth of Jesus has also been estimated in a manner that is independent of the Nativity accounts, by using information in the Gospel of John to work backwards from the statement in Luke 3:23 that Jesus was "about 30 years of age" at the start of his ministry. As discussed in the section below, by combining information from John 2:13 and John 2:20 with the writings of Josephus, it has been estimated that around 27-29 AD/CE, Jesus was "about thirty years of age". Some scholars thus estimate the year 28 AD/CE to be roughly the 32nd birthday of Jesus and the birth year of Jesus to be around 6-4 BC/BCE.

However, the common Gregorian calendar method for numbering years, in which the current year is 2011, is based on the decision of a monk Dionysius in the six century, to count the years from a point of reference (namely, Jesus’ birth) which he placed sometime between 2 BC/BCE and 1 AD/CE.[76] Although Christian feasts related to the Nativity have had specific dates (e.g. December 25 for Christmas) there is no historical evidence for the exact day or month of the birth of Jesus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_christ#Possible_year_of_birth

Batsy

Snakeblood wrote: »

So you're saying you can have good friday without religious meaning, you just don't like it.

No. I'm saying it's silly trying to remove all religious references from Good Friday when Good Friday is a religious festival. Why celebrate Good Friday and deliberately make no reference to the fact that it isn't a religious festival but merely a day to stuff your face with chocolate?

It's a religious festival. Why should we pretend that it isn't? Either Good Friday exists because it's a rleigious festival or it's gone completely and you can work on that day as normal. Good Friday isn't supposed to be there as a day just to have time off work and eat Easter eggs. It is there because it is a religious festival.

Telling a Christian to pretend that Easter isn't a religious festival would be like telling a Muslim that Ramadan and Eid aren't religious festivals (although nobody on here would dare do that).

Snakeblood

Batsy wrote: »

No. I'm saying is silly trying to remove all religious references from Good Friday when Good Friday is a religious festival.

It's a religious festival. Why should we pretend that it isn't?

Because it's a religious festival that doesn't apply to everyone, and not everyone wants to have the strictures that come with it. I notice you're in Bolton, so maybe you don't know this, but in Ireland, all the pubs are shut, even for people who aren't religious, weirdly enough, so Good Friday as a festival that is abstemious actively impinges on non religious people, as well as on the catholics who don't give enough of a **** about good friday to not go drinking.

Just because something is a religious festival doesn't mean the government should treat it as anything other than a day off (although it's not a bank holiday here). It's up to people who are afflicted with that particular religion to celebrate it. Forcing other people to live how you want them to is crap.