Should we abolish BC & AD?

py2006

I recently came across an article about the whole AD and BC timeframe and whether or not it should be abolished. I didn't read it in it's entirety so I am not sure if it's down to political correctness or or an atheist perspective?

Apparently, the BBC have, 'decided that the terms AD and BC (Anno Domini, or the Year of Our Lord, and Before Christ) must be replaced by the terms Common Era and Before Common Era.'

I'm not a religious person and I don't have a strong opinion either way. However, of late, I find myself enthralled and fascinated by the views and debates of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris etc.

I'm not sure if any of those brilliant minds have spoke on this particular issue but given their views one would assume they would offer or support and more accurate calendar.

Have you on any thoughts on this? Is it ridiculous political correctness or do you feel strongly that we shouldn't base our calendar on 'our lord'.


http://www.change.org/petitions/abolish-the-inherently-exclusivist-western-b-c-a-d-calendar-designation

.....and what year should it be?

Sulla Felix

I'd rather a new year system. The current one is completely arbritrary. Why not Year of the Atom? So it'd be like 69YA this year.

comongethappy

It's already redundant, replaced by "BCE": Before Common Era.

(It is annoying when the media describe something like 2,000,000 years " BC"...... like those 2k years matter a lot on a million year time scale.)

Muise...

This has been standard in science and history for ages now - started in the Year of Secular Cop On 1856. But shure carry on harrumphing if it pleases you.

Menas

Can't believe there is not a massive uproar over this. I mean the banking scandal was bad enough....but now we have this?
A day of mass disobediance and a protest march to Aras perhsps?

FunLover18

I studied Classics in UCD and BCE and CE were fairly common. I don't think there needs to be an official change, are AD and BC "official". Surely it's just a matter of preference?

py2006

Muise... wrote: »

This has been standard in science and history for ages now - started in the Year of Secular Cop On 1856. But shure carry on harrumphing if it pleases you.

The who? The what? The where? The why? The when?

I would find it difficult to be more indifferent to the whole issue. Common terminology is often rooted in the prevailing religious culture, and is sometimes arbitrarily replaced by new terminology with similar roots obfuscated by time.

If I was forced to decide between banalities, I'd choose CE and BCE for it's apparent (but not necessarily actual) secularity and because die-hard fundies see it's use as an effort to 'remove the Christ from the calendar' and I enjoy annoying extremists.

py2006

FunLover18 wrote: »

I studied Classics in UCD and BCE and CE were fairly common. I don't think there needs to be an official change, are AD and BC "official". Surely it's just a matter of preference?

Forgive my ignorance but what is meant by common era?

Muise...

py2006 wrote: »

The who? The what? The where? The why? The when?

The google.

py2006

py2006 wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance but what is meant by common era?

The Current Era.

Or if you're a Christian with a hardline attitude, the Christian Era.

Muise...

py2006 wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance but what is meant by common era?

Common to Christians and non-Christians. The starting point is still taken from Christianity, but not called as such by Jews and others who have made much more of a compromise, in fairness, by not sticking to their own dating system in matters that concern all of humanity.

munchkin_utd

py2006 wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance but what is meant by common era?

+1 if ever there was.

This class of crap would have me attending mass more often just to spite those lefty liberal hippies

Anyhow, the story is not new, and not necessarily true seeing as its a few nod the balls in a section of the bbc website who took it upon themselves to redefine time.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2041765/BBC-BC-AD-debate-Our-language-hijacked-Left.html

py2006

Candie wrote: »

The Current Era.

Or if you're a Christian with a hardline attitude, the Christian Era.

I still don't get why it's sticking to the same years though. It seems it is still making the year of Jesus significant? Or I wrong?

py2006

py2006 wrote: »

I still don't get why it's sticking to the same years though. It seems it is still making the year of Jesus significant? Or I wrong?

It is significant. It is the starting point of the modern calendar. To change the dating system at this stage would be pointlessly disruptive, so we keep the years and change the starting reference is the apparent solution.

py2006

py2006 wrote: »

I still don't get why it's sticking to the same years though. It seems it is still making the year of Jesus significant? Or I wrong?

Where would you start? There's a vast, vast array of literature based on art and the arts as well as science and history all based off the current calendar all around the world so why start over? There's already other systems that are used on a small scale elsewhere but they're pretty niche.
A starting point is always going to be arbitrary but the one we have now is the most widely used so why introduce the need to retcon everything written in the Roman script in the last few thousand years?

My name is URL

Couldn't really care less what system they use, but I'd love to know what sort of absolute gobshites were offended enough by the use of 'BC/AD' to bring the change about.

It's a wonder those same clowns aren't demanding that the days of the week and months of the year are renamed... seeing as how virtually all of them are based on religions.

FunLover18

py2006 wrote: »

I still don't get why it's sticking to the same years though. It seems it is still making the year of Jesus significant? Or I wrong?

No you're right. Year 1 of the Common Era is Year 1 of AD. CE is just a secular name for it. I can see the argument for lefty-liberalism but I think there is a case for the use of CE and BCE in the study of history and classics given that historians should be objective.

But really I don't care what you call it, BC and AD are sort of like Christmas, religious meaning has pretty much vanished.

Muise...

My name is URL wrote: »

Couldn't really care less what system they use, but I'd love to know what sort of absolute gobshites were offended enough by the use of 'BC/AD' to bring the change about.

It's a wonder those same clowns aren't demanding that the days of the week and months of the year are renamed... seeing as how virtually all of them are based on religions.

I don't think anyone was offended. It was just an attempt, begun in the 19th century, to include scholarship from non-Christian people and agree on a sort of SI for years. This neither comes from offence, nor is intended to cause it, though you seem to have taken up a bit for yourself for some reason.

I think it's kinda cool that our weekdays and months are named after Norse and Roman gods.

catallus

Wasn't the change brought about for the purposes of inclusivity? So as not to have an explicit reference to Christianity in journals etc.? Just a standard tolerance kinda thing?

My name is URL

Muise... wrote: »

I don't think anyone was offended. It was just an attempt, begun in the 19th century, to include scholarship from non-Christian people and agree on a sort of SI for years. This neither comes from offence, nor is intended to cause it, though you seem to have taken up a bit for yourself for some reason.

I take it that you failed to read the link provided in the OP then. You know, the one claiming that it's 'exclusivist'

For far too long Western society has imposed its inherently exclusivist calendar system (A.D. anno Domini ("In the year of our lord") & B.C. ("Before Christ")) on the rest of the world, forcing people from a myriad of cultures, religions and societies to implicitly accept a Christian-based view of history. A view, it should be pointed out, that has been shown to be historically inaccurate.

Sure sounds like the person that wrote that is offended.

Muise...

My name is URL wrote: »

I take it that you failed to read the link provided in the OP then. You know, the one claiming that it's 'exclusivist'



Sure sounds like the person that wrote that is offended.

Didn't bother reading it because the argument is moot - BCE and CE have been standard for at least 40 years.

frag420

I would go with

BB...Before Boards

&

AB...After Boards!

Now just need to know when baby boards was born!

catallus

Muise... wrote: »

Didn't bother reading it because the argument is moot - BCE and CE have been standard for at least 40 years.

Exactly!

And it still doesn't change the fact that Jesus lived and died for all of us!

FunLover18

My name is URL wrote: »

I take it that you failed to read the link provided in the OP then. You know, the one claiming that it's 'exclusivist'



Sure sounds like the person that wrote that is offended.

If he's going to be offended every time someone says BC or AD then he has very little to worry about. How exactly does he plan on abolishing it?

Muise...

catallus wrote: »

Exactly!

And it still doesn't change the fact that Jesus lived and died for all of us!

Except me and Patti Smith.

Muise...

FunLover18 wrote: »

If he's going to be offended every time someone says BC or AD then he has very little to worry about. How exactly does he plan on abolishing it?

With the PC Brigade, of course. :pac:

Muise...

Muise... wrote: »

With the PC Brigade, of course. :pac:

The PC CE Brigade.

py2006

Muise... wrote: »

Didn't bother reading it because the argument is moot - BCE and CE have been standard for at least 40 years.

I've only come across it recently. :-/

diomed

The BBC had the idea?

Why not PC?
This would be about year 15 PC, BBC Political Correctness. Do they have a department for political correctness? Does Clare Balding have to talk down to us on everything? I'm having a rant.

OK, ok. I feel better now.

py2006

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Where would you start? There's a vast, vast array of literature based on art and the arts as well as science and history all based off the current calendar all around the world so why start over? There's already other systems that are used on a small scale elsewhere but they're pretty niche.
A starting point is always going to be arbitrary but the one we have now is the most widely used so why introduce the need to retcon everything written in the Roman script in the last few thousand years?

Oh I understand that it would be near impossible to change it and I'm not saying we should but id be interested to read of any theories as to what the correct year should be.

Iwasfrozen

Should we abolish BC & AD?

No.

/thread

--LOS--

We've been using it so long now, what's the point of changing it, if it's bothering you then I think you're overthinking things

RDM_83 again

Muise... wrote: »

Didn't bother reading it because the argument is moot - BCE and CE have been standard for at least 40 years.

Its there but its not actually THE standard, at least in the journals or publications I would read (and no I am not talking about Christian Science weekly!).

As a Republic I think we should run of a Year Zero like the French did, and also use Metric time :-D

Muise...

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Its there but its not actually THE standard, at least in the journals or publications I would read (and no I am not talking about Christian Science weekly!).

As a Republic I think we should run of a Year Zero like the French did, and also use Metric time :-D

I rather liked their poetic month and day names too.

Capt'n Midnight

comongethappy wrote: »

It's already redundant, replaced by "BCE": Before Common Era.

(It is annoying when the media describe something like 2,000,000 years " BC"...... like those 2k years matter a lot on a million year time scale.)

this really irks me
BCE is 50% longer than BC and CE is to easy too confuse with BCE

BC = Before Common-era


our culture is based on latin stuff, other cultures have their own dating systems, it's a non-issue

But if we are appeasing other cutures, how about getting rid of Sun-god day, moon-god day, Woden's day, Thor's day , Frigg's day, Saturn's day.

And Janus-month, Mars , Maia, Juno,
Not to mention the "god" emperors Julius Caesar, Augustus
Feb is a religious ritual so that has to go too


Also

Also JC was born about 6BC depending on who you believe. So it's nothing to do with him either

BTW you can't use carbon dates as 1950 is where that scale stops


The ONLY reason to changing BC to something like BCE would be if it was used to sort out the year Zero problem.

Like this does
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_year_numbering

Donkey Oaty

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

But if we are appeasing other cutures, how about getting rid of Sun-god day, moon-god day, Woden's day, Thor's day , Frigg's day, Saturn's day.

Because then every day would by Tuesday, and Tuesdays aren't particularly good for me.

Qualitymark

This is total nonsense. The only reason to change BC and AD to BCE and whatever the other one is, is that BC and AD are Christian in root: 2020BC = 2,020 years before Christ and AD20 = Anno Domini 2020, the Year of the Lord 2,020, or 2,020 years after the supposed birth of Christ.

If the proposal was to go to a totally new year system it would be sensible to use a different name, but just changing them so they don't sound Christian - ridiculous.

This is led by the universities, who have completely lost the run of themselves in trying to impose it on normal people who don't care or in many cases know of the BC/AD system's origins.

FunLover18

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

But if we are appeasing other cutures, how about getting rid of Sun-god day, moon-god day, Woden's day, Thor's day , Frigg's day, Saturn's day.

I never could get the hang of Thor's day

Sh1tbag OToole

Secular drysh1tes won't stop until they have absolutely everything taken over. Kind of like angry feminists and 'pc gone mad' enthusiasts

Sarky

If you let people redefine the institution of calenders, we'll all end up marrying our pets. Gay marrying them no less. THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

12gauge dave

People will be burning churches down next. Give religion a break please

Qualitymark

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

Secular drysh1tes won't stop until they have absolutely everything taken over. Kind of like angry feminists and 'pc gone mad' enthusiasts

I don't think it's secularists - I'm very very very much in favour of what the French call laïcité - absolute separation of church and state; to my mind religion is a private matter, and shouldn't be dragged into any public service.

But my secularism doesn't stop me from seeing this as nonsense.

And yes, while we're at it, why don't we get rid of Saturn's Day and Thor's Day and Freya's Day (or in Irish, why don't we get rid of First Fast Day, Between-Fasts, and Fast Day)? Why don't we axe the daringly controversial Janus Month, Mars Month, etc? And the months with numbers - September, October, November - how confusing is that, to have the ninth, tenth and eleventh month called Seventh, Eighth and Ninth? Someone could get hurt!

Manach

Perhaps let us re-set society and remove all references. From Day1 to Day7, as per the Khmer Rouge ...

FunLover18

Manach wrote: »

Perhaps let us re-set society and remove all references. From Day1 to Day7, as per the Khmer Rouge ...

Sure the seven day weeks comes from the bible as well

The Diabolical Monocle

Something something the crusades.

Donkey Oaty

We need some alternatives. My suggestions are fairly lame, but here we go:

1. Pubday
2. Bobdislikesday or Blueday or Manicday
3. Fatneworleansday
4. Sheffieldday
5. Lidloffersday
6. Poetsday
7. Nightsallrightforfightingday.

Qualitymark

Or we could go like 18th-century Quakers and call the days First Day, Second Day and so on. It'd wreck popular music, though:

I don't like Second Day
Gonna shoo-hoo-hoo-hoot the whole day down.

First Day Morning comin' down.

I got Sixth Day on my mind.

Capt'n Midnight

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Because then every day would by Tuesday, and Tuesdays aren't particularly good for me.

The English name is derived from Old English Tiwesdæg and Middle English Tewesday, meaning "Tīw's Day", the day of Tiw or Týr, the god of single combat, victory and heroic glory in Norse mythology

c_man

We only use Unix time in my house.

WilyCoyote

You never see BC here. Just BCE - Before Common Era.
Also, if you asked someone their Christian name, you'd get a blank look.
It's "given name" and surname is "family name".