I refuse to use BCE/CE

[laconicsax]

Changing "Before Christ" to "Before the Common Era" and changing "Anno Domini" to "Common Era," is fucking offensive. It changes the birth of a death cult's fiction character into a even of global significance. There's nothing about it that makes the last 2010 years a "common era."

Can't we just acknowledge that we're using a Christian calendar because of a historical monopoly that religion had (has) on Western society and move on? I mean for fuck's sake, if the calendar is going to start at the beginning of some "common era," just pick an event that actually marks something significant and start the calendar on that date or in that year. Maybe the publication of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems or similar text that revolutionized our understanding of the universe, as year one. ("Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica," "On the Origin of Species," and "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" would be other good candidates.)

[realisticphish]

1. this is how I feel, as well

what's the point? "CE" is still defined as the church's ancient designation for the date of the birth of Christ. So why bother changing it?

[laconicsax]

2. When I went to my synagogue's Sunday school as a kid, they pushed the CE line.

Finding "in the year of our Lord" mildly insensitive and missing the irony in calling it a "common era."

[Warpy]

3. Obviously, you're not Asian

They have their own calendars and still use them, but adopted the BCE/CE calendar in order to deal with the rest of the world. BC and AD are culturally offensive to them.

So I'll use the BCE/CE notation. I'm adaptable. I'm flexible. I'm not dogmatic. Most of all, I like kicking the adult invisible friend out of it.

After all, all calendars everywhere have been entirely arbitrary when it comes to the beginning year, even the Mayan, which is why 12/31/2012 is meaningless except as the date their prefix changes, like we changed from 1999 to 2000.

In any case, the least likely year for Jesus to have been born, if he actually ever existed, was the year 01, CE.

[laconicsax]

4. There's nothing "common" about the "common era."

I find endorsing Christian supremacy with a "common era" far more offensive than just using the "our Lord" convention.

Using a fictitious event to mark the start of a "common era" gives that fiction far more credence than just using a cult's calendar and its naming conventions. "Common Era" globally implies that something of global significance happened. That something so significant and unifying happened 2010 years ago is demonstrably false and I refuse to give Christianity the privilege of having its mythology accepted as factual.

[enlightenment]

5. That's your decision -

everyone has things that bug them.

It might take some time to convince enough people to promote a change - and it would probably be helpful to offer a logical alternative.

Sincerely - no snark intended or meant.

[laconicsax]

7. I offered alternatives in my OP.

I'd be comfortable making 1632, 1687, 1859, or 1905 AD into year one of the modern era because of the publishing of texts that fundamentally changed our understanding of the Universe. 1957 or 1969 would also be good options because of Sputnik I and Apollo 11. Those two events could be considered as candidates for a "common era" because if their global impact. (1945 would also be a good candidate if the dawn of the atomic age wasn't so horrific.)

There are many possibilities far better than the fictional birth of a literary character.

[Odin2005]

6. Many sci-fi stories has 1969 as "Year 0" in a future calander...

...1969 being the year of Apollo 11.

According to such a system this year would be 40AA, AA = After Apollo.

[laconicsax]

8. IMO, "ME" as "Modern Era" would work better.

Just set the moon landing hoax as occurring near the end of year 1, and you've got yourself a workable system.

[ZombieHorde]

9. There is a damn good reason to use C.E. and B.C.E.,

doing so annoys conservative Christians.

[laconicsax]

10. Hmm...

You make an oddly compelling argument.

[onager]

11. I'll go along with that!

I remember once Googling and finding some Xian website outraged about "Christian dating."

I thought I had stumbled across some bizarre Xian-only escort service...which would probably be interesting if not a lot of fun.

So it was disappointing to discover that they were whining about "BC/AD" versus "BCE/CE."

I like the latter too, just to annoy them. I guess it would be better, if clumsier, to use something like "CWE" - Common Western Era.

[cleanhippie]

16. And while I agree with laconicsax, that is exactly why I use it.

Great point!

[and-justice-for-all]

12. I would like to use the actual year as well...

Is it really necassary to use the death of a nonrelevant and fictious person as the premious of our calendar? He died, supposivly and so that makes it year '0' which is absurd. People where keeping records before xtiandom came into existence, we should base our calendar from the time of the first established civilization, which would be Sumer.

[laconicsax]

13. It's the birth that's used, not the death.

Funny because now most sources date the birth to 4 BC. AD doesn't mean "After Death."

[rhett o rick]

14. Good for you. But why tell us? Are you trying to convince us to follow you?

If so, provide an argument. Personally I dont like the reference to the approximate date of the birth of Christ. The Christians have insinuated themselves WAY too much into our culture, mostly by force. Choosing another event would require renumbering and that is ridiculous. Picking 2010 years ago as the beginning of a "common era" is arbitrary, but so what? And get "In God We Trust" off my money.

[laconicsax]

18. That's why I refuse to use it.

We're stuck with the current system, so why call it something it's not? It's the Christian calendar based on Christian mythology. It isn't based on anything "common," and pretending that it is offensive.

Calling it the "common era" is akin to saying, "Jesus' birth began a new, common era." :puke:

[Deep13]

15. It ought to be "common calendar" rather than era. nt

[laconicsax]

17. The it should date from the adoption of the current calendar. n/t

[Deep13]

19. Meh, negative dates (B.C./E.) are awkward.

The later a calendar starts, the more negative dates it has.

[JackRiddler]

20. Your point is irrelevant now that it is the common era.

Other calendars are still used but the only common one in all nations is the one that has us in 2010. Just like the metric system. The history of it is becoming irrelevant.

[laconicsax]

21. And this common era started when?

I'll guarantee it didn't start 2010 years ago.

[FiveGoodMen]

22. 24 February 1582

The Gregorian calendar, also known as the Western calendar or the Christian calendar, is the internationally accepted civil calendar. It was introduced by Pope Gregory XIII, after whom the calendar was named, by a decree signed on 24 February 1582, a papal bull known by its opening words Inter gravissimas.

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

Or, if you prefer AD 525:

Anno Domini (abbreviated as AD or A.D., sometimes found in the form Anno Domine) and Before Christ (abbreviated as BC or B.C.) are designations used to label years in the Julian and Gregorian calendars. The calendar era to which they refer is based on the traditionally reckoned year of the conception or birth of Jesus, with AD denoting years after the start of this epoch, and BC denoting years before the start of this epoch. There is no year zero in this scheme, so the year AD 1 immediately follows the year 1 BC. This dating system was devised in AD 525, but was not widely used until after AD 800.

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

[laconicsax]

23. And so we should date the common era as beginning 1582 years prior because?

[FiveGoodMen]

24. Because that's what the Gregorian calendar's revisionist history demands

Think it through.

The Romans didn't stop counting backward and declare it year one.

[laconicsax]

25. You're making my point--the "common era" isn't.