Attempting To Be Impartial, The BBC Angers Christians

[Skwim]

"The BBC has been accused of 'absurd political correctness' after dropping the terms BC and AD in case they offend non-Christians.

The Corporation has replaced the familiar Anno Domini (the year of Our Lord) and Before Christ with the obscure terms Common Era and Before Common Era

The BBC's religious and ethics department says the changes are necessary to avoid offending non-Christians.

It states: 'As the BBC is committed to impartiality it is appropriate that we use terms that do not offend or alienate non-Christians.

In line with modern practice, BCE/CE (Before Common Era/Common Era) are used as a religiously neutral alternative to BC/AD.'

But the move has angered Christians, mystified other faith leaders and been branded unnecessary by the Plain English Campaign. Critics say the new terms are meaningless because, just like AD and BC, they still denote years in relation to the life of Christ.

​

source

​

To me, the change is logical and the reaction typical. Considering their opposition to the change, Christians evidently still need partiality and reassurances from any nook and cranny they can find.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

hahaha

 

[LuisDantas]

I have to agree with the OP.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Funny thing is, I started my education in a conservative Christian university, and we had to use BCE/CE in papers in all disciplines.

Then I attended an even more conservative school, and we used BCE/CE. Now I'm at a liberal school, and we use BCE/CE.

In fact, in the immense amount of scholarly literature that I read, I can just about tell when it was written if they use BC/AD.

I'd be throughly entertained to know just how many Christians are worried about the change. Seems like people just want a headline, lol.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

One reason for the change: people just don't use "AD" correctly. Even in that article, they use "525 AD" instead of "AD 525".

AD goes on the front, CE goes on the end. If you're going to insist on putting the letters after the word, then no AD for you.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

I personally do not like this, because I feel that they are putting God out of the picture.

 

[Quagmire]

Hmmmm. Yes: according to the article, it looks like all of 3 Christians were offended by it.

 

[Alceste]

I thought BCE and CE were the norm already.

I've been reading too many books written for pointy headed academics I guess.

It makes sense. After all, not everybody is a Christian. It's about time Christians came to terms with that.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

I thought BCE and CE were the norm already.

I've been reading too many books written for pointy headed academics I guess.

It makes sense. After all, not everybody is a Christian. It's about time Christians came to terms with that.

I personally believe that it is wrong to put Jesus out the picture like this.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I really don't care. And even if the terms are secularized, it still is based in the historical context of BC/AD, and the terms are interchangeable and inconsistently used. The "I say po-tay-to you say po-tah-to thing."

However I think the only appropriate thing to do is scrap our calendar entirely given it's inaccuracies, and start from scratch, and use phrases that correspond with the era in time, such as JE for Jurassic Era, UP for Upper Paleolithic, or BA for Bronze Age. This would eliminate having to use so many zeros in the very ancient BC/BCE era, and would make more sense since many Christians do not believe the earth existed more than 10,000 years ago, and is the only way to entirely separate all religious connotation since it wouldn't still be revolving around the same historical Christian context.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I personally believe that it is wrong to put Jesus out the picture like this.

But what if Jesus doesn't belong in the first place to be taken out? Anthropology is one social science that shows how cultures have evolved over time, and it doesn't support Christianity one bit. The linguistic side of anthropology shows there was no center point for the origin of all languages but rather they slowly developed and branched out from one another over time. The archeological side does not show evidence for the Exodus, a global flood, or even Jesus at all. The biological side shows there is no possible way we are descended from the same two people, and ties in with primatology which shows we are over 97% genetically identical to chimpanzees and there are also several social behavioral similarities.
The debate over AD/BC and BCE/CE exist not to take away Jesus, but to acknowledge that not everyone is a Christian, and that Christianity is a religion based on faith and not evidence.

 

[Quagmire]

I thought BCE and CE were the norm already.

It is and it has been for quite a while now. Haven't seen any angry mobs of religious people rioting over it yet.

I've been reading too many books written for pointy headed academics I guess.

It makes sense. After all, not everybody is a Christian. It's about time Christians came to terms with that.

Hear that Christians? Alceste says it's time for you to come to terms with ...something. *shrugs*

 

[Alceste]

I personally believe that it is wrong to put Jesus out the picture like this.

Not everybody is a Christian. Should media and academia keep pretending everybody is a Christian even though it's not true?

 

[Alceste]

It is and it has been for quite a while now. Haven't seen any angry mobs of religious people rioting over it yet.



Hear that Christians? Alceste says it's time for you to come to terms with ...something. *shrugs*

Heh - in retrospect, i suppose I only mean the three Christians that complained in the UK need to come to terms with the fact not everyone is a Christian. For my own part, I was surprised to learn BBC had been using BC and AD. I learned BCE and CE in grade school, and I grew up in the Texas of the North. If Christians really had a problem with it, I surely would have heard about it before now.

 

[Alceste]

Oh, Daily Hate, this made me rofl!

"This is not the first time the BBC has caused controversy over its use of alien language to promote a politically correct, Europhile agenda."

 

[Skwim]

I believe we should have a calandar using the glorious year CE 1540 as the start of the the new era. This was the year the first recorded reference to the the Norsk fish dish, Lutefisk---jellied cod,* ---was made. The only fish to be eaten with a spoon.

Mmmmm good!

​

"While some enthusiasts claim the dish has been consumed since the time of the Vikings, most believe that its origins lie in the 16th-century Netherlands. It is generally agreed that the first reference to "lutefisk" is in a letter by Swedish king Gustav I in 1540, and what seems to be a description of the preparation process in the Swedish archbishop Olaus Magnus's (1490–1557) personal writings from 1555."
Source: Wikipedia
​

This change would make this year AL(After Lutefisk) 471. Years prior would be designated BL.

*Lutefisk is made from dried whitefish prepared with lye in a sequence of particular treatments.

1) The first treatment is to soak the stockfish in cold water for five to six days (with the water changed daily).

2) The saturated stockfish is then soaked in an unchanged solution of cold water and lye for an additional two days. The fish swells during this soaking, and its protein content decreases by more than 50 percent producing a jelly-like consistency.

3) When this treatment is finished, the fish (saturated with lye) has a pH value of 11–12 and is therefore caustic.

4)To make the fish edible, a final treatment of yet another four to six days of soaking in cold water (also changed daily) is needed. Eventually, the lutefisk is ready to be cooked.​

 

[Alceste]

I love the "tl:dr" they tacked onto the end:

"The BBC said last night: 'The BBC has not issued editorial guidance on the date systems.
'Both AD and BC, and CE and BCE are widely accepted date systems and the decision on which term to use lies with individual production and editorial teams.'"

What a story! *snort*

 

[Valjean]

When reading articles about older historical events I'm often unsure about weather the author is using a Julian or Gregorian date. Wouldn't the newer system clarify this?

 

[Breathe]

Hmmmm. Yes: according to the article, it looks like all of 3 Christians were offended by it.

Heh, yeah.

I signed "no" on the petition just to bug everyone. I use BCE and CE myself.

 

[Breathe]

One reason for the change: people just don't use "AD" correctly. Even in that article, they use "525 AD" instead of "AD 525".

525 AD is the way the majority of people use it.
If the majority of people use it that way, then is it not correct?

It's like saying "this group the number and THEN the currency, they're doing it wrong". Are they really? I don't think so.