Talk:BCE
|
|
"Preferred for secular writing..." - preferred by whom? Not everyone, I think it is one letter too long, and more to the point there are still plenty of secular scholars who use BC. Maybe some more detail should be given about the usage of this system.
- you might see anno Domini, too, for the - I hate to say it - fact that everyone knows what the Common part is. Muslims seem to find this evasion particularly amusing, since they not only don't dislike Jesus, but actually are more fervent defenders of him than most Christians (see the protests in England over blasphemy, which in America would be carried out by people identified in the media as 'fundamentalists'). I think C.E. and B.C.E. are evasions, except that they are unilaterally imposed on me as a scholar - they are required parts of the style sheet in some journals and conferences. --MichaelTinkler
I like CE and BCE. I think they are much preferable to AD and BC. Forcing non-Christians to use a Christian chronological system is an act of religious discrimination, and in a secular society such as ours we should use a secular system. Unfortunately we have invested too much in the Christian system, so we'll have to stick with it. But at least we can soften the blow by calling it Common rather than Christian. -- Simon J Kissane
- But Simon, if everyone who isn't Christian knows that that's all we have in common have we actually softened the blow? O.K., let me offer another point. In the 18th and 19th century folks often claimed that Jesus was mythical. Almost no reputable scholar does not believe in the historicity of Jesus nowadays. No Muslim ever has disbelieved in his historicity, whatever his status. C.E. is an evasion, and not even a very good one. If you wish to be inclusive, be like books on Islamic history and art history (of which I am reading all too many this month to get ready for next term) and put MULTIPLE systems in parentheses (2001/1378) and go on to stack up some more systems to be more complete. There are various Jewish erae, there the Masonic era (A.L., which is an A.M. system based on goodness only knows what calculation, which shows up quite often on cornerstones in the Anglo-American world), etc., etc. --MichaelTinkler
Michael: Yes, we could use the Christian and the Muslim and the Jewish and the Buddhist and the Hindu and the Masonic and several other calendars all at the same time, but that is just way too unwieldly. Many purposes in today's globalised world require a single system. And besides, even if we use all these different religious systems at the same time, what about atheists? I doubt many atheist would be particularly happy for us to use any or all of these multiple religious systems. -- simon
- pretty much my point. Our only choices are hopeless redundancy (and quite complicated, too - the Anno Hegirae is lunar and started in September of 622) or admission that there's an abbreviation whose meaning you are welcome to ignore if it makes you feel uncomfortable. I, myself, who am compelled to use C.E. and B.C.E. professionally, evade THEIR intention by thinking 'Christian Era' and 'Before the Christian Era'.
That's just plain paranoia. There is no anti-Christian conspiracy. Non-chrisitians simply don't like people forcing them to refer to Jesus as their Lord and God. Why isn't this obvious?
What is BCE an evasion of? Also, the Muslims do believe that Jesus lived, but no Muslim would ever call him Lord. -Smack 07:58, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Michael: But you see, its possible to read CE as "Christian" or "Common". But there is only one way you can possible read AD -- "Anno Domini". -- SJK
- yes, but do most (or any people) think out all abbreviations? I got my ph.d. at a university with a strikingly large observant Jewish population - the kind of nicely raised people who spell God "G-d" even in English - and none of them used C.E. until someone made a big deal about it in the university style sheet. I, for one, am ambidextrous and agnostic. Do what makes you feel best, but I still think it's no more than an evasion. Oh - and I'm going to go on using A.D. because it's more widely acceptable (pace the style sheets of most scholarly journals) and more likely to acutally last than any idea introduced by late 20th century scholars. --MichaelTinkler
In Canada, BCE also refers to Bell Canada Enterprises, a large corporation that runs the telephone and wireless companies serving the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
This article and the "CE" article both said "In Anglo-Saxon countries", with a link to "Anglo-Saxon". If you follow the link and see what "Anglo-Saxon" means, you will understand that that is ridiculous. I changed it to "English-speaking countries". But I wonder why mentioning that is appropriate? Should an article about zebras say "In English-speaking countries "Zebra" is the name of an animal with a long neck", or should it say "A Zebra is an animal with a long neck"? That English is the language in which the article is written does not seem to need prominent emphasis. -- Mike Hardy
Jguk, based on your logic here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BCE&diff=14083930&oldid=14082244), you should put "Brunswick Corporation" at the top of the list at BC. The European Central Bank is more commonly known as ECB, not BCE, except in some non-English speaking countries. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:51, 22 May 2005 (UTC)