AD or CE: Which System of Years is Better?
Is it not enough for those few people who actually care whether we call a year "anno domine" to know that their system of recording the years has finally won-out as the world-dominating force? That is no mean feat. While those in Europe and the Americas may never have known any other way, there are multitudes of cultures that each possess their own rolls of the years. Not the least among these alternative methods is the Chinese calender, which has about the same number of adherents as the Gregorian system. Considering this, it may well have come to pass that the counting system we've all been familiar with might not have just changed its name, but been replaced altogether.
Another factor to consider is that, no matter that the Christians will disagree, religions come and go. It is more important than any one groups' beliefs that history record an accurate, consistent table of the years. The only way to ensure that such a thing happens into perpetuity is to disassociate our system of dates from any religion. So, in that respect, it isn't even about respect for other peoples, but about the needs of history itself.
Our culture experienced a similar crisis before, back in the ancient days following the fall of Rome. At the time, there was no universal system of recording dates. Each locality measured time by a series of milestones, usually the coronation of Kings. For example, it was not uncommon in this era to see a historic chronicle that would read something to the effect of "in the third year of the reign of King James, called 'the Conquerer'."
Needless to say, for anyone not familiar with the chronology of a given area, figuring out when certain events actually happened with regards to the rest of the world was very difficult at best. That is the main reason that a system of dates was created independent of all that, a roll of years that just kept on counting. The Pope had his best scholars figure the approximate time of Jesus's Crucifixion, the one event that all of Europe would recognize, and measure the years from that single benchmark.
Now, the time has come for our society to advance to the next step, and disassociate itself from any particular religion. History, in order to preserve a true and accurate recounting, demands no less. And society, in the interest of tolerance and respect for all people, requires it.
So, to all you nay-sayers, feel free to keep clinging to the old ways. Such is your right. But understand that the world moves on, and, if need be, it will move on without you. Clinging to the outmoded ways of the past out of a refusal to change, to adapt, or to grow, is no way to embrace the future. And doing so out of close-minded intolerance of those who do not believe as you do is no way to embrace the rest of mankind in brotherhood - which, if I'm not mistaken, is the entire point of the faith.
Published by Bryan Belrad
The mind behind Zero Sum Theory, author of best-selling fiction and non-fiction, see what else he's up to on Facebook. View profile
- Vietnam: Contemporary Circumstance of the Vietnamese Economic System
- NASCAR's Point System Sucks
- How to Do a System Restore and Recover Lost Data
- For Home Security, Get an Alarm System!
- Van Halen Extends Reunion Tour into 2008, Announces 28 Additional Dates
- Great Places for Dates in Simi Valley, California
- Bad Dates on the EHarmonyous Great Expectations We Have of a Perfect Match
8 Comments
Post a CommentThey can certainly keep their own calender - no one is taking it away from them. But the fact is that the Gregorian Calender has already become the secular calender - much like Christmas has largely become a secular holiday. Christians are still free to practice their beliefs, but now everyone else can celebrate as well. The change to recognizing the Common Era (something that already has existed in practice long before the name came along) is nothing more than a formality at this point. Telling people they can't use an idea, concept, or even a calender because it already belongs to a religion is just plain silly: even the Christians adopted the Christmas Tree, the Star of Soloman, Mistletoe, and even December 25th itself. Applying the same argument you use against the calender to Christmas, the holiest holiday in Christianity has never been Christian at all.
See, showing disrespect for non-Christians in this case, would be to essentially outlaw non-Christian based calendars. Telling Muslims they can't practice their Islamic calendar, Jews their Hebrew calendar, and so on. There are a variety of non-Christian calendars, if you really want one, pick one, don't tell Christians you're taking their calendar, but changing it to pretend its not Christian.
Where we draw the line is at deciding that we need to apologize for a slight that isn't occurring, on the grounds that we don't like that we're acknowledging that we're basing our calendar on a religion. By refusing to acknowledge that you're borrowing from a religion to fuel your calendar, instead of not slighting anyone, you're isolating and attacking Christians instead. So, instead of doing that, you could just leave the calendar the way it is - it's not hurting anyone.
Or, we could just use the calender that we all use already, but start showing some respect for those who believe something different than those who created it. Our calender is just fine, and, frankly, it would be kind of stupid (and petty) to rename the months but leave them the same. I mean, where do we draw the line? Shall we rename the days of the week? No - in rational societies, we change those things that need changing, and keep the things that work as they are. The issue in this case is respect for all, or a de facto endorsement of one particular religion. If we can fix this with a simple change in our abbreviations, then - duh. Unless there is a problem with showing respect for the beliefs of non-christians...?
As another thing, not everyone is used to the CE/BCE thing - I see more BC's/AD's than I do CE/BCE's - and when I see the latter, it's usually a testament to how the entire body of work should be called into question for its zest to force an opinion on you. It's a demand of non-conformity for the sake of standing out, and should be laughed at.
As long as we're basing a calendar on a religious figure, nothing short of pettiness can be used to describe the accusation that we need to use "CE/BCE". If you want to make a new "common era" and "before common era", one needs to make their own calendar entirely, you don't just hijack the system of another group of people, and then tell them that you're being "progressive". What you're being is petty.
The thing of it is, though, for those who don't care what/when we base the roll of years on, what matter if it was originally based on a religious figure? If it is arbitrary anyway, why not leave it - since we're all used to it, already?
I wrote an article addressing the absurd issue that for the sake of political correctness, we should just up and change the calendar to not acknowledge that no matter what you call the year, you're still basing it on the life of a religious figure.