I am, I hope, sensitive to religious beliefs (or lack thereof) amongst the diverse population. But there’s sensitivity and there’s what strikes me as just plain goofiness. Take, for example, a contretemps in Kentucky.<\/p>\n
For a good 1500 years or so, the Western world — and places where its cultures have touched — have dated years to the calculation of Christ’s birth. Dates before that were labeled “B.C.” (Before Christ, at least in English), and dates after that were labelled “A.D.” (Anno Domini,<\/i> in the year of our Lord). This particular counting system may be religiously based, but it makes at least as much sense as continuing to count from the mythical founding of Rome or some other historic event.<\/p>\n
There are some competing date systems out there — the Hindu calendar, for one, and there are Jewish and Moslem calendars as well. But the Western, Christian-dated calendar has, for various historic reasons (not always laudable, of course) served as the lingua franca across the world, either stand-alone or translated into.<\/p>\n
The religious labelling of the dates, though, has rankled some. Calling something “the year of our Lord” feels to them like being co-opted by Christianity, being forced to make a profession of faith and lordship in a person that they either dispute possessing divinity or dispute the historical existence of. While I understand the arguments, the solution they’ve arrived with makes little sense to me. Folks in this school — which has gotten a strong foothold in the academic community — use “C.E.” (Common Era) in place of “A.D.”, and “B.C.E.” (Before the Common Era) for “B.C.” So rather than this being AD 2006, it’s called 2006 CE.<\/p>\n
Now, on the one hand, this gets rid of the big “C” (or changes it from “Christ” to “Common”). On the other hand — well, heck, people, we’re still counting the same numbers, right? If someone says, “2,006 years since what?” then the answer still involves a religious figure. And, in a way, by calling it the Common Era, these folks have acknowledged the commonality of the numbering scheme and its historic reasons. <\/p>\n
It’s a difference that makes no difference. Which is usually a sign of something that need not be done.<\/p>\n
After all, how many people know what “AD” (in particular) or “BC” stand for in the first place? How many people really care? Even if someone mentions, in some formal and pompous fashion, “in the Year of Our Lord,” is it really something to take offense over, to feel oppressed and marginalized?<\/p>\n
Now, perhaps I’m being overly insensitive here. But changing the labels on the dates seems to be simply papering over something that probably isn’t a problem in the first place. It is, in its own way, a statement, smacking of political correctness rather than meaningful sensitivity. <\/p>\n
Now, where’s the actual beef here? Big brouhaha in Kentucky, where there had been proposals for history books to start using BCE\/CE instead of BC\/AD. The proposal had been resolved back in April<\/a>, into including both date references — which is clumsy (sort of like texts giving all mileage alongside kilometers). <\/p>\n Yes, there are people and places that use BCE\/CE. It’s not uncommon in some academic works, and the College Boards make use of it. Kids should be taught about the terms, in case it’s encountered, but that can be done without muddying textbooks up with both set of abbreviations.<\/p>\n Of course, regardless of the merits, some of the social Right were up in arms over the proposal for just the reason that some think it should be changed. Though activists on the matter were few, they were quite vocal<\/a> — and, in their own way, were just as overly sensitive about the matter as anyone else.<\/p>\n Former Kentucky Baptist Convention President Hershel York said modifying the designation is ludicrous. “This is one more event in a full frontal assault on western and Christian values,” he said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hardly. Any more than Santa Claus is an assault on the Nativity. And, on the other hand.<\/p>\n Daniel Chejfec, director of the Kentucky Jewish Federation, said proponents of leaving B.C. and A.D. unchanged are sending the message that anyone who disagrees with them are undermining the morals of this country. “I am the enemy you’re talking about,” Chejfec said. “I believe in God. I am a strong believer in the need for reinforcement on the ethical and moral values of this country. Yet, I don’t believe in Jesus. … He’s not my Christ.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Certainly when it’s put in the context of being part of a “full frontal assault on western and Christian values,” then, yes, that’s a message that “anyone who disagrees … is undermining the morals of this country.” On the other hand, I guarantee that when I put “AD” or “BC” in front of\/behind a date, I’m not making a profession of faith or an assertion of Eternal Verities or an indictment of what other people believe or disbelieve; I’m simply following a tradition that is, literally, graven in stone. <\/p>\n As a PC\/Culture War issue, it’s ludicrious, so no doubt it’s convenient for people to latch onto and inflate far beyond what it’s worth. And, as part of that, the Kentucky, an ordained Baptist minister, has reconstituted the state school board (after term expirations), and with six new appointments he made, the board has reversed its decision<\/a>. Unfortunately, it’s probably for the wrong reasons — religious ones, rather than pragmatic. (Here’s the NPR article<\/a> I heard this morning, which provoked this long post.)<\/p>\n