Monday, April 25, 2005

Battle of the Ages: The Washington Times has just realized that historical years are no longer officially labeled as BC and AD (Before Christ and Anno Domini, Latin for, "in the year of our lord"), that the new terms are BCE and CE (Before Common Era and Common Era).

Some Christians call this political correctness run amok. Some Secularists say this is tepid recognition that some religions don't worship Jesus Christ. However, the approximate year of the birth of Christ is still the dividing line between BCE and CE. So why bother with the different terms? I'm not really a Christian, but I say BC and AD, just because that's what I'm used to.

But before Xians get their rosaries in a bunch, they should know that most historians don't believe what's designated as the first year AD to be the actual year Christ was born. He was most likely born between the years 6 and 3 BC ("Christ was born three years Before Christ?").

There's nothing sacred about the official changeover. In fact, I know lots of people who still think AD means After Death. Sound silly? Well, the WashTimes article itself says this: "there's a 33-year gap, reflecting the life of Christ, dividing the epochs". That's a big goof-up.

Once again, a small faction desperately wants to change something to make it modern, another faction is desperately clinging to the old ways. The rest of us don't give a damn.


Post a Comment

Copyright © Staunch Moderate
Using Caribou Theme | Bloggerized by Themescook