ChatterBank0 min ago
More politically correct madness.
34 Answers
http://www.dailymail....rrect-Common-Era.html
"We mustn't use the terms BC and AD it may offend or alienate non-Christians", says the BBC.
/// '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.' ///
"We mustn't use the terms BC and AD it may offend or alienate non-Christians", says the BBC.
/// '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.' ///
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.AOG, //No hidden agenda intended, I just entered this news item so as to promote lively debate on a dull wet Sunday morning. //
No hidden agenda here either. Just an observation that the Mail's story appears to me to be designed to stir resentment because this is nothing new. Perhaps they were short of something more interesting to report.
No hidden agenda here either. Just an observation that the Mail's story appears to me to be designed to stir resentment because this is nothing new. Perhaps they were short of something more interesting to report.
I don't mind them using BCE and CE as it is less religion oriented, and secular type studies ought not be tied to religion. I just don't understand why, when they decided to have a different system, they didn't take the opportunity to correct the 'no year zero' error. All it needed was to subtract 1 from the BC year numbers as they were converted into BCE year numbers. Wasted oportunity. They should be shot.
I've never agreed that you only get a Christian name if you are Christian, and members of other religions can't have one. Or even if you've been christened for that matter. The term is a general one for the individual name(s) given you to distinguish you from other members of your family. If it once had a connection with religion then that link has long long since been severed.
I have never heard of this practise, and have no plans to adopt it.
I do find the notion of 'potential alienation' to be foolish - if someone is offended, that isssue can be addressed, but to alter a practise because someone 'may be' offended seems foolish in the extreme.
Oh, and that statement does not invite any argument, because, I may be offended (but probably not!!!!!)
I do find the notion of 'potential alienation' to be foolish - if someone is offended, that isssue can be addressed, but to alter a practise because someone 'may be' offended seems foolish in the extreme.
Oh, and that statement does not invite any argument, because, I may be offended (but probably not!!!!!)
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.