how come bce isnt allowed?
- Beceause it's anti-Christian. Use a date based on Christ, then acknowledge it.--Aschlafly 19:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
its not anti christian all it does is treat pepole of other religions equaly somthing pepole like you seem to oppose.
- BCE isn't anti-Christian. It is simply neutral. It recognizes the fact that the gross majority of people in the world are not Christian, and don't call Jesus the Christ. The majority of people in the world don't recognize that the birth of Jesus started a new era, but it is generally accepted that westerners use the Gregorian calendar. They can understand us, and can be understood, if they use the Gregorian calendar, too, which starts counting from that date.
- Of course, the Chinese have their calendar, the Iranians have theirs, and the Hebrews have theirs. Most likely Jews now use the Gregorian calendar, I'd guess even in Israel. I'd suspect there are other calendars out there that are being used within countries.
- When they wish to communicate internationally, they use the western calendar, because it makes being understood simpler. Still, they don't wish to recite a foreign religious idea every time they do.
- Since stating a date is not a religious act, there is no reason why we must do that, either. Using CE or AD should be optional, unless an authority in charge of things feels they should force their own religious ideas on others. -- Gene D.
Do you even know the meaning of BC and AD? What if I don't like that fact that we must use Arabic numerals? I think we should call them something generic, don't you agree? --<<-David R->> 19:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
yes in fact i do ad means annio dommni wich in latin means in the year of our lord and bc means before christ but i prefer more religously tolrent termnology.
You don't seem to be very religiously tolerant towards Christianity. And you haven't answered my question: should we change the name given to our numerals? --<<-David R->> 19:47, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
no in fact i am but i just dont like the radicals like the people on this site that feel that thay have to push coneservatism and christianity on others and no i dont feel that arabic numerals need to be changed becuse thay are not religous in nature.
oh and if conservatives arent how do you explain these quotes made by ardent conservatives
- "The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." - 1992 Iowa fundraising letter opposing a state equal-rights amendment ("Equal Rights Initiative in Iowa Attacked", Washington Post, 23 August 1992); it is sometimes claimed that this statement appeared in Robertson's 1992 GOP convention speech, but this is not the case (see also [http://www.patrobertson.com/Speeches/1992GOPConvention.asp tran
- I'm concerned that the term "Roman Numerals" refers to Romans, who were Pagans. Everybody uses the numerals today, and most are not Pagans. Then why should we use a Pagan terminology? I suggest we refer to them as "Italian Numerals" henceforth. -- Gene D.
- "Homo." Robertson describing a caller he didn't like. Windows Media Video
- "Big fat nancy nancy-boy faggot." Robertson, in a slightly more whimsical mood, describing a caller he didn't like.
- If Robertson's wife was four months pregnant when he married her, should we take it that Robertson does not always advocate abstinance before marriage? Or should we take it that Robertson believes we should think about it for a long time before we just jump into a marriage? Gene D.
It has muslim connections! I feel a bit oppressed by the use of this term. I really feel that we should change it. I am sure others would agree with me. How about: Seculahumanist Numerals? Yeah, then no one feels intimidated. :) --<<-David R->> 20:06, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
P.S. I don't know if other conservatives feel the same way as I do about those comments, but I surely do not support those statements in the least, except for the ERA statement. I find nothing non-factual about the accusations.
The complaining editor above needs to sign his comments and take them to an appropriate talk page. Thanks for your rebuttal for me here, David.--Aschlafly 20:12, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
A question about usage of this
Hi, I know this is not an easy subject, and I'd like so say I'm a Christian and I support Christianity for 100%. Though I also respect people with different religions, who do not put as much value to Jesus's existence as we do. When you talk about things that are not related to religion and that should be as neutral as possible, which notation should you use? AD (with a heavy pro-Christian connotation) or BCE (with an equal anti-Christian notation)? I myself would honestly choose for BCE, but I'm not sure. Could anybody give me a solid reason as to why I should use either one? Thank you. MalP 21:19, 4 March 2010 (EST)
- It is modern in usage, most likely developed by secular liberals to be inclusive of others, a promotion of non-Christian values. I would be interested to know what the Chinese or Israelis use since their cultures predate the Gregorian calender of the West.--Jpatt 21:31, 4 March 2010 (EST)
- I see... But can't it also mean that the user of "BCE" uses it in order to avoid religious bias? In my opinion, using AD can be very inapplicable in certain situations. MalP 14:57, 7 March 2010 (EST)
That's utter nonsense. If you'd like to use a non-Christian dating system for non-Christian societies in your personal life, be my guest. For pre-Christian Rome, there's AUC, which measures time from April 21, 753 BC, the date Rome was founded. The Hebrew calendar, which counts from the creation of the world, or the Chinese calendar counting from the reign of Huang-Di. But by using BCE, you're STILL counting from the birth of Christ, so you're not being any more "respectful" of non-Christian cultures, and you're disrespecting Christianity as well by ignoring the basis of our calendar. JacobB 15:13, 7 March 2010 (EST)
- If you look at it from that perspective, you're right indeed. Thanks, Jacob. MalP 07:23, 11 March 2010 (EST)
- Very well put, Jacob. MalP, use whatever dating system you like, but if your dates are based on the birth of Christ, then have the honesty to say so.--Andy Schlafly 15:35, 7 March 2010 (EST)
arabic numerals is in refrence to the arabic culture/civilisation not the muslim religion.
But the people of Arabia are muslim. Therefore "arabic" numerals is a islamic term. :) --<<-David R->> 20:26, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
so just becuse the pepole of arabia are muslim doesent mean arabic numerals are muslim.
Actually it does. And I find it very offensive that I am forced to have my numerals given an arabic name. In case you haven't figured it out yet, I am not really opposed to arabic numerals. I am just showing the stupidity of BCE/CE. --<<-David R->> 20:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
- No, because we call something "arabic" (numbers) or. for instance. "gregorian" (calendar) doesn't mean that they are Islamic or Christian, it references where these things came from. It is a completely different matter to expecting peoples of different faiths across the world to refer to something as "in the year of our Lord" when their respective faiths may have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. It is out of respect for other cultures that BCE and CE are used.Airdish 15:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
ad bc and this site is what is stupid--Devout evolutionist 20:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
- If that is what you really believe then by all means return to Wikipedia. PhilipB 00:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)