Crazy religious woman?

Deiwos · 17 Oct 2010 at 13:43

I work for a University and I received the following email from a student.

I've just started <name of course>, and am driven to complain about the information given on page 3 of Book 1 that the terms BC and AD will be replaced throughout the course with CE and BCE.

I find this offensive, and against my Christian beliefs.

<Name of University> is a UK establishment, and the UK is a Christian country, and I deeply resent this insidious attempt to "de-Christianise" the population. I would point out that only about 4% of the UK population is of other faiths, and this edict about the use of Christian terms by the University is hugely out of proportion.

May I point out that the University is denying Christians the right to follow their beliefs by saying we should use different terms; would it be acceptable to Muslims to be told such a thing?

I intend to continue to use the terms BC and AD throughout the course, and if you do not find it acceptable, then I must face the consequences. I would point out, however, that it is in fact illegal in this country to discriminate against people based on their religion.

Please pass this message on to the highest authority at your University.

What're your opinions on this? Personally, I think the womans lost it. I still haven't replied to her as I haven't a clue what to say other than 'ooooook?' but I'd be interested to see what you all think.

gary996 · 17 Oct 2010 at 13:46

Why do we need to change BC and AD in the first place. Leave it alone its been like this for a long time.

Nymins · 17 Oct 2010 at 13:50

You crazy Jesus, you crayzay!

Gackt · 17 Oct 2010 at 13:52

gary996 said:
Why do we need to change BC and AD in the first place. Leave it alone its been like this for a long time.

Because BC/AD are religious terms? And has no place in any kind of objective academic study?

SexyGreyFox · 17 Oct 2010 at 13:53

I agree with her and I'm not religious.
AD and BC is pointing to a certain time that everybody in this country can identify with even if they don't believe.
Pointless to be honest.

Deiwos · 17 Oct 2010 at 13:54

Gackt said:
Because BC/AD are religious terms? And has no place in any kind of objective academic study?

I forgot to add that the course she is doing is in no way related to religious studies.

Gackt · 17 Oct 2010 at 13:55

dmpoole said:
I agree with her and I'm not religious.
AD and BC is pointing to a certain time that everybody in this country can identify with even if they don't believe.
Pointless to be honest.

Not really. It's simply removing the religious element from designating the first period of the Gregorian Calendar, the era of prehistory and much of antiquity.

I forgot to add that the course she is doing is in no way related to religious studies.

It's not particularly relevant, her course. She's simply getting offended because the textbook isn't pandering to her personal religious beliefs. And is offering a term that is without bias to a particular belief structure.

Deiwos · 17 Oct 2010 at 13:57

dmpoole said:
I agree with her and I'm not religious.
AD and BC is pointing to a certain time that everybody in this country can identify with even if they don't believe.
Pointless to be honest.

CE and BCE point to the exact same time but remove the religious aspect of the terminology. Obviously there's a whole argument about this dating system working on the basis of the date of Jesus' birth but it'd be next to impossible to operate on a different calendar or dating system now due to the current global adoption of the Gregorian Calendar.

arknor · 17 Oct 2010 at 13:58

I would point out that only about 4% of the UK population is of other faiths, and this edict about the use of Christian terms by the University is hugely out of proportion.

surely thats not correct?

no one i know considers themselfs religious or has been to church during adult life as far as im aware.

more than 4% are probably starwars religion

cymatty · 17 Oct 2010 at 14:03

gary996 said:
Why do we need to change BC and AD in the first place. Leave it alone its been like this for a long time.

I agree, what is the point of changing it? Worried it may offend someone?

Richie · 17 Oct 2010 at 14:03

Something that confuses me. For example, 2000BC is 2000 years before the birth of Christ and, again for example, 1500AD is 1500 years after he died.

He died a grown man so how do we quantify the years between 0BC and 0AD ?? :confused:

EvilDreams · 17 Oct 2010 at 14:05

dmpoole said:
I agree with her and I'm not religious.
AD and BC is pointing to a certain time that everybody in this country can identify with even if they don't believe.
Pointless to be honest.

I agree with this.

It's like the episodes of Mythbusters we get over here, all the measurements are pointlessly converted to metric figures (instead of MPH they change it to KM/H and instead of ft/lbs they change it to kg/cm squared which are totally meaningless to most in the UK), for no reason whatsoever.

I'm totally agnostic but I don't get massively offended at AD and BC. Why change it?

Deiwos · 17 Oct 2010 at 14:05

Richie said:
Something that confuses me. For example, 2000BC is 2000 years before the birth of Christ and, again for example, 1500AD is 1500 years after he died.

He died a grown man so how do we quantify the years between 0BC and 0AD ??

"The term Anno Domini is Medieval Latin, translated as In the year of (the/Our) Lord"

There is no 0BC or 0AD either. AD is after the birth of Jesus, not death.

PardonTheWait · 17 Oct 2010 at 14:06

Richie said:
Something that confuses me. For example, 2000BC is 2000 years before the birth of Christ and, again for example, 1500AD is 1500 years after he died.

He died a grown man so how do we quantify the years between 0BC and 0AD ??

It's not after he died, it's after he was born

Tigjaw · 17 Oct 2010 at 14:09

Richie said:
Something that confuses me. For example, 2000BC is 2000 years before the birth of Christ and, again for example, 1500AD is 1500 years after he died.

He died a grown man so how do we quantify the years between 0BC and 0AD ??

There are no years between 0BC and 0AD. Year 0 of either denomination is the year of Jesus' birth. Therefore Jesus would have died in year ~32AD.

In my opinion there should be no standard, the woman has a point although she's perhaps a little too sensitive about it. We should be able to choose whichever we want. They both mean the same thing right?

rypt · 17 Oct 2010 at 14:09

Reply to her asking her to prove that Jesus was born in 0AD as opposed to 33BCE

Cosimo · 17 Oct 2010 at 14:11

gary996 said:
Why do we need to change BC and AD in the first place. Leave it alone its been like this for a long time.

This. If it offends some religious or atheist nut then tough luck. Must be another form of some political correctness for aliens.

PapaLazaru · 17 Oct 2010 at 14:12

gary996 said:
Why do we need to change BC and AD in the first place. Leave it alone its been like this for a long time.

Exactly.

What do the other terms BC and BCE stand for ayway?

Tigjaw · 17 Oct 2010 at 14:13

rypt said:
Reply to her asking her to prove that Jesus was born in 0AD as opposed to 33BCE

Are you also confusing the term AD with "after dead"?

BC = before he was born
AD = after he was born

There is no such thing as 0BC and 0AD - they are the same thing, in fact, there is only year 0.

PapaLazaru said:
Exactly.

What do the other terms BC and BCE stand for ayway?

BC = Before Christ, BCE = Before Current Era.

rypt · 17 Oct 2010 at 14:14

Tigjaw said:
Are you also confusing the term AD with "after dead"?

BC = before he was born
AD = after he was born

No, as far as we know (AFAIK) from the little information the bible truly gives Jesus was actually born in what would now be 33BC (if he was ever actually born), or maybe 4BC, or maybe 6AD or 2BC ....