B.C. not P.C. for students

[Amelia]

B.C. not P.C. for students

Educators' move to change 'Before Christ' to 'Before Common Era' sparking outrage

March 3, 2005

WorldNetDaily.com

In what's perceived as a case of political correctness trumping history and everyday usage, students in Australia are now seeing the calendar term B.C. – which stands for "Before Christ" – being replaced with BCE, meaning "Before Common Era."

"This is political correctness gone mad," Shadow Education Minister Jillian Skinner told the Sydney Daily Telegraph. "You ask the average mum and dad out there how they refer to time and calendars, they will use Before Christ [b.C.]."

The change by the Department of Education was first noticed during this week's English Language and Literacy Assessment test, as 157,000 students in New South Wales were presented with the new term.

A history portion of the test described an ancient flooding problem this way:

"A government surveyor stood beside the Nile River looking worried. Beside him stood his assistants, carrying his equipment. The year was 590 BCE."

A footnote was included to explain to students that BCE means "Before Common Era" (also known as B.C.).

"This is a case of history being rewritten and abandonment of the use of a calendar which has been around for centuries on the basis that the term might offend someone," Skinner told the paper.

She says she's spoken to parents and other educators who are extremely angry over the move.

The headline in the Telegraph declares: "'Mad' bureaucrats censor Jesus Christ."

"They probably replaced an imagined potential controversy – the use of the term B.C. – with a real one," Steven O'Doherty of Christian Schools Australia told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. "The fact that they've taken it away has now generated the very controversy they may have been hoping to avoid."

While B.C. is used in normal language as a historical and scientific chronology guide, BCE is often footnoted in international academic, scientific and museum contexts.

New South Wales Education Minister Carmel Tebbutt admits her department changed B.C. to BCE, but says it was done without her consent.

"The point I've made to the department is that both terms are in usage," Tebbutt told ABC. "I'm completely comfortable with that. But if a text actually has B.C. in it, then we should be leaving it as B.C. We shouldn't be changing it to BCE."

The case is reminiscent of a December 2002 controversy in North America.

As WorldNetDaily reported, the Canadian museum displaying an ancient box purported to be the ossuary of Jesus' brother James was no longer using the Christian designations of B.C. and A.D. to mark the calendar, opting instead for more "modern and palatable" terms.

After a long internal debate, the Royal Ontario Museum decided to change "anno Domini" – Latin for "in the year of our Lord" – to C.E., referring to the "Common Era." It also shelved B.C. in favor of BCE.

''A lot of people accept the reality of Jesus as a historical figure but don't accept him as Christ, and to use the words 'before Christ' is really quite ethnocentric of European Christians," Dan Rahimi, the museum's director of collections management told Canada's National Post. "And to use 'the year of our Lord' is also quite insensitive to huge populations in Toronto who have other lords."

[Nicodema]

Good thing the O.T.O. isn't running the show. They'd be up in arms over the replacement of A.D. with e.v. (era vulgaris) and wondering what's up with all this "93" business anyway? (LOL)

[bevin]

Amusing.

Complain about replacing BC with BCE.

Complain about celebrating Halloween.

Seems to me some people complain everytime Christians are treated equally. There are also complaints when Islamic countries do the same thing for Islam that Western countries do for Christianity.

I guess complaining is cheap and fun.

/Bevin

[Ron Lambert]

The official reason given for obscuring the Christian reference with BCE ("Before Common Era") is that using the traditional B.C. ("Before Christ") might offend some people. But if that were really the concern, then the change would not be made, seeing how many people are strongly offended by this change. It is really a runaway example of P.C. (Political Correctness) attempting to deny and marginalize Christianity.

Maybe we should call our numbering system something other than the traditional "Arabic Numerals," since most of us are not Arab and some people might be offended at the ethnic reference. But no, it is only Christianity that is being targeted by the secular kingdom of society.

[Bravus]

bevin has a point, though: the same Christians who complain in 'Christian' countries about the *removal* of biases and discriminatory policies in favour of Christians complain about the exact same kinds of policies when they're applied in traditionally Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, Communist etc countries in favour of the dominant religion in those countries.

You can't have it both ways - either you're in favour of equality everywhere, or you're in favour of retaining the traditional culture in countries, whether that favours you or not.

BCE and CE are actually more internally consistent: BC and AD are in two different languages, for a start. And it's a valid point that 'the year of our Lord' is not appropriate for those for whom He is not their Lord. (It might even count as taking the Lord's name in vain.)

I don't have a strong opinion on this issue, but the complaints are just more of the privileged complaining about losing their privileges. What if Christians were known for their love, not their fierceness in defending their turf?

[Amelia]

Bravus, to me equality means that as a christian I have the right to see something out in the public that is christian, ie the 10c in stone in front of a judicial build. But more and more anything that smacks of christianity is being removed from everyones sight and the ACLU is backing those removals. Where are my rights as a christian? Seems to me that non-christians are getting all the rights, right now.

[Bravus]

I'm not sure I agree: I'd agree if, for example, the 10C were part of a tableau that included similar sets of foundational principles from a number of different religious traditions. Would you be comfortable with that? I have no problem with the Christian representation at all, the problem is with the privileging of that over all other traditions.

I don't think anyone is specifically offended by the 10 Commandments as such, but by the fact that they are the onyl thing displayed. The suggestion, at least, is that a person from another faith might not get a fair trial in that courthouse.

So no, 'non-Christians getting all the rights' is not a reasonable representation of the situation: exclusive privileges that Christians used to enjoy are being removed. That is a move towards equality, but it might be more sane, and also support the importance of religion in life, if instead of removing Christian symbols we added symbols from other traditions. I suspect the same people would complain, though...

So absolutely, display the 10 Commandments - but as part of something broader.

[Amelia]

What about what is happening in our schools? Where other religions are talked about but chrisitanity cannot be mentioned? Christian kids cant have meetings on the premises but an Islamic kid gets to conduct his/her several prayers a day?

[Bravus]

If that's what's happening (and I'm not doubting you, but I've heard from others that Christians can actually meet - policies may be different in some schools and some jurisdictions), then that's unfair, and should be changed.

I think we both value equality. Maybe there are some 'Affirmative Action' type things being done at the moment - in the process of addressing the historic dominance of Christianity, the pendulum is swinging too far in the opposite direction. The case you cite above would be an example of that, but *most* of the cases I hear about are more like the 10 Commandments one and the BC/BCE one: restoring balance and fairness for all.

Point to ponder: perhaps if Christians had been more tolerant and accepting of other faiths in the past, there'd be less percpetion that it needs to be reined in to allow others to enjoy their freedom now...

[Amelia]

Ahhh very wise, grasshopper.

[Bravus]

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Thanks for your graciousness, Amelia. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Let's play with this one a little more:

(a) Muslim kids can pray in school but Christian kids can't.

Potential solutions:

( Let both Muslim and Christian kids pray

© Stop both Muslim and Christian kids from praying

(d) Stop Muslim kids praying and let Christian kids pray

I think we'd agree that both (a) and (d) are inequitable. Either ( or © makes the situation equal. I'd much prefer (, because it keeps faith in our schools, while many on the Left would prefer ©.

(Mind you, ( has its own problems - if prayers to Islam are allowed, what about prayers to Mithras?)

[bevin]

I don't know about your schools.

At the town/state/public school that my children attend here in"live free or die" NH, the Bible is discussed in literature class, and the origins of christianity are covered along with other religions in the the history program.

Of course, you have to put up the Bible being treated as just another book, and christianity being studied from from the historical record, not from the religions myths

/Bevin