AD versus Common Era
- Thread starter Ultramann
- Start date
- Status
No, but neither does that fact mean that any one belief system should be allowed to dominate the others.
Why not? Being a Satanist does not mean that someone is violent or out to violate anyone else's rights. In fact, there are plenty of Satanists out there who identify their conception of Satan in a manner entirely different from Christianity's.
True. Including, mind you, the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, which most scholars would place sometime circa 4 to 6 BCE. Figuring out any particular date to start a calender system from is going to be inherently arbitrary, but so what? Christopher's point about the emergence of world-wide cross-cultural exchanges during that general time period is perfectly valid. Since there's an existing calender that starts at around that same time, why not adapt it into something non-religious?
If we go with the idea that certain things are meant to be in both realities, it could be a case that the Star Trek XI stardate system is eventually adopted in the original at some point prior to 2387.
Or it could merely be a case that the computer aboard the Jellyfish made a conversion for nuSpock through the Universal Translator. Someone from the original reality might have heard "Stardate 64xxx.x " instead, IMO...
Could be. Calendar systems have been known to change in our reality, so it stands to reason that Trek could do the same.
Interesting side-note: As we can see here from today's Presidential proclamation on Mother's Day, the U.S. actually uses (at least sometimes) a system where the Gregorian year is listed alongside the year since the independence of the U.S. So this year is both 2011 and 235, and we have a proclamation that ends like this:
Which opens up the question: Does the Federation use a calender year that starts from 2161? Does United Earth use a calender system that starts from 2130, the year United Earth came into existence according to Articles of the Federation?
We might, for instance, see a Federation Day (12 August) Presidential Proclamation in Gregorian year 2380 that reads:
Barack Obama said:
Which opens up the question: Does the Federation use a calender year that starts from 2161? Does United Earth use a calender system that starts from 2130, the year United Earth came into existence according to Articles of the Federation?
We might, for instance, see a Federation Day (12 August) Presidential Proclamation in Gregorian year 2380 that reads:
Nanietta Bacco said:
And that had nothing to do with hatred either. As I said, it's ridiculous to assert that the desire to be fair and inclusive to people other than Christians or Europeans somehow translates to intolerance or hate toward Christians or Europeans. The whole point of it is to reject intolerance and hatred, to find something that includes everyone.
Which is irrelevant to the question of whether a religiously neutral calendar designation is a good thing. I mean, the whole point is to sidestep questions of religion altogether. Why shouldn't we have a neutral, secular way of designating dates? What's the point of dragging religious debates into something as simple as identifying when something happened?
That's true. But it doesn't make any sense to celebrate Jesus's birth on December 25th. There's no evidence he was actually born anywhere near that date. It was never actually meant to be his literal birthday, but rather a feast day to commemorate his birth. And the reason that date was chosen for "Christ's Mass" is because it was already a pagan feast day. It was convenient to take a pre-existing calendrical convention and repurpose it.
Ultimately, all calendars are arbitrary. Time isn't actually broken up into discrete segments. Any moment we choose as the beginning of a calendrical cycle is going to be chosen for arbitrary reasons, and there's plenty of precedent for simply sticking with some previous system that was already in use. After all, why not? What difference does it make whether anything important happened in 1 CE? What matters about a calendar is its ability to communicate chronological information to people now and in the future. And people now are used to using the Gregorian calendar. Regardless of the origins or validity of its foundational assumptions, it's a system that's globally known, familiar, and accepted. So why not keep it?
But that's what religions do all the time -- co-opt existing festivals, traditions, etc. from earlier religions. The trope of a dying and resurrecting god is far older than Christianity -- see Osiris, Orpheus, Mithras, etc. This is what human cultures do -- they don't invent everything from scratch, they adapt and rework things from earlier cultures. Do you object to the use of the English language because it's based on Latin and French and Norse and all sorts of other stuff rather than being entirely original? Do you think Americans should've invented a completely artificial language rather than "co-opting" someone else's language? What about the letters you and I are writing these messages in? The Roman alphabet? We aren't Romans, so why should we use their alphabet? For that matter, why should the Romans have adapted their alphabet from the writing of the Etruscans? What about this letter "A"? It's derived from a symbol representing an ox's head. What does an ox's head have to do with anything we have to say? Why should we use a letter derived from a cultural origin that has nothing to do with anything we wish to communicate?
We do it because that's how human culture and communication work. The purpose that a symbol, a language, a calendar, or any other form of communication serves today may have nothing to do with its origins. The origins don't matter. What matters is our communication needs in the here and now. What makes the most sense is to use the language and the calendar that are most widely accepted and understood.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on all this Christopher, especially the old 'Christ is a myth recycled from pagan religions' arguement.
^ I remember that movie! It used to run all the time on "Nightmare Theater."
Meanwhile, let's not get even get into the fact that the days of the week are named after Norse gods . . . because people on Star Trek almost never mention what day of the week it is!
"Estimated time of arrival on Vulcan, Mr. Sulu?"
"Thursday morning, captain!"
That would be just be weird . . . .
Meanwhile, let's not get even get into the fact that the days of the week are named after Norse gods . . . because people on Star Trek almost never mention what day of the week it is!
"Estimated time of arrival on Vulcan, Mr. Sulu?"
"Thursday morning, captain!"
That would be just be weird . . . .
Thank you for the responses. Most were well thought out and I admit to rethinking some of my positions. What I do take exception with is the writer who assumes that the Trek universe is secular, Bajor coming to mind immediately. Sounds like HIS beliefs are okay to be pushed on people but anyone in disagreement is in error.
Not so much that the Trek Universe is secular as that the Federation is secular. How could it be anything else, as only a secular government could possibly be formed from the union of over 150 separate planets, each of which likely have at least two competing religious traditions?
In what sense? And how are you defining "secular," then?
"Secular" just means "non-religious." A secular government is inherently going to be religiously neutral, not biased in favor of any particular religion. A secular government isn't pushing any beliefs on anyone, it's merely preventing anyone from pushing their beliefs on everyone.
I don't have a lord, so I don't use A.D. I like using C.E.. It is less obnoxious and has the side benefit of honking traditionalists off.
Where do you get that? You're making the fundamental mistake of assuming that "secular" means "atheistic" or "excluding all religion." That's not what it means. America is a secular nation, but that doesn't mean religion is forbidden; it only means that no single religion is treated as a defining element of the state or its policies, that the state is separate from the church and all citizens are free to practice any religion, or none at all, without the state intervening. Secularism doesn't mean forbidding religion, it just means not codifying it, focusing on everyday worldly matters and being neutral on questions of religion, leaving them up to individual people or groups to decide for themselves.
Again, we are talking about Star Trek here, a franchise whose most fundamental philosophical premise is that differences of belief ARE NOT grounds for exclusion or conflict, that people with different values and beliefs can cooperate and learn from one another. That means that there's room for both religion and its absence, and there's no legitimacy in pitting those two things against each other, or in pitting any two religions against each other.
the Star Trek XI stardate system, which was apparently used on the Jellyfish from 2387. What's up with that one?
And there we have a topic that's even MORE divisive than religion.
Hmm, I put that in there at the end kind of facetiously, but they're kinda related in a way. Manifestation of identity through language/symbols. I'll try to keep this on topic, but the following could appear like a rough draft Research Methods in the Social Sciences assignment on language and identity in grad school without the usual formal diction...
Language and symbols are key elements in how people conceptualize and manifest their identity (ref Foucault, Gramsci, Derrida). Next to "national identity" and socioeconomic class, religion or lack thereof impacts everyone's manifestation of their own identity and how they see themselves in the world. Obviously we get why a change in a religiously-derived dating system would be troubling to someone who feels their religion is under siege by contesting social forces. It's a symbol of something "more" in a sometimes zero sum game society.
For some examples of language/symbols/identity that don't involve religion and won't likely be offensive to anyone I'll use the United Kingdom, where I lived for a year doing said grad school. The UK is part of the EU, which is keen on all of its member states adopting common standards to ease trade and commerce but sometimes doesn't comprehend that small changes that make sense on paper might not go over well with the masses. Changing the color of a passport cover, whether you can buy your fresh vegetables in metric or imperial measurements, getting your car license plate with the EU stars on the left with a GB or a plain one, the royal pint glass with the crown verses the similar one with the CE logo. They may seem "small", but for a lot of people these are WTF-serious-issues because they alter the symbols of national identity people have bought into and made their own through individual and shared experiences, and people in general are small-c conservative and sentimental (and the government ended up keeping the pint glass and the option to use some imperial measurements at markets too, showing how public protest over symbols can move government inertia).
Fiction is full of contested language/symbols/identity. Just look at Star Wars remastered and the prequels. Gredo (I'm not a Star Wars fan and don't know what this is exactly...) shooting first, massive re-edits, problematic prequels, "George Lucas raping my childhood" etc. Longtime Star Wars fans who'd invested a lot in that franchise were put off by George Lucas' changes. Lucas may have owned the copyrights to Star Wars, but in many ways fans had made it their own through a shared constructed identity. I'm sure most of us here are just as heavily invested in Star Trek. I've been a fan since I was 7, and I'm 27 now. Hell, not counting family that's the only thing that's still with me from childhood (kinda like how others get sentimental over Disney). I've probably spent 5 grand on Star Trek DVDs, books, comics, and merchandise over my lifetime. Plus the shear time I've invested too. Some of VGR was just stupid, but STXI was the only thing in all of canon ST to piss me off in a "don't mess with the pound"/that crosses the line kind of way. Star Wars changes are pretty minor compared to that. Pretty divisive. Why did it have to mirror Transformers instead of Lost? ST is a just a tv show/movie franchise, but I do take it somewhat seriously. The implausibility of the plot, the "time travel," the kitchen sink of other issues, and yes the stardates. The controversy over the stardates from STXI isn't about a dating system. It's a symbol of the changes brought to our shared conception of ST, through which STXI appears illegitimate to some. Some people can't help wanting to "fix" STXI. Just look at the alternate timeline verses alternate universe debate. Both AD vs CE and Prime verses Abrams stardates are about dates, but beneath the surface it's about a lot more <G>...
I assume that humanity is secular in the Star Trek universe, because that's Gene Roddenberry's design. In Roddenberry's view, humanity had outgrown the need for its mythologies. Other species, however, had not. I may not agree with Roddenberry on a lot, but I applaud his viewpoint on this, and seeing a fictional universe where the atheistic point of view won the historical argument helped me accept my own atheism many years ago.
Simplest explanation is that it's the final piece of conclusive proof that the whole thing is an alternate timeline, start to finish, and no part of the story takes place in the established continuity.
^ Well I wouldn't quite go that far. As has been pointed out, the date system could simply have been changed. That's an easier explanation, IMHO, than just relegating the whole thing away to Spock Prime being from an alternate universe. That is also possible, but quite unlikely.
With all the other things that don't fit? No, it's easier to chalk the whole thing up to an alternate timeline and be done with it.
Thankfully, your word is not canonical.
- Status