AD versus Common Era

[Rush Limborg]

Keep the government out of the church, and of the Christian influence already existant in society. (...) Don't create religious conventions--and don't remove the ones already there.

I suppose it's just a coincidence that the ones already in place are in favour of his chosen religion.

Now, to knock down the pathetic straw man which somehow seems to be set up every dang time: It's not about "the church telling the government what to do". That is not what the debate is about.

It is exactly what the debate is about. Also, the "pathetic strawman" is spot on, since I have yet to hear a justification for giving the Christian religion a privileged place in the political and social discourse, except for: 1) "we have always done so", i.e. tradition; and 2) "I'm one of the privileged, so it's all good", i.e. self-interest.

(sigh) Once again, iguana...as I said to Sci, if the culture of a society already had conventions in place indicating, say, a Muslim majority--provided the government was not suppressing religious freedom--I would full support that society's right to retain those conventions. There is no "double standard" on that as far as I am concerned.

When we speak of "freedom of religion"--or even "separation of church and state"--that had better not mean that the government should somehow force conventions out of society.

And once again--I do not advocate, nor have I ever advocated, that the church should "control" the affairs of government. That is the straw man to which I refer.

What I, and other social conservatives advocate, is simply the the government has no business in forcing those conventions out of society.

 

[Glitch]

What I, and other social conservatives advocate, is simply the the government has no business in forcing those conventions out of society.

Because as a social conservative, you have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo by definition. But let me ask you this: if a democratically elected government chose to change the dating convention after a popular referendum, wouldn't the government have an obligation to its citizenry to change, or would the government be out of line? If the latter is the case, who has the right to change the dating convention?

 

[Thestral]

Yeah, this double standard is a real problem for us American Christians, especially those who identify with the so-called “Moral Majority.” An unconscious one for some, but gleefully so for others.

The Moral Majority? Did I just step into a time warp? That organization ceased to exist in 1989.

Wait, it was an actual organization? I thought it was just an expression.

I think I'll just give up on trying to understand what makes BC/AD a big deal but not the days of the week. It's been explained to me but I'm failing to grasp the difference and I think it might just be something about the way I see things. I see them as the same, but I can respect that other people don't.

And that's why, even when we disagree, it's always a pleasure to talk with you.

Thanks! (Grazi?) And fair points all around in your last post.

 

[Sci]

(sigh) Once again, iguana...as I said to Sci, if the culture of a society already had conventions in place indicating, say, a Muslim majority--provided the government was not suppressing religious freedom--I would full support that society's right to retain those conventions.

But why? Why should any given society -- and I'm talking cultural practices, here, not the government -- why should any society pressure its cultural minorities to use language that would force them to proclaim loyalty to a belief system or culture to which they do not subscribe or belong?

I don't contest a Christian who uses "A.D./B.C." for him/herself nor a Christian organizes which so uses that convention. But why should it be okay for Jews or Atheists to feel social pressure to use "A.D./B.C." when Jesus is not their lord? Why shouldn't society change that convention to be more egalitarian towards all of its members, cultural minorities included? Why is that tradition superior to egalitarianism?

When we speak of "freedom of religion"--or even "separation of church and state"--that had better not mean that the government should somehow force conventions out of society.

I for one am not talking about that. The government's just the middle-man, the organization society uses to run itself, but it's not the be-all end-all of society, nor is it the originator or controller of numerous social conventions. I'm challenging the appropriateness of "A.D./B.C." directly, not talking about what ought to be law. I'm saying society should change its own conventions by its own choice, not that the law should force it.

 

[BillJ]

But why? Why should any given society -- and I'm talking cultural practices, here, not the government -- why should any society pressure its cultural minorities to use language that would force them to proclaim loyalty to a belief system or culture to which they do not subscribe or belong?

I've never felt "pressured" to use AD/BC (I'm not a Christian). I bet 98% of the time no uses a suffix when dating something anyway. So I'm confused.

 

[Sci]

But why? Why should any given society -- and I'm talking cultural practices, here, not the government -- why should any society pressure its cultural minorities to use language that would force them to proclaim loyalty to a belief system or culture to which they do not subscribe or belong?

I've never felt "pressured" to use AD/BC (I'm not a Christian). I bet 98% of the time no uses a suffix when dating something anyway. So I'm confused.

Let me put it this way:

I'm an Atheist, and I feel pressured to use "A.D./B.C." every time someone complains about me not doing it.

 

[captcalhoun]

i used to jokingly use BS for dates prior to 1978. IE Before Scott - me!

i only use BC if i happen to be discussing some ancient history. which doesn't happen often.

 

[BillJ]

But why? Why should any given society -- and I'm talking cultural practices, here, not the government -- why should any society pressure its cultural minorities to use language that would force them to proclaim loyalty to a belief system or culture to which they do not subscribe or belong?

I've never felt "pressured" to use AD/BC (I'm not a Christian). I bet 98% of the time no uses a suffix when dating something anyway. So I'm confused.

Let me put it this way:

I'm an Atheist, and I feel pressured to use "A.D./B.C." every time someone complains about me not doing it.

No one, in my forty years, has ever said anything about a lack of AD/BC when I date something.

 

[Sci]

Let me put it this way:

I'm an Atheist, and I feel pressured to use "A.D./B.C." every time someone complains about me not doing it.

No one, in my forty years, has ever said anything about a lack of AD/BC when I date something.

Apparently you've lived in more open-minded communities than I have.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Yeah, this double standard is a real problem for us American Christians, especially those who identify with the so-called "Moral Majority." An unconscious one for some, but gleefully so for others.

The Moral Majority was a Christian political organization founded by Jerry Falwell in the 1970s. I knew Falwell (I lived in Lynchburg for a few years), and I found the public perception of Falwell to be vastly different than the private individual.

I think I'll just give up on trying to understand what makes BC/AD a big deal but not the days of the week. It's been explained to me but I'm failing to grasp the difference and I think it might just be something about the way I see things. I see them as the same, but I can respect that other people don't.

For what it's worth, Kestrel, I'm an atheist and I see AD and Wednesday as the same, which I tried to explain pages back. AD bothers me no more than Wednesday does. I don't personally use AD, but neither does it bother me when others do.

If there's any difference at all between AD and Wednesday, it's that there's a non-theistic alternative for AD while there's no religiously neutral term for the fourth day of the week when counting from Sunday.

 

[BillJ]

Let me put it this way:

I'm an Atheist, and I feel pressured to use "A.D./B.C." every time someone complains about me not doing it.

No one, in my forty years, has ever said anything about a lack of AD/BC when I date something.

Apparently you've lived in more open-minded communities than I have.

Never really thought of Cincinnati as open-minded.

 

[Sci]

No one, in my forty years, has ever said anything about a lack of AD/BC when I date something.

Apparently you've lived in more open-minded communities than I have.

Never really thought of Cincinnati as open-minded.

Then apparently my parts of Ohio were even worse.

 

[Rush Limborg]

What I, and other social conservatives advocate, is simply the the government has no business in forcing those conventions out of society.

Because as a social conservative, you have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo by definition. But let me ask you this: if a democratically elected government chose to change the dating convention after a popular referendum, wouldn't the government have an obligation to its citizenry to change, or would the government be out of line? If the latter is the case, who has the right to change the dating convention?

I would argue that the idea of "popular referendum" on such matters is absurd. It assumes that the government has the authority to determine such things.

For the question of "who has the right", I would say: the general mindset, i.e., the marketplace of ideas.

By that, I mean: those who advocate an alternative system should by all means use that system themselves. Then, see if it catches on, spreading through popularity. If it does, and the culture follows suit--than great; the convention--the "tradition", if you will--is thus reformed. If it does not--too bad; the idea has entered the marketplace and failed.

(sigh) Once again, iguana...as I said to Sci, if the culture of a society already had conventions in place indicating, say, a Muslim majority--provided the government was not suppressing religious freedom--I would full support that society's right to retain those conventions.

But why? Why should any given society -- and I'm talking cultural practices, here, not the government -- why should any society pressure its cultural minorities to use language that would force them to proclaim loyalty to a belief system or culture to which they do not subscribe or belong?

I don't contest a Christian who uses "A.D./B.C." for him/herself nor a Christian organizes which so uses that convention. But why should it be okay for Jews or Atheists to feel social pressure to use "A.D./B.C." when Jesus is not their lord? Why shouldn't society change that convention to be more egalitarian towards all of its members, cultural minorities included? Why is that tradition superior to egalitarianism?

Because as far as I am concerned, individual liberty is as a rule superior to collective equality (egalitarianism). Again, see if the marketplace of ideas has a place for your challenge of tradition.

When we speak of "freedom of religion"--or even "separation of church and state"--that had better not mean that the government should somehow force conventions out of society.

I for one am not talking about that. The government's just the middle-man, the organization society uses to run itself, but it's not the be-all end-all of society, nor is it the originator or controller of numerous social conventions. I'm challenging the appropriateness of "A.D./B.C." directly, not talking about what ought to be law. I'm saying society should change its own conventions by its own choice, not that the law should force it.

Good. Here we can find common ground, of a sort.

 

[Rush Limborg]

The Moral Majority was a Christian political organization founded by Jerry Falwell in the 1970s. I knew Falwell (I lived in Lynchburg for a few years), and I found the public perception of Falwell to be vastly different than the private individual.

Indeed? Fascinating! I'd have loved to have met him.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

The Moral Majority was a Christian political organization founded by Jerry Falwell in the 1970s. I knew Falwell (I lived in Lynchburg for a few years), and I found the public perception of Falwell to be vastly different than the private individual.

Indeed? Fascinating! I'd have loved to have met him.

My dad had a heart attack in 1996, and Falwell came to the hospital and prayed for him, which struck me as a lot strange -- my dad isn't devout, he's not even a Baptist. (I think my dad was a Jesuit theologian in another life, to be perfectly honest.) I know that wasn't the first time I met Falwell, but it's the one that's affixed itself in my mind as the most important.

The last time I met and talked with Falwell would have been November 1999. I was visiting Liberty University, and I got Falwell to autograph his autobiography for me.

He was a big man and an energetic man. And I think he was a kinder man than most people give him credit for. Yes, he had strong and firm beliefs, but he was also compassionate and empathetic, and I think he was more understanding of the realities of modern living than anyone would suspect. I think he played the part of the radical dogmatist on television because that's what the world expected of him, and so that was what he gave the media.

I did tell him that he would really enjoy The Last Temptation of Christ, if only he would watch it. I even offered to lend him my videotape.

(Falwell had the students of Liberty picket the movie theater in Lynchburg that had shown Last Temptation during its theatrical run. I believe they also protested Dogma, but that was long after I'd moved away from Lynchburg.)

He and I didn't agree on politics, we certainly didn't agree on religion, yet I held a great deal of respect for him. He didn't scare me in the way that Franklin Graham or Pat Robertson or the evangelical extremists scare me today.

That, in a nutshell, Rush, is the Jerry Falwell I knew.

 

[Thestral]

The Moral Majority was a Christian political organization founded by Jerry Falwell in the 1970s. I knew Falwell (I lived in Lynchburg for a few years), and I found the public perception of Falwell to be vastly different than the private individual.

That's an intriguing perspective you have on Falwell, thanks for sharing that. I have no doubt that in private he was a much better person than his public persona. The closest I've come to having a run-in with him was when my dad worked at a high school librarian in northeast TN and some teachers were up in arms because the high school had told them they couldn't openly display any Christian iconography (I think somebody had complained) and wanted to make a stink and maybe attract the attention of somebody like Falwell. My dad the minister strongly counseled against it because the circus Falwell and his organization would bring would make the situation much more bitter and destructive and ultimately do harm to the students.

For what it's worth, Kestrel, I'm an atheist and I see AD and Wednesday as the same, which I tried to explain pages back. AD bothers me no more than Wednesday does. I don't personally use AD, but neither does it bother me when others do.

Thanks, I'm glad I'm not the only one. Good point about the lack of non-theistic alternative, but I'd probably complain even more strenuously if they tried to take Odin out of Wednesday.

 

[Glitch]

Because as far as I am concerned, individual liberty is as a rule superior to collective equality (egalitarianism). Again, see if the marketplace of ideas has a place for your challenge of tradition.

This is an interesting position for a self-described "social conservative" to hold. If individual liberty trumps collective equality, one should be free to do almost anything provided it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. And yet, many social conservatives have no problem using the government to legislate their traditional brand of morality.

But I digress. I doubt any government would be able to change the dating system at this point by vote or by fiat. Unlike other issues that have immediate emotional appeal for vocal minorities, I don't think enough people would care to change it.

 

[Sci]

Because as far as I am concerned, individual liberty is as a rule superior to collective equality (egalitarianism).

But there is no individual liberty without collective egalitarianism. You're not free if you're part of a class of people who are denied equality.

And what you're describing is not individual liberty. What you're describing is one group attempting to inhibit individual liberty by using unofficial social pressure to make a minority of people conform to the majority's preferred ways.

 

[Captain Robert April]

You have a lot to learn about conservatives and conservatism.

The only "collective equality" that allows for personal liberty is equality before the law and equality of opportunity. Anything beyond that is government coercion and needs to be fought at every opportunity.

 

[BlobVanDam]

To avoid the religious connotations, I always used to joke that BC stood for "before calendars" and AD stood for "after discovery (of calendars)".