You know you are getting old when:

[Zombie_61]

The current terminology is "CE" and "BCE"; common era and before common era. This sidesteps any questions of exact dates or historicity.

Tomayto, Tomahto. People can call it Before Coffee and After Dinner for all I care. Changing what people call it doesn't change the fact that the critical turning point between the two is still a somewhat arbitrary date that happens to coincide with the guesstimated birth date of a religious figure. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing the point one way or the other; I'm simply fascinated by the method we have chosen to measure that human notion that we call "time".

Let me settle once and for all when the new century started, it was 2000. How do I know this for a fact, that's when all the great parties were held. 2001 was when all the sad little parties were held, with a lot of Dr. Sheldon cooper's in attendance!

So, you're basing your "turn of the century" beliefs on the behavior of a bunch of alcoholics and junkies?

 

[2jakes]

^

Tomayto, Tomahto. People can call it Before Coffee and After Dinner for all I care. Changing what people call it doesn't change the fact that the critical turning point between the two is still a somewhat arbitrary date that happens to coincide with the guesstimated birth date of a religious figure. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing the point one way or the other; I'm simply fascinated by the method we have chosen to measure that human notion that we call "time".

So, you're basing your "turn of the century" beliefs on the behavior of a bunch of alcoholics and junkies?

I call it "catsup".
Others call it "ketchup".

Whatever!

And I measure time based on a
method that is 100% accurate.

Every morning:
Polo jumps on my chest.
If I ignore him.
He'll purr warmly in my ear.

When I awake, I'll pretend I'm still
asleep by not opening my eyes.

Polo knows better.
He then jumps again on my chest
and digs his nails in me.

This usually gets me up.
Polo heads to the kitchen and
waits by his dish bowl.
He knows I will feed him.
Afterwards, he goes to the
kitchen door and with both
paws touches the door-knob.
He looks at me while doing this.
He always meows as if saying
"thanks" before heading out.

 

[BlueTrain]

Some revolutionary governments started over with the calendar, notably the French. Ancient governments reckoned years from the beginning of a monarch's reign and let it go at that. We sometimes mention which year of the republic it is, too. But the length of an hour or a minute doesn't depend on anyone's birth and we could have a hundred minutes to an hour if we wanted, without having longer hours. After all, we change the clocks twice a year and not always on the same day. So it is when we say it is.

Then there are dog years and naturally, dog days.

 

[Doctor Strange]

The best way to deal with that particular probelm is to simply replace "AD" and "BC" with "CE" and "BCE," meaning "Common Era" and "Before Common Era." And before anyone rises up to accuse me of waging a PC War On Calendars, I'll point out that these terms date to the eighteenth century, and have long been in use among academic writers.

Using BCE and CE instead of BC and AD was hammered into us when I was a kid in Jewish religious school. Even referencing the word "Christ" in those abbreviations was considered tantamount to accepting/admitting that he was the son of God, something no Jewish person should ever say, period. "Jesus" was okay, that was his name, but never the honorific.

Of course, BCE and CE hasn't (and is unlikely to ever completely) replace BC and AD in most of the world's usage...

 

[LizzieMaine]

Tomayto, Tomahto. People can call it Before Coffee and After Dinner for all I care. Changing what people call it doesn't change the fact that the critical turning point between the two is still a somewhat arbitrary date that happens to coincide with the guesstimated birth date of a religious figure. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing the point one way or the other; I'm simply fascinated by the method we have chosen to measure that human notion that we call "time".

And this system of reckoning was established by a monk in the 6th century who had, you should pardon the expression, too much time on his hands. That monk really had no way of knowing if he was accurate or not since all he had to work from was list of Roman consuls and an ecclesiastical table for calculating the date of Easter. It's rather astonishing that he was close at all.

On the other hand, Archbishop Ussher, who in the seventeenth century tried to use chronological clues from the Bible to calculate the time elapsed since the creation of the universe, was a bit further off the mark, stating that this occured around 6pm on October 22, 4004 BC. Imagine -- if you'd worked late that day you'd have probably had a hard time getting home. You know how it is when you have to drive thru a construction zone.

 

[Fading Fast]

The best way to deal with that particular probelm is to simply replace "AD" and "BC" with "CE" and "BCE," meaning "Common Era" and "Before Common Era." And before anyone rises up to accuse me of waging a PC War On Calendars, I'll point out that these terms date to the eighteenth century, and have long been in use among academic writers.

I am agnostic - so I'm not pushing from a Christian viewpoint (mainly Christian relatives though for full disclosure).

My view is there are traditions / idiosyncrasies / happenstances that a culture can continue and should continue because they are part of the shared history of that culture not because they are accurate or perfect. To an extent, those shared "inaccuracies" are part of a culture. I have no idea if other cultures have the person celebrating a birthday make a wish before blowing out the candle - but even if we can show that to be of no use - we continue it because it's a small part of our culture.

So, in the US, AD and BC (with, what I am sure Lizzie is correct, the exception of academic writers) have been the common way of referring to the periods after or before the zero year of our calendar. I don't care that they originated with religious significance and that factually Christ was not born on this or that date - it's just tradition now that we don't need to "correct."

Just like having "In God We Trust" on our money. Sure it might have meant something somewhat religious when it started, but today, it's, IMHO, just a cultural curio that is part of our history and shared experience. No one makes you believe in Christ or God to use our calendar or pay with a dollar bill.

Sometimes I think we in the West have an incredible sensitivity (or, more accurately, are trying to) to other cultures, but for our own, we don't apply that same sensitivity. Sure "Before Christ" is inaccurate, but it's our culture's inaccuracy and isn't hurting anyone - leave it alone and don't pick it apart - show the same respect to it that we'd show to a non-Western culture's idiosyncrasies / historical precedent / shared experience / "old-way" of doing it.

 

[LizzieMaine]

There are traditions, and then there are "traditions." "In God We Trust" on money is a tradition of rather recent origin. It appeared sporadically and over considerable criticism on coins during the latter part of the 19th Century and early years of the 20th, and became more common after 1908. But it wasn't until 1938 that it appeared on all US coins, and it didn't show up on paper money until 1957, the latter as the result of a politically-driven campaign started by the NAM's "Religion In American Life" movement. The law mandating the slogan's use on all US currency comes out of the same postwar propaganda drive that pasted "under God" into the Pledge of Alliegence.

"In God We Trust" has only been our official national motto since 1956.

 

[Fading Fast]

There are traditions, and then there are "traditions." "In God We Trust" on money is a tradition of rather recent origin. It appeared sporadically and over considerable criticism on coins during the latter part of the 19th Century and early years of the 20th, and became more common after the coinage redesign of 1916. But it wasn't until 1938 that it appeared on all US coins, and it didn't show up on paper money until 1957, the latter as the result of a politically-driven campaign started by the NAM's "Religion In American Life" movement. The law mandating the slogan's use on all US currency comes out of the same postwar propaganda drive that pasted "under God" into the Pledge of Alliegence.

"In God We Trust" has only been our official national motto since 1956.

How far back does AD and BC go in the US?

And as to "In God We Trust" reasonable point, but at another level - I still don't see the harm. It's been there for sixty years and it came out of a time when religion was pushed harder by some. Now, by almost any measure, religion has a much less prominent and influential role in our culture than it did back then.

Legally, discrimination is not allowed (I know it's not perfectly enforced) and the outright nonsense - religion be a criteria for jobs or education - is no more (with some bad players sometimes cropping up), so let's just leave the motto as another imperfect reflection of our imperfect past.

Maybe sixty years isn't long enough, but time / duration is part of it - 75, 100, 200 years - I don't know that there's a hard line, but I agree, it's part of it.

 

[LizzieMaine]

AD and BC go back to the sixth century, before anybody ever heard of the United States.

As far as "As God" goes, I'm uncomfortable with it for a lot of reasons -- I think religion and nationalism are about the most poisonous combination there is -- but it isn't an issue that keeps me awake at night. I just think it's interesting to look at where it really came from as opposed to where we're supposed to think it came from. Even when it first appeared on the two-cent piece during the Civil War, it was a bald attempt to conflate religion with a political cause, something I'd imagine might qualify as a violation of the Fourth Commandment.

Besides, "E Pluribus Unum" is a much more historically-meaningful motto for the US.

 

[tonyb]

Allahu akbar.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Gott mit uns.

 

[ChrisB]

"In God We Trust" has only been our official national motto since 1956.

I prefer "e pluribus unum"

 

[tonyb]

Gott mit uns.

I love it when you talk dirty.

 

[BlueTrain]

My problem with "In God we trust," as well as the "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, which I don't like even without it, is that it is a meaningless expression. It's up there with "Support our troops" bumper stickers. The latter is cheap patriotism and involves no duty, no obligation, no sacrifice, nothing. Then there's the prayer in the locker room before a football game. What do they pray for? That God will smite their enemies and to forgive them when they play rough, all in the name of good sportsmanship?

Heaven help us! Make haste to save us!

 

[ChrisB]

My problem with "In God we trust," as well as the "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, which I don't like even without it, is that it is a meaningless expression.

It is allowable only because it is meaningless, they call it "cerimonial deism". It may be meaningless to you and I, but there are some who take it way too seriously, and will use it as evidence of their particular religion as having some official status in the US.
I can do without it.

 

[BlueTrain]

As an example, no Baptist would want a Roman Catholic to represent Christianity on their behalf.

I'd say that all religions are greatly misunderstood, sometimes even by their practitioners. And they all make similar errors: they all think they own God.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Then there's the prayer in the locker room before a football game. What do they pray for? That God will smite their enemies and to forgive them when they play rough, all in the name of good sportsmanship?

Nah, they just want divine intercession to beat the point spread.

 

[Fading Fast]

Nah, they just want divine intercession to beat the point spread.

I know I've prayed for my team to "cover."

 

[Zombie_61]

Allahu akbar.

...Then there's the prayer in the locker room before a football game. What do they pray for? That God will smite their enemies and to forgive them when they play rough, all in the name of good sportsmanship?

And if the other team is praying equally as much, don't they cancel each other out? Besides, unless I see God's name on the pool at work I can't believe He/She has any interest in the outcome of any sporting event.

 

[vitanola]

Allahu akbar.

So what's Jeff? Chopped Liver maybe?