Re: CLDR Usage of Gregorian Calendar Era Terms: BC and AD -- Can we please have "CE" and "BCE" ?

From: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven (
Date: Thu Dec 20 2007 - 00:21:18 CST

  • Next message: arno: "Re: missing chars for Arabic (sequential tanween)"

    -On [20071220 03:47], Ed Trager ( wrote:
    > "The world is becoming more integrated financially, politically,
    >socially and religiously. A universal calendar notation is needed.
    >Recall that for every Christian there are about two non-Christians
    >worldwide. References to Christ and to the Judeo-Christian God offend
    >many of the latter. A universal notation needs to be religiously
    >neutral in order to be generally accepted. CE and BCE meet these

    Which is hogwash in my opinion.

    Like I said on the CLDR list: just relabelling BC/AD as BCE/CE does not change
    one iota about the fact that the count is based on the birth of a historical
    religious person (of whom historians cannot even agree *when* he was born, if
    at all) from Christianity.

    Buddhists, Shintoists, Muslims, Hindus, and Jews, to name 5 of the larger
    religious groups, have no correlation whatsoever to this counting. So if a
    mere label offends these groups (and most people I've met don't care about
    this) then the very fact it is based on the supposed birth year of said figure
    must be really infuriating! (To note: Thai Buddhists say this year was 2550,
    Muslims are somewhere in 1428, I'm sure the Hindus are a few thousand years
    ahead of the Buddhist count.)

    So if a true neutral counting must be achieved look towards science.

    Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(-at-)> / asmodai
    イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン |
    In every stone sleeps a crystal...

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 20 2007 - 00:26:04 CST