I continue to be amused by anti-religiously driven illogic. I'm taking a couple of history classes the the U of Oregon: Survey of Music History and History of Precolonial Africa. As is to be expected, both classes talk a lot about important dates. But the fun stuff is when we have to talk about events that happened more than two thousand years ago. Or, to be more specific, events that happened more than two thousand and four years ago. It cracks me up.
I've heard of the new dating standard called the "Common Era" before, but the first time I actually heard anyone take it seriously and actually use it was a couple weeks ago in my Music History class. When dealing with an event having occured more than two millenia ago, the professor made a point of using the "Common Era" dating system, and I couldn't help but smirk.
Not familiar with the Common Era? Here's how it works.
Many people today seem very concerned about disassociating American culture from Christian heritage. They want to get rid of "In God We Trust." They managed to get rid of the tiny little cross symbol in the Los Angeles city flag, even though it was only one of a whole slew of symbols tossed together on the flag, representing the city's varied heritage. And they can't stand that modern dating revolves around and is based upon one single event: the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And not surprisingly so, since the Christian dating system that we use today implicity declares the death and resurrection of Christ to be the most important event in dated history.
Enter the "Common Era." Essentially, it gives a new name to the very same dating system. The year is still 2004 under the common era, just as it is under the Christian-based dating system. The difference is actually quite simple: To use the Common Era system, change the "A.D." to "C.E." and the "B.C." to "B.C.E." The year stays the same, we've simply removed all reference to Christ in the way we label it. "C.E." obviously stands for "Common Era," while "B.C.E." stands for "Before the Common Era." So what we used to refer to as 500 B.C., we now refer to as 500 B.C.E. Where we would once have referred to this year as 2004 A.D., we now refer to it as 2004 C.E.
There are two problems with this: first, we've disowned our own past, rejected our own heritage; and second, it just doesn't make any sense, and in fact, it completely fails logically.
Let's look first at heritage. This is the same problem we face when trying to remove "In God We Trust" from the dollar bill. It's not just a statement of what we do or don't believe. It's a statement of where we come from. I don't think I'm going too far to suggest that pretty much everyone, Christian and atheist alike, holds both the Constitution and its authors in extremely high regard. But the same people who would swear by the Constitution and quote the founders would also remove "In God We Trust" from our money, among countless other anti-religious crusades. But "In God We Trust" was never meant to represent the views of the individual using the money. It's a statement of our heritage. Because our revered ancestors, the authors of the Constitution, did trust in God. This actually was a nation built on God. And if you want to speak in terms of majorities, some would argue that it still is. I wouldn't be among them, but there can be no mistaking the fact that at some level, a majority of Americans believe in God. It's the same with the Christian-based dating system, but perhaps even more pronounced. For centuries, our ancestors have referred to the year in which they lived as relative to the year of Christ's death and resurrection. By cutting ourselves off from the dating system we've used for centuries, we cut ourselves off from our history, our ancestry, and our heritage. It has been said that man is not an island unto himself; the same can be said of communities, societies, cultures, and nations. But those who would abolish the dating system that we've used for years would make contemporary humankind an island unto itself.
For those who couldn't care less about our history and our heritage, let's talk about logic. Here is where the "Common Era" really just falls apart: logically, it fails to accomplish its own goal. To understand why, let's try to answer a simple question: What separates the "Common Era" from all that came "Before the Common Era?" If we say that this year is the two thousand and fourth year of the Common Era, then something truly significant must have happened 2004 years ago to mark the end of the previous era and the beginning of this new one. Otherwise, the Common Era really isn't that different from the previous era. If the beginning of the Common Era is not marked by a uniquely world changing event, by something that completely shaped contemporary culture, society, government, and/or civilization, by something that determined the course of the modern world, then the distinction between the Common Era and the era that preceeded it is completely arbitrary and utterly meaningless. If there is no distinguishing event, then the only reason for having the Common Era is "just because."
The problem is that aside from the taboo death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, nothing significant happened in that year, or really that general time period, at all. The beginning of this Common Era does not mark the birth of modern culture or modern civilization, for both were born long before the beginning of the Common Era. It doesn't even mark the rise or fall of an important civilization or empire, for it begins right in the middle of the Roman Empire. The Common Era doesn't have anything to do with the rise or fall of the Greek or Roman civilizations and empires, or with the birth of literacy, art, music, philosophy, science, or centralized government. Any of these would be plausible, though arguable, as developments potentially giving way to civilization and culture as we know it today. But the so-called "Common Era" has nothing to do with any of those.
In fact, the only significant event that occurred at the time designated as the beginning of the Common Era is the death and resurrectioin of Christ. By using the same numerical system as the Christian-based dating system uses, the Common Era is actually counting from the very same thing. Essentially, it's a different name for the exact same thing. We've taken Christ out of the name, but not out of the system. To sum it up, here's the problem with the Common Era. If you were to give it a definition, it would be, "A relatively new way of referring to the era that began with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ." It's about as effective as a cat-hater deciding that cats shall now be called dogs. So they changed the name; big deal. It's still the very same thing.
So we've determined that the Common Era began with the death and resurrection of Christ--and, by inferrence, the rise of the Chriistian religion. Therefore, the common era is one defined by Christ and Christianity. Since the entire purpose for this new designation was to remove all association with Christianity, the Common Era has failed to accomplish even its own singluar goal, its only reason for existence. So, if the Common Era begins with, and is therefore defined by, the death of Christ and the birth of Christianity... wouldn't it be more accurate to call it the Christian Era?
The advocate of the "Common Era" finds himself in a bit of a quandry. He has two options, and neither is good. One is to admit that the event that marked the end of the previous era and the beginning of the "Common Era" was the death (and resurrection) of Christ and the birth of Christianity. That means admitting that the "Common Era" is defined by Christianity, and therefore, it essentially is the Christian Era. His other option is to deny to his death bed that Jesus had anything whatsoever to do with the definition of the "Common Era," but this means admitting that the distinction between the "Common Era" and the one that preceeded it is completely arbitrary. He must admit that they decided to call that the end of one era and the beginning of another without reason... "just because." Those are his only two options, and either one makes him look like a fool. Answering (c), "none of the above," is not an available option.
For my part, I have no problem with "C.E." and "B.C.E." As far as I'm concerned, Jesus was born in the 32nd year Before the Christian Era; I was born in the 1982nd year of the Christian Era.
Welcome back... to the Christian Era.