Hear the audio version here (segments older than 3 weeks may be unavailable)

Meanwhile, in the maddening world of political correctness:

The B.C. and A.D. versus B.C.E. and C.E. debate is heating up. both B.C. and A.D. (which stand for Before Christ and Anno Domini ? "Year of our Lord") have, until now, been the basis of historical time.

 

But the BBC, joining other progressive institutions, has decided that using these religiously-charged abbreviations is no longer appropriate. Signaling major changes to the way that the news network will deliver radio and television reports, the government-funded media company has decided to stop making these references, replacing them with B.C.E. (Before Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era).

 

 

Why, you ask? Well, the BBC claims that this decision is rooted in the media outlet's commitment to remaining impartial. As Religion News Service points out, the network released an official statement saying that it is, "committed to impartiality." Additionally, the release said, "it is appropriate that we use terms that do not offend or alienate non-Christians."

Before we go any further, can I just ask some questions:

1.) Is there any evidence to support this idea that people are offended or alienated by using the same calendar system and terminology that has been used by all people of every belief for the last couple thousand years?

2.) Should it matter if people allow themselves to be offended or alienated by the mere use of a dating system that has been in place for 2000 years?  Is that reason enough to alter something as universal as the calendar?

3.) Where is the line?  Where does this stop?  If I decide that I'm offended or feel alienated by something, is that enough to obliterate that something from mankind's consciousness?  And if so, that must apply to everyone else too.  And if that's the case, what will be left?

This is utterly mindless.  It is shameful pandering to a post-Christian society that finds fulfillment in little else than attempting to anger those clinging to the fading backbone of Western civilization.

I'm at least heartened that I'm not the only one who sees this as nuts:

Retired Anglican Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, an evangelical with a prominent voice in Great Britain, also voiced his opposition:

 

"This amounts to the dumbing down of the Christian basis of our culture, language and history. These changes are unnecessary and they don't actually achieve what the BBC wants them to achieve. Whether you use Common Era or Anno Domini, the date is still the same and the reference point is still the birth of Jesus Christ."

This is exactly right!  Even if you change the name BC to BCE, and AD to CE, how do you identify the change point?  In other words, in the classroom when these enlightened, post-Christian humanist professors are talking about BCE and CE, and a student raises their hand and asks the question, "What was the turning point between the two eras?  What's that center point in year zero?" how does the professor answer?  As the story went on to quote:

"I say AD and BC because that's what I understand.  I don't know what the Common Era is. Why is it the Common Era in 20AD and it wasn't the Common Era in 20BC?"

This is just more of the same from those committed to erasing Jesus from the pages of human history.  A futile attempt to be sure, but nonetheless annoying.  Kind of amazing how this man Jesus is still intimidating the pompous pride of men 2000 years after his resurrection, isn't it?