Ungodly inconsistency

I’m wrestling with an article by a historian who, among other things, has switched from the BCE/CE dating convention to BC/AD mid-sentence. I can only assume that he converted to Christianity while typing.

(While I’m a resolutely secular atheist, I hate BCE/CE. My problem is that it’s still the Christian dating system and changing the initials isn’t going to fool anybody. I have no problem using BC/AD, simply because it’s the overwhelmingly accepted system. Trying to pretend it doesn’t have a Christian origin – albeit an incompetent one – is just silly. Sorry, I realise this is becoming a bit of a Winterval/’our great traditions under threat’/’political correctness gone mad’ rant, so I’ll stop before anyone offers me a job driving taxis or writing for the Mail.)

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • Matt M  On March 10, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    I can’t stand the use of BCE/CE either. If we’re happy enough to use pagan names for the days of the weeks and the months then why kick up a fuss over BC/AD?

  • CS Clark  On March 13, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    BC/BCE is pointless, unless you’re one of those people who think you can defeat Christianity by saying that Christ never existed (as if believing in things that don’t exist is a problem for Christians), but you don’t think there’s a ‘what do you mean we’ problem for AD?

%d bloggers like this: