Nails on a Chalkboard
May. 1st, 2007 02:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
etherialI've been listing to Introduction to Judaism from The Teaching Company, and every time the Professor gives a date, the sound of the CE grates on my ears like nails on a chalkboard. Now, I understand that the whole point of CE is to make the calendar less "Christocentric", but not only do I feel it fails in that regard, I feel it perpetuates the supremacy of the Christian Calendar whilst smacking of Revisionist History.
It wasn't anno Domini, it was of the Common Era. Bullshit. Why do we use a Calendar where the months have an idiotically variable number of days? Why do we use a Calendar where half of the months are named after Pagan gods and the other half are named after numbers (that don't correspond to their ordinals)? Why do we use a Calendar that is neither absolute nor relative and crossing where Year 0 should be is a pain? Why do we use a Calendar with a Leap System accurate for only 4000 years? Why do we use a Calendar that has been moved several times over the course of the centuries? Why do we use a Calendar with 7-day weeks? Why do we use a Calendar whose origin is the (presumed) date of birth (or by some accounts conception) of the Christian God? Because it was divinely given to us by the Pope.
Replacing anno Domini with Common Era does nothing to change the Christian origin of the Calendar and serves only to perpetuate its (divine) "rightness". In its historical light, the use of "Common Era" can be seen as merely a shortening of "the common era of the Nativity of Our Lord" or "the common era of the birth of our Saviour". Ever since I got my very first checking account, I've been writing AD on my checks. Most people who notice it are bemused that I would put in the effort, but a few people, mostly Chinese and Jews, understand the point: The Christian Calendar is not the One True Calendar. Yes, it's the one used (nearly) everywhere right now, but not only could that change, but there are very good reasons to do so.
I've also, as an intellectual exercise, been keeping track of the date using the Calendar of the Illuminati that I devised back in 5999, after rereading The Illuminatus! Trilogy. If anyone's wondering, today is the second day of the month of A, 6007. For eight years, I've been telling time in my head using another Calendar, and it's been interesting. When we hit the next Leap Year (6011, for those of you who are counting), I'm planning on making some of the adjustments I've been thinking of, including adjusting the Leap System to remove some of its swing.
We haven't reached consensus on which Calendar to move to (I'm currently favoring the Tranquility Calendar with my Leap System), so I'm content at continuing to use the Christian Calendar. But I find it intellectually dishonest and disgustingly PC to call it anything but.
It wasn't anno Domini, it was of the Common Era. Bullshit. Why do we use a Calendar where the months have an idiotically variable number of days? Why do we use a Calendar where half of the months are named after Pagan gods and the other half are named after numbers (that don't correspond to their ordinals)? Why do we use a Calendar that is neither absolute nor relative and crossing where Year 0 should be is a pain? Why do we use a Calendar with a Leap System accurate for only 4000 years? Why do we use a Calendar that has been moved several times over the course of the centuries? Why do we use a Calendar with 7-day weeks? Why do we use a Calendar whose origin is the (presumed) date of birth (or by some accounts conception) of the Christian God? Because it was divinely given to us by the Pope.
Replacing anno Domini with Common Era does nothing to change the Christian origin of the Calendar and serves only to perpetuate its (divine) "rightness". In its historical light, the use of "Common Era" can be seen as merely a shortening of "the common era of the Nativity of Our Lord" or "the common era of the birth of our Saviour". Ever since I got my very first checking account, I've been writing AD on my checks. Most people who notice it are bemused that I would put in the effort, but a few people, mostly Chinese and Jews, understand the point: The Christian Calendar is not the One True Calendar. Yes, it's the one used (nearly) everywhere right now, but not only could that change, but there are very good reasons to do so.
I've also, as an intellectual exercise, been keeping track of the date using the Calendar of the Illuminati that I devised back in 5999, after rereading The Illuminatus! Trilogy. If anyone's wondering, today is the second day of the month of A, 6007. For eight years, I've been telling time in my head using another Calendar, and it's been interesting. When we hit the next Leap Year (6011, for those of you who are counting), I'm planning on making some of the adjustments I've been thinking of, including adjusting the Leap System to remove some of its swing.
We haven't reached consensus on which Calendar to move to (I'm currently favoring the Tranquility Calendar with my Leap System), so I'm content at continuing to use the Christian Calendar. But I find it intellectually dishonest and disgustingly PC to call it anything but.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Well, ick but...
Date: 2007-05-02 01:19 pm (UTC)Re: Well, ick but...
Date: 2007-05-02 01:26 pm (UTC)There are plenty of people in his life who are willing to calmly state the above, who are willing to ignore his delusional position(s). These positions include intolerance of homosexual acts/marriage on the basis of the Bible.
If, on a non-religious basis, he said "I think all the Jews should be killed," I don't believe you'd expect me to talk to him. I'm satisfied he isn't going to run out and lynch gay people, so I'm done.
I'll do the bare minimum to function with him in society, and advocate for my own position to those who are still amenable to rational discussion. (Frankly, I would encourage everyone else to never speak to him again as well.)
Re: Well, ick but...
Date: 2007-05-02 01:44 pm (UTC)Point 2, I wouldn't expect you to debate the Nazi, but I think you should explain your disengagement. Taking the extreme act of stating that you will not even interact with an opponent may not drive anyone into the pro-Nazi camp, but might drive someone in the middle (not that there's much of a middle in the "Kill the Jews?" argument) away from your position. The perception at large of liberal atheists also being fanatics is fueled by this sort of "I'm right and don't need to talk about it" reaction. Your opponent might not deserve a response, but your audience is the more important subject (not that Greg's journal is exactly a key battlefield in the cultural war, but good practices are good practices).
Re: Well, ick but...
Date: 2007-05-02 01:49 pm (UTC)As I was informing him I was severing communications, if I'd included further comments I felt it might confuse my message to him.
Your point, however, is taken and appreciated.
Re: with Greg
Date: 2007-05-02 01:57 pm (UTC)Re: with Greg
Date: 2007-05-02 01:59 pm (UTC)Re: with Greg
Date: 2007-05-02 02:05 pm (UTC)Re: Well, ick but...
Date: 2007-05-02 01:40 pm (UTC)His defense of his position included a guy who liked to burn witches, for "Christs sake"