Nails on a Chalkboard

[etherial]

I'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.

Comments

Re: Reply on or around May 6th

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

On the issue of social change, I don't see how arguing against Creationism (when I see it) prevents me from arguing against racism, sexism, etc, (or striving to act without influence from the same.)

Creationism supports (or is used to support, at the very least) a kind of religion which I feel is ultimately responsible for much sexism, racism, and violence in the modern world.

Re: Reply on or around May 6th

[elenuial.livejournal.com]

Consider the diversity of different communities. You seem to be thinking in terms of "America," or at least on that scale, which is often a fallacy.

Take a random county in rural Kansas. Creationism is dominant. It is full of outright instead of subtle racism and sexism.

Take Worcester's WPI community, where you live. Creationism as a doctrine is nearly nonexistant. There is plenty of racism and sexism, however, though it is subtle and easily ignored.

Your actions in Worcester do not affect those in Kansas. Simple.

Therefore, arguing against Creationism is simply blowing hot air, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. About the only thing it accomplishes is makes you look smart amongst your circle of friends because you eloquently argue a position they hold -- and perhaps that's why you do it, for social status; I don't know. That's about the only reason I can think of.

It's a question of energy, and resources. I only have so much time in a day. I'd rather work towards being able to change something, not preaching to a fanatic choir.

And it's a matter of practicality. I've found that arguing against Creationism with Creationists (which I've seen plenty of in VA, not here) only leads to circular and infuriating discussions and gets nowhere -- leaving only negativity on both sides. But I CAN argue for positive social change outside of that doctrine. It's certainly difficult, but doable, having changed the ground on which the ideologies are clashing. And I've gotten results.

Re: Reply on or around May 6th

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

I was assuming America chiefly because I (implicitly) assumed you were as well. I generally take "Modern Western Civilization*" to be my frame of reference.

I don't agree Creationism is nonexistent in Worcester, but it isn't my real target.

I agree with Sam Harris's position, that religious moderates are also an enemy of reason as an enabling factor. I agree with Dan Dennett that first and second order belief in religion is accompanied by an overweaning respect for religious positions. If I question someone's opinion on baseball, that is acceptable... but religion is expected to have a special kind of respect, and religious positions are afforded a special exemption for the requirement that one must provide evidence to support claims. Finally, I agree with the survey information of opinion over the last 100 years, which shows that Atheists are the most mistrusted minority in the country.

Consider gay marriage, or abortion rights, in Massachusetts. 70% of WPI students are nominally Catholic. Were this statistic true (and I believe it isn't chiefly because I don't think the students signed the cards themselves, or appreciate what it actually means to be Catholic, but I'm digressing), then it would -clearly- have some bearing on these issues at WPI. It is certainly true that there are plenty of Catholics in MA, and that their religion influences their position on abortion.

When the Anglican/Episcopalian church has two openly married lesbian atheist archbishops who are evaluated on the basis of their job performance (as administrators of a voluntary organization which regularly performs certain ceremonies), when that is considered the 'moderate' opinion, then I'll consider public opinion on religion to be in the right place.

---

* Europe, but not Russia, North America, Japan, and urban centers/ individuals elsewhere on a case-by-case basis... Modern meaning 'after 1950'.

Re: Reply on or around May 6th

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

(clarification: I'm not claiming Atheists have been the most mistrusted minority over the last 100 years... they've stayed put while other minorities have become more widely accepted.)

Re: Reply on or around May 6th

[elenuial.livejournal.com]

And thanks for the clarification. The way I read the statement originally nearly made me fall over in disbelief.

Though I have to say, religious discrimination is very different in nature from discrimination tied to sex and race, so I'd be careful in calling athiests a minority.

Re: Reply on or around May 6th

[elenuial.livejournal.com]

I was assuming America chiefly because I (implicitly) assumed you were as well. I generally take "Modern Western Civilization*" to be my frame of reference.

In my experience (having spent three years now in MA, and most of my childhood in rural VA and urban SC) there is enough difference in culture/belief/practice/etc. between those regions alone that very silly assumptions often result. That's why, unless the topic at hand has obvious relevance to larger groups like federal policy, I try to localize my frame of reference as much as possible. Less silliness. More accuracy.

I don't agree Creationism is nonexistent in Worcester, but it isn't my real target.

And now we're playing a different ballgame. I don't particularly disagree with you here, however. Though I do question your definition of "moderate," as moderate is often inextricably intertwined with "majority" for its legitimacy, and I don't know how -- assuming most people retain similar beliefs concerning their adherence to religion -- you expect most people to reconcile their idea of religion as an institution and, well, religion with your statement of how clergy should be evaluated.

Anyways, that is much more difficult to change, thanks to conservative media and the Overton window. But I agree that it's worth working towards.

Re: Reply on or around May 6th

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

Overton windows can be f*cked with.

Or I'll take a page from your book

[elenuial.livejournal.com]

which I feel is ultimately responsible for much sexism, racism, and violence in the modern world.

That's a nice opinion. I don't know if I'd agree that it's generally true.

Re: Or I'll take a page from your book

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

Gee, maybe the reason I prefaced my comment with 'I feel' was because it was an opinion... as opposed to your initial fact-like statement:

Science, as perceived in the mind of the majority of individuals who proclaim allegience to it, is just as often used for justification of fallacious beliefs as religion.

Re: Or I'll take a page from your book

[elenuial.livejournal.com]

Ah, okay. Now I see better where you're coming from, and more precisely what you mean by "fact" and "opinion."

(You may reject postmodernism, but with so much variation in cultural baggage, I've found the tools are usually necessary to carry on a real conversation with those that don't already agree with you, or are very opinionated.)

I didn't intend for that statement to come off the way you read it. Is this better suited to your tastes?

"I have too often seen science -- as perceived in the mind of the majority of individuals who adhere to it as more than merely a practice, whether consciously or not -- used for justification of fallacious beliefs as religion."