On Sat, 21 May 2005, Alphax wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Robert wrote:
Alphax writes to me:
At present, there is *no* neutral way to represent dates. Let's just call a spade a spade and not try to make something sound like something it's not.
You're very confused. I am not making any such claim.
IIRC, this whole debate was over whether AD/BC was NPOV or not.
Well, it's not, but it's better than no dating system at all, and, besides, much of the world already uses it. Besides, it goes better with the seasons than Islam's calendar (although Islamic dating would go well with any lunar colonies we set up in the future).
Alphax writes:
If you feel you are being forced to use Christian terminology, why use the Christian date system at all? CE is still based (albeit incorrectly) on the birthdate of one Jesus of Nazareth.
Because incorrect is better than correct when it comes to NPOV. At least the mistakes enhance the possibility of neutrality.
Stop being disingenous. We all agree that the numeric dating system currently in use has to be the one that is used in all articles. It is just the Jesus-worshipping honorifics (BC/AD) that some of us object to. The growing consensus in the academic community is to use religion-neutral terms such as BCE/CE.
And some of us object to the arrogant attitude that the time period aka. AD is common to anyone but Christians, when clearly it is not. It just happens to be the dating system used by most of the world. Renaming it "Common Era", ie. removing the only name which has any significance - Anno Domini - is as bad as Holocaust denial.
Or, as one might prefer, "After Dragons", "Anonymous Dating", "According to Dennis", "Anno Dundee"....
Heres somthing that everyone should read - the Anno Domini article:
"*Anno Domini* (Latin: "In the year of the Lord"), or more completely *Anno Domini Nostri Jesu Christi* ("in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"), commonly abbreviated *AD* or *A.D.*, is the designation used to number years in the dominant *Christian Era* in the world today.... The Christian Era is the only system in everyday use in the Western World, and the main system for commercial and scientific use in the rest of the world. In academic historical and archaeological circles, particularly in the United States, the same epoch is sometimes referred to as the Common Era (CE) and the BC period as Before the Common Era (BCE)."
The Dundee, in my conception (named in honor of Crocodile Dundee) is the point in time that the monk named Dennis decided was Jesus's birth, even though he was mistaken... but, thanks to his mistakes, the Dundee isn't really a defining moment at all, more like a non-moment!
Again, stop pretending that all members of this list are illiterate. We understand fully how Protestant Chrisitan fundamentalists define this term.
I'm interested to hear how *you* define fundamentalist. If you take it to mean someone who actually believes in what they say, as opposed to someone who just says things without meaning it, then you are worth less than a grain of sand, for even a grain of sand will follow logic.
A fundamentalist is a hard-liner, a person who takes the party line on various matters. For one to be a fundamentalist, he or she has to be part of a group, and he or she has to agree on most or all of what his or her group says, and he or she has to act on those sayings. ("A group" can include people who adhere strictly to some dictates of a holy book. - dictates that the group agrees on, of course.)
You have heard of Freedom of Religion?
Yes, and please stop making such bizarre implications. No one is preventing Christians (or Muslims or Jews) from having their own theology, from having their own beliefs, from worshipping in their own houses of worship, or from following their own religious practices.
In this case, they *are* following their own religious practices - to go and make disciples.
No prob. We liberal religionists might as well do the same thing.
Freedom of religion, however, prevents people from one religion from harassing people from another religion. US law prohibits people from harassing others with this kind of religious proselytization. (In fact, I already have been notified that if I choose to bring a case against the people I referred to, I will almost certainly win. I am trying to find a non-legal way to do deal with them. They do think that all Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and agnostics are damned to hell, and they are making difficult to work where I am an employee.)
I thought wearing a t-shirt would be covered by Freedom of Speech.
Even a "I Visited Hell and All I Got was This Lousy Shirt" T-shirt. :)
You seem to imagine that "Freedom of religion" actually means "Freedom for religious fundamentalists to create a hostile workplace environment", and that "Non fundamentalists have no rights at all."
How is their expression of faith creating a hostile workplace environment? You feel offended? Maybe that's because what they are saying is true, you know it, and the truth hurts? Again, I am hesistant to discuss fundamentalism with you, but you have the same rights as the people who you claim to be offended by do.
You worldview is the same as that of religious dictators.
Based on what? I don't advocate the kidnapping and torture of people who don't agree with me.
Good point.
You also seem ignorant (in the literal sense of the term) of US law.
In that you are correct; I don't live in the US, so I have no reason to know what US law is. The concepts of Freedom of Speech and Religion I speak of are like the concept of Free as in Freedom.
Read the U.S. Bill of Rights. It shouldn't be too long, although the sentence structure is rather archaic and therefore wordy.
We live in a society that has seen the marginalisation, desecration and humilitation of Jesus Christ.
Are you joking, or trying to start a holy war against all non-fundamentalist Christians?
Well, it's the truth. As of, oh, now, I am being persecuted for speaking out about this. And no, I don't believe in holy war, and I still don't know what you mean by fundamentalist.
Well, of course us non-Christians are going to nitpick and poke fun at Jesus. He may have been a nice guy, but, frankly, Jesus is more important to the Christians than to the non-Christians.
It is enraged fundamentalists like you who start inquisitions, crusades and jihads.
Luckily for you, you are mistaken.
I hope other Wiki-En editors are keeping a close eye on your submissions.
Now why would that be?
No clue.
Alphax GnuPG key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/8mpg9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCjiYN/RxM5Ph0xhMRAh3OAJwPGax7bos8RjET4BJNbQ5q66jJvgCfU12Z CzoW/SjHLEVJnNGKkGsvtv4= =TwTo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l