[ab5tract]

Do you understand that the majority of the world is not Christian?

Why do you think one should get away with trying to rewrite the very acronym that exists to not reference a religion into being a direct reference to a religion?

[_bin_]

So what?

The alternative acronyms are neologisms created specifically out of anti-Christian sentiment.

If y'all were operating in good faith, these would catch the same level of attention:

- Sabbatical, originating from Sabbath, a Judeo-Christian day of rest,

- The use of "karma", "zen", and "avatar" as terms and concepts, which come mostly from eastern religion,

- The use of "kosher", "mazel tov", and "golem" outside religious contexts due to their Judaic roots,

- and the use of "assassin", from a group of Shiite militants during the Crusades.

Of course, none of these catch the sort of attention that BC and AD do, because this is an example of explicitly anti-Christian thought, word, and deed. If you are particularly averse to it as opposed to other religions, that is your personal bigotry to work through, not ours to placate.

[ab5tract]

Anything that isn’t explicitly Christian is anti-Christian, now?

BC/AD already exists, there is no reason for Christian activists to try and neologize our neologism.

[_bin_]

Attacking something over its Christian roots that is no longer generally understood to be Christian is, in fact, anti-Christian bigotry. There is no policy of attacking things with any religious roots, just ours.

[ab5tract]

Common Era was first used in place of AD in the seventeenth century… by a Christian.

That’s as nested as you’ll get me to go today. Blessings!

[card_zero]

Huh, that's interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era#History

It say AD "was conceived around the year 525 by the Christian monk Dionysius Exiguus. He did this to replace the then dominant Era of Martyrs system, because he did not wish to continue the memory of a tyrant who persecuted Christians." So AD itself was a neologism to avoid mentioning something offensive (or someone offensive, Diocletian).

[card_zero]

It's probably related to the pushiness of the religion. Like, something similar might happen with Islam, or Hinduism these days. But probably not Zoroastrianism or animism. On the other hand I think it's silly and resembles damnatio memoriae.

[_bin_]

You’re not separating what you call “pushiness” from mere presence. Notice how you picked two minuscule religions with tiny numbers of believers, and therefore very little community, worldwide?

[card_zero]

This is about mindshare, or brand awareness. I removed the branding from a garment. Does that mean I took a dislike to the brand? Yes, because I thought about the vibes it gave off (it brought to mind sticky, crunchy dancefloors) and decided I didn't want to promote it. But this was the brand's fault for trying to use me as walking billboard in the first place, which forced me to pick a side on a matter I wouldn't otherwise have thought about. If I'd decided I liked it, I would have worn it proudly! If you're lucky enough to have mere presence, which means you're embedded in the culture in names and phrases and clothes and statues, some people are going to opt to convert that into your mere absence, and the correct response is not we are being picked on but fair enough, can't win them all.

I say correct, this of course depends on how embattled you are, how unfair it all is, and on the general moral situation.