To B.C. or to B.C.E.?

That is actually the question for some people. Doug Wilson's post got me thinking about this again. I remember in the ancient days of college (speaking of B.C.) when I sat out of TFC and attended Georgia State for a bit, I had a professor who described the attempt to do away with B.C. (Before Christ) and A.D. (anno domini, in the year of our Lord) by using B.C. E. (before the common era) and C.E. (common era) as "half-a$$ed." He said that because the "common era" is still determined in relation to Christ's birth, it's just not any longer explicit.

Check this out from religioustolerance.org about the use of B.C.E./C.E.--

The Ethic of Reciprocity (the Golden Rule) suggests that one should not intentionally cause unnecessary pain to other humans. We should treat others as we would wish to be treated. Since only one out of every three humans on earth is a Christian, some theologians and other authors felt that non-religious, neutral terms like CE and BCE would be less offensive to the non-Christian majority. Forcing a Hindu, for example, to use AD and BC might be seen by some as coercing them to acknowledge the supremacy of the Christian God and of Jesus Christ.

Consider an analogous situation: the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance. The most recent version of this pledge includes the phrase: "Under God." Imagine what a Wiccan (who believes in a God and a Goddess), or many Buddhists and strong Atheists ( who do not believe in the existence of God) feel when having to recite those words. Consider how a Christian would feel if the pledge read "Under Buddha" or "Under Allah."

Although CE and BCE were originally used mainly within theological writings, the terms are gradually receiving greater usage in secular writing, the media, and in the culture generally.

Is that pathetic, or what?