The switch of BC/AD to BCE/CE is pointless.

How has the BCE/CE system been centered around Christ's birth? The reason why this system was made was to not have to reference Christ as our "Lord. " Source: Cunningham and Starr (1998) write that "B. C. E. /C. E. "do not presuppose faith in Christ and hence are more appropriate for interfaith dialog than the conventional B. C. /A. D. " It is a lot different from "Anno Domini" because AD literally means "Year of our Lord. " Why not just change it to Common Era? The definition of it (dictionary. Com) is "the period of time that begins with the year 1, " not specifically the Christian Era. The Gregorian calendar is just a way of measuring time, And there is no fixed notation system that we have to use. Just because the other countries (such as Japan) use the Gregorian calendar, It doesn't necessarily mean they believe in BC/AD. They have their own culture and faith and whatnot. It's just that the BC/AD system is more widely used. To people who were born believing that the year 1 was Christ's birth will naturally disdain the BCE/CE system. That's why most countries use it; they were born to believe it. You can't try to argue that the countries who do mainly use the BC/AD system represent the whole world, Because the other 4000 religions and the people who don't believe in Christianity aren't going to accept that. Plus, Just the fact that I use the BCE/CE system means that its purpose has not failed. Me being one of those people who uses it means that its purpose is still alive. Failed means "to fall short of success or achievement in something expected, Attempted, Desired, Or approved. " (dictionary. Com again) Since you don't provide a definition for "fail, " I'mm going to assume that "fail" applies to any number of people. Basically, If the purpose for the BCE/CE system is recognized by any person, Even just one, That means it didn't fail. Once again, It obviously didn't fail because then I wouldn't be arguing about this, And there wouldn't have been organizations or people rushing to speak for and against its use. Since you didn't define pointless, I'm going to use a dictionary definition here. Dictionary. Com defines it as not having force, Meaning, Or relevance. If there wasn't meaning to it, What would have made the founders of this notation system make it? UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan (who was himself a Protestant) said, "The Christian calendar no longer belongs exclusively to Christians. People of all faiths have taken to using it simply as a matter of convenience. There is so much interaction between people of all faiths and cultures - different civilizations if you like - that some shared way of reckoning time is a necessity. And so the Christian Era has become the Common Era. " This quote pretty much sums up what I'm saying. As I said earlier, The BCE/CE system is a less offensive way of showing our date to international relations. If there are international dealings, Especially with countries like Japan who don't believe in Christ, The BCE/CE system is the way to go. Gregorian is the standard, Yes, But the notation system for this calendar doesn't always have to be the BC/AD system. Also, There is no evidence about BCE/CE notation being centered around Christ's birth. Still, I'm confused about what exactly you're advocating for. Do you want to change something, Or make it so that the BC/AD notation system is the only one used? Explain please.