Texas Bill Mandates Christian BC/AD Date System in Schools

Lawmakers in Texas are advancing a bill that would require public schools to exclusively use BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini [In the Year of Our Lord]) when referencing historical dates.

For years, there has been debate among historical scholars over whether to use the BC/AD convention, or the more religiously neutral BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era).

The controversial bill (SB 2617) easily passed a Senate vote 22-9 in May, and it now moves to the House.

From Neutral to New Testament

The bill's authors say the measure will force instructors to properly teach history, protecting children from secularized political distortion. 

Under the bill, all public school districts in Texas would be required to use BC and AD when referring to historical dates during instruction.

State Sen. Brandon Creighton says the legislation is a no-brainer to protect kids from what he argues is secular bias. “By putting this into law,” he said, “the Senate bill protects Texas' long-standing approach to teaching history clearly, consistently, without political distortion — giving parents, teachers and students confidence in a consistent foundation for learning.”

Politicizing Education?

Meanwhile, critics argue that not only is this legislation superfluous, but that its sponsors are the ones politicizing education by firmly wedging Christianity into the classroom.

Though BC and AD are still widely in use in the United States, historians and much of the international community have moved towards using BCE and CE instead, citing both religious neutrality and historical accuracy.

Where Do BCE and CE Come From?

The BCE/CE convention gained popularity in the 19th and 20th centuries as part of a broader movement toward secular, inclusive scholarship.

BCE/CE retains the same calendar system (with year 1 still marking the traditional date of Jesus’s birth) but removes explicitly Christian language.

This shift was advanced in academic, interfaith, and scientific communities – and by Jewish scholars in particular – who saw “Before Christ” and “Anno Domini” as reflecting Christian theological assumptions they do not share. Many Jewish people, who do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah or a divine figure, prefer BCE/CE. 

Interestingly, the Texas bill comes a few years after other lawmakers in the state proposed adopting BCE/CE as the date standard in education. That effort ultimately failed. 

Unforeseen Consequences?

Critics argue that the new bill could have cascading and potentially unforeseen consequences. For example, it could force schools to exclude history books which use BCE/CE, potentially leaving Texas students with outdated textbooks (and force school districts to purchase costly new materials to align with the law). 

Others said it doesn’t make any logical sense to use BC/AD when referring to non-Western civilizations. Would it make any sense to use BC and AD when teaching about Japanese history, a country where less than 2% of the population identifies as Christian?

Where to Draw the Line

Still others laughed at what they saw as an absurd situation. As one Reddit user joked, “can’t wait till the Texas legislature learns that the days of the week are named after non-Christian gods and tries to change them.”

Another Reddit user made an interesting point about substituting different letters for BC/AD:

If I'm being completely honest, I still feel like the whole BCE/CE thing is silly, because you're only changing the name and still using Jesus's approximate birth year for reference. It's like how I also think "Happy Holidays" is a bit silly, because it assumes 1) that every culture has a winter holiday to contribute, and 2) that it's necessarily the important one, as opposed to looking at what days people already consider significant.

What do you make of the controversy? Should Texas schools adopt BC/AD exclusively? Is using BCE/CE a “political distortion,” as the bill's proponents suggest – or are they the ones pushing politics?