www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Ukraine and the EU

Dear Friends,

Would Ukraine need to formally adopt the "Revised Julian Calendar" in order to become a member of the EU?

Alex

Dear Alex:

In my opinion, no!

But Ukraine may have to adopt the Gregorian as all of the civilian governments of EU members (and of the world?) use this calendar.

Amado

To the best of my knowledge, Ukraine already uses the Gregorian Calendar for all secular purposes - Ukraine is a successor state of the old Soviet Union, which adopted the New Calendar back in Lenin's time.
But is Turkey being required to use the Gregorian Calendar? What about occupied Palestine (sometimes mentioned as a potential member of the EU)?

Incognitus the Palaioimerologite

Dear Incognitus:

Some reference materials show that the Gregorian Calendar was introduced in Turkey on 01 January 1927.

Since Palestine is represented in the U.N. by the PLO as a Permanent Observer and most, if not all, of the member-countries use the Gregorian Calendar in international commerce and diplomacy, it should be on this calendar, at least in the conduct of its secular affairs.

Amado

DEar Amado,
As concerns Palestine, you are correct and also as concerns Turkey. But I referred to "occupied" Palestine - in other words, the Zionist State, which I believe uses the Jewish Calendar.

Incognitus

Dear Incognitus:

Acknowledged.

I think in Israel though the Jewish calendar is the "official" calendar used by the government, but the Gregorian Calendar is used in business and in day-to-day affairs of Israelis and Palestinians alike.

In international diplomacy, Israel is "forced" under the circumstances to follow the Gregorian Calendar.

Amado

If I am not mistaken, the use of the Gregorian Calendar for international business and diplomacy is governed by a multi-lateral treaty to which almost all of the recognized States are signatories.

Governments are free, however, to establish civic holidays based upon whatever calendar they choose and on whatever basis they choose (religious, historical, etc.).

I would seriously doubt that there is anything in the EU Charter that would contradict this.

Yours,

hal

On the The Byzantine Forum we follow the rule of charity, which generally demands that we use courtesy titles even for clergy in churches in which we do not recognize the validity of their orders, as well as the leaders of other faiths (i.e., �the Archbishop of Canterbury� or the �Dali Lama�). It seems logical that we also extend this same charity to countries. Towards that end I ask that we extend the same charity towards the country of Israel and not refer to it as ��occupied� Palestine�. When we do not speak with charity we only diminish our own credibility (as so recently evidenced by Churchwork).

It should be noted that referring to the country of Israel by its chosen name is an act of charity and does not at all mean that one agrees with its politics.

Admin

Hmmm...
Next thing you know, you'll be asking us to write "Kyiv"!

djs:

There's really nothing wrong with that.

Only, last Christmas eve I put our waiter into a quandary when I wrote down my order for "Chicken a la Kyiv!"

Amado

djs,

The two are not really comparable, nor is your comment humorous.

The term �occupied Palestine� is not actually anti-Semitic (it can be understood as merely anti-Zionist). But because the use of the term "occupied Palestine" is mostly used by those who are anti-Semitic (those who seek to use violence to destroy the country of Israel and kill all the Jews), charitable people avoid using it.

In contrast, international spellings for the cities of the country of Ukraine have a long established usage throughout history. Even the country of Ukraine itself offically uses the western spellings of �Kiev� when it comes to issues of commerce (you can book a flight to �Kiev� but not �Kyiv�). This may change someday (much like �Beijing� is only now replacing �Peking� more than 50 years after China officially changed the spelling).

You might check out Andrew Gregorovich�s article on the infoukes website: Kiev or Kyiv? [infoukes.com] .

Admin, an American of Slavic ancestry whose last name ends with "ski" and who recently took no offense at someone asking him if his name was Italian

Sorry that you didn't find the post humorous. And thanks for the link, which includes this gem:

So how do you pronounce the name of this city in English?

Thank you for acknowledging that your post was not humorous. Unfortunately you may have used my occasion of my suggesting charity in all things to reopen the can of worms regarding the spelling of Ukrainian terms when rendered in English, which has been the subject of much angst on the Forum.

Regarding pronunciation, I pronounce �Kiev� like most Americans: �kee-ev�

Similarly, like almost all Americans, I also say �Moscow� and not �Moskva�, �Rome� and not �Roma�, and etc. I don�t do this because it has a long history of usage by Ukrainians, but because it is the common, received method of (spelling and) pronunciation in the English language.

I pray that this can end here and that we will not have another round of arguments about the English rendering of Ukrainian terms.

Sorry to upset the applecart here - but of recent weeks the BBC [ and we all know that they do try ] have been pronouncing that word as KEE--EFF

Anhelyna - who does actually listen to Beeb

Attention Administrator: I strongly believe in charitable utterances, both on the Forum and elsewhere. And I have no intention of discussing the vexing questions of the spelling and/or pronunciation of Ukraine's capital city. But there are also other considerations: we continue in our Divine Liturgy to speak of Saint John Chrysostom as Archbishop of "Constantinople", even though the secular authorities use a different name for the Queen City. We also refer to numerous martyrs by the older names of their cities, and we do the same for the Ecumenical Councils.
In the case of the state whose official designation I do not care to use, the problem has specifically to do with the appropriation of a Biblical word - Israel - as the name chosen by the civil authority. In Biblical language, and in the vocabulary of the Church (es) this term has a different and broader meaning.
The World Zionist Association would heartily dispute the suggestion that use of the term "Zionist" is either uncharitable or indicates that the speaker is anti-Jewish! [For that matter, similar organizations would be furious at the suggestion that the term "the Jewish State" should be ruled out - though I've not asked my Jewish relatives, who are ardent Zionists, what they think of that expression, which I tend to avoid also, because there are in fact non-Zionist Jews.]
So I would appreciate a bit of charity myself in the matter; I do not care to be asked to appear to endorse what I consider to be a betrayal of Biblical language.

Incognitus

P.S. - Computer woes (mine, not yours) have wiped your e-mail address out of my accessible material. Please give me a ring at your leisure and we can be back in normal communication.