In the interest of being considerate of users who come from a variety of religious (or non-religious) backgrounds, is it right to use BC and AD to express dates or should we use BCE and CE instead? Or does it matter?
Some people posting here are posting from a relatively neutral, text-centric, point of view. Others are posting on subjects, or with interpretations, that are definitely from some tradition. It's clear that there's plenty of on-topic room for such posts.
I have no interest in asking people posting questions with a distinctively Christian flavor to hew to a neutral line on dates and books. In the extremely unlikely event that I ever answered a question about NT, I'd probably refer to it as NT if a reference was required.
On the other hand, if the posting at hand is a relatively neutral exploration of text or history, then I would encourage people to adopt the neutral terminology as part of creating comfortable space for non-Christians. "Encourage" -- not "require", and certainly not "edit".
A somewhat tangential point here occurs to me: if someone asks a relatively 'peshat' (plain textual meaning question) about Hebrew Bible, I have mixed feelings when an answer shows up that is chock-full of doctrinal interpretation. I wonder if there's any sympathy for a view that simple textual questions look for questions that stick to the linguistic problems of the text.
I think it would be more inconsiderate to impose a rule mandating either than it would be to simply allow for both. As a new user I would find it far more irritating to write a question and have it immediately edited to remove references to BC/AD or BCE/CE in exchange for the other. By creating a rule, you're imposing a particular culture's nomenclature (whether Christian or otherwise) onto everyone, which is more imperialistic than a particular member of a culture using their own nomenclature.
I certainly don't want to impose a rule upon our Jewish users that they should use Christian conventions; nor would I want to impose a rule upon our Christian users that they must adopt conventions different from what they might be used to.
Some people get cross if they see the usage BC and AD in reference to dates before and after the birth of Jesus, since they take it as a sign of Christian imperialism. Others are irritated if they see Christians using the increasingly popular ‘neutral’ alternatives BCE (‘Before the Common Era’) and CE (‘Common Era’), because it seems either patronizing or spineless. Similar debates rage as to whether the Hebrew Bible should be called ‘Tanach’ or ‘Old Testament’, or perhaps even ‘The Older Testament’ (in my view, this last is the most patronizing of all); or whether ‘First Testament’ and ‘Second Testament’ are more appropriate. It is strange that it seems to be scholars within the broad Christian tradition who are afflicted with these problems. Jewish writers do not affect ‘Christian’ ways of referring to dates and books, nor would I wish them to. In all these cases there is, I fear, a malaise among us, which consists of the desire to present a ‘neutral’ or ‘objective’ view as though we were all merely disinterested historians looking down from an uninvolved Olympian height. As I shall be arguing in Part II of the present volume, such an epistemology is inappropriate and indeed impossible. Therefore, mindful of the further impossibility of pleasing all the people all the time, I shall continue to follow the usages to which I am accustomed (AD and BC, ‘Old Testament’ and/or ‘Hebrew Bible’), with neither imperialistic nor patronizing intent—noting, indeed, that the same usage obtains in the revision of Schürer’s classic work by a team of historians from widely differing backgrounds under the leadership of Professor Geza Vermes.
Wright, N.T. (1991-12-15). The New Testament and the People of God: Volume 1 (Christian Origins and the Question of God) . Augsburg Fortress. Kindle Edition.