Nathan Smith wrote: > On 4/28/07, Rémi Cardona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Josh Sled wrote: >> >> > If that's the case, might not "humanities" be a better name? >> >> s/theology/humanities/ sounds good. +1 from me. >> >> Rémi >> -- >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list >> >> > > Indeed. Even if we wanted a herd specific to religion, "theology" is > not the best choice since I've yet to conceive of how a program can do > theology. Certain types of programs can inform one's theology > (textual studies programs based on SWORD are a good example of this), > but the same programs have various other uses. Humanities is a good > enough description. >
It would only be called "humanities" if it was also trying to include gramps (geneology) with the other 7 packages which are explicitly religious in nature. As beandog has already said, gramps has been removed from the herd. religion or theology is clearly the most appropriate category of the remaining packages. There's no need to rename the herd to "humanities" just because some folks are uncomfortable with topics and packages relating to religion. Think about your local library (Dewey decimal system) -- you don't find Bible study guides in the humanities/sociology (300s, 400s, 600s, 800s and possibly 900s (history))...you find it in 100s and 200s. The sections on "religion and philosophy". the remaining 7 packages are clearly religious in nature. Don't try to label them anything else, just because you ain't comfortable with it or don't like 'em. At least, that's my interpretation of most of the replies to this thread so far.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
