Le Sat, 28 Apr 2007 18:25:46 -0700, Josh Saddler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> 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. > I agree with you. And genealogy is somewhere in the sciences or human sciences section. Dominique -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
