> Doctrinal statements serve many purposes, not the least of which is to > define the acceptable boundaries within a group. Boundaries, by nature, are > exclusivistic. Having an official doctrinal statement, no matter how broad > it might be, would imply that "this is what we believe and if you do not > believe this and that, then you are not welcome to be included in our > endeavor." I do not believe anyone here wants to do that. Doing so would run > contrary to the "open" nature of the project IMHO. Even if we did, how would > we do it? The Sword Project does not even have an official membership, so I > am not sure how we would excommunicate someone even if we wanted to.
I rarely speak on this list, but I will pipe up that the SWORD project to the best of my knowledge is a SOFTWARE PROJECT and not a 'group'. It is governed (last I checked though I know there was debate for change) by a license called the GNU GPL. That license specifically prohibits 'discrimination'. The minute the SWORD project starts to dictate doctrine and form 'groups' it starts as someone says here, a fostering of 'exclusion'. This very thing is contrary to 'free software' in general. I believe VERY strongly that doctrine is important. I like the idea of keeping 'questionable' texts listed as just that. I think if one must insist on a doctrine statement that it be from crosswire.org the parent 'organization' that works on SWORD. That is SWORD itself has no real business having a doctrine statement, but Crosswire an organization does. -Derek
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
