On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 12:49:05AM -0400, Matt M. wrote:
Starting an
article as follows: "Saint Bernard of Clairvaux" will offend
many a lot human beings who are not members of the Roman church.
That's absurd. We don't start articles "Elizabeth Windsor, whom some
monarchists consider Queen Elizabeth II...", no matter how much this might
irritate republicans. The article on Quebec begins, "Quebec is a province of
Canada," no matter how much that irritates sovereignists. We don't hide
facts just because they irritate some people.
Saint has a certain definition: one who has been canonized. It doesn't
matter what people outside the church have to say about it. And I say this
as a Wiccan.
Queen/President/... is a job.
Saint/Sire/... is an arbitrary title with no relation to real world.
Foo Barski (1234-1278), in 1256-1267 king of Toonland, ...
seems better than:
King Foo Barski (1234-1278)
because it could easily become:
King of X and Y, duke of Z, prince of A, B, and C, [list of 40 titles] Foo Barski
(1234-1278) ...
And in some cases whether he was a king or not is controversial matter.
In case of "saints" it's just wrong to call them with such names.
Different religions have their own definition of who is "saint" and who
isn't
and very often really controversial people are made "saints" by the Catholics,
especially with the latest pope.