From: jtn@nutter.cs.vt.edu (Terry Nutter)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Symbols versus shapes (was pentacles, moderation)
Date: 24 Jul 92 19:54:36 GMT
Followup-To: rec.org.sca
Organization: SCA

Greetings to all the fair and wise gentles on the Rialto this morning,
from Angharad.  In a recent posting, Hadrian explained his objections
to accepting social pressure to restrict our use of symbols more fully.
In a generally well stated, moderate posting, he points out about 
swasticas,

>                       The events of fifty years ago under-
>standably bring to the surface many feelings in many different
>people.  But once again I must insist that it is _unreasonable_
>for people to vent thier anger for said events on a helpless
>geometric figure. 

(Silly side note, I'd rather see people beating up geometric figures than 
other people: while helpless, they are also senseless, and thus suffer 
nothing.... ;^/)

and later, 

>  If there are any of you out there who really do find the pentacle or
>other such charge offensive, why don't you tell us why here.  And
>while you're doing that think about whether or not your arguements
>imply that the offending object should be removed or the offense taken
>should be. 

Unfortunately, this very reasonable sentiment does not address the
problem.  Most people I have heard arguing for pentacles use freedom of 
religion arguments, indicating that they invest them with modern pagan 
(BIG NOTE: I AM NOT SAYING SATANIC) religious meaning, and that is why 
they want them, not because they're pretty.

In other words, people are not choosing nifty shapes.  They are choosing 
symbols.  The entire point of a symbol is that is signifies something 
outside itself.  The entire point of using these is to say something.  
Surely it is then relevant what will be heard?

We can argue effectively in favor of allowing such symbols both from freedom 
of speech and religion and from our charter as a medieval recreationist 
group.  But to answer the real problem, we must admit that the issue is 
message, not shape, and either say it's okay to send out the inevitable 
outwardly-received false bad message along with any other intended, or 
that we can use our context to defuse it with anyone in range.  At the same 
time, if we argue that it is wrong to take offense lightly at nasty messages, 
because it conflicts with ethical requirements to live with each other,
we may also want to consider the ethics of lightly sending them.  It doesn't
seem sensible to me to condemn the one but condone the other.

(BTW, the most common argument I've heard for the pentacle -- that it
was a valid Christian symbol in period -- could be used to argue that we
should recontextualize it that way and allow its use with the Christian
symbolism, but it hardly justifies its use to indicate neopagan affiliation,
which is just as modern as the false-bad-message Satanic message.  The
historical argument has little force for this use, and I suggest that its
supporters would do better with a direct appeal to modern freedom of speech
and religion, since while these are not period sentiments, neither is the
Corporate prohibition a recreationist-based act.)

I don't have strong feelings either way.  On the one hand, I hate restricting 
the medieval content of what we do because of mundane prejudices that are 
grossly off target.  On the other, the only reference I've seen yet to the 
pentacle as a period _heraldic charge_ -- which is all that is banned -- is 
a reference to a _poem_, not to any actual heraldry.  Nobody is stopping 
anyone from using pentacles in any way other than as heraldry.  In the absence 
of period examples of _real_ heraldry (not poetic refs) that used it, judging 
it by ordinary heraldic rules, my impression is that hollow figures are not 
period style.

As to the fylfot: in principle, I think we ought to let people use it; but
in practice, I doubt _I'd_ react well.  We do have a separate rule forbidding
otherwise OK heraldry that incorporates a mundanely familiar ikon: you
can't register the Mobil Oil logo, for instance.  It seems that this one
may apply also to the Nazi flag.

What makes those last two paragraphs unconvincing is that they omit both
the real reasons people want to use these symbols and the real reasons 
people object.  If you're going to argue for reinstating principles in our
real everyday life, you must acknowledge that principles are involved in 
both adherance to and abhorrence of symbols, and that without addressing
those principles, you cannot affect the reactions.

Insofar as this is a religious or political issue, perhaps the answer is
to take it to one of the religious or political lists.

Best wishes to all,

-- Angharad/Terry