From: schuldy@progress.COM (Mark Schuldenfrei)
Subject: Re: Pentacles
Organization: Progress Software Corp.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:41:37 GMT

Umm, Raedwynn, I hope I have not, and do not, offend a new
friend, but...

When you say:
  And not being able to display a pentacle means that I do _not_ have all the
  rights and priveleges that you list as available to anyone else. I cannot
  decorate my person or possessions with the designs of my choice.

You are mistaken.  The only thing you may not do, is send $6 dollars to
your local herald, and have him register arms for you.  You can create
arms, and stick them on anything.  You can too decorate whatever you
want, with whatever you want.

Also, I never claimed you, or any particular person, was a member of
a Tolkein Society, or should be.  I'm not afraid of them: they just
aren't what the SCA is.

  I am not going to display a pentacle on my arms or person. But c'mon,
  Tibor, just _admit_ that it's an arbitrary restriction and it's no more
  fair than any other discriminatory rule.

Well, let me get a little controversial here.  Lord Laurel decided that
he couldn't register pentacles in armory, and cited the rule that it
was offensive armory.  The decision was appealed to the Board, who
elected not to overrule his decision.  His decision was made within
the bounds of his authority, and it was not made capriciously. I
choose to abide by it, for the same reason.

What do I really think?  I can't make up my mind.  On the one hand,
I think that anyone who wants to, should be able to display the
symbol of their choice, even if it doesn't mean what they think it
means in a true medieval context.  It is their right to call down
upon themselves the wrath of the ignorant, hate-mongering no-necks,
and I support it.  I deplore the no-necks, and their actions.

I am less sanguine about anyone creating a circumstance, where the
no-necks will come down on me.  But the causality isn't clear.  If
you (Raedwynn) display a pentacle at events here in Boston, it does
not automagically mean that no-necks will beat me (Tibor) up.  In
some parts of the US, and perhaps the rest of the world, it makes it
a lot closer to likely.  I lived in Florida for a while, and I
remember quite well how intolerant some of the folk there were. And
I've met some up here too (they are far fewer).

The particular decision contains multitudes.  You can easily consider
it simultaneously a discriminatory rule, and a protective one. You
can, within some meaning of the word, call it an arbitrary rule. Lord
Laurel felt that both sides had strong arguments, but he had to
pick either the lady or the tiger after all.  It was not unreasoned,
it was not capricious.  I'm glad as hell the decision wasn't mine.

I sort of think the rule should be changed.  Frankly, as I pointed
out, the only thing that we prevent is the registration of arms with
pentacles on them.  We can do nothing about the display.  So, the
level of protection that rule affords, is nil.  But, should the rule
be strengthened, or should it be voided?  I wish I knew for sure.

I think, but it's a close call, that the SCA should not slide down the
slippery slope that is actual censorship of displays at SCA events.
I fear it.  I fear the consequences, to some of our friends and fellow
members, of indiscriminate display of armory that offends the looneys
in the local community.  And, if I lived in such a community, I would
fear my cowardice.

Sorry, Raedwynn. It's was not an arbitary decision, it was a tough
and reasoned one.  It isn't discriminatory, it allows you a lot of
room to practice your religion.  I think it was a lousy decision,
and would work to reverse it.  But, I understand it.  I only hope
that some of my exposition helps others to look at this rule from
yet another angle.

	Tibor
--
Mark Schuldenfrei (schuldy@progress.com)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca