From: ciaran@county.lmt.mn.org (Ciaran Benson)
Subject: Sitting on the fence (was Re: Pentacles/Consorts)
Reply-To: ciaran@county.lmt.mn.org (Ciaran Benson)
Organization: LaserMaster Technologies, Minneapolis, MN
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 22:00:50 GMT


  I promised that I'd be on the other side of the fence (read: not
a member) lobbing arrows until this gets sorted out and I get a
clearer idea of just why this all _APPEARS_ to be so intensely
biggoted in _PRACTICE_ if not intent.

  How you are working this out is very educational for me, sitting on the
fence-row watching from the edge of the commons.

  I've gotten a couple of very helpful letters, and I'm going to lob my
conclusions about them here, sincerely in the interest that this is all
going to turn out to be an extraordinary misunderstanding, with no
discrimination intended, and that I'm going to want to join SCA after
this is all flamed and done.

  First, as tabron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu points out, 

> Let me just add, before you whip out those flames, that I will never even 
fight
> in a crown tourney, nor will my most estimable lady. That does not make the
> issue any less important. [...] There is an injustice embedded in the rules 
of the game
> we all agree to play.

  Admittedly, I'm a little confused about this.  I take it that you've got
big tourneys where everyone bashes each other about (stage fighting?  Cool!)
and the winner, male or female, gets to choose their consort for some
period of time.

  Is the problem that women are forbidden from the tourney, and thus from
the crown?

  Or is it that whoever wins must choose a consort of the opposite sex?

  If the former (forbidden), then there's very little that can be said
to defend that kind of discrimination.  As has been said, 13th century
pretenses about male and female roles just don't wash anymore, and are
offensive.

  If the latter (opposite sex), then there still is discrimination if
only in that a MOTOS may choose their SO as their consort, while
a MOTSS has to pick someone they can get along with while their SO
sits in the sidelines.  This is not playing nice, folks.

  The idea of defending this kind of social setting -- indeed,
institutionalizing it through your incorporation, really doesn't
sound like much fun for a fair number of your members.

  I sincerely doubt that I'd have much fun in such a setting, especially
since I've gotten fairly used to communities where people participate
based on their abilities and desire, rather than their gender.


  As for the pentagrams/cles, 

In article <1992Sep9.185257.5368@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, 
boylan@sltg04.ljo.dec.com (Steve Boylan) writes:

[...]
 
> The statement by the SCA does not attempt to restrict the religious
> expression of any individual or group.  The only restriction is that
> the pentacle may not be registered in arms.

  My appologies, from the posts I had read previously, it seemed that
the display of a pentagram/cle was forbidden, period.  To take a quote
from "Young Frankenstein"; "That is, of course, and entirely different
matter".

  Well, maybe only sort of an entirely different matter.  Does this mean
that a sword, for example, bearing a smith's mark of a pentagram clearly
visible above the guard or on the pommel would be banned?  How about
partial plate that has a 1" pentagram embossed in the metal over the
heart (as is a part of my mark?).  I'm sure some of you will think I'm
picking nits here, but I'm certainly not in a position to know until I
ask -- has your executive board ruled that pentagrams can not be
registered, and thus not be used in hereldry?  Or are they forbidden
as ornimantation on arms as well?

  Steve also says;

> In practice, of course, you are correct that this does place a restriction
> on those pagans who wish to use the pentacle as a charge.  I've been
> following this on-again, off-again discussion for a couple of years
> now, and I've reached the following opinions:
> 
>     1) 	The policy restriction on the use of the pentacle is unfair
> 	and discriminatory.
> 
>     2)	The use of the pentacle in arms has yet to be documented,
> 	although I have seen a very good case presented that the
> 	pentacle was used in a limited way as a symbol of devout
> 	Christianity.

  For example, the inverted pentagram which is the star of Easter in
countries like Germany.

> [...]  As I mentioned above, the policy was
> not intended to be discriminatory, but it appears to have that
> result in practice. ...the only symbols that are
> prohibited by policy are the fylfot and the pentacle.
> 
> In other errors, the statement from the Board of Directors does not
> reject the use of the pentacle "because registering them would
> violate the rules by which it registers arms."  The Board has clearly
> stated that their only concern is the appearance that registering 
> devices incorporating the pentacle would present to society at
> large.

  Yes, I would say that it is significant that the pentacle and fylfot
have been specifically selected for such treatment.

  The reason I fuss so about the pentacle is that it is a _CURRENT_
sacred symbol in my religion.  To read that it has been banned because
it has been used by criminals or, as some have claimed, is some sort of
universal symbol of evil, cuts very, very close to the heart.

  By official decree, your incorporation bans the pentacle for registry --
NOT because is has a questionable historical use, but because of fear
of intolerance.

  What then, will the reaction be to people who continue to wear their
pentagrams at your events?  With an official sanction of society's
intolerance and fear, how long until your membership extends that
intolerance to personal adornment?

  Again, you've got a group who, by official sanction, have measurable
parameters to their involvement.  They can participate, but only so long
as they accept limits on their religion or sexual preference which members
of the majority society are not bound by.

  Oh, sure, Christians can't wear pentacles and MOTOS's can't choose
a same-sex cohort either -- but the limitation on them is meaningless since
doing these things is not a part of their definition of themselves.

  Steve concludes;

> The debate at hand does not appear to me to be about whether the SCA
> does or should provide a haven for religious expression.  The debate,
> as I have seen it unfold, is whether or not the policy prohibiting the
> use of the pentacle is unfair or discriminatory - and as I have stated
> already, in my opinion, the policy does have that effect.  The
> prohibition on the use of the pentacle has no place in SCA policy.
> Individuals wishing to submit arms bearing the pentacle should be
> free to assume the burden of proving that the device is appropriate
> for use as a charge to the College of Arms (and to learn how the
> symbol was used in period).


  Thanks, Steve, this helps my understanding of the problem a lot.

  Maybe SCA doesn't completely suck, but I'm still gonna sit on the
fence and keep my bow strung for awhile longer.

  Lurkin'?  Me?  Lurkin?  Ciaran.

  $uslinit; include oblig.sig <<
  "...And here, Queen Aphrodite, pour heavenly nectar into gold
   cups, and fill them gracefully with sudden joy."  -- Sappho >>
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca