From: boylan@sltg04.ljo.dec.com (Steve Boylan)
Subject: Re: Pentacles (long)
Reply-To: boylan@ljohub.enet.dec.com (Steve Boylan)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:52:57 GMT


Alas, dear gentylles, I too must join the fray.  The debate over the
prohibition on the use of the pentacle as a charge is once again 
loseing touch with reality.

First, regarding Mr. Harrison's post:

> Yes, I agree, the SCA is a 20th century organization, with real concerns
> about it's public image, but restricting the religious expression of any
> single group, while allowing others to express their faith is wrong.

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.

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.

However, the postings following this get a bit wild.

Nicholas van Leyden should indeed fear being flamed for dismissing
Mr. Harrison's beliefs as "nonsense".  While it is true that the ideal
of religious tolerance is a relatively modern concept, it is very
much one of the major principals of American democracy.  Although
Thomas Jefferson did not list religious freedom in the particulars
of the Declaration of Independence, he did support incorporation of
the ideal in the United States Constitution.  (He also supported
a clause abolishing slavery - the former made it into an Amendment
almost immediately, the latter took most of a century and a very
bloody war - but I digress.)  As I mentioned above, the policy was
not intended to be discriminatory, but it appears to have that
result in practice.

Nicholas, there is nothing in SCA policy that prohibits the use of
the dollar sign or PacMan as a charge - the only symbols that are
prohibited by policy are the fylfot and the pentacle.  If you can
document the use of the dollar sign as a period charge, you would
have an excellent case to compel the College of Arms to accept
that charge (although you will have to accept the titillation of
the populace at large).

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.

Nicholas next claims that "Pentacles are *modern*
symbols of a *modern* religion, not part of the heraldric tradition
of the era that we depict."  I would be most interested in reviewing
any evidence that he could provide that the use of the pentacle is
not part of the heraldic tradition.  Recent debate on that topic
has suggested evidence to the contrary.  While it is true that the
pentacle is a modern symbol of modern Wicca, there are (as yet
unproven) suggestions that the pentacle is also a period symbol of
the dominant religion in some areas.

Nicholas is correct in asserting that devices using religious symbols
which have been shown to be period are often rejected for other
reasons, such as conflicts with other arms.  He is also correct in
pointing out that no one says the College of Arms must accept a
particular religious symbol in the name of religious freedom;  I would
point out to Nicholas that no one has said the College of Arms must
accept the pentacle in the name of religious freedom, either (at least
not in the recent round of debate on the topic).

Tibor/Mark has attempted to minimize the issue by asserting that
the prohibition on submitting a pentacle is "unimportant", but I think
the frequency with which this topic reappears and the occasional
virulence with which the subject is pursued indicates that there are
a number of people who do not believe the subject is "unimportant".

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).

				- - Steve

					boylan@ljohub.enet.dec.com