Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 11:51:06 -0500 
From: David Schroeder <ds4p+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: The SCA Religion? 


Unto A'isha bint Jamil (and the folk of the Rialto), good greetings!

I find I must disagree with some of your comments concerning the Society 
and religion where you assert:

Excerpts from netnews.rec.org.sca: 18-Dec-92 Re: The SCA Religion? 
by kathy@xn.ll.mit.edu 

>I think that considering the SCA as a religion is misleading at best, and
>at worst could mutate as the discussion passes from one person to another 
>into something furthering the nonsense that some groups have in the past 
>encountered from outsiders who considered us some sort of cult.  I think 
>that I understand what you're saying here, and agree, but for many people, 
>religion is a poor term to express it.  
> 
>To me, and I suspect to most participants in organized religions (or dis-
>organized religions, for that matter), calling something a religion implies
>that somewhere at the core of its structure is a belief in a higher power or
>powers, be it God, Allah, YHVH, or a variety of pagan dieties.  This is an
>aspect clearly missing from the SCA.  True, the SCA does present a set of
>moral guidelines, but these are behaviors that we as a group decided to
>aspire to, rather than having been handed down from a supernatural source.


Not all religions are concerned with "higher power(s)" -- take Buddhism, 
for example.  For that matter, take non-theistic
Unitarian-Universalism...  "Religion" is too broad a word to allow folks
who believe in only one 
sort of it to have ownership of the term.

I believe that the Society helps provide meaning and community for
many of its members, and I believe that it is those aspects of
the SCA that are closest to being "religious."  It _is_ a 
legitimate use of the term.

Because we are consciously 'sub-creating' (to borrow a phrase from
Tolkien) our own little "world" in the SCA we do more to provide
meaning than Elks Clubs and the like.  Masonic organizations, with
their emphasis on rituals, may be more like us (or us like them)
but they are not offered as an _alternative_ to the conventional
culture's view of the world, so their opportunities for providing
_meaning_ for their members (apart from what they have already)
is less than ours.

I'm also less than thrilled with the notion that we should not 
talk about the SCA and religion because it may lead some people
to think that we're a religious cult.  If we start naming certain
topics as taboo "because of what some people might think" we have
greatly impoverished ourselves for an uncertain gain.

Of course, I wouldn't recommend discussing "The SCA as a Religion"
in contexts where misinterpretation would be likely -- such as to
the press or to newcomers or to people at demos.  But it _IS_
a worthwhile topic for debate.

Many thanks -- take care -- Bertram

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Bertram of Bearington                                      Dave Schroeder
Debatable Lands/AEthelmearc/East               Carnegie Mellon University
INTERNET: ds4p@andrew.cmu.edu                         412/731-3230 (Home)
+------------------------ PREME * Press On * PREME ---------------------+
      "He indulged in every excess, yes in each licentious whim..."