From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Moderation (was pentagrams)
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:29:06 GMT

[I wish to make a small distinction here . . .  Hadrian has made so
very valid points about the nominal legal climate in the USA, and ones
that I agree with wholeheartedly.  He has, however, signally failed to
account for the difference between theory and reality.  Most of my
remarks will be to that distinction.  --Hal]

In article <1992Jul22.173123.20657@mercury.cair.du.edu> wjones@diana.cair.du.edu (WILLIAM D. JONES) writes:
> I find it offensive that a decision concerning the propriety of a heraldric submition be judged on any 
> grounds but those of a period nature. 

In an ideal world, under a full functioning of the *ideals* of the
sources of American law, yoou'd be perfectly correct in supposing that
no criterionsave period heralidc usage need be considered.  Alas . . .
We do not live in an ideal world.

> These may well exclude use of certain
> symbols/charges which so many seem to find offensive.  

The problem is one of *including* symbols the offend widely.  While
the specific discussion has been over the pentacle (which has been
cited from Mallory as a strong *Christian* symbol), it is clearer to
see the problem when thinking about that ancient and honorable symbol,
the fylfot (or 'broken cross'), but far better known as the swastica.

I put it to you, milord--Who is to explain to an Auschwitz survivor,
or his relatives, or his co-religionists, or to the survivor of
someone who died there, that it is really a perfectly good symbol with
no adverse connotations as used in medieval heraldry?  You know, and I
know that it was used several hundred years ago without the modern
connotations--but can you put those connotations aside?

It is, at least, some modest consolation that most modern people (at
least in the US, and I suspect in most of Europe) don't recognize a
fasces when they see one, or draw the correct inference when told the
name of this Roman symbol of power, to the party and movement that
party gave rise to.

> I think that it is about time that people stop trying to force others to live lives that do not bruise their delicate sensibilities.  

But what do we do about sensibilities that have already been severely
traumatized by events associated with certain symbols?  Ignore that
fact and renew the bruise?  Or avoid the symbol--knowing that we are
doing very small violence to it's past in favor of avoiding it's
modern effects--and carry on?

> This country, as well as this Society,
> is based on the idea of allowing *individuals* to experience reality in the 
> ways they find fit.  

This is the theory.  Since we are a group interested in history, I
would be pleased if you could point to some part of US history when
the full range of those ideals were available to all.  I don't think
you can *find* such a period.

> It is not my responsibility not to offend, I need not alter my beliefs or my actions simple because someone else takes offense.

To some degre it is.  You *do* have a civic duty to refrain from
certain actions--shouting "Fire!" in a crwoded theater comes to
mind--as well as a legal strciture to aviod many possible behaviors.

If you offend sufficiently, your neighbor may not be able to retrain
himself from doing you bodily harm, and recent practice suggests that
he'll get off and you won't.  (Read up on the controversy on 'fighting
words' and note that the courts have upheld a number of such laws and
regulations.)

> As far as I'm 
> concerned the Society is better off if some of those people out there do find
> us to be against their beliefs, this way we don't need to exclude them with     rules :-). 

Not the Society, but soceity, will benefit.  The Society can only be
hurt, for we are a small group and society in large.  We can be swept
away by the tide and society will never notice.

>    We (as a group) are in very little danger of being forbidden by law and even in less danger of having any laws against the formation of Society branches 
> being upheld.  We need not satisfy mundane authority concerning religous or
> moral conduct, we need only live by the laws of the region in which we play.

Sigh . . .  I can think of any number of ways to apply current law to
bar what we do.  All it would take is a little selective enforcement
or research into obscure, old laws.  Look, for instance, at the
discussion about banning rapier under the Louisiana Dueling laws.
After all--People do get hurt in SCA combat . . .  An overzealous
prosecutor could make real trouble if he were a mind to.  And in many
areas of the US, the distance between the local DA and local
fundamentalist minister can be pretty short.

>    I say  to those of you who find the pentacle to represent a side of 
> reality in which the chose not to participate, ignore it (gasp). 

Careful who you offend . . .  :-)  After al, *we* know it's actually a
Christian symbol, but try expalining that to some folks (both
Christian *and* pagan!)

>    I realize that we may be inviting unnecessary complications with the mundane authority if we chose to exist in a fashion which offends some powerful 
> advocate, but I also think it is about time that we get these indiviuals to
> concern themselves with thier own lives.  

"Unnecessary complications" is putting it mildly.  While much of the
problems are unlikely to occur in major cities--especially where I
live--we've got folks in some fairly rural places that think the
'problems' they're worried about can be kept away if only they
suppress any appearance of what they think they fear.

> I understand the that the Society is  not a political body, but this country (followed by this Society) is coming 
> dangerously close to the edge of a very deep chasm of repression. I say we      fight back now before its to late and we have to climb before we fight.

This is a very valid point.  If we repress ourselves--we need not fear
(immediately) having it done *to* us.  But if we don't--we may become
target number one.  You to put *your* life on the line?

>     I won't step on your toes, you don't step on mine. Apathy and resignation   to those ideals of suppression will destory all that our ancestors have         struggled for.  KICK THE BUMS OUT OF OFFICE.

Which bums out of which offices?  "Live and let live" is an ideal I
relly like, but I'm enough of a realist to know that it doesn't always
work and that one should pick battles that one has at least a chance
of winning.  Nor do I think that forcing others to help fight the
fight one believes in is that great an idea.

> (Sorry for the soap-box rhetoric, but I was a little testy this morning.)

Forgiven and understood.  I get a little worked at times myself.

	--Hal

        Hal Ravn, Province of the Mists, West Kingdom
        Wilson H. Heydt, Jr.,  Albany, CA 94706,  510/524-8321 (home)
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare