From: jtn@nutter.cs.vt.edu (Terry Nutter)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Arrow number Two ...
Date: 13 Sep 92 16:56:14 GMT
Followup-To: rec.org.sca
Organization: The Rialto

Greetings, all, from Angharad ver' Rhuawn.

Ciaran Benson writes,

>  That still doesn't make me feel any more comfortable about
>coming to an event where folks are standing around with 
>penants and shields bearing any number of symbols which are
>heavily identified with the crusaders who destroyed so much
>of my religion's heretage -- especially since I am forbidden
>to bear a symbol which proudly proclaims the advancing
>recovery of the folk traditions of ancient europe.

Actually, pennants and shields adorned with crosses are nowhere
near so common as you might suppose.  The really common charges
are things like dragons and other mythical beasts, lions, eagles,
wolves, and so on.  Religious-looking arms of _any_ flavor are
relatively rare (and I think I've seen as many pagan ones as
Christian).  Many people misconstrue the SCA's ban on public
religious _ceremonies_ as a ban on religious _display_, and
"leave their religion at home".  In my experience, this is probably
_more_ true of Christians than of pagans, possibly because they 
have had to fight less hard for acceptance of such display elsewhere.

>  I'm also curious how your citizendry respond when someone
>wears as personal adornment a symbol which has been officially
>banned in heraldry.

Most of the SCA is completely unaware that pentacles are banned.
The ban appeared in a letter that circulated within the College
of Heralds, and that most people will never see.  Most local
_heralds_ have probably never seen it.  The only way you normally 
find out it is banned (unless you're on the Rialto ;^) is by trying 
to get one on your arms and getting bounced.

So the answer is that there is no special response to displays
of pentacles as jewelry -- or for that matter on shields or
pennants: you can paint whatever you like on your shield, in most
kingdoms; you just can't _register_ a device with a pentacle.

I think it's a bad rule.  But it's effects are really very limited.

>  Admittedly, there are many symbols which would be much more
>historically correct for the knights of Lithuania or the hordes
>of Mongol (Hail, Attila, who led our people to the promised
>land!), and I'm sure people use these frequently.

And if what you are trying to do is to resurrect the ancient
traditions, I would have thought them also more appropriate from
your standpoint; indeed, were I a pagan, I would think the last
thing I'd want to do is run around in a medieval-recreationist
group (or one with any aspect that reflects that) carrying what
was a medieval Christian and Jewish symbol on my body or shield.
But I am on the outside (I'm your basic secular humanist), so my 
view may be odd.

>  Face it.  Your executive body has banned the use of a symbol
>which some of your membership hold very dear and in high
>regard.  The reasons for banning it were, in the humble opinion

Well, actually, no.  I believe the ban originates with the Laurel
Sovereign of Arms (i.e. the highest ranking herald in the Society),
not with the BoD. I don't think the issue has been _taken_ to the
BoD.  (Arval, am I wrong?)

>         The reasons for banning it were, in the humble opinion
>of myself and apparently others, inadequate considering the
>apparent bigotry in identifying the pentacle as a symbol of
>evil.

I think it was a bad call.  _But_ the pentacle was _not_ identified
as a symbol of evil.  It was identified as something many people 
would _confuse_ with a symbol of evil.  There's a world of difference.

>  Just what are your means for seeking redress for actions
>of your executive committee?  Surely you must have some

Well, the Board of Directors has an ombudsman for the herald's
office who could be written.  No one reports having done so.  If the
ombudsman is unresponsive, people could write the full Board, and
go to the next Board meeting (they are open).  To the best of my
knowledge, this hasn't been done either.  There are paths of redress,
and to the best of my knowledge, those injured have not pursued them.
(If people write the BoD, it usually comes out in a number of places,
including the BoD Minutes, to which my lord subscribes.)

>                                                   With this
>much outcry, how did such an unpopular decision get approved?

Careful at measuring outcry.  There have been maybe 20 people here who
have expressed hurt.  There are 20,000 in the SCA.  We do not, at this
point, have much evidence that a large _proportion_ feel injured -- we
do not have evidence that our pagan populace in general feels injured
-- and, as I said, nobody has written the BoD.  A few people wrote the BoD
complaining that nonmembers get a free ride, and that started a move
to set (IMHO) ridiculous restrictions on what people who haven't paid
money to California can do.  If a similar number -- or even half that
number -- wrote the BoD on this issue, they might get action, especially
as they have some reasonably influential heralds in their corner.

I hope this clarifies things further.

Cheers,

-- Angharad/Terry