Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Pentacles
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:34:00 -0500

Griffith ap Morgan ap Griffith sends greetings to you all! 

Raedwynn recently responded to comments from Tibor:

  "t> Not being able to display a pentacle is a small and unimportant thing.
  "t> 
  "t> To You.
  "t> 
  "t> Why can't people understand that they themselves are NOT the final
  "t> arbiters of what is right and reasonable and normal for someone else
  "t> to want or be?

Might I not pose the same question to you milady? On the issue of the use of
pentacles, while some consideration is due the fact that it is a religious
symbol as has been pointed out, there has been and is a *real* problem in
certain parts of the country where the display of the symbol is considered "evil
and wicked" by people who consider themselves, and *their* views on the matter
norma and reasonable and right? <Please note that I don't agree with them, but
that is *their* perspective and by your statement, who am I (or you) to judge?>

The Society has to deal with the *reality* of the existence of people holding
such views and their influence on local political and law enforcement entities.
The Society does *not* exist to champion religious or socio-political causes no
matter how worthy or noble. We exist to have fun and enjoyment in recreating a
time gone by, picking up by research and osmosis knowledge of the middle ages.
Anyone who sees the Society as anything more "serious" or "significant" than a
social group that has some educational propensities really needs to reassess
their "world view".

As a social organization, we are free, within some *very* broad limits, to
establish the structures, rules and rituals as whatever the membership desires.
You have not established a case, with regards either the pentacle as armorial
design or on the matter of same-sex consorts, that the majority of the
membership agrees with you. Until you can make that case, I don't think that the
BOD should make any changes in the current rulings which, if I recall, were
brought forth as an expression of what the membership of the Society wanted at
the time they were made.

Another thing that I feel needs addressing is the matter of what is
"tolerance"... There are many things in life that one must tolerate. Taxes,
in-laws, prime time tv... That doesn't mean that one must embrace any of these
things or even particularly *like* them. We are still free to choose what to do
for entertainment, whom to associate with, what to eat, etc.

When others begin to assert that their way of doing things, no matter how much
in the minority that view is, over the wishes of the majority, you have as much
or greater inequity than the reverse. For example, what would you think of a
Society member who is into macrobiotic food making a big fuss that all feasts be
macrobiotic? Or a member whose religion forbids the use of alcohol from
demanding that no alcoholic beverages or ingredients be used at an event?

While nothing would prevent either gentle from refraining in partaking in the
food or beverage of either of the above events, complying with their
"heart-felt" wishes would be an onerous and pernicious burden on the rest of the
members involved.

So, if the membership wants to protect the reputation of the Society from those
outside the membership who have but one association in their minds with
pentacles, and if the majority of the Society want to require mixed gender
royalty as it is what their vision of the function of Kings and Queens should
be, that is how it should be.

If you can show, through plebiscite, survey or whatever means that overwhelming
majority of the Society feel as you do on these issues, then you will have a
strong basis for having them changed.

Personally, the idea of same sex consorts is as jarring to my feelings of being
"in period" as much or more so as those who feel put off by chainmail bikinis or
elf ears... To follow your principle as stated above, there would be no reason
to not have an elf-eared, chainmail bikini wearing ruler with a rabbit fur
nearly clad consort on the thrones of one of our fair kingdoms as long as *they*
felt that they were "right and reasonable and normal".

  "t> And not being able to display a pentacle means that I do _not_ have
  "t> all the rights and priveleges that you list as available to anyone
  "t> else. I cannot decorate my person or possessions with the designs of
  "t> my choice.

As to this point, you are wrong! Absolutely wrong! At least if I am to judge by
all of the Society events that I have attended in the recent past. There were
certainly as many, if not more, folks adorned with pentacles about their persons
as any other religious symbol. You can decorate your possessions as you wish.
What the Society chooses not to do is to register *anyones* arms that are
offensive or potentially offensive. This prohibition is not just restricted to
swastikas and pentacles but rather anything that if registered and displayed at
a Society event that would give offense, intentional or otherwise. I believe far
more items are rejected because of this (particularly for intentional
offensiveness) than many are aware of.

For example, at a recent interkingdom heraldic commenting session, a badge was
submitted for a household in Caid that featured (deliberating avoiding heraldese
here) a hand holding a club in the upper left corner of the badge and a seal in
the lower right corner. The visual impact of the device was quite clear and
upsetting to several members of the commenting group and was only made worse
when we learned that the proposed name for said household was "House Seal
Beater".  Our commenting group returned this item to Laurel with the strongest
recommendations possible that it be returned to the submitter as it was patently
offensive and would provoke strong negative reactions towards the Society if it
was displayed at any Society related event.

Yours in service,

Griffith ap Morgan ap Griffith
Baronial Herald for the Barony of Ponte Alto,
Kingdom of Atlantia