From: mittle@watson.ibm.com (Josh Mittleman)
Subject: Re: Pentacles
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 18:35:06 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Greetings from Arval!

Concerning pentacles in SCA armory, Peter Harrison wrote:

> 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.

> If the SCA has concerns about their public image as pertains to a religious
> expression, it should restrict all such expressions. 

The ruling on pentacles had nothing to do with religious expression.  It
was based only on the need to protect the good name and reputation of the
SCA from association with anti-social activities.  The College would very
probably make the same ruling if someone submitted a device using a
marijuana leaf, on precisely the same grounds.  Indeed, it HAS made other
ruling on precisely the same grounds, in cases where there was clearly no
religious content whatsoever.  The ruling had nothing to do with
neo-paganism; it had to do with psychotic murders who label themselves
"Satanists" and who have attached their reputation to the pentacle.  The
corporation made no moral judgements about other uses of the pentacle, just
as it made no judgement about Navaho religion when it accepted the similar
ban on the use of the swastika in armory.  The corporation said only one
thing: Members may not use corporate resources in a way that the
corporation feels would harm everyone in the Society.  

In fact, as you have pointed out so strongly, this particular restriction
does prevent one form of religious expression in one very narrow medium.
The fact is, Peter, that a private organization can do that.  Even the
government can do that, if there are overriding considerations.  When the
decision was made, the arguments you have made were considered.  They also
considered reports of branches which had lost sites because of accusations
of "Satanism".  They recognized that some people were going to be unhappy
no matter what they decided.  They decided that the good of the
organization was better served by the policy they made.

Peter, I admire your resolve and the strength of your beliefs.  I also
share them: I was the one who fought the fight to get the Board to change
this policy.  What I learned from that fight was that while strong beliefs
are admirable, you can't require other people to fight your fight.  If the
corporation were to allow the registration of pentacle in heraldic devices,
then it would be putting every officer of the SCA in the position of
possibly having to defend your religion and suffer for your freedom.
That's not what the SCA is for, and the Board could not in good conscience
make that choice.


Nicholas wrote:

> [The College of Arms] has refused to register pentacles because
> registering them would violate the rules by which it registers arms.
> Pentacles are *modern* symbols of a *modern* religion, not part of the
> heraldric tradition of the era that we depict. 

I am afraid you are mis-informed, Nicholas.  The College's ruling had
nothing to do with the meaning of the pentacle, and the College made no
judgement one way or the other on the authenticity of those meanings.  The
ruling was based on one thing only: the possibility of damage to the SCA's
public reputation.

As a point of fact, pentacles are found in period armory, though very
rarely.  They were associated with religious mysticism, but particularly
with Christian (and occasionally Jewish) mysticism.  The association of the
pentacle with paganism seems to date from the late 19th century.

	 Arval.

===========================================================================
Arval Benicoeur                                       mittle@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca