From: darknite@camelot.bradley.edu (John S. Novak III)
Subject: Re: Crusades against Pagans (was Re: Arrow number Two ...)
Organization: Bradley University
Date: 16 Sep 92 04:03:56 GMT

Ciaran Benson writes:

Josh Mittleman writes:
>> I've said all that I have to say on the subject of pentacles in SCA
>> heraldry.  I would like to suggest that someone who has no acquaintance
>> with the Society is in a very poor position to analyze and criticize
>> details of its operation.  I'm not saying that newcomers should "shut up
>> and learn how to do it right", but I do believe that a new arrival in any
>> organization should try to learn everything relevent before he suggests
>> changes.
>> 

>  You're arguing, then, that I should join with my eyes closed?

I think this is a misrepresentation of what Josh was trying to
say.  Bear in mind that the Society basically tells 'newbies'
such as myself to attend three events before even _thinking_
about joining the SCA formally and paying for the priviledge of
saying so.

The SCA has impressed me as a very thoughtful group of people,
prone to making generally common-sensical decisions-- in this
case, they want you to be sure what you get into before you
formally join.  This protects both parties-- it protects you from
paying the membership fee and finding out that the SCA isn't what
you thought it was.  It also protects the SCA from having a
number of disenfranchised, but membership-paying members.  

>  You're suggesting that I should just say; "oh, well, I'm sure
>all of this apparent bigotry that's setting off all of my alarms
>is just a misunderstanding that would be _silly_ to check into
>first"?

Hardly.
Check things out, but don't feel you have the right to have them
changed because you don't like the guidelines.  Join the group if
it matches your interests, don't join it if you don't like it.

But don't join it under false pretenses and try to reform it from
within.

All in my humble opinion, of course.  I'm hardly qualified to
speak for anyone-- I'm still in the process of deciding whether
to join formally.

>  With so many people arguing that it's perfectly reasonable for
>any historically accurate prejudices to exist in SCA, and that
>I should just shut up and enjoy it 'cause anacronistic discrimination
>is just good fun?

But I think you misunderstand-- the anachronisms are part of the
ground rules.  Besides, it has been pointed out over and over
that the SCA is not telling people that they can't join if they
are pagan.  It is not telling people that they cannot display
pagan symbolism.  It is not telling you that you cannot have a
pagan persona.  It is only saying that you cannot enter [basically] 
controversial symbols into your registered coat of arms.  As
someone pointed out, this applied to 'obnoxiously' Christian
symbols, it applies to pentacles and it applies to swastikas.  It
seems to apply to the later two because of modern connotations.

>  BTW -- I really don't care if you change or if this issue ever
>gets resolved.  I am learning how the SCA treats new members.  I am
>learning how the SCA deals with questions of discrimination.  I am
>learning how the SCA responds to questions of propriety in its
>ruling body.

Fairly courteously, in my opinion.  In this entire discussion,
I've not seen a member of the Rialto degenerate into insults,
screaming-toned arguments, or what-not.  Instead, there have been
an overwhelming number of relies explaining the whys and
wherefores.

>  I'm not sure why you're saying that I am suggesting changes,
>when it seems to me that I've been very clear -- I want an
>EXPLAINATION of this, a CLARIFICATION of the SCA's decision
>to ignore "just this one, little, insignificant civil liberty".

I speak only for myself when I tell you that your missives seem to
imply that because the SCA does not conform to your standards,
the SCA should change.  Hammering away at specific points which
have been explained repeatedly often lends an aura of 'reformer'
to many arguments.

>  I'm sad to say that there seems to be a bunch of people who
>really do seem to like setting up historical recreations of bigotry.
>Sounds like I'd get beat up a lot if I joined the SCA.

I have to disagree. 
As someone who's been to SCA events, I think you'd find the SCA
folk protecting you from any mundanes who misunderstand you.  The
SCA is interested in preserving its image before the general,
unenlightened public.  Look at the problems that frp's had and
are having with many 'fundamentalist Christian' groups-- many of
these groups, and even some of the moderates, and even some
non-religious people associate frp's with dangerous, bloody,
murderous cults.  It seems clear to me that the SCA would like to
avoid any press in that area.

--
"If you ask anyone else about this, you'll get really confused."
          -'Dr.' Robert Chapman, 09-18-91
John S. Novak, III		darknite@camelot.bradley.edu