From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Pentacles (long)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:09:09 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.


Steve Boylan writes:

>Nicholas van Leyden should indeed fear being flamed for dismissing
>Mr. Harrison's beliefs as "nonsense".  While it is true that the ideal
>of religious tolerance is a relatively modern concept, it is very
>much one of the major principals of American democracy.  Although
>Thomas Jefferson did not list religious freedom in the particulars
>of the Declaration of Independence, he did support incorporation of
>the ideal in the United States Constitution.  

Well, well, well.  Once again we have proof that some people
on the net either cannot read or will not read simple, declarative
English sentences without distorting their meaning.  I never said
that religious tolerance was not an important principle of American
democracy.  I said that what the poster was demanding was not
religous tolerance.  If you had read the words I wrote, you would
*know* that.

You want flames, Steve boy?  Okay, prepare to become a toasted marshmallow!


>Nicholas, there is nothing in SCA policy that prohibits the use of
>the dollar sign or PacMan as a charge - the only symbols that are
>prohibited by policy are the fylfot and the pentacle.  

This is simply not true.  


>If you can document the use of the dollar sign as a period charge, 
>you would have an excellent case to compel the College of Arms to accept
>that charge (although you will have to accept the titillation of
>the populace at large).

My point was that the dollar sign is *not* a period charge.
Again, if you were capable of reading simple English sentences,
you would know that.


>Nicholas next claims that "Pentacles are *modern*
>symbols of a *modern* religion, not part of the heraldric tradition
>of the era that we depict."  I would be most interested in reviewing
>any evidence that he could provide that the use of the pentacle is
>not part of the heraldic tradition.  

Obviously, your knowledge of logic is as faulty as your
reading ability.  It is *impossible* to provide evidence
that something *doesn't* exist.  There is no evidence
that the extra chairs in my office are not being occupied
by invisible pigmy elephants -- but there's no evidence
they are, either.  The burden of proof, therefore, always
lies on the person claiming that something does exist.
The fact that there is no evidence that X was a period
heraldic charge is sufficient reason, in and of itself,
to believe that X was not a period heraldic charge.


>Recent debate on that topic has suggested evidence to 
>the contrary.  

To suggest something is not to show something.  I can
*suggest* that there's evidence to prove Abraham Lincoln
was assassinated by a time-travelling Elvis Presley. I
can suggest anything.  What I can actually show you is
another matter. 

So far, the only evidence suggested has been the device
Sir Gawain carried on his shield in the story of the Green Knight.
^^^ ^^^^^^                              ^^^^^

Note, a device carried by a *fictional character* in a *story*.
The fact that something was done in a story does not prove 
that it was done in real life.  How many millionaires dress
up in bat costumes and run around at night fighting crime?
I can imagine someone in a future 20th-Century-recreation
society using comic books to "prove" that Batman's costume 
and insignia were authentic 20th-Century dress and heraldry. 
 

>While it is true that the
>pentacle is a modern symbol of modern Wicca, there are (as yet
>unproven) suggestions that the pentacle is also a period symbol of
>the dominant religion in some areas.

Unproven suggestions are not worth the paper they're written on.
Supermarket tabloids are full of unproven suggestions.


>I would point out to Nicholas that no one has said the College of Arms must
>accept the pentacle in the name of religious freedom, either (at least
>not in the recent round of debate on the topic).

Well, at least I know it isn't my writing that's the problem.
You haven't done any better reading other people's posts than
you did reading mine.  However, you seem to suffer from memory
lapses as well as dyslexia.  You started *your own* letter by
talking about religous freedom.

There you go, kid, lightly tasted.  Fair warning, though --
next time I go for extra crispy!

-- Nicholas van Leyden



Newsgroups: rec.org.sca