[ANSTHRLD] Pentagrams now allowed in SCA heraldry

[Tim McDaniel]

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Childers, Jeff <Jeff.Childers at ttuhsc.edu> wrote:
> I am sure everyone saw the post by Stefan on the Ansteorra list.

I gave up on the Ansteorra list years ago, so, no.
(rummage rumamge)
<http://lists.ansteorra.org/pipermail/ansteorra-ansteorra.org/2009-June/065396.html>
Currently only one small followup.

> What specifically make a pentagram or other 'religious' symbols
> offensive?

In heraldic submissions, the opinions expressed in heraldic commentary.

The rest of this note is just an expansion of those 9 words.

I was a clerk for Da'ud ibn Auda when he had to deal with it in 1994
<http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/1994/07/lar.html> and 1996
<http://www.sca.org/heraldry/loar/1996/05/lar.html>.
There were 43 pages of commentary in 1994, and a comparable amount in
1996.  As he wrote in 1994 and quoted in 1996,

     As Couronne Rouge noted, however, "the issue in question is modern
     offense", and consideration of this device has to focus on that
     issue as the central one here.

He quoted from the CoA Rules for Submission, including RfS I.2, "No
name or armory will be registered that may be offensive to a
significant segment of the Society or the general population."
The 1996 ruling cites and quotes a lot more of the evidence presented,
showing that the pentagram was viewed as Satanic and offensive by a
lot of the non-SCA populace.  Both rulings ended

     After _much_ consideration and thought and careful re-reading of
     all of the documentation and commentary, I feel compelled to
     uphold the prior precedents disallowing the registration of
     mullets of five points voided and interlaced, whether within and
     conjoined to an annulet or standing by themselves.  Such charges
     still are perceived by a significant portion of the population as
     "the Satanic symbol", and hence cannot be registered by the
     College.

That's the key -- he had to read and consider the commentary and
decide whether the pentagram was "offensive to a significant segment".

And it was a hard decision that he struggled with, given the strong
POSITIVE feelings that most people in the SCA had towards the
pentagram.  He used the word "compelled" for a very good reason.

Hence the wording of Wreath's statements in the new registration,
<http://heraldry.sca.org/heraldry/loar/2009/03/09-03lar.html#8>
He showed that attitudes have changed between 1996 and 2009, and
therefore the past reason for return no longer applies, therefore it's
registerable (ceteris paribus).

     The current submission presents extensive documentation showing
     that the pentacle or pentagram is no longer perceived as a
     specifically satanic symbol.  Instead, it has become more closely
     recognized as a symbol of the Wiccan religion.  For example, the
     US military services have acknowledged the Wiccan religion in
     their Chaplain's handbook since at least 1990, and, more recently,
     the association of the pentacle with the Wiccan religion was
     acknowledged by the US government when the pentacle became the
     Wiccan religious symbol allowed on the government-furnished
     headstones of fallen US soldiers.

     We received a large amount of commentary on this submission from
     the College, and the consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of
     dropping the ban on this charge.  We hereby overturn the ruling
     from 1996, and allow the registration of mullets voided and
     interlaced, both inverted and not, and both conjoined to annulets
     and not, so long as the overall design in which this charge is
     used does not otherwise violate RfS IX.2 Offensive Religious
     Symbolism.

> If I submitted one with a goat head inside the pentagram. Does that
> make it offensive?

That would be judged by the opinions expressed in heraldic
commentary.

The current Rules for Submission were intended to provide fixed rules
where possible.  The rule of tincture is codified explicitly, for
example.

But for a lot of things, the long-time traditional wording is "'Tis a
judgment call for Laurel, I'm afraid".  Are these two designs too
visually similar (RfS X.5)?  Is a name excessively obtrusively modern?
Is this name too evocative of major protected names (e.g., Order of
the Blue Garter)?

In such cases, Laurel (or, rather, the appropriate sovereign of arms)
goes by the commentary, not their own inclinations.  It's weighing,
not just counting: people make better or worse arguments, and some
commenters make sober judgments better.

So it was and is in the pentagram cases.

> Is Satanism the specific target of this? Or just satanic symbolism?

RfS XI.2 says Offensive Religious Symbolism.  RfS I.2 talks about
offense in general.
<http://heraldry.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/rfs.html>

Danet de Lyncoln
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com