religion and how to deal with the SCA
Mandy
Apart from dealing with 'mundane' issues, I was wondering if there was a
page of advise or any words of wisdom floating around out there on being
jewish (or of other religion) and being in the SCA? About myself, I am born
jewish but not raised in any religious manner so things are pretty confusing
as it is, let alone for those who actually know what they are talking about.
Though from today I learn that being a jewish personna as well may solve
some problem... is there any notion of jewish people in say...
Flanders/france/Germany aprox, 16th century... there must.....??
Griet
thurman
serious, and what is part of the game, because some of the "in persona"
pieces I've seen in the short time that I have been in a SCAdian have
been really great and much enjoyed (by me). For example, I was at Ice
Axe and saw the beginning of the Mongol/Viking confrontation that is
leading up to Mongol's Revenge. Since I was there, it was clear to me
that the announcements were all in fun, but apparently others on the
list were confused. But what can we do? If there is some way to signal
to the populace "take it easy, this is all in fun", would that help? An
addendum to the title of a posting on the order of NOOP? (Not Out Of
Period)? Yes, I understand that some in period practices and attitudes
cannot be tolerated regardless, but how about those things like Mongol's
Revenge which should be OK if the context is known?
thorfin
inge
>
> is there any notion of jewish people in say...
> Flanders/france/Germany aprox, 16th century... there must.....??
I can't give you any sources apart from a literary one (Stephan Heym:
'Ahasver', I doubt that it was ever translated to English) and the
well-known fact that Martin Luther was quite antisemitic.
But there *were* Jews in those areas in that time for sure, although
they propably suffered persecution or at least restrictions. I'm
extremely undecided whether those restrictions should be part of a
persona background.
inge
--
I used to drive a Heisenbergmobile, but every time I looked at the
speedometer, I got lost.
===
<http://home.foni.net/~lyorn/> -- Stories, RPGs & Stuff
Zachary Kessin
"Mandy" <martin...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes:
There is a SCA-judaica mailing list (sca-j...@jtan.com) We have
been talking abou this over the last few days and a lot of us are of
the opinion that it would make us very incomparably to see someone
wearing one of the badges that Jews were made to wear in period.
--Joshua ben Chiam haLevi
Zachary Kessin
"Mandy" <martin...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes:
There is a SCA-judaica mailing list (sca-j...@jtan.com) We have
been talking abou this over the last few days and a lot of us are of
the opinion that it would make us very incomparably to see someone
wearing one of the badges that Jews were made to wear in period.
--Joshua ben Chaim haLevi
Carolingia
Zebee Johnstone
Zachary Kessin <zke...@empire.net> wrote:
>There is a SCA-judaica mailing list (sca-j...@jtan.com) We have
>been talking abou this over the last few days and a lot of us are of
>the opinion that it would make us very incomparably to see someone
>wearing one of the badges that Jews were made to wear in period.
>
>--Joshua ben Chiam haLevi
Very incomparably?
I can't work out what you were trying to say, can you try again?
SIlfren
Craig Levin
Mandy <martin...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Apart from dealing with 'mundane' issues, I was wondering if there was a
>page of advise or any words of wisdom floating around out there on being
>jewish (or of other religion) and being in the SCA?
I personally know that there are at least two webpages by people
with Sephardic personae. You can find them through my webpage on
Iberian personae, http://pages.ripco.net/~clevin/list.html
>About myself, I am born
>jewish but not raised in any religious manner so things are pretty confusing
>as it is, let alone for those who actually know what they are talking about.
> Though from today I learn that being a jewish personna as well may solve
>some problem... is there any notion of jewish people in say...
>Flanders/france/Germany aprox, 16th century... there must.....??
On the Flemish part, yes and no. They'd have been Sephardim who
left Spain or Portugal. Most Jews in the Low Countries are still
Sephardic.
I don't know of anyone with a Jekke* Renaissance persona. France,
in that time, was mostly devoid of openly practicing Jews, but
conversos were beginning to sneak over the Navarran border and
live in Gascony in comparative peace.
*Jekke-term for a German Jew, derived from their extreme
formality, in not taking off their jackets (sing. Yiddish, jekke,
sing. German,jakke) no matter the circumstances.
Pedro
--
http://pages.ripco.net/~clevin/index.html
cle...@rci.ripco.com
Craig Levin
Zachary Kessin
ze...@zip.com.au (Zebee Johnstone) writes:
Sorry its been a long few weeks at work. It would not sit well with me
to see someone wearing one of the symbols that were forced on the Jews
in period. Actually it would make me very uncomfortable.
--Joshua ben Chaim Halevi
Zebee Johnstone
Zachary Kessin <zke...@empire.net> wrote:
>Sorry its been a long few weeks at work. It would not sit well with me
>to see someone wearing one of the symbols that were forced on the Jews
>in period. Actually it would make me very uncomfortable.
>
Tricky... Cos if they have a jewish persona, it's as much a part of
the clothing as the cross is for templars or hospitallers....
Silfren
Zachary Kessin
ze...@zip.com.au (Zebee Johnstone) writes:
Yes well I am mundanly Jewish and have a Jewish persona. Let me say
that these were not something Jews wore voluntarily, they were forced
onto the Jewish community by the gentile rulers. Exactly like the
yellow stars were during the Shoah. While the Templars et al wore what
they wore voluntarily.
--Joshua haLevi
Bruce Dagel
"Zachary Kessin" <zke...@empire.net> wrote in message
news:m3u2352...@script-fu.org...
plagues, i.e. something we don't dwell on and show off.
--
Charles Bender
Living in the ruins of Cloistered Sun
Raymond C. Parks
Mandy wrote:
>
...
> is there any notion of jewish people in say...
> Flanders/france/Germany aprox, 16th century... there must.....??
Not Flanders but the Netherlands was the destination of the Jews
thrown out of England under ?Henry or Edward?. Many came back to
England once the ban was removed.
Goetz Liedtke
margali
We are trying to dress as our personas would have dreessed, and
as such we do research. If your research shows that a jew living
in Worms in 1520 wore the badge because of civil law, then that
badge is a part of your 'costume' if you are recreating a Worms
jew of 1520. If you don't want to wear a badge, then play
christian or choose a persona time and place where they didn't
have to wear the badges. Simple.
When I did an A&S entry, my female tavern singer gown had a band
of trim around one sleeve, indicating she was a prostitute. This
was appropriate. In general, women of good station did not go
into taverns and sing carmina Burana. If I wanted to be a woman
singing in a tavern, then I had to be one that would have been
able to have done it. I did not comee up with some outlandish
'persona story' of unlikely occurences that would seem to makee
it ok for a gentlewoman to bee a bar singer. I was a slut,
entertaining in a venue that I would have logically inhabited.
That is persona, clothing and detail.
-margali
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Quote Starts Here:
Brendan
> But isn't the whole outfit, clothing and symbol the deal? We are trying
> When I did an A&S entry, my female tavern singer gown had a band of trim
> some outlandish 'persona story' of unlikely occurences that would seem to
> in a venue that I would have logically inhabited.
> That is persona, clothing and detail.
Amen - er, I mean, Huzzah! - to that. I totally agree, Margali.
Yours,
Jan Antheunis van Ghent
--
Remove the dashes from my address to reply by email
Mandy
sure get complicated if I let it
Griet
Craig Levin
Zachary Kessin <zke...@empire.net> wrote:
>Yes well I am mundanly Jewish and have a Jewish persona. Let me say
>that these were not something Jews wore voluntarily, they were forced
>onto the Jewish community by the gentile rulers. Exactly like the
>yellow stars were during the Shoah. While the Templars et al wore what
>they wore voluntarily.
Forced is somewhat extreme, under certain circumstances. Jews
were also immune to some things. Jews, for the most part, could
not be compelled to appear on Saturday in a court that handled a
case between a Jew and Christian. They were not supposed to be
drafted, either for the corvee or for military service. To some
extent, Jews were special vassals of kings-and one does display
a symbol of one's vassaldom.
Would you be perturbed if a Mozarab wore a blue turban/veil?
Craig Levin
Mandy <martin...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Suppose there was always the conversos... hmm.. personna development can
>sure get complicated if I let it
If you're willing to wait, I'm working, off and on, on a CA for
Portuguese personae, which would make developing a convertido
persona easier. If you aren't willing to wait, you can start by
looking at my webpage on Iberian resources,
http://pages.ripco.net/~clevin/list.html
Mandy
> Portuguese personae, which would make developing a convertido
> persona easier. If you aren't willing to wait, you can start by
> looking at my webpage on Iberian resources,
> http://pages.ripco.net/~clevin/list.html
>
> Pedro
Sounds interesting... I have been following links from you page as well
Griet
Elizabeth Levin
>> In rec.org.sca on 30 Apr 2001 20:51:48 -0400
>> Zachary Kessin <zke...@empire.net> wrote:
>> >Sorry its been a long few weeks at work. It would not sit well with me
>> >to see someone wearing one of the symbols that were forced on the Jews
>> >in period. Actually it would make me very uncomfortable.
>>
>> Tricky... Cos if they have a jewish persona, it's as much a part of
>> the clothing as the cross is for templars or hospitallers....
> Yes well I am mundanly Jewish and have a Jewish persona.
As am I.
> Let me say
> that these were not something Jews wore voluntarily, they were forced
> onto the Jewish community by the gentile rulers. Exactly like the
> yellow stars were during the Shoah. While the Templars et al wore what
> they wore voluntarily.
Actually, there were variation, depending on where and when. I _do_ wear
something that would have marked me in 16th Century Turkey as Jewish. The
cut of my kaftan is modeled on examples known to be worn by Jews. I wear a
yellow veil, because there was a law saying that dhimmis (non-Muslims
living in the dar al'Islam) had to wear a distinguishing mark. However,
most of my yellow veils have gold thread woven into the silk grounds. Some
of them have fancy fringes and edgings. I use a fold of my veil to get
around the restrictions on Jewish women having a separate yashmak (facial
veil). In short, I wear it all- the clothing that developed when Spanish
Jews moved to Turkey, the yellow veil that they were told to wear, and the
decorations that they used to make it a pretty item, and that the ulemma
complained about.
--
Elizabeth Levin
ne...@athas.org
margali wrote:
> But isn't the whole outfit, clothing and symbol the deal?
>
Yeah, but aren't we recreating the past as it SHOULD have been ? We
don't allow vicars or priests do we ? In the same argument, why should
we force symbols of religious persecution ?
If someone wants to be authentic to the point of making someone
uncomfortable. Would it be okay for me to be an Inquisitor ? I would
have a fine red and white costume and would be well versed in the
history of the Pagans, Jews and heretics I've tortured and killed. What
if I was an Iquisitor and I bumped into someone wearing the knobed hat
the English made the Jews wear before they drove them from the island ?
I would feel like an ass. I couldn't imagine how a Jew would feel.
It kind of like going as a KKK member for halloween. and your friend is
going as a slave with a rope around his neck. Still cool ? Its
authentic.
-Justin
Zebee Johnstone
Ne...@athas.org <ne...@athas.org> wrote:
>
>
>If someone wants to be authentic to the point of making someone
>uncomfortable. Would it be okay for me to be an Inquisitor ? I would
>have a fine red and white costume and would be well versed in the
>history of the Pagans, Jews and heretics I've tortured and killed. What
>if I was an Iquisitor and I bumped into someone wearing the knobed hat
>the English made the Jews wear before they drove them from the island ?
>I would feel like an ass. I couldn't imagine how a Jew would feel.
>
If you want to recreate that, wnt to study it, want to know how
someone felt, and they wanted to do the same, you are about to do both
get some excellent insight.
If you don't want to re-create that bit, then don't. Practice
selective blindness, as those who play western knights and those who
play saracens do.
If one of you does want to play and the other doesn't, then the one
who doesn't says "I'm sorry, that's not something I want to re-create
today" and the other - being a courteous SCA citizen - says "no
problem".
If you don't want to be in that situation, then don't be. Don't use
those items in your re-creation at all.
IF someone is wearing something you find difficult, ignore them. It's
done all the time when Viking meets Elizabethan after all!
Silfren
Magesteff
> discussion with the message:
> > > >Sorry its been a long few weeks at work. It would not sit well with me
> > > >to see someone wearing one of the symbols that were forced on the Jews
> > > >in period. Actually it would make me very uncomfortable.
> Silfren (akm Zebee Johnston) replies::
> > > Tricky... Cos if they have a jewish persona, it's as much a part of
> > > the clothing as the cross is for templars or hospitallers....
> > >
> Joshua haLevi (akm Zachary Kessin) continued with:
> > Yes well I am mundanly Jewish and have a Jewish persona. Let me say
> > that these were not something Jews wore voluntarily, they were forced
> > onto the Jewish community by the gentile rulers. Exactly like the
> > yellow stars were during the Shoah. While the Templars et al wore what
> > they wore voluntarily.
Charles Bender added:
> It occurs to me that the badges may well fit the same category as the
> plagues, i.e. something we don't dwell on and show off.
Exactly. Preference for the *best* of the earlier times, not *all* of the
earlier times, regardless of how period. We don't reproduce the leaded glazes
used on serving platters due to health considerations, why should we reproduce
something that goes against the main idea of the society? - That all
participants are noble born (even if they choose to portray someone of a lesser
rank).
I don't think that even those who wish for more authenticity in the society
would say you *must* wear such dishonorable tokens of rank, since we are all
*supposedly* of the same rank when we join this society. If one be dishonored,
we all surely are.
--
Lady Fionnghuala Bethoc of Lindisfarne
- "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."-Albert
Einstein
--------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ยข227, Any and all
nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a download
and archival fee in the amount of $500.00 US.
E-Mailing denotes the acceptance of these terms
--------------------------------------------------------
Magesteff
For any type of persona. However, do not let the fact that you are still
developing a persona get in the way of having fun at events while you are
still doing your research. Don't let it prevent you from wearing a simple
t-tunic and singing filk songs with us around the camp table (too many dry
areas here in Trimaris for many camp fires these days). Deciding on what
name you want to register (etc.) can wait a long time, there is no rush to
get one. I will point out that whatever use name you take, if different from
your mundane name, may produce minor problems when you finally pick a name
that gets accepted - depending on how many people know the use name and how
long you used it, getting them to switch names could take a long time. (one
Laurel I know is still called by her use name, luckily she decided on using
it as her *middle* name so it isn't to far off, another Honorable Lady is
still called her first choice even though it could not be documented as a
name used at the time and her *registered* name is quite different).
Jean le Bleu
> Yeah, but aren't we recreating the past as it SHOULD have been ? We
> don't allow vicars or priests do we ? In the same argument, why should
> we force symbols of religious persecution ?
It's not that we don't allow it, but as I understand it, a little more
subtle. We don't have religious offices as official offices in the
Society, but we do have political, civic, and military offices. But
we understand that the role of religion is better, and so the SCA
wisely does not want to introduce religious controversy into the
Society's medieval context, and so we have no religious offices.
At the same time, one is prohibited from assuming a title or status
within the Society that one has not earned. Religious offices are
often interpreted as titled or possessors of status, and as a result,
to call one's persona a priest (or bishop, or whatever) in the Society
would be unallowed unless that rank had been earned within the
Society, and the Society explicitly prohibits the earning of such rank
within the Society.
(And it doesn't matter a whit what your status might be outside the
Society; if HRH Elizabeth I wanted to play our game, she would be a
commoner in the society, and could only be Queen in the Society by the
normal way. Likewise, she would not be allowed to bear the arms
"Gules, three lions passant or" within the Society: they would be
presumptuous, even for her.)
The combination of these two rules, reasonable in themselves, means
that personas cannot claim religious offices or status within the
Society context, not because priests are not part of the past as it
should have been, but because we don't have (or want) the mechanism of
recreating that part of the past, and it would squick people too much
if we tried, so wisely, we don't.
And yet: there are those in the Society whose personas are religious;
usually friars of some sort or else military orders. And this does
squick me a little.
Mandy
If
> " HRH Elizabeth I wanted to play our game"
with her, we probably wouldn't argue.
:o)
Griet
Jean le Bleu
> It's not that we don't allow it, but as I understand it, a little more
> subtle. We don't have religious offices as official offices in the
> Society, but we do have political, civic, and military offices. But
> we understand that the role of religion is better, and so the SCA
> wisely does not want to introduce religious controversy into the
> Society's medieval context, and so we have no religious offices.
Erp, typo. I meant "the role of religion is different".
Jean le Bleu
Zebee Johnstone
If Eleizabeth I wanted to be in the game, then I'd let her. IF she's
got enough clout to get here and now, she's got enough to have
whatever she wants!
On the other hand, Elizabeth II is a skilled politician, and knows
when to pull rank and when not to.
Silfren
--
Zebee Johnstone (ze...@zip.com.au)
Proud holder of aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1.
"You don't own an Italian motorcycle
- you merely have the privilege of paying its bills."
Mandy
>
> > If
> > > " HRH Elizabeth I wanted to play our game"
> > she would most likely demand to be queen..... and if she had her
supporters
> > with her, we probably wouldn't argue.
> > :o)
>
> Erp, and a typo. I mean, of course, Elizabeth II.
>
Ahhh.. that makes for a whole different matter <G>
Griet
Robert A. Uhl
> If someone wants to be authentic to the point of making someone
> uncomfortable. Would it be okay for me to be an Inquisitor ? I would
> have a fine red and white costume and would be well versed in the
> history of the Pagans, Jews and heretics I've tortured and killed.
Minor correction: the Inquisition killed none but heretical
Christians. Church courts did not generally have jurisdiction over
non-Christians. The whole issue arose because Spain drove the Moors
out and expelled the Jews. Everyone remaining was a Christian, at
least in theory: they had been baptised &c. and were thus subject to
the Church courts. Many of them were not Christian, but instead
whatever they had been before. Technically, it was heresy or
apostasy.
The Mel Brooks `we're on a mission to convert the Jews' schtick is not
terribly accurate. It was more a mission to eliminate Christians who
did not obey the Church.
Not that I'm part of the Roman church--but I like to see the facts set
straight.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
The power of Satan is as nothing before the might of the Lord, so don't
go getting any ideas. --I Abyssinians 20:20
Robert A. Uhl
>
> (And it doesn't matter a whit what your status might be outside the
> Society; if HRH Elizabeth I wanted to play our game, she would be a
> commoner in the society, and could only be Queen in the Society by the
> normal way. Likewise, she would not be allowed to bear the arms
> "Gules, three lions passant or" within the Society: they would be
> presumptuous, even for her.)
It seems to me that this would be wrong. HM Elizabeth II is herself,
and ca bear whatever arms she likes. Should she wish to play our
game, she could play a commoner, _or_ she could play the Queen of
England--the first of our number able to lay claim to that title.
She'd not be an SCA queen; she'd be a queen, Deo gratia &c. I daresay
it's a rather remote possibility that she'd play anyway, though.
> And yet: there are those in the Society whose personas are religious;
> usually friars of some sort or else military orders. And this does
> squick me a little.
It only upsets me when they are not mundanely such. It upsets me
incredibly when they don't even act the part--that is quite offensive.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
Sometimes when I reflect back on all the beer I drink
I feel ashamed. Then I look into the glass and think about
the workers in the brewery and all of their hopes and
dreams. If I didn't drink this beer, they might be out of
work and their dreams would be shattered. Then I say to
myself, `It is better that I drink this beer and let their
dreams come true than be selfish and worry about my liver.'
--Unattributed
Ulftonn
>>
>
>Yeah, but aren't we recreating the past as it SHOULD have been ? We
>don't allow vicars or priests do we ?
Umm Yes we do. I have known many religious personas in my 20 some years in the
SCA. The only limit on this persona is that they not be anoying in preaching
at everyone.
In the same argument, why should
>we force symbols of religious persecution ?
>
I don't think we could or should force anyone to wear anything they dont want
to. However if the persona wishes to wear such a symbol (maybe to educate
those of us who didn't know about them) then they can and should wear them.
>If someone wants to be authentic to the point of making someone
>uncomfortable. Would it be okay for me to be an Inquisitor ?
Yes, however dont try to arrest anyone or it might be you who gets burned....
I would
>have a fine red and white costume and would be well versed in the
>history of the Pagans, Jews and heretics I've tortured and killed. What
>if I was an Iquisitor and I bumped into someone wearing the knobed hat
>the English made the Jews wear before they drove them from the island ?
>I would feel like an ass. I couldn't imagine how a Jew would feel.
>
If you adopt a persona that makes you uncomfortable then dont adopt it. If
your willing to live with the persona then well and good...
>It kind of like going as a KKK member for halloween. and your friend is
>going as a slave with a rope around his neck. Still cool ? Its
>authentic.
>
Again if your making a point about history and some of the bad things maybe it
is cool.
Ulftonn
>-Justin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jean le Bleu
> It only upsets me when they are not mundanely such. It upsets me
> incredibly when they don't even act the part--that is quite offensive.
Well, the group I know (and I've had only a tiny contact) more or less
act the part. If there were mundanely such, I'd be perfectly happy
with it, I suspect. On the other hand, there aren't any more military
orders left, with the suppression of the Templars and all. So I'm
pretty sure they aren't such.
For my part, my closet happens to have a certain amount of religious
garb, since I am one, but it is very important to me *not* to wear it
at Scadian functions, precisely because it would very likely be
misinterpreted as costume: that is, it is Mundanely important, and the
Mundane is just more important to me than the game SCA.
My attitude towards Persona is also probably connected here. When I'm
at a Scadian event, I'm Jean; in the Mundane world I'm Thomas. But
Jean isn't Thomas's alter ego: Jean is just Thomas using a different
name.
At Scadian events I eat real food, wear real clothes, listen to real
music, play real games, have real conversations. That's part of the
joy of it for me: that it isn't play acting so much as doing real
things in a medievalish way.
It would be fun to be at an event where others similarly inclined did
the research and celebrated a Sarum rite liturgy. (Sarum is the Latin
name for Salisbury, whose ritual was very important in the churches of
southern England.) But it would be, for me, real prayer to the real
God that I worship every day. And "similarly inclined" would include
that others view it the same way. It would not be pretend prayer, any
more than we eat pretend food, wear pretend clothes, play pretend
musical instruments, or dance pretend dances.
If it were a Eucharist, the presider would be an ordained priest,
celebrating a real Eucharist according to an ancient rite. And it
would be a great experience, and a fitting thing for a group of
suitably inclined coreligionists to do.
I'm not one who thinks that everything I do at a Scadian event has to
be medieval, so if there aren't a group of similarly inclined people
who would enjoy such liturgy, I'm perfectly happy just praying on my
own using the contemporary rite of the Episcopal Church.
I would be rather offended if there were a group which was doing
pretend liturgy according to some medieval rite. I would be grateful
that the SCA prohibits such as part of the official content of an
event, and I would avoid it. I wouldn't raise a stink; what is
offensive to me might be important to someone else, and if we can stay
out of each other's way, then we can all be happy. And the current
rules of the SCA make it quite possibly to stay out of each other's
way if people have the appropriate charity towards each other: as
indeed, people generally do.
In addition, if there were people doing real liturgy, but according to
a ritual that I find objectionable (if, say, they are using a sharply
heterodox Christian liturgy, or a service of some other
[non-Christian] religion)--then I would not want to participate, and
I'm grateful that the SCA says that this ritual needs to happen
outside official contexts, so that I can participate in the event
without participating in the ritual.
Thomas
Anthony J. Bryant
>
> It seems to me that this would be wrong. HM Elizabeth II is herself,
> and ca bear whatever arms she likes. Should she wish to play our
> game, she could play a commoner, _or_ she could play the Queen of
> England--the first of our number able to lay claim to that title.
> She'd not be an SCA queen; she'd be a queen, Deo gratia &c. I daresay
> it's a rather remote possibility that she'd play anyway, though.
>
Actually, no; she can't use her mundane name, she can't use the name of
someone historical, and she can't use the title "Queen" in the game unless
some hot stick wins for her.
We've had mundane nobility play with us before. Count Riolando di Marco di
Savoy played briefly in Trimaris in the early 70s, and was nonplused that he
couldn't use his mundane rank and arms.
Effingham
Ulftonn
>> don't allow vicars or priests do we ? In the same argument, why should
>> we force symbols of religious persecution ?
>
>It's not that we don't allow it, but as I understand it, a little more
>subtle. We don't have religious offices as official offices in the
>Society, but we do have political, civic, and military offices. But
>we understand that the role of religion is better, and so the SCA
>wisely does not want to introduce religious controversy into the
>Society's medieval context, and so we have no religious offices.
>
>At the same time, one is prohibited from assuming a title or status
>within the Society that one has not earned. Religious offices are
>often interpreted as titled or possessors of status, and as a result,
>to call one's persona a priest (or bishop, or whatever) in the Society
>would be unallowed unless that rank had been earned within the
>Society, and the Society explicitly prohibits the earning of such rank
>within the Society.
>
Hmm very narrow outlook. IMO because religious office is not part of the SCA
rank structure, if a person wants to claim some religious standing, Priest,
Goddie ect why not. However that person should not be anoying in their persona
about religion, and should try to do dignity to the persona. However I can
also see how it would offend people of that religion to have this happen so its
a problem indeed...
>(And it doesn't matter a whit what your status might be outside the
>Society; if HRH Elizabeth I wanted to play our game, she would be a
>commoner in the society, and could only be Queen in the Society by the
>normal way. Likewise, she would not be allowed to bear the arms
>"Gules, three lions passant or" within the Society: they would be
>presumptuous, even for her.)
>
Hmm the Haralds have allowed some such cases past with letters from the bearers
of the "real" arms giveing the SCA persona permission to bear that arms. Of
course you would have to prove you and you alone have the right to give that
permission.... Elizabeth II (note not I) could prove this I think...
>The combination of these two rules, reasonable in themselves, means
>that personas cannot claim religious offices or status within the
>Society context, not because priests are not part of the past as it
>should have been, but because we don't have (or want) the mechanism of
>recreating that part of the past, and it would squick people too much
>if we tried, so wisely, we don't.
>
I have seen it done and it has worked sometimes...
>And yet: there are those in the Society whose personas are religious;
>usually friars of some sort or else military orders. And this does
>squick me a little.
>
Not me, if they can do so with out being anoying I welcome them....
UIftonn
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jean le Bleu
> Actually, no; she can't use her mundane name, she can't use the name of
> someone historical, and she can't use the title "Queen" in the game unless
> some hot stick wins for her.
Or she wins on her own.
Jean le Bleu
> Hmm very narrow outlook. IMO because religious office is not part
> of the SCA rank structure, if a person wants to claim some religious
> standing, Priest, Goddie ect why not. However that person should
> not be anoying in their persona about religion, and should try to do
> dignity to the persona. However I can also see how it would offend
> people of that religion to have this happen so its a problem
> indeed...
Well, the Rules for Submissions list "abbot" as one such title, which
would not be allowed if used in a context that appeared to be rank or
title (but OK if a mere surname). Similarly, one is prohibited from
registering arms which contain insignia associated with religious rank
(such as the use of a miter or pallium).
So where we have a formal rule, from the College of Heralds, I think
the rule says "you don't get to be a bishop". Other things are
governed by more informal custom without the need for specific rules,
which is fine by me, but I think it would be presumptuous for just the
same reasons.
Jean
Bredin Zierd
> Yes well I am mundanly Jewish and have a Jewish persona. Let me say
> that these were not something Jews wore voluntarily, they were forced
> onto the Jewish community by the gentile rulers. Exactly like the
> yellow stars were during the Shoah. While the Templars et al wore what
> they wore voluntarily.
Do you seriously believe that religious accroutment was totally voluntary
for a 15th century english knight?
Seriously?
You know that failure to wear a rosary was considered heretical in
several times and places?
--
Bredin,
Purveyor of the last Humble Opinion.
Pete Hardie
If she does that, I doubt anyone would cross her....
--
Better Living Through Circuitry
Barbara Nostrand
Greetings from Solveig! I don't believe that HRH Elizabeth II would
have to be a commoner nor do I believe that anyone has to be a commoner.
However, I do not believe that she can be a queen of any sort in the
Society except by achieving status in some manner recognizeable by
the Society. (One example of this is the treaty between the East
Kingdom and the kingdom of Acre.) I am not a Magistra or a Doktor
in the Society despite the fact that I am both in mundane life. This
same sort of lagic applies to the Queen of England, the King of Jordan,
the Prince of Monaco, and last I checked, Spain currently has a King
who would likewise have to go out there and visit the list field to
be any sort of king in the Society.
Your Humble Servant
Solveig Throndardottir
Amateur Scholar
Rowanwald Central
Since we can use our first name as our persona name, I can see it now...
"Oyez! Make way for Her Royal Majesty, Queen by right of arms, Elizabeth of
Drachenwald"
*Ahem*
"Elizabeth of Drachenwald and England!"
Then again, when folks of different recreation groups play with us, we
generally recognise their persona ranks, so she could choose to be Queen
Elizabeth of England - or - Sadie the barmaid, best kitchen helper a cook
ever had.
Rosine
Steven H. Mesnick
> > (And it doesn't matter a whit what your status might be outside the
> > Society; if HRH Elizabeth I wanted to play our game, she would be a
> > commoner in the society, and could only be Queen in the Society by the
> > normal way.
> It seems to me that this would be wrong. HM Elizabeth II is herself,
> and ca bear whatever arms she likes. Should she wish to play our
> game, she could play a commoner, _or_ she could play the Queen of
> England--the first of our number able to lay claim to that title.
Nope. I imagine that if the real honest-to-God Duke of Bedford
decided to play our game, we'd happily ignore the rules
and have a ball playing Middle Ages with the honest-to-God
Duke of Bedford. (Reference previous discussions here about
the nobility of Acre, which the East recognizes and which is
as non-real as we are. Point being, if we can get away with *that*....)
But, notwithstanding that, His Grace would not
be His Grace in our game until he won two Crown Tournies fair
and square. You can't be yourself in this club. That's the whole *IDEA*.
> She'd not be an SCA queen; she'd be a queen, Deo gratia &c.
We'd undoubtedly play it that way. In fact, we came close to that
once. It was the Caer Mear Heraldic Symposium, John Brooke-Little
was a special guest -- he was in town for a historical celebration
of the Commonwealth of Virginia -- and he was presented with a scroll
to be delivered to Her Brittanic Majesty. But, *technically*, if she
were to join the SCA, she'd start out as Elizabeth Windsor, she'd
have to choose an SCA name (and she *couldn't* be Elizabeth Tudor,
either) and she'd have to earn her AoA like anyone else.
By the way, remember: there are holders of nobiliary titles in several
countries in which the SCA operates. Heck, there is still, I
understand, a baronage in Canada (Longeuil). There are knights in the
USA: the chief of OB-GYN at my former local hospital was a Knight
of St. Lazarus. I know an honest-to-God brother (not a knight) of
the Order of St. John in the SCA. The likelihood of a mundanely-titled
Scadian is higher than you might think. Who are they when they join the
SCA? An untitled newcomer like anyone else.
> > And yet: there are those in the Society whose personas are religious;
> > usually friars of some sort or else military orders. And this does
> > squick me a little.
>
> It only upsets me when they are not mundanely such.
What do *you* play in the SCA? And who are you in real life?
Are you offended that I'm not a real lawyer? In real life,
I'm Jewish, and a pharmacist. Am I restricted to only playing
a Jewish apothecary in the SCA? Gee, nobody told me that when
I joined up.
--
============ Baron Steffan ap Kennydd ================
Silverwing's Laws: http://pobox.com/~steffan/laws.html
Are you on the Rolls Ethereal? You should be!
http://www.waks.org/rolls
Steven H. Mesnick
Not likely, although she'd be a strong contender for the Royal
Equestrian
Championships %^).
Greycat Sharpclaw
wrote:
>It seems to me that this would be wrong. HM Elizabeth II is herself,
>and ca bear whatever arms she likes. Should she wish to play our
>game, she could play a commoner, _or_ she could play the Queen of
>England--the first of our number able to lay claim to that title.
Err, no. Restricted ranks and titles in the SCA can NOT be assumed
based on mundane rights to these ranks and titles.
This is not only an established rule, there is precident for it being
applied.
--
Lord Emrys Cador
Barony of Settmour Swamp
East Kingdom
Remove "nospam" in the address to reply
JE Anderson
"Anthony J. Bryant" <ajbr...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:3AEF6B11...@indiana.edu...
> "Robert A. Uhl" wrote:
>
> >
> > It seems to me that this would be wrong. HM Elizabeth II is herself,
> > and ca bear whatever arms she likes. Should she wish to play our
> > game, she could play a commoner, _or_ she could play the Queen of
> > England--the first of our number able to lay claim to that title.
> > She'd not be an SCA queen; she'd be a queen, Deo gratia &c. I daresay
> > it's a rather remote possibility that she'd play anyway, though.
> >
>
> Actually, no; she can't use her mundane name, she can't use the name of
> someone historical, and she can't use the title "Queen" in the game unless
> some hot stick wins for her.
She could use her mundane name in part...couldn't she????? Go by Elizabeth?
That's how I passed Erika - mundane middle name....
just a thought :-)
Eirika
Michelle Picou
>At the same time, one is prohibited from assuming a title or status
>within the Society that one has not earned. Religious offices are
>often interpreted as titled or possessors of status, and as a result,
>to call one's persona a priest (or bishop, or whatever) in the Society
>would be unallowed unless that rank had been earned within the Society, and
the Society explicitly prohibits the earning of such rank within the Society
>And yet: there are those in the Society whose personas are religious;
>usually friars of some sort or else military orders. And this does
>squick me a little.
>
We have one gentle in my home barony whose persona is that of a monk. He is an
ordaned minister in mundane life. He went by the name Brother Whatever (name
changed to protect anonimity) , and refused for a long time to accept an AoA,
on the grounds that it wasn't proper for a man of the cloth to accept a
personal boon from an earthly authority, or to be called Lord. If I remember
correctly, our herald researched the order of monks that this gentle's persona
belonged to and determined that the next step up from "Brother" in the hiearchy
of this order was "Prior". The giving of the award was handled in such a way
that the crown made a pretence of presenting it on behalf of Brother Whatever's
superiors - in other words, that it wasn't from them personally at all, they
were just proxies who delivered the scroll to his hands. This has been viewed
locally as being no different from an Arabic king choosing to be called Sultan.
It was merely a nifty device to allow this gentle an elevation in title and
rank without feeling forced to step outside his persona.
Lady Birgitta
Kingdom of Ansteorra
Per chevron argent and Or, on a chevron embattled counter-embattled vert five
roses argent.
To respond by e-mail, lift the Latch
Cumhail Mac Cumhail
its own. Personally, I'm for the concept...except where it interferes with
personal freedoms. Obviously, sacrificing anything to make someone else
more comfortable is a noble pursuit, but once again, I feel that tolerance
and education beat legislation and censorship (even self-censorship) hands
down. Sometimes people need the catalyst of being made uncomfortable to
grow.
--
Cumhail
--------------------------------------------------------
I think that I am better than those who are trying
to reform me.
--E.W. Howe
Ne...@athas.org <ne...@athas.org> wrote in message
news:3AEF293A...@athas.org...
>
>
> margali wrote:
>
> > But isn't the whole outfit, clothing and symbol the deal?
> >
>
> Yeah, but aren't we recreating the past as it SHOULD have been ? We
> don't allow vicars or priests do we ? In the same argument, why should
> we force symbols of religious persecution ?
>
> If someone wants to be authentic to the point of making someone
> uncomfortable. Would it be okay for me to be an Inquisitor ? I would
> have a fine red and white costume and would be well versed in the
> history of the Pagans, Jews and heretics I've tortured and killed. What
> if I was an Iquisitor and I bumped into someone wearing the knobed hat
> the English made the Jews wear before they drove them from the island ?
> I would feel like an ass. I couldn't imagine how a Jew would feel.
>
> It kind of like going as a KKK member for halloween. and your friend is
> going as a slave with a rope around his neck. Still cool ? Its
> authentic.
>
> -Justin
>
Arval d'Espas Nord
Greetings from Arval! Justin <ne...@athas.org> said:
> Yeah, but aren't we recreating the past as it SHOULD have been ?
No. Some people like to use that catch-phrase, but it is in fact a very
poor description of the game we play. And it is not part of any official
definition of the game.
> We don't allow vicars or priests do we ?
You are misinformed: Such religious personae are not only welcome but
encouraged by the same clause of Corpora that we've been discussing.
===========================================================================
Arval d'Espas Nord mit...@panix.com
Craig Levin
Ne...@athas.org <ne...@athas.org> wrote:
>Yeah, but aren't we recreating the past as it SHOULD have been ?
If I had a dime for every time someboday said that, I'd be able
to pay off my student loans...
>We
>don't allow vicars or priests do we ? In the same argument, why should
>we force symbols of religious persecution ?
Actually, there's a goodly number of people with clerical
personae. They can't claim to be bishops or abbots, as these
people had temporal jurisdiction, though. That's not from G and
PD VI, but another part of Corpora, on titles and ranks.
Also, nobody is forcing anyone to wear anything, typically. The
one exception I can think of is last year's Pennsic medallion.
>If someone wants to be authentic to the point of making someone
>uncomfortable. Would it be okay for me to be an Inquisitor ? I would
>have a fine red and white costume and would be well versed in the
>history of the Pagans, Jews and heretics I've tortured and killed. What
>if I was an Iquisitor and I bumped into someone wearing the knobed hat
>the English made the Jews wear before they drove them from the island ?
>I would feel like an ass. I couldn't imagine how a Jew would feel.
Primus: La Suprema didn't have any jurisdiction over Jews and
Muslims. Heretics are another matter.
Secundus: The inquisitor would probably approve of a Jew who knew
how to properly dress.
My wife wears the yellow veil that Ottoman Sephardic women wore.
It's a matter of educating people-the nominal goal of this group.
Pedro
--
http://pages.ripco.net/~clevin/index.html
cle...@rci.ripco.com
Craig Levin
Craig Levin
Robert A. Uhl <ru...@4dv.net> wrote:
>It seems to me that this would be wrong. HM Elizabeth II is herself,
>and ca bear whatever arms she likes. Should she wish to play our
>game, she could play a commoner, _or_ she could play the Queen of
>England--the first of our number able to lay claim to that title.
Not in the SCA, she can't. I suggest that folks head over the
Laurel website and look at the College of Arms' Admin. Handbook.
The section you want is III.A.9.
>It only upsets me when they are not mundanely such. It upsets me
>incredibly when they don't even act the part--that is quite offensive.
Yup.
Craig Levin
Ulftonn <ulf...@aol.com> wrote:
>Hmm very narrow outlook. IMO because religious office is not part of the SCA
>rank structure, if a person wants to claim some religious standing, Priest,
>Goddie ect why not. However that person should not be anoying in their persona
>about religion, and should try to do dignity to the persona. However I can
>also see how it would offend people of that religion to have this happen so its
>a problem indeed...
Well, there's the catch. I've got no problem with someone who's
got a persona who's a priest. My problem with him would be if the
person, who isn't actually ordained, performed the Mass; even if
it's not my faith, I think that it'd be misleading to the people
who really did believe.
>Hmm the Haralds have allowed some such cases past with letters from the bearers
>of the "real" arms giveing the SCA persona permission to bear that arms. Of
>course you would have to prove you and you alone have the right to give that
>permission.... Elizabeth II (note not I) could prove this I think...
No. You may be thinking of the Bavaria precedent, a long time
ago, which came about more through the crude state of the art
then in the College of Arms. The present state of affairs is
different. See the College of Arms' Admin. Handbook, section III.
Craig Levin
>
>> It only upsets me when they are not mundanely such. It upsets me
>> incredibly when they don't even act the part--that is quite offensive.
>
>Well, the group I know (and I've had only a tiny contact) more or less
>act the part. If there were mundanely such, I'd be perfectly happy
>with it, I suspect. On the other hand, there aren't any more military
>orders left, with the suppression of the Templars and all. So I'm
>pretty sure they aren't such.
Actually, the Knights of Malta are still around, as are the
Iberian military orders. The Knights of Malta even retain their
status as a sovereign power-see:
http://www.smom.org/order/history.html
The Teutonic Knights changed their nature and are no longer
creating knights, according to Seward's _Monks of War_. But
they're still around as an order.
margali
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/orders/ordhist.htm
I am sure that thre are a number of Modern Knights Avis who would
really take exception to that! I don't think it awards
competitive fly-tying or underwater basket weaving.
Since that order is for military service, I would assume that it
isn't rewarded for serving an enemy? Isn't knighthood about
serving your leige? I would assume that in the past, the Knights
Avis were created for serving the Crown of Portugal. I would also
assume that the recipients get it for serving in the Portugese
military. Seems to me like a militant order.
And conversely, you could be current clergy and a member of the
Teutonic Knights. They could also be a membeer of one of the
Spanich orders, as they are defined below. ;-)
The Order of Saint-John (Malta) lost its territorial sovereignty
in 1798. Since then, it has
retained its statutes (although massively expanding
membership in recently created
categories) and is dedicated to medical and charitable
activities. As a subject of
international law, the order enjoys recognition from a
number of countries and institutions.
The Templars were abolished in 1312.
The Teutonic Knights abandoned their status as order of
chivalry in 1929 and became a
simple religious order instead.
The Order of Saint-Lazarus split into two branches, one
obeying papal orders and merging
with the Savoyard order of Saint-Maurice in 1572, the other
falling under the protection of
the French crown in 1608 and merging with Notre-Dame du Mont
Carmel. It was
abolished by Louis XVI in July 1791 and not revived when the
monarchy was restored in
1814. Currently, an organization claims to be the Order of
Saint-Lazarus. The Savoyard
order was an Italian state order from 1860 to 1946, at which
date it ceased to be conferred
in Italy; the heir to the Italian royal dynasty continues to
confer it, see that order's website.
>> The Portuguese orders (Avis, Santiago, Christ) were all
secularized in 1789, and remained
>> as national orders. Abolished at the fall of the monarchy
in 1910, they were recreated as
> >national orders in 1918. Avis currently rewards military
services, Christ rewards civilians
>>and foreigners, and Santiago rewards accomplishments in
arts and sciences.
The Spanish orders (Santiago, Calatrava, Alcantara,
Montesa), secularized in the late 15th
and 16th centuries, briefly abolished in 1873-74, were
abolished in Spanish law in 1934,
although this had no effect in canon (Church) law. Their
activities were unofficially revived in
1978, and king Juan Carlos I is their Grand Master (a title
first used by Alfonso XIII in
1916) and Perpetual Administrator on behalf of the Holy See.
They are thus dynastic
orders of the royal house of Spain but not Spanish state
orders.
-margali
[or am I missing some arcane point?]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Quote Starts Here:
Robert A. Uhl
>
> > > And yet: there are those in the Society whose personas are religious;
> > > usually friars of some sort or else military orders. And this does
> > > squick me a little.
> >
> > It only upsets me when they are not mundanely such.
>
> What do *you* play in the SCA? And who are you in real life?
I play a _late_ 9th century Anglo-Saxon. I don't get any more
specific than that. Mundanely, I'm an early 21st century mutt.
> Are you offended that I'm not a real lawyer? In real life,
> I'm Jewish, and a pharmacist. Am I restricted to only playing
> a Jewish apothecary in the SCA? Gee, nobody told me that when
> I joined up.
I'm offended that non-ordained folks are playing at being ordained.
I'm offended that non-believers are using religious symbols which are
not their own--for fun. I'm offended when a man plays at being a
Christian priest but gets drunk, sleeps around, curses, swears and
wears a Thor's hammer over his vestments.
Anyone in the SCA can be a basketmaker: simply learn how to make
baskets. Not anyone can be a priest: for that, one needs ordination,
and belief.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
When I became a man, I put away childish things, including the fear of
childishness and the desire to be very grown-up. --C.S. Lewis
Robert A. Uhl
Greycat Sharpclaw <theGr...@nospam.eartlink.net> wrote:
>
> Err, no. Restricted ranks and titles in the SCA can NOT be assumed
> based on mundane rights to these ranks and titles.
And yet we have in places established relations with other groups and
accepted their fantasy titles. It seems silly in the extreme to then
reject true titles. We can accept the visiting King of Poobahland but
not the visiting King of Belgium?
> This is not only an established rule, there is precident for it being
> applied.
It is IMHO a dumb rule. But I don't know anything. I daresay there's
a good reason for it.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
Wouldn't you love to fill out _that_ report? `Company asset #423423 was
lost while fighting the forces of evil.' --Chris Adams
Craig Levin
>Greycat Sharpclaw <theGr...@nospam.eartlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> Err, no. Restricted ranks and titles in the SCA can NOT be assumed
>> based on mundane rights to these ranks and titles.
>And yet we have in places established relations with other groups and
>accepted their fantasy titles. It seems silly in the extreme to then
>reject true titles. We can accept the visiting King of Poobahland but
>not the visiting King of Belgium?
Actually, the deal between Acre and the East isn't a part of
corporate policy. I'm not sure if the kingdoms have the right to
make such arrangements, as they abrogate Laurel's right to
determine titles.
Arval d'Espas Nord
Greetings from Arval! Robert Uhl wrote:
> I'm offended that non-ordained folks are playing at being ordained.
Forgive me using you as example, but this really is the perfect example.
When making rules about this sort of thing, the Society has to decide how
much we're willing to restrict our game to avoid offending people. We've
decided, for example, that a bishop (real or fake) blessing the crown at
coronation causes enough discomfort for enough people that we should
exclude it from our game. We decided that the costs of including it
outweigh the benefit of increased authenticity and more fun for the people
who'd enjoy it.
But we decided that someone playacting a priest in an unofficial context
doesn't rise to that level.
One could argue with either decision; and that might result in shifting the
line one way or another. There will always be such a line and there will
always be people dissatisfied with it.
David Tallan
wrote:
>I'm offended that non-believers are using religious symbols which are
>not their own--for fun.
Are you offended just when people have fun playing a persona that
ridicules a religion not their own, or when people have fun play a
persona that is seriously religious in a religion not their own? So
you'd be offended if a non-Christian were to play a Crusader persona
and wear a cross. Should Crusader personae be limited to people who
are mundanely Christian, or should it just be that people who are
mundanely Christian are allowed to portray a Crusader with a greater
amount of historical accuracy?
How about using "religious symbols" in speech/writing. When Cariadoc
says/writes "In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the
Compassionate...", are you offended because David Friedman is not a
Muslim? If not, why not - if a non-Christian wearing a cross bothers
you? Does it offend you that I wrote that phrase, non-Muslim that i
am.
If my persona wears a pilgrim badge for Canterbury or Santiago do I
need to have been there myself, mundanely to avoid causing offense or
is it enough that it is part of my persona story that he has been
there. If I have been there myself mundanely, does it need to have
been in the context of a religious pilgrimage for my persona to avoid
giving offense by wearing a pilgrim's badge.
Is an overtly religious persona like a pardoner or a missionary, when
portrayed as someone sincerely religious, more offensive or less
offensive when the persona is mundanely of the same religion (and thus
might be construed as seriously trying to convert people) or when they
are mundanely of a different religion (and thus clearly playing a
part)?
Respectfully,
David Tallan
has never had an SCA persona the same religion as himself, and was
asked to play a missionary for a different religion by the autocrat of
an SCA event
Robert A. Uhl
>
> Forgive me using you as example, but this really is the perfect example.
> When making rules about this sort of thing, the Society has to decide how
> much we're willing to restrict our game to avoid offending people.
I'm not arguing that it should be forbidden--just that it's offensive
and IMHO disrespectful to the office protrayed. OTOH, a fairly good
argument _could_ be formulated for banning it--it is, after all,
assuming an unearned title. But that is not an argument I care to wage.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening the mind,
as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.
--G.K. Chesterton
Robert A. Uhl
>
> Are you offended just when people have fun playing a persona that
> ridicules a religion not their own, or when people have fun play a
> persona that is seriously religious in a religion not their own?
Def. the first--it's rude and in poor taste. As to the second, that
is not really such a big deal. OTOH, I find it a tad strange. Why
would someone profess a faith not his own? Folks have died rather
than do so.
> How about using "religious symbols" in speech/writing. When Cariadoc
> says/writes "In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the
> Compassionate...", are you offended because David Friedman is not a
> Muslim? If not, why not - if a non-Christian wearing a cross bothers
> you? Does it offend you that I wrote that phrase, non-Muslim that i
> am.
Is he mocking Moslems? I don't believe that he is. But I'm no
Moslem--it's not really my place to judge.
> Is an overtly religious persona like a pardoner or a missionary, when
> portrayed as someone sincerely religious, more offensive or less
> offensive when the persona is mundanely of the same religion (and thus
> might be construed as seriously trying to convert people) or when they
> are mundanely of a different religion (and thus clearly playing a
> part)?
It is someone playing an agent of a God he does not believe in--of
course it's offensive.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
Fatum Iustum Stultorum--The Just Fate of Fools/The Just Fate of the Foolish
David Friedman
ru...@latakia.dyndns.org (Robert A. Uhl) wrote:
> On 2 May 2001 15:35:09 -0500, David Tallan <dta...@interlog.com> wrote:
> >
> > Are you offended just when people have fun playing a persona that
> > ridicules a religion not their own, or when people have fun play a
> > persona that is seriously religious in a religion not their own?
>
> Def. the first--it's rude and in poor taste. As to the second, that
> is not really such a big deal. OTOH, I find it a tad strange. Why
> would someone profess a faith not his own? Folks have died rather
> than do so.
1. Trying to do a convincing job of portraying someone who believes
different things than I do is interesting and educatinal; it helps me
better understand what such people were like.
2. Do you know of anyone who died rather than act out, in a play, the
role of someone of a different religion? Anyone who died rather than
write a novel whose first person protagonist was of a religion other
than his own? I don't.
--
David/Cariadoc
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Medieval/Medieval.html
Magesteff
> If
> > " HRH Elizabeth I wanted to play our game"
> she would most likely demand to be queen..... and if she had her supporters
> with her, we probably wouldn't argue.
But then we wouldn't be playing the SCA game we would be playing Queen
Elizabeth's game.
To comment on some of Jean Le Bleu's comments, it was my understanding that we
do not "give out" titles such as Bishop, etc. But if someone has legitimately
earned then Mundanely and wanted to incorporate it into their persona they
could because they have earned the right to be styled Bishop etc. Queen
Elizabeth could still be Queen Elizabeth (there is one who is Queen of England
in Period after all), her story could be that she is "visiting" royalty , and
is still required to pay due homage to the King and Queen of the SCA group she
was participating with, and make the attempt at medieval clothing.
--
Lady Fionnghuala Bethoc of Lindisfarne
- "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."-Albert
Einstein
--------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ยข227, Any and all
nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a download
and archival fee in the amount of $500.00 US.
E-Mailing denotes the acceptance of these terms
--------------------------------------------------------
Anthony J. Bryant
> On Wed, 02 May 2001 03:55:11 GMT,
> Greycat Sharpclaw <theGr...@nospam.eartlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > Err, no. Restricted ranks and titles in the SCA can NOT be assumed
> > based on mundane rights to these ranks and titles.
>
> And yet we have in places established relations with other groups and
> accepted their fantasy titles. It seems silly in the extreme to then
> reject true titles. We can accept the visiting King of Poobahland but
> not the visiting King of Belgium?
Which is another reason I feel these "treaties" shouldn't exist. These
organizations don't do titles the way we do. Some even pay for their
titles, and can be anything they want and can afford. I don't respect
someone with deep pockets and buys the title knight and duke the way I do
someone who's EARNED them.
Also, these treaties support these folks as rare visitors, like once a year
at Pennsic. If they *stay*, if they're playing *our* game, it's to our
rules as members/hangers-on in OUR group, and foreign titles are worth
squat.
Effingham
Harold Groot
wrote:
>So where we have a formal rule, from the College of Heralds, I think
>the rule says "you don't get to be a bishop". Other things are
>governed by more informal custom without the need for specific rules,
>which is fine by me, but I think it would be presumptuous for just the
>same reasons.
As I recall, the general prohibition is on claiming a title that
implies jurisdiction over an area of land. Since a bishop falls into
that category, it is prohibited. A priest does not have that type of
jurisdiction, so that is allowed.
Anthony J. Bryant
>
> To comment on some of Jean Le Bleu's comments, it was my understanding that we
> do not "give out" titles such as Bishop, etc. But if someone has legitimately
> earned then Mundanely and wanted to incorporate it into their persona they
> could because they have earned the right to be styled Bishop etc. Queen
> Elizabeth could still be Queen Elizabeth (there is one who is Queen of England
> in Period after all), her story could be that she is "visiting" royalty , and
> is still required to pay due homage to the King and Queen of the SCA group she
> was participating with, and make the attempt at medieval clothing.
No. Not possible, not so.
Read the rules.
Effingham
Anthony J. Bryant
>
> I'm offended that non-ordained folks are playing at being ordained.
> I'm offended that non-believers are using religious symbols which are
> not their own--for fun. I'm offended when a man plays at being a
> Christian priest but gets drunk, sleeps around, curses, swears and
> wears a Thor's hammer over his vestments.
Hear hear.
Effingham
Anthony J. Bryant
>
> 2. Do you know of anyone who died rather than act out, in a play, the
> role of someone of a different religion?
We aren't acting out scripted characters in a play, Your Grace. These
characters we portray, over the months and years, are our alter-egos, part of
ourselves. They're not something someone wrote for us to do for a time and
abandon.
> Anyone who died rather than
> write a novel whose first person protagonist was of a religion other
> than his own? I don't.
Apples and oranges, Your Grace. I'm really surprised that these are the
arguments you've put forward.
Effingham
David Hughes
>
> margali wrote:
>
> > But isn't the whole outfit, clothing and symbol the deal?
> >
>
> don't allow vicars or priests do we ? In the same argument, why should
> we force symbols of religious persecution ?
The SCA does not prohibit someone from portraying a religious persona.
Ya wanna be a priest/monk/rabbi/mullah, go for it.
If you form a monastic household, and the members recognize you as the
abbot, you're an abbot.
Some people may be offended, especially if you do it badly. Deal with
it.
>
> If someone wants to be authentic to the point of making someone
> uncomfortable. Would it be okay for me to be an Inquisitor ? I would
> have a fine red and white costume and would be well versed in the
> history of the Pagans, Jews and heretics I've tortured and killed. What
> if I was an Iquisitor and I bumped into someone wearing the knobed hat
> the English made the Jews wear before they drove them from the island ?
> I would feel like an ass. I couldn't imagine how a Jew would feel.
>
> It kind of like going as a KKK member for halloween. and your friend is
> going as a slave with a rope around his neck. Still cool ? Its
> authentic.
>
Hardly authentic. The KKK postdates slavery in the US by a number of
years.
> -Justin
David Gallowglass
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
margali
I don't know about you, but when I got more interested in the
middle east and elizabethan england, I stopped being an early
celt to be late persian or an elizabethan woman, depending on
which clothing I am wearing. Pennsic is a bit different as I
sometimes wear borrowed garb if I run short and am getting a load
of laundry done. Then I have been japanese, celtic again and
landesknecht. I didn't like the german clothing, I found the
slashing too fro-frou. But I did in those different garbs adjust
my character accordingly. I am not my persona, I have a life. If
tomorrow the BOD made a ruling that there could be no roman,
middle eastern or elizabethan personas allowed, just 14th century
norman, then I would start playing norman. To me it is not
something I have vested with anything other than time in
researching, and the money for cloth for garb. Nothing more and
nothing less. If there was no SCA local to where I lived, I would
probably spend the time I do on SCA stuff on SF/Fantasy
literature, learn to be a computer geek or get a floor loom and
make really large pot holders [I could always try to track down
my cousin and talk her out of my grandmother's loom ;-) ]
-margali
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Quote Starts Here:
David Friedman
"Anthony J. Bryant" <ajbr...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> David Friedman wrote:
>
> >
> > 2. Do you know of anyone who died rather than act out, in a play, the
> > role of someone of a different religion?
>
> We aren't acting out scripted characters in a play, Your Grace. These
> characters we portray, over the months and years, are our alter-egos, part of
> ourselves. They're not something someone wrote for us to do for a time and
> abandon.
They aren't something someone else wrote out; they are a work of fiction
we are creating. But, like charcters in a play or a novel, they need not
represent our own beliefs--and often don't.
--
David/Cariadoc
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Medieval/Medieval.html
pyotr filipivich
<jean+...@becket.net> was inspired to write:
>If it were a Eucharist, the presider would be an ordained priest,
>celebrating a real Eucharist according to an ancient rite. And it
>would be a great experience, and a fitting thing for a group of
>suitably inclined coreligionists to do.
"We" could always do Morning Prayer, and skip the parts requiring an
Ordained Priest. (real bummer there, trying to get a member of the Clergy to
come play on their workday :-) )
>I'm not one who thinks that everything I do at a Scadian event has to
>be medieval, so if there aren't a group of similarly inclined people
>who would enjoy such liturgy, I'm perfectly happy just praying on my
>own using the contemporary rite of the Episcopal Church.
LOL. "Which Contemporary Rite might that be?" :-)
Many years ago, I was involved with Brother/Father/Cardinal William
(advancement comes fast when you're the entire outfit :-) ) who later went to
the mundane seminary and got all the paperwork and laying on of hands to
actually BE an Anglican Priest. But being all good Anglo-Catholics (in the
"real" world as well as the "Real" world) very often on Sunday Morning we would
gather at the Orange Pavilion, Fr William would ring the bell, and we would all
read Morning Prayer. Usually from the 1549 prayerbook, as Fr William didn't
put much stock in that new fangled modernist revision (the 1551.) Sort of an
inside joke. Especially for one who is a Dedicated Traditionalist High Church
Anglican who traces his "tradition" to the 1979 BCP.
But one Sunday, I was "dragged" to Divine Service by a friend, who did take
advantage of the Office of Reconciliation of A Penitent ("Confession") before
Mass. After the service, she was concerned that I might be a bit put off by
her actions, and I told her "For me, in the Mass is the one place I don't play
"the game" (mundane or otherwise), I & God are at Table sat down, and this is
probably the only time I am serious."
>
>I would be rather offended if there were a group which was doing
>pretend liturgy according to some medieval rite. I would be grateful
>that the SCA prohibits such as part of the official content of an
>event, and I would avoid it. I wouldn't raise a stink; what is
>offensive to me might be important to someone else, and if we can stay
>out of each other's way, then we can all be happy. And the current
>rules of the SCA make it quite possibly to stay out of each other's
>way if people have the appropriate charity towards each other: as
>indeed, people generally do.
Amen.
>
>In addition, if there were people doing real liturgy, but according to
>a ritual that I find objectionable (if, say, they are using a sharply
>heterodox Christian liturgy, or a service of some other
>[non-Christian] religion)--then I would not want to participate, and
>I'm grateful that the SCA says that this ritual needs to happen
>outside official contexts, so that I can participate in the event
>without participating in the ritual.
Amen, and preach it.
Nikolai
Nikolai Petrovich Flandropoff
Whimsical Order of the Ailing Wit
General Secretary for Clan MacFlandry
Loose Canon, Heavy Opera Company of An Tir
Dennis O'Connor
"Anthony J. Bryant" <ajbr...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:3AF0B18B...@indiana.edu...
> David Friedman wrote:
> > 2. Do you know of anyone who died rather than act out, in a play, the
> > role of someone of a different religion?
>
> We aren't acting out scripted characters in a play, Your Grace. These
> characters we portray, over the months and years, are our alter-egos,
> part of ourselves.
Uh, well, for you, Your Excellency. Not for me. I treat "persona"
as something to use as a focus for research. When I lived in
colder climes, having a Mongol persona meant I could wear warm
Mongolian stuff, and the culture of Mongolia is fascinating.
Now that I live in the not-too-cold parts of Atenveldt, I found
I could conveniently change that focus to late 13th or mid 14th C.
Egypt, and still be a Mongol (a Mamluke, captured in battle,
served my time as a slave in the Army, and now a government
employee of some kind). So I keep the Mongol name, bits of
the Mongol culture, through in a dash of Egyptian, Turkish and
Islamic culture (the Mamluke period was also fascinating :-)
and have nice _cool_ clothes to were under Aten's warm sun.
But there is no "Buri Dogshin" "alter-ego". There's just
enough of a persona story to justify the mishmash of name,
costume and interests. Luckily it isn't a far fetched story.
Now, my _tents_ on the other hand (Panther Marquis,
Bell-Wedge, and Regent) are totally wrong for a
Mongol Mamluke. But so's the propane. :-)
Anyway, to sum up after the rambling, some of us
don't create and then portray fictional characters.
So this is just a "what you mean 'we'?" response. :-)
--
Dennis O'Connor dm...@primenet.com
Vanity Web Page http://www.primenet.com/~dmoc/
"Welcome to the Propane Middle-Ages!"
Barbara Nostrand
Gretings from Solveig!
> > I'm offended that non-ordained folks are playing at being ordained.
> > I'm offended that non-believers are using religious symbols which are
> > not their own--for fun. I'm offended when a man plays at being a
> > Christian priest but gets drunk, sleeps around, curses, swears and
> > wears a Thor's hammer over his vestments.
Ordination is a complicated matter which might include lower orders.
I do think that wearing relgious symbols in a kind of jest is in
rather poor taste. However, I do believe that there is a middle
ground in which people can in all earnestness learn about other
cultures including other religions.
Your Humble Servant
Solveig Throndardottir
Amateur Scholar
pyotr filipivich
Uhl) was inspired to write:
>On Wed, 02 May 2001 03:41:56 GMT, Steven H. Mesnick <ste...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > And yet: there are those in the Society whose personas are religious;
>> > > usually friars of some sort or else military orders. And this does
>> > > squick me a little.
>> >
>> > It only upsets me when they are not mundanely such.
>>
>> What do *you* play in the SCA? And who are you in real life?
>
>I play a _late_ 9th century Anglo-Saxon. I don't get any more
>specific than that. Mundanely, I'm an early 21st century mutt.
>
>> Are you offended that I'm not a real lawyer? In real life,
>> I'm Jewish, and a pharmacist. Am I restricted to only playing
>> a Jewish apothecary in the SCA? Gee, nobody told me that when
>> I joined up.
>
>I'm offended that non-ordained folks are playing at being ordained.
>I'm offended that non-believers are using religious symbols which are
>not their own--for fun. I'm offended when a man plays at being a
>Christian priest but gets drunk, sleeps around, curses, swears and
>wears a Thor's hammer over his vestments.
Me too. Unfortunately, those were all too common in Period.
HEre in An Tir we have a College of disreputable Cardinals, the Guccis,
who have the collective persona as that of a Renaissance Italian "Prince of the
Church". Men of God they might be, but they are, after all ... men. Ahem,
if you catch my drift, and I think you do.
In other words, they are not "religious" except in the pursuit of their
true Vocation: enjoying the bounty of God's Creation. (Ufda, I'm finding
redeeming features to reprobates, I must be a closet Franciscan.:) Baron
Steffano (court baron) has stated that his role, his persona, is just as intent
after the main chance as any of the d'Medici Cardinals. If someone were to
present a True Believer holding divine services as he stumbles back to his
abode with his .. ahem "ward" safely under his arm, his response would be "how
wonderful that someone actually believes" - an all too often real response by
senior clergy in the Renaissance. There is also an English saying that is
period: 'so close to Rome, so far from Jesus."
>Anyone in the SCA can be a basketmaker: simply learn how to make
>baskets. Not anyone can be a priest: for that, one needs ordination,
>and belief.
Were I to adopt a clerical persona, doubt thee not that he shall be making
a study of Theology, et alia, and will have been Ordained as is Right Meet and
Proper, according to Canon Law, etc, etc, etc. _I_ may not have been there
when "he" did all those things (something about not doing religious events at
SCA events :-) ), does not mean that The Right Reverend Oleander of Abesthwyth
didn't. Some other day, we can talk about the validity of modern religious
convictions and ordinations in a medieval context, let alone the small matter
of the notion "Priesthood of all Believers" which pervades modern Christianity,
especially the Protestant factions, was not so accepted in "Ye Current Modern
Times".
Nikolai
Nikolai Petrovich Flandropoff
Whimiscal Order of the Ailing Wit
Ingeborg Denner
>
> In rec.org.sca on 2 May 2001 17:38:25 GMT , ru...@latakia.dyndns.org (Robert A.
> Uhl) was inspired to write:
>
> >
> >I'm offended that non-ordained folks are playing at being ordained.
> >I'm offended that non-believers are using religious symbols which are
> >not their own--for fun. I'm offended when a man plays at being a
> >Christian priest but gets drunk, sleeps around, curses, swears and
> >wears a Thor's hammer over his vestments.
>
> Me too. Unfortunately, those were all too common in Period.
I really like those 'better safe than sorry' Thor's Hammers which have a
cross on the backside. So, you were prepared for more than one god...
inge
--
I used to drive a Heisenbergmobile, but every time I looked at the
speedometer, I got lost.
===
<http://home.foni.net/~lyorn> -- Stories, RPG & stuff.
Ted Eisenstein
> I'm offended when a man plays at being a
> Christian priest but gets drunk, sleeps around, curses, swears and
> wears a Thor's hammer over his vestments.
Why? It's not as if Christian priests in period didn't get drunk,
sleep around, curse, and/or swear (dunno about Thor's hammers, though).
Alban
Anthony J. Bryant
And it's not like period knights went on "rape the peasant women" sprees
and period kings didn't kill their own family members to obtain the
throne.
Those are parts of history I'd rather we *not* recreate. We're trying to
be the good side, the postive and chivalrous ideal, no? So why
deliberately dredge up a few bad eggs to make as our examples?
Effingham
Robert A. Uhl
<ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >Anyone in the SCA can be a basketmaker: simply learn how to make
> >baskets. Not anyone can be a priest: for that, one needs ordination,
> >and belief.
>
> Were I to adopt a clerical persona, doubt thee not that he
> shall be making a study of Theology, et alia, and will have been
> Ordained as is Right Meet and Proper, according to Canon Law, etc,
> etc, etc. _I_ may not have been there when "he" did all those
> things (something about not doing religious events at SCA events :-)
> ), does not mean that The Right Reverend Oleander of Abesthwyth
> didn't.
What I mean is that the basketmaker _is_ a basketmaker: he makes
baskets. The `priest' isn't--the man is not a priest. The persona
is, but the persona is a fiction--it's the man who wears the persona
who is being IMHO offensive. This is different from a king: he is a
king of the Society due to the fact that the Society says he is. So
the king _is_ a king, in a very real sense. The basketmaker, the
bladesmith, the chandler--they are what the claim to be. Even the
adventurer or the ne'er-do-well is in a sense what he claims to be.
But the `priest' is not. I'm not arguing that the Society should ban
clerical personae; I'm arguing that non-clerics should have the
politeness not to play them. Not coercion--personal choice.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
The power of Satan is as nothing before the might of the Lord, so don't
go getting any ideas. --I Abyssinians 20:20
James Pratt
>is, but the persona is a fiction--it's the man who wears the persona
>who is being IMHO offensive. This is different from a king: he is a
>king of the Society due to the fact that the Society says he is. So
>the king _is_ a king, in a very real sense. The basketmaker, the
>bladesmith, the chandler--they are what the claim to be.
Perhaps not a priest after Melchizedek; however the matter
of priesthood does not entirely lay within ordination. The individual
who genuinely believes that he or she is called to minister through
devotion to a particular deity/dieties is just as valid in his/her
calling as the recipient of ordination from uniterrupted apostolic
succession. This is a matter we cannot legislate in the SCA or
outisde of it. Indeed the ban of such an attempt is one of the
purposes of G&PD#6.
Cathal.
Craig Levin
Magesteff <mage...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>To comment on some of Jean Le Bleu's comments, it was my understanding that we
>do not "give out" titles such as Bishop, etc. But if someone has legitimately
>earned then Mundanely and wanted to incorporate it into their persona they
>could because they have earned the right to be styled Bishop etc. Queen
>Elizabeth could still be Queen Elizabeth (there is one who is Queen of England
>in Period after all), her story could be that she is "visiting" royalty , and
>is still required to pay due homage to the King and Queen of the SCA group she
>was participating with, and make the attempt at medieval clothing.
No. See: http://www.sca.org/docs/corpora.hbk.html , VII.C.1. The
East's accord with Acre is nifty, but not something the king of
the East could do.
Arval d'Espas Nord
Pedro wrote:
> No. See: http://www.sca.org/docs/corpora.hbk.html , VII.C.1. The East's
> accord with Acre is nifty, but not something the king of the East could
> do.
It demonstrably _is_ something the king of the East can do. This is my
favorite illustration of the fact that Corpora is merely an approximate
description of our game, not a prescription for it.
===========================================================================
Robert A. Uhl
>
> Perhaps not a priest after Melchizedek; however the matter
> of priesthood does not entirely lay within ordination. The individual
> who genuinely believes that he or she is called to minister through
> devotion to a particular deity/dieties is just as valid in his/her
> calling as the recipient of ordination from uniterrupted apostolic
> succession.
Within his religion, sure. But not within the Catholic religion
(which is the relgion of the majority of the SCA period). I don't
know about Greco-Roman or German paganism.
The point is that the portrayer is _not_ what is portrayed, unlike
with singing, basketmaking, fighting &c. And once again I reiterate
that I've no desire to forbid such personae--merely that I wish folks
would have the politeness not to choose such. It's an affront to the
very thing they might claim to be respecting.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
Who does not love wine, women, and song, Remains a fool his whole life
long. --Johann Heinrich Voss
Magesteff
I am corrected. Thank you for the link, Pedro, it's a keeper.
It would seem that the only way for HRM QE II to be granted a special
title is for the BOD to define the creation of a unique title for her
(per Copora VII. C. 2.).
Ted Eisenstein
Well, aside from the fact that rape and murder are against the law,
and mundane law supersedes SCA law - and that such things, even if they
weren't illegal, would be in incredibly bad taste. . . . And, indeed,
there _are_ some Crowns in the SCA that "kill" their parents; Meridies,
I believe, has the custome of removing one set of Crowns by various and
sundry interesting means before the next set can step up, and some of
those removals, I've heard, are quite good.
I wasn't suggesting, of course, that every time someone in the SCA recreates
a religious persona it should be of the drunk and disorderly type - but
there would be times when such a thing might be appropriate, say, when
performing part of The Canterbury Tales. Drunk priests shouldn't be the
only examples; but I see no reason not to have an occasional example
scattered hither and yon, to fill out our experience. Too many positive
and chivalrous ideals running around give a false impression. <grin>
Alban
Ulftonn
>SCA
>>rank structure, if a person wants to claim some religious standing, Priest,
>>Goddie ect why not. However that person should not be anoying in their
>persona
>>about religion, and should try to do dignity to the persona. However I can
>>also see how it would offend people of that religion to have this happen so
>its
>>a problem indeed...
>
>Well, there's the catch. I've got no problem with someone who's
>got a persona who's a priest. My problem with him would be if the
>person, who isn't actually ordained, performed the Mass; even if
>it's not my faith, I think that it'd be misleading to the people
>who really did believe.
>
I agree here as well,
>>Hmm the Haralds have allowed some such cases past with letters from the
>bearers
>>of the "real" arms giveing the SCA persona permission to bear that arms. Of
>>course you would have to prove you and you alone have the right to give that
>>permission.... Elizabeth II (note not I) could prove this I think...
>
>No. You may be thinking of the Bavaria precedent, a long time
>ago, which came about more through the crude state of the art
>then in the College of Arms. The present state of affairs is
>different. See the College of Arms' Admin. Handbook, section III.
>
Actuly I was thinking of a member who also wrote books. He wrote a series of
Murder/Magic mysterys set in another universe. He tryed to register his heros
Coat of Arms, and it was bounced because it belonged to that fictional hero.
So our "Hero" had his Hero write a letter of permission to conflict on the
publishers letterhead as well as the Authors letter agreeing to the conflict,
end result Arms passed....
Ulftonn
Anthony J. Bryant
> The `priest' isn't--the man is not a priest. The persona
> >is, but the persona is a fiction--it's the man who wears the persona
> >who is being IMHO offensive. This is different from a king: he is a
> >king of the Society due to the fact that the Society says he is. So
> >the king _is_ a king, in a very real sense. The basketmaker, the
> >bladesmith, the chandler--they are what the claim to be.
>
> Perhaps not a priest after Melchizedek;
Thank goodness. The only one who has that title is JC....
Effingham
Anthony J. Bryant
> >>> I'm offended when a man plays at being a
> >>> Christian priest but gets drunk, sleeps around, curses, swears and
> >>> wears a Thor's hammer over his vestments.
> >>
> >> Why? It's not as if Christian priests in period didn't get drunk,
> >> sleep around, curse, and/or swear (dunno about Thor's hammers, though).
> >
> > And it's not like period knights went on "rape the peasant women" sprees
> > and period kings didn't kill their own family members to obtain the
> > throne.
> >
> > Those are parts of history I'd rather we *not* recreate. We're trying to
> > be the good side, the postive and chivalrous ideal, no? So why
> > deliberately dredge up a few bad eggs to make as our examples?
>
> Well, aside from the fact that rape and murder are against the law,
> and mundane law supersedes SCA law -
Irrelevant, rape can be simulated -- "for schtick" -- just as can be
excommunications by contumatious clergy.
> and that such things, even if they
> weren't illegal, would be in incredibly bad taste. . . .
And you don't think mocking clergy is bad taste? That's EXACTLY THE POINT I'm
making, Alban.
> And, indeed,
> there _are_ some Crowns in the SCA that "kill" their parents; Meridies,
> I believe, has the custome of removing one set of Crowns by various and
> sundry interesting means before the next set can step up, and some of
> those removals, I've heard, are quite good.
And I always found that distasteful, even when I lived there.
> Too many positive
> and chivalrous ideals running around give a false impression. <grin>
Well, that's *one* false impression I could live with. <G>
Effingham
Martin Hungerford
argument. There was one about a Marquis who joined in a day of games,
not knowing of the SCA. When he was asked for his name and rank, in
order to be awarded his prizes, he was told that Marquis was not an
allowed title in the SCA. To which he is said to have replyed "What's
the SCA?"
My favourite concerns the Noble in Sweden who apparently leant his hall
for a few events. One day he mentioned that his cousin the King would
like to attend an event (it seems they sounded like fun). This caused
some panic and the story concludes that the SCA nobles were told to
treat the King as a visiting Royal. I never heard how it finished - or
if. Indeed, for all I know the King of Sweden plays a scullion now :)
Iago / Martin
(claimant to Castle Hungerford de farley)
"Steven H. Mesnick" wrote:
>
> > > (And it doesn't matter a whit what your status might be outside the
> > > Society; if HRH Elizabeth I wanted to play our game, she would be a
> > > commoner in the society, and could only be Queen in the Society by the
> > > normal way.
>
> We'd undoubtedly play it that way. In fact, we came close to that
> once. It was the Caer Mear Heraldic Symposium, John Brooke-Little
> was a special guest -- he was in town for a historical celebration
> of the Commonwealth of Virginia -- and he was presented with a scroll
> to be delivered to Her Brittanic Majesty.
Martin Hungerford
Iago
"Anthony J. Bryant" wrote:
> Which is another reason I feel these "treaties" shouldn't exist. These
> organizations don't do titles the way we do. Some even pay for their
> titles, and can be anything they want and can afford. I don't respect
> someone with deep pockets and buys the title knight and duke the way I do
> someone who's EARNED them.
>
Martin Hungerford
"Robert A. Uhl" wrote:
> Minor correction: the Inquisition killed none but heretical
> Christians. Church courts did not generally have jurisdiction over
> non-Christians. The whole issue arose because Spain drove the Moors
> out and expelled the Jews. Everyone remaining was a Christian, at
> least in theory: they had been baptised &c. and were thus subject to
> the Church courts. Many of them were not Christian, but instead
> whatever they had been before. Technically, it was heresy or
> apostasy.
> Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
But, if you define everybody as "heretical Christians", then you can
kill them all, and the deity will know their own. So the limit on only
killing heretics was only a theoretical limit. In reality they could
kill anybody and claim them as a heretic.
Is that a reasonable version of what happened? I know little of current
affairs.
Martin/Iago
Ted Eisenstein
>> weren't illegal, would be in incredibly bad taste. . . .
>
> And you don't think mocking clergy is bad taste? That's EXACTLY THE POINT I'm
> making, Alban.
I think mocking _anyone_ is bad taste. . . But, hypothetically speaking,
where does a Chaucerian "this is a bad example of priestliness and I take
literary license to mock that bad example" stop and the Trimarian example
of plain bad taste (if one indeed believes this to be true) begin?
I don't think mocking all clergy is in good taste; but I see no reason why
bad examples can't be held up as bad examples, and that requires, if not
mocking them, at least a fair amount of, ummmm, dislike. And that's what's
under discussion, no? I don't think, from the description, that whoever
plotted the Trimarian shtick (or whatever you call it) was suggesting all
clergy was drunk and disorderly; I would hope, instead, that he was pointing
out that only D&D priests were worthy (if that's the word) of dislike
verging on mockery.
I'm reminded of a letter I read a year or so ago in some magazine or
newspaper commenting on the portrayal of one of the characters in "American
Beauty", that of the neighbor who was a Marine. In the picture, this
particular character was, if memory serves, overly strict with his wife and
son, collected Nazi war memorabilia, and was a closet homosexual. The
letter writer complained that the screenwriter was an awful, sick, nasty,
and brutish person because the Marines just weren't that way, not at all.
I didn't see the character that way. I didn't see him as an exemplar of all
Marines, as I believe the letter writer seemed to; I saw him simply as
someone who happened to be a member of a branch of the armed forces. _He_
was overly strict, etc., not all Marines, in the same way that not all
psychiatrists are homicidal cannibals like Hannibal Lecter. (Not any of
them, I hope!)
I believe the Trimarian author was mocking a particular type of clergy, not
all clergy. He was portraying a drunk priest, not Priesthood. He was
well within his literary rights to mock that particular character - and I
would not assume that he was, thereby, mocking all priests.
Or at least I _hope_ the Trimarian author was doing; I wasn't there to see
all this, nor have I talked/emailed the author, and don't even know if there
was an author per se. But if I had been there, I would have seen the priest
as a priest, a character, with foibles that needed laughing at, and not as
a stand-in for Priests Everywhere. Mocking All Priests is not something I
ever want to see - but exaggerating one particular priest's bad morals for
the purposes of education and moralising is something I can see being done,
and I approve of such things.
Yeesh! I'm sermonising! It's too late at night for that to happen. Time for
a long soak in a hot bath.
Alban
Anthony J. Bryant
> Pedro wrote:
>
> > No. See: http://www.sca.org/docs/corpora.hbk.html , VII.C.1. The East's
> > accord with Acre is nifty, but not something the king of the East could
> > do.
>
> It demonstrably _is_ something the king of the East can do. This is my
> favorite illustration of the fact that Corpora is merely an approximate
> description of our game, not a prescription for it.
The fact that someone does something doesn't mean it is correct within the
pertinent laws and rules.
People embezzle money, shoplift, and sneak into movies without paying, so it's
demonstrably something they can do, despite the prohibitions against it. That
they haven't been caught or punished or whatever doesn't mean it's okay to do
it.
Effingham
Anthony J. Bryant
> >> and that such things, even if they
> >> weren't illegal, would be in incredibly bad taste. . . .
> >
> > And you don't think mocking clergy is bad taste? That's EXACTLY THE POINT I'm
> > making, Alban.
>
> I think mocking _anyone_ is bad taste. . . But, hypothetically speaking,
> where does a Chaucerian "this is a bad example of priestliness and I take
> literary license to mock that bad example" stop and the Trimarian example
> of plain bad taste (if one indeed believes this to be true) begin?
>
Good point, one that I'll readily concede.
My main problem is that it's a negative example that exists in a vacuum, with no
counter example to stand up against it as the ideal. At least
>
> I don't think mocking all clergy is in good taste; but I see no reason why
> bad examples can't be held up as bad examples, and that requires, if not
> mocking them, at least a fair amount of, ummmm, dislike. And that's what's
> under discussion, no? I don't think, from the description, that whoever
> plotted the Trimarian shtick (or whatever you call it) was suggesting all
> clergy was drunk and disorderly; I would hope, instead, that he was pointing
> out that only D&D priests were worthy (if that's the word) of dislike
> verging on mockery.
>
True.
>
> I'm reminded of a letter I read a year or so ago in some magazine or
> newspaper commenting on the portrayal of one of the characters in "American
> Beauty", that of the neighbor who was a Marine. In the picture, this
> particular character was, if memory serves, overly strict with his wife and
> son, collected Nazi war memorabilia, and was a closet homosexual. The
> letter writer complained that the screenwriter was an awful, sick, nasty,
> and brutish person because the Marines just weren't that way, not at all.
>
I can see that. I've often argued against that same type of person who maintains
that such a portrayal is "meant to be" indicative of the group as a whole.
I guess, given my personal background, I just missed the beat because this time it
was one of *my* cows that was being de-sacred-ed.
<snip>
>
>
> Yeesh! I'm sermonising! It's too late at night for that to happen. Time for
> a long soak in a hot bath.
With Mister Bubble? <G>
Effingham
Dennis O'Connor
> Arval d'Espas Nord wrote:
> > Pedro wrote:
> > > No. See: http://www.sca.org/docs/corpora.hbk.html , VII.C.1. The East's
> > > accord with Acre is nifty, but not something the king of the East could
> > > do.
> >
> > It demonstrably _is_ something the king of the East can do.
>
> pertinent laws and rules.
Is this that "may"-versus-"can" thing our elementary school teachers
tried in vain to beta into our heads ?
Anthony J. Bryant
> "Anthony J. Bryant" <ajbr...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:3AF2375F...@indiana.edu...
> > Arval d'Espas Nord wrote:
> > > Pedro wrote:
> > > > No. See: http://www.sca.org/docs/corpora.hbk.html , VII.C.1. The East's
> > > > accord with Acre is nifty, but not something the king of the East could
> > > > do.
> > >
> > > It demonstrably _is_ something the king of the East can do.
> >
> > The fact that someone does something doesn't mean it is correct within the
> > pertinent laws and rules.
>
> Is this that "may"-versus-"can" thing our elementary school teachers
> tried in vain to beta into our heads ?
LOL! Good point.
"Mrs. Johnson, can I go to the bathroom?"
"I don't know, Bobby. Can you?"
Effingham
thomas
Anthony J. Bryant <ajbr...@indiana.edu> wrote in article
<3AF218D0...@indiana.edu>...
Then again 1 Peter 2: 5 & 9 says that all Christians are a "holy
priesthood" and a "royal preisthood".
The way I understand it is Christ is the "High Priest in the Order of
Melchizedek", while we (Christians) are the priesthood under Him. (Based on
my dim memory of an adult "Sunday school" class I took years ago. Like most
biblical subjects, YMMV)
Morgan
James Pratt
>>
>> Perhaps not a priest after Melchizedek;
>
>Thank goodness. The only one who has that title is JC....
Odd, I thought a portion of the ordination text asserted,
"thou art a priest forever, after Melchizedek..." or words to that
effect. But, certainly that hocus is not my pocus.
Cathal.
Anthony J. Bryant
> >>
> >> Perhaps not a priest after Melchizedek;
> >
> >Thank goodness. The only one who has that title is JC....
>
> Odd, I thought a portion of the ordination text asserted,
> "thou art a priest forever, after Melchizedek..." or words to that
> effect.
Not in Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic texts...
> But, certainly that hocus is not my pocus.
Ah, we're back on the wafers, eh? <G>
Effingham
Craig Levin
Ulftonn <ulf...@aol.com> wrote:
>>No. You may be thinking of the Bavaria precedent, a long time
>>ago, which came about more through the crude state of the art
>>then in the College of Arms. The present state of affairs is
>>different. See the College of Arms' Admin. Handbook, section III.
>
>Actuly I was thinking of a member who also wrote books. He wrote a series of
>Murder/Magic mysterys set in another universe. He tryed to register his heros
>Coat of Arms, and it was bounced because it belonged to that fictional hero.
>So our "Hero" had his Hero write a letter of permission to conflict on the
>publishers letterhead as well as the Authors letter agreeing to the conflict,
>end result Arms passed....
Ah-Randall of Hightower. That was in 1973. We've changed the
rules at least twice since then, and I strongly doubt we'd let
somebody do that today. See the David of Moffat return under
Jaelle's tenure as Laurel at:
http://sca.org/heraldry/loar/1996/09/lar.html
David Tallan
wrote:
>On 2 May 2001 15:35:09 -0500, David Tallan <dta...@interlog.com> wrote:
>>
>> Are you offended just when people have fun playing a persona that
>> ridicules a religion not their own, or when people have fun play a
>> persona that is seriously religious in a religion not their own?
>
>Def. the first--it's rude and in poor taste. As to the second, that
>is not really such a big deal. OTOH, I find it a tad strange. Why
>would someone profess a faith not his own? Folks have died rather
>than do so.
The person is not professing a faith. They are playing a persona who
professes a faith. The distinction is crucial.
>It is someone playing an agent of a God he does not believe in--of
>course it's offensive.
Is it offensive to have a non-Christian actor play a minister or
priest in a play or movie? Or a non-Jewish actor play a Rabbi (or
Cohen from Temple times)?
Is it legitimate do give or deny acting roles based on the religion of
an actor?
If it is OK to have an actor play a priest in a play or movie, why is
it offensive for a SCA participant to play a priest persona?
Respectfully,
David Tallan
Never played a priest