Re: The Code Of Chivalry - Per Lady Thalia's Request

[Eric Jon Campbell <ejcampbe@unity.ncsu.edu>]

On Tue, 1 Aug 1995, Michael A. Chance wrote:

> Xavier wrote (responding to Tibor):
> > Agreed
> > I meant it in total and utter sarcasm. A sentiment
> > that does not transmit on the net well. The religion bit I was 
> > referring to was not the religion free rumor but the mandating 
> > of a religion, which a belief in christ for the chivalry might
> > be construed as. 
> 
> However, though you may have meant it in sarcasm, there are many, many
> people that accept that viewpoint as SCA "gospel", i.e. that the SCA
> doesn't permit *any* religious displays or practices, even private
> ones, at SCA activities.  And each time someone states "Corpora forbids
> religious stuff", whether in jest or in earnest, it perpetuates the
> fallacy.
> 
> Personally, I'd like to see MORE personal religious display and
> expression at SCA activities, provided that it's done in a
> historically accurate manner.  This Code of Chivalry would be a good
> example.
> 
> Mikjal Annarbjorn

i totally agree with you.  Especially when you consider how integral 
religion was to the day to day life.  But the historical accuracy part is 
what worries me.  There are alot of people who will justify _anything_ 
religious as period without having any historical documentation behind it. 
This rapidly can degenerate into I heard it somewhere, or I read it in a 
book somewhere so it must be true, when the book had little or no historical
merit to begin with.(merit being defined as documention and siting 
primary or even secondary sources)
 <<just commenting from things I've witnessed>>
-Xavier