Subject:	Re: Explanations
From:	Robert Kingan kingan@--------
Date:	Wed, 04 Nov 1998 16:37:13 -0500

"Antonio M. R. C. Grilo" wrote:

> From: "Antonio M. R. C. Grilo" amg@--------
>
> Salve Lucius!
>
> >You either haven't read the Constitution or you are trying to overthrow it.
> >The member ship of the Senate is determined by the Censores and the Senate
> >itself.
> Yes, I know. But in case the Censors and the Senate appoint Germanicus as
> Senator, that would also violate the Constitution. As such, agreement could
> be achieved through having the people decide

Bad precedent.

> . My point is that I know almost
> all Senators and Censors are close friends of Germanicus...

And this is why we have a constitution. Germanicus has wisely withdrawn his bid,
and we should leave it at that. The Gods of Rome have blessed Nova Roma, any the
constiution must stand as it is in this regard.

Pythia

>
>

Subject:	Return of Germanicus
From:	jmath669642reng@--------)
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 00:52:29 -0500 (EST)

Salve Honored Germanicus;

I am glad to know of your return. I don't know you at all except by the
descriptions of others in Nova Roma,and those descriptions were all very
positive. You have many friends here, a lot of whom were very concerned
at your absence.

As I said, you don't know me except possibly as a result of a few
messages, which is about how everyone else knows me. I do not pray to
the Gods of Rome, as I have had an earlier commitment in my life to
another God who governs my world, but I have no feeling of disrespect
for the gods of Rome or any other gods and / or religions as long as
they do not practice that which I cannot do under the present rules of
my religion. I feel quite comfortable in Nova Roma, as it is the ideal
place for me to further the Roman ideas and actions that I have been
interested in since I was a boy.

Please feel welcome to have returned, and feel comfortable among this
group that you have had so much to do with building. I for one welcome
YOU back, and with you, your beliefs, your insights, your skills, and
your principles. No one who has been spoken about in his absence such
as you were, could be anything but welcome as far as I am concerned. Be
well, and I hope for the opportunity of working with you in the future
on ideas and proposals as yet unidentified.

Marcus Minucius Audens
Nova Roma Military Tribune
for Engineering and Cartography

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

Subject:	Macus Cassius Julianus Snail Mail Address
From:	jmath669642reng@--------)
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 01:06:59 -0500 (EST)

Most Honored Consul Julianus;

It has been a few days since I spoke with you about forwarding some
samples of my maps and drawings. After our discussion, I found that I
had "put them away" so well that I had a lot of trouble finding them.

Anyway, I now have them in hand and if you will provide me a "Snail
Mail" address I will be glad to forward such for your perusal.

Marcus Muncius Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

Subject:	Re: Constitution/Explanations
From:	legion6@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 01:20:00 -0600 (CST)

Salvete omnes...

This whole thread and the attendant dialogue in the chatroom have
touched upon several points which I had previously raised in a personal
correspondence with Consul Cassius. The occasion that time was a
proposal that got floated (as such proposals have been every now and
again since I was first accepted for Citizenship) to make me a Quaestor
of some sort, with partial responsibility for the Citizen database.

For those of you new to the List, or who have not had the opportunity
to chat with me on these matters, let me present the crux of the
matter: I am a very tolerant, yet devout, Christian. I have also been
practicing the Via, if not the Religio, Romana for many years on a deep
personal and philosophical level. On top of that I seem to have skills
which are occasionally highly sought-after in our young Republic. The
net result of this combination of circumstances has been less than
happy for me or for Nova Roma. You see, for the first time in my Roman
life I feel I am being asked to choose between my Christianity and my
Romanitas, the twin wellsprings of my soul. I was not expecting this
and do not like it.

Here is what I said to Consul Cassius on the matter:

---quote---
You may be wondering where my thought processes are going as far as
accepting the Quaestorship (or any other office within Nova Roma) is
concerned...

The last time we discussed this publicly it led into a very nice
exchange between Cornelius Sulla and myself about our respective
religious experiences. In the process he asked me what a Pelagian
Christian (the sect I belong to) believes. (I am extremely condensing
this, so if it sounds brusque it isn't meant to be.) I explained about
Pelagius' teaching that man's free will is just as important to his
salvation as God's grace--since without either God's grace or man's
choice, the thing doesn't happen. I said this belief tends to show up
in daily life as a basic unwillingness to wait until one is told to
before doing something cool; that if God has given one the interest,
the ability, and the opportunity to perform a task, it would be
redundant to rotate on one's thumb until given His specific permission
as well. And no sooner had I typed this when I thought 'BINGO!!
--there's my answer!'

So the upshot of it is that I would not have any religious objection to
serving Nova Roma in whatever capacity I may. Now there is only that
niggling matter of the oath...on which subject you have said:

>It states that the Magistrate is willing to work with the Pagan format
>of Nova Roma... i.e. will show respect for the Religio Romana and
>not "work against it" publicly even though it's not their private
>path. This does NOT mean that you have to do Pagan rituals, or profess
>a faith you don't share.

Let's have a look at the thing. Keep in mind that what may not be a
problem for people of one faith may be very much an obstacle for people
of another (you wouldn't try to sell a computer to a Luddite, would
you...?):

>I, (name), do hereby solomnly swear to uphold the honor of Nova Roma,
>and to act always in the best interests of the people and the Senate
>of Nova Roma.

No problem there, unless we get in a populares-vs.-optimates situation
down the road (then the best interests of the People and the best
interests of the Senate may be two different animals entirely); but
there is no religious reason why I could not swear to do this.

>As a magistrate of Nova Roma, I, (name), swear to do honor to the Gods
>and Goddesses of Rome in my public dealings,...

*Now* we run into trouble. What is meant here by 'honor'? There is a
very great difference between being asked to do a thing and being asked
merely not to interfere with others doing a thing. This clause does
not say 'I will not *work against* the Gods of Rome'; it says that I
will actively *honor* Them. I cannot simply refrain, if I am reading
this correctly; I must partake. There is no option here to stand by
and let the experts handle it.

>...and to pursue the Roman Virtues in my public and private life.

This I do and have done my entire Roman life (seven years and growing).

>I, (name), further swear to fufill the obligations and
>responsibilities of the office of (title) to the best of my abilities.

No problem there either, unless the obligations and responsibilities
should include religious ones. I am assured that such is not the case
with my proposed Quaestorship, but I am discussing this on a more
general level (as in, you are likely to keep running into this as long
as Nova Roma remains open to anyone who is not a Roman Pagan).

>On my honor as a Citizen of Nova Roma, and in the presence of the Gods
>and Goddesses of the Roman People and by Their will and favor, do I
>accept the position of (title) and all the rights, privileges,
>obligations, and responsibilities attendant thereto.

This does not bother me personally. One reason I am not an evangelist
is that I have never been so sure of anything that I could say with a
straight face that the world must needs be what I think it is, or else.
It violates nothing to say, "Okay, I believe in one God, but there may
be others out there; and if there are, They are certainly watching me
do this and They don't seem to mind." But coupled with paragraph 2
it's a bit of a speed bump.

Now the fun part (or, are you *quite* certain this is as benign as
everybody says it is?):

Per Article VI, Section 1 of our Constitution (and before I figured out
I was a Roman I had a serious enthusiasm for constitutional law),

>...All magistrates and Senators, as officers of the State, shall be
>*required* [emphasis mine] to observe the Sacred Days of the Year, and
>to *honor and offer sacrifice to* [emphasis mine again] the Gods and
>Goddesses that made and make Rome great. ...

Now what am I supposed to do with that? Again, I am being required to
participate (actively, by the sound of it) rather than merely asked not
to keep others from doing so...
---end quote---

I had made what I thought was a thorough reading of the Constitution
and the Web site before I applied for Citizenship. I had pretty well
accepted that, in the great framework of Nova Roman affairs, I was
going to be a just-plain-Roman. We will need many such, if only to
give our Magistrates something to do and someone to do it for! <g>
But then I kept getting offered things, indeed beginning with my
Praetor's initial contact-slash-recruiting pitch.

Let me make this plain: I am not ambitious for office. I am more than
willing to do whatever work is required, with or without a fancy
nameplate. But the whole religious-qualification thing bothers me on a
more general level. Can any nation afford to arbitrarily deny itself
the services of any willing and capable Citizen, for any reason
including religious ones? Is Nova Roma, even at this early stage,
going to cut off Her nose to spite Her face?

Something has to give here. Either we allow [non-Roman] Pagans and
non-[Roman Pagans] to rise to the level of their abilities; or we quit
offering them positions they cannot in good conscience accept,
involving duties they cannot perform with any sincerity. If in fact
the Constitution means '...an it harm none, do as you will'; if the
intent of the Founders was (as is repeatedly asserted) that anyone with
the talent and the inclination should be able to ascend the Cursus
Honorum, why, then, the thing ought to be amended to say so clearly and
in a manner not to be mistaken. If such is not the case, then it is
irresponsible for our materials (Web site, etc.) or our Magistrates to
hint otherwise.

It's a strange and wonderful world that tosses me into the same boat as
a Norse Pagan, a Jew, and a former Consul--all dear friends, as much as
anyone can be in cyberspace. I mean that--I couldn't ask for better
companions on this little roller-coaster policy ride... But back to
the issue: This is not, as I've stated above, the last time this
question is going to come up. We need to get this hashed out and
properly decided; it will save future Citizens of non-Roman faiths a
lot of frustration and getting their hopes up.

In the dreaded words of the loyal housewife, "Honey, we gotta talk..."!
---
__________ _<~) __________
<-\\\\@@@@@) /##\ (@@@@@////-> Mria Villarroel legion6@--------
<-\\\@@@@(#####@@@@///-> Historical Re-Creationist
<-\\\*##*///-> and Citizen of Rome
o---<<<<||SPQR||>>>>---o Latin lessons, History lectures
///\\\ Role-playing Games, too!

aka Lucius Marius Fimbria on the weekends

Subject:	The Senate
From:	"Robert Woolwine" Alexious@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 00:12:44 -0800

I feel compelled to comment on the issue of Religion and the Senate. It is my personal religious belief that I am a Jew. However, I do not feel that my religious belief would hinder my service to NR. As a matter of fact, I believe that my relgious differences contribute to the good of NR. I do not feel any different toward anyone in the practice of his/her own personal religion. And I will not work against the official state religion. However, I will not do any more for the State Religion that I would not do for my own personal belief. I do not feel this is a limatation. If Germanicus or anyone else can do the same. Then, I believe they have the opportunity to stand for office and even be admitted into the Senate. If they cannot do that, then they still have the Honor of being a citizen. As, I stated above, I do not have a problem reconciling my personal faith, with the State Relgion, I am honored to be standing for office, and I am honored to serve the state to the best of my ability. And, anyone who feels the same as I do, should run for office, if they so desired.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Quaestor
Candidate for Praetor Urbanis

Subject:	Re: New Member
From:	"Arthur Rodrigues" arthur_rodrigues@--------
Date:	Wed, 04 Nov 1998 06:27:44 EDT

Well, people. I'm Arthur Souza Rodrigues (Gens Rodrigues ? :) ). And
my age is 15 years old.
I'm from Brazil and I wanna some more information...

Thanks,

Art

>
>Welcome to the World of Nova Roma! I am sure that you will find us at
>least and if nothing else "different."
>
>I am sure that as a part of Dex's family you will seldom have the time
>to be morose, as he is most skilled at keeping everyone cheered up.
>
>I look forward to getting to know you better, and working with you on
>projects as yet unamed.
>
>All the best to you and your gens!
>
>Marcus Municius Audens
>Nova Roma Military Tribune
>of Engineering and Cartography
>
>Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
>
>

Subject:	Re: Explanations
From:	"Antonio M. R. C. Grilo" amg@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 10:28:28 -0000

Salce Luci!

> Not that it is any of your business Graecus, but I myself have meet
>Germanicus once in person and talked to him maybe twice on the phone. Is
>that what you call a close friend?
I based myself upon the pictures... I'm sorry...

> I would have sent this private but the last time I sent a private
email
>to you, Graecus, and requested you keep it that way you choose to respond
>publicly.
I've not mentioned your name in the mailing list, nor answered directly to
your email. I've only mensioned that some Senators wanted me 'dead' =).

But after a careful study of the postings on this subject, I agree that it
is only the Senate who has to decide on the acceptance of Germanicus. You're
right. The institutions of Nova Roma exist for something and we must not
strip them of their power... I'm candidate to Tribune of the Plebs, but not
to anarchy leader.
I'm sorry that the Constitution does not allow Germanicus to be a magistrate
or senator, we are all sorry... But it is the very same Constitution that he
helped to create that says that.

Valete omnes!

Antonius Gryllus Graecus
(Praetor ad Lusitaniam Provinciam)

-----Original Message-----
From: Lucius v--------l@--------
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a> <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 10:16 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Re: Explanations


>From: "Lucius" v--------l@--------
>
>
>>Salve Lucius!
>>>You either haven't read the Constitution or you are trying to overthrow
>it.
>>>The member ship of the Senate is determined by the Censores and the
Senate
>>>itself.
>
>>Yes, I know. But in case the Censors and the Senate appoint Germanicus
>>as
>>Senator, that would also violate the Constitution. As such, agreement
could
>>be achieved through having the people decide. My point is that I know
>almost
>>all Senators and Censors are close friends of Germanicus...
>>Antonius Gryllus Graecus
>>(Praetor ad Lusitaniam Provinciam)
>>
>Ave et Salvete Cives
> I'm sorry everyone, but I really resent this. We are trying to follow
>the Constitution without reguard to personal relationships.
> Not that it is any of your business Graecus, but I myself have meet
>Germanicus once in person and talked to him maybe twice on the phone. Is
>that what you call a close friend?
> I would have sent this private but the last time I sent a private
email
>to you, Graecus, and requested you keep it that way you choose to respond
>publicly.
>
> L Equitius
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
>to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at <a href="http://www.onelist.com" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com</a> and
>select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.
>

Subject:	Re: Explanations
From:	"Antonio M. R. C. Grilo" amg@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 10:44:06 -0000

Salvete omnes!

>I'm sorry that the Constitution does not allow Germanicus to be a
magistrate
>or senator, we are all sorry... But it is the very same Constitution that
he
>helped to create that says that.
I've just received more postings. The above statement is not true, as
Germanicus is willing to pay public honour to the Gods! So, I think that all
issues about the legitimacy of Germanicus application to the Senate are
nonsense from now on. Welcome back Germanicus!

Valete!

Antonius Gryllus Graecus
(Praetor ad Lusitaniam Provinciam)


-----Original Message-----
From: Antonio M. R. C. Grilo <amg>
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a> <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 10:24 AM
Subject: [novaroma] Re: Explanations


>From: "Antonio M. R. C. Grilo" amg@--------
>
>Salce Luci!
>
>> Not that it is any of your business Graecus, but I myself have meet
>>Germanicus once in person and talked to him maybe twice on the phone. Is
>>that what you call a close friend?
>I based myself upon the pictures... I'm sorry...
>
>> I would have sent this private but the last time I sent a private
>email
>>to you, Graecus, and requested you keep it that way you choose to respond
>>publicly.
>I've not mentioned your name in the mailing list, nor answered directly to
>your email. I've only mensioned that some Senators wanted me 'dead' =).
>
>But after a careful study of the postings on this subject, I agree that it
>is only the Senate who has to decide on the acceptance of Germanicus.
You're
>right. The institutions of Nova Roma exist for something and we must not
>strip them of their power... I'm candidate to Tribune of the Plebs, but not
>to anarchy leader.
>I'm sorry that the Constitution does not allow Germanicus to be a
magistrate
>or senator, we are all sorry... But it is the very same Constitution that
he
>helped to create that says that.
>
>Valete omnes!
>
>Antonius Gryllus Graecus
>(Praetor ad Lusitaniam Provinciam)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lucius v--------l@--------
>To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a> <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 10:16 PM
>Subject: [novaroma] Re: Explanations
>
>
>>From: "Lucius" v--------l@--------
>>
>>
>>>Salve Lucius!
>>>>You either haven't read the Constitution or you are trying to overthrow
>>it.
>>>>The member ship of the Senate is determined by the Censores and the
>Senate
>>>>itself.
>>
>>>Yes, I know. But in case the Censors and the Senate appoint Germanicus
>>>as
>>>Senator, that would also violate the Constitution. As such, agreement
>could
>>>be achieved through having the people decide. My point is that I know
>>almost
>>>all Senators and Censors are close friends of Germanicus...
>>>Antonius Gryllus Graecus
>>>(Praetor ad Lusitaniam Provinciam)
>>>
>>Ave et Salvete Cives
>> I'm sorry everyone, but I really resent this. We are trying to follow
>>the Constitution without reguard to personal relationships.
>> Not that it is any of your business Graecus, but I myself have meet
>>Germanicus once in person and talked to him maybe twice on the phone. Is
>>that what you call a close friend?
>> I would have sent this private but the last time I sent a private
>email
>>to you, Graecus, and requested you keep it that way you choose to respond
>>publicly.
>>
>> L Equitius
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
>>to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at <a href="http://www.onelist.com" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com</a> and
>>select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
>to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at <a href="http://www.onelist.com" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com</a> and
>select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.
>

Subject:	Re: The constitution was Explanations
From:	Mike Macnair m.macnair@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 11:02:40 +0000

I think Germanicus' view, below, must be the right interpretation on
Constitutional grounds - after all, it is the magistrates, not the Senate
of ex-magistrates, who have formal religious duties. The point of having a
Senate is after all to draw on the experience of ex-magistrates, which is
particularly apt in this case ... On religious grounds, too, the essence of
classical public religion is the PUBLIC PERFORMANCE of ceremonies, not the
inner belief of the participants - which was certainly pretty diverse by
the late Republic.

The more general issue which is raised is I guess this. For those of us
who, like myself, were attracted by Nova Roma primarily as a place in which
the classical Religio is cherished and our religious belief can find
collective expression, including the recognition of the numina of public
life, there will always be a certain worry about downplaying the Religio -
because, after all, NR is a small but very fast-growing group, & there are
relatively few neo-classical pagans out there, but a hell of a lot of
Christians & atheists who are more or less into classical civilization. NR
therefore could easily as it grows more or less accidentally cease to
provide collective space for the followers of the Religio. Accepting
Germanicus' interpretation of the Constitution & that one of our founders,
an ex-Consul, should be a Senate member, is one thing. Making larger
amendments to the Constitution to downplay the Religio would be another
altogether.

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister





JoeBloch@-------- on 04/11/98 01:29:00

Please respond to <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>

To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
cc: (bcc: Mike Macnair/LAW/Lancaster_University/UK)
Subject: [novaroma] Re: The constitution was Explanations




From: JoeBloch@--------

In a message dated 98-11-03 20:03:20 EST, you write:

> In all fairness, however, I dont think that Graecus ever meant to
discourage
> Germanicus from taking a seat in the Senate. He was merely pointing out
> that there was a point in the Constitution barring anyone from that
august
> body who does not follow Religio Romana in the Nova Roma public.

This has really been a fascinating exercise in Constitutional law. A
Constitution riddled with flaws (I ought to know-- I wrote the thing!).

I would like to point out a few things that have stood out in my mind. The
main point, having re-read the relevant sections of the Constitution, is
that
the "religious requirement" is not quite as all-encompassing as it appears.
It
reads, in part:

"All magistrates and Senators, as officers of the State, shall be required
to
observe the Sacred Days of the Year, and to honor and offer sacrifice to
the
Gods and Goddesses that made and make Rome great. Citizens need not be
practitioners of the Religio Romana, but may not engage in any activity
that
intentionally blasphemes or defames the Gods, the Religio Romana, or its
practitioners, and Magistrates and Senators shall be required to pay due
honor
to the Gods. " (Section VI.1.)

The key here being "honor and offer sacrifice" and "pay due honor" being
the
requirements for Magistrates and Senators. The Constitution does not
require
personal belief nor personal practice of the Religio Romana. It refers to
the
role of Magistrates and Senators in the public rites of the State Religion.
To
offer a pinch of incense on the public brazier of Iuppiter is what's
required;
not to offer heartfelt silent prayers at every stroke of lightning.

Given this, I would have no problem making such observances in the role of
Senator. This, combined with my position as a former magistrate is, I
think,
Constitutionally sufficient for me to rejoin the ranks of the Senate.

However, given the controversy that has surrounded the possibility of my
return to that august body, I will not press the issue. If called to serve
within its ranks I shall do so, happily and to the best of my ability. If
not,
I shall content myself with the lot of an "ordinary" Nova Roman Citizen
which
is, in and of itself, quite an extra-ordinary honor to hold.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus

------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at <a href="http://www.onelist.com" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com</a> and
select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.

Subject:	New member
From:	Fabio Incutti incutti@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:07:20 +0100

Salve,
after visiting Nova Roma a few times, I decided to become a citizen.
This decision has not been hard, since I love ancient Rome and its stile of life.
Unfortunately, all the attempts made in the past to recreate Rome were made by a well established power that took ancient Rome's conquers (in all fields) and its simbology as a mere mean to obtain control over people.
In the present case, instead, the process has been reversed and this should confirm the genuinity of the idea and good intentions of the citizens.
This is why I've been conquered by your (better: our) nation.
I hope that, in my belonging to Nova Roma, I could contribute to its further develop, also considering that I do live in Rome, so it could be easy for me to gain access to the source of many information that could be useful to everyone.
Ave atque vale.
Primus Fabius

Subject:	Re: New member
From:	JoeBloch@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 08:30:58 EST

In a message dated 98-11-04 06:13:45 EST, Primus Fabius writes:

> In the present case, instead, the process has been reversed and this should
> confirm the genuinity of the idea and good intentions of the citizens.
> This is why I've been conquered by your (better: our) nation.

Welcome aboard, Primus! That is exactly the sort of conquest we like to see;
winning people over with ideas, rather than arms. I'm sure you'll make a
splendid addition (and living in Mater Roma Herself must give you a unique
perspective on what we're doing-- I'd love to hear your insights!).

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus

Subject:	Re: Uphold the Constitution
From:	missmoon@--------
Date:	Wed, 04 Nov 1998 08:42:15 -0500

Masterofhistory wrote:

> What's wrong with all of you? This is Germanicus you are talking
> about. I and many Nova Romans would be happy to see him back in the
> Senate. Constitution, I kept reading... Germanicus helped write the
> thing! We ought to be more welcoming and more generous to the man who
> helped start it all.

I'm glad he's back too, and I welcome him as a fellow Citizen.
But no one has the right to override the Constitution. If Thomas Jefferson
came back and announced he'd like to be President but he didn't want to go
through all that election stuff, I'd still say, "Sorry, Tommy..YOU helped
write it, now YOU abide by it, just like the rest of us." It works, and it
works for everyone.

The NR Constitution stands for all of us, not the selected few. No one
stands above it. Or are you suggesting that it might be appropriate for us
to switch from a Republic to an Empire? I like Germanicus, but he ain't
Julius Caesar (and look what happened to HIM!)

I think Germanicus did the honorable thing by withdrawing his request. Now
let's do the right thing and honor his request and have no more of this
unconstitutional debate. No one person shall ever be allowed to tear Nova
Roma apart, and Germanicus obviously did not have that in mind.

-- Flavia Claudia

Subject:	Re: Thank you was Explanations
From:	missmoon@--------
Date:	Wed, 04 Nov 1998 09:04:35 -0500

Dexippus@-------- wrote:

> From: Dexippus@--------
>
> In a message dated 98-11-03 15:11:35 EST, you write:
>
> << What would happen to the poor miscreant who objected to Germanicus' return
> to the senate? Has a suitable substitute for the Tarpeian rock been found?
> >>

I guess I'm the first to get hurled off the rock. (How appropriate, after all,
considering Tarpeia...)
I do oppose Germanicus' reinstatement to the Senate for the same reason I oppose
reinstating a Vestal who decided to leave before her year was up.

The decision to become a Senator is not to be taken so lightly that it can be
abandoned -- especially with the resignation of Citizenship at the same time --
then resumed at will. Germanicus' first leaving caused great upheaval in Nova
Roma, and while he's entitled to leave with no explanation (especially if he left
for personal reasons), I don't feel that he should be allowed to be reinstated
with no explanation. We don't know why he left, we don't know why he's back, and
we certainly don't know why he wants to be a Senator again -- or for how long
this time. Are we really trying to do something with Nova Roma, or is this merely
a large-scale role-playing game? I'd like an answer to that because, frankly,
I've made my own sacrifice for the Gods and for Nova Roma, and if this is just
another D&D thing to the Citizens and the Senate, that sacrifice was way too
much.

So while I'm glad to see him back as a Citizen, personally I'd want some
explanation and justification for reinstating him to the governing body of Nova
Roma.

Flavia Claudia Juliana
Virgo Maxima,
Order of the Vestals, Nova Roma

Subject:	Re: Primus Fabius
From:	missmoon@--------
Date:	Wed, 04 Nov 1998 09:16:25 -0500

Fabio Incutti wrote:

> Fro--------abio Incutti incutti@--------
>
> Salve,
> after visiting Nova Roma a few times, I decided to become a citizen.
> This decision has not been hard, since I love ancient Rome and its stile of life.
> Unfortunately, all the attempts made in the past to recreate Rome were made by a well established power that took ancient Rome's conquers (in all fields) and its simbology as a mere mean to obtain control over people.
> In the present case, instead, the process has been reversed and this should confirm the genuinity of the idea and good intentions of the citizens.
> This is why I've been conquered by your (better: our) nation.
> I hope that, in my belonging to Nova Roma, I could contribute to its further develop, also considering that I do live in Rome, so it could be easy for me to gain access to the source of many information that could be useful to everyone.
> Ave atque vale.
> Primus Fabius

Welcome to Nova Roma, Primus Fabius!
And thank you for the gracious offer of help and information.

Actually, if you could sneak over to the Forum and the Temple of Vesta and leave a votive candle where the flame once burned -- I'd appreciate it! Or would that be against the law?

-- Flavia Claudia

Subject:	Re: New member
From:	pjane pjane@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 10:01:18 -0500 (EST)

>This is why I've been conquered by your (better: our) nation.
>I hope that, in my belonging to Nova Roma, I could contribute to its
>further develop, also considering that I do live in Rome, so it could be
>easy for me to gain access to the source of many information that could be
>useful to everyone.

Salve Primus Fabius! I'm sure others join me in welcoming you as a
thoughtful Citizen. We're in the middle of an election campaign right now,
and having some interesting conversations about where our organization is
going.

I encourage you to contribute to our Web page! I'd especially be interested
in pictures of Roman locations to help illustrate our site.

Patricia Cassia

Subject:	Re: Primus Fabius
From:	"Lucius" vergil@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 10:02:52 -0500

>Fabio Incutti wrote:
>
>>
>> Salve,
>> after visiting Nova Roma a few times, I decided to become a citizen.
>> This decision has not been hard, since I love ancient Rome and its stile
of life.
>> Unfortunately, all the attempts made in the past to recreate Rome were
made by a well established power that took ancient Rome's conquers (in all
fields) and its simbology as a mere mean to obtain control over people.
>> In the present case, instead, the process has been reversed and this
should confirm the genuinity of the idea and good intentions of the
citizens.
>> This is why I've been conquered by your (better: our) nation.
>> I hope that, in my belonging to Nova Roma, I could contribute to its
further develop, also considering that I do live in Rome, so it could be
easy for me to gain access to the source of many information that could be
useful to everyone.
>> Ave atque vale.
>> Primus Fabius
>
>Welcome to Nova Roma, Primus Fabius!
>And thank you for the gracious offer of help and information.
>Actually, if you could sneak over to the Forum and the Temple of Vesta and
leave a votive candle where the flame once burned -- I'd appreciate it! Or
would that be against the law?
>-- Flavia Claudia


Salve Primus Fabius

Welcome to Nova Roma. I do have a question for you, on a recent
television program we were shown people who placed flowers and candles on (I
think) the funeral pyre of C Iulius Caesar. Do you know if this is really
done and are some of the Temples used in a similar way? Thanks for your
offer of information. Now prepare yourself to be deluged by questions.

Vale L Equitius Cincinnatus

Subject:	Welcome Primus Fabius
From:	amethystcrystallight@--------)
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 09:48:18 -0600

Salve and welcome Primus Fabius!!!

Fara Med Godanum! -- Crys and Terry and Lapis Stone (due late Feb.)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Amethystia Ivnia Crystallina and Primus Ivnia Terrelina
amethystcrystallight@--------
<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~acl_pit/amethyst.htm" target="_top" >http://members.tripod.com/~acl_pit/amethyst.htm</a>

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at <a href="http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html" target="_top" >http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html</a>
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Subject:	a warm welcome
From:	Fabio Incutti incutti@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:55:18 +0100

Ave atque vale,
tanks to all for the warm welcome.
I'll try to answer to the questions made by some of you.
Ancient Roman buildings and ruins are under the strict control of the "art and monuments" authority control and, under normal circumstances, they are open only for visit and study purposes.
It sometimes happens that some monuments (for example the Thaerme of Caracalla) are used for cultural events (concerts, dramas, etc.), or for religious celebration (think to annual Via Crucis in the Colosseum), but it only happens with the written permission of the Authority itself.
Apart from that, the greatest part of ancient runins close at the sunset and there is a strict surveillance (to avoid injuries to "unlegal" tourists, as it has happened many times in Colosseum").
Therefore, I do not believe that a religious organization not recognized by the Italian Government (such as Catholic Churc or the others Christian Churches), could obtain the permission to "use" the monuments; this means that, in my opinion, whatever you've seen on tv about people burning candles on Caesar's place is only an historical reconstruction made for some movies and/or unlegally.
On the other hand, there is so many monuments barely lightened .....

I'll try do digitalize some recent shoots of Rome and to post it (to who?). I think that I could begin from the ancient Temple of Camenas (it is now a church named S. Urbano alla Caffarella), where I got married and which has still the external original aspect.

Valete.

Primus Fabius

Subject:	Honor.......
From:	jmath669642reng@--------)
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:34:56 -0500 (EST)

After reading the comments regarding the return of Germanicus, and the
discussion regarding his possible return to the Senate of Nova Roma, be
it known that I am quite content to let our executive officers make a
proposal to the Nova Roma as a whole, which is what I am sure will
happen anyway. In my brief dealings with these officers, I find that
they have always tried to do the right thing by the individual and by
Nova Roma. When you feel that you (as a group) have provided them with
your inputs, then let them do their job.

As a new member myself I would make the following suggestion. If the
words in the constitution governing the attention that a magistrate's
duties require toward the Roman Relgion are not sufficient for the
membership, then I propose our executive Officers develop a definition
for words like "honor". I know what the word means in my world, but
your discussions on this point indicate that there is not a clear cut
understanding of what those kind of words mean in our Constitution.

To me the word "honor" means the following:

-----to show respect to, to hold in honor or high respect, to treat with
honor, high respect, high minded principals, respect, consideration,
distinction. honor because of proven worth. (American College
Dictionary)

To me "honoring the Gods of Rome" will not violate my current personal
religion, and so I can then stand for office with a clear sense of duty
and purpose. I "honor" the Gods of Rome for the purpose and dicipline
that they brought to the Roman Republic and which allowed it to expand
into one of the greatest empires of the ancient world.

If my words do not satisfy, then let our Executive Offiers define the
terms and then contact the citizenship.

Marcus Minucius Audens
Nova Roma Military Tribune

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

Subject:	Re: a warm welcome
From:	"Lucius" vergil@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:13:13 -0500

Ave atque Salvete
>tanks to all for the warm welcome.
>I'll try to answer to the questions made by some of you.
>Ancient Roman buildings and ruins are under the strict control of the "art
and monuments" authority control and, under normal circumstances, they are
open only for visit and study purposes.

Thanks for your reply.

>I'll try do digitalize some recent shoots of Rome and to post it (to who?).
I think that I could begin from the ancient Temple of Camenas (it is now a
church named S. Urbano alla Caffarella), where I got married and which has
still the external original aspect.


This would be great, send them to p--------@-------- Thanks!

Vale L Equitius Cincinnatus

Subject:	Re: Constitution/Explanations
From:	"Patrick Dunn" saevvs@--------
Date:	Wed, 04 Nov 1998 11:24:03 PST

The interpretation of the word "honor" in the oath seems to me to be a
matter the pontifices should take up.

As far as offering sacrifices to the gods on the holy days of Rome --
this annoys me. A Christian, Jew, and Asatrur (glory be to the gods
that Germanicus has returned!) should not have to make offering to any
gods but their own, and that by the rules of their gods, and not by the
rules of ours. Noble senate: remove this clause! It is an insult to
our gods to demand sacrifice of those who do not worship them.

M. Gladius Saevus
Pontifex
Augur

Subject:	Re: a warm welcome
From:	missmoon@--------
Date:	Wed, 04 Nov 1998 14:18:25 -0500

Lucius wrote:

> From: "Lucius" v--------l@--------
>
>
> >I'll try do digitalize some recent shoots of Rome and to post it (to who?).
> I think that I could begin from the ancient Temple of Camenas (it is now a
> church named S. Urbano alla Caffarella), where I got married and which has
> still the external original aspect.
>
> This would be great, send them to p--------@-------- Thanks!
>
> Vale L Equitius Cincinnatus

You could also send photos to me as editor of the Eagle, and the proud owner of
a new 36-bit scanner. I certainly need graphics for the newsletter, and I'd like
to start collecting photos of the Citizens for a special Eagle edition in which
we get to put faces to the names.

-- Flavia Claudia

Subject:	OT: Kilt Information
From:	Megas-Robinson amgunn@--------
Date:	Wed, 04 Nov 1998 13:27:15 -0800

Salus et Fortuna Omnes!

This post is off topic and I must apologize. But, I lost the note I
made during the Taverna one evening. One of our Citizens requested
informatin on how to wear a great kilt, and here is my take on the
matter.

Thanks for the indulgence,

Valete, Venator.

Subject:	Re: Honor.......
From:	"Antonio M. R. C. Grilo" amg@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 19:30:26 -0000

Salve!

>-----to show respect to, to hold in honor or high respect, to treat with
>honor, high respect, high minded principals, respect, consideration,
>distinction. honor because of proven worth. (American College
>Dictionary)
I agree with your definition.

Vale!

Antonius Gryllus Graecus
(Praetor ad Lusitaniam Provinciam)

-----Original Message-----
From: James Mathe--------math669642reng@--------
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a> <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 5:35 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Honor.......


From: jmath669642reng@-------- (James Mathe--------br>
After reading the comments regarding the return of Germanicus, and the
discussion regarding his possible return to the Senate of Nova Roma, be
it known that I am quite content to let our executive officers make a
proposal to the Nova Roma as a whole, which is what I am sure will
happen anyway. In my brief dealings with these officers, I find that
they have always tried to do the right thing by the individual and by
Nova Roma. When you feel that you (as a group) have provided them with
your inputs, then let them do their job.

As a new member myself I would make the following suggestion. If the
words in the constitution governing the attention that a magistrate's
duties require toward the Roman Relgion are not sufficient for the
membership, then I propose our executive Officers develop a definition
for words like "honor". I know what the word means in my world, but
your discussions on this point indicate that there is not a clear cut
understanding of what those kind of words mean in our Constitution.

To me the word "honor" means the following:

-----to show respect to, to hold in honor or high respect, to treat with
honor, high respect, high minded principals, respect, consideration,
distinction. honor because of proven worth. (American College
Dictionary)

To me "honoring the Gods of Rome" will not violate my current personal
religion, and so I can then stand for office with a clear sense of duty
and purpose. I "honor" the Gods of Rome for the purpose and dicipline
that they brought to the Roman Republic and which allowed it to expand
into one of the greatest empires of the ancient world.

If my words do not satisfy, then let our Executive Offiers define the
terms and then contact the citizenship.

Marcus Minucius Audens
Nova Roma Military Tribune

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!


------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at <a href="http://www.onelist.com" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com</a> and
select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.

Subject:	Re: Explanations
From:	"Patrick Dunn" saevvs@--------
Date:	Wed, 04 Nov 1998 11:28:34 PST

Is anyone keeping track of which candidates are flamming whom, so I can
make sure not to vote for any of them?

--M. Gladius Saevus


>From: "Antonio M. R. C. Grilo" amg@--------
>To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 10:28:28 -0000
>Reply-to: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>Subject: [novaroma] Re: Explanations
>
>From: "Antonio M. R. C. Grilo" amg@--------
>
>Salce Luci!
>
>> Not that it is any of your business Graecus, but I myself have
meet
>>Germanicus once in person and talked to him maybe twice on the phone.
Is
>>that what you call a close friend?
>I based myself upon the pictures... I'm sorry...
>
>> I would have sent this private but the last time I sent a private
>email
>>to you, Graecus, and requested you keep it that way you choose to
respond
>>publicly.
>I've not mentioned your name in the mailing list, nor answered directly
to
>your email. I've only mensioned that some Senators wanted me 'dead' =).
>
>But after a careful study of the postings on this subject, I agree that
it
>is only the Senate who has to decide on the acceptance of Germanicus.
You're
>right. The institutions of Nova Roma exist for something and we must
not
>strip them of their power... I'm candidate to Tribune of the Plebs, but
not
>to anarchy leader.
>I'm sorry that the Constitution does not allow Germanicus to be a
magistrate
>or senator, we are all sorry... But it is the very same Constitution
that he
>helped to create that says that.
>
>Valete omnes!
>
>Antonius Gryllus Graecus
>(Praetor ad Lusitaniam Provinciam)
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lucius v--------l@--------
>To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a> <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 10:16 PM
>Subject: [novaroma] Re: Explanations
>
>
>>From: "Lucius" v--------l@--------
>>
>>
>>>Salve Lucius!
>>>>You either haven't read the Constitution or you are trying to
overthrow
>>it.
>>>>The member ship of the Senate is determined by the Censores and the
>Senate
>>>>itself.
>>
>>>Yes, I know. But in case the Censors and the Senate appoint
Germanicus
>>>as
>>>Senator, that would also violate the Constitution. As such, agreement
>could
>>>be achieved through having the people decide. My point is that I know
>>almost
>>>all Senators and Censors are close friends of Germanicus...
>>>Antonius Gryllus Graecus
>>>(Praetor ad Lusitaniam Provinciam)
>>>
>>Ave et Salvete Cives
>> I'm sorry everyone, but I really resent this. We are trying to
follow
>>the Constitution without reguard to personal relationships.
>> Not that it is any of your business Graecus, but I myself have
meet
>>Germanicus once in person and talked to him maybe twice on the phone.
Is
>>that what you call a close friend?
>> I would have sent this private but the last time I sent a private
>email
>>to you, Graecus, and requested you keep it that way you choose to
respond
>>publicly.
>>
>> L Equitius
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
>>to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at <a href="http://www.onelist.com" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com</a> and
>>select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
>to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at <a href="http://www.onelist.com" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com</a> and
>select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.

Subject:	Re: Uphold the Constitution
From:	"Patrick Dunn" saevvs@--------
Date:	Wed, 04 Nov 1998 11:32:43 PST

The Senate is not an elected position.



>From: m--------oon@--------
>Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 08:42:15 -0500
>To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>Reply-to: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>Subject: [novaroma] Re: Uphold the Constitution
>
>From: m--------oon@--------
>
>
>
>Masterofhistory wrote:
>
>> What's wrong with all of you? This is Germanicus you are talking
>> about. I and many Nova Romans would be happy to see him back in the
>> Senate. Constitution, I kept reading... Germanicus helped write the
>> thing! We ought to be more welcoming and more generous to the man
who
>> helped start it all.
>
>I'm glad he's back too, and I welcome him as a fellow Citizen.
>But no one has the right to override the Constitution. If Thomas
Jefferson
>came back and announced he'd like to be President but he didn't want to
go
>through all that election stuff, I'd still say, "Sorry, Tommy..YOU
helped
>write it, now YOU abide by it, just like the rest of us." It works, and
it
>works for everyone.
>
>The NR Constitution stands for all of us, not the selected few. No one
>stands above it. Or are you suggesting that it might be appropriate for
us
>to switch from a Republic to an Empire? I like Germanicus, but he ain't
>Julius Caesar (and look what happened to HIM!)
>
>I think Germanicus did the honorable thing by withdrawing his request.
Now
>let's do the right thing and honor his request and have no more of this
>unconstitutional debate. No one person shall ever be allowed to tear
Nova
>Roma apart, and Germanicus obviously did not have that in mind.
>
>-- Flavia Claudia
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
>to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at <a href="http://www.onelist.com" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com</a> and
>select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.
>

Subject:	Re: Constitution/Explanations
From:	"Antonio M. R. C. Grilo" amg@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 19:45:08 -0000

Salve!

>As far as offering sacrifices to the gods on the holy days of Rome --
>this annoys me. A Christian, Jew, and Asatrur (glory be to the gods
>that Germanicus has returned!) should not have to make offering to any
>gods but their own, and that by the rules of their gods, and not by the
>rules of ours. Noble senate: remove this clause! It is an insult to
>our gods to demand sacrifice of those who do not worship them.
The Senate cannot do that... alone.
Your position shocks me a little because you were appointed Augur of our
Sacred City. Did the Gods told you to say this? Have you read it in the
skies...?
The constitution is very clear:

"Citizens need not be practitioners of the Religio Romana".

This says everything everything.

"Magistrates and Senators shall be required to pay due honor to the Gods."

Nobody is forced to be a Magistrate or Senator. Nevertheless, the objectives
of Nova Roma are very clear and as such, it must be ruled by Magistrates and
Senators that respect those objectives?

Vale!

Antonius Gryllus Graecus
(Praetor ad Lusitaniam Provinciam)

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Dunn saevvs@--------
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a> <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 7:24 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Re: Constitution/Explanations


>From: "Patrick Dunn" saevvs@--------
>
>
>The interpretation of the word "honor" in the oath seems to me to be a
>matter the pontifices should take up.
>
>As far as offering sacrifices to the gods on the holy days of Rome --
>this annoys me. A Christian, Jew, and Asatrur (glory be to the gods
>that Germanicus has returned!) should not have to make offering to any
>gods but their own, and that by the rules of their gods, and not by the
>rules of ours. Noble senate: remove this clause! It is an insult to
>our gods to demand sacrifice of those who do not worship them.
>
>M. Gladius Saevus
>Pontifex
>Augur
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
>to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at <a href="http://www.onelist.com" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com</a> and
>select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.
>

Subject:	Legislating religion was Re: Constitution/Explanations
From:	"RMerullo" merullo@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 15:28:21 -0500

Salvete pontifices et alii

Maybe the Collegium pontificum could research how religion, and its
observance, was mandatory or not in the Roman Republic, and make an
interpretation that takes the classical example into account.

For what it's worth, I know that, in general, practice of the public rites
of Religio Romana was expected of Romanized subjects of the Empire. This
was one of the chief causes, along with plain vanilla nationalistic
sentiment, of the recurring, severe conflicts in the Judean province in the
first and second centuries AD. When Hadrian issued his edict that a temple
to Jupiter should be built on the site of the old temple to Yahweh
(destroyed by Titus' legions, I believe, in 60-70 AD), a massive rebellion
erupted resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.

Under Diocletian in the later Empire (skipped in the NR Timeline, last I
checked), observance of the Religio Romana was legislated. Citizens had to
have certified documents attesting to their giving sacrifice to certain gods
on certain days. This odious practice probably served only to discredit
Religio Romana to the benefit of Christianity in the hearts and minds of
people who might have been as accepting of the one as of the other
otherwise.

On the other hand, no law is on the 'books' or, as far as I know, being
proposed to compel anyone for running for office in Nova Roma. In other
words, there is no need to remove any clause to protect anyone's religious
freedom. Nova Roma's constitution, as is, provides ample room for religious
freedom for citizens, but requires active participation in Religio Romana
for magistrates, and requires something less clearly stated for senators.

Was sacrifice to the Gods on public holidays required for admission and
retention in the Senate of the Roman Republic? For climbing the Cursus
Honorum in the Roman Republic?

Last night I proposed that the Senate review the Constitution and change it
to remove the 'religion requirement' for membership in the Senate. But
today, it has become obvious that people obviously have differing views
about how this should be handled in the here and now, so I think that we
ought to consider how things were in Roma Antiqua in relation to this issue.

Valete

Gaius Marius Merullus

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Dunn saevvs@--------
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a> <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 2:24 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Re: Constitution/Explanations


>From: "Patrick Dunn" saevvs@--------
>
>
>The interpretation of the word "honor" in the oath seems to me to be a
>matter the pontifices should take up.
>
>As far as offering sacrifices to the gods on the holy days of Rome --
>this annoys me. A Christian, Jew, and Asatrur (glory be to the gods
>that Germanicus has returned!) should not have to make offering to any
>gods but their own, and that by the rules of their gods, and not by the
>rules of ours. Noble senate: remove this clause! It is an insult to
>our gods to demand sacrifice of those who do not worship them.
>
>M. Gladius Saevus
>Pontifex
>Augur
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
>to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at <a href="http://www.onelist.com" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com</a> and
>select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.
>

Subject:	Re: Consul speaks on Senatorial Appointments
From:	Dexippus@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:40:08 EST

In a message dated 98-11-03 21:28:14 EST, you write:

<< Ok, the situation regarding German8icus is defintely getting out of hand so
I
decided I'd better mention a few straight facts to everyone so as to prevent
continued anger and arguement:

1.The Constitution is merely a document we use to guide us. The Senate has
made changes in the Constitution several times since the birth of NovaRoma.
>>

Well...I think what is getting out of hand is people saying that it is getting
out of hand. There is no anger...or no arguments...just conversation and
discussion (there is a difference). Furthermore, the constitution of Nova
Roma (like any stat's Constitution) needs to be adheared to by all otherwise
it is a worthless document with no power behind it. The constitution has been
changed quite a few times since the birth of NR but those changes were to
correct errors in titles and position...not to allow for exceptional
circumstances to take place.

--Dexippus

Subject:	Re: Legislating religion was Re: Constitution/Explanations
From:	missmoon@--------
Date:	Wed, 04 Nov 1998 16:38:51 -0500

RMerullo wrote:

> For what it's worth, I know that, in general, practice of the public rites
> of Religio Romana was expected of Romanized subjects of the Empire. This
> was one of the chief causes, along with plain vanilla nationalistic
> sentiment, of the recurring, severe conflicts in the Judean province in the
> first and second centuries AD. When Hadrian issued his edict that a temple
> to Jupiter should be built on the site of the old temple to Yahweh
> (destroyed by Titus' legions, I believe, in 60-70 AD), a massive rebellion
> erupted resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives.

Hmmm. Maybe this should happen again. Arm yourselves, pagans, and take back the
Vatican Hill from the Infidels! Reclaim the cathedrals built on the ruins of
pagan temples. Sacrifice to Jupiter and Juno in the Pantheon -- and later, in
your jail cells.

>
>
> Was sacrifice to the Gods on public holidays required for admission and
> retention in the Senate of the Roman Republic? For climbing the Cursus
> Honorum in the Roman Republic?

During the days of the Republic, and probably later, it was unthinkable that any
member of the Senate or a candidate for Cursus Honorum would NOT follow the gods
of Rome in public or private life. Paganism was not an option, it was the state
religion and the ONLY religion for quite a long time. Such a requirement might
not have been necessary because it was assumed that any Roman would be
participating in the religious rites in the first place.

I doubt that it would be necessary to require in writing that the Pope attend
Easter Mass. If he doesn't, who does?

-- Flavia Claudia

Subject:	Re: Constitution/Explanations
From:	missmoon@--------
Date:	Wed, 04 Nov 1998 16:47:17 -0500

Patrick Dunn wrote:

> The interpretation of the word "honor" in the oath seems to me to be a
> matter the pontifices should take up.

www.Amazon.com carries dictionaries! And Nova Roma gets a cut.

> As far as offering sacrifices to the gods on the holy days of Rome --
> this annoys me. A Christian, Jew, and Asatrur (glory be to the gods
> that Germanicus has returned!) should not have to make offering to any
> gods but their own

I thought that they were *required* not to have any other gods but their own
in the first place? Isn't that what caused all that fuss a few thousand
years ago? I seem to remember hearing about that.

> M. Gladius Saevus
> Pontifex
> Augur

Did I miss something? Did we choose a Pontifex Maximus while I wasn't
looking?


-- Flavia Claudia

Subject:	Re: Explanations
From:	Dexippus@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:58:15 EST

In a message dated 98-11-04 05:40:16 EST, you write:

<< I've just received more postings. The above statement is not true, as
Germanicus is willing to pay public honour to the Gods! So, I think that all
issues about the legitimacy of Germanicus application to the Senate are
nonsense from now on. >>

Again...I hope I am not causing a rift here...but I think the issue goes beyon
just a religious one. The way I see it...do we so easily and so quickly re-
appoint a former magistrate who so recently and so quickly resigned all
positions (including citizenship). I think this goes beyond Germanicus and
includes future magistrates wo may do so as well.

I just think that a "cooling" period need be in place. Perhaps after the
December elections or the middle of next year...who knows. Again...I'm not
advocating that Germanicus never be appointed to another Magistrate position.
Only that we need time to heal. Germanicus is very knowledgable in Roman
affairs and he could share his wisdom and knowledge as a consultant for the
time being. Why are we in a rush to re-appoint?

And what's all this religious bashing going on? Frankly...I don't care if
someon is a Hare Krishna and wants to be in office in Nova Roma. But I don't
believe we should alter the constitution so that the said Hare Krishna doesn't
have to honor or pay due homage to the Gods of Rome. Nova Roma (whether you
like it or not...and whether Germanicus still adheres to it or not) was
founded upon the Religio Romana. To now back-peddle from this will lead us
down the path the original Roma once tread when the Gods were ignored (IMHO).

--Dexippus

Subject:	Re: Constitution/Explanations
From:	"Robert Woolwine" Alexious@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 14:02:09 -0800

-----Original Message-----
From: m--------oon@-------- m--------oon@--------
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a> <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 1:55 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Re: Constitution/Explanations


>From: m--------oon@--------
>
>
>
>Patrick Dunn wrote:
>
>> The interpretation of the word "honor" in the oath seems to me to be a
>> matter the pontifices should take up.
>
> www.Amazon.com carries dictionaries! And Nova Roma gets a cut.
>
>> As far as offering sacrifices to the gods on the holy days of Rome --
>> this annoys me. A Christian, Jew, and Asatrur (glory be to the gods
>> that Germanicus has returned!) should not have to make offering to any
>> gods but their own
>
>I thought that they were *required* not to have any other gods but their
own
>in the first place? Isn't that what caused all that fuss a few thousand
>years ago? I seem to remember hearing about that.


The first commandment states, Thou shalt have no Other G-ds before me....it
implies the existance of other G-ds. thats one of the ways I rationalize my
belief.

>
>> M. Gladius Saevus
>> Pontifex
>> Augur
>
>Did I miss something? Did we choose a Pontifex Maximus while I wasn't
>looking?
>
>
>-- Flavia Claudia
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
>to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at <a href="http://www.onelist.com" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com</a> and
>select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.
>

Subject:	Re: Primus Fabius
From:	Dexippus@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:04:57 EST

Welcome Primus Fabius!

Join the party, eh!

--Dexippus

Subject:	Re: Constitution/Explanations
From:	Dexippus@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:12:38 EST

In a message dated 98-11-04 14:24:26 EST, you write:

<< Noble senate: remove this clause! It is an insult to
our gods to demand sacrifice of those who do not worship them. >>

I would beg to differ. Leave the clause but abide by the constitution. If
the individual can not perform the duty put forth by the law, then forgoe the
position.

As our beloved Venator constantly reminds us (love ya Venator):

"I am a follower of the Nordic Gods and therefore will refrain from holding
public office in Nova Roma" <<or something to that affect>>

--Dexippus

Subject:	Re: Legislating religion was Re: Constitution/Explanations
From:	Dexippus@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:17:23 EST

In a message dated 98-11-04 15:36:30 EST, you write:

<< Maybe the Collegium pontificum could research how religion, and its
observance, was mandatory or not in the Roman Republic, and make an
interpretation that takes the classical example into account. >>


Public Office was interwoven with religious office.

--Dexippus

Subject:	Call for re-affirmation (long and impolite)
From:	"RMerullo" merullo@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:48:50 -0500

Salvete omnes

Part of me wants to walk away from this discussion of religion, because it
is beginning to heat up a bit and looks to be divisive, but I cannot walk
away from this now.

Nova Roma is an organization dedicated to restoration of Religio Romana,
Roman virtue and culture, right? The magistrates of Nova Roma must
participate in Religio Romana, right? Otherwise, why are they magistrates
and of what?

A while back Dexippus asked some of these same questions because I and
others were discussing acknowledgement in the timeline of some later
Emperors, including Constantine, the first to 'legitimize' Christianity.
Some Novaromani expressed reservations about focusing on Constantine, and
thus Christianity; some of these realize through our discussion that I was
looking for a well-rounded summary of history, rather than a focus. Others
objected to mention of Constantine period. Dexippus called for an end to
the debate with a series of questions to the effect: what are we all about?

I find myself now doing basically the same thing. How can we move forward
with an honest restorative effort if we constantly lie to ourselves? And
yes, I think that we are lying collectively, if we -
A - Deny that emperors like Diocletian or Constantine reigned over the Roman
Empire, as much as did Julian or any other late emperor,
B - Claim that a magistrate of Nova Roma can be a Christian and still
perform his/her duties.

It is an especially heinous collective lie if the two are taken together, so
that some within the organization can pretend that Christianity (a big sect
of Judaism) did not overtake and displace the Religio Romana during, not
after, the Roman Empire, while others practice, or claim to have faith in,
the very same Christianity and yet lead the populace in sacrifice to the
Gods.

I am not a Christian, but that is by my own choice, not because I dont know
anything about Christianity. You cannot be a Christian and a Roman (by
religion). You cannot be a Jew (by religion) and a Roman (by religion).
They call themselves 'monotheists' for a reason. Asatrur? You got me
there. I am not familiar with that religion at all. If it is polytheistic,
now you have a fighting chance.

My bottom line here: if you feel that you are a monotheist, that is great
for you. Revel in your faith, practice it in your life if you will - but it
is not compatible in the least with the goals and essence of Nova Roma as
expressed in NR's literature, not at all. Dont run for office in NR, for
the sake of the Gods...or of God..but especially of you, because you're
committing the *ultimate* hypocrisy! Please, reserve such compromises of
self for days when you face the choice between going off to a forced labor
camp or tacitly allowing someone else to go there. Selling your soul for a
micronational post just dont cut it.

Of course I am going to be verbally raked over the coals, then thrown from
the virtual Tarpeian rock, for all this, but before you start lobbing
stones, Novaromani, I have a couple of things left to say:

Yes, I also proposed that the Senate look at the Constitution to consider
ammending it, such that religion would be wholly irrelevant to senatorial
status. I still stand by that proposal. But it's quite a different matter
merely to say -

"Oh, you dont believe in the Gods? That's fine. Neither do I, even though
I hold a priest's post here in the Religio. Let's do away with all this
sacrificial nonsense!"

I urgently repeat my call for a study by the Collegium pontificum, if there
is one, into the question of whether pietas, or some degree of it, was
required for admission into, and rentention in, the Senate.

Iaciantur lapides

Valete

Gaius Marius Merullus

Subject:	Books
From:	pjane pjane@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:22:58 -0500 (EST)

At Lucius Equitius' suggestion I have added the Lindsey Davis "Marcus
Didius Falco" novels to the Nova Roma bookstore. I've also filled out the
fiction section with a few plot summaries.

But this part of the bookstore works best when it also offers commentary
from people who've read the books and know the subject matter. So I'd like
to ask a few questions:

- Which is the best Colleen McCullough novel?
- Which is the best Steven Saylor novel?
- Which is the best Lindsey Davis novel?
- Do you know of any other authors who've written modern fiction about
ancient Rome that we should include here?

Your answers will (I hope) stimulate an interesting discussion that will
ultimately help Nova Romans and others make informed book-buying choices.

Patricia Cassia

Subject:	Dexippus multum scit
From:	"Merullo" Merullo@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 18:14:43 -0500

Salvete

As soon as the Senate resolves its most immediate concerns, I think that it
should consider deifying Dexippus for this clearly divine revelation.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dexippus@-------- Dexippus@--------
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a> <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 5:18 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Re: Constitution/Explanations


>From: Dexippus@--------
>
>In a message dated 98-11-04 14:24:26 EST, you write:
>
><< Noble senate: remove this clause! It is an insult to
> our gods to demand sacrifice of those who do not worship them. >>
>
>I would beg to differ. Leave the clause but abide by the constitution. If
>the individual can not perform the duty put forth by the law, then forgoe
the
>position.
>
>As our beloved Venator constantly reminds us (love ya Venator):
>
>"I am a follower of the Nordic Gods and therefore will refrain from holding
>public office in Nova Roma" <<or something to that affect>>
>
>--Dexippus
>


The proposal to deify Dexippus was made in jest.

Sorry Dexippe

Vale anyway

Gaius Marius Merullus

Subject:	Re: Constitution/Explanations
From:	"Merullo" Merullo@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 18:14:49 -0500

Salve Luci Corneli Sulla

You have quoted a commandment, so I gather you wont object to some feedback.

I rarely quote from the bible, but, here goes:

"Thou shalt not bow down before any graven image"

Is there not such a commandment, alongside of the one that you quoted? Dont
you think that it means, by transference, that you are not to honor gods
that have idols made in their image?

I'll share with you, that I too started to look for polytheism precisely in
the same place: the jealous references to other gods in the
Judaeo-Christian scripture.

But, all that notwithstanding, dont you see a fundamental contradiction
between your monotheistic beliefs and your duty to Nova Roma as a
magistrate?

Vale

Gaius Marius Merullus

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob--------Woolwin----------------us@--------
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a> <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 5:07 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Re: Constitution/Explanations


>From: "Rob--------Woolwin--------l--------us@--------
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: m--------oon@-------- m--------oon@--------
>To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a> <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 1:55 PM
>Subject: [novaroma] Re: Constitution/Explanations
>
>
>>From: m--------oon@--------
>>
>>
>>
>>Patrick Dunn wrote:
>>
>>> The interpretation of the word "honor" in the oath seems to me to be a
>>> matter the pontifices should take up.
>>
>> www.Amazon.com carries dictionaries! And Nova Roma gets a cut.
>>
>>> As far as offering sacrifices to the gods on the holy days of Rome --
>>> this annoys me. A Christian, Jew, and Asatrur (glory be to the gods
>>> that Germanicus has returned!) should not have to make offering to any
>>> gods but their own
>>
>>I thought that they were *required* not to have any other gods but their
>own
>>in the first place? Isn't that what caused all that fuss a few thousand
>>years ago? I seem to remember hearing about that.
>
>
>The first commandment states, Thou shalt have no Other G-ds before me....it
>implies the existance of other G-ds. thats one of the ways I rationalize
my
>belief.
>
>>
>>> M. Gladius Saevus
>>> Pontifex
>>> Augur
>>
>>Did I miss something? Did we choose a Pontifex Maximus while I wasn't
>>looking?
>>
>>
>>-- Flavia Claudia
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
>>to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at <a href="http://www.onelist.com" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com</a> and
>>select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
>to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at <a href="http://www.onelist.com" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com</a> and
>select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.
>

Subject:	Re: Dexippus multum scit
From:	"Robert Woolwine" Alexious@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 15:27:52 -0800

To deify someone..dont they have to be deceased?

Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Quaestor
Candidate for Praetor Urbanis
-----Original Message-----
From: Merullo Merullo@--------
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a> <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 3:20 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Dexippus multum scit


>From: "Merullo" Merullo@--------
>
>Salvete
>
>As soon as the Senate resolves its most immediate concerns, I think that it
>should consider deifying Dexippus for this clearly divine revelation.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dexippus@-------- Dexippus@--------
>To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a> <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 5:18 PM
>Subject: [novaroma] Re: Constitution/Explanations
>
>
>>From: Dexippus@--------
>>
>>In a message dated 98-11-04 14:24:26 EST, you write:
>>
>><< Noble senate: remove this clause! It is an insult to
>> our gods to demand sacrifice of those who do not worship them. >>
>>
>>I would beg to differ. Leave the clause but abide by the constitution.
If
>>the individual can not perform the duty put forth by the law, then forgoe
>the
>>position.
>>
>>As our beloved Venator constantly reminds us (love ya Venator):
>>
>>"I am a follower of the Nordic Gods and therefore will refrain from
holding
>>public office in Nova Roma" <<or something to that affect>>
>>
>>--Dexippus
>>
>
>
>The proposal to deify Dexippus was made in jest.
>
>Sorry Dexippe
>
>Vale anyway
>
>Gaius Marius Merullus
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or
>service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit
><a href="http://www.onelist.com/advert.html" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com/advert.html</a> for more information.
>

Subject:	Re: Books
From:	"Merullo" Merullo@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 18:44:15 -0500

Salvete Patricia Cassia et alii

>But this part of the bookstore works best when it also offers commentary
>from people who've read the books and know the subject matter. So I'd like
>to ask a few questions:
>
>- Which is the best Colleen McCullough novel?

I have read all of hers, and, really, it is one novel written in
installments. She has undertaken to re-tell the story of the end of the
Republic with fiction inserted to make the characters come alive and the
story flow as a narrative. These are great books which I highly recommend
to anyone, with two warnings:

I do know of one person who picked up the first of the series, The First Man
in Rome, and read only a few pages before realizing that she hated it to
pieces. Too many Latin names of people and places to remember, in other
words, if you dont know much of any Roman history and dont have an
inclination to delve into it, this stuff will be too heavy. But,
conversely, if you do know some of the history, or want to get into it,
well, you may have a hard time putting these books down. I've heard other
enthusiasts of the period (euphemism for armchair historian) say the same!

The author is so pro-Caesar it becomes almost unbearable! Her Caesar can do
no wrong, she really does worship him in the pages of the later books,
Caesar's Women and Caesar: Let the Dice Fly!

>- Which is the best Steven Saylor novel?

I have read Roman Blood, which I liked, but not so much as the Colleen
McCullough stuff, maybe because I have never been much of a detective story
enthusiast. I just picked up more of these (through Nova Roma of course -
an easy way to buy books and good prices too) and will say more when I
finish them. Roman Blood was more fictionalized than the McCullough stuff,
for perfectly valid reasons. And, worst of all, the Roman whom I admire
most gets a real bad rap (sniff sniff)...Oh, the injustice of it all! Hint:
people who celebrate Ludi Victoriae Sullanae should get a kick out of a few
'historical background' passages toward the end of the book.

>- Which is the best Lindsey Davis novel?

Havent read it, sorry.

>- Do you know of any other authors who've written modern fiction about
>ancient Rome that we should include here?

Sorry again.
>
Valete

Gaius Marius Merullus

Subject:	Re: Call for re-affirmation (long and impolite)
From:	dean6886@--------)
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:47:51 -0600 (CST)

The entire trouble here seems to belong to the theme of seperation
of "church and state" so to speak. As all sources as far as I know
indicate in ancient Rome there was no such thing. In order to restore
the Religio Romana within the total framework of Nova Roma there again
really can't be that seperation. Again, Nova Roma is reconstructing its
basis from the ideals and practices of the Republic in every way, shape
and form though I'm sure everyone involved in the Constantine and other
later empire Christianity discussions have duly noted and respected each
others opinions for the most part.
Yes I agree that it would be terrible and hypocritical of a
monotheist (or I will add an atheist) to participate in any of the
Religio Romana rights actively- or any other pagan rite or right
contrary to his/her belief ever. Yet the premise of this discussion is
about a magistrate being respectful during a ritual, a sacrifice, etc.
If the magistrate is required to make a sacrifice/perform any other
religious state right and not be a Religio Romana practioner we have a
serious problem. Also on a more case by case basis I wonder that since
the Religio Romana is the centerpiece of Nova Roma, how much effort
would a monotheist or atheist or what have you (yet maybe not
necessarily another polytheist) put into endorsing and forwarding the
goals of the Gods if he/she were elected to virtually any governmental
position.
While Nova Roma is still relatively small and we have as yet no
physical manifestations of this problem I think we should talk this out
before we do have that situation.
I'll also throw in my 2 cents and say that I agree with Dex when it
comes to making any altercations on our constitution to meet exceptional
circumstances. Enough for one post.

Gaius Drusus Domitianus

Subject:	Re: Constitution/Explanations
From:	"Robert Woolwine" Alexious@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 15:42:10 -0800

No..I dont see a contradiction. at all..I dont have a problem respecting
the beliefs of the State, or of other private individuals. I had to sue my
former employer becuase of that very issue.

My purpose as a magistrate of NR is to contribute my knowledge and my
experience to improve NR. I have never taken an issue when it comes to the
Religio Romana, nor will I...for the precise reason that I do not practice
it.

In regardind to the bowing down of any graven image..I am not bowing..nor do
I see any graven image. My issue to what I said earlier is that I will
respect, honor and will not act in any way that disrespects the religio
romana. My only limitation, if you can call it a limitation. Is that I
will not do more for the Religio Romana that I would not do for my own
private belief. To do so would violate my own personal code of ethics (dont
laugh, becuase I want to be an atty). I would not hinder the expansion of
the Religio Romana, nor would I go against it. The only officies that i
know in good conscious could not serve would be as Pontiff and Augur, or any
other Religious office of the State.

I believe that in the course of my citizenship at NR, you, my fellow
Citizens know that I have been completely honest and open about my faith. I
have been personally very cynical when it comes to religion (due to my life
experiences). But, my one issue is can I reconcile my faith with the faith
of the State, and I can personally answer yes. I do apologize if you cannot
see my reasoning..but then, I dont have to answer to you....I must answer to
myself...when I asked Germanicus to be a Quaestor, I did so knowing my
reasoning. And, when I applied to run for Praetor Urbanis, I also did so
knowing my reasoning. In my heart I have no ill will toward anyone Pagan,
Xtian, or any other faith.

I feel that I can successfully accomplish my duties if elected Praetor
Urbanis, and a matter of my personal faith I do not feel that there is an
conflict.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Quaestor
Candidate for Praetor Urbanis

Can we please get into another topic of discussion...This religious war
needs to finally cease.

"Can we all please get along!" - Rodney King
-----Original Message-----
From: Merullo Merullo@--------
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a> <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 3:21 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Re: Constitution/Explanations


>From: "Merullo" Merullo@--------
>
>Salve Luci Corneli Sulla
>
>You have quoted a commandment, so I gather you wont object to some
feedback.
>
>I rarely quote from the bible, but, here goes:
>
>"Thou shalt not bow down before any graven image"
>
>Is there not such a commandment, alongside of the one that you quoted?
Dont
>you think that it means, by transference, that you are not to honor gods
>that have idols made in their image?
>
>I'll share with you, that I too started to look for polytheism precisely in
>the same place: the jealous references to other gods in the
>Judaeo-Christian scripture.
>
>But, all that notwithstanding, dont you see a fundamental contradiction
>between your monotheistic beliefs and your duty to Nova Roma as a
>magistrate?
>
>Vale
>
>Gaius Marius Merullus
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rob--------Woolwin----------------us@--------
>To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a> <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 5:07 PM
>Subject: [novaroma] Re: Constitution/Explanations
>
>
>>From: "Rob--------Woolwin--------l--------us@--------
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: m--------oon@-------- m--------oon@--------
>>To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a> <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>>Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 1:55 PM
>>Subject: [novaroma] Re: Constitution/Explanations
>>
>>
>>>From: m--------oon@--------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Patrick Dunn wrote:
>>>
>>>> The interpretation of the word "honor" in the oath seems to me to be a
>>>> matter the pontifices should take up.
>>>
>>> www.Amazon.com carries dictionaries! And Nova Roma gets a cut.
>>>
>>>> As far as offering sacrifices to the gods on the holy days of Rome --
>>>> this annoys me. A Christian, Jew, and Asatrur (glory be to the gods
>>>> that Germanicus has returned!) should not have to make offering to any
>>>> gods but their own
>>>
>>>I thought that they were *required* not to have any other gods but their
>>own
>>>in the first place? Isn't that what caused all that fuss a few thousand
>>>years ago? I seem to remember hearing about that.
>>
>>
>>The first commandment states, Thou shalt have no Other G-ds before
me....it
>>implies the existance of other G-ds. thats one of the ways I rationalize
>my
>>belief.
>>
>>>
>>>> M. Gladius Saevus
>>>> Pontifex
>>>> Augur
>>>
>>>Did I miss something? Did we choose a Pontifex Maximus while I wasn't
>>>looking?
>>>
>>>
>>>-- Flavia Claudia
>>>
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
>>>to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at <a href="http://www.onelist.com" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com</a> and
>>>select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.
>>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, or to change your subscription
>>to digest, go to the ONElist web site, at <a href="http://www.onelist.com" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com</a> and
>>select the User Center link from the menu bar on the left.
>>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or
>service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit
><a href="http://www.onelist.com/advert.html" target="_top" >http://www.onelist.com/advert.html</a> for more information.
>

Subject:	Re: Asatrur
From:	SFP55@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 18:56:35 EST

In a message dated 98-11-04 17:51:01 EST, you write:

<< Asatrur? You got me
there. I am not familiar with that religion at all. If it is polytheistic,
now you have a fighting chance. >>
Salve, Gaius Marius
It's Phoenician. Masculine of the Goddess Astarte I believe.
Vale
Q. Fabius

Subject:	Re: Books
From:	SFP55@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 19:12:36 EST

In a message dated 98-11-04 18:13:02 EST, you write:

<< Which is the best Colleen McCullough novel?
Salve Patricia Cassia,
All are good. I'd say though her best writing was reserved for "Caesar's
Women." "Grass Crown" has some historical problems for me.
- Do you know of any other authors who've written modern fiction about ancient
Rome that we should include here? >>
I hope you have Robert Graves on that list?
I'm sure his "Claudius" series is still in print.

Q. Fabius

Subject:	Re: Dexippus multum scit
From:	missmoon@--------
Date:	Wed, 04 Nov 1998 19:13:31 -0500

Robert Woolwine wrote:
>
> From: "Rob--------Woolwin--------l--------us@--------
>
> To deify someone..dont they have to be deceased?
>
Not necessarily -- just ask Caligula!
But this discussion is irrelevant...our Dex is already divine! (Just
check those golden "do me NOW!" pumps...)

-- Flavia Claudia

Subject:	Re: Books
From:	missmoon@--------
Date:	Wed, 04 Nov 1998 19:18:27 -0500

pjane wrote:
>
> From: p-------- p--------@--------
>
> At Lucius Equitius' suggestion I have added the Lindsey Davis "Marcus
> Didius Falco" novels to the Nova Roma bookstore. I've also filled out the
> fiction section with a few plot summaries.
>
> But this part of the bookstore works best when it also offers commentary
> from people who've read the books and know the subject matter. So I'd like
> to ask a few questions:
>
> - Which is the best Colleen McCullough novel?

I agree with whoever said that McCullough idealized Caesar to the point
where he's just a little tooooooo infallible. But that's her opinion and
for me, it doesn't distract from the value of the books.

She WAS tough on Sulla, wasn't she?

> - Which is the best Steven Saylor novel?
> - Which is the best Lindsey Davis novel?

All of 'em.

> - Do you know of any other authors who've written modern fiction about
> ancient Rome that we should include here?

Allan Massie's CAESAR, AUGUSTUS, and TIBERIUS (three different books),
which are fictionalized, first-person accounts of each Roman.

-- Flavia Claudia

Subject:	Re: religious wars
From:	missmoon@--------
Date:	Wed, 04 Nov 1998 19:34:25 -0500

Robert Woolwine wrote:
>
> Can we please get into another topic of discussion...This religious war
> needs to finally cease.
>
I don't think this is a religious war. But I do think that it's another
attempt to reconcile the very tough problem of incorporating the ancient
methods of Roman state religion, the beliefs of neo-pagans, and the
beliefs of Christians, Jews, Wiccans, atheists (well...non-beliefs, I
guess) and any other religion into one organization, which organization
has stated that the restoration of paganism is a goal.

We've been politely -- and not so politely at some times! -- dancing
around this issue for months.

If Nova Roma had been a strictly Pagan organization with no other
beliefs allowed, there STILL would be conflict between...say, the Pagans
and the Wiccans and the Asatru. Most likely. The only solution would be
an organization open ONLY to those who agree to worship the gods of
Rome. A little late for that...we already have friends here that we like
and respect enormously, and that's why this subject is so thorny.

We're trying to accomplish the horrendously difficult and touchy task of
bringing all these beliefs together, since we all have in common a deep
love and respect of Ancient Rome and things Roman.

We could solve this by banning all mention of religion entirely, make it
a secular organization dedicated only to the restoration of the Roman
Virtues (excepting religious virtues)and Roman culture. Doesn't sound
great to me, but it would sure end these religious debates, since
religion would no longer be an issue.

The only problem is that the way of life in Ancient Rome was absolutely
inseperable from pagan religion.

So do I have a solution?
You bet I don't.

-- Flavia Claudia

Subject:	Re: religious wars
From:	dean6886@--------)
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 19:15:52 -0600 (CST)

A solution. Hmmm. Well, we do have pontiffs, and in the absense of
anyone as yet being chosen Pontificus Maximus they have the final
authority on any religious question, discussion, debate, ritualistic
expression, etc. They have the final say with anything that would affect
the Religio Romana. Maybe at this point we should let them confer and
hopefully concur on religious expressions included as part of the duties
of each and every magistrate and end any petty bickering before it
really begins. Though this would take some time, I'm sure they could
give us all some kind of general idea well before our first elections so
that we all know what we're in for. Why don't we take a break on this
till then- --- Is that agreeable Pontiffs?????????????????

Gaius Drusus Domitianus

Subject:	Re: Asatrur
From:	JoeBloch@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 20:13:31 EST

In a message dated 98-11-04 18:59:08 EST, you write:

> << Asatrur? You got me
> there. I am not familiar with that religion at all. If it is
polytheistic,
>
> now you have a fighting chance. >>
> Salve, Gaius Marius
> It's Phoenician. Masculine of the Goddess Astarte I believe.
> Vale
> Q. Fabius

Sorry, no. It's Norse. Asa meaning "Gods" and "tru" meaning "trusting in".
Asatru is the modern incarnation of the old Norse pagan religion. Asatruar are
people who follow Asatru.

Germanicus

Subject:	Re: OT: Kilt Information
From:	Ricci razenna@--------
Date:	Wed, 04 Nov 1998 18:18:39 -0800

I wore the breacan-feile with Clan Colin for about seven years.
Mr. Robinson has explained the wearing of the kilt quite well.
While I knew what he was talking about from the inside out (so to
speak), I do think it was an intelligible explanation of donning
the great kilt. One point though. I found it easier to put the
belt on the floor and pleat the kilt with it already (pretty
much) in place. Slipping it under can be tricky at times.

Caius Aelius Ericius
(aka Uisdean an Scuid MacGregor)

Subject:	Re: Constitution/Explanations
From:	Megas-Robinson amgunn@--------
Date:	Wed, 04 Nov 1998 20:42:20 -0800

Hailsa Dexippus et Salvete Omnes!

I wasn't going to get into this one, but, if I'm quoted (or
paraphrased)...

After due consideration and in consultation with the Oracle at Delphi
(which some of my Celtic ancestors visited a time or two long, long
ago), Ullr and Athene, I have come to the conclusion that the Olympians
are cousins of the Northern Holy Ones, within the larger Indo-European
Family.

>From the meaning put forth by the informed commentators on this list,
the message board and in the Taverna, I could Publically and in good
Faith give Honor to the Religio and the Olympians and not compromise my
personal Religious Practice and Faith. I look at this Honoring as being
the same as drinking Symbel (ritual memorial toasts) to the shades of my
Honored Ancestors and the Heritage they helped create in me.

I have stated before that I shall support the Religio, as the Official
State Religion. We are trying to Re-Create Rome of the Republican-Pagan
period. So, I see no need to change the wording of the Constitution.
If a person thinks they can be a good Citizen in the 90% of Roman life
which is areligious, but can not give the Honor due to the Patron
Deities of Rome, then -unfortunately- this does and should, disbar them
from any office which calls for such Honoring.

There should be no religious bar to Citizenship. Our beloved Rome was a
Cosmopolitan culture; the Crossroads of the known world. Nova Rome
should be the same, but I wish no official status for foreign cults to
the detriment of the Religio.

Rostrum Descenderi

Valete, Venator

Subject:	Re: OT: Kilt Information
From:	Megas-Robinson amgunn@--------
Date:	Wed, 04 Nov 1998 20:59:15 -0800

Salve Caius Aelius Ericius, and Slainte Uisdean an Scuid MacGregor!

Thanks for the additional comment. I've been Alasdair Morgan of Clan
Gunn in the SCA for the better part of 23 years, but I usually wear
t-tunics and trews. The breacan-feile is for special occassions, or
Pennsic Party-time.

Until then,

Venator

Subject:	Re: Constitution/Explanations
From:	"Patrick Dunn" saevvs@--------
Date:	Wed, 04 Nov 1998 19:17:06 PST

>Salve!
>
>>As far as offering sacrifices to the gods on the holy days of Rome --
>>this annoys me. A Christian, Jew, and Asatrur (glory be to the gods
>>that Germanicus has returned!) should not have to make offering to any
>>gods but their own, and that by the rules of their gods, and not by
the
>>rules of ours. Noble senate: remove this clause! It is an insult to
>>our gods to demand sacrifice of those who do not worship them.
>The Senate cannot do that... alone.
>Your position shocks me a little because you were appointed Augur of
our
>Sacred City. Did the Gods told you to say this? Have you read it in the
>skies...?

No, and if they tell me otherwise, I assure you I will change my
position in accord with them. Philosophy told me this: what is the
value of forced worship? What kind of a gift is a coerced gift? It's
not a gift at all.


>The constitution is very clear:
>
>"Citizens need not be practitioners of the Religio Romana".
>
>This says everything everything.

If that were the only line in our constitution about the topic, you
would be right. Since it's not, you're not.

>"Magistrates and Senators shall be required to pay due honor to the
Gods."

This is a simple matter -- we merely must define difference between
honor and worship.

>
>Nobody is forced to be a Magistrate or Senator. Nevertheless, the
objectives
>of Nova Roma are very clear and as such, it must be ruled by
Magistrates and
>Senators that respect those objectives?

But the magistrates and senators of our state are "required" to "make
offerings." This alienates the talent that -- contrary to popular
belief -- non-pagans as well as pagans have.

Salve,
M. Gladius Saevus
Pontifex
Augur

Subject:	Re: Constitution/Explanations
From:	"Patrick Dunn" saevvs@--------
Date:	Wed, 04 Nov 1998 19:22:45 PST

>> M. Gladius Saevus
>> Pontifex
>> Augur
>
>Did I miss something? Did we choose a Pontifex Maximus while I wasn't
>looking?
>
>
>-- Flavia Claudia

No, and if offered the position, I'll decline so fast your head will
spin. BUt I have the right to state my opinion on religious matters
without clearing them through the collegium, and being a pontifex, I
think it may be assumed that I have a certain amount of authority in
such matters. Note that I only called for change, and for discussion; I
made no sweeping decrees.

M. Gladius Saevus
Pontifex
Augur

Subject:	Re: Constitution/Explanations
From:	"Patrick Dunn" saevvs@--------
Date:	Wed, 04 Nov 1998 19:25:51 PST

>From: Dexippus@--------
>Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 17:12:38 EST
>To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>Reply-to: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
>Subject: [novaroma] Re: Constitution/Explanations
>
>From: Dexippus@--------
>
>In a message dated 98-11-04 14:24:26 EST, you write:
>
><< Noble senate: remove this clause! It is an insult to
> our gods to demand sacrifice of those who do not worship them. >>
>
>I would beg to differ. Leave the clause but abide by the constitution.
If
>the individual can not perform the duty put forth by the law, then
forgoe the
>position.
>
>As our beloved Venator constantly reminds us (love ya Venator):
>
>"I am a follower of the Nordic Gods and therefore will refrain from
holding
>public office in Nova Roma" <<or something to that affect>>
>
>--Dexippus

Don't we pass up a tremendous amount of talent this way?

We're setting ourselves up for a theocracy here. Is that what we want?
If so, I'll support it (after all, it's *my* religion in charge for a
change!), but I think you want to think before you do. (That was a
collective "you")

Subject:	Re: Explanations
From:	Cassius622@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 23:06:48 EST

In a message dated 11/4/98 5:25:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, amg@--------
writes:

<< But after a careful study of the postings on this subject, I agree that it
is only the Senate who has to decide on the acceptance of Germanicus. You're
right. The institutions of Nova Roma exist for something and we must not
strip them of their power... I'm candidate to Tribune of the Plebs, but not
to anarchy leader.
I'm sorry that the Constitution does not allow Germanicus to be a magistrate
or senator, we are all sorry... But it is the very same Constitution that he
helped to create that says that.

Salve,

Yet again, I'm afraid that you're mistaken as to what the Constitution of Nova
Roma says about a person holding a Magistrate. Magistrates are NOT required to
be active within Religio Romana. However, being respectful of the Religio
Romana is.

We cannot have Magistrates speaking out *against* Religio Romana, nor refusing
to be present at public events where a ritual is being held. We also would not
tolerate a Magistrate being disrespectful of any OTHER religion, for that
matter.

The Constitution does not bar Germanicus, or any other non Roman pagan from
holding office... so long as their personal feelings are "moderate" enough to
allow them to respect a religion not their own in public.

Vale,

Marcus Cassius Julianus

Subject:	Re: Explanations
From:	Cassius622@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 23:07:52 EST

In a message dated 11/4/98 5:40:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, amg@--------
writes:

<< I've just received more postings. The above statement is not true, as
Germanicus is willing to pay public honour to the Gods! So, I think that all
issues about the legitimacy of Germanicus application to the Senate are
nonsense from now on. Welcome back Germanicus!
>>

LOL! Wouldn't you know I saw this post AFTER responding to your previous
post... I guess I should have read my mail in reverse order! ;)

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus

Subject:	Re: Explanations
From:	missmoon@--------
Date:	Wed, 04 Nov 1998 23:41:25 -0500

C--------us622@-------- wrote:

> The Constitution does not bar Germanicus, or any other non Roman pagan from
> holding office... so long as their personal feelings are "moderate" enough to
> allow them to respect a religion not their own in public.
>
Not to get too technical about it, but Germanicus resigned his
Citizenship. And when he did, I deleted him from the database. So now I
need the information again from the Censors, because I know I had the
wrong address in the first place.

Stop DOING this to me!

-- Flavia Claudia

Subject:	Re: Thank you was Explanations
From:	Cassius622@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 23:48:05 EST

In a message dated 11/4/98 9:12:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,
m--------oon@-------- wr--------:

> I guess I'm the first to get hurled off the rock. (How appropriate, after
all,
considering Tarpeia...)
I do oppose Germanicus' reinstatement to the Senate for the same reason I
oppose
reinstating a Vestal who decided to leave before her year was up.

I would agree with you, Flavia, if this were a purely religious post. However,
the Senate is a Civil body rather than a religious one.

> The decision to become a Senator is not to be taken so lightly that it can
be
abandoned -- especially with the resignation of Citizenship at the same time
--
then resumed at will.

Obviously, Germanicus' reasons for leaving Nova Roma were completely unique...
certainly he did not leave us on a whim, nor is he trying to return
frivolously. If Germanicus IS reinstated, there will certainly be a ruling
that this will be the last time such a thing will be allowed. Certainly every
Citizen deserves at least one chance if they should make an error!

>Germanicus' first leaving caused great upheaval in Nova
Roma, and while he's entitled to leave with no explanation (especially if he
left
for personal reasons), I don't feel that he should be allowed to be
reinstated
with no explanation.

First and foremost, Germanicus HAS explained himself. He did this as much as
he felt he could when he left, and he posted a more complete explanation to
the list just yesterday. Nor has he been reinstated with no explanation... in
fact, events have proven to be as far from THAT as they could possibly get.

>We don't know why he left, we don't know why he's back, and
we certainly don't know why he wants to be a Senator again -- or for how long
this time.

We don't know why he wants to be a Senator again? I'll happily fill in the
blanks on this... Germanicus and I worked for over three years setting up the
foundations for Nova Roma. Hundreds of hours of research and planning. When
the project was finally put into motion, Germanicus put forth a truly
Herculean effort to see that Nova Roma would succeed. He's invested literally
hundreds of dollars into Nova Roma directly, spent yet another few hundred
hours designing the website and writing the Constitution, and done everything
possible to ensure Nova Roma's survival - even during his absence.

Now Germanicus has asked for a fairly low-key, non-elected, position. He has
been a Senator already, and is perhaps the most qualified person for such a
post that I can think of - myself included. From a Senate seat he could again
have some influence within the Micronation he's worked so hard to create.

>Are we really trying to do something with Nova Roma, or is this merely
a large-scale role-playing game? I'd like an answer to that because, frankly,
I've made my own sacrifice for the Gods and for Nova Roma, and if this is
just
another D&D thing to the Citizens and the Senate, that sacrifice was way too
much.

You know the answer to this, Flavia. You've seen it in Nova Roma for the past
year, and you've seen it in all the serious and heartfelt debate which has
passed over this issue. Germanicus has NOT been summarily reinstated, (except
for Citizenship, which we've never refused anyone) but rather the issue has
been very carefully dealt with in all aspects.

Again, if this were a religious position, I'd be as wary as you are. However,
it's not.

>So while I'm glad to see him back as a Citizen, personally I'd want some
explanation and justification for reinstating him to the governing body of
Nova
Roma.

Again, Germanicus HAS explained himself. And, if the statement "As co-founder,
who's invested years of time into Nova Roma, Germanicus at least deserves fair
consideration." isn't a meaningful enough justification, then I fear nothing
could possibly satisfy.

The basic issue here is fear. What if Germanicus leaves again? Well, when Nova
Roma was much smaller, and Germanicus was filling many posts - Consul,
Senator, Censor, Praetor, Pontiff, Webmaster and Embassador to other
Micronations, his leaving was a MAJOR blow to our young Republic.

As a simple Senator, Germanicus would be simply be one of a group of people
within a Micronation which has doubled in size since he left. Let's say he DID
leave again? So what? I can almost picture the outcry of yawns! ;) Nova Roma
is large enough now to survive the loss of a single Senator or other
Magistrate, without it causing more than a burp on the list and an evening's
topic in the Taverna. The loss would be HIS rather than ours... for his second
and last chance would be over, and further reinstatement would be impossible.
THAT at least would be guaranteed before any such measure would become
reality.

Vale,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Consul

Subject:	Re: Constitution/Explanations
From:	LSergAust@--------
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 23:49:49 EST

>From: "Antonio M. R. C. Grilo" amg@--------
>
>The constitution is very clear:
>
>"Citizens need not be practitioners of the Religio Romana".
>
>This says everything everything.
It obviously _does not_ say everything, because...
>
>"Magistrates and Senators shall be required to pay due honor to the Gods."
which, as has been pointed out by others, is an ambiguous, undefined
requirement.
>Nobody is forced to be a Magistrate or Senator. Nevertheless, the objectives
>of Nova Roma are very clear and as such, it must be ruled by Magistrates and
>Senators that respect those objectives?
The stated objective I was greeted with when I first arrived at Nova
Roma's territory was the restoration of traditional Roman _values_ and
not traditional Roman religion per se. Your interpretation that this
requires all magistrates to be devout practitioners of the State religion
is not congruent with my interpretation or that of others. This is not a
settled issue but an issue that needs to be settled by discussion and
debate.

I suspect that neither Christians, Jews, nor Moslems can honorably pay
worship or homage to the ancient gods/goddesses. Their religions pretty
much forbid it. Nova Roma must decide if we really want to be crippled
from the start by restricting our leadership/public servants to a small
group of people who choose to try to imitate a long-dead religious
tradition.

Personally, I can't see that as being in the best interests of Nova Roma.
We've already seen hints of nasty, narrow-minded religious intolerance
expressed here not too long ago, and I don't think that's a good
direction in which to continue.

It borders on the absurd that we're already talking of excluding one of
the Founding Fathers of our nation on such a basis.

>Vale!
>
>Antonius Gryllus Graecus
>(Praetor ad Lusitaniam Provinciam)

Lucius Sergius Australicus



sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare.

Subject:	Completely lost!! Almost literally!!
From:	amethystcrystallight@--------)
Date:	Wed, 4 Nov 1998 23:47:32 -0600

Salvete --


I don't mean to appear stupid or uninformed, but it *has* been some time
since I have been able to actually *read* the NR web page, Constitution,
etc.


I joined Nova Roma looking for other Roman Pagans. I was the only one I
knew, then I met another who aimed me at Nova Roma. Here I have found
what I was looking for -- a Family of Roman Pagans (and Others -- I
consider you *all* my Family, Pagan or no, like it or no). The
historical restoration part is, I admit, over my head and beyond my
understanding. Frankly the religious aspects were *all* I was interested
in.


Nova Roma *is* and still *will be* about and for Roman Pagans, right? I
try to keep my life simple (and my gods have seen to this *quite*
efficiently). I haven't read too many books on Rome, it's history, or
anything like that. I am not a historian, or a restorian (is that even a
word?) or anything like that. I'm just a Roman Pagan and a Mommy (not
necessarily in that order). I would like to use my ordination to some
use, and have applied to one of the Priesthoods, but that's about as
'complicated' as I'd like to get. I'll probably vote, provided the whole
process doesn't wind up confusing or nauseating me too much (I know
voting is important, but a confused voter is a useless voter -- that much
I *do know).


So all I want to know is, I guess, is that Roman Paganism still has it's
place here. If it doesn't, where do *I* go?


Fara Med Godanum! -- Crys and Terry and Lapis Stone (due late Feb.)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Amethystia Ivnia Crystallina and Primus Ivnia Terrelina
amethystcrystallight@--------
<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~acl_pit/amethyst.htm" target="_top" >http://members.tripod.com/~acl_pit/amethyst.htm</a>

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at <a href="http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html" target="_top" >http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html</a>
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]