Forum Romanum


Subject:	Re: Re:[novaroma] The Poll
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:07:22 -0700

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9068/8/_/61050/_/969494851/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

----- Original Message -----
From: <Lykaion1@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 4:51 PM
Subject: Re:[novaroma] The Poll

>
> In a message dated 9/20/00 11:04:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> marcustrajanvalerius@-------- writes:
>
> << I did originally vote Yes, but after further research,
> thought and reading the posts on this issue changed my
> mind and voted no. >>
>
>
> Too bad. You were already on the right side of things. :}

Sulla: So, if people disagree with you...they are wrong.... I see.... :)

> <<If the Senate were to oppress the people, in this virtual
> world, it would be up to each citizen to say enough
> and resign his or her citizenship.>>
>
> Yes, but why wait for things to become that drastic? A voting record
> lets everyone know who voted which way, and so the people can react before
> things get to such a point.

Sulla: Actually there is alot one can do. I am sure previous posts that
have discussed various options citizens can do...like run for office....try
to change laws...and the Constitution...that is just off the top of my head.

> <<However, individual Senator’s should not directly be
> held accountable to the people They are not elected by
> the citizens.....>>
>
> Yes, they are voted in by the people indirectly. But even if they were
not,
> why should they not be accountable, when it is the people they wish to
lead?

Sulla: We are/have been elected by the People. But we are not micromanged
by the People. We, the Senators are empowered by the Constitution to act in
the best interest of the ResPublica. Given our time constraints and our
ability to keep most of our discussions focused to the issues on the
Senatorial. There isnt much the People are going to gain if there is a
listing that:

Marcius Cassius Iulianus voted this way.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix voted this way.

Becuase there is no accompanying explanation. There is nothing there than
just a vote. Just as Senator Marcus Cassius Iulianus noted. I think the
system we have in place with our Tribunes announcing what issues are pending
before the Senate and the results of those issues are satisfactory.

> <>
>
> So do I. Which is why I think they should change the rule.
>
> So far, the other side has given various reason why the secrecy rule is in
> place. But so far, no one has demonstrated what good comes from it. Only
> why it is there, how the senate is a closed body, etc. No one has shown
how
> the change would be bad.
> Even if the only result of changing the rule is more information about the
> goings on in government, that is a positive good. No good is served by
> secrecy which is not given to the magisterial offices.
>
> If there is nothing to hide from, no secrecy is needed. So, perhaps
someone
> can explain just what is needed to be hidden, and why.

Sulla: Once again Festus you have ignored my response. I think you should
go back and read them. I cited the time constraints in the Constitution 4
days of debate and 2 days of voting offer very limitied time for Senators to
debate the issue in public as well as in the Senate. I for one have enough
in my plate dealing with the issues that are raised and dealt with more
thoroughly in the Senate.

However, like my colleagues, if I am questioned privately I would be happy
to explain my position. Also, I view it in another way, Festus, I would
like the People to take more of an interest to contact us, the Senators
about issue. I consider myself somewhat approachable to any of our citizens
and if anyone questions me on an issue I am sure to respond. But mainly, my
questions come from you, a handful of other citiznes and mainly my Gens
members. If the People are geninely interested then have them what is to
stop them from emailing us privately.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

> Gaius Lupinius Festus
>
>
>
>


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Polls
From:	<gmvick32@-------->
Date:	Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:33:43 -0600


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Poll
From:	Lykaion1@--------
Date:	Thu, 21 Sep 2000 00:56:58 EDT


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Polls
From:	Lykaion1@--------
Date:	Thu, 21 Sep 2000 00:57:36 EDT


Subject:	[novaroma] Transparency in Senatorial Voting
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Sep 2000 08:14:23 +0200

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9067/8/_/61050/_/969523015/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Salvete Quirites!

We have recently seen arise a discussion on the desirability of
votes in the Senate made by individual senators being so publically
recorded. I for one think this is an excellent idea.

Nova Roma is a group of people, not an abstract idea (although the
abstract idea helps to unite this group of people). As a civis, i.e.
one of this group, I have the keenest interest in what the official
leaders of this group choose to do and say, partly in my name by
implication, and in some cases I might wish to influence it or react
to it supportively or the contrary. That is something so basic that
it is not even a matter of democracy; if we had an absolute monarch
here, I would also be interested in his words, actions and policies,
and would be interested in influencing him for the better and in
reacting to his acts.

As Labienus pointed out correctly, many of our senators are in fact
elected by us when they are popularly chosen for the higher
magistracies, others are co�pted by the Seante, and others are added
by the censors' judgement, who are also elected by us. In the end
there is noting terribly undemocratic about that. The principle that
they serve for life, taken from Roman tradition, might be considered
conservative, but is not undemocratic. (The U.S. Supreme Court is
constituted on that principle, and is widely considered as a great
bulwark of liberty.) And in any case we have direct democracy in the
comitia, something lacking in most modern macronations, which is a
considerable compensating factor in the whole package.

Practically speaking, how much can an individual influence a U.S.
senator or congressman, or in other lands an M.P., even though he may
be going to try for re-election? As a U.S. citizen, I have been known
to write my congressional representative, and I have even been
invited to talk with them personally in Washington, and have done so
in their offices. Which is fine, but re-election or no, I am quite
sure that I have more influence in the NR Senate, where I can not
only directly access the senators individually but can engage them in
sufficiently-prolonged debate to change minds, and where we can
create a personal relationship, this being a smaller and more
intimate nation.

Therefore, I am naturally interested in who has what orientation in
the Senate. We must also rememeber that each of us is a legislator in
Nova Roma, for we are members of the comitia. Just as a congressman
in the U.S. House of Representatives has a keen interest in the
political situation in the Senate, so we too must be supposed to be
concerned about who is doing and saying exactly what in our upper
house.

Anyone, by the way, who doubts that, practically speaking, the votes
of Senators were known to anyone who wanted to know merely has to
think of the slaves - those who carried the senators' seats for
example (which were not permanently placed - consider that the Senate
meant in different templa). Or even the household slaves standing
around during every politically-oriented convivium of every senator
and innumerable interested non-senators. And all every senator's
clients with a natural and friendly interest, and equally interested
in political chats with others... Rumour surely supplied what a
official Hansard or Congressional Digest didn't

I also completely agreed with Senator Cassius Iulianus' suggestion
that a register be established for conserving and making public the
"dissenting opinions" of senators - not, I think, only for those on
the losing side in a vote, but for any who feel that a certain vote
requires that a special explanation be put forth for it. It would
reduce misunderstanding of a senator and human being's true values
and intentions.

Although the Senate is increasing in size, the NR population is
increasing too, and these basic facts ensure that there will be an
ever-growing number of persons with a political interest who are
outside the Senate and must live an active political life from
outside. This group will be increasingly interested in getting all
the relevant information on the Senate and its members.

We have through a natural and proper reconstructionist desire made
our Senate not-exactly-directly elected and for life. If a Senate on
that model can live in the rnodern world is something that is still
being tested. Certainly it will have a better chance of realising the
advantages of its present constitutional place - the accumulation of
commitment, experience and hopefully even wisdom - if it is perceived
by all as open and transparent - and if that openness and
transparency shows the work of consciencious, decent and prudent men
and women with an obviously sincere concern for the welfare of Nova
Roma and the dignitas of every civis therein. Such an openness and
such an appearance are the keys to its surivival in its traditional
form. And honourable senators should have nothing to fear therefrom.

Valete!

Marcus Apollonius Formosanus
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis; Scriba Censorius � � � � � � �
ICQ# 61698049 Firetalk: Apollonius 1588367
AIM: MAFormosanus � � � � � � �MSN: Formosanus
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
The Gens Apollonia is open to new members.
Ave nostra Respublica Libera - Nova Roma!
________________________________________
Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
(Se vi deziras subigi al vi chion, subigu vin al Racio)
________________________________________


Subject:	[novaroma] Latin Software
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Sep 2000 10:56:00 +0200


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Digest Number 1016
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Sep 2000 12:49:59 +0200

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Free @Backup service! Click here for your free trial of @Backup.
@Backup is the most convenient way to securely protect and access
your files online. Try it now and receive 300 MyPoints.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6348/8/_/61050/_/969534065/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Salvete omnes!

I wanted to make a few comments on this highly interesting and
valuable post by Pontifex Graecus. It is a bit long, be warned!

>Subject: A Few Thoughts on Religion and Divination
>
>Salvete Feste el at
>
>Firstly, I'd like to stress that in my opinion, the most important
>part of Cicero's text for us Novi Romani is the following:
>"But I want it distinctly understood that the destruction of
>superstition does not mean the destruction of religion. For I
consider it the part of wisdom to preserve the institutions of our
forefathers by retaining their sacred rites and ceremonies.

MAF: This is, of course, an important part of our programme in Nova
Roma. (Although his discussion of tearing up superstition by the
roots in the lines before this suggests that also to be a worthy
occupation.)

Furthermore, the celestial order and the beauty of the universe
compel me to confess that there is some excellent and
>eternal Being, who deserves the respect and homage of men (...)"

MAF: Well, Cicero here writes "praestantem aliquam aeternamque
naturam" - some excellent and eternal *nature*, which I think is
closer to his idea - not that there is a deity divorced from Nature,
but that in the order of things there is an aspect eternal,
primordial and regnant which seems to us worthy of worship.
>
>While a few ancient philosophers did not believe any God (such as
>some
>Epicureans),

MAF: Well, of course Epicurus *himself* believed in the gods. He
simply thought that they did not intervene in human affairs, and they
do not have an important place in his system, therefore, except
insofar as we should free ourselves from superstitions about them
which might lead to undesirable and unnecessary fears.

the majority believed 1 God. But this majority believed MANY
>Gods at the same time. Imagine a cake. I belive the 1 cake, but I
>also believe that the cake might be partitioned in several pieces,
and I can eat only some of the pieces and leave the rest. In the same
way, the majority of philosophers admitted the existence of 1 God.
But they also accepted the idea of many, for the many form the
several different aspects of the 1.

MAF: You have here expressed an idea that I stressed in a an essay
that I am writing. Many people attack paganism and all polytheism as
though it lacked the intellectual energy to penetrate to the unity of
Divinity - but of course that is not true; as a student of
comparative religion, I can say safely that every sophisticated
polytheistic religion understands the unity of the Divine perfectly
well - it simply is enriched with the multiple aspects of the Divine
as well.

>Anyway, I stress again that "I consider it the part of wisdom to
>preserve the institutions of our forefathers by retaining their
sacred rites and ceremonies", and in this way, I consider that all
Romans of Nova Roma have the duty to participate in the sacred rites
and ceremonies,

MAF: Well, maybe to put it that way might offend our non-pagan cives.
Of course they indirectly participate in them insofar as they are our
civic cults, but this almost looks as though even they are to be
forced to do so more directly - which I suppose you didn't mean.
Since we believe that their deity too is not false, but a way of
approaching the one Divine Power that we all believe in, we should
give an example of the fundamental tolerance of paganism, and not
appear excessively demanding.

for only in this way we can consider ourselves heirs of their
institutions.
>
>As to credo's, I think that the world would be better if we took the
>following perspective:
>"And if I err in my belief that the souls of men are immortal, I
>gladly err, nor do I wish this error which gives me pleasure to be
wrested from me while I live. But if when dead I am going to be
without sensation (as some petty philosophers think), then I have no
fear that these seers, when they are dead, will have the laugh on
me!"
>
>This passage states two things:
>1) Each of us has the right to believe whatever we want, and mainly
>those beliefs which make us happier.
>2) We should always recognise that a credo is nothing but a credo...
>It can be wrong, and as such we should also consider our
speculations and the speculations of others to be equally valid.

MAF: Well, I would rather agree with Festus (elsewhere) that some
things are correct and some incorrect. I would not agree that we have
a right to believe just anything that makes us happier, even if it
did not harm anyone else. We have a fundamental duty of honesty to
ourselves and to Reason. As Seneca writes:

Ratio autem nihil aliud est quam in corpus humanum pars divini
spiritus mersa. (Reason, though, is nothing other than a part of the
divine spirit merged with a human body.)

I think this prohibits us from believing for the sake of pleasure or
happiness rather than on the basis of evidence. Reason must be
respected.

And since different credos may have a greater or lesser degree of
rational justification, I do not think that they are all exactly
equal. And pointing out the shaky basis of of the less reasonable
ones is indeed fighting supersition, as we should be doing. Naturally
some things are hard to prove - which suggests to me that we should
not arbitrarily choose what we would like to believe in such cases,
but suspend judgement.

>
>As to your credo in particular, Feste, whatever it might be, I would
>very much love that it did not prevent you from preserving the
sacred rites and ceremonies of your Roman forefathers, for it is the
part of wisdom to be able to separate Philosophy, Credo and Legacy.
In Philosophy you attain conclusions through reasoning starting from
doubt, and most of the time if you are a real philosopher, you doubt
more often than you reach absolute conclusions.

MAF: How true!

The Credo is an absolute conclusion you attain not from
>reasoning, but from passion.

MAF: I am not entirely sure what you mean by this, but I must admit
that I have an unshakeable conviction that whatever the Divine Powers
wish to do with me at death is for the best, and I am willing to
return to them the life and substance and form they loaned to me with
gratitude, submission and tranquility.

One of the most beautiful passages of philosophical and religious
expression in all world literature is, IMHO, this by Seneca:

Quid est boni viri? Praebere se fato. Grande solacium est cum
universo rapi; quicquid est quod nos sic vivere, sic mori iussit,
eadem necessitate et deos alligat.
(What is the part of a good man? To offer himself up to Fate. It is a
great solace to be caught up with the unverse; whatever thing it be
that bids us so to live and so to die binds the gods with the same
necessity.)

Here "Fate" is used of the highest unity of the Divine Power, Ratio,
the Fire of Logos, which unites the cosmos and community of men and
gods into one Being.

With Legacy you attain conclusions as
>transmitted by your forefathers, not from reasoning or passion.
>Lrgacy is thus equivalent to 'Religio' in the Roman sense of the
word. In my opinion these three things can live in harmony.

MAF: In my opinion also.

You should always employ Philosophy to doubt and direct you to
choose your Credo. You should employ Credo to face your life and your
death with serenity. Finally you should honour the Legacy of your
Roman forefathers, for it is for this Legacy that you can be called a
Roman citizen, and because in the preservation of the Religio resides
the secret of Rome's and other nations' (e.g. Greek) eternity.

MAF: This is very well put. And I too thank you for sharing this text
from Cicero with us in this and the previous post.

Valete!

Marcus Apollonius Formosanus
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis; Scriba Censorius � � � � � � �
ICQ# 61698049 Firetalk: Apollonius 1588367
AIM: MAFormosanus � � � � � � �MSN: Formosanus
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
The Gens Apollonia is open to new members.
Ave nostra Respublica Libera - Nova Roma!
________________________________________
Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
(Se vi deziras subigi al vi chion, subigu vin al Racio)
________________________________________


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Latin Software
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Sep 2000 06:38:28 -0700 (PDT)

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying @Backup
Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files.
Install today:
http://click.egroups.com/1/6347/8/_/61050/_/969543510/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

--- "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> wrote:

> The Sodalitas
> Latinitatis will be
> in some months' time offering a complete on-line
> course, which
> hopefully will the the best anywhere on the
> internet.

Salvete!

I look forward to this. I know a couple of words from
here and there (mainly due to the tremendous Latin
impact on other languages and my study of comparitive
linguistics). This course, which I assume will be at
a basic level, will greatly benefit many.

L A Dalmaticus

=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"Half of the world's misery comes from ignorance. The other half comes from intelligence." - Bonar Thompson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Poll
From:	Marcus Traianus Valerius <marcustrajanvalerius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Sep 2000 07:23:05 -0700 (PDT)


Subject:	[novaroma] Cleaning House
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Thu, 21 Sep 2000 10:50:09 -0400 (EDT)


Subject:	[novaroma] Reason and gods was Digest Number 1016
From:	"C Marius Merullus" <c_marius_m@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Sep 2000 14:07:40 -0400

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9068/8/_/61050/_/969559883/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Salvete Marce Apolloni et alii

So those who don't accept the unity of the divine are unsophisticated?
That's fine, I get called worse :).
>
>MAF: You have here expressed an idea that I stressed in a an essay
>that I am writing. Many people attack paganism and all polytheism as
>though it lacked the intellectual energy to penetrate to the unity of
>Divinity - but of course that is not true; as a student of
>comparative religion, I can say safely that every sophisticated
>polytheistic religion understands the unity of the Divine perfectly
>well - it simply is enriched with the multiple aspects of the Divine
>as well.

I don't believe in the unity of divinity. Divinity, whatever it is, is
larger than the human mind and defies measurement or even observation.
Whether one treats it as a single thing, a group of things or an infinite
number of somethings, it can't be quantified and explained in solid,
scientific terms.
>

>Since we believe that their deity too is not false, but a way of
>approaching the one Divine Power that we all believe in,

Hey, who's "we all"? Got a mouse in your pocket :)?

we should
>give an example of the fundamental tolerance of paganism, and not
>appear excessively demanding.

What is this paganism everyone keeps talking about, anyway? It seems to me
to be a convenient category into which disparate belief systems can be
bundled.
>
>for only in this way we can consider ourselves heirs of their
>institutions.

I think that Graecus is on the right path as far as finding how to be heirs
to institutions goes. We (with all the mice in my pocket :)) have to
reconstruct the rites.
>>

>
>MAF: Well, I would rather agree with Festus (elsewhere) that some
>things are correct and some incorrect. I would not agree that we have
>a right to believe just anything that makes us happier, even if it
>did not harm anyone else. We have a fundamental duty of honesty to
>ourselves and to Reason. As Seneca writes:

But what if reason leads us to the Void? I for one refuse to be enslaved by
anything, including the gray mushy lump in my skull.
>
>Ratio autem nihil aliud est quam in corpus humanum pars divini
>spiritus mersa. (Reason, though, is nothing other than a part of the
>divine spirit merged with a human body.)

Exactly! Bene dictum Seneca Reason is part of us, we should exercise it
when it is useful, and give it a rest when it it is not. When I'm designing
the addition to my house, I am measuring lengths, angles et cetera and
applying (limited) knowledge of physical laws to make sure that the end
result is sound. But if I offer incense to a deity to help me in the
process, that has nothing to do with a mental exercise. The two only
conflict if I allow them to do so by considering them as within the same
realm, subject to the same laws and processes.
>
>I think this prohibits us from believing for the sake of pleasure or
>happiness rather than on the basis of evidence. Reason must be
>respected.

Yes, we should all exercise reason, as well as our cardiovascular systems,
muscles et cetera. That reminds me, I really have to spend less time on
e-mail and more time in the gym :).
>
>And since different credos may have a greater or lesser degree of
>rational justification, I do not think that they are all exactly
>equal.

As long as you keep rational justification a good arm's length from
religion, that's fine. Certainly there are bad engineering designs and good
ones, and a limited set of answers that satisfy any given equation, and so
on. But this has nothing to do with religion, rituals and beliefs about
deities. When one mixes the two, one climbs onto the slippery slope leading
either to atheistic materialism, or the opposite state, manifested in the
abandoning of teaching the theory of evolution because of a conflict with a
group's interpretation of a religious text.

And pointing out the shaky basis of of the less reasonable
>ones is indeed fighting supersition, as we should be doing.

You can keep that fight. Superstition remains what it was 2,300 years
ago -- a word for the belief that the speaker doesn't share. Believe what
you will, and be proud of it -- isn't that enough?

Naturally
>some things are hard to prove - which suggests to me that we should
>not arbitrarily choose what we would like to believe in such cases,
>but suspend judgement.

So, prove that the lares of gens Apollonia are what you believe they are.
In the meantime (for this should take a very, very long time), will you
offer anything to them, or leave them high and dry? Of course, it's your
business and you don't have to prove anything to me and the mice in my
pockets. If you do decide to do so, maybe you could share it with the
religioromana list?
>
>>

>
>MAF: I am not entirely sure what you mean by this, but I must admit
>that I have an unshakeable conviction that whatever the Divine Powers
>wish to do with me at death is for the best, and I am willing to
>return to them the life and substance and form they loaned to me with
>gratitude, submission and tranquility.

Don't worry, if they really are Divine Powers, and you are a man like me,
you won't have any choice :).

Valete

C Marius Merullus
Admittedly not a philosopher


Subject:	[novaroma] Canadian Affairs
From:	"Gaius Tullius" <nr_cicero@-------->
Date:	Thu, 21 Sep 2000 20:36:05 GMT