Forum Romanum


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Truth that was lost: Proof of Justin's crimes
From:	"gcassiusnerva" <gcassiusnerva@cs.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 00:03:59 -0000

Sulla,

I do not know why Taurinus is so upset about Theodosius and
Justinian. If we apply his own reasoning, we can say that the pagans
were breaking the law. By practicing their criminal paganism, they
were striking at the power of the state. They were warned, they
ignored the warning, and so they were killed. As lawbreakers, they
"had it coming".
What's good for the goose...

And what is this nonsense about Justinian's "crimes". A crime is a
breaking of a law. As a despot, Justinian WAS the law. If he wishes
paganism to be illegal, then paganism is illegal. If he wishes to
kill the criminal pagans, then....well, who asked them to remain
pagan? "Taurinian reasoning" would say, "It was the pagans fault".
He does seem to demand different standards for his pagan heros,
doesn't he?

Nerva

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@e...> wrote:
> Avete Omnes,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: g_agorius_taurinus
> To: Nova-Roma@y...
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 12:37 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Truth that was lost: Proof of Justin's crimes
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@y..., "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@e...> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> Respected One,
> >> You can admire the Eastern Empire as much as you like;
>
> > Sulla: I do and will continue to do so.
>
>
> Well, I'm glad.
>
> Sulla: Good.
>
> > They ordered pagans
> > murdered for no reason other than religious difference.
>
>
> > Sulla: I disagree with you. Cite your sources to justify your
> >claim! If you do not have sources to justify your claim, then I
> >hope you will claim that this is all your opinion.
>
>
>
> It is well known that Theodosius ordered children who were playing
> with pieces of a statue of Jupiter in the ruins of a temple to be
> killed. It appears in any number of books on the fall of the pagan
> religions of antiquity- an easy one for you to get would be Pierre
> Chuvin's book "Revealing Antiquity, Vol 4: A Chronicle of the Last
> Pagans."
>
>
> Sulla: "It is well known" does not sound like a documented source.
>
> But I won't stop there- It find it shocking that you could "disagree"
> that people like Theodosius and Justinian ordered the murders of
> pagans by making it illegal to be pagan- by passing outrageously
> intolerant laws.
>
> Sulla: I am sure you wont stop there. LOL! And yes I disagree
with you that these men are wicked becuase you are passing judgements
on people who you dont know. It is not our place as men and women to
judge the actions of another. But, obviously you seem to live by a
different standard. :) Thats fine though.
>
> That these men did this (who in my OPINION are some of the most evil
> men who ever lived) is without dispute. How can you ignore history?
>
> Sulla: I do not ignore history. I have no problem admitting they
are flawed just as the emperors who persecuted the Christians are just
as flawed. I hope you would be willing to do the same. If not, then
there is a word that describes people like that. :)
>
> Fine then; if it's proof you want, HISTORY certainly gives us TONS of
> that!
>
> Sulla: Of course I want history. We all should want historical
justification.
>
> Let's take it from the top, shall we? Justin I ascended the throne in
> 518- As of that year, even before he got in charge, he tightened the
> laws against heretics, Manichaeans, Samaritans, pagans, and the like.
> (see Stein's Historie Du Bas-Empire, pages 369-375 to see how many
> people he poltically exculded and persecuted.)
>
> Sulla: Justin or Justinian? Justinian came to the throne 527 ce.
His adopted father Justin came to the throne at 518. So, according
to your resources he seems to have been against most religions that do
not fall in line with his belief. Hardly someone who is against JUST
PAGANS. Was he the only emperor to take this action. No. So what
makes him more evil than those emperors who persecuted the Christians?
>
> But it gets way better.
>
> In Justin's own Codex (I, 5, laws 1-12) we can read:
>
>
> "With regard to heretics, and also to Hellens who try to introduce
> polytheism, as well as Jews and Sarmatians, we have resolved not only
> to restore the regulations of existing laws, and reinforce them with
> this present law, but also to enforce other measures which will
> provide those who share our shining faith with greater security, law,
> and order."
>
> Sulla: Actually I think thats Justinian's codex. And my question
previous question still stands. What makes this emperor more wicked
than those before him who persecuted other people's and other faiths?
If you call him wicked then you must call all other emperors wicked
when they persecuted others.....What about the Emperor Tiberius who
executed all those Senators when given false reports by Sejanus? Or
Nero persecuting the Xtians or even Traijan doing the same? or
Decius's persecution, Valerian's or Diocletians?
>
> And what were those "reinforcements"?
>
> Well, to being with, Justin made it illegal to own christian slaves-
> but pagans could still be kept as slaves.
> Then he placed "forcible constraints" into place-
>
> Justin writes:
>
> Sulla: You mean Justinian again right?
>
> "One finds persons possessed by the error of the unclean and
> abominable Hellenes, and performing their practises, and this arouses
> in God, in his love for mankind, a righteous anger."
>
> He then goes on to say that earlier he had sought to correct them,
> and thought with clemency, he punished those who "brought sacrifices
> to idols in their foolish error and celebrated holidays associated
> with every kind of impurity."
>
> From then on he states that any converted Hellene who relapse into
> their former error would be sentenced to "supreme punishments (i.e.
> Death). He then says, to ALL pagans:
>
>
> "All those who have not yet been baptised must come forward, whether
> they reside in the capital or in the provinces, and fo to the very
> holy churches with their wives, their children, and their households,
> to be instructed in the true faith of the Christians. And once thus
> instructed and having sincerely renounced their former error, let
> them be judged worthy of redemptive baptism. Should they disobey, let
> them know that they will be excluded from the State and will no
> longer have any rights of possession, neither goods nor property,
> stripped of everything, they will be reduced to penury, without
> prejudice to the appropriate punishments that will be imposed on
> them." (Cod. Just. I, 10, Law 1,2)
>
>
> This shocking display of early nazi rhetoric is quickly followed up
> by the following orders:
>
> Sulla: I do not think the Nazi's existed in the 6th century. <g>
> <Snip>
>
> >
> > Sulla: Just like the Persecutions of the Chrisitans took away
> their freedoms as well? I see.
>
>
> I have already explained, at length, why the christians were being
> persecuted. They were breaking the law. They were committing treason.
>
> Sulla: Wait a minute. So, its ok for the Christians to break the
law and be persecuted but now when the shoe is on the other foot you
have a problem. Justinian promulgated his edict to outlaw Paganism.
He had the thority to do so. And, he enforced his edict. Those
Pagans who continued to believe in their faith did so in contravention
of those laws and deserved punishment under the law, just like the
Xitans. They chose their course of action.
> They were making spectacles of themselves to get the sick,
> masochistic noteriety and false promises of glory of martyrdom.
> Sulla: Please, you sound like Marcus Cornelius Fronto, who
exagarated the Xtians use of piety as a means to discredit them.
> Christians were mocking other people's Gods, the emperors, and
> calling the heart of Roman Solidarity, the State religion, evil and
> demonic. They deserved to have their freedoms taken away;
>
> Sulla: You sound no better than that "nazi" Justinian who took
away the freedom of worship that was granted in the very edict of
Tolerance issued by Constantine.
>
> all people
> who want to force others to conform to THEIR religion and their ideas
> need to be stopped.
>
>
> And Look what finally did happen! Christians got in charge and
> started an even larger campaign of wickedness, repression, theft of
> freedom, and a larger scale, more systematic and finally MUCH MORE
> violent, bloody, merciless, unjust and long-lasting persecution than
> the pagans EVER did to them.
>
> Sulla: How do you know that the persecutions of Pagans were more
systematic and much more violent, bloody and meriless?
>
> And now we live in the ruins of the bankrupt spiritual world that
> they created.
>
> Sulla: I wish you would put the words (in your opinion) when you
express it.
>
>
> > Anyone doing this
> > today in the West would be called a fanatic, a Hitler, and a bad
> > person.
> >
> > Sulla: So? Whats your point? Your view that today we are so
> enlightened is utter nonsense.
>
>
>
> And your view that our modern day is the source of all atrocities and
> degeneracy is also utter nonsense. Atrocity has always existed- when
> it was smaller scale, there were less people, so the impact was the
> same. We DO live in a more enlightened time in some ways, but
> religiously and spiritually, we certainly do NOT live in enlightened
> times.
>
> Sulla: My point is simple (and I am Jewish, not Xtian). Every
faith has problems because man is involved. Doesn't matter if your a
Roman Pagan, a Xtian or jew. Pagans persecuted pagans. Pagans
persecuted Xtians. Xtians persecuted Xtians and Pagans and Jews. Jews
persecuted Xtians. NO ONE FAITH IS PERFECT. For you to be
presumptious and start throwing your hatred around (and that is my
opinion) pisses alot of us off who would be more inclined to listen to
well reasoned debate. Instead you come off like a hypocrite
justifying the persecutions of Xtians because they are treasonus when
the same thing can be applied to Pagans. Now I hope you take the
words I say as constructive criticism. I have nothing to gain other
than my self respect for standing up for what I believe.
>
> Vale,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Rome Evolves
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Tue, 29 Oct 2002 19:10:16 EST

In a message dated 10/29/02 9:12:37 AM Pacific Standard Time,
g_agorius_taurinus@yahoo.com writes:

> but certain ones of us
> still think that we should practise the Religio as it was done
> thousands of years ago? Why does everything ELSE evolve, except the
> Religio? Sounds like we have some people who, against all logic, just
> want to kill animals (and would they favor sacrificing people, in
> times of extreme crisis, as the Old Romans did?) because it touches
> some dark freudian chord in them, or some deeper, darker urge.
>

Salvete!

I just have to ask, are you condemning the gods' requests because of 21st
century morality or are you just an animal lover? It all has to do with life
force. I myself use a libation as a sacrifice. I have also burnt grain and
spelt. If Iuppiter needed a white ox, I suppose it could be done, but NR is
not set up to so, such an animal would have to be specially bred, and people
expert in slaughter would have to be found. It is not practical for NR to
carry out such a thing at this time. The current ruling in place for two
reasons. To keep well meaning NR citizens from ineptly butchering cattle or
sheep, and to assure the macronational authorities that NR priests are not
going to torture animals.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus
Pontiff

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Religio Evolves? Question for the Priesthood
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Tue, 29 Oct 2002 19:30:04 EST

In a message dated 10/29/02 11:15:49 AM Pacific Standard Time,
g_agorius_taurinus@yahoo.com writes:

> I
> don't think that if a Flamen 1700 years ago made a deal with Iupiter
> or Ceres to cut the throats of a cock every morning of the month of
> july, that you or I are bound to keep doing that, just because we
> read about his deal in a history book. That was then. This is now. He
> isn't you and I, and his relationship with Iupiter or Ceres isn't the
> same. We have to make our own relationships with the Gods.

We have to reestablish our enigmatic pact. And if the god wants a chicken
throat cut, then we will think about doing so. We follow King Numa, Tullius
Cicero and the other chroniclers, because we need to reestablish a template.
The only way we can do this is to imitate our ancestors' example.

Right now in your current attitude, you sound to New Age to be allowed into
the priesthood. Perhaps you can soften your stance against the old Religio.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus
Pontiff

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Truth that was lost: Proof of Justin's crimes
From:	"g_agorius_taurinus" <g_agorius_taurinus@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 00:18:58 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "gcassiusnerva" <gcassiusnerva@c...> wrote:
> Sulla,
>
> I do not know why Taurinus is so upset about Theodosius and
> Justinian.

Because in my opinion, and then opinion of many others, both biased
and unbiased, they were murderers and tyrants.

> If we apply his own reasoning, we can say that the pagans
> were breaking the law.

You didn't finish reading all my posts before you shot this one out.
Pagans had the right to break the law when it was contrary to Freedom
and Truth. Denying the Rightful Gods was not and is not lawful; no
human has the right to decide that other people can't worship the
Gods, not even a Roman emperor. And the man who did this, who propped
up laws like that, backed by a powerful religious syndicate,
sacrificed his moral authority to pass laws.

Pagans weren't breaking Laws that hurt the state or the people- they
were breaking oppresive "laws" that should never have been laws in
the first place. Christians in their days of persecution were
breaking laws that did hurt the state, by offending the rights of
others, mocking and degrading hallowed tradition, and denying the
State Gods and the Emperor's right to rule.

If christianity had been outlawed for no reason other than the
Emporer decided he didn't want it, I would say he was wrong. But
Christianity was outlawed for other, more understandable reasons.
Paganism was not outlawed for any compelling legal reason- it was
outlawed because the power brokers in the church wanted it to be.

G.A.T


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Truth that was lost: Proof of Justin's crimes
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:44:01 -0800

Avete Propraetor,

That was exactly my point! A Double standard is a curse! And when, and it usually happens, but when the power shifts you cannot but expect retribution. It was an unfortunate historic fact. Hopefully we all have learned from that and are more accepting. May Nova Roma continue to be more tolerant in regards to our citizens personal beliefs!

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Consul
----- Original Message -----
From: gcassiusnerva
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:03 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Truth that was lost: Proof of Justin's crimes

Sulla,

I do not know why Taurinus is so upset about Theodosius and
Justinian. If we apply his own reasoning, we can say that the pagans
were breaking the law. By practicing their criminal paganism, they
were striking at the power of the state. They were warned, they
ignored the warning, and so they were killed. As lawbreakers, they
"had it coming".
What's good for the goose...

And what is this nonsense about Justinian's "crimes". A crime is a
breaking of a law. As a despot, Justinian WAS the law. If he wishes
paganism to be illegal, then paganism is illegal. If he wishes to
kill the criminal pagans, then....well, who asked them to remain
pagan? "Taurinian reasoning" would say, "It was the pagans fault".
He does seem to demand different standards for his pagan heros,
doesn't he?

Nerva

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@e...> wrote:
> Avete Omnes,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: g_agorius_taurinus
> To: Nova-Roma@y...
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 12:37 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Truth that was lost: Proof of Justin's crimes
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@y..., "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@e...> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> Respected One,
> >> You can admire the Eastern Empire as much as you like;
>
> > Sulla: I do and will continue to do so.
>
>
> Well, I'm glad.
>
> Sulla: Good.
>
> > They ordered pagans
> > murdered for no reason other than religious difference.
>
>
> > Sulla: I disagree with you. Cite your sources to justify your
> >claim! If you do not have sources to justify your claim, then I
> >hope you will claim that this is all your opinion.
>
>
>
> It is well known that Theodosius ordered children who were playing
> with pieces of a statue of Jupiter in the ruins of a temple to be
> killed. It appears in any number of books on the fall of the pagan
> religions of antiquity- an easy one for you to get would be Pierre
> Chuvin's book "Revealing Antiquity, Vol 4: A Chronicle of the Last
> Pagans."
>
>
> Sulla: "It is well known" does not sound like a documented source.
>
> But I won't stop there- It find it shocking that you could "disagree"
> that people like Theodosius and Justinian ordered the murders of
> pagans by making it illegal to be pagan- by passing outrageously
> intolerant laws.
>
> Sulla: I am sure you wont stop there. LOL! And yes I disagree
with you that these men are wicked becuase you are passing judgements
on people who you dont know. It is not our place as men and women to
judge the actions of another. But, obviously you seem to live by a
different standard. :) Thats fine though.
>
> That these men did this (who in my OPINION are some of the most evil
> men who ever lived) is without dispute. How can you ignore history?
>
> Sulla: I do not ignore history. I have no problem admitting they
are flawed just as the emperors who persecuted the Christians are just
as flawed. I hope you would be willing to do the same. If not, then
there is a word that describes people like that. :)
>
> Fine then; if it's proof you want, HISTORY certainly gives us TONS of
> that!
>
> Sulla: Of course I want history. We all should want historical
justification.
>
> Let's take it from the top, shall we? Justin I ascended the throne in
> 518- As of that year, even before he got in charge, he tightened the
> laws against heretics, Manichaeans, Samaritans, pagans, and the like.
> (see Stein's Historie Du Bas-Empire, pages 369-375 to see how many
> people he poltically exculded and persecuted.)
>
> Sulla: Justin or Justinian? Justinian came to the throne 527 ce.
His adopted father Justin came to the throne at 518. So, according
to your resources he seems to have been against most religions that do
not fall in line with his belief. Hardly someone who is against JUST
PAGANS. Was he the only emperor to take this action. No. So what
makes him more evil than those emperors who persecuted the Christians?
>
> But it gets way better.
>
> In Justin's own Codex (I, 5, laws 1-12) we can read:
>
>
> "With regard to heretics, and also to Hellens who try to introduce
> polytheism, as well as Jews and Sarmatians, we have resolved not only
> to restore the regulations of existing laws, and reinforce them with
> this present law, but also to enforce other measures which will
> provide those who share our shining faith with greater security, law,
> and order."
>
> Sulla: Actually I think thats Justinian's codex. And my question
previous question still stands. What makes this emperor more wicked
than those before him who persecuted other people's and other faiths?
If you call him wicked then you must call all other emperors wicked
when they persecuted others.....What about the Emperor Tiberius who
executed all those Senators when given false reports by Sejanus? Or
Nero persecuting the Xtians or even Traijan doing the same? or
Decius's persecution, Valerian's or Diocletians?
>
> And what were those "reinforcements"?
>
> Well, to being with, Justin made it illegal to own christian slaves-
> but pagans could still be kept as slaves.
> Then he placed "forcible constraints" into place-
>
> Justin writes:
>
> Sulla: You mean Justinian again right?
>
> "One finds persons possessed by the error of the unclean and
> abominable Hellenes, and performing their practises, and this arouses
> in God, in his love for mankind, a righteous anger."
>
> He then goes on to say that earlier he had sought to correct them,
> and thought with clemency, he punished those who "brought sacrifices
> to idols in their foolish error and celebrated holidays associated
> with every kind of impurity."
>
> From then on he states that any converted Hellene who relapse into
> their former error would be sentenced to "supreme punishments (i.e.
> Death). He then says, to ALL pagans:
>
>
> "All those who have not yet been baptised must come forward, whether
> they reside in the capital or in the provinces, and fo to the very
> holy churches with their wives, their children, and their households,
> to be instructed in the true faith of the Christians. And once thus
> instructed and having sincerely renounced their former error, let
> them be judged worthy of redemptive baptism. Should they disobey, let
> them know that they will be excluded from the State and will no
> longer have any rights of possession, neither goods nor property,
> stripped of everything, they will be reduced to penury, without
> prejudice to the appropriate punishments that will be imposed on
> them." (Cod. Just. I, 10, Law 1,2)
>
>
> This shocking display of early nazi rhetoric is quickly followed up
> by the following orders:
>
> Sulla: I do not think the Nazi's existed in the 6th century. <g>
> <Snip>
>
> >
> > Sulla: Just like the Persecutions of the Chrisitans took away
> their freedoms as well? I see.
>
>
> I have already explained, at length, why the christians were being
> persecuted. They were breaking the law. They were committing treason.
>
> Sulla: Wait a minute. So, its ok for the Christians to break the
law and be persecuted but now when the shoe is on the other foot you
have a problem. Justinian promulgated his edict to outlaw Paganism.
He had the thority to do so. And, he enforced his edict. Those
Pagans who continued to believe in their faith did so in contravention
of those laws and deserved punishment under the law, just like the
Xitans. They chose their course of action.
> They were making spectacles of themselves to get the sick,
> masochistic noteriety and false promises of glory of martyrdom.
> Sulla: Please, you sound like Marcus Cornelius Fronto, who
exagarated the Xtians use of piety as a means to discredit them.
> Christians were mocking other people's Gods, the emperors, and
> calling the heart of Roman Solidarity, the State religion, evil and
> demonic. They deserved to have their freedoms taken away;
>
> Sulla: You sound no better than that "nazi" Justinian who took
away the freedom of worship that was granted in the very edict of
Tolerance issued by Constantine.
>
> all people
> who want to force others to conform to THEIR religion and their ideas
> need to be stopped.
>
>
> And Look what finally did happen! Christians got in charge and
> started an even larger campaign of wickedness, repression, theft of
> freedom, and a larger scale, more systematic and finally MUCH MORE
> violent, bloody, merciless, unjust and long-lasting persecution than
> the pagans EVER did to them.
>
> Sulla: How do you know that the persecutions of Pagans were more
systematic and much more violent, bloody and meriless?
>
> And now we live in the ruins of the bankrupt spiritual world that
> they created.
>
> Sulla: I wish you would put the words (in your opinion) when you
express it.
>
>
> > Anyone doing this
> > today in the West would be called a fanatic, a Hitler, and a bad
> > person.
> >
> > Sulla: So? Whats your point? Your view that today we are so
> enlightened is utter nonsense.
>
>
>
> And your view that our modern day is the source of all atrocities and
> degeneracy is also utter nonsense. Atrocity has always existed- when
> it was smaller scale, there were less people, so the impact was the
> same. We DO live in a more enlightened time in some ways, but
> religiously and spiritually, we certainly do NOT live in enlightened
> times.
>
> Sulla: My point is simple (and I am Jewish, not Xtian). Every
faith has problems because man is involved. Doesn't matter if your a
Roman Pagan, a Xtian or jew. Pagans persecuted pagans. Pagans
persecuted Xtians. Xtians persecuted Xtians and Pagans and Jews. Jews
persecuted Xtians. NO ONE FAITH IS PERFECT. For you to be
presumptious and start throwing your hatred around (and that is my
opinion) pisses alot of us off who would be more inclined to listen to
well reasoned debate. Instead you come off like a hypocrite
justifying the persecutions of Xtians because they are treasonus when
the same thing can be applied to Pagans. Now I hope you take the
words I say as constructive criticism. I have nothing to gain other
than my self respect for standing up for what I believe.
>
> Vale,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Rome Evolves
From:	"g_agorius_taurinus" <g_agorius_taurinus@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 00:31:01 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., qfabiusmaxmi@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 10/29/02 9:12:37 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> g_agorius_taurinus@y... writes:

> Salvete!
>
> I just have to ask, are you condemning the gods' requests because
of 21st
> century morality or are you just an animal lover?

I am not condemning the Gods' requests at all; in fact, I have yet to
see the actual source that describes where the Gods actually asked
for these blood sacrifices and specified their performance dates.

But, allowing for tradition, and the fact that animals were
slaughtered for the Gods, (regardless of how the tradition got
started) the answer to your question is that I believe that 21st
century morality is important because we live in the 21st century,
and we can't ignore who we are and where we are; there are silly
things about 21st century morality, and there are good things about
it. We cannot act like we all still live in the 2nd century. I think
we would be dishonoring the Gods and 2000 years worth of the
movements of Fate and history if we did.

And yes, I am an animal lover, very much. They share the same life as
we; they draw breath from the same source; the blood and life in them
is sacred just as ours is. It doesn't stop me from conditionally
seeing the use or justification of religious sacrifice of animals,
but I don't think that it is something that just everyone who reads
up on Religio Romana should rush out and do- and for more reasons
than just how inconvenient it is.

> It all has to do with life
> force. I myself use a libation as a sacrifice. I have also burnt
grain and
> spelt.

As do I, and as have I. However, you make it sound as though the gods
need our life force. I can assure you, that as immortals, they do not.

> If Iuppiter needed a white ox, I suppose it could be done, but NR
is
> not set up to so, such an animal would have to be specially bred,
and people
> expert in slaughter would have to be found.

I have this creeping suspicion that the day that you actually
have "specially bred white oxen" and "experts in slaughter", will be
the day (or near the day) that Iuppiter starts sending signs that he
desires such a thing.

> It is not practical for NR to
> carry out such a thing at this time.

It's not practical at all, in the modern day, in most cases. I think
that you may discover that it's not as easy to slice the arteries
open of a warm, breathing creature that weighs 300 pounds as you
might think. And the situation requires more than just convenience; a
special situation like that only derives legitimacy from the deepest
places.

> The current ruling in place for two
> reasons. To keep well meaning NR citizens from ineptly butchering
cattle or
> sheep, and to assure the macronational authorities that NR priests
are not
> going to torture animals.

Is there no mention of the fact that there is more to sacrifice than
just killing animals and assuring macronational authorities that you
aren't animal torturers?

Galus Agorius


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Religio Evolves? Question for the Priesthood
From:	"g_agorius_taurinus" <g_agorius_taurinus@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 00:48:15 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., qfabiusmaxmi@a... wrote:

>
> Right now in your current attitude, you sound to New Age to be
allowed into
> the priesthood.

*smiles* You mean, I am a bit too thoughtful and I consider things
like the fine consequences of actions, compassion, and necessity?

Of course; I can see how that might sound 'new age' to you. The
reality of this situation is nothing at all as it appears- if you
knew who I really was, and how FAR from the new age I was in my
outlooks, daily life, and my past and current religious practises,
your hair would turn white overnight.

But what this really ammounts to is that because I am not eager to
drive knives into the throats of animals without a good reason and
without the adequate preparation that will both carry with it true
and vital divine sanction (not just blind and empty reconstructionism
and imitation) AND on top of that, honor the sacred life of the
beast, you consider me 'new age.'

If being in your priesthood means we flip open history books, point
at a picture and say "do this as closely as you can", then I don't
ever want to be in your priesthood.

If, on the other hand, there is room for people who realize that the
only way that the Religio will ever take its place among the world's
great religions again, for it to be a working system by which modern
people in New Rome approach the Nature of the Gods, and be respected
and admired by non-adherents, is to make it philosophically
competitive, thoughtful, and dynamically consequential and relevant
to the modern day, while still honoring and drawing on what we know
of its historical roots to give it structure and inspiration and
form, then I'd love to be in.

The true nature of any reconstructionist or revivalist Religio is not
a dead pile of papers and information in a history book. That is just
the beginning of it. A Religio is a relationship with the Gods that
is in need of resurrection and re-vivification. Again, this is not
the second century.

> Perhaps you can soften your stance against the old Religio.

Does open mindedness and innovation play no part here? My stance is
as traditional as you'll likely find. Forgive me for not wanting to
get my knife into a cow or a chicken every other day. I think there
is more to Religio than that.

Galus Agorius


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Prostitution in Nova Roma
From:	"lithia_cassia" <mscommunication@attbi.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 00:52:18 -0000

> This one is easy. I have daughter, I would never like to see her as
> a prostitute, why would I then ask You to offer your daughter?

Yeah I'd be pretty disturbed if someone OFFERED their child to them,
and I'd be even more disturbed if someone thought they still had
control over the life of their daughter after she became a legal
adult. Funny how you didn't mention your son.. sons are ok to offer?


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: 2. Christianity and the Fall of the Roman Empire
From:	"T. Cornelius Crispus" <centuriocornelius@hotmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Oct 2002 19:01:31 -0600

Or the fourth option:
God lets bad things happen to good people to make them better people. Give a
child whatever he thinks he wants, and you make a weak, fat, spoiled brat.
Let the same child, have a little adversity, and you help form a person with
character. If you allow your child to go through something unpleasent, does
that make you a bad parent? I don't think so.
Sometimes bad things happen to good people so they can understand others who
are having bad things happen to them. I know that is true in my own life. I
hate it when the bad thing happens, but am never sorry when it's over.
T. Cornelius Crispus
----- Original Message -----
From: "g_agorius_taurinus" <g_agorius_taurinus@yahoo.com>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 9:38 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: 2. Christianity and the Fall of the Roman Empire

>
> --- In Nova-Roma@y..., "lithia_cassia" <mscommunication@a...> wrote:
>
>
> > [quote]
> > > 1. The gods did not save Rome because they never existed.
> > > 2. The gods did not save Rome because they were unable to do so.
> > > {Impotency}
> > > 3. The gods did not save Rome because they were unwilling to do
> so,
> > > due to Christianity.
> > [/quote]
>
>
> > Riiiight. "Why does God let bad things happen to good people?"
>
>
>
> Well, Lithia Cassia, let's look at the 'only possible' options for
> explaining why our modern day's popular God lets bad things happen to
> good people:
>
>
> 1. God lets bad things happen to good people because he doesn't exist.
>
> 2. God lets bad things happen to good people because he is unable to
> stop them from happening. (Impotency)
>
> 3. God lets bad things happen to good people because he is unwilling
> to do so, or doesn't care if they happen.
>
>
>
> Hmmmm.....
>
>
> Galus Agorius
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Rome Evolves
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Tue, 29 Oct 2002 20:08:47 EST

In a message dated 10/29/02 4:54:58 PM Pacific Standard Time,
g_agorius_taurinus@yahoo.com writes:

> Is there no mention of the fact that there is more to sacrifice than
> just killing animals and assuring macronational authorities that you
> aren't animal torturers

Do you actually think, macronational authorities would care for our reasons?
The fact that we aren't torturing animals is reason enough and all they care
about.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus
Pontiff

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	RE: [Nova-Roma] Re: Prostitution in Nova Roma
From:	"Christopher L. Wood" <xwood@usa.net>
Date:	Tue, 29 Oct 2002 20:09:56 -0500

A federally mandated brothel? Which Senator voted for that one?

The federal government has nothing to do with the brothels in Nevada, the
state legislature has chosen not to outlaw them. The federal government has
no authority over such things, except that the Mann Act forbids transporting
people across state lines for purposes of prostitution.

And I do believe the Mustang Ranch is closed. There are other brothels in
Nevada
though.

But I do agree with you, where prostitution is outlawed, only outlaws are
prostitutes. It should be legal and regulated.

Tiberius Ambrosius Silvus

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lithia_cassia [mailto:mscommunication@attbi.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 29 October, 2002 10:47
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Prostitution in Nova Roma
>
>
> You make excellent points about slavery and toga wearing (both of
> which I agree would be impractical and in the case of slavery
> detestable). However, I do not see what is wrong with prostitution,
> other than the stigma that the U.S. as a Puritanical nation has put
> on it.
>
> I know a lot of people think of whores and they think of degenerate,
> ill-educated women out on the streets begging. They think of them as
> getting beaten by pimps, etc. Most of this is because they ARE
> desperate because their profession has been outlawed, and because
> the 'pimps' have the law essentially on their side, while prostitutes
> have almost no legal protection whatsoever. It is disgusting and
> backwards.
>
> However, in Nevada, there exists the Mustang Ranch, which is a
> federally mandated brothel. The women there are pricey and they suit
> a wide variety of fancies. They get regular health check ups and are
> always protected. They are in the peak of physical health, because
> they have HEALTH CARE benefits (something the average streetwalker
> does not have), they never go hungry, dirty, or have to suffer
> through beatings or rapings because they have the law on their side
> in this case. That is how it would be in Nova Roma, were such an
> institution created.
>
> I see no reason why it SHOULDN'T be legal. To me, that's like saying
> hair salons should be illegal.
>


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Rome Evolves
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Oct 2002 17:22:51 -0800 (PST)

--- g_agorius_taurinus <g_agorius_taurinus@yahoo.com>
wrote:
SNIP
>
>
> Is there no mention of the fact that there is more
> to sacrifice than
> just killing animals and assuring macronational
> authorities that you
> aren't animal torturers?
>
In the United States the Supreme Court has allready
ruled that Animal Sacrifice is protected by the First
Admendment to the US Constitution in a case involving
a Floridia law relating to Sacrifices by the Santiria
sect. The cutting of the throat is also part of the
procedures needed to certify that an animal has been
killed according to Jewish Law and is Kosher.

If you think you can stop a Sacrifice by running to
the authorities you will fail if it's performed in the
United States.

=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

"Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."
(A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.)
Seneca, Letters to Lucilius

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Religio Evolves? Question for the Priesthood
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Tue, 29 Oct 2002 20:30:16 EST

In a message dated 10/29/02 4:55:23 PM Pacific Standard Time,
g_agorius_taurinus@yahoo.com writes:
> Of course; I can see how that might sound 'new age' to you. The
> reality of this situation is nothing at all as it appears- if you
> knew who I really was, and how FAR from the new age I was in my
> outlooks, daily life, and my past and current religious practises,
> your hair would turn white overnight.

True. I can only judge you from your speech. And make assumptions.

>
>
> But what this really ammounts to is that because I am not eager to
> drive knives into the throats of animals without a good reason and
> without the adequate preparation that will both carry with it true
> and vital divine sanction (not just blind and empty reconstructionism
> and imitation) AND on top of that, honor the sacred life of the
> beast, you consider me 'new age.'
>

Well, that is an over simplification. But you asked, if I recall.
And as I said, NR would only take steps in that direction properly if the
time was right
and the ability to carry it out was manifest. I have lived on a farm. I've
seen a bull's throat cut. It takes skill. Not something the average human
here could do, with the exception of Venerator.

>
> If being in your priesthood means we flip open history books, point
> at a picture and say "do this as closely as you can," then I don't
> ever want to be in your priesthood.

Our loss.

>
> If, on the other hand, there is room for people who realize that the
> only way that the Religio will ever take its place among the world's
> great religions again, for it to be a working system by which modern
> people in New Rome approach the Nature of the Gods, and be respected
> and admired by non-adherents, is to make it philosophically
> competitive, thoughtful, and dynamically consequential and relevant
> to the modern day, while still honoring and drawing on what we know
> of its historical roots to give it structure and inspiration and
> form, then I'd love to be in.
>

Well, then we aren't the Roman Religio are we? The Catholics tried your
approach, and it failed terribly. The Eastern Rite grew because of that.
Many left the church because it wasn't their church any more.
By adding more access to it just made it common place. People are not drawn
to commonplace.

I am confused here. You asked for a pontiffs view, and I gave it to you.
You then presume to lecture me on what's wrong with my view. I remind you
sought out what I thought.
Everyman approaches the gods in their own way a way that's comfortable for
them.
When it comes to the State Religio however, it has to be by the books and the
ceremony.
I'm sorry you do not agree with this, but being such a militant, you must not
agree with a lot of practices you encounter everyday. This will be just one
more.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus
Pontiff

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Prostitution in Nova Roma
From:	"lithia_cassia" <mscommunication@attbi.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 00:48:04 -0000

[quote]
Feminism appears to have done no more than give women better reasons
to believe sex degrading and subordinating
[/quote]

Oh holy deep fried crap on a stick. Funny, I thought men did a
pretty good job of THAT all on their own.


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] test
From:	"Gaius Basilicatus Agricola" <jlasalle@kc.rr.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Oct 2002 19:55:02 -0600

test

The Law Office of James L. LaSalle
417 East 13th Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
(816).471.2111
(816).510.0072(cell)
(816).471.8412(Fax)
The information contained in this e-mail message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by using the contact information in the "reply to" field above and return the original message to the sender. Thank you.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] test
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Tue, 29 Oct 2002 17:59:47 -0800

Recvd Loud and clear.

Vale,

Sulla
----- Original Message -----
From: Gaius Basilicatus Agricola
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 5:55 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] test

test

The Law Office of James L. LaSalle
417 East 13th Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
(816).471.2111
(816).510.0072(cell)
(816).471.8412(Fax)
The information contained in this e-mail message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by using the contact information in the "reply to" field above and return the original message to the sender. Thank you.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Rome Evolves: misunderstanding
From:	"g_agorius_taurinus" <g_agorius_taurinus@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 01:57:02 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@y...> wrote:
>
> --- g_agorius_taurinus <g_agorius_taurinus@y...>
> wrote:
> SNIP
> >
> >
> > Is there no mention of the fact that there is more
> > to sacrifice than
> > just killing animals and assuring macronational
> > authorities that you
> > aren't animal torturers?

> In the United States the Supreme Court has allready
> ruled that Animal Sacrifice is protected by the First
> Admendment to the US Constitution in a case involving
> a Floridia law relating to Sacrifices by the Santiria
> sect. The cutting of the throat is also part of the
> procedures needed to certify that an animal has been
> killed according to Jewish Law and is Kosher.

> If you think you can stop a Sacrifice by running to
> the authorities you will fail if it's performed in the
> United States.

I don't care if Jews cut the throats of animals, or if anyone does
sacrifices for whatever religion. Why do you think that I want to
stop it?

Why does everyone here take everything the wrong way? I also happen
to have an MA in Criminal Justice; I know the Law in the United
States; I know practicioners of the Santeria and Vodoun religion in
New Orleans who sacrifice animals; I have participated in their
defense in Terrebonne parish.

The pontiff (I think) said in his letter that the two reasons why
Nova Roma currently does not do animal sacrifice was because 1. It is
impractical, and 2. Because it assures the Macronational authorities
that we aren't "Animal Torturers". Those were his words.

I SAID, in return, in regards to the rule about animal sacrifice:

"Is there no mention of the fact that there is more to sacrifice than
just killing animals and assuring macronational authorities that you
aren't animal torturers?"

Now, what part of that is so difficult to understand? I'm asking if
NO ONE here ever stops to think that animal sacrifice is a bit deeper
than just killing animals because a history book says that some
people did it a long time ago! I'm asking if the current rule is not
based on some form of understanding that we need to investigate
living sacrifice deeper and probe ourselves deeper before we can reap
the benefits of such an endeavor, and not just "well, it keeps the
authorities convinced that we aren't animal torturers".

GAT


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Religio Evolves? Question for the Priesthood
From:	"g_agorius_taurinus" <g_agorius_taurinus@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 02:05:49 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., qfabiusmaxmi@a... wrote:

> I'm sorry you do not agree with this, but being such a militant,
you must not
> agree with a lot of practices you encounter everyday. This will be
just one
> more.

You know, I was under the impression that people here were held to
some standard of honor in behavior, and that there were censors
involved here (like the ones who stopped some of my earlier letters)
that watched for things like ad hominem attacks.

And you, a representative of "state religion"- calling me
a "militant". It's not a complementary term, is it? It wasn't meant
in a positive way, and no reasonable person would have taken it as
such. And yet, I suppose you can do this on a public list, but I
couldn't.

I am starting to see some disturbing things about this list. I
sincerely hope that these things are not reflective of this
micronation as a whole.

As far as "me not agreeing" with practises I see everyday- I don't
see cows get their throats cut everyday, and neither do you. So don't
treat me like I am a bleeding heart or some granola crunching eco-
terrorist.

I disagree with dishonor and meaningless, empty forms, and with
injustice and sheer stupidity- (the government of king george bush
gives me more than enough opportunities for that)...I always have,
and I always will live by my conscience and by the motions of the
Gods of my soul.

GAT


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Religio Evolves? Question for the Priesthood
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Tue, 29 Oct 2002 20:23:21 -0600 (CST)

Salve Gale Agori,

> You know, I was under the impression that people here were held to
> some standard of honor in behavior, and that there were censors
> involved here (like the ones who stopped some of my earlier letters)
> that watched for things like ad hominem attacks.

The Censors are the magistrates who admit new Citizens, appoint
Senators, and issue notae (a punishment that deprives a citizen
of the vote - a rare occurrence). They safeguarded the public
morals, which led to the modern usage of "censorship" to
describe an abominable practice of thought control.

It was a Praetor who earlier asked you to rewrite your message.
They're charged with maintaining civility on the list. New
subscribers are moderated for some time, to eliminate spam,
forgers, and malicious mayhem; after a few weeks, or some number
of messages, their status is changed so they can post immediately.

Thus, the reason that some of your messages were delayed earlier,
while others can post immediately, is simply due to longevity
on the list. Your status will likely change soon, once your
name is recognized as that of a frequent poster.

> And you, a representative of "state religion"- calling me
> a "militant". It's not a complementary term, is it? It wasn't meant
> in a positive way, and no reasonable person would have taken it as
> such. And yet, I suppose you can do this on a public list, but I
> couldn't.

I think it's acceptable - and so would be a similar response from
you. Irrelevant or inaccurate name-calling should be discouraged,
but if it's "on-target", it's a legitimate tactic.

I invite you to counter Quintus Fabius's accusation by explaining
why it is inaccurate - calmly, please. But I don't think he was
out of order in making it.

I also ask *all* involved in this debate to please be calm and
keep the personal attacks to a minimum.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Truth that was lost: Proof of Justin's crimes
From:	"quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@attbi.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 02:25:31 -0000

Salve,

>--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "g_agorius_taurinus"
<g_agorius_taurinus@y...> wrote:
> You didn't finish reading all my posts before you shot this one
out.
> Pagans had the right to break the law when it was contrary to
Freedom
> and Truth. Denying the Rightful Gods was not and is not lawful; no
> human has the right to decide that other people can't worship the
> Gods, not even a Roman emperor. And the man who did this, who
propped
> up laws like that, backed by a powerful religious syndicate,
> sacrificed his moral authority to pass laws.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. Pagans had the right to
violate the law when it violated their Freedom and Truth, but
Christians did not when Emperor worship violated their Freedom and
Truth? Seems like a double standard to me.....

> Pagans weren't breaking Laws that hurt the state or the people-
they
> were breaking oppresive "laws" that should never have been laws in
> the first place. Christians in their days of persecution were
> breaking laws that did hurt the state, by offending the rights of
> others, mocking and degrading hallowed tradition, and denying the
> State Gods and the Emperor's right to rule.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. When the State decrees a
form of Paganism as the official state religion then when Christians
(or for that matter Jews, Muslims, and other pagans that don't
subscribe to that particular form of Paganism) worship in a manner
that is not according to the State Religion they are then breaking
laws that hurt the state, offend the rights of others, degrade
hallowed tradition, but when it is the other way around its perfectly
OK for pagans to break the law, ect? Christians NEVER denied the
Emperors their right to rule, they denied his divinity. Even Christ
was quoted as saying, "Give to Caeser what is Caeser's...."

> If christianity had been outlawed for no reason other than the
> Emporer decided he didn't want it, I would say he was wrong. But
> Christianity was outlawed for other, more understandable reasons.
> Paganism was not outlawed for any compelling legal reason- it was
> outlawed because the power brokers in the church wanted it to be.

Let's see, if I remember my history correct. Christians, according
to official Imperial propaganda committed incest, killed and ate
babies, were cannibals. All of which all verifiable historical
evidence concludes that it was malicious and slanderous propaganda.
If you have evidence to the contrary, please cite that evidence.

Christianity was outlawed because the Emperor decided he didn't want
it because it offended his "divine ego." Emperors tend to get upset
when people point out they have no clothes and those people must be
made a lesson of otherwise the people might decided, "Damn, he
really ain't got a stitch of clothes on him, does he?"

Vale,

Quintus Cassius Calvus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: 2. Christianity and the Fall of the Roman Empire
From:	"gcassiusnerva" <gcassiusnerva@cs.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 02:30:55 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "g_agorius_taurinus" <g_agorius_taurinus@y...>
wrote:
<<...and when the natural death date of an empire or a family or a
person comes, Fate is Fate. The Gods cannot change that...
Fate is greater than the Gods; although some Gods have some latitude
within it, and a greater knowledge of its inner workings than others.
But Fate and Necessity are the forces that even move the Gods...>>

'The gods cannot change that...Fate is greater than the gods...'
If Rome was fated to fall, and if the gods cannot oppose fate, then
they were unable to save Rome.
This is option two. The trilemma still stands.

Nerva


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Prostitution in Nova Roma
From:	"Sp. Postumius Tubertus" <postumius@gmx.net>
Date:	Tue, 29 Oct 2002 21:42:38 -0500

Sp. Postumius Tubertus Quiritibus Novae Romae et Lithiae Cassiae S.P.D.

Salvete,

First, let me note to all that I have changed my name, from Proculus Postumius Nero Drusus Sepulchratus to Spurius Postumius Tubertus, if you haven't noticed.

Second, I know this is far behind the current extent of this thread, but in a message of Lithia Cassia was this statement: "Do you always keep such an eye on everyone around you? Do you not think that people have the simple right to pursue happiness as long as it is not doing anyone else any harm?"

Being a sixteen year old male, I expect this to be taken as merely my hormones speaking. And quite honestly, I don't care if and who chooses to take what I say as such. But for those of you who care to read this as someone speaking, aside from their hormones, please read on.

I personally would have to agree with the above quote of Lithia Cassia. It doesn't harm anyone other than the one's involved. And even to them, it may not hurt in any way. As well, if it does hurt them, the involved parties knew that going into the act. So that is their own decision, and not one, in my opinion, that should be made by anyone but those involved parties.

Lithia also makes another statement, "Are we not all old enough to deal with this?" To this I say, maturity does not always come with age. I think what she really meant was moreso, "Are we not all mature enough to deal with or accept this?" Either meaning, I still interpret it the same. And I feel that we are all mature enough to handle this. But perhaps I am incorrect in my contentions of my fellow citizens.

Moving further through the posts, I too see no reason why it shouldn't be legal, so long as it's governed by some essential guidelines such as those already brought up, such as that about health care and being tested regularly. As well, I would also like to add that perhaps where they are permitted to "perform" should be regulated. Perhaps laws that prohibit such actions within two miles of a school having children under a certain age, or something of that point. I'm sure whomever the lawmakers are at whatever point in time this comes up again (when we have land, that is, and are governing ourselves) will come up with more than what I can think and say here, but you get the point of what I'm trying to say.

There was also a statement of coming to terms with one's sexuality. I must say that this is a very touchy subject for me. But, being to open person I am, I'll say this, though I may regret it later. It has taken me a time to come to terms with my own sexuality, which most of you care nothing to hear about. However, I have come to terms with it, in the past three years. And I have come to accept the person I now am because of my sexuality. And I think that, for every person, that the sooner one comes to terms with one's own sexuality, as well as other things, the sooner you may become truly happy, but now I'm getting too far into philosophy, which takes me forever to discourse.

I haven't been able yet to read every post on this subject, but Caeso Fabius mentioned something, replying to someone else, that he would not like to see his daughter as a prostitute. I am not a father yet, but a lot of people look up to me as one (so in that case, I have eleven daughters and eight sons). Would I like to see them as prostitutes? Hell no! But would I stop them? How could I physically do this? However, I would make it abundantly known to them that I highly disapprove of it, and would quite readily help them find a better occupation, or even a career, but I wouldn't think any less of them, or any person, male or female, for that matter, if they decided that prostitution was what they wanted to do. I'm sorry for those whom this offends, but that's how I see it. And again, you probably think it's the hormones speaking, but trust me, I use a brain and a heart to think, not my sexual organs.

And let me just say, and this point has already been brought up, that prostitution is not purely a feminine thing. I have known, and still know, a vast number of prostitutes of both the masculine sex as well as the female sex. I encourage them to find better ways to aquire money other than selling away their sexuality, but I do support them as people and accept them as such, and I could not on my life even allow myself to think any less of them than I do any other person. I hold everyone to the same level, until such a person gives me a reason to hold them to a higher level, but never a lower one. I still respect those prostitutes as people and friends (though don't misconstrue this as saying that I use their services, becuase I don't!) and I just the same respect them for the people they are.

I've digressed enough from the topic at hand, so let me rectify my feelings. I feel prostitution should be legal, if it is governed correctly. It would take me hours of speaking to explain my thoughts on correct governing of prostitution (many of which I've gotten my above mentioned aquaintances to follow, and have kept them from acquiring some diseases, I'd like to think), so I shan't do so here. But anyway, I think it is a personal decision as to the morality of prostitution, and not one that could ever justly be governed, though it is the office of the Censors to protect the public morality. And after all, we all being of different religions, who is to decide what is and is not moral? We all have different thoughts on that. So how could we ever come to a decision?

Just my take on the whole conversation, though lengthy and long-winded.

Optime Valete Mei Amici,

Sp. Postumius Tubertus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Religio Discussion - (You've forced me to do it...)
From:	cassius622@aol.com
Date:	Tue, 29 Oct 2002 22:09:22 EST

Salvete,

This list tends to cycle between periods of reason and frenzy, and it seems
to me that we're in the latter with the current large thread about various
aspects of Christianity vs. the Religio Romana.

Discussion seems to have reached a threshold of bitterness where feelings are
getting bruised. People are even unsubscribing from the list to get away from
the nastiness. I personally am less concerned with the 'rightness' or
'wrongness' of the arguments than I am with the way we're dealing with each
other and this forum. Debate is fine, but do we really want to treat each
other like *this*?

When a list gets like this I think of a particular passage of writing - and I
tend to shamelessly post it no matter how many times I've bored everyone to
death with it. Yes... you've forced me into quoting Benjamin Franklin!

This is from a section of Franklin's "Autobiography" that is sometimes
published under the title "The Means and Manner of Obtaining Virtue. I hope
that both newcomers and old hands will find something of value in it. I know
I have to periodically reread this myself... :)

"**********
"My list of virtues contain'd at first but twelve; but a Quaker friend having
kindly informed me that I was generally thought proud; that my pride show'd
itself frequently in conversation; that I was not content with being in the
right when discussing any point, but was overbearing, and rather insolent, of
which he convinc'd me by mentioning several instances; I determined
endeavouring to cure myself, if I could, of this vice or folly among the
rest, and I added Humility to my list) giving an extensive meaning to the
word.

I cannot boast of much success in acquiring the reality of this virtue, but I
had a good deal with regard to the appearance of it. I made it a rule to
forbear all direct contradiction to the sentiments of others, and all
positive assertion of my own. I even forbid myself, agreeably to the old laws
of our Junto, the use of every word or expression in the language that
imported a fix'd opinion, such as certainly, undoubtedly, etc., and I
adopted, instead of them, I conceive, I apprehend, or I imagine a thing to be
so or so; or it so appears to me at present. When another asserted something
that I thought an error, I deny'd myself the pleasure of contradicting him
abruptly, and of showing immediately some absurdity in his proposition; and
in answering I began by observing that in certain cases or circumstances his
opinion would be right, but in the present case there appear'd or seem'd to
me some difference, etc.

I soon found the advantage of this change in my manner; the conversations I
engag'd in went on more pleasantly. The modest way in which I propos'd my
opinions procur'd them a readier reception and less contradiction; I had less
mortification when I was found to be in the wrong, and I more easily
prevail'd with others to give up their mistakes and join with me when I
happened to be in the right. And this mode, which I at first put on with some
violence to natural inclination, became at length so easy, and so habitual to
me, that perhaps for these fifty years past no one has ever heard a
dogmatical expression escape me. And to this habit (after my character of
integrity) I think it principally owing that I had early so much weight with
my fellow-citizens when I proposed new institutions, or alterations in the
old, and so much influence in public councils when I became a member; for I
was but a bad speaker, never eloquent, subject to much hesitation in my
choice of words, hardly correct in language, and yet I generally carried my
points.

In reality, there is, perhaps, no one of our natural passions so hard to
subdue as pride. Disguise it, struggle with it, beat it down, stifle it,
mortify it as much as one pleases, it is still alive, and will every now and
then peep out and show itself; you will see it, perhaps, often in this
history; for, even if I could conceive that I had compleatly overcome it, I
should probably be proud of my humility."

******************

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Pontifex Maximus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Truth that was lost: Proof of Justin's crimes
From:	"g_agorius_taurinus" <g_agorius_taurinus@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 02:52:45 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "quintuscassiuscalvus" <richmal@a...> wrote:
> Salve,
>
> >--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "g_agorius_taurinus"
> <g_agorius_taurinus@y...> wrote:
> > You didn't finish reading all my posts before you shot this one
> out.
> > Pagans had the right to break the law when it was contrary to
> Freedom
> > and Truth. Denying the Rightful Gods was not and is not lawful;
no
> > human has the right to decide that other people can't worship the
> > Gods, not even a Roman emperor. And the man who did this, who
> propped
> > up laws like that, backed by a powerful religious syndicate,
> > sacrificed his moral authority to pass laws.
>

> Let me see if I understand you correctly.

I can already tell that you don't.

> Pagans had the right to
> violate the law when it violated their Freedom and Truth, but
> Christians did not when Emperor worship violated their Freedom and
> Truth? Seems like a double standard to me.....

Double standard? Not until christianity got involved and it's
followers began breaking the law.

Rome was Great for many reasons, but one of the main ones was the
Religio. It was and is the standard of Freedom and Truth both now and
back then. When the Religio is in its proper place of honor, and the
rulers of the state and the people are honorable, all is well.

Christianity's version of "Freedom and Truth" was all about
destroying the Religio- something that was not and should not ever be
legal, in any place.

The Religio was first, and it WAS Rome. Christianity has no right,
and had no right, to come along, and expect the world to conform to
their ideas. Their duty, which they chose not to do, was to find a
way for their truths to co-exist in peace with the World around them.

The World of Rome had already established standards of Freedom and
Truth that we have hardly seen since christians took over and plunged
the western world into the dark ages.

> Let me see if I understand you correctly. When the State decrees a
> form of Paganism as the official state religion then when
Christians
> (or for that matter Jews, Muslims, and other pagans that don't
> subscribe to that particular form of Paganism) worship in a manner
> that is not according to the State Religion they are then breaking
> laws that hurt the state, offend the rights of others, degrade
> hallowed tradition, but when it is the other way around its
perfectly
> OK for pagans to break the law, ect?

It is okay for anyone to break the laws if the maker of the laws has
no moral authority to make them. Without the Gods on his side, the
Emperor had no moral authority.

> Christians NEVER denied the
> Emperors their right to rule, they denied his divinity. Even
>Christ
> was quoted as saying, "Give to Caeser what is Caeser's...."

Actually, saying that was the same as saying that he was the same as
any other man, and no more fit to rule. It amounted to the same thing.
It was a standard of belief back then that the Emperor was divine; it
was another fact that kept the state cohesive. It was also illegal to
deny it or fail to perform civic duties to the emperor.

> Let's see, if I remember my history correct. Christians,
according
> to official Imperial propaganda committed incest, killed and ate
> babies, were cannibals. All of which all verifiable historical
> evidence concludes that it was malicious and slanderous
propaganda.

The people who "concluded that it was malicious and slanderous
propaganda" happen to be christians. Of course that's what they'd
say. It gets real old seeing conservative historians write that Rome
was this great satanic evil empire that just persecuted christians
for NO reason at all...and they used great slander and propaganda
tactics... AS IF christians weren't slanderous to the True Religio,
and as if THEY didn't use propaganda OFF THE SCALE not a hundred
years later against the pagans.

Now, I dont' think that christians killed and ate babies; that is a
silly charge that all minorities manage to get hurled at them at one
point or another- but you are forgetting the ACTUAL common charge
against christians- that of being anti-social and treasonous. Lurid
stories that Nero invented are just more of his insanity. Actual
sober and ground-level magistrates and politicians recorded the
offenses of christians as more mundane and dangerous to the state
than just absurd things like cannibalism.

> Christianity was outlawed because the Emperor decided he didn't
>want
> it because it offended his "divine ego."

You wish it was that easy.

> Emperors tend to get upset
> when people point out they have no clothes and those people must be
> made a lesson of otherwise the people might decided, "Damn, he
> really ain't got a stitch of clothes on him, does he?"

Again, that is a terrible over-simplification. It's a lot deeper than
that. This situation isn't JUST about an emperor who was angry and
ego-injured. And... the emperor DID have wonderful clothing.
Christians saying that he didn't was just more of their hatred and
subversiveness coming out- which was born of jealousy and the twisted
doctrines of the 'error of nazareth'.

GAT


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Animal sacrifice or BBQ? Both?
From:	"Christopher L. Wood" <xwood@usa.net>
Date:	Tue, 29 Oct 2002 22:30:35 -0500

All this talk of sacrifice has got me hungry.... really! When I look at
the ancient public sacrifices, with 10,000 bulls and what not, I have to
think: Where did all that meat go? Surely the ancients weren't so stupid
as to believe that the gods really needed to eat it? No, of course not -
parts of the victim (usually the parts humans wouldn't want anyway)
were dedicated to the gods and burned on an altar, and then the rest was
"profanated", that is, taken back from the gods, and distributed to
the people. When I picture a Roman public sacrifice, I see a scene not
entirely unlike a big barbecue party - but with solemn prayers and ritual
to remind everyone to whom to be thankful for this bounty. Also, extra meat
from the sacrifices was sold in butcher shops to the public. This has led me
to wonder: where did the idea of sacrifice come from?

In many traditional cultures, it is customary for a hunter or farmer to
"ask permission" of the spirit of an animal before killing it, or to ask
forgiveness of its spirit (or a god) after doing so. Perhaps this was early
man's way of assuaging his own feelings of guilt for taking the life of a
fellow creature, recognizing a kinship going back to the time when man was
not so different from the beasts, and just as likely to be prey as predator.

A man hunting a mighty boar, upon seeing the beast's blood on his hands,
may have realized that it could easily have been his blood that was spilled,
and given thanks to the spirit of the animal for "giving" its life to him
so his family could live. Or perhaps, fearing revenge from the beast, begged
the spirit not to harm him, or maybe sacrificed part of the animal to
another,
more powerful spirit in exchange for protection. Primitive man may have
found
that leaving part of the flesh as an offering to the spirits of the woods
may
have lessened the chance that hungry bears would come scratching on his hut
at
night.

In time, civilization cloaked these simple practices with ritual meant to
assure
those who didn't actually hunt or farm that the meat they would receive
would
be free of taint from vengeful spirits and would be blessed by the higher
powers.
Ritual that developed from sons watching their father's fearful mumblings
over
the corpses of dead beasts, who in turn passed on the words, remembered or
reconstructed to their sons, and so on, each generation adding something to
make sure it "was sufficient" or changing something that proved inadequate
(if
one winter the bears came in, then the ritual must be improved!). Butchering
is also a complicated process, and doing it wrong can bring on the wrath of
the demons of sepsis and rot. Ancient people, not understanding germs, must
have
known that the method of killing an animal and preparing its meat must be
done in
a precise way to prevent disease. Although common butchery may have its
shortcuts,
when preparing meals for many people, I think prescribed rituals of
slaughter and
butchery evolved as a precautionary method. After the first time a priest
forgot
to do all the rituals properly, and maintain ritual cleanliness, and a
thousand
people got E. coli poisoning, you'd better bet that he wouldn't forget a
second time!

So then the ritual of animal sacrifice is not so much a mystic appeasement
of
unseen deities, but the very real satisfaction of human needs, both physical
and psychological. The idea of dedicating the flesh to deities must have
developed
later. The important parts of the ceremony are: giving thanks to the
gods/spirits;
killing and butchering the animal in a prescribed method to maintain ritual
purity;
and distributing the meat to the people to partake in a sort of "communion".
Today
many people say prayers before eating their food after it has been put on
the plate;
why is it suddenly a strange and unusual "sacrifice" when the prayers are
said before
the animal is killed and put on the plate? People have "pig roasts" and BBQ
parties-
if Nova Roma were to have a "suovetauralia" and have a pork, lamb, and beef
BBQ, give
prayers to the gods, dedicate the tripe and giblets to Iuppiter, and feed
the people,
would it matter whether the animals were slaughtered on the spot or in a
slaughterhouse?

In ancient days, people were ignorant of germs and so thought nothing of
blood running
through the streets; nowadays we know that that is incompatible with public
sanitation.
Only if someone were able to provide a farm or other area where it would be
appropriate
to butcher animals would I want to see a live sacrifice. Also, as others
have pointed
out, inexperienced persons could injure themselves and cause undue distress
to the
victim (which is not only cruel, but spoils the sacrifice), so sacrifices
should only
be carried out by those who are professional butchers/farmers or are
specifically
trained to do it. I also do not see any problem with taking meat from a
butcher
and dedicating it in sacrifice. If ritual purity is of concern, then the
pontiffs or
their delegates should inspect the butcher, the slaughterhouse, and the
farmers, and
give approval to those who meet their standards. Nova Roma could have a
system of
inspecting and approving meat, like the Jewish authorities have kosher
inspectors. I
would like that, because the requirements of ritual cleanliness typically
means
cleanliness and quality, and I would like to be assured that the bacon I eat
came from
pigs that were kept in clean conditions and not diseased.

Anyway, I ramble on.. but how about a Nova Roma BBQ!

Tiberius Ambrosius Silvus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: 1. Persecutions
From:	"gcassiusnerva" <gcassiusnerva@cs.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 03:55:30 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@y...> wrote:

<<From the Roman viewpoint the Christians were allready
offering prayers to a man, Jesus of Nazarath. Not only
were they worshiping a man, but one who had been a
condemed criminal, even worse condemed for claiming a
title that several Rebels had used in inciting
uprisings against Roman rule. Worshiping a condemed
criminal, but refusing to make an offering to the
Imperial cult was viewed as insulting to the Emperor.>>

Salve Drusus,

I think that the Romans would have taken notice, certainly, of the
fact that Jesus was executed by a Roman prefect. But the evidence
thaty has survived does not seem to suggest this was the major
concern. Gallio for instance is concerned about disorder caused by
the opponents of Paul. Felix keeps Paul in prison to try to suck up to
the priests, who were ready to complain about him to Rome. When Paul
is brought before Festus, he thinks Paul is mad, but the charges
attached to Paul concerned the Jewish temple. Pliny says himself in
his letter to Trajan he found little except gross superstition, and
Tacitus reference to the Christians, while mentioning that "Christos"
suffered the extreme penalty at the hands of Pilate, also is more
turned off by what he sees as superstition. The mention of "Chrestus"
in Suetonius is sometimes mentioned, but I doubt this refers to Jesus
at all. Perhaps it did.
I can only think that the Christians were so apolitical that the
Romans were more turned off by the percieved superstition than by the
charge attached to Jesus when he was executed.

Nerva


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: 1. Persecutions
From:	"gcassiusnerva" <gcassiusnerva@cs.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 03:55:52 -0000


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: 2. Christianity and the Fall of the Roman Empire
From:	Fortunatus <labienus@novaroma.org>
Date:	Tue, 29 Oct 2002 22:23:09 -0600

Salve mi Nerva

> 'The gods cannot change that...Fate is greater than the gods...'
> If Rome was fated to fall, and if the gods cannot oppose fate, then
> they were unable to save Rome.
> This is option two. The trilemma still stands.

This particular pagan suggests a fourth option.

1. The gods did not save Rome because they never existed.
2. The gods did not save Rome because they were unable to do so.
{Impotency}
3. The gods did not save Rome because they were unwilling to do so,
due to Christianity.

4. The Gods did not save Rome because they chose not to do so, without
regard to Christianity.

Vale
Fortunatus
--
"Since death alone is certain and the time of death uncertain, what
should I do?"


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: 1. Persecutions
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Oct 2002 20:45:07 -0800 (PST)

Salve,
My main point was why the Christians didn't recieve
the same dispensation as the Jews regarding the
Imperial Cult.

I Really don't think that the Cult was a primary cause
for Christians being arrested. It seems to have been
more of a test that was applied after someone was
denounced as a Christian and bought before a
magistrate.

There are a few points I would like to make about the
persucations.

Some of the Christians were arrested for disturbing a
Rite that was in progress. I don't consider these
arrests to be persucations. Arresting someone
disturbing the Rituals of another Religion was and is
a proper response to a fanatic. That was no more a
persucation than it would be persucating modern
Christians if a group of fanatics was arrested for
disrupting Muslam or Jewish services.

The same holds for Christians who insisted on publicly
insulting the Gods while "witnessing" to a crowd. It
ammounted to inciting a riot, and sometimes that was
the intention of a fanatic with a martyr complex.
These people deserved to be arrested, not for being
Christian, but for disturbing the peace and inciting a
riot.

I can understand the reasons the Romans didn't care
for someone who would worship a condeamed criminal,
but not the Emperor, but killing someone for refusing
to make offerings to the Imperial cult is something I
have a problem with. The same goes for seeking out
Christians who weren't disturbing the peace, or
arresting those who were denounced. These actions are
what I consider persucations, and feel that they were
unjustified in cases where the Christians weren't
inciting riots or disrupting others rites.

These were more a symptom of a despotic government
than a general tendency in Paganism. If the Republic
had surrivived i doubt that the persucations would
have ammounted to more than the same bans from Rome or
Italy that other mystry cults suffered under the
Republic.

--- gcassiusnerva <gcassiusnerva@cs.com> wrote:
> --- In Nova-Roma@y..., "L. Sicinius Drusus"
> <lsicinius@y...> wrote:
>
> <<From the Roman viewpoint the Christians were
> allready
> offering prayers to a man, Jesus of Nazarath. Not
> only
> were they worshiping a man, but one who had been a
> condemed criminal, even worse condemed for claiming
> a
> title that several Rebels had used in inciting
> uprisings against Roman rule. Worshiping a condemed
> criminal, but refusing to make an offering to the
> Imperial cult was viewed as insulting to the
> Emperor.>>
>
> Salve Drusus,
>
> I think that the Romans would have taken notice,
> certainly, of the
> fact that Jesus was executed by a Roman prefect.
> But the evidence
> thaty has survived does not seem to suggest this was
> the major
> concern. Gallio for instance is concerned about
> disorder caused by
> the opponents of Paul. Felix keeps Paul in prison to
> try to suck up to
> the priests, who were ready to complain about him to
> Rome. When Paul
> is brought before Festus, he thinks Paul is mad, but
> the charges
> attached to Paul concerned the Jewish temple. Pliny
> says himself in
> his letter to Trajan he found little except gross
> superstition, and
> Tacitus reference to the Christians, while
> mentioning that "Christos"
> suffered the extreme penalty at the hands of Pilate,
> also is more
> turned off by what he sees as superstition. The
> mention of "Chrestus"
> in Suetonius is sometimes mentioned, but I doubt
> this refers to Jesus
> at all. Perhaps it did.
> I can only think that the Christians were so
> apolitical that the
> Romans were more turned off by the percieved
> superstition than by the
> charge attached to Jesus when he was executed.
>
> Nerva
>
>

=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

"Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."
(A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.)
Seneca, Letters to Lucilius

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] The Events of the Day and A Decision I've Made
From:	"Pompeia Cornelia Strabo" <scriba_forum@hotmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 05:16:51 +0000

P. Cornelia Strabo Quiritibus Nova Roma S.P.D.

I am back, after taking the day 'off' to find, hmmm, certainly some food for
thought.

I made an error, for which I apologize: I failed to convey to the person
who approved the majority of pending messages that he should 'READ" them
first, before shooting them through to the list...silly Po.

(sic) "Holy deep fried crap on a stick", is not something I normally let
pass..........among digressions on 'whores' et al, ....we have impuberes on
the list.

I have had letters from those who ask 'where their rights are' with respect
to common courtesy and respect of 'their' belief system: they are citizens,
they work hard for the republic, they respect the Religio, pay taxes, and
they mind their own business otherwise.

Truth be told, we are at the mercy of Religio Practitioners, who suddenly,
as of late, choose 'not' to extend common courtesy, choose not to treat
others in the manner they would like to be treated ( the Platinum rule as
Iulia Vesp. alluded to earlier, except it applies to 'all' , not just
Christians), and rather, feed into the emotional appeal that we are to
assume penitance for stuff which Christians did 2300 years ago.

We have no rights as nonpractitioners.....we have a double
standard...citizenship is open without discrimination, the constitution
says, but then it says that those who say anything about the Religio or its
practitioners, even those who are obviously very fundamentalist, who promote
religious prejudice, are subject to being called 'blasphemers'

Unfortunately, the Vedian Constitution presumes that Pagans are going to be
fair in their assignment of other faiths; the posts of late show otherwise.
Consequently, aside from what I have already done, which has garnered
nothing but contempt, I can do nothing as Praetor to protect you.

And I read a post which passed referring to the 'error of Nazareth' by
Galus...what is your name now? Yesterday it was Valerius.

????

Galus, I know you think you know alot, but who, prey tell, gives you the
authority to call 'anyone' a mistake? Granted you do not have to believe
that Jesus was the Son of God......but you have the arrogance to suggest
that his very person is a 'mistake'......??? But the whole day has been
spent, largely with your postings.....do you ever take time to eat or go do
the bathroom??

And this "error of Nazareth" stuff is allowed to pass, in my absence?

And nobody, NOBODY has said "would you mind laying off the Christians here
in Nova Roma, who do what they will and harm none? (sound familiar?) They
choose to feed into the emotional stuff, like Pagan Pride, complaining, even
after a warning from me, about woes in his areas of the world of the
churches, and their 'campaigns'.

Your apology, Galis, about the nice Christians of Nova Roma made two days
ago carries no weight with me, because you just carry on with your
accusations and selfrighteous pontifications. One day you refer to Jesus as
the Christos, the next you make references to the 'error' of
Nazareth'.......I don't even care if you were speaking of an idea..you are
attributing human folly to one person, and you have no proof of this.

I, Pompeia Cornelia....REFUSE to take responsibility for the works of
Justinian, Theodosis, any more than I expect anyone to take responsibility
for the decisions of Nero or Caligula

I, Pompeia Cornelia....REFUSE to take responsibility for the emotional
baggage anyone has suffered due to a bad run with some born agains...

I, Pompeia Cornelia....REFUSE to take responsibility for ANYTHING other than
my own actions

I, Pompeia Cornelia...REFUSE to listen to people who stereotype
macronational Christians as if they were united.......any more than I 'lump'
Pagans into one basket, or their beliefs, their needs, their feelings, etc.

I, Pompeia Cornelia, REFUSE to pay taxes to this republic, or promote a
republic whose faith is rooted in religious prejudice to the extent that a
troll is allowed to first put its Christian citizens through the wringer,
then proceeds to criticize experienced Practitioners in NOVA ROMA's view of
the Religio, and a very Pontifex of her collegium.....

This is not only freedom of speech......this is 'dangerous and disruptive'

I don't know what to tell you nonpractitioners in the absence of appearing
treasonous..... I don't see much we can do.

As one person who wrote me privately put it: "I feel as welcome as a Bastard
at a Family Reunion"....that sums it up quite nicely....

But when it comes to hearing, in a forum I have been a part of for nearly
three years, 'the error of Nazareth' and having such an ugly statement
approved, my personal flame dims.

I have felt an affinity for Rome since I was a child of about 9; I had a run
with some fundamentalists, too, and because of that, I migrated to the ROMAN
Catholic church, which to me, is the church for 'me'...not for everyone, but
for me. Do I post 'blame' to others for it.... nor do I accuse anyone in
remote association with them of 'clever conpiracies'...No. Hard as it was,
I dusted myself off, and got on with life.

But I have learned today, that despite my past association with NR that I am
not 'truly' Roman, that I am 'responsible' for her destruction. Not just by
Galus, but by others who chose to augment his affirmations, and by those who
didn't care enough to say that he was being a bit out of line. Empathy and
compassion have a habit of 'disappearing' around election time.....but then,
if that is the case, we are sadly lacking in principle and virtue......

Well, so be it. I will not give up my faith until I am ready, "IF" I am
ever ready. I have had, well, a certain unexplainable experience with
Apollo, which I have shared with a few practitioners and a Pontiff. He
fits into the scheme of things somewhere, I know it, but I don't understand
it.... but nowhere in that experience was I ever led to believe that I had
to make a radical religious change......but this is 'spiritual stuff' and
has very little to do with the religio, as Galus interprets it.

Galus reminds me very much of a staunch fundamentalist, born again, hell
fire and damnation, my way or the highway kind of Pagan....

I have had answers to prayer from the 'error of Nazareth', and I shall not
deny that, to win anyone's favour.

This republic will crumble like a stale piece of bread unless attitudes
toward one another drastically change.

If I had a suspicious nature, the presence of two 'troll-like' citizens so
close to election time might indicate they were being egged on, but
ahh.....surely not here in Nova Roma.....:)

You have as much political power in Nova Roma, it seems as 'magisterial
clout' (clientalia?) to back you up......you could be elected quaestor and
run the place with the right clout....those with the highest titles don't
always run the show.......I hope I am wrong, but given my political
experience, and how deeply certain individuals will plumb, the thought has
crossed my mind.

At any rate, I shall no longer be a part of the problems of Nova Roma, as I
choose not to be the scapegoat for the demise of the Ancient Empire.

I resign my position as Praetor of Nova Roma and Senator. I resign my
position as Propraetor of Canada Orientalis Provincia, and all Office of
Sodalitas Egressus and Sodalitas Musarum (breaks my heart)

I shall keep in contact with Senator Marcus Minucius Audens regarding
Militarium business, as I have promised, if he will have me, because I
regard him as a dear friend, and I love Militarium, which presents a threat
to nobody, but I do not expect I shall hold the illustrious titles he has
given me while a citizen.

I shall remain a member of Gens Cornelia, if my Pater, Lucius Cornelius
Sulla Felix, whose posts I read and whose valour I was proud of today, if he
will have me.

This type of stuff is simply not tolerated in gens Cornelia, because it is
not promoted by the Pater or his gens members.....for those who think we are
bound to Cornelia by chains and a mote....probably explains why there are 90
some odd members in her Gens.

Please do not write me reminding me 'not to quit', my 'vows' (I took an oath
of office, not a perpetual vow) or any other sentiment. I have thought
about this over the course of 36 hours, and my mind has been made up.

Bene valete et Buona Fortuna

P. Cornelia

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Your attention please
From:	"Gaius Galerius Peregrinator" <gaiusgalerius@hotmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 05:44:44 +0000

Salvete omnes:

Although not a Pagan myself, I put out a pro-pagan post sometime ago.
But some of what has been coming out from that camp, in the last few days,
is regrettable. Many good and decent people have been offended including
some of my friends, and I certainly do not stand for that, and cannot defend
that.

I am all for free discourse, and that means you can be critical, and you
can be provocative, and to be free also means responsible. But the
viciousness, vindictiveness, and zealotry coming out, and on, and on, and
on...is way beyond what's acceptable and responsible, and I want to distance
myself from that.

Furthermore, this forum is not a chat room. I come home and my box is
full, with but 2 maybe 3 posts worth the time to read. NR has a chat room.
Please use it.

Valete

Galerius Peregrinator.

_________________________________________________________________
Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free!� Try MSN.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Bigotry
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Oct 2002 22:05:48 -0800 (PST)

Salve Quirites,

Today we have seen a series of posts that were little
more than a drawn out hate filled rant directed
towards Christianity.

I Didn't speak out sooner because, frankly I thought
the attempts to justify the the persucations the
Christians suffered under the Imperial government were
so shallow and contradictrary that most people were
too busy laughing at the fool to bother responding to
him.

I See I was mistaken.

g_agorius_taurinus,
You have shown that you are a self rightous bigot. You
are far worse than you accuse the Christians of the
present or the past to be. You have insulted a large
segment of Nova Roma's citizens, magistrates of Nova
Roma and a Pontif of the Religio.

Your intrest in Roman Paganism seems to be more
motivated by a hatred of Christanity than an intrest
in the Gods of Roma. The Persucations were a long time
ago and Nova Roma has no intrest in serving as a base
for your Bigotry.

You have made many foes today. You have no future here
now. Too many citizens look on you with disgust. You
will never be elected to an office here. You have no
future in Nova Roma unless you get some warped
pleasure in the constant reminders of what a vile
wretch you are that will follow every post you make.
Not just from me but from the majority of Nova Romans
that now view you with disgust, and who will remind
you of it daily.

Few tears will be shed in Nova Roma if you resign your
citizenship.

=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

"Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."
(A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.)
Seneca, Letters to Lucilius

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Your attention please
From:	"Brighn $Paul Kershaw$" <brighn@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 01:37:56 -0500

Salve Galerius Peregrinator,

For my own part, I have stayed out of the religious conversation for two
reasons. First, by the time I noticed the topic, the thread had already
become so incoherent and unfocussed that I felt that I could not contribute
anything to it. Second, I do not identify as a "pagan," although you would
probably consider me such. But your comments move me to speak, for I would
not want the entirety of non-Christian Nova Roma to be represented by a
handful of hostile forces.

I for one have nothing against Christians. I do not personally agree with
the religion, but so long as Christians leave me to respect my Deities as I
see fit, without mockery or coersion, I owe them the respect of
reciprocation. The persecutions of the past are, hopefully, of the past,
both of Christians by Romans and of (non-Christian) Romans by Christians.

I speak to reassure you that the bigots do not speak for all of us.

Vale,
Festus

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gaius Galerius Peregrinator" <gaiusgalerius@hotmail.com>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 12:44 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Your attention please

>
>
> Salvete omnes:
>
> Although not a Pagan myself, I put out a pro-pagan post sometime ago.
> But some of what has been coming out from that camp, in the last few days,
> is regrettable. Many good and decent people have been offended including
> some of my friends, and I certainly do not stand for that, and cannot
defend
> that.
>
> Valete
>
> Galerius Peregrinator


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Concordia?
From:	"Adrian Gunn" <shinjikun@shinjikun.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 01:50:59 -0500

Gaius Minucius Hadrianus S.P.D. Quiritibus,

Having followed the postings of the past few days, I'm sad to say I am
embarrassed at the conduct of some posters on the main list. It seems,
once again, we risk letting our differences take preeminence over the
values and interests we all hold in common. Religious conflict has
always been a sad fact of human history, and continues to plague us
today, but I can not understand why we should allow this sort of poison
to seep into our Nation. Isn't it bad enough we have to face this
problem on the "outside"? There is certainly room in any free society
for candid debate, discussion and even disagreement but can't we
accomplish this with out the rancor and vitriol we've seen in the last
few days? As a follower of the Religio, I certainly do not agree with
the religious beliefs of Christians, anymore than they agree with mine,
but that does not mean I don't respect their right to their beliefs. The
Religio may have a special place in NR, just as it had in Roma
Antiquita, but that does not give anyone the right to harass those of
other faiths. Let us not repeat intolerance and persecution practiced by
Romans of BOTH faiths in the past. The purpose of Nova Roma is to
embrace what was the best of Rome, not to repeat its failings. Religion,
like macro-national politics, is an emotional issue. I ask that when
faced with an inflammatory or insulting post, that we act with
restraint, and just ignore it. Let's not add fuel to the fire. Such
attacks are beneath the dignitas of a citizen, and are not worthy of
response.

In the spirit of Concordia, I ask that we all get back to focusing on
our common interests and goals, and put our differences behind us.

Bene Valete,

C. Minucius Hadrianus

Quaestor

Lictor

Scriba Propraetoris

Legate of Massachusetts

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Prohibition of Galus Agorius Taurinus:Edictum Propraetoricium II Mediatlantica
From:	"gcassiusnerva" <gcassiusnerva@cs.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 07:17:09 -0000

This Propraetor did not treat Taliban and Al Quaeda detainees in Cuba
with the required humaneness and civility to come back and tolerate a
religious fanatic in my own nation who has repeatedly and openly
attempted to justify torture and murder.

Galus Agorius Taurinus is now banned, permanently, from any and all
Nova Roma events which take may take place within the province of
Mediatlantica. And this office calls on all fellow Propraetors to
likewise ban him from all Nova Roma functions within their own provinces.

And in the event Galus Agorius Taurinus should show his face

Signed on this date, ante diem III Kal. NOVEMBRAS
MMDCCLV a.u.c.
(30 October 2002)

Gaius Cassius Nerva
Propraetor, Mediatlantica.


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] and on a personal note
From:	"gcassiusnerva" <gcassiusnerva@cs.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 07:38:24 -0000

Po's note is a very sad read for me.

I choose to join her in refusing to pay taxes into the republic until
some kind of change is implemented to deal with the inequity she spoke of.

Nerva


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Farewell
From:	Sextus Apollonius Scipio <scipio_apollonius@mailservice.ms>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 08:53:01 +0100

Salve Diotima Mortifera Plutona,

> All the best to you as you continue to strive to reconstruct Rome. It's a
> noble goal. I just had a different idea of what things would be like,
> compared to what they really are. Be well, all!

This kind of discussion is good in the sense that it is setting up what will be
our society in the future. Discussion will never be flat and kind, and I like
to see passionate citizens talking and arguing. This is very healthy way of
building the new Rome as long as the debates remain controlled. (and they are)
If you have any other idea to build the new Rome, I would like you to post your
ideas at:

http://www.fr-novaroma.com/Land_Project/public/submission.html

This site is dedicated to collect the ideas or comments from citizens about the
achievement of the LandProject.
Please reconsider your resignation and participate to our project!!

Vale,

--
Sextus Apollonius Scipio

Propraetor Galliae
Sodalitas Egressus, Praefectus for France
Scriba Explorator Primus Academiae Thules
Scriba Fiscalis Primus Academiae Thules
NRLandProject, acting Praefectus Pecuniae
French Translator

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through MailService.MS -> http://www.MailService.ms


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: and on a personal note
From:	"Quintus Lanius Paulinus" <mjk@datanet.ab.ca>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 08:16:35 -0000

Salve Gai Nerva,

I agree with what you say and feel bad about seeing Pompeia
resigning her important positions. We can thank God or the gods of
Rome that she didn't quit Nova Roma and resign her citizenship
altogether. It would be a big blow as she is one of the important
backbones of NR.

In my case I won't be a hypocrite about witholding taxes because I
payed mine about 9 weeks ago and not due to pay for another year and
I'm sure things will be fixed up one way or another in that time
frame.

Well for the sake of NR I would suggest to the powers that be that
today might be a good a time as any to start figuring how to
implement the changes to the inequities she addressed for the peace
of the Res Republica.

Yours respectfully,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "gcassiusnerva" <gcassiusnerva@c...> wrote:
> Po's note is a very sad read for me.
>
> I choose to join her in refusing to pay taxes into the republic
until
> some kind of change is implemented to deal with the inequity she
spoke of.
>
> Nerva


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The Events of the Day and A Decision I've Made
From:	Sextus Apollonius Scipio <scipio_apollonius@mailservice.ms>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 09:25:30 +0100

Salvete Omnes,

it is a sad day for Nova Roma. One of our best magistrates is walking away from
her duties. If I can do anything to make her come back, I will.
Discussions of the kind we have had are usefull because they set up the
standards of the society we would like to build. However there is a way to talk
in order to tell citizens your ideas while still respecting their feelings.
This was not done.
This effort to respect people is called PIETAS. PIETAS should not be a vain
word for people that claim their Roman citizenship. PIETAS means respect to
other and self respect.
I did not see a lot of PIETAS lately. Being Roman means acting as a Roman and
not only having a name.
To those that did not respect PIETAS, I propose to think about it as their
behaviour is an offence to the soul of the Roman citizens, past and present.
Therefore, I propose to those who were disrespectful to apologize on the Forum,
as a Roman would do.
At the same time, and I know this has been proposed already but I do it again,
I propose to open a list for those who cannot talk respecting PIETAS.

Salvete,

--
Sextus Apollonius Scipio

Propraetor Galliae
Sodalitas Egressus, Praefectus for France
Scriba Explorator Primus Academiae Thules
Scriba Fiscalis Primus Academiae Thules
NRLandProject, acting Praefectus Pecuniae
French Translator

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through MailService.MS -> http://www.MailService.ms


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] TEST because I didn't receive any mail for 3 days!!!
From:	tiberius.ann@bluemail.ch
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 10:22:03 +0100

This is just a test because I didn't receive any mail for the past 3 days
and I know that there were lots of mails written!!!!! I guess Yahoogroups
is having some problems again!!!
Tiberius Annaeus Otho

Lictor curiatus
Translator linguae Germanicae
Paterfamilias gentis Annaearum
Praefectus scribarum regionis Germaniae Superioris
Tribunus laticlavius militum legionis XI CPF
Homepage: http://www.tiano.ch.tt


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Constantinus et Teodosius - Trying II
From:	"Stephen Gallagher" <spqr753@msn.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 04:19:04 -0500

Salve, Gallus Solaris

The reasons for it's "Decline and Fall"? are numerous:

1. Most if not all historians, including Gibbon place the date of the fall of the Empire in the west at 476 A.D. and in the east in 1453 with the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks , not 394 A. D. Edward Gibbon is rightly called the Historian of the Roman Empire and he ends his history not in 476 but in 1453.

2. The Roman state in 394 had a state Religion it was called Christianity

3. The rulers of the empire could not for great lengths of time control their Generals
4. The Romans as good at government as they were NEVER developed a good, sound , or permanent method for the peaceful transference of power from one ruler to the next.

Roman historian Ammianus stated " What fury of foreign peoples, what barbarian cruelty, can be compared with the harm done by the civil wars"

During the dynasty of Valentinian I no less that 10 men from outside the ruling family made a run at the throne. The energy used to repel each and every one could have been used in service to the Roman state and not on civil war. While trying for the purple the generals neglected the frontier that they were sworn and paid to defend.

5. While the eastern and western empires in 395 A.D. had on paper an army that numbered 500,000 strong most of these were frontier troops that were not of the best quality. (It has been said that Roman military training were bloodless battles and that battles were bloody training but was it true anymore?) The field army that Rome could use ranged in size of between 15 and 20,000 men. about the same size of most of Rome enemy armies. The reason Rome could not field bigger armies was due to the failure of the authorities to enforce conscription.

6. When the State could no longer get troops from the people they tried to get money to pay more and more foreign troops. Because the army was no longer a "Roman" army made up of Roman citizens the army felt it could plunder the people of the Empire and the citizens looked on the army with loathing. They also resented the large taxes that the government collected to pay for this army. It was largely because of the rife between the free rural poor and the state over taxes that there developed a "destructive and suicidal hostility". The taxes could not be collected and the army could not be paid. The empire failed to find defenders and collapsed. As much as the poor, the rich in the late empire found as many ways not to pay their taxes or serve in the army as there were taxes to be paid and years in the army to serve.

7. The two half's of the empire did not like each other one being Latin and the other being Greek. Working together was never as much fun as stabling the other in the back.

8. The Romans were not very nice to the "Barbarians" that were allowed to settle in the empire. Instead of "Romanizing the Germans and other settlers they turned them in to proud Germans who no longer wanted to be Romanized and became a mortal threat within the empire.

9. The question of religion is one of many reasons for the decline and fall but not the sole reason as you state and not even the most important. The German setters were Arian Christians which but them at odd with the Catholic west and the Orthodox east. Pagans at first the ruling group in the empire were replaced over time by the descendents in spirit if nothing else of the Christians that they had persecuted. The persecution of the pagans was aimed at uniting the whole empire behind one religion but had the effect of adding one more disunity into the empire when toleration would have been a better idea. I do concede that had Augustine been less hostile to the idea of a Christian Empire the fight to save Rome would have been a little (very little) easier. But then it would not have been Rome in your eyes? (ps. (Saint) Paul clamed the right to appeal to the Emperor in Rome because he WAS a Citizen of ROME. A Roman Citizen and a Christian !!! If a founder of the Christian Religion can claim and the Roman authorities agree that he is a citizen, then not practicing the Religio Romana does not stop one from being Roman.)

In a larger sense Rome never fell:

The great actor Lawrence Oliver, playing Marcus L. Crasius in Spartacus has a scene with Antonius his house slave ,(played by Tony Curtis )and says, as they watch the legions march from Rome, " that Rome is an eternal thought in the mind of God" and that if she had never existed "we would dream of her ". For centuries historians and the public at large have debated why Rome fell. Some say depopulation, others would say lead in the pipes, others would say the hordes from the east and others would say it was lax military training that in the end brought her down. Some would say ,as you have that the Christians killed Rome.

But Rome did not fall and she did not die.
Rome Lives!

For 1526 years every nation or Empire of the west ( and Russia) has tried in some way to
BE ROME! From Charlemagne , Frederick the Great , Peter the Great, Bismarck and the Kaisers, The British and the Americans. While most tried to be the Empire of Rome others sought to emulate and revive in some ways the Rome of the Republic. Look at the American One dollar bill and the Great Seal of the USA "Annuit Coeptis" He (God) has favored our undertaking, which is from Virgil's Aeneid. 1776 is written in Roman numerals.
The American President can cast a VETO. It's Congress has a Senate. There are checks and balances between the branches of government. The American constitution is a mixture of Democracy, Aristocracy, and Monarchy just like Rome's . The founders of the American Republic read the history of Greece and Rome in Greek and Latin. The Majority of people in Europe and all the people of Central and South America speak a Romance language. Even English (a Germanic language by origin ) could be classified as a neo-Romance language as half of its words come from Latin directly or from one of the other Romance languages. Rome lives!!

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Fortuna Favet Fortibus

From: sa-mann@libero.it
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:58 PM
To: Nova-Roma
Cc: Nova-Roma
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Constantinus et Teodosius - Trying II

Specati Cives Omnes

I humbly would like to point out that nobody that wrote his opinion
kept to the point. I don't want to annoy people with my opinion about
Catholicism and Religio Romana. And what I read were plain opinions.
One stated I am pagan, one stated Jesus was not so bad and so on and so
on.

I want to to speak about facts.

Rome din't exist separated from Religion. The state did not exist on
its own: never religion and the State have ever been separated.
Until one day in 382 when the Emperor subtracted the authority of the
State to traditional Religion. Rome ended that day. This Gratianus did
because he was a Christian. It is useless to speak about Saint
Ambrosius and his role. The reason Rome ended was Christian faith.
Nothing more, nothing less.
September the 6th of 394: pagans lost in battle against Theodosius,
Rome ended foe ever. We positively know of thousands of people who
looked truthfully to Rome as their fatherland. But they were
Christian. They were not Cives Romani: nobody has ever been a roman
citizen ever, since then.

Everything else is interesting but has little to do with facts.

Any person's idea is acceptable. Facts are something you can't discuss
too much. And facts are Christianism ended Rome as a state, that is to
say ended Rome.

Reverenter

Gallus Solaris Alexander
Bononia


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Concordia
From:	"=?iso-8859-1?q?A.=20Hirtius=20Helveticus?=" <hirtius75ch@yahoo.de>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:52:39 +0100 (CET)

Salvete Quirites

Indeed, today is a sad day. This religious topic
gained a desastrous momentum and obviously we weren't
able to stop it. Somehow, the harsh and passionate
tone of it resembled me of the discussion about the
form and function of our gentes we had about two month
ago. Nevertheless, back then, no-one resigned or took
similar steps. But, alas, religious matters bear a
bigger potential for conflicts than anything else -
even our much loved politics.

All I can do is to ask everyone to calm down,
reconsider and if appropriate, appologize. I myself
did not take a very active part in the discussion, but
hereby I want to appologize for any postings of mine
that may have hurt some fellow citizen.

On the other hand, even as a practising Roman
Catholic, during the last few days, I did not feel
like a pariah here (like other unfortunately did). All
I once again learned was, that tolerance has to be
stretched sometimes. Especially in the case of some
new citizens (Galus Agorius Taurinus is, according to
the album civium, only citizen for two days -
2002/10/28!) who are not yet accustomed to our list
guidelines.

Well, irreversible damage has been done, so let us now
contemplate for a while and then take all the actions
required to re-establish peace and the political
positions.

As Pompeia pointed out, there will be elections soon,
so therefore let us all put our religious resentiments
aside and keep them as much as possible away from
politics. Nova Roma needs the best men (and women, of
course) as magistrates - be they pagan or christian!

Valete bene,

=====
A. Hirtius Helveticus
------------------------------
paterfamilias gentis Hirtiarum
http://www.hirtius.ch.tt/
------------------------------
Yahoo!/AIM/MSN: hirtius75ch
icq: 155762490

__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
M�chten Sie mit einem Gru� antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.de


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Prohibition of Galus Agorius Taurinus:Edictum Propraetoricium II Mediatlantica
From:	"rexmarciusnr" <RexMarcius@aol.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:38:43 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "gcassiusnerva" <gcassiusnerva@c...> wrote:
>
> Galus Agorius Taurinus is now banned, permanently, from any and all
> Nova Roma events which take may take place within the province of
> Mediatlantica. And this office calls on all fellow Propraetors to
> likewise ban him from all Nova Roma functions within their own
provinces.

Question arises as to whether the right of citizens to participate in
all public forums (as guaranteed by the Constitution) also
encompasses Nova Roman events organised by the State (e.g. a
Provincia). Interesting form of punishment (without trial).

Ave et vale

Marcus Marcius Rex


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] [Cohors_Aedilis_C_Fabius_Q] THE OPENING OF THE SEMIFINALS OF THE
From:	Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <christer.edling@telia.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 12:41:53 +0100

Salvete Quirites!

I HEREBY OPEN THE QUARTERS OF THE LUDI VICTORIA CIRCENSES!

This Quarters of the Ludi Circenses will start today the 17th of
October. Please get to the Circus again and support your own
faction!!!

--
--
Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senator et Senior Curule Aedile
Propraetor Thules
AUCTOR LEGIONIS, Legio VII "Res Publica"
Sodalitas Egressus Praefectus Provincia Thules
"Fautor Societatis Iuventutis Romanae"
************************************************
The homepage of Senior Curule Aedile
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus and his Cohors Aedilis
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/
************************************************
The homepage of the Nova Roma Provincia Thule:
http://thule.novaroma.org/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas and Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Cohors_Aedilis_C_Fabius_Q-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--
Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senator et Senior Curule Aedile
Propraetor Thules
AUCTOR LEGIONIS, Legio VII "Res Publica"
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
"Fautor Societatis Iuventutis Romanae"
************************************************
The homepage of Senior Curule Aedile
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus and his Cohors Aedilis
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/
************************************************
The homepage of the Nova Roma Provincia Thule:
http://thule.novaroma.org/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas and Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Edictum Propraetoricium
From:	<3s@hsk-net.de>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:28:10 -0600 (CST)

Caius Flavius Diocletianus Omnibus S.P.D.

Edictum Propraetoricium
about the appointment of a Scriba

I. Citizen Gnaeus Octavius Noricus is appointed as Scriba Propraetoris.

II. He�s requested to swear the required oath of office.

III. This edictum becomes effective immediately.

Given October 30 in the year of the Consulship of Marcus Octavius Germanicus and Lucius Cornelius Sulla, 2756 AUC.

Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Propraetor Germaniae


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] THE OPENING OF THE SEMIFINALS OF THE MAXIMI LUDI CIRCENSES!
From:	Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <christer.edling@telia.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 13:51:40 +0100

Salvete Quirites!

I HEREBY OPEN THE SEMIFINALS OF THE MAXIMI LUDI CIRCENSES!

This Semifinals of the Ludi Circenses will start today the 30th of
October. Please get to the Circus again and support your own
faction!!!

========

Please ignore the message just a minute ago about the Semifinals of
Ludi Victoria Circenses!

--
Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senator et Senior Curule Aedile
Propraetor Thules
AUCTOR LEGIONIS, Legio VII "Res Publica"
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
"Fautor Societatis Iuventutis Romanae"
************************************************
The homepage of Senior Curule Aedile
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus and his Cohors Aedilis
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/
************************************************
The homepage of the Nova Roma Provincia Thule:
http://thule.novaroma.org/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas and Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] The Religious Debate
From:	"Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa" <vipsaniusagrippa@hotmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Oct 2002 22:14:41 -0700

Salvete

One explanation for the differing treatment of Jews and Christians was
suggested by my Classics professor Dr. Chistopher Mackay (U of Alberta). He
stated that although both religions were monotheistic, Judaism had been
around for at least 3000 years while Christianity was a 'new age' religion.
In the early years no one was born a Christian; they had to have converted
from some other religion, whether it was Hellenic paganism, Judaism, Roman
paganism, etc. To a conservative Roman this was the equivalent of a slap in
the face to the converted person's ancestors.

Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa

_________________________________________________________________
Unlimited Internet access for only $21.95/month.� Try MSN!
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The Events of the Day and A Decision I've Made
From:	"scott dolleck" <billgatesson@hotmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 Oct 2002 23:41:02 -0700

Salvete omens,

This post is very upsetting.
To lose a great person like this is not good for NR.

A lot of the posts to the list I just trash because I just don't
have the time to read them, but the last few days I have read most of
them...and I am NOT happy with the way the NR list and NR are
going.I hope and pray to the gods (and or God) that this will change.
NR was a great thing years ago. I learned a lot about latin,
ancient rome, reenacting and other related subjects.
This is a very sad day in NR history.

This cr-p needs to stop or we will lose a lot more of our cives.

Still a citizen,

Lucius Avisius Seneca
Pax

>P. Cornelia Strabo Quiritibus Nova Roma S.P.D.
>
>I am back, after taking the day 'off' to find, hmmm, certainly some food
>for
>thought.
>
>I made an error, for which I apologize: I failed to convey to the person
>who approved the majority of pending messages that he should 'READ" them
>first, before shooting them through to the list...silly Po.
>
>(sic) "Holy deep fried crap on a stick", is not something I normally let
>pass..........among digressions on 'whores' et al, ....we have impuberes on
>the list.
>
>
>I have had letters from those who ask 'where their rights are' with respect
>to common courtesy and respect of 'their' belief system: they are
>citizens,
>they work hard for the republic, they respect the Religio, pay taxes, and
>they mind their own business otherwise.
>
>Truth be told, we are at the mercy of Religio Practitioners, who suddenly,
>as of late, choose 'not' to extend common courtesy, choose not to treat
>others in the manner they would like to be treated ( the Platinum rule as
>Iulia Vesp. alluded to earlier, except it applies to 'all' , not just
>Christians), and rather, feed into the emotional appeal that we are to
>assume penitance for stuff which Christians did 2300 years ago.
>
>We have no rights as nonpractitioners.....we have a double
>standard...citizenship is open without discrimination, the constitution
>says, but then it says that those who say anything about the Religio or its
>practitioners, even those who are obviously very fundamentalist, who
>promote
>religious prejudice, are subject to being called 'blasphemers'
>
>Unfortunately, the Vedian Constitution presumes that Pagans are going to be
>fair in their assignment of other faiths; the posts of late show otherwise.
>Consequently, aside from what I have already done, which has garnered
>nothing but contempt, I can do nothing as Praetor to protect you.
>
>And I read a post which passed referring to the 'error of Nazareth' by
>Galus...what is your name now? Yesterday it was Valerius.
>
>????
>
>Galus, I know you think you know alot, but who, prey tell, gives you the
>authority to call 'anyone' a mistake? Granted you do not have to believe
>that Jesus was the Son of God......but you have the arrogance to suggest
>that his very person is a 'mistake'......??? But the whole day has been
>spent, largely with your postings.....do you ever take time to eat or go do
>the bathroom??
>
>And this "error of Nazareth" stuff is allowed to pass, in my absence?
>
>And nobody, NOBODY has said "would you mind laying off the Christians here
>in Nova Roma, who do what they will and harm none? (sound familiar?) They
>choose to feed into the emotional stuff, like Pagan Pride, complaining,
>even
>after a warning from me, about woes in his areas of the world of the
>churches, and their 'campaigns'.
>
>Your apology, Galis, about the nice Christians of Nova Roma made two days
>ago carries no weight with me, because you just carry on with your
>accusations and selfrighteous pontifications. One day you refer to Jesus as
>the Christos, the next you make references to the 'error' of
>Nazareth'.......I don't even care if you were speaking of an idea..you are
>attributing human folly to one person, and you have no proof of this.
>
>
>I, Pompeia Cornelia....REFUSE to take responsibility for the works of
>Justinian, Theodosis, any more than I expect anyone to take responsibility
>for the decisions of Nero or Caligula
>
>I, Pompeia Cornelia....REFUSE to take responsibility for the emotional
>baggage anyone has suffered due to a bad run with some born agains...
>
>I, Pompeia Cornelia....REFUSE to take responsibility for ANYTHING other
>than
>my own actions
>
>I, Pompeia Cornelia...REFUSE to listen to people who stereotype
>macronational Christians as if they were united.......any more than I
>'lump'
>Pagans into one basket, or their beliefs, their needs, their feelings, etc.
>
>I, Pompeia Cornelia, REFUSE to pay taxes to this republic, or promote a
>republic whose faith is rooted in religious prejudice to the extent that a
>troll is allowed to first put its Christian citizens through the wringer,
>then proceeds to criticize experienced Practitioners in NOVA ROMA's view of
>the Religio, and a very Pontifex of her collegium.....
>
>This is not only freedom of speech......this is 'dangerous and disruptive'
>
>I don't know what to tell you nonpractitioners in the absence of appearing
>treasonous..... I don't see much we can do.
>
>As one person who wrote me privately put it: "I feel as welcome as a
>Bastard
>at a Family Reunion"....that sums it up quite nicely....
>
>But when it comes to hearing, in a forum I have been a part of for nearly
>three years, 'the error of Nazareth' and having such an ugly statement
>approved, my personal flame dims.
>
>I have felt an affinity for Rome since I was a child of about 9; I had a
>run
>with some fundamentalists, too, and because of that, I migrated to the
>ROMAN
>Catholic church, which to me, is the church for 'me'...not for everyone,
>but
>for me. Do I post 'blame' to others for it.... nor do I accuse anyone in
>remote association with them of 'clever conpiracies'...No. Hard as it was,
>I dusted myself off, and got on with life.
>
>But I have learned today, that despite my past association with NR that I
>am
>not 'truly' Roman, that I am 'responsible' for her destruction. Not just by
>Galus, but by others who chose to augment his affirmations, and by those
>who
>didn't care enough to say that he was being a bit out of line. Empathy and
>compassion have a habit of 'disappearing' around election time.....but
>then,
>if that is the case, we are sadly lacking in principle and virtue......
>
>Well, so be it. I will not give up my faith until I am ready, "IF" I am
>ever ready. I have had, well, a certain unexplainable experience with
>Apollo, which I have shared with a few practitioners and a Pontiff. He
>fits into the scheme of things somewhere, I know it, but I don't understand
>it.... but nowhere in that experience was I ever led to believe that I had
>to make a radical religious change......but this is 'spiritual stuff' and
>has very little to do with the religio, as Galus interprets it.
>
>Galus reminds me very much of a staunch fundamentalist, born again, hell
>fire and damnation, my way or the highway kind of Pagan....
>
>I have had answers to prayer from the 'error of Nazareth', and I shall not
>deny that, to win anyone's favour.
>
>This republic will crumble like a stale piece of bread unless attitudes
>toward one another drastically change.
>
>If I had a suspicious nature, the presence of two 'troll-like' citizens so
>close to election time might indicate they were being egged on, but
>ahh.....surely not here in Nova Roma.....:)
>
>You have as much political power in Nova Roma, it seems as 'magisterial
>clout' (clientalia?) to back you up......you could be elected quaestor and
>run the place with the right clout....those with the highest titles don't
>always run the show.......I hope I am wrong, but given my political
>experience, and how deeply certain individuals will plumb, the thought has
>crossed my mind.
>
>At any rate, I shall no longer be a part of the problems of Nova Roma, as I
>choose not to be the scapegoat for the demise of the Ancient Empire.
>
>I resign my position as Praetor of Nova Roma and Senator. I resign my
>position as Propraetor of Canada Orientalis Provincia, and all Office of
>Sodalitas Egressus and Sodalitas Musarum (breaks my heart)
>
>I shall keep in contact with Senator Marcus Minucius Audens regarding
>Militarium business, as I have promised, if he will have me, because I
>regard him as a dear friend, and I love Militarium, which presents a threat
>to nobody, but I do not expect I shall hold the illustrious titles he has
>given me while a citizen.
>
>I shall remain a member of Gens Cornelia, if my Pater, Lucius Cornelius
>Sulla Felix, whose posts I read and whose valour I was proud of today, if
>he
>will have me.
>
>This type of stuff is simply not tolerated in gens Cornelia, because it is
>not promoted by the Pater or his gens members.....for those who think we
>are
>bound to Cornelia by chains and a mote....probably explains why there are
>90
>some odd members in her Gens.
>
>Please do not write me reminding me 'not to quit', my 'vows' (I took an
>oath
>of office, not a perpetual vow) or any other sentiment. I have thought
>about this over the course of 36 hours, and my mind has been made up.
>
>Bene valete et Buona Fortuna
>
>P. Cornelia
>
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
>http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>

_________________________________________________________________
Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free!� Try MSN.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Amtseid / Oath of office (Scriba Propraetoris)
From:	"Gnaeus Octavius Noricus" <cn.octavius.noricus@gmx.at>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 14:21:13 +0100

I, Gnaeus Octavius Noricus (Klemens Edler) do hereby solemnly 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.

As a magistrate of Nova Roma, I, Gnaeus Octavius Noricus (Klemens Edler) swear to honor the Gods and Goddesses of Rome in my public dealings, and to pursue the Roman Virtues in my public and private life.

I, Gnaeus Octavius Noricus (Klemens Edler) swear to uphold and defend the Religio Romana as the State Religion of Nova Roma and swear never to act in a way that would threaten its status as the State Religion.

I, Gnaeus Octavius Noricus (Klemens Edler) swear to protect and defend the Constitution of Nova Roma.

I, Gnaeus Octavius Noricus (Klemens Edler) further swear to fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of the office of Scriba Propraetoris C. Flavii Diocletiani to the best of my abilities. 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 Scriba Propraetoris C. Flavii Diocletiani and all the rights, privileges, obligations, and responsibilities attendant
thereto.

Optime Valete!

Gnaeus Octavius Noricus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The Events of the Day and A Decision I've Made
From:	Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <christer.edling@telia.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 14:21:29 +0100

Salve Illustra Pompeia Cornelia Strabo, Amica!

I must admit that I haven' read many mails of the treads on religion.
I haven't had any time, I have not gone to bed until 02.00 the two
latest weeks and my interest isn't that high.

Now I read that You are resigning your positions as a Senator and
Praetor. I understand that You see this as something that must be
done. But, I think that it is bad for Nova Roma and that You should
stay. I am saying this as your friend. You know that I try to stay
out of meaningless conflicts. If there is something wrong here stay
with me and we will fight it together!

Please Po, don't resign!

>P. Cornelia Strabo Quiritibus Nova Roma S.P.D.
>Please do not write me reminding me 'not to quit', my 'vows' (I took an oath
>of office, not a perpetual vow) or any other sentiment. I have thought
>about this over the course of 36 hours, and my mind has been made up.
>
>Bene valete et Buona Fortuna
>
>P. Cornelia

--
Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senator et Senior Curule Aedile
Propraetor Thules
AUCTOR LEGIONIS, Legio VII "Res Publica"
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
"Fautor Societatis Iuventutis Romanae"
************************************************
The homepage of Senior Curule Aedile
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus and his Cohors Aedilis
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/
************************************************
The homepage of the Nova Roma Provincia Thule:
http://thule.novaroma.org/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas and Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The Events of the Day and A Decision I've Made
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:04:45 -0800

----- Original Message -----
From: Sextus Apollonius Scipio
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] The Events of the Day and A Decision I've Made

Salvete Omnes,

it is a sad day for Nova Roma. One of our best magistrates is walking away from
her duties. If I can do anything to make her come back, I will.
Discussions of the kind we have had are usefull because they set up the
standards of the society we would like to build.

Sulla: What kind of standard is hatred? What kind of standard are we setting when the only response from the Pontiffs is a "lecture on the virtues." Sorry, but this entire debate is BS, the response from our religious officials was wimpy to say the least. The Constitution in Nova Roma guarantees Religious Freedom and it quite frankly is not worth the paper its printed on when this type of Crap is posted.

However there is a way to talk
in order to tell citizens your ideas while still respecting their feelings.
Sulla: Yes, there is a way if are tolerant and open to differences. It is obvious that there are people in NR who are not tolerant and open and understanding. Those bad apples ruin the bunch.

This was not done.
This effort to respect people is called PIETAS. PIETAS should not be a vain
word for people that claim their Roman citizenship. PIETAS means respect to
other and self respect.

Sulla: Its hard to deal with the virtues when you have people who obviously have not read them, understand them or even know they exist. Yet they call themselves Roman.
I did not see a lot of PIETAS lately. Being Roman means acting as a Roman and
not only having a name.
To those that did not respect PIETAS, I propose to think about it as their
behaviour is an offence to the soul of the Roman citizens, past and present.
Therefore, I propose to those who were disrespectful to apologize on the Forum,
as a Roman would do.

Sulla: I am sorry but its going to take substantially more than that. I hereby join Nerva and will refuse to pay my taxes next year.

At the same time, and I know this has been proposed already but I do it again,
I propose to open a list for those who cannot talk respecting PIETAS.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Salvete,

--
Sextus Apollonius Scipio

Propraetor Galliae
Sodalitas Egressus, Praefectus for France
Scriba Explorator Primus Academiae Thules
Scriba Fiscalis Primus Academiae Thules
NRLandProject, acting Praefectus Pecuniae
French Translator

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through MailService.MS -> http://www.MailService.ms


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Farewell
From:	Centurion M Bianchius Antonius <imperialreign@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:07:01 -0800 (PST)

Sorry to see you go. It is unfortunate that you joined at this time, I must admit. This is the most lively this list has been for sometime. We seem to get into this type of debate about twice a year...and it is all the same. We all go off on everyones different believes then claim to respect them.
It will pass in a bit, then we get back to more Roman matters.
Take care,
Marcus Bianchius Antonius
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net> wrote:Salve Diotima Mortifera,

> I'm sorry to see, from tumultuous discussions on this list,
> that Nova Roma is indeed not the place I had thought it.

It is many things. It is a community of persons with very different
opinions, who sometimes engage in debate. But we also have common
interests, and the shared bond that results from that.

We're not merely about arguments on a mailing list. We have real-life
meetings, such as Roman Days (Maryland), the Fort Malden (Ontario)
and Lacus Magni (Ohio) events, and the Nova Roma Rally in Europe.
We assemble repositories of Roman cultural and historical resources
on our various web sites.

You've only been here a few days... but stay a while longer, and see
what Nova Roma is. Many of us find the current debate very interesting,
but if it repels you, you can delete those messages and wait for other
topics.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Prohibition of Galus Agorius Taurinus:Edictum
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 08:04:19 -0600 (CST)

> Galus Agorius Taurinus is now banned, permanently, from any and all
> Nova Roma events which take may take place within the province of
> Mediatlantica.

I hereby Veto your prohibition. He has been neither tried for nor
convicted of any wrongdoing.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The Events of the Day and A Decision I've Made
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 08:11:32 -0600 (CST)

Salve Praetrix Pompeia Cornelia,

I am sorry to see that you have come to this decision.

I need to leave here and catch a train now, but will reply at length
later this morning.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Prohibition of Galus Agorius Taurinus:Edictum Propraetoricium II Mediatlantica
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:13:17 -0800

We have no systems for Trial. As I pointed out previously.

So instead we allow productive people get essentially driven off of Nova Roma. Fine what a good micronation we have.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
----- Original Message -----
From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 6:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Prohibition of Galus Agorius Taurinus:Edictum Propraetoricium II Mediatlantica

> Galus Agorius Taurinus is now banned, permanently, from any and all
> Nova Roma events which take may take place within the province of
> Mediatlantica.

I hereby Veto your prohibition. He has been neither tried for nor
convicted of any wrongdoing.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Responses to Pompeia
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:36:25 -0800

Avete Omnes,

Citizens when you are responding to the post by ex-Praetor Pompeia Cornelia, please be aware that she is already off the ML. She left last nite.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The Events of the Day and A Decision I've Made
From:	"Brighn $Paul Kershaw$" <brighn@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 09:31:30 -0500

Vale, P. Cornelia:

You wrote:
"And nobody, NOBODY has said "would you mind laying off the Christians here
in Nova Roma, who do what they will and harm none? (sound familiar?) They
choose to feed into the emotional stuff, like Pagan Pride, complaining, even
after a warning from me, about woes in his areas of the world of the
churches, and their 'campaigns'."

I must confess a lack of diligence on my own part. When I saw yet another
heated dispute on Nova Roma, I chose to pass over it, for the most part,
only skimming items. Generally, I am quick to rebuke such abuses, as much as
it is within my personal role to do so, if only because those Religio who
act as Galis has acted tarnish our name.

I hope you know from personal experience with the members of Gens Valeria
Secvnda that we share our religion without forcing it, and we do not judge
Christians for their beliefs, and especially not for the actions of others.
It was a true honor and pleasure having you participate in our ritual this
summer, and it would be a deep shame if the comments of others on this list
permanently tainted your view of our faith.

Pax,
Festus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Prohibition of Galus Agorius Taurinus:Edictum Propraetoricium II Mediatlantica
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 07:10:33 -0800

Ave,

I did not counter my colleague's veto, but I am just disgusted at this entire episode. The wrong doer is protected while good and productive people leave! I think there is something wrong here.

Besides, if I did intercession my colleague, this citizen does have his constitutionally empowered appeal via a provactio. Instead of having my colleague veto, the people should decide. :)

But, honestly I don't care anymore. As I stated in a previous post the bad apples ruin the remainder of the good here in NR. When intolerance is allowed to speak and speak loudly without serious responses from our religious officials then truly has NR crossed a crossroads. I will protest this with my pocketbook. I will not pay, or continue to pay for taxes for anyone. If I lose my seat in the Senate, I do not care. This type of intolerance should be fought by everyone, Pagan, Xtian, Muslim or Jew. I fought it when I sued California Baptist College when they fired me because I am Jewish. And, I will fight it in NR, as long as I am here!

Vale.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

----- Original Message -----
From: Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 6:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Prohibition of Galus Agorius Taurinus:Edictum Propraetoricium II Mediatlantica

L. Cornelius Sulla writes:

> We have no systems for Trial. As I pointed out
> previously.

We have two things, respected Consul: the mos maiorum
and our constitution. From them we can do what
Romans have often had to do, devise a way to deal
with the situation using our own wits tempered by
the guidance of those who have gone before us.

Please Lucius Cornelius, you who have so often and
wisely counseled consideration and restraint, do not
now engage in a bitter public exchange with your
consular colleague over this. I understand that
the matter affects you personally, as Pompeia is
one of the bright shining lights of gens Cornelia,
but please, this is the time for you to lead by
your best example.

=====
Gnaeus Equitius Marinus

Scriba Aedilis Iuridicialis Primus to Senior Curule Aedile Caeso Fabius Quintilianus

The homepage of Senior Curule Aedile
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus and his Cohors Aedilis
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Prohibition of Galus Agorius Taurinus:Edictum Propraetoricium II Mediatlantica
From:	Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <equitius_marinus@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:57:14 -0800 (PST)

L. Cornelius Sulla writes:

> We have no systems for Trial. As I pointed out
> previously.

We have two things, respected Consul: the mos maiorum
and our constitution. From them we can do what
Romans have often had to do, devise a way to deal
with the situation using our own wits tempered by
the guidance of those who have gone before us.

Please Lucius Cornelius, you who have so often and
wisely counseled consideration and restraint, do not
now engage in a bitter public exchange with your
consular colleague over this. I understand that
the matter affects you personally, as Pompeia is
one of the bright shining lights of gens Cornelia,
but please, this is the time for you to lead by
your best example.

=====
Gnaeus Equitius Marinus

Scriba Aedilis Iuridicialis Primus to Senior Curule Aedile Caeso Fabius Quintilianus

The homepage of Senior Curule Aedile
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus and his Cohors Aedilis
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Prohibition of Galus Agorius Taurinus:Edictum Propraetoricium II Mediatlantica
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 08:08:53 -0800

----- Original Message -----
From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Prohibition of Galus Agorius Taurinus:Edictum Propraetoricium II Mediatlantica

Salve Colleague,

> The wrong doer is protected while good and productive people
> leave! I think there is something wrong here.

Will chasing another person away help?
Sulla: At this point there is a measure of quality. If he cannot live by the Constitution of Nova Roma that guarantees citizenship to people regardless of faith then obviously NR is not right for him.

Galus spoke with some excitement,

Sulla: Some excitement? That is an understatement.

and said some things that made
others uncomfortable.

Sulla: Uncomfortable? No, unwelcomed and hated is more accurate.

This happens in any active forum.

Sulla: I have been here for 5 years I am well aware of that.

But this
was a two-sided debate.... others were calling the pagans in
the late empire "criminals" who "had it coming", or holding up
mass murderers as admirable figures.

Sulla: Who called Pagans Criminals? I saw the post from Gaius who basically admitted to a double standard should be allowed to exist...that Pagans should be allowed to persecute the Xtians because the Xtians do not know the "Truth." I tried and I think I got the people to see the double standard that this guy so eagerly promoted.
Galus did not act alone in creating the hostility on the list
yesterday; the people who are now most eager to condemn him were
participants in the debate as well, and are equally at fault for
it escalation.

Sulla: Oh I see. Well I did not insult Pagans, nor did I go out of my way to create hostility. If anything I tried to have Gaius realize his own position in his argument. I tried to show that if he has such a strict attitude when Xtians persectued Jews then he should have the same attitude when Pagans persecuted Xtians. I guess I should blame myself for pissing him off by showing his shortcomings. What logic.

I find Nerva's statement that the pagan martyrs "had it coming" to
be just as offensive as Galus's "error of Nazareth".

Sulla: Why because the human concept of revenge is ingrained in us that it would be very difficult for the powers that be to use the power in the same manner it was used against them? Now I have never said the Pagans were right to persecute the Xtians NOR have I said the Xtians were right in persecuting the Pagans.

> Besides, if I did intercession my colleague,

That wouldn't work anyway... if a veto could be vetoed, I'd have
vetoed your veto last month.

Sulla: You couldn't. You proposed the law, I vetoed it. Here you vetoed a lower magistrate's action and I could disagree with you by intercessioing your veto.

> And, I will fight it in NR, as long as I am here!

Do so! But fight it with reasoned and calm counter-argument.

Sulla: I have. And however long I remain in NR I will continue to do so. Not just with well reasoned arguements but with my pocketbook as well.
Vale,

Sulla

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Prohibition of Galus Agorius Taurinus:Edictum
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 09:52:24 -0600 (CST)

Salve Colleague,

> The wrong doer is protected while good and productive people
> leave! I think there is something wrong here.

Will chasing another person away help?

Galus spoke with some excitement, and said some things that made
others uncomfortable. This happens in any active forum. But this
was a two-sided debate.... others were calling the pagans in
the late empire "criminals" who "had it coming", or holding up
mass murderers as admirable figures.

Galus did not act alone in creating the hostility on the list
yesterday; the people who are now most eager to condemn him were
participants in the debate as well, and are equally at fault for
it escalation.

I find Nerva's statement that the pagan martyrs "had it coming" to
be just as offensive as Galus's "error of Nazareth".

> Besides, if I did intercession my colleague,

That wouldn't work anyway... if a veto could be vetoed, I'd have
vetoed your veto last month.

> And, I will fight it in NR, as long as I am here!

Do so! But fight it with reasoned and calm counter-argument.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] List woes
From:	"Lucius Equitius" <vergil@starpower.net>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:29:21 -0500

Censor Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Quiritibus et Aliis Plurimam Salutem

I think that everyone ought to take a moment to consider how much they will allow the *opinions* of another effect themselves. Over the *years* I have been a citizen and magistrate I've felt obligated to receive the "main list" and read it. Many times it has been a tedious task indeed! I cannot begin to say how many times I've been angered by moronic, idiotic or downright false and misleading missives.
Yet I remain because to me the good and the potential good demand that I stay and do my best.

We all also need to consider how we will be effected by the *words* of another. We do have some new citizens who need to think about what they post and how it effects themselves as well as Nova Roma. They ought to remember they are *part* of a diverse group, but that we all have a love of Roma and are humans.

In the meantime I propose we take a few minutes to review some of the literature posted.
http://www.novaroma.org/main.html
http://www.novaroma.org/via_romana/virtues.html
http://www.novaroma.org/religio_romana/declaration_religio.html
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/constitution.html

Well said Festus:
"I for one have nothing against Christians. I do not personally agree with
the religion, but so long as Christians leave me to respect my Deities as I
see fit, without mockery or coersion, I owe them the respect of
reciprocation. The persecutions of the past are, hopefully, of the past,
both of Christians by Romans and of (non-Christian) Romans by Christians.

I speak to reassure you that the bigots do not speak for all of us.

Vale,
Festus"

Mar nos protegas

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The Events of the Day and A Decision I've Made
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 10:57:02 -0600 (CST)

Salvete Praetrix Pompeia Cornelia et Omnes,

> I made an error, for which I apologize: I failed to convey to the person
> who approved the majority of pending messages that he should 'READ" them
> first, before shooting them through to the list...silly Po.

You are referring to me; I approved most (perhaps all) of yesterday's
messages from Galus Agorius and other newcomers.

I did read them, and approved them, because they were not an "imminent and
clear danger to the Republic". There were uncomplimentary things said in
that debate, on both sides, and much of it from persons whose posts do
not require preapproval.

> among digressions on 'whores' et al, ....we have impuberes on the list.

There is nothing in the thread on prostitution that is unfit for young
people to read. Certainly, anyone old enough to be on this list at all
is aware that there are such things as prostitutes, and has an idea of
what they do. As there were no graphic descriptions of sex acts, and
the discussion was calm and civil, there was no reason to end it.

> Truth be told, we are at the mercy of Religio Practitioners, who suddenly,
> as of late, choose 'not' to extend common courtesy, choose not to treat
> others in the manner they would like to be treated

Please do not blame the other Religio Practitioners here for the actions
of one, or a few. Galus said some uncomplimentary things, and he was
criticized for this by his opponents in the debate.

> We have no rights as nonpractitioners.....we have a double standard...

This simply isn't true. Christians and Jews have held our highest offices,
and continue to do so. You also have the right to express your opinions
on this list - just as the Pagan citizens do - and both sides exercised
this right yesterday and on many previous occasions.

> Unfortunately, the Vedian Constitution presumes that Pagans are going to be
> fair in their assignment of other faiths; the posts of late show otherwise.

You've seen attacks from one pagan. What about the dozens of others here who
did not participate in the debate?

> And I read a post which passed referring to the 'error of Nazareth' by
> Galus...what is your name now? Yesterday it was Valerius. > > ????

Galus Agorius Taurinus. He initially applied to gens Valeria, but
couldn't get in, so he asked the Censores for a different nomen.

> And this "error of Nazareth" stuff is allowed to pass, in my absence?

It's a rather undiplomatic phrasing, granted, but it's his opinion and
should not be censored.

> And nobody, NOBODY has said "would you mind laying off the Christians here
> in Nova Roma, who do what they will and harm none?

We did call for calm and reasonable debate, last night; I did this, then
Cassius did (much more eloquently).

> I, Pompeia Cornelia, REFUSE to pay taxes to this republic, or promote a
> republic whose faith is rooted in religious prejudice to the extent that a
> troll is allowed to first put its Christian citizens through the wringer,

Galus's posts are not an indication that Nova Roma is rooted in religious
prejudice.

He was allowed to post because I believe free speech to be a basic human
right that should not be interfered with, except in extraordinary
circumstances.

He said some harsh things, and several people responded to him in equal
measure. That is how it should be.

> But I have learned today, that despite my past association with NR that I am
> not 'truly' Roman, that I am 'responsible' for her destruction. Not just by
> Galus, but by others who chose to augment his affirmations, and by those who
> didn't care enough to say that he was being a bit out of line.

I will say now that you are as Roman as any of us, as deserving of being here
as any of us, and that blaming you (and other modern Christians) for the actions
of Justinian and Theodosius is out of line.

> Galus reminds me very much of a staunch fundamentalist, born again, hell
> fire and damnation, my way or the highway kind of Pagan....

That may be... but don't let one person chase you away, after you have worked
so hard all these years.

> I resign my position as Praetor of Nova Roma and Senator. I resign my
> position as Propraetor of Canada Orientalis Provincia, and all Office of
> Sodalitas Egressus and Sodalitas Musarum (breaks my heart)

Please reconsider. You are well liked here, you've done good work over
the years, and are a worthy Senator and magistrate. Don't let all of that
disappear because a debate got a bit out of hand.

Valete, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: The Events of the Day and A Decision I've Made
From:	"Julilla Sempronia Magna" <curatrix@villaivlilla.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:59:02 -0000

Julilla Sempronia Magna cives NovaRomani SPD

I have followed the often reprehensible comparative religions
discussions because, even as the least of Nova Roma's magistrates, I
have always felt obliged to be aware of the converasations in our
Forum.

I made the error of thinking that it was beneath my personal dignitas
to comment on some of the more reprehensible posts to point out how
much at variance they have been with our established Roman virtues �
virtues which should be easy to follow irrespective of the personal
faith or belief system of any civis.

I refer you to this page of Nova Roma:
http://www.novaroma.org/via_romana/virtues.html. Note the statement
preceding the list:

"These are the qualities of life to which every Citizen (and,
ideally, everyone else) should aspire. They are the heart of the Via
Romana � the Roman Way � and are thought to be those qualities which
gave the Roman Republic the moral strength to conquer and civilize
the world.

"Today, they are the rods against which we can measure our own
behavior and character, and we can strive to better understand and
practice them in our everyday lives."

I call your attention to a few virtues in particular which I
personally feel deserve some reflection, given the statements of late:

Clementia: "Mercy" Mildness and gentleness
Prudentia: "Prudence" Foresight, wisdom, and personal discretion
Veritas: "Truthfulness" Honesty in dealing with others

I close with an important values statement by which I try hard to
live my life, in whatever I think, say or do:

"Is it the TRUTH?
Is if FAIR to all concerned?
Will it build GOOD WILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
Is it BENEFICIAL to all concerned?"

I close with one last virtue, which we all may need to weather the
current storm:

Patientia: "Endurance, Patience" The ability to weather storms and
crisis.

---
in amicitia,
@____@ Julilla Sempronia Magna
|||| www.villaivlilla.com/
@____@ Daily Life in Ancient Rome
|||| Rogatrix, MMDCCLV
Scriba, Nova Roma Curator Araneae
Curatrix Araneae,
America Boreoccidentalis
http://ambor.konoko.net


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Roman Exhibit in Western Canada
From:	"Quintus Lanius Paulinus" <mjk@datanet.ab.ca>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:47:35 -0000

Salvete Omnes,

There is an interesting Roman Empire exhibit at the Alberta
Provincial Museum in Edmonton, Alberta Canada occuring right now.
It was brought over from Italy and should be very interesting. I am
going to visit it in the next day or so and I'll send the lists a
summary of what I saw. I hope Nova Romans living in the area or may
be passing through over the next few weeks will have an opportunity
to see it.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Digest Number 243
From:	"william wheeler" <holyconelia@hotmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 17:05:02 +0000

Salve

Galus Agorius Taurinus is now banned, permanently,(^and made Nafis) from any
and all
Nova Roma events which take may take place within America Boreoccidentalis
Minor
.� And this office calls on all fellow Propraetors and Legates to
likewise ban him from all Nova Roma functions within their.
i also will not say his name in rites
cale

Marcus Cornelius Felix* Pontitff* Lictor Curiatus* Legate America
Boreoccidentalis Minore* *Sacerdos Primus America Boreoccidentalis* Gens
Sacerdos Cornelia
LUX ET CORNELIA AETERNA EST

_________________________________________________________________
Unlimited Internet access for only $21.95/month.� Try MSN!
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Gladiator
From:	"Lawrence D. Freeman" <larrythebear@askmamafreeman.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 17:15:02 -0000

Salvete!!!
Hail NOVA ROMANII, just to inform all group readers. Tonight I do not
know what channel it will be on, but at 8:00PM ET at least in the
Atlanta area there will be showing the movie Gladiator with never
before seen footage. I thought that all that are interested would
like to have at least a "heads up" on this so they could check their
local listings to see if the movie will be shown in their area also.
I have ATT broadband cable, but I do not think that makes to much of
a difference on the showing. Any way please check your local listings
for the movie. By the way (those who have dvd's may know this)there
eas over a hour of footage cut from the movie before itb was released
to the studio's.
VALETE EN PACE.
Laurenicus Flavius Magus.
ROMA VICTOR SEMPER EST.


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Old man responds
From:	"Frank & K.C." <shamrock@cros.net>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 17:08:49 -0000

Way back in '98 I was made the first Aedilis Curile of Nova Roma and
the first Praetor of Lacus Magni. I bring this up not to brag but to
establish the fact that I remember back in those early days , all the
dreams and plans that were at work to establish this noble nation.
Due to liver failure and a consquent transplant I had to leave for
three years. When I returned I was astounded to see what had
transpired in my absence. Unfortunately I sobered up a bit when I
read a recent post from a citizen who offered some dreams of his own
in regards to the land project. He stated that he was not in
the "power group" so had not previously come forward with his ideas.
This saddened me as I realized that he was right. I realize that
Roman politics are the subject of whole curriculums and that we are
recreating the actual atmosphere of mother Rome, but there is now
ample evidence that he is correct. The recent debate was very
informative to me as I learned much more here than I did while
majoring in history. I saw no great abuse from eaither side. It was,
however, a grand example of the punishment that can be unfairly
heaped on someone that incurs the wrath of the politicos that have
numerical strength. The debate was lively and informative but should
have been transferred to the Religio Romano list. For Galus Agorius
Taurinus to be banished for his part in an unwinable debate is
foolish and completely unfair.If he is to be banished then all that
participated are guilty and should be banished also. Senator Pompeia
Cornelia Strabo is an adult and should consider the old adage "If you
Talk the Talk, then Walk the Walk". She chose to leave on her own. So
respect her decision. For a Preator to act with such a knee jerk
reaction by banishment is plain wrong. For a Senator to threaten non -
payment of taxes in protest is plain imaturity. There is however one
person who needs to be applauded over his valerous decision to veto
the banishment. Senator Marcus Octavius Germanicus has shown great
wisdom and maturity in his decision and I am proud to be represented
by him. To all new citizens look to him for the dignity and glory
that you expected here in Nova Roma. There are some fair citizens
here. They are the non vocal majority. I trust they will remember
this during elections.

Ambrosius Silvanius Virbius


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Prohibition of Galus Agorius Taurinus:Edictum Propraetoricium II Mediatlantica
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@earthlink.net>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 09:24:12 -0800

----- Original Message -----
From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Prohibition of Galus Agorius Taurinus:Edictum Propraetoricium II Mediatlantica

Salve Colleague,

> Will chasing another person away help?
> Sulla: At this point there is a measure of quality. If he cannot
> live by the Constitution of Nova Roma that guarantees citizenship
> to people regardless of faith then obviously NR is not right for him.

I don't believe he said that non-pagans should not be citizens.
No, just that their persecutions were right and legal because they did not follow the "truth."

> Sulla: Who called Pagans Criminals?

Nerva: By practicing their criminal paganism, they were striking at
the power of the state. ... As lawbreakers, they "had it coming"

In Ancient Rome, after Xtianity was adopted as the offiical Religion of the Roman Empire they were criminals. Laws were passed, rightly or wrongly that made Paganism a criminal offense. History is not always pretty and sometimes can be very ugly but we cannot sanitize it or worse falsify it. Just like the persecutions against the Xtians was done according to the law.

> I saw the post from Gaius who basically admitted to a double standard
> should be allowed to exist...that Pagans should be allowed to persecute
> the Xtians because the Xtians do not know the "Truth." I tried and I
> think I got the people to see the double standard that this guy so eagerly promoted.

That's as it should be. He expressed his opinion, you expressed yours.

Yep.

> That wouldn't work anyway... if a veto could be vetoed, I'd have
> vetoed your veto last month.
>
> Sulla: You couldn't. You proposed the law, I vetoed it. Here you vetoed a
> lower magistrate's action and I could disagree with you by intercessioing your veto.

I am unaware of any law that states that a Consul's veto of a
Propraetor is subject to veto from his colleague but that a
Consul's veto of a Consul is not. I suppose that, if we were
to engage in such, it would be the Tribunes who eventually decide it.

Section IV, A 2 d. To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto) against another consul or magistrate of lesser authority; - Thus you could veto a lower magistrate, and I could intercessio your veto of that action.

Vale,

Sulla

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Prohibition of Galus Agorius Taurinus:Edictum Propraetoricium II Mediatlantica
From:	labienus@novaroma.org
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:37:19 US/Central

Salve Corneli Consul

First, let me state that I've missed most of the conversation. I've been
working 60+ hours per week for the last month, and haven't had either the time
or the energy for much else. Therefore, I shall limit my comments purely to
the logic of your protest.

> Sulla: At this point there is a measure of quality. If he cannot live by
> the Constitution of Nova Roma that guarantees citizenship to people
> regardless of faith then obviously NR is not right for him.

Taurinus is not a magistrate. He has, to my knowledge, lived by the
constitution in that he has exercised his right to participate freely in this
forum. The constitution does not mandate that one must ensure that others will
not be offended when one opens one's mouth. More to the point, his options for
violating the constitution are extremely limited as a privatus. He most
certainly cannot interfere with others' right to be citizens regardless of
faith. Only the censores have the ability to break the law in such a manner.

> Sulla: I have. And however long I remain in NR I will continue to do so.
> Not just with well reasoned arguements but with my pocketbook as well.

In what way will withholding your taxes actually combat the kind of bigotry
that you perceive in Taurinus? Do you want the state to severely limit free
speech, effectively declaring certain sentiments to be thought crimes? If so,
do remember that one can never be certain that one will not be the target of
such powers in future, even if the people one dislikes are the target of them
now. If not, then what would you have the state do?

You'll note that I mention the state, for the primary victim of withholding
your taxes is Nova Roma. Indeed, an argument could be made that you are
violating your oath of office by advocating such a boycott, as you are
unequivocally advocating an action which is not in the best interests of the
Res Publica. In any case, the act does not directly affect any bigot, nor will
it remove bigotry from Nova Roma.

The second victim is you, yourself. By voluntarily removing your ability to
vote or sit in the Senate, you are removing your voice within the state. If
you fail to pay your taxes while Taurinus pays his, he is substantially more
capable of determining the direction in which Nova Roma shall travel than you
are. This directly benefits those whom you wish to hurt, and it will not
remove bigotry from Nova Roma.

And now, I return to attempting to meet an impossible deadline. However, I
will be endeavoring to keep up with the list traffic now that my collega, who
formerly shouldered the burden of list moderation, has unfortunately resigned.

Vale
T Labienus Fortunatus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Prohibition of Galus Agorius Taurinus:Edictum Propraetoricium II Mediatlantica
From:	Sextus Apollonius Scipio <scipio_apollonius@mailservice.ms>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:37:06 +0100

Salve Honored Consul Sulla and Omnes,

> I will protest
> this with my pocketbook. I will not pay, or continue to pay for taxes for
> anyone. If I lose my seat in the Senate, I do not care.

Quite frankly, honored Consul, I do not see how you will make the situation any
better by not paying the taxes.
I do understand your feelings, Pompeia Cornelia Strabo is a very good
magistrate and a member of your gens.
However I suppose that a more moderate stance would be more helpful. We will
not solve this problem by taking extreme decisions or positions.
Let see what our constitution or our Mos Maiorum has to offer on this matter.
I am quite sure that Nova Roma will learn a lot from this and will continue
even stronger and more united.

Respectfully,

--
Sextus Apollonius Scipio

Propraetor Galliae
Sodalitas Egressus, Praefectus for France
Scriba Explorator Primus Academiae Thules
Scriba Fiscalis Primus Academiae Thules
NRLandProject, acting Praefectus Pecuniae
French Translator

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through MailService.MS -> http://www.MailService.ms


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Digest Number 243
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:24:07 -0600 (CST)

Salve Marce Corneli,

> Galus Agorius Taurinus is now banned, permanently,(^and made Nafis) from any
> and all Nova Roma events which take may take place within America Boreoccidentalis
> Minor .� And this office calls on all fellow Propraetors and Legates to
> likewise ban him from all Nova Roma functions within their.

The ban is vetoed.

This citizen has not been convicted of any crime, and he
will not be banned from any events based on personal whim
of any magistrate.

> i also will not say his name in rites

That is your choice.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Prohibition of Galus Agorius Taurinus:Edictum
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:12:06 -0600 (CST)

Salve Colleague,

> Will chasing another person away help?
> Sulla: At this point there is a measure of quality. If he cannot
> live by the Constitution of Nova Roma that guarantees citizenship
> to people regardless of faith then obviously NR is not right for him.

I don't believe he said that non-pagans should not be citizens.

> Sulla: Who called Pagans Criminals?

Nerva: By practicing their criminal paganism, they were striking at
the power of the state. ... As lawbreakers, they "had it coming"

> I saw the post from Gaius who basically admitted to a double standard
> should be allowed to exist...that Pagans should be allowed to persecute
> the Xtians because the Xtians do not know the "Truth." I tried and I
> think I got the people to see the double standard that this guy so eagerly promoted.

That's as it should be. He expressed his opinion, you expressed yours.

> That wouldn't work anyway... if a veto could be vetoed, I'd have
> vetoed your veto last month.
>
> Sulla: You couldn't. You proposed the law, I vetoed it. Here you vetoed a
> lower magistrate's action and I could disagree with you by intercessioing your veto.

I am unaware of any law that states that a Consul's veto of a
Propraetor is subject to veto from his colleague but that a
Consul's veto of a Consul is not. I suppose that, if we were
to engage in such, it would be the Tribunes who eventually decide it.

> Sulla: I have. And however long I remain in NR I will continue to do so.
> Not just with well reasoned arguements but with my pocketbook as well.

Then I pledge to donate an additional $24 next year, to make up the loss.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Open letter to the Praetor (reprise)
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Jamie=20Johnston?= <jamiekjohnston@yahoo.co.uk>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 17:31:34 +0000 (GMT)

Well, a week ago today (Wednesday) I made a formal request on this list for the Praetors to rule two statements made by another list member out of order. For those who wish to remind themselves, here are the references:

Message 3514 was that in which I made the request
Message 3537 was that in which I provided references for the posts mentioned in the aforementioned letter (if you follow me!)

Well, much has changed in the last week, and we now sadly have only one Praetor, but one thing which has not changed is that there has been no indication whether my request is upheld or denied, nor has any reason been stated for ignoring or delaying my request.

So, I hereby call upon the Praetor T. Labienus Fortunatus to state whether he upholds or denies my request, or failing that to give his reasons for delaying his response and to state when he expects to be able to give an answer.

Thanks,

Jamie

www.strategikon.org

---------------------------------
Get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your needs.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Freedom of Speach
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 10:14:22 -0800 (PST)

Salve Quirites,
Freedom of speach does not mean that you have a moral
blank check. If you make comments that others find
morally offensive, they have the right to judge you by
the comments you make.

If someone continues to make comments that the
majority of citizens find repugnant, they will soon
find themselves shunned and ridiculed. The proper
response to offensive views in a free society is to
let the person making them know exactly how little you
value his ideas.

=====
L. Sicinius Drusus

"Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."
(A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.)
Seneca, Letters to Lucilius

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Some reflections on the resignation of Cornelia Strabo
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Jamie=20Johnston?= <jamiekjohnston@yahoo.co.uk>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 17:19:14 +0000 (GMT)

Citizens and other members of this list, I hope you will not take offence if I offer some thoughts on important issues which strike me as arising from the unfortunate decision of our former Praetor.

I should like to make it absolutely clear that nothing I shall say is intended as a personal criticism of anyone, nor as anything more authoritative than a statement of my own opinion.

The first thing to strike me about Cornelia Strabo's resignation is that it is most unfortunate, and a great shame. I do not know her personally, and I do not always agree with her, but I consider that, at least since I have been a member of this list, she has acted in what she considered to be the best interests of the state.

Secondly, however, I feel compelled to say that to my mind her decision to resign from the Praetorship on the grounds on which she did so was irresponsible in the extreme. A magistrate is a servant of the state, and is under obligation to fulfill the duties attached to his or her office. It is fair enough for a magistrate to resign if he or she feels unable to perform those duties adequately, or if he or she has lost the confidence of the electorate. Neither or these are reasons cited by Strabo for her resignation.

What reasons were given? I'm not entirely clear, but as far as I can tell her resignation was in protest against the unpleasantness, as she saw it, of some of the discussions which have taken place recently on the list, and in protest against the fact that the state allowed such things to occur. To my mind, neither of these are acceptable grounds for a magistrate to resign his or her office.

People are, from time to time, unpleasant toward one another: it is deplorable and unnecessary, but how can a state function if its officials resign their posts whenever anyone behaves unpleasantly? And to blame the state for allowing its citizens to be unpleasant strikes me as grossly unfair.

There are procedures in place for those who consider that their constitutional rights have been or are being infringed: appeal to the tribunes, who are the guarantors and guardians of the constitution, and appeal to the Praetors, who are specifically responsible for the moderation of the main list, are the most obvious. The resignation of a Praetor is not one of the mechanisms by which constitutional rights are unheld in this state.

Moreover, I cannot understand what the former Praetor considers she can achieve by her resignation. If a Praetor considers a discussion on the main list inappropriate, he or she is one of the two people in the entire state with the most immediate power to set matters right - not by resigning that power, but by exercising it. Personally I consider that for anyone to react to what they consider wrong-doing by leaving and refusing to have anything to do with it is, on the best view, not as good as attempting to stop it; but for one of the two people best able to stop it to omit to do so and then to discard that power in protest against his or her own failure to exercise it constructively is absurd.

And further, quite apart from the resignation of a magistrate on any grounds, however justified, it strikes me that for a Senator to resign from the Senate over an issue which has nothing to do with his or her ability to serve the state as a Senator, and for a Propraetor to resign his or her office over an issue which has nothing to do with his or her ability to fulfill that function, is to me equally irresponsible and shows an utter disregard for the good of the state and of those under his or her responsibility.

I have gone on about Strabo for long enough, but I should like briefly to direct a few words to those who have already or are considering joining her in witholding their taxes and / or their service to the republic over this issue: the state is not to blame for the conduct of its citizens, and witholding taxes and service can only injure the state and its entire population. It cannot do anyone any benefit, it cannot help anyone who feels they have been wronged, and it cannot change the system to be fairer and more equitable. To do any of these things requires action, not inaction. To enable the state to protect its citizens from infringement of their rights requires support of the state, not the withdrawal of support.

Finally, to anyone who considered that their rights have been infringed, they can expect no sympathy from me if they fail to follow the freely available channels provided by the state for their protection. If they consider that the system does not provide adequate protection, it is incumbent on them to change the system for the good of themselves and of others who may be in their position in the future. I gather from the former Praetor's post that she received a number of complaints from members of the list. These members did the right thing: it is not their fault that the magistrate they trusted to address their grievances abandoned her post rather than try to help them. But the system is still there; the constitution guarantees certain basic rights and freedoms; there are magistrates and other officers whose responsibility it is to uphold the consititution, and not all of these have abandoned their responsibilities. The state is there to protect you: use it.

Thanks for your time, citizens and members.

Jamie

www.strategikon.org

---------------------------------
Get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your needs.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Freedom of Speach
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 12:20:06 -0600 (CST)

Salve Luci Sicini,

> Freedom of speach does not mean that you have a moral
> blank check. If you make comments that others find
> morally offensive, they have the right to judge you by
> the comments you make.

I am absolutely in agreement with this. When someone says
something disagreeable or offensive, it is quite right to
counter their argument with your own, or refuse any contact
with that person.

But I must fight against any attempts to banish a person,
or forbid him from attending public events, merely because
of his opinions or his argumentative style.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Statement to Nova Roma and a word of thanks
From:	"g_agorius_taurinus" <g_agorius_taurinus@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 17:46:24 -0000

To all the Citizens of Nova Roma:

I wish to express my heartfelt appreciation to the noble Marcus
Octavius Germanicus, and to the wisdom of Ambrosius Silvanius
Virbius, for their words today. They are men of honor, and they
represent all that is noble and fair in Nova Roma, and in the greater
web of human relations and politics.

I was rather shocked to see how offended some of the people here
became over a historical debate, and at how far out of context some
of my words have been taken.

I was just going to leave NR, before private letters arrived from
citizens asking me to stay, and informing me of the politics "behind
the scenes" here.

I'd like to say that I will be staying; and furthermore, I'd like to
state, to Pompeia Cornelia that I am regretful that she feels the
need to make such a drastic move, but I cannot feel responsible for
her decisions. Surely she has seen one or two days of heated debate
before in her career at Nova Roma; I can hardly believe that this
particular debate, and my involvement in it, was the ONLY reason that
she chose to step down.

I hereby apologize to all those offended by my words;

I would like to categorically state that I do not favor the political
or social exclusion of any person in Nova Roma based on religious
preference; my words in debate were about history and history only.
Clearly, If I thought that the christians here in modern day Nova
Roma felt the same way that the early christians did 1800 years ago,
I wouldn't even have come here.

I still uphold my sincere belief that Paganism was and is the
backbone of Rome; and agree with the words of Flavius Claudius
Julianus, that Paganism is the rightful and natural religion of the
Roman peoples, of any era. This does not exclude anyone, but it makes
a statement of holy and sacred factual tradition.

And finally, for those who have taken steps to exlude me or banish me
from events, based on two days of bantering on an e-list: I think
that you have shown your bias against people who have differing
opinions, and that you are ruled not by reason and fairness, but over-
emotionalism. Even with your views contrary to mine, I would not have
banned you from my province, had I been in a position of power to do
so. It's because I realize that there is more to a person than their
opinions about history or religion.

Vale, and Praise to the Magna Mater and All the Gods of our People

Galus Agorius Taurinus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Animal sacrifice or BBQ? Both?
From:	"Frank & K.C." <shamrock@cros.net>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 14:56:31 -0000

"Christopher L. Wood" <xwood@u...> wrote:
> All this talk of sacrifice has got me hungry.... really! When I
look at
> the ancient public sacrifices, with 10,000 bulls and what not, I
have to
> think: Where did all that meat go? Surely the ancients weren't so
stupid
> as to believe that the gods really needed to eat it? No, of course
not -
> parts of the victim (usually the parts humans wouldn't want anyway)
> were dedicated to the gods and burned on an altar, and then the
rest was
> "profanated", that is, taken back from the gods, and distributed to
> the people. When I picture a Roman public sacrifice, I see a scene
not
> entirely unlike a big barbecue party - but with solemn prayers and
ritual
> to remind everyone to whom to be thankful for this bounty. Also,
extra meat
> from the sacrifices was sold in butcher shops to the public. This
has led me
> to wonder: where did the idea of sacrifice come from?
>
>>
> Tiberius Ambrosius Silvus

Salve,
Tiberius Ambrosius Silvus

I decided to take a pause from my studying of the Religio subjects of
Rome and the subject of my new post as Septemviri Epulones. From the
amount of posts since the last time I looked in ( 2 weeks ago) I must
have missed some real sparring. I tried to glance thru most of the
posts but I quickly realized that this thread was a dead end with
only a few results available. Unfortunately I realized this when I
came upon Pompeia Cornelia Strabo resignation. I usaually stay away
from this type of argument as A. I'm Irish and only glib when it
comes to hedonistic pleasures and B. I have very little talent for
debate as my attention starts to waiver after a few minutes. I did
however appreciate your post regarding sacrifices. It was very
insightful and plausable and thus it made me realize the evolution of
offerings. My duty as Epulones is to help establish the organization
of the great feasts during the Ludis , specifically the Epulum Lovis.
There is very little information available to the actual workings of
the office or for that matter the formulation of the Feasts. Your
post was like a breath of fresh air as I have been "dwelling" for
days on various websites, struggling thru very bad translations in a
myriad of different languages. You made me wonder - Is barbeque a tad
bit too radical for NR's festivals? ;) I am always all ears when
anyone is willing to offer me suggestions or knowledge that I'm
completely missing and I'm never too proud to take any suggestions
from citizens.Thanks again for your input.

Ambrosius Silvanius Virbius
Epulones


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Truth that was lost: Proof of Justin's crimes
From:	"radams36" <radams36@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 19:14:08 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@e...> wrote:
> Avete Propraetor,
>
> That was exactly my point! A Double standard is a curse! And
when, and it usually happens, but when the power shifts you cannot
but expect retribution. It was an unfortunate historic fact.
Hopefully we all have learned from that and are more accepting. May
Nova Roma continue to be more tolerant in regards to our citizens
personal beliefs!
>
> Vale,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Consul
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: gcassiusnerva
> To: Nova-Roma@y...
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:03 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Truth that was lost: Proof of Justin's
crimes
>
>
> Sulla,
>
> I do not know why Taurinus is so upset about Theodosius and
> Justinian. If we apply his own reasoning, we can say that the
pagans
> were breaking the law. By practicing their criminal paganism, they
> were striking at the power of the state. They were warned, they
> ignored the warning, and so they were killed. As lawbreakers,
they
> "had it coming".
> What's good for the goose...
>
> And what is this nonsense about Justinian's "crimes". A crime is
a
> breaking of a law. As a despot, Justinian WAS the law. If he
wishes
> paganism to be illegal, then paganism is illegal. If he wishes to
> kill the criminal pagans, then....well, who asked them to remain
> pagan? "Taurinian reasoning" would say, "It was the pagans
fault".
> He does seem to demand different standards for his pagan heros,
> doesn't he?
>
> Nerva
(SNIP)

A hearty "Well Said" to you both, gentlemen!

Taurinus seems to have some intelligence and to have done some
research, but his ability to think logically and objectively seems to
be sadly lacking, as Nerva so astutely and correctly points out. It's
sad to see potentially worthy intellect twisted to such poor ends,
especially to support an unsupportable position like this. I've
always found this kind of intolerant fanaticism distasteful, whether
it comes from proponents of my own religion, or others. You both
clearly take the high road of tolerance that I also try to adhere to.
Besides, I now have no need to reply to the often offensive and
bigoted postings referred to here, as you have both so cogently
rebutted them already. Thanks for saving me the effort!

Vale bene,

Rufus Iulius Palaeologus


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Prohibition of Galus Agorius Taurinus:Edictum Propraetoricium II Mediatlantica
From:	"gcassiusnerva" <gcassiusnerva@cs.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:48:55 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@c...> wrote:
> Sulla: Who called Pagans Criminals?
>
> Nerva: By practicing their criminal paganism, they were striking at
> the power of the state. ... As lawbreakers, they "had it coming"

Consul Octavius,

I must insist that you re-read that post. I said IF WE APPLY HIS
{Taurinus} REASONING, we can conclude the pagans were criminals who
had it coming. The post was nothing more than an application of
Taurinus own "logic" in the reverse.

G.C. Nerva


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: The Events of the Day and A Decision I've Made
From:	"lithia_cassia" <mscommunication@attbi.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 19:03:46 -0000

I would like to apologize for using the slang that I did "holy ----- -
---- on a stick!", and also I apologize for bringing up the subject
of prostitutes on a message board with minors on it. I had not
realized there were minors on this board.


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Prohibition of Galus Agorius Taurinus:Edictum Propraetoricium II Mediatlantica
From:	"g_agorius_taurinus" <g_agorius_taurinus@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:54:51 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "gcassiusnerva" <gcassiusnerva@c...> wrote:

> Consul Octavius,
>
> I must insist that you re-read that post. I said IF WE APPLY
HIS
> {Taurinus} REASONING, we can conclude the pagans were criminals who
> had it coming. The post was nothing more than an application of
> Taurinus own "logic" in the reverse.
>
> G.C. Nerva

Nerva, you are still ignoring my over-arching point: A Roman state
that outlaws paganism is not a Roman state, and the person who makes
those laws has no moral authority to do so. The pagans were not
therefore "criminals", but people who were defending and adhereing to
the best principles of what Rome was, while Rome was fallen into
chaos and corruption.

You can't use "reverse logic" here- it doesn't work in the other
direction. There was no Rome without the Religio.

Taurinus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Prohibition of Galus Agorius Taurinus:Edictum
From:	Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <christer.edling@telia.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 20:13:28 +0100

Salve Junior Consul!

>We have no systems for Trial. As I pointed out previously.

Who has been responsible to create such? Why is there no such law?
But we do have two edicta, that maybe could be used.

Praetor Illustrus Caius Flavius Diocletianus issued this "Edictum
Praetoris Praetoricium de Iurisdictio - Procedures for civil suits"

and

Senior Curule Aedile Caeso Fabius Quintilianus issued this edictum:
"EDICTUM AEDILICIUM XIV
Investigation of Charges and Complaints"

Those who want to complain or make a charge of wrongdoing may look
into these. The possible transgression has occured during the Ludi
Victoria, which gives me a certain power,but it must be activated by
someone who feel that something wrong has been done.

>So instead we allow productive people get essentially driven off of
>Nova Roma. Fine what a good micronation we have.

Do You feel that Po was forced? As far as I understood when I read
her mail, she thought about it quite alone by herself and decided for
herself to resign. Even if I miss her, I feel that she could maybe
have used her positions to see if there was something she could have
done. At least I can't see that resigning has made anything better.

At 06.04 -0800 02-10-30, L. Cornelius Sulla wrote:
>Sulla: I am sorry but its going to take substantially more than
>that. I hereby join Nerva and will refuse to pay my taxes next
>year.

What good will that do?

>Vale,
>
>Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

--
Vale

Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Senator et Senior Curule Aedile
Propraetor Thules
AUCTOR LEGIONIS, Legio VII "Res Publica"
Sodalitas Egressus Beneficarius et Praefectus Provincia Thules
"Fautor Societatis Iuventutis Romanae"
************************************************
The homepage of Senior Curule Aedile
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus and his Cohors Aedilis
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/
************************************************
The homepage of the Nova Roma Provincia Thule:
http://thule.novaroma.org/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas and Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] GLADIATOR CORRECTION
From:	"Lawrence D. Freeman" <larrythebear@askmamafreeman.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 19:36:35 -0000

Salvete!!!
Please excuse the earlier mistake. The movie Gladiator will be shown
Friday night instead of tonight. My appologises for the mix up.
Valete!!!
Laurenicus Flavius Magus.
ROMA VICTOR SEMPER EST.


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Prohibition of Galus Agorius Taurinus:Edictum
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@konoko.net>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:33:19 -0600 (CST)

Salve Colleague,

> I don't believe he said that non-pagans should not be citizens.

> No, just that their persecutions were right and legal because they
> did not follow the "truth."

He was speaking of persons who lived 1800 years ago; I did not see him
advocate ejecting any of our citizens who do not honor the Gods of Rome.
He was not tearing down our Constitution, but was speaking on a historical
issue.

> Section IV, A 2 d. To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto)
> against another consul or magistrate of lesser authority; -

> Thus you could veto a lower magistrate, and I could intercessio your veto of that action.

That still does not state that vetoes of lower magistrates are themselves
subject to veto, but vetoes of an equal magistrate or not.

If a Consul's veto is itself subject to veto, then both my veto of
G. Cassius and M. Cornelius and your veto of my gens reform last month
are equally susceptible to this. Nothing in the Constitution
states otherwise. (And, were such to take place, I'd then veto the
veto of the veto, and we have ourselves an infinite loop...)

I think a much more sane interpretation would be to have the Consul's
veto not itself subject to veto by Consul or even Tribune; this
preserves its intended purpose. I will work on a law specifying
this.

Vale, Octavius.

--
Marcus Octavius Germanicus
Consul of Nova Roma, MMDCCLV a.u.c.
Curator Araneum et Senator


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Freedom of Speach
From:	"radams36" <radams36@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 19:48:15 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@y...> wrote:
> Salve Quirites,
> Freedom of speach does not mean that you have a moral
> blank check. If you make comments that others find
> morally offensive, they have the right to judge you by
> the comments you make.
>
> If someone continues to make comments that the
> majority of citizens find repugnant, they will soon
> find themselves shunned and ridiculed. The proper
> response to offensive views in a free society is to
> let the person making them know exactly how little you
> value his ideas.
>
>
> =====
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> "Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."
> (A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.)
> Seneca, Letters to Lucilius
>

Once again, as is so often the case, good Druse, I find myself in
complete agreement with you. My own personal policy has been, once I
reach a certain 'saturation point', to deal with this kind of thing
by simply ignoring it altogether. Many of the earlier posts seemed to
me to be both intolerant and illogical, and provocative to be sure.
For the time being, though, I will accept the apology Galus proferred
in his latest missive, and proceed with tabula rasa from here.

Thanks for your own sage words on the issue!

Vale,

Rufus Iulius Palaeologus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Some reflections on the resignation of Cornelia Strabo
From:	Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <equitius_marinus@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 12:09:33 -0800 (PST)

Jamie Johnston writes:

[Concerning Pompeia Cornelia Strabo's resignation
from the Praetorship and all other magesterial and
senatorial offices]

> Secondly, however, I feel compelled to say that to
> my mind her decision to resign from the Praetorship
> on the grounds on which she did so was irresponsible
> in the extreme.

I read her explanation as saying that she could not
in conscience uphold her oaths of office any longer,
because they bind her to the protection of the
Religio Romana. Therefore she resigned from all the
offices which had required that oathbinding from her.

I think she wants to feel at liberty to speak out
against those people she considers religious bigots.
Of course, I could be wrong. But that was my take
on her logic.

=====
Gnaeus Equitius Marinus

Scriba Aedilis Iuridicialis Primus to Senior Curule Aedile Caeso Fabius Quintilianus

The homepage of Senior Curule Aedile
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus and his Cohors Aedilis
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Your attention please
From:	"radams36" <radams36@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 19:16:01 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "Gaius Galerius Peregrinator"
<gaiusgalerius@h...> wrote:
>
>
> Salvete omnes:
>
> Although not a Pagan myself, I put out a pro-pagan post
sometime ago.
> But some of what has been coming out from that camp, in the last
few days,
> is regrettable. Many good and decent people have been offended
including
> some of my friends, and I certainly do not stand for that, and
cannot defend
> that.
>
> I am all for free discourse, and that means you can be
critical, and you
> can be provocative, and to be free also means responsible. But the
> viciousness, vindictiveness, and zealotry coming out, and on, and
on, and
> on...is way beyond what's acceptable and responsible, and I want to
distance
> myself from that.
>
> Furthermore, this forum is not a chat room. I come home and my
box is
> full, with but 2 maybe 3 posts worth the time to read. NR has a
chat room.
> Please use it.
>
> Valete
>
> Galerius Peregrinator.
>

I salute your tolerant, humane, and intelligent approach, amice. Your
example is a good one for us all to follow!

Vale,

Rufus Iulius Palaeologus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Prohibition of Galus Agorius Taurinus:Edictum Propraetoricium II Mediatlantica
From:	Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <equitius_marinus@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 12:41:15 -0800 (PST)

Galus Agorius Taurinus writes:

> A Roman state that outlaws paganism is not a Roman
> state, and the person who makes those laws has no
> moral authority to do so. The pagans were not
> therefore "criminals", but people who were defending
> and adhereing to the best principles of what Rome
> was, while Rome was fallen into chaos and
corruption.

What an interesting bit of slippery philosophy.

It looks like the standard rationalization of
reactionaries: The change <X> has invalidated the
legitimacy of government, therefore rebellion
against the government is now permitted.

Given its self-referential nature, it has a certain
appeal, but I expect a more pragmatic understanding
of how the world works from Romans. You might as
easily claim that a Roman state which outlaws its
kings
has no moral authority. I'm sure Tarquinus Superbus
would agree with that.

Whether you like it or not, Rome did not vanish from
the face of the Earth. A Roman state continued to
exist for centuries after the Religio Romana was
banned.

But please, go on. The Ludi Victoria continue,
and a good farce is always welcome after the chariot
races. You're very entertaining...

=====
Gnaeus Equitius Marinus

Scriba Aedilis Iuridicialis Primus to Senior Curule Aedile Caeso Fabius Quintilianus

The homepage of Senior Curule Aedile
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus and his Cohors Aedilis
http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Prostitution in Nova Roma
From:	me-in-@disguise.co.uk
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 20:51:53 +0000 (GMT)

-----Original Message-----
>From : lithia_cassia <mscommunication@attbi.com>
[quote]
>Feminism appears to have done no more than give women better reasons
>to believe sex degrading and subordinating
>[/quote]
>
>Oh holy deep fried crap on a stick. Funny, I thought men did a
>pretty good job of THAT all on their own.
>
That is a feminist response: passing the buck to men instead of taking the responsibility that confers authority. The matter is irrelevent anyway; far more women enjoy the power of flaunting themselves over the web than men, just as always was the situation before there was a Web and it was the Churches instead of feminists telling them to believe pornography something degrading to them that only men could enjoy.
Vib Ambr Caes.

--
Personalised email by http://another.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Prohibition of Galus Agorius Taurinus:Edictum Propraetoricium II Mediatlantica
From:	"William Rogers" <wlr107@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 20:53:00 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "g_agorius_taurinus" <g_agorius_taurinus@y...>
wrote:
> --- In Nova-Roma@y..., "gcassiusnerva" <gcassiusnerva@c...> wrote:
>
> Nerva, you are still ignoring my over-arching point: A Roman state
> that outlaws paganism is not a Roman state, and the person who
makes those laws has no moral authority to do so. The pagans were not
> therefore "criminals", but people who were defending and adhereing
to the best principles of what Rome was, while Rome was fallen into
> chaos and corruption.
>
> You can't use "reverse logic" here- it doesn't work in the other
> direction. There was no Rome without the Religio.
>
>
> Taurinus

Sir,

>From what I have read, NO ONE is EVEN CONSIDERING outlawing paganism.
What I HAVE seen is some bitter past experiences coming to light, and
being placed at the feet of individuals who did NOTHING to each other
but express their views.

What I have seen is the most horrific brand of angry, determined HATE
mail sent to others!

STOP THIS!

I absolutely DO NOT CARE IF YOU ARE MUSULM, PAGAN, PROTESTANT
CATHOLIC, LIBERAL, MODERATE, CONSERVATIVE, WHATEVER!

The ROME I know of and love is INCLUSIVE, NOT exclusive! And my FIRST
questions is: WHO HERE HAS THE RIGHT TO SAY THAT A DEAD GUY'S VIEWS
CAN BE APPLIED TO ME!?!

Answer: NO ONE HERE! That DEAD guy is NOT here to EXPLAIN what he/she
meant by their actions or words. NO ONE here is so knowledgeable
about a DEAD guy's views as to say I believe like they did, yadda,
yadda, yadda!

WAKE THE HECK UP AND SEE WHAT YOU ARE DOING!

I say this in all humility and sincerety:

If you cannot find a way to work for the COMMON GOOD of NOVA
ROMA, walk out the door, and don't let it hit you in the bottom as
you close it!

WHY propose hate? Why not send someone PRIVATE mail if you disagree?

Let us no longer look like fools here...let us FOCUS on making each
other welcome, wanted. Ok, you don;t like all of my views, and I may
not like all of yours. SO WHAT? Look for those things which you CAN
support, and FOCUS on those! If you disagree, do it in PRIVATE, I
don't want to see your dirty laundry!

Publius Tarquitius Rufus


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Prohibition of Galus Agorius Taurinus:Edictum Propraetori...
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:01:01 EST

Salvete

Alas, Cassius Nerva. You cannot do this. The man has every right to his
view. We maintain freedom of speech here for a reason.
What you have done, without a trial, is to attempt to ban a person from
taking part in activities guaranteed to citizens of Nova Roma. Also, by not
even holding a hearing to explain your reasoning you go against the
constitution. If you believe this man to be such a disruption to your
province, your Imperium allows you to take steps, but only after the correct
procedure.
Remember, Romans. We are a nation of laws. I find Galus Agorius rhetoric
shrill to the point of annoying, but he is not a danger to the state, nor to
Cassius Nerva's province.
As far as I can tell, he has not started persecuting Christians, nor has he
advocated the prosecution of Christians as a state policy, and even if he
did, he is not a magistrate, nor does he have a faction behind him that would
make anything he said as a danger to the state. Please, Cassius Nerva,
withdraw your edictum before one of the Praetors veto it. You lose no
dignatis, and you even gain some.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus
ex Praetor Urbanus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Prostitution in Nova Roma
From:	"Brighn $Paul Kershaw$" <brighn@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 15:56:23 -0500

Vale,

Are we to go from divisive us-v-them dialogue of Christians-v-Pagans to divisive us-v-them dialogue of men-v-women, then?

Personally, I'd rather we avoid such inappropriate generalizations altogether, but that's just my lowly opinion.

-- Festus
----- Original Message -----
From: me-in-@disguise.co.uk
To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Prostitution in Nova Roma

-----Original Message-----
From : lithia_cassia <mscommunication@attbi.com>
[quote]
>Feminism appears to have done no more than give women better reasons
>to believe sex degrading and subordinating
>[/quote]
>
>Oh holy deep fried crap on a stick. Funny, I thought men did a
>pretty good job of THAT all on their own.
>
That is a feminist response: passing the buck to men instead of taking the responsibility that confers authority. The matter is irrelevent anyway; far more women enjoy the power of flaunting themselves over the web than men, just as always was the situation before there was a Web and it was the Churches instead of feminists telling them to believe pornography something degrading to them that only men could enjoy.
Vib Ambr Caes.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Disappointed
From:	"aarmpa" <regpoli@hotmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 20:52:34 -0000

I originally joined this group a few days ago but after reading some
of the latest posts i regretted joining so I canceled my membership.
I felt the posts got to be too personal and vindictive instead of
being respective of one another views. If this is a regular occurance
how does the group maintain members? I received an email from
Centurion M. Bainchius Antonius to reconsider, so I have. I hope that
I have made the correct decision.

Respectively,

aarmpa


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Prostitution in Nova Roma
From:	me-in-@disguise.co.uk
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 21:04:49 +0000 (GMT)

-----Original Message-----
>From : �Sp. Postumius Tubertus� <postumius@gmx.net>
>
>
>There was also a statement of coming to terms with one's sexuality. I must say that this is a very touchy subject for me. But, being to open person I am, I'll say this, though I may regret it later. It has taken me a time to come to terms with my own sexuality, which most of you care nothing to hear about. However, I have come to terms with it, in the past three years. And I have come to accept the person I now am because of my sexuality. And I think that, for every person, that the sooner one comes to terms with one's own sexuality, as well as other things, the sooner you may become truly happy, but now I'm getting too far into philosophy, which takes me forever to discourse.
>
This is known as Begging the Question: making assumptions which determine the outcome, the stereotype being "Have you stopped beating your wife?". This concept of a 'sexuality' is modern, entirely alien to the ancient and most of the non-European (and even a lot of the South European) world. Check Gore Vidal. That anyone can determine what they will be fifty years later by what they do at sixteen is repression of the worst sort.
It echoes the days of schoolkids invoking all the playground mythologies that said "He likes flowers, he's a Queer", "Real hard guy no time for sissy stuff, must be Macho", "She's too friendly with the boys, must be a Slag", "Not friendly enough, a Lez", and because they were treated accordingly they learnt to become accordingly even though the hard guy was that way because he really couldn't stand anything connected with women and the flower boy was a woman's dream of attentiveness and love of all things familiar to her, the Slag could only find the love she wanted by dominating a submissive woman and the unfriendly one married one of her students. There is no such thing as an exclusive either-or and certainly never was in Classical culture.
Vibius Ambrosius Caesariensis.

"You are responsible for the predictable consequences of your own actions. You are not responsible for the predictable consequences of somebody else's actions." Prof. Noam Chomsky

--
Personalised email by http://another.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The Religious Debate
From:	me-in-@disguise.co.uk
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 21:22:11 +0000 (GMT)

-----Original Message-----
>From : Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa <vipsaniusagrippa@hotmail.com>
>
>around for at least 3000 years while Christianity was a 'new age' religion.
>In the early years no one was born a Christian; they had to have converted
>from some other religion, whether it was Hellenic paganism, Judaism, Roman
>paganism, etc. To a conservative Roman this was the equivalent of a slap in
>the face to the converted person's ancestors.
>
A very overlooked point which may also explain why we hear more about Christianity in the East. Greeks had a tradition of interest in novelty. Romans did not. That somebody had found a new form of the traditional divine incarnation symbolism would appeal to Greeks to debate how well it stood up. A religion considered to be formed by rational or even supernatural experience goes against everything Rome held dear. Every development is carefully presented as restoring the 'real' sense of what went before. As my comparison with Rastafarianism, a new religion of that sort would not be something Romans could take seriously.
Vibius Ambrosius Caesariensis.

--
Personalised email by http://another.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Religio Evolves? Question for the Priesthood
From:	"IVLIA VOPISCA" <iulia_uopisca@yahoo.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 21:27:22 -0000

IVLIA VOPISCA QVIRITIBVS SALVTEM:

I truly believe that all religions, past or present, polytheist or
monotheist, should be open to sincere critique in practice as well as
in doctrines or dogmas. At the very least, it is an opportunity for
education and growth for all parties in the discussion, and perhaps
appreciation for aspects of the questions not previously considered.

I suppose we all are attached deeply to our Religiones, practices,
and/or opinions, and too often have the knee-jerk reaction to any
criticism as if it were a personal attack. But it's *not* usually so,
however much upset brings forth cries of BIGOTRY!, OUTRAGE!,
BLASPHEMY!, I'M TAKIN' ALL MY TOYS AND GOING HOME... TO STAY!!
It's mistaken and a missed opportunity really. Attacks "ad hominem"
are a different and clearly separable, clearly definable, and clearly
dismissible category.

Hopefully, the dust is settling now, our citizens, all actually
sharing a vast extent of common ground, can shake hands a few unwise
things said in haste or fervor... and a few unwise misinterpretations
taken in the same state. I really liked the posting of the considered
words of that wise gentleman, Dr Franklin. Those are healing thoughts
indeed, that bring us back to the best with ourselves.

Do keep in mind the "delayed reaction" effect of posts in a forum
like this... haste is troublesome, and it takes a few hours to a few
days for some heat to dissipate. A lot of good food for thought has
come up, making this list more than usually interesting... like I've
participated about once per year in the past!? Shall we then take the
good part of it and pour away the dregs as natural product of
ferment... kiss & make-up, renew vows of friendship, stronger ideally
for having released some tension.

VALETE, AMICI

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "g_agorius_taurinus" <g_agorius_taurinus@y...>
wrote:
> --- In Nova-Roma@y..., qfabiusmaxmi@a... wrote:
>
> >
> > Right now in your current attitude, you sound to New Age to be
> allowed into
> > the priesthood.
>
>
> *smiles* You mean, I am a bit too thoughtful and I consider things
> like the fine consequences of actions, compassion, and necessity?
> Does open mindedness and innovation play no part here? My stance is
> as traditional as you'll likely find. Forgive me for not wanting to
> get my knife into a cow or a chicken every other day. I think there
> is more to Religio than that.
>
>
>
> Galus Agorius


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Prostitution in Nova Roma
From:	"lithia_cassia" <mscommunication@attbi.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 21:21:46 -0000

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., "Brighn $Paul Kershaw$" <brighn@y...> wrote:
> Vale,
>
> Are we to go from divisive us-v-them dialogue of Christians-v-
Pagans to divisive us-v-them dialogue of men-v-women, then?
>
> Personally, I'd rather we avoid such inappropriate generalizations
altogether, but that's just my lowly opinion.

I couldn't agree more. A little clarification - I had posted my
response to the feminist thing a little hastily, it was a childish
response of 'oh yeah well YOU started it'. In practice, I really
hate it when people try to group everyone into female vs. male. It's
a silly thing to do, and I grow weary of defending the asexual
viewpoint.


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] On Cornelia's resignation
From:	qfabiusmaxmi@aol.com
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:19:10 EST

Salvete...

I'm shocked. I had spoken to her just the other day. It is shame when such
things happen,
but she has resigned her Propraetorship before and I talked her into staying.

Romans! This knee jerk reaction to unfortunate events will not do.
Our spiritual ancestors were known for the tenacity. They out lasted the
Etruscans, Samnites, Epriots, Macedonians, Carthaginians, and Seleucids.
They toppled the Pontic and Parthian Empires. And now because a single
individual heaps trash on a religion, everybody bails? Why is that? How
Roman is that? Not very.
If you dislike an individual's posts, delete them. How hard is that? If you
dislike what an individual is saying about your religion, defend it if you
must, or ignore it, but don't run away. We will never get anything done if
that continues to happen.
You do not like what an individual is posting ignore it. After a while the
individual will grow tired and stop posting.
Imagine if you will, that this is the Forum in Rome. If some is standing by
a temple corner inciting a riot, you have two choices. Rush over and take
part, or ignore it.
Cornelia should have done the latter in my view.
I go to talk with her.

Valete
Q Fabius Maximus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Prohibition of Galus Agorius Taurinus:Edictum Propraetoricium II Mediatlantica
From:	me-in-@disguise.co.uk
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 21:46:35 +0000 (GMT)

-----Original Message-----
>From : Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <equitius_marinus@yahoo.com>
>
>It looks like the standard rationalization of
>reactionaries: The change <X> has invalidated the
>legitimacy of government, therefore rebellion
>against the government is now permitted.
>
There could be appeal to the Mos Maiorum. That is, that Rome had a constitution, though unwritten, and therefore no Emperor was constitutionally empowered to make such a one-way change. To allow Christianity was no more than to accept another religion into the constitutional framework but to ban paganism changed that framework.
Against that is that everything Constantine is condemned or praised for was only tidying the loose ends of Diocletian's 'reforms' - or revolution. I've argued this with fellow pagans, that had Mithraism or some other incarnationary monotheism been the name that went down the ages, the persecutions and even the practices would have been indistinguishible. Churches might sing of "Washed in the blood of the Bull" instead of the "Lamb" but pagans and 'witches' would still have burnt and the East still have become theocratic Tsardom because that was incipient already in Diocletian.
In my view, the First Empire fell around 220CE and was replaced by the Second with a different structure, constitutional basis and organisation around 280CE, the intervening Emperors being warlords. What does mark Rome out is that whereas modern development likes to feel it extends the basis of power, Roman narrowed it to ultimately one man more in practice the son of the sole divinity than the one he claimed was the divine son: Thirteenth Apostle, Beloved of Christ, Elect of God and check 'Saint' Bloody Nikolai II's titles for what most Christians might consider blasphemy.
Christianity as known, very different from the multitude of sects associated with that name before 250CE went through a similar process. It may even be their success at developing a more formal structure that convinced Constantine there was something to it.
Whom else it convinced, that nobody has noticed, was the people in general during the 3rd century CE. Though there was plenty of feeling against Christians, the Orhtodox-Catholic church was the *only* organisation to remain organised, to be reliable when Emperors and their appointees were out of office before they reached their office and local warlords of both Roman and German extraction were developing their own fiefdoms as impervious to traditions of Imperial law as their Emperors. Christianity might have survived in the end precisely because it survived in the middle.
Vibius Ambrosius Caesariensis.
>Given its self-referential nature, it has a certain
>appeal, but I expect a more pragmatic understanding
>of how the world works from Romans. You might as
>easily claim that a Roman state which outlaws its
>kings
>has no moral authority. I'm sure Tarquinus Superbus
>would agree with that.
>
>Whether you like it or not, Rome did not vanish from
>the face of the Earth. A Roman state continued to
>exist for centuries after the Religio Romana was
>banned.
>
>But please, go on. The Ludi Victoria continue,
>and a good farce is always welcome after the chariot
>races. You're very entertaining...
>
>
>=====
>Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
>
>Scriba Aedilis Iuridicialis Primus to Senior Curule Aedile Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
>
>The homepage of Senior Curule Aedile
>Caeso Fabius Quintilianus and his Cohors Aedilis
>http://italia.novaroma.org/cohorsaedilis/
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
>http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

--
Personalised email by http://another.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Prostitution in Nova Roma
From:	Sextus Apollonius Scipio <scipio_apollonius@mailservice.ms>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 21:54:20 +0100

Salvete,

this off topic and should be post privately. Thank you for understanding.

Valete,

> -----Original Message-----
> From : lithia_cassia <mscommunication@attbi.com>
> [quote]
> >Feminism appears to have done no more than give women better reasons
> >to believe sex degrading and subordinating
> >[/quote]
> >
> >Oh holy deep fried crap on a stick. Funny, I thought men did a
> >pretty good job of THAT all on their own.
> >
> That is a feminist response: passing the buck to men instead of taking the
> responsibility that confers authority. The matter is irrelevent anyway; far
> more women enjoy the power of flaunting themselves over the web than men,
> just as always was the situation before there was a Web and it was the
> Churches instead of feminists telling them to believe pornography something
> degrading to them that only men could enjoy.
> Vib Ambr Caes.

--
Sextus Apollonius Scipio

Propraetor Galliae
Sodalitas Egressus, Praefectus for France
Scriba Explorator Primus Academiae Thules
Scriba Fiscalis Primus Academiae Thules
NRLandProject, acting Praefectus Pecuniae
French Translator

-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through MailService.MS -> http://www.MailService.ms


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Re: Prostitution in Nova Roma
From:	"lithia_cassia" <mscommunication@attbi.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 21:18:56 -0000

You're right it is off topic - so why didn't you just send it in an
email instead of putting it on the board?

Regardless, this is a ridiculous debate that I've had far too many
times, and the response is always the same. Those that believe
feminism is somehow more harmful than good will never be able to pull
their heads from their lesser orifices and 'get it', and it's pretty
pointless to even try.

Also, there will always be those that refuse to not classify people
based on gender. Those people need to EVOLVE and fricking learn to
see people based on intelligence and personality rather than
genitalia. It's completely inane to do so, and I hope to see more
intelligence in the future on this forum.

--- In Nova-Roma@y..., Sextus Apollonius Scipio
<scipio_apollonius@m...> wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> this off topic and should be post privately. Thank you for
understanding.
>
> Valete,
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From : lithia_cassia <mscommunication@a...>
> > [quote]
> > >Feminism appears to have done no more than give women better
reasons
> > >to believe sex degrading and subordinating
> > >[/quote]
> > >
> > >Oh holy deep fried crap on a stick. Funny, I thought men did a
> > >pretty good job of THAT all on their own.
> > >
> > That is a feminist response: passing the buck to men instead of
taking the
> > responsibility that confers authority. The matter is irrelevent
anyway; far
> > more women enjoy the power of flaunting themselves over the web
than men,
> > just as always was the situation before there was a Web and it
was the
> > Churches instead of feminists telling them to believe pornography
something
> > degrading to them that only men could enjoy.
> > Vib Ambr Caes.
>
>
> --
> Sextus Apollonius Scipio
>
> Propraetor Galliae
> Sodalitas Egressus, Praefectus for France
> Scriba Explorator Primus Academiae Thules
> Scriba Fiscalis Primus Academiae Thules
> NRLandProject, acting Praefectus Pecuniae
> French Translator
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through MailService.MS -> http://www.MailService.ms


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Some reflections on the resignation of Cornelia Strabo
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Rachel=20Dugdale?= <racheledugdale@yahoo.co.uk>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 21:52:52 +0000 (GMT)

Gnaeus Equitius Marinus wrote:

> I read her [Pompeia Cornelia Strabo's] explanation
> as saying that she could not in conscience uphold
> her oaths of office any longer, because they bind
> her to the protection of the Religio Romana.
> Therefore she resigned from all the offices which
> had required that oathbinding from her.

The constitution states:

"Magistrates, Senators, and 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."

This suggests to me that, in terms of one's
responsibility in terms of the Religio Romana, there
is no difference between being a magistrate and being
any other citizen. The oath one takes when appointed
as a magistrate seems to me to be simply confirming
this, not adding an additional level of
responsibility.

> I think she [Pompeia Cornelia Strabo] wants to feel
> at liberty to speak out against those people she
> considers religious bigots.

I won't even begin to comment on the question of
whether there was any religious bigotry displayed over
the last few days, as I really haven't been paying
close enough attention to the discussion.

However, religious bigotry of any kind, on whichever
side, is something which does (in my opinion) need to
be spoken out about where it is present. And if there
is an issue, it needs to be dealt with within the
legal framework of Nova Roma, such as there is. If
the necessary structures don't exist, they should be
implemented, and now is as good a time as ever! But I
do think that the position of Praetor is a much
stronger one from which to make a stand on this kind
of issue, if one needs to be made.

Just my thoughts :)

Gaia Fabia Livia

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Lack of peace
From:	"Titus Arminius Genialis" <tagenialis@yahoo.com.br>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:10:27 -0200

Salvete omnibus,

Well, unfortunately some lack of Pax and Concordia has touched our Main List
these last days.
And as you could see, at least three honorable citizens decided to resign
their membership.
Maybe the main personal motivation that made those people take this decision
was not this lack of Concordia and Pax, but now we can really see that, if
we don't have it, I mean, if we don't maintain these so important aspects,
things that seem to be completely unrelated start to happen and the
community begins to fall.
We should try to think more carefully on everything and everyword we have
written and read here for a while and reflect on how things should really
be.
We must have harmony to continue on our main goal, which is, "ROMA
RESURGENS".
Well, i thought i should send this, and I really don't know if anyone agrees
with me, but I thought I should try...

Valete in pace.

Titus Arminius Genialis.
tagenialis@yahoo.com.br

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Mensagem enviada est� livre de v�rus.
Enviada por GNBS atrav�s do MSO2K.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.391 / Virus Database: 222 - Release Date: 19/9/2002

_______________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! GeoCities
Tudo para criar o seu site: ferramentas f�ceis de usar, espa�o de sobra e acess�rios.
http://br.geocities.yahoo.com/


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Prostitution in Nova Roma
From:	me-in-@disguise.co.uk
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 22:05:20 +0000 (GMT)

-----Original Message-----
>From : �Brighn (Paul Kershaw)� <brighn@yahoo.com>
>
>Are we to go from divisive us-v-them dialogue of Christians-v-Pagans to divisive us-v-them dialogue of men-v-women, then?
>
>Personally, I'd rather we avoid such inappropriate generalizations altogether, but that's just my lowly opinion.
>
I hope not but I did rather let myself in for it. I don't regard feminists as representative of women in general or Women's Liberation in particular. You can find websites of American female students quoting word for word from 'Female Eunuch' against the 'moral' pressures and 'protection' put on them in the name of feminism. As far as I am concerned, some women decided thirty-odd years ago that they should be free and equal to men to do what they wanted and what a lot quoting them wanted was the much greater freedom from equal responsibility they'd had before. They are not jackbooted dungareed parodies of the lowest sort of macho male; in the words of a lover 22 years ago "To me being a feminist means a good job and sleeping with any man I feel like; I'm very worried about this new generation that thinks it means quivering under the table in a Lesbian huddle the moment a man looks at them".
Vibius Ambrosius Caesariensis.

--
Personalised email by http://another.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Resignation
From:	jmath669642reng@webtv.net
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 17:24:11 -0500 (EST)

Beneficarius / Tribunus Militum Laticlavius Pompeia Cornelia Strabo.

I arrived back in town this afternoon from a midweek school reenactment
/ history lesson, to find that a part of my world has been seriously
affected.

No, I will not ask you to return to Nova Roma, because I would ask
no-one to put thier faith, honor or valued beliefs again into an area
where it can be attacked, by foolish and irresponsible people. You well
know my feelings in this regard from some time ago, so I will not burden
you with them again. You best know your own heart and mind, and while I
grieve for your decision, I honor it fully.

In answer to your question regarding continuing with the Sodalitas
Militarium, as you well know there is a facility for maintaining non- NR
Citizens with the Militarium, and you are as welcome to register there
as you have ever been in the Militarium as an NR Citizen. In regard to
the honors that I have seen fit to set upon you, I do not give with one
hand and take away with another. You, Mistress Strabo are Beneficarius
(Benefiited One) to me. You have additionally earned your honor as
Tribunus Militum Laticlavius, through your consistant and diligent work
in the Militarium, and through your qualification as a Nova Roman
Senator. Since that is where the honors are centered, that is where the
honors will remain. Those honors are mine to assign and mine to remove
for cause. However, I do assure you, that I see no cause that has, does
or will persuade me to change my mind in that course of action.

I am honored that you choose to label me friend, and I am disheartened
and insulted by the words of those who have driven you to this point in
your life. Cultural History can be a facinating topic, but as anyone
with even a portion of thier faculties functioning well knows, even the
most learned scholars cannot know truly what went on in the streets,
temples and bazaars of the Roman Republic and Empire. What we know is
what has passed down to us through fragments of writing and the results
of selected archaelogical findings. Any archaeologist is taught in
thier first years that unexplained unearthed phenomena are generally
attributed to religious views or beliefs, so we can never really be sure
of our detailed historical facts as these texts are being rewritten all
the time. Religious beliefs and ideas among groups of people and among
individuals alike are as varied as those groups and individuals
themselves.

Religion is a matter of personal belief. It is not a matter to be
discussed in detail among those of a mixed company precisely for the
reasons that have been given here. A person's religion is his or her
own, and cannot, be discussed impersonnally, over any period of time
without hurting someone's feelings. I am a Christain, and that is my
business and no-one else's. I have in the past, do now, and foreseeably
will in the future honor the gods of Rome, the Yahweh, of the Jewish
Religion, Allah of the Islamic people, Bhudda, and the other myriad of
religious beliefs found in this old world, together with the rituals
found in the carrying out of those religions. Until those religions or
cults begin to hurt me or mine, I give them all the honor and distance
as they wish. However, I have little time for those who attack
another's beliefs. For the past several days I have vigorously
exercised the "delete" button when I have read "Religious Discussion" in
any NR message title that pertained to such, because from experience I
knew what would happen. It always does.

Now, a valuable person's feelings are seriously hurt and she feels the
necessity to depart Nova Roma. She knows what she is doing, and she has
the intelligence to make her own decisions, and I for one do not hold
mysef in such great esteem, as I believe that I can change her mind.
Should she do so, I should certainly thank my God for his intersession,
but otherwise I must most regretfully let my Friend, My Beneficarius,
and my Valued Colleague go her own selected way.

The very best that I can do, is to offer her a place in the Militarium
which she has said that she loves, and hold firm to my pledge on my
trust and friendship as I have stated it to all on this list. This I
now do, with my invitation to Pompeia Cornelia Strabo to join the
Militarium "Socci", and to know that as she wishes, she may retain those
honors that have been placed at her door, all this with my heartfelt
welcome, and extended helping hand.

Respectfully, and With the Greatest of Regrets;

Marcus Minucius Audens -- Praefectus Castorum -- Sodalitas Militarium --
Nova Roma

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] Tragedy of the Commons
From:	"Numerius Cassius Niger" <menippus@attbi.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 22:15:10 -0000

Salvete omnes!

I must admit that I write this post with sadness. The events of the
last few days have been very unsettling, but not unexpected, to me.
I have a nagging feeling that much of this could have been avoided
if the discussion was taken to NR's Jewish Studies "Sodalitas." I
believe this would have been advantageous for three reasons.

1.) The debate would have only involved those who have a passionate
interest in the subject (for why else would you be part of a
sodalitas?) and wouldn't have turned off those who weren't
interested in said subject.

2.) Since the debate would have been observed and participated by
those who have a passionate interested, the level of scholarship in
the debate would have been higher. Hopefully, if you have an
interest in the subject, then you have some knowledge about it. I,
for one, know that their are many knowledgeable people participating
in the Jewish "Sod." and certain generalizations and outright
misinformation (such as the Jewish and Christian views of divinity
are similar) would have been corrected early on, thus people would
not have been offended by something someone said in ignorance.

3.) Judging by the reaction on the main list, Romano-
Pagan/Jewish/Christian relations is an important topic that must be
addressed in Nova Roma, but not like this...such a topic requires
that a dedicated group of citizens work through a 2000 year history
develop a stance that will be amenable to all. As some of the debate
has the potential to bring up hurtful feelings, the majority of the
discussion should not occur on the main list but rather in a group
that is prepared to deal with the negative feelings and come to
grips with them. Please note that I am not arguing that the debate
be cut off from the whole of the people, but that the impetus of the
debate be carried out by a voluntary group of dedicated citizens.

As you may know, NR's Jewish Studies "Sodalitas" is not an
officially sanctioned Sod. yet. However, if I feel that any good has
come out of this week's events, it is that the need for a sanctioned
sodalitas dealing with the Roman relationship between Jews and early
Christians is direly needed. I hope that the Senate will take this
into consideration the next time they meet.

Valete,
Numerius Cassius Niger


Subject:	[Nova-Roma] The Pontiffs and Religious Debate (reply to Sulla)
From:	cassius622@aol.com
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:51:12 EST

In regard to the late religious arguments Junior Consul Lucius Cornelius
Sulla wrote:

"Sulla: What kind of standard is hatred? What kind of standard are we
setting when the only response from the Pontiffs is a "lecture on the
virtues."

Cassius respondit:
Junior Consul, exactly what would you have the Pontiffs do? By the
Constitution, the Pontiffs are only empowered to set the religious festivals
and calendar, and oversee the Religio *priesthood*. We have no power whatever
over general religious discussion, or over the public deeds of 'privatus'
citizens.

The only other power granted to the Collegium Pontificum is to issue specific
religious decreta by majority vote. The debate would have had to carry on a
lot longer than the few hours it did for a decreta to be voted on and issued.

Sulla:
Sorry, but this entire debate is BS, the response from our religious
officials
was wimpy to say the least.

Cassius:
As opposed to the swift and decisive official action taken by our Junior
Consul?

This debate happened very quickly... it was pretty much over and done with
before most of the 'religious officials' even knew it was happening. Three or
four people sending off three or four angry posts ever hour can become a big
problem in little time.

Angry debates like this happen every few months, and the debates are more
usually political in nature rather than religious. Again it is not the job of
the Collegium Pontificum to police the Forum - or exercise non-existing
powers over non-Religio Citizens, and/or new Citizens who are in no way
members of the Priesthood.

Sulla:
The Constitution in Nova Roma guarantees Religious
Freedom and it quite frankly is not worth the paper its printed on when this
type of Crap is posted."

Cassius:
The Constitution of Nova Roma does not guarantee that nobody's feelings will
ever be hurt by the misguided words of other private Citizens.

The crux of this issue was not what the argument was about... it was that the
argument continued past the point of reason, and that there was no official
provision to end the debate.

I have just started discussion in the Senate about this matter. It seems to
me a rational way to deal with these sorts of outbreaks might be to empower a
moderator to put a *temporary* hold on certain debates for a few hours so
that things can be sorted out. That might not interfere with 'free speech'
too much... and give tempers a chance to cool down.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Senator, Pontifex Maximus

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Prostitution in Nova Roma
From:	me-in-@disguise.co.uk
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 22:33:18 +0000 (GMT)

-----Original Message-----
>From : lithia_cassia <mscommunication@attbi.com>
>
>Also, there will always be those that refuse to not classify people
>based on gender. Those people need to EVOLVE and fricking learn to
>see people based on intelligence and personality rather than
>genitalia. It's completely inane to do so, and I hope to see more
>intelligence in the future on this forum.
>
I've never felt the need to identify with macho men spouting the inferior abilities of women. I can never understand women's identification with feminists saying exactly the same thing. There will always be some who resist change, some who benefitted from the appearance of inability and insist on it despite all the evidence against -after all, the less you can do for yourself, the more others do for you and the less responsibility you hold for your actions. We do need an equal world and that can only be achieved by accepting the responsibility to act it ourselves: what you don't own, you can't change. Claiming you don't own it, describing a world which does not exist, are ways of creating that world because at heart it is the world you believe in. Evolution does not start from revolutionary slogans and power play: they obstruct it *and are intended to* (Animal Farm). It starts within, in one's own attitudes.
I believe in a world where the personal things associated with women traditionally (and it is a very recent tradition) have a greater value than those associated with men and men are free to do them as well. The ancient world did put far greater emphasis on personal creativity and relationships and running one's own home than the modern of wage-slavery and value only as one is useful for others confered by those others. To value things like company rank is to accept that some other people have the superior authority to decide your value as a human being. Only Roman Censores had that power and then only for political purposses.

--
Personalised email by http://another.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The Pontiffs and Religious Debate
From:	"Sp. Postumius Tubertus" <postumius@gmx.net>
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 17:51:55 -0500

Sp. Postumius Tubertus M. Cassio Iuliano Pontifici Maximo et Quiritibus S.P.D.

Salvete,

First, let me publicly thank you, Pontifex Maxime, for your rational words and calmness. It is quite refreshing after the heat I've been walking around in lately. I have just mailed another private citizen about the events which have happened here as of late regarding citizens' religions and some legislation regarding freedom of speech. Unfortunately, as I write this, there is no legislation regarding what is freedom of speech, what is harrassment, and so on. I think the steps it seems you may be taking in the future, as well as those which you have already taken, are all in the right direction.

I had the misfortune of not being able to read through all the posts about religion. Those which I did read, however, severely offended me, not because they offended my religion or anything of that sort, but because they offended myself as a private citizen. It is absolutely hurting to me that we have reduced ourselves to this level of intentionally (and I may be incorrect in this statement) offending others. As well, it is fully depressing that we have reduced ourselves to this level of petty argument with no end. We know that there is a disagreement between whatever sides of this argument there are. Why can we not agree to disagree on this? I agree that I do not entirely agree with Christian religious beliefs. As well, I do not entirely agree with Pagan religious beliefs. And I'd hope that their practitioners could agree that we disagree on whatever topics we may, and carry on with that respect. Why can we not do this here?

I know quite well that we are all civilized citizens. Obviously, citizenship requires civilization. I know that we are all capable of respecting each other. For the most part, this happens. However, the consul Sulla mentioned, on a number of occasions, as well as others, the silent majority as opposed to the loud minority. For this reason, I say that it is not the majority that is so disrespectful to each other. But why, people, can we not be so respectful as we would hope to recieve from others? I make it a goal of mine to be as respectful to the people I talk to as I can.

What is it that makes us unable to respect the thoughts and opinions of everyone else? What makes us unable to respect our differences with ourselves and one another? If one person can answer this, I'll be greatly appreciative. Please contact me personally, please. I'm at postumius@gmx.net, if you haven't already found out.

Optime Valete in Pace Sui Aeterna,

Sp. Postumius Tubertus
Retiarius Lacuum Magnorum
Scriba Curatoris Araneae
Discipolus Anno Tertio Linguae Latinae
Civis Lacuum Magnorum Provinciae
Civis Patriae Novae Romae, Optima Maxima

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" -- Q. Horati Flacci

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] and on a personal note
From:	AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:21:48 EST

In a message dated 10/30/2002 2:38:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,
gcassiusnerva@cs.com writes:

> I choose to join her in refusing to pay taxes into the republic until
> some kind of change is implemented to deal with the inequity she spoke of.
>
> Nerva

G. Cassius Nerva;

As a Pagan I found Galus Agorius Taurinus to be a little zealous.
Historically, I share his frustration with the way "events of history"
transpired. Furthermore, considering my personal history, I cannot hold
Christianity in as much disdain as he has shown. However, I have found some
of your comments to be as zealous, and -- dare I say -- offensive as his.

The difference between Taurinus is that he is new to Nova Roma, and you are a
Magistrate. Why on earth would you issue the sort of edict that you did?
That is simply vindictive, and uncalled for in my opinion.

E-mail communication can be so limiting, and people can come across via
e-mail as being rude and obnoxious when its not intended. Perhaps we all
loose sight of this.

I am a Proud Pagan. However, I welcome anyone within Nova Roma as a friend,
regardless of religious disposition. I originally joined because of the
Religion of Rome, however, I have come to enjoy the company of several
Christian Romans -- namely, my own Propraetor (Marcus Bianchius Antonius)
who I am very proud to serve under -- and have decided to get involved within
Nova Roma for more than simply spiritual reasons. I like being with other
Roman minded people, Pagan or otherwise.

In Fellowship:

G. Modius Athanasius

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] The Events of the Day and A Decision I've Made
From:	AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:27:08 EST

In a message dated 10/30/2002 7:54:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,
billgatesson@hotmail.com writes:

> This cr-p needs to stop or we will lose a lot more of our cives.

People leave on their own will and accord, not because of the actions of
others. If anyone is to be blamed it is the person who made the clear choice
to leave. Personal responsibility is at issue.

I agree that some comments were made that perhaps should not have been made
(from both sides), but the decisions of an individual are their decisions to
make. And they should be held accountable for THEIR actions, not the actions
of another person.

G. Modius Athanasius

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: and on a personal note
From:	AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:23:19 EST

In a message dated 10/30/2002 3:45:27 AM Eastern Standard Time,
mjk@datanet.ab.ca writes:

> Well for the sake of NR I would suggest to the powers that be that
> today might be a good a time as any to start figuring how to
> implement the changes to the inequities she addressed for the peace
> of the Res Republica.

I think that some of those inequities were/are a matter of opinion.

G. Modius Athanasius

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Subject:	Re: [Nova-Roma] Old man responds
From:	AthanasiosofSpfd@aol.com
Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:44:47 EST

In a message dated 10/30/2002 12:19:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,
shamrock@cros.net writes:

> There is however one
> person who needs to be applauded over his valerous decision to veto
> the banishment. Senator Marcus Octavius Germanicus has shown great
> wisdom and maturity in his decision and I am proud to be represented
> by him. To all new citizens look to him for the dignity and glory
> that you expected here in Nova Roma. There are some fair citizens
> here. They are the non vocal majority. I trust they will remember
> this during elections.
>
>
> Ambrosius Silvanius Virbius
>

I would like to echo the sentiments of Silvanius Virbius. I feel that
Octavius has maintained a cool head, and has acted fairly.

G. Modius Athanasius

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]