Salve Paulinus,

Thank you for pointing that out, I had forgotten about it. However,
it doesn't really save me any work. I wanted the FAQ to be more
specific to the common issues / flame wars repeated visited on this
list. The current FAQ doesn't really address them, but it is
woefully out of date (last update in 1999). It does give me a base
to work from so thanks for reminding me.

Vale,

Agrippina

> Salve Romans
>
> "Some have suggested recently putting these in a FAQ on the website"
>
> Everybody does know that this section of the website already exists

and we only need to add questions or remove some old ones to bring
the FAQ up to date.

>
>
> Vale
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

There has been a discussion lately between me and my friends.I
wanted to carry the simple main question here ..It is:

Considering the big picture of the western civilization...which
one really established and contributed more to the western
civilization of today ?Ancient Greeks or ancient Romans..?? Any
evidences for the argument will be appreciated...

Thanks and as you say Vale...

Seren

A. Apollonius Cordus to Agrippina Modia Aurelia, and
to all his fellow-citizens and all peregrines,
greetings.

I also recall that recently Tribune Galerius Paulinus
(he'll correct me if I'm wrong) set up a special list
for the discussion of NR history. I don't think it's
been used yet, and perhaps it's folded altogether, but
it or something like it would provide somewhere new
and prospective citizens could go to ask questions
about the history of particular issues or
disagreements, and which would save us from having to
go over old ground here on the main list.

And of course one day Senator Maximus, Aedile Scaurus,
I, or another historically-minded citizen will retire
from public life for long enough to write a proper
history of Nova Roma, which will provide a more
accessible starting-point for those interested in such
things.

These are things to consider in addition to the FAQ
idea, of course, and not in stead.





____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

A. Apollonius Cordus to Pompeia Cornelia Strabo, and
to all his fellow-citizens and all peregrines,
greetings.

I shan't comment on your thoughts about the blasphemy
clause and accompanying decree, for I fear that if I
were to do so I might provoke a certain measure of
hostility (not from you) which at the moment I haven't
the inclination to fight off; but I agree with some of
what you say, and it's a matter of public record that
I feel that the blasphemy clause, the blasphemy
decree, and article XXI.A of the lex poenalis could
all be revoked without significantly detracting from
the protected and established position of the religio.

But on more specific matters:

> Can the constitution be amended? Certainly, as it
> has many times
> through due process of law. I do believe that the
> Tribunes could have
> vetoed this Decretum, based on their constitutional
> authority, on the
> basis of the loose language, while keeping with
> their obligations
> toward the religio, even if the constitutions
> language is muddy. They
> still have the authority, in my opinion to veto
> something which
> presents other aspects of citizen's rights as
> defined in the
> constitution. The cannot veto a Dictator or
> Interrex. They had 72
> hours. Something would have to be repromulgated for
> anything to change.

There is one more fact which ocmplicates the picture.
Though the tribunes can't veto a decree (or edict or
whatever) if more than 72 hours have passed since it
was issued, they can still veto any action carried out
under the terms of the decree (or edict, &c.). So for
instance, the lex Salica poenalis sets out a criminal
offence of calumnia; but in order to try someone for
that offence, the praetor would have to issue a
formula (appointing the judge(s), setting the penalty,
&c.), which is a specialized type of edict; the
tribunes would then have 72 hours to veto the formula,
thus blocking the trial and effectively protecting the
defendant. So the tribunes could in theory adopt a
policy of vetoing every formula relating to calumnia
on the grounds that punishing anyone for calumnia
constitutes a restriction of the
constitutionally-guaranteed right of free expression.
Obviously that's a pretty unlikely example, and not
one I'd like to see, but it shows a strategy which
could in theory be used by the tribunes to protect the
constitution even after the initial 72 hours have
passed.

> Could a lex be promulaged, or we could start with a
> Senatus Consultum,
> stating that all public legal acts, ie respresenting
> the entirety of
> the state, be they religious, cultural, etc. have
> final approval of
> the Senate? This would still allow a Tribune veto,
> but the final seal
> of approval would come from the Senate.

The problem is that this would raise the senate to a
much higher position of power than is justified by
history or by prudence. Even if we were to have a
constitutional court - and I do not recommend it - it
would be most unwise to combine it with an unelected
body whose members serve for life and cannot be
removed except by others of its own members, and which
is not bound by any particular constitutional mandate.
Macronational constitutional courts are courts: they
only have the power to interpret and rule on existing
law; they can't strike down legislation just because
they dislike it. The senate is specifically designed
to be a political body which makes decisions based on
what it thinks best, not on what it understands to be
the existing law: so to give it the power to strike
down legislation would be to give it all the powers
necessary for it to exercise complete domination over
the whole political system. Its decisions could not be
challenged, because it would be the body which had the
power to decide whether such challenges were valid.
No, if the constitution is to be rigid and is to be
adequately protected then it must be by a mechanism of
judicial review: giving such powers to any currently
existing element of the system would make that element
able to suppress all others.





____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

A. Apollonius Cordus to his friend the Aedile C.
Iulius Scaurus, to his colleague C. Minucius Hadrianus
Felix, and to all his fellow-citizens and all
peregrines, greetings.

> ... Everyone was quite in the Bacchic spirit of
> performance. I
> nearly choked on an olive when Scaurus hailed the
> consular Palladius
> Invictus not as "Palladi Invicte," but as "Priapi
> Relicte" -- the
> Falernian does sharpen the aedile's tongue -- still
> both laughed
> uproariously. Cincinnatus spewed wine through his
> nose when Scaurus rued
> that he hadn't hired a saltatrix asturis and an
> equus marinus to dance,
> suitably disrobed for the mime, to bring good
> fortune to the consular
> year.

Ha ha! That's certainly one way to send people running
for their Latin dictionaries. I dread to think what
manner of word-play I would be subject to were I
distinguished enough to merit any - no, please don't
tell me. :)

A sea-horse? I didn't even know they *could* be hired
as dancers.





____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

A. Apollonius Cordus wrote:

> A sea-horse? I didn't even know they *could* be hired
> as dancers.

But surely you've seen the dancing river horses in Disney's Fantasia, no?

-- Marinus

A. Apollonius Cordus to Domitius Constantinus Fuscus,
and to all his fellow-citizens and all peregrines,
greetings.

I think perhaps we both need to try harder to give one
another the benefit of the doubt - it seems that each
of us thinks the other is behaving badly while himself
trying to behave as well as possible. My father used
to quote a good piece of advice: 'never put down to
conspiracy what could be simple incompetence'. Neither
of us have been following this suggestion very well,
but I'll try to start now.

I'm sorry I mistakenly thought you thought I had
misunderstood you (goodness me, this is getting
complicated!). I'm also sorry that I've frustrated you
by not responding to your last message point-by-point.
My reason was not that I wished to dodge any of the
points you raised. I noticed that you yourself had
decided to stop using the quote-and-reply format -
instead, you wrote a fresh piece of continuous prose
without following the text of my message to which you
were replying, though you did allude to it at many
points; and indeed you've used the same format for
this message. I assumed that this was how you wanted
the conversation to proceed: not by each of us quoting
and replying to every point, but by writing afresh
every time. So that's what I did. I believed I was
following your own example and adapting my reply to
the format you preferred. It seems I got it wrong, but
I assure you that it was a mistake and not bad
manners.

You wrote:

> An example of such behavior is that all along I
> keep, as much as I can,
> referring to the letter of our Constitution even
> when I report it to general
> constitutional and Constitutional principles, you
> lately have moved to a very
> philosophical discussion (eight paragraphs!) about
> the nature of the law in
> general.

I have indeed been trying to move away from an
analysis of the words of the constitution, and there
is a very good reason for this. The reason is that I
entirely agree with you about the words of the
constitution. There is no point in our discussing
those words, because we will only agree. The question
on which we disagree lies outside the words of the
constitution, as is clear from your later statement:

> ... Now, I personally
> think, and I explained why in the past and I will
> not repeat myself, that is an
> uncontrovertible truth that within Nova Roma three
> principles apply:
>
> - the Constitution is the supreme document, exerting
> the uttermost authority,
> from which all the magistrates and laws and decrees
> take their authority and
> power to rule and right to be applied;
> - that every civis has accepted the rule of the
> Constitution: explicitally the
> founding fathers in the moment they forfeited their
> absolute self-organizing
> rights in giving birth to the Constitution and
> deciding to self-submit to that,
> implicitly every other civis who asked to join Nova
> Roma once the Constitution
> was in place, therefore reaffirming its supremacy
> and offering himself as
> subject to it;
> - that no juridical body (ie, the Senate, the
> Collegium Pontificarum and any
> other body created by the Constitution or by the
> laws empowered by and through
> the Constitution), single magistrate, law, decree
> can in any way contradict or
> restrict, directly or indirectly, expressly or
> implicitly, anything that is ,
> directly or indirectly, expressly or implicitly
> mandated by the Constitution
> unless the Constitution expressly allows that, which
> isnÂ’t our case.
>
> You disagree with that, but nothing in what you said
> so far made me change my
> opinion of an inch ...

The second principle sounds like a justification of
the first one, and the third derives from the first,
so the first one is the crucial one. It's that
principle which I've been trying to discuss with you.
To do so, it has been necessary to discuss some
general and philosophical issues concerning the nature
of constitutions, because that is the area in which
the justification for the truth or falsehood of the
first principle lies. I am a little bit baffled,
because you seem to want me to refrain from discussing
whether or not the first principle is correct; or else
you want me to discuss it without referring to
abstract philosophical ideas, which is impossible and
so comes to the same thing as not discussing it at
all. Have I got the wrong impression?

If you want me to take your first principle as an
axiom of the discussion without questioning it, then I
can do that, but it will be very boring, because I'll
just say: yes, your logic is completely correct, and
everything you say follows from the first axiom. So if
the first principle is an axiom of the discussion,
there is no discussion. But if you want to allow me to
discuss whether your first axiom is correct, then you
must allow me to discuss the philosophical nature of
normative rules.

> (like when you affirm I have
> said we are entitled to disobey the unconstitutional
> laws: I said the contrary:
> we are legally bound to obey them, but ethically
> bound to disobey and being
> condemned for it in the hope that the injustice will
> force a change brought in
> by Constitutional means).

Again, I'm sorry to have annoyed you in this way.
Perhaps 'entitled' was not quite the right word to
use, but what I meant by it was 'morally entitled' -
so you see, it wasn't that I was attributing to you an
idea you had never spoken; I was actually reporting
accurately what you had said, it's just that I used an
ambiguous word. Again, please give me the benefit of
the doubt.

Finally, let me just say that although you didn't find
it, there was in fact a fair bit of new matter in my
last message. One new thing was that I accepted,
contrary to my previous statements, that you were
right in saying that something needs to be done about
the constitution. Either it needs to be made
explicitly and fully flexible, or it needs to be given
adequate protections to keep it fully rigid. My
suggestion was that we should move on to discuss which
of the two is preferable. Evidently I didn't make this
clear enough, since you didn't pick up on it, so here
it is again: let's talk about whether rigidity is
better than flexibility. Are you game, or do you want
a rest?





____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

A. Apollonius Cordus to his friend the Consul Cn.
Equitius Marinus, and to all his fellow-citizens and
all peregrines, greetings.

> > A sea-horse? I didn't even know they *could* be
> hired
> > as dancers.
>
> But surely you've seen the dancing river horses in
> Disney's Fantasia, no?

Were they hired performers? My illusions are
shattered: I thought they were wild cartoon seahorses
captured on film indulging in their natural recreation...





____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

Salvete Quirites,

antesignanus asked:

> Considering the big picture of the western civilization...which
> one really established and contributed more to the western
> civilization of today: Ancient Greeks or ancient Romans..?? Any
> evidences for the argument will be appreciated...

This is one of those "Embrace the power of 'and'" kind of questions, I
think. Western civilization would not be what it is without the
contributions of both.

However, that said, I must come down on the side of Rome. The network
of roads that the Romans built, and the Pax Romana, contributed to the
free flow of commerce and to the spread of ideas in a way that the
Greeks never approached. Alexander of Macedon did something similar,
but it only lasted a bit longer than his own lifetime. The Roman effort
lasted for many centuries, and served to cement the various peoples of
the Empire into an amalgam which continues to this day.

Valete Quirites,

-- Marinus

Salve,

Actually it's hard to seperate the two because Greek Civilization had
a profound effect on Roman Civilization.

Drusus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "antesignanus" <antesignanus@y...>
wrote:

>
> There has been a discussion lately between me and my friends.I
> wanted to carry the simple main question here ..It is:
>
> Considering the big picture of the western civilization...which
> one really established and contributed more to the western
> civilization of today ?Ancient Greeks or ancient Romans..?? Any
> evidences for the argument will be appreciated...
>
> Thanks and as you say Vale...
>
> Seren

Salvete Quirites,

I want to address a few points in Scaurus excellent post.

G. Iulius Scaurus writes:

[...]

> There is, however, a sense in which Nova Roma's self-presentation is
> profoundly misleading to potential citizens. The micronational idea had
> a certain glamour in the days of Nova Roma's founding, but I doubt very
> many reasonable people can seriously believe that any nation state would
> ever cede any portion of it sovereign territory, granting full,
> independent extraterritoriality to a living history experiment devoted
> to recreating Roma antiqua. It hasn't happened. It won't happen.

Nor do I think that the founders ever thought it would happen, to be
honest. "Micronation" is a term that means different things to
different people. But I do agree that it's misleading, and that we
might do well to drop the term from our self definition.

> If Nova Roma is based on any kind
> of Roman "Zionism," it is an exercise in madness.

Yes, I agree.

> Nova Roma made a mistake in introducing the notion of micronationality.

With this I agree.

> What was really intended was the creation of the legal fiction of a
> state which would permit the cultus of the Religio Publica to be
> reestablished.

With this I have to take some exception. While the Nova Roman state
does provide a framework for the Religio Publica, it is not *just* that.
It is, and I think must be, much more. To see the state only as a
'legal fiction' dancing to the tune of the Religio is to marginalize the
state. If I were to accept this view I would be diminishing the role of
the State in a way that I feel would be gravely disrespectful to every
Consul who has gone before me, not only during the six years of Nova
Roma's existence, but also during all the long centuries of Roma Antiqua.

> It is real in the sense that we believe in the pax
> Deorum and that real benefits accrue to the participants in Nova Roma
> from performance of these public religious rites. It is however a
> fiction in the sense that it claims statehood for no purpose but
> providing a framework for the Religio Publica.

I suppose that before we can continue, we ought to define a state. I
happen to think that the Nova Roman state has other functions besides
providing a framework for the Religio.

From Merriam-Webster online:

Main Entry: 1 state
Pronunciation: 'stAt
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English stat, from Old French & Latin; Old French
estat, from Latin status, from stare to stand -- more at STAND
1 a : mode or condition of being <a state of readiness> b (1) :
condition of mind or temperament <in a highly nervous state> (2) : a
condition of abnormal tension or excitement
2 a : a condition or stage in the physical being of something <insects
in the larval state> <the gaseous state of water> b : any of various
conditions characterized by definite quantities (as of energy, angular
momentum, or magnetic moment) in which an atomic system may exist
3 a : social position; especially : high rank b (1) : elaborate or
luxurious style of living (2) : formal dignity : POMP -- usually used
with in
4 a : a body of persons constituting a special class in a society :
ESTATE 3 b plural : the members or representatives of the governing
classes assembled in a legislative body c obsolete : a person of high
rank (as a noble)
5 a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a
definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign b : the political
organization of such a body of people c : a government or politically
organized society having a particular character <a police state> <the
welfare state>
6 : the operations or concerns of the government of a country
7 a : one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal
government <the fifty states> b plural, capitalized : The United States
of America
8 : the territory of a state

For our purposes we're looking at definitions 5 and 6. Some have
thought that we're also talking about 8, though as has been indicated in
recent days that claim to sovereign territory is something for the far
future.

But looking at 5b and 5c, we can see that our state satisfies both of
those definitions. We also most certainly satisfy definition 6. So we
satisfy the understood definition of a state in ways that go beyond the
Religio Romana.

In the interest of brevity I'm not going to quote all those points which
Scaurus made with which I agree. Suffice to say that he and I are very
close in our views. The fact that I am highlighting the very nuanced
differences should not be taken as any sort of suggestion that I
disagree in general with his point that the emphasis sometimes placed on
the term micronation has not served our state well.

Valete Quirites,

-- Marinus

A. Apollonius Cordus to his friend the Aedile and
Pontiff C. Iulius Scaurus, and to all his
fellow-citizens and all peregrines, greetings.

Since you've invited a discussion of this subject,
I'll see what I can think of to add.

> If he were incapable of reading the repeated
> assertions on the NR
> webpages and in the constitution that the Religio
> Romana is taken
> seriously in Nova Roma, is Nova Roma's state
> religion, and is central to
> the mission of Nova Roma, then I could understand
> his outrage about
> religious matters. However, I fail to see how a
> reasonable person who
> has invested the appropriate amount of time in
> examining an organisation
> he considered joining could have failed to recognise
> those points.

I think perhaps his frustration was slightly more
understandable than that: to judge from his message,
he seems to have got the impression that Nova Roma is
*only* about the religio. That's more his fault than
anyone else's, because just as clear from the
constitution and other documents as the centrality of
the religio to the Nova Roma project is the fact that
there are other goals beside the religio. (And let me
say before I go any further that I'm not for a moment
wishing to defend his outburst or his action: I have
no sympathy at all for people who respond to things
they don't like by quitting rather than by working
within the system to improve it.)

I agree (and I shan't quote your arguments) that many
people seem to arrive here thinking of Nova Roma
primarily as a political organization with the religio
as an optional extra. This is partly, I think, because
of modern assumptions about the separation of church
and state which make them fail to realise that even if
they themselves don't want to participate in the
religio, they will be participating in a political and
social system to which the religio is closely and
inextricably bound in many different ways, not the
least being that its protection, promotion, and
restoration are among the fundamental goals which the
political system serves to promote (though there are
others).

If I'm right about that, the one solution may be not
to place more emphasis on the centrality of the
religio to the Nova Roma project (though that may also
be useful), but to emphasise the inescapable presence
of the religio in all parts of Nova Roma. If we can
get more people coming in who understand that they can
participate to a very great extent without themselves
praticing the religio but also that they must not
expect to be able to operate in Nova Roma without
coming into contact with the religio at all, we may, I
hope, see an improvement.

Another point you raise is the 'micronation /
sovereignty project' one:

> There is, however, a sense in which Nova Roma's
> self-presentation is
> profoundly misleading to potential citizens. The
> micronational idea had
> a certain glamour in the days of Nova Roma's
> founding, but I doubt very
> many reasonable people can seriously believe that
> any nation state would
> ever cede any portion of it sovereign territory,
> granting full,
> independent extraterritoriality to a living history
> experiment devoted
> to recreating Roma antiqua...

> ... Nova Roma made a mistake in introducing the
> notion
> of micronationality.
> What was really intended was the creation of the
> legal fiction of a
> state which would permit the cultus of the Religio
> Publica to be
> reestablished. It is real in the sense that we
> believe in the pax
> Deorum and that real benefits accrue to the
> participants in Nova Roma
> from performance of these public religious rites.
> It is however a
> fiction in the sense that it claims statehood for no
> purpose but
> providing a framework for the Religio Publica.

I agree with this to a great extent, and I remember
realising very soon after I arrived in the community
(and before I applied for citizenship) that the
primary motivation for the creation of the whole
edifice was the recognition that the religio Romana
can't adequately be practiced without a Roman state or
something like it. Having said that, I'm not sure that
there is a problem inherent in Nova Roma calling
itself a micronation: the word doesn't necessarily
imply any claim to or desire for real sovereignty, it
just means a community whose political organization is
analagous to that of a state. That seems to me an
adequate description of Nova Roma, though not a
complete one since it fails to recognize that Nova
Roma also has goals it seeks to achieve in the real
world.

Even the idea of Nova Roma as a sovereignty project is
not, I'd suggest, necessarily inimical to the primary
goals of the project. Certainly it is not and ought
not to be recognized as one of Nova Roma's formal
goals, for it is implausible and the pursuit of it is
likely to get us into trouble. Potential citizens who
are attracted to Nova Roma mainly or solely by the
idea of a real-world Roman state ought to be
discouraged. But it is an appealing idea, and one
which many citizens would welcome in principle so long
as it should not detract from Nova Roma's other goals.
There need be no harm in citizens harbouring a desire
for a real state, or even striving to achieve it, so
long as they understand that Nova Roma's other goals
take priority and that the use of force, or any
measure which would draw negative attention from
macronational authorities, is utterly out of the
question. In short, I do not believe that Nova Roma
should *oppose* the creation of a real Nova Roman
state, and I do not believe that citizens who hold
this among their other hopes for Nova Roma ought to be
made to feel unwelcome. Statements from senior
statesmen to the effect that there can never and must
never be a real Nova Roman state do no one any good.

> The desire to eventually obtain land, build a forum,
> erect temples, and
> openly celebrate the public rites of the Religio
> Romana is real. Over
> time it is almost certainly doable, although perhaps
> not in my lifetime.
> Still, it will be done in accordance with the laws
> of the sovereign
> nation on whose soil it is built and we shall be
> subject to their laws.
> Within our community we may govern ourselves by our
> own laws, but only
> to the extent that they do not contravene the laws
> of the nation on
> whose soil our forum is built.

That is indeed the most likely scenario, and would
probably be quite adequate for almost all Nova Roma
might wish to do; but we must recognize that the hope
for real sovereignty within that forum is clearly
expressed in our founding documents - indeed the
Declaration asserts an in-principle claim to
sovereignty over the whole territory formerly ruled by
Rome! That can't be ignored, though, as I've said
above, the pursuit of such fancies to the detriment of
Nova Roma's other goals is to be prevented.

> Most of our conflicts arise because we have not been
> explicit enough
> about the fact that Nova Roma is an effort to raise
> one place within a
> modern world, which regards us as eccentrics, where
> the ancient Gods are
> revered, the mos maiorum followed, and the tragic
> turning away from the
> classical world is rejected. The preservation of
> that one place -- even
> though encumbered by the need to comply with the
> legal strictures of
> modern nations -- is something many, probably most,
> of us are willing to
> fight for. For us the fact that the NR "state"
> exists to enable the
> Religio Publica is the one absolutely non-negotiable
> principle. This is
> not intended to exclude citizens of any other
> religion, but to remind
> them that this sanctuary for the Religio Romana is
> ultimately why Nova
> Roma is here. They are welcome, nay, encouraged to
> participate in Nova
> Roman life to the fullest -- so long as this basic
> principle is
> respected. Those non-practitioners of the Religio
> who cannot accept
> this have simply chosen the wrong place to be, for
> themselves and for
> Nova Roma.

Again I agree, though I prefer your first formulation
of the fundamental purpose of Nova Roma - "to raise
one place within a modern world, which regards us as
eccentrics, where the ancient Gods are revered, the
mos maiorum followed, and the tragic turning away from
the classical world is rejected" - to your second -
"sanctuary for the Religio Romana is ultimately why
Nova Roma is here". Too great an emphasis on the
religio as the only true purpose and justification of
Nova Roma is likely to alienate people who, given the
slightly broader mission you forumlated first, would
readily accept the crucial importance of the religio
and would strive to further its interests even though
they do not follow it. I shan't insult your knowledge
of Roman history by listing the famous Romans who
questioned the existence of the gods; but it's
important to note that they would not wish to be
members of Nova Roma if its sole purpose were to
provide a haven for sincere and believing
practitioners, and the same is true of people today
who Nova Roma would surely not wish to reject or
discourage. It is unlikely that there will be many
people out there who don't believe in or who don't
worship the Roman gods but who nonetheless desperately
want to revive the Roman religion - and so stating the
revival of the religio as the sole purpose (and I
acknowledge this isn't quite what you said, but it has
been said) of Nova Roma is in pratice tantamount to
saying that those who support and welcome the revival
of the religio but are more interested in reviving
other aspects of Roman life are unwelcome. What we
need to send out is a clear message that Nova Roma
wants people who are dedicated to the creation of a
hub and focus for the revival of the Roman way of
life, and who recognize that the Roman way of life
contains the religio as a fundamental part and that it
is therefore impossible to support the Nova Roma
project without supporting the religio.

> Debates about modern constitutional law in Nova Roma
> make as much sense
> to me as does plopping a lecture on quantum
> mechanics into the middle of
> a football game. It is a category error which so
> basically misses what
> Nova Roma is ultimately about as to leave me
> breathless with
> astonishment. I would not be surprised if some of
> the footballers
> wanted to smack the physicists' heads together, nor
> that the physicists
> regarded the footballers as neanderthal oafs.

This is perhaps a slight digression, but I think
there's a gentle reprimand in here directed towards me
among others, and I feel I must respond. There's a
distinction to be made between modern things and
modern ways of thinking about things. Many of the
tools and strategies used by contemporary historians
to think about Roman history - quantification,
carbon-dating, textual analysis, comparative history -
were utterly alien to Roman historians, but this is no
reason for Nova Roma to reject them as useful elements
in the study of history. Similarly modern
constitutional theory may provide useful ways of
looking at the operation of the Roman political
system, and thus indirectly the Nova Roman political
system. This is, however, quite different from the
importation of modern constitutional *practice* into
Nova Roma's political system. So I would defend the
discussion of the Roman and Nova Roman political
systems in terms of modern constitutional notions such
as rigidity vs. flexibility, because they allow us to
discover something important about how Nova Roma's
constitution fails to correctly follow the Roman one;
and having discovered it, we can correct it.

> ... When
> modern attitudes and
> modern practices matter more than the mos maiorum,
> we have profoundly
> lost our way. In an organisation dedicated to
> historical recreation,
> not all opinions are equal. Historical evidence is
> the touchstone of
> correct practice.

I'm reluctant to respond to this with my own views,
because I think you've raised an important and useful
topic which needs to be discussed in its own right,
not lost in the midst of yet another fruitless debate
on the importance of historical accuracy. I'll
restrict myself to commenting on how that debate
relates to how we ought to present Nova Roma to the
world.

There has been disagreement about the importance of
historical accuracy since the beginning of Nova Roma.
There has been progress toward the achievement of Nova
Roma's goals since the beginning of Nova Roma. From
those two axioms I infer that disagreement about the
importance of historical accuracy is not incompatible
with progress toward our goals. Given this, I don't
see the formulation of a clear policy on the
importance of historical accuracy as necessary, even
if consensus on the issue were possible. Dedication to
the goals is what is required, and the goals are
therefore what we need to express and formulate
clearly: the precise content of those goals, and the
best means to achieve them, are matters for continuing
discussion and reevaluation. It is self-evident that
dedication to the goal of Nova Roma requires a
recognition of historical accuracy as at least one
among a number of values: there is no reason to
exclude or discourage potential citizens by further
narrowing the issue.

That's all I can think of to add to your opening move:
I look forward to others' contributions, and your own
responses, to a very worthwhile discussion which I
applaud you for initiating.





____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

Salvete Quirites, et salve Agrippina Modia,

Agrippina Modia Aurelia wrote:

> I could comb through the archives in my spare time to compile a list
> of the questions/issues raised frequently. However, I'm in no
> position to answer them.

Yes, I completely understand. But perhaps I could find a couple of
Senators willing to undertake that effort if we had the list of
questions which most frequently are asked.

We might also want to include a section on "hot button issues" which
have often spawned heated discussions. I'm sure you'll run across a few
of those in your efforts.

> If everyone agrees, I will compile the list & submit it here.

I'm not everyone, but I certainly would appreciate you doing it.

Vale,

-- Marinus

The posibility of Nova Roma achiving sovereignty as a real world
independant nation has to be looked at realisticy. The Chances of it
happening are close to Nil.

There is also a major misunderstanding about what these goals are. The
model is the Vatican, NOT Israel. The Vatican has 108 acres that are
the central home of the Catholic Church, it is NOT a home to more than
a microscopic percentage of the worlds Catholics. It has no means of
self defense relying on Italy to provide that. It has no criminal
Justice system, it relys on Italy to provide that. It is very limited
in the ammount of sovereignty that it actualy holds.

There were two sucessful sovereignty projects in the last Century. The
Vatican had the advantage of having the support of a large percentage
of the population of Italy in it's quest. We aren't going to get
anywhere near that kind of public support in any nation on Earth. Even
with a large ammount of Public suppor it still required an Italian
Dictator to overcome the reluctance of a modern state to recognize a
nation with limited sovereignty in it's midst. There is almost no
chance of Nova Roma acheving this set of conditions in the foreseeable
future.

The Other Project was Israel. The World Zionist Congress started with
a world wide Jewish population that was many times anything that Nova
Roma can expect to achieve in the next few centuries. They won the
support of a Colonial power that wanted the support of the millions of
Jews in a World War. The Chances of us gaining the support of a
Colonial power that will grant us rights over land they conqured is
Nil. The Establishment of the state led to resentments among people's
in the area that resulted in almost constant warfare for the past 57
years. Israel would have not have surrivived those attacks without
outside support from world powers. There is no chance of us gaining a
World power as a backer. We would quickly be destroyed.

Making plans based on an expectation of full sovereignty is even more
unrealistic than spending large ammounts of money based on having a
ticket for this weeks Lottry Jackpot. Winning the Lottery is more
likely than Nova Roma acheving sovereignty. That is a bit of reality
that we have to face, and our plans have to be consistant with that fact.

L. Sicinius Drusus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:

> Even the idea of Nova Roma as a sovereignty project is
> not, I'd suggest, necessarily inimical to the primary
> goals of the project. Certainly it is not and ought
> not to be recognized as one of Nova Roma's formal
> goals, for it is implausible and the pursuit of it is
> likely to get us into trouble. Potential citizens who
> are attracted to Nova Roma mainly or solely by the
> idea of a real-world Roman state ought to be
> discouraged. But it is an appealing idea, and one
> which many citizens would welcome in principle so long
> as it should not detract from Nova Roma's other goals.
> There need be no harm in citizens harbouring a desire
> for a real state, or even striving to achieve it, so
> long as they understand that Nova Roma's other goals
> take priority and that the use of force, or any
> measure which would draw negative attention from
> macronational authorities, is utterly out of the
> question. In short, I do not believe that Nova Roma
> should *oppose* the creation of a real Nova Roman
> state, and I do not believe that citizens who hold
> this among their other hopes for Nova Roma ought to be
> made to feel unwelcome. Statements from senior
> statesmen to the effect that there can never and must
> never be a real Nova Roman state do no one any good.

Salvete !

I think that it should be also said that the Romans gave us the ideas
of a State, and of an administration independent of personal bonds,
and the achievements which those allow. The Middle Ages were an
exemplary regression from this point of view.

Je pense qu'il faut dire aussi que les Romains nous ont donné l'idée
d'un Etat, d'une administration non fondée sur les liens personnels,
et les réalisations que permettent ceux-ci. Le moyen-âge a été une
régression exemplaire à ce point de vue.

Valete !

Lucius Rutilius Minervalis
Provinciae Galliae Legatus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@c...>
wrote:

> Salvete Quirites,
>
> antesignanus asked:
>
> > Considering the big picture of the western civilization...which
> > one really established and contributed more to the western
> > civilization of today: Ancient Greeks or ancient Romans..?? Any
> > evidences for the argument will be appreciated...
>
> This is one of those "Embrace the power of 'and'" kind of questions, I
> think. Western civilization would not be what it is without the
> contributions of both.
>
> However, that said, I must come down on the side of Rome. The network
> of roads that the Romans built, and the Pax Romana, contributed to the
> free flow of commerce and to the spread of ideas in a way that the
> Greeks never approached. Alexander of Macedon did something similar,
> but it only lasted a bit longer than his own lifetime. The Roman

effort

> lasted for many centuries, and served to cement the various peoples of
> the Empire into an amalgam which continues to this day.
>
> Valete Quirites,
>
> -- Marinus

Salvete Quirites, et salve Cato,

Cato writes:

> .... if we are
> decidedly *not* going to become an *actual* "temporal home" as well
> as a spiritual one (i.e., a "Mecca for the Religio", as Palladius put
> it), then what is the point of any non-religio practitioner to be a
> citizen?

I say that the point is to participate, to whatever degree that person
finds desirable, in interactions with people who consider Roman virtues
and values important.

> If the only concrete result of NR is the re-establishment
> of the Roman cults, then there's not much left.

And *if* the only concrete result of NR were that, then I'd agree.
Personally, I think we can do something more.

> It's very
> interesting to talk about Roman history, culture, linguistics, etc.,
> but when push comes to shove I could join any number of chat groups
> to fulfill this desire.

But not with the kind of synergy that exists in Nova Roma.

> I expected NR to be, somehow, more than
> that. Much more. It is rather disconcerting to be told that no,
> it's really all about the religio.

And I tell you that no, it's *not* all about the Religio. The Religio
is our state religion, and it enjoys pride of place. Nova Roma was
indeed founded to provide a home for the Religio, and to provide the
practitioners of the Religio with a place where they can be comfortable
in discussing their faith and beliefs. But to say that Nova Roma is all
about the Religio Romana is as great an error as saying that the
conflict in Northern Ireland is all about religious differences.

> It is delightful and
> fun to dress in a toga and sit at a keyboard

Believe me, trying to type while wearing a toga is a bad idea. I've
been known to type while wearing a tunic, but I set the toga aside
before making any attempt at typing.

> and talk about Very
> Important Things, but if they will never come to fruition, never take
> on a physical reality (other than the practice of the religio), then
> it is really no more than a game.

Since you're using the word game here in its sense of an unimportant
thing that people play to pass the time, I must disagree. (Had you used
it in the specific sense of "Game Theory" I might have agreed.) Nova
Roma is an effort on the part of a great many people to share their
interest in things Roman. Nova Roma is many ideas, and many visions,
all tied together by a common interest in Romanitas.

Vale, and valete,

-- Marinus

Esteemed Iulius Scaurus

IÂ’ve read with attention your post and find it a magnificent contradiction.

On one side you say that Nova Roma has made a mistake to present itself to the
people wishing to join, by not making clear enough how the Religion is,
effectively, the central core of what all Nova Roma is about.
For this reason, and fairness, “we” should start a debate about how to solve the
issue and not be dishonest with teh ones in future wanting to join.

WhereÂ’s the contradiction? Well, a post that seemingly wants to address a matter
of fairness forgets a very, basic, essential and prioritary issue: what about
the people who have *already* joined, who have contributed already with their
energies and, at times, money, in the mistaken opinion (but mistaken because,
as you admit, you have misrepresented Nova Roma and thus you are responsible
for it.. and I mean you as you and the ones who share your views of course, not
you alone) that Religio was a part, but only a part, of Nova Roma? Shall you
give them their money back and the economical of their hours spent working for
Nova Roma, given itÂ’s impossible to give them back their time, from the moment
you published the Constitution till now?

And we are back at the core of the issue. It would be nice if people would
realize that their own personal perspective about Nova Roma are secondary,
included the ones of the founding fathers, once you put down in the
Constitution a sentence that, reading “The primary functions of Nova Roma shall
be to promote the study and practice of pagan Roman civilization, defined as
the period from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal of
the altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE and encompassing such fields as
religion, culture, politics, art, literature, language, and philosophy”, makes
the Religio just one, for how important and noble (as I never denied it to be
and teh Constitution goes a great lenght in affirming), of the several things
Nova Roma is about.

Therefore, while I share most of your ideas about micronations (the happy case
of Sealand in fact shall hardly be allowed again), and I agree that Religio is
important and is taken seriously in Nova Roma, I decisely reject your statement
that it is “central to the mission of Nova Roma”, being only one of, expressly,
seven main areas of focusing (fourteen, if you divide the study and the
practice). And I reject that, not because that's my personal opinion that it
isn't so, but because it's the Constitution to explicitally deny it, placing
the Religio among many other things of equal importance. Of course, considering
your statement about constitutional matters and teh discussions and analysys
about it, one is brought to make some considerations about the value you seem
to give to the Constitution's lines that do not fit your view, and thatÂ’s
extremely sad, even if understandable, given your position within Nova Roma and
the Colelgium Pontificarum, that of course is not supposed to have the most
unbiased view about Nova Roma and the Religio.

WhatÂ’s even sadder is that persisting in such a line of giving to the Religio
the central and supreme importance in Nova Roma is of detriment to the Res
Publica and will eventually strangle it. We could be a great, international,
interracial, interreligious (and the Religio wouldnÂ’t by that be made less, on
the contrary) organization capable, considering the number of people gifted of
extreme enthusiasm, of superior education (that not only being a school degree)
and surely of averagely superior open-mindness, of great things, be it
international study groups, international re-enactment meetings and so on.

What will you achieve, instead, trying to push the view (against the
Constitution) that the Religio is most if not all that Nova Roma is about? A
little group of people united by a very important thing of course, but unable
to confront themselves with the others and demonstrating this unability by
forcing out the ones not sharing their orthodox view and cheering about it.
You, apparently, are afraid of being belittled, ridiculized and “persecuted”,
yet you are doing exactly what is needed to be treated as such, meaning
isolating yourselves. Once, *if*, you will have managed to alienate the ones
like Gneus Carantus and expell, sooner or later, with more or less "legal"
ways, the more stubborn ones who do not share your views, what shall you be
left with? Livy would say a desert that you call peace. Of course you might
very well enjoy to live in a desert, but then one doesnÂ’t understand your
striving for being recognized by the others, and your having opened this place
to non Religio practitioners.

Now, IÂ’ve been a citizen for fours years, I did and do my little part in Nova
Roma (admittedly, more in the real life Nova Roma than in the "virtual" one,
stillÂ…), I confide in the Constitution and IÂ’m afraid I will always oppose the
ones, like you in this case, trying to pass their own vision as THE vision.
Change the Constitution, democratically with the mans it gives you to do so,
but until then, donÂ’t smuggle your *vision* of Nova Roma, no matter how
followed it is, as Nova Roma, because until you will have 2/3 of the people
changing the Constitution and the Senate with it, Nova Roma is, again, about “
promote the study and practice of pagan Roman civilization, defined as the
period from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal of the
altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE and encompassing such fields as
religion, culture, politics, art, literature, language, and philosophy.”


Vale Bene

DCF
PF Constantinia
Aedilis Urbis

G. Equitius Cato G. Iulio Scauro quiritibusque S.P.D.

Slvea, ponitefx, et salvete omnes,

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gregory Rose <gfr@w...> wrote:
> G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.
>
> Salvete, Quirites.
>
>
> There is, however, a sense in which Nova Roma's self-presentation
is
> profoundly misleading to potential citizens. The micronational
idea had
> a certain glamour in the days of Nova Roma's founding, but I doubt
very
> many reasonable people can seriously believe that any nation state
would
> ever cede any portion of it sovereign territory, granting full,
> independent extraterritoriality to a living history experiment
devoted
> to recreating Roma antiqua. It hasn't happened. It won't happen.

CATO: Then the wording of the Constitution must be changed.

>

>
> Nova Roma made a mistake in introducing the notion of
micronationality.

CATO: Exactly!


> What was really intended was the creation of the legal fiction of
a
> state which would permit the cultus of the Religio Publica to be
> reestablished. It is real in the sense that we believe in the pax
> Deorum and that real benefits accrue to the participants in Nova
Roma
> from performance of these public religious rites. It is however a
> fiction in the sense that it claims statehood for no purpose but
> providing a framework for the Religio Publica.

CATO: So, in fact, NR exists, in the real world, *solely* to advance
the ancient cults of Rome...contrary to what the Constitution and
Declaration state.

>
> The magistracies and institutions of the legal fiction also provide
us
> with a way of organising ourselves as closely as we can on the
Roman
> model within our organisation. Organisations require internal
codes of
> behaviour: we call them laws, we even have a criminal code. But
the
> ultimate sanction is explusion from the community, like the
ultimate
> sanction in a club is being given the boot.
>


>
> Certainly we seek to promote the Roman virtues in the modern world,
but
> there is a sense in which a great deal of what Nova Roma is about
is
> dissent from the modern world: the recognition that seventeen
hundred
> years ago mankind made a terrible mistake in turning it back on
> classical civilisation and a world full of Gods. People who are
here
> because of reeactment groups, or the cooking sodalitas, or to take
a
> course in the Academia, or just because they have a romantic vision
of
> Rome are here for valid reasons -- but they aren't necessarily here
for
> the ultimate reason for which Nova Roma was founded.
>
> Most of our conflicts arise because we have not been explicit
enough
> about the fact that Nova Roma is an effort to raise one place
within a
> modern world, which regards us as eccentrics, where the ancient
Gods are
> revered, the mos maiorum followed, and the tragic turning away from
the
> classical world is rejected.

CATO: The crucial issue here, pontifex, is the definition of
the "mos maiorum"...which mos maiorum? The one of the Roman
Republic? Or the one of the citizens who exist today in NR? *If* it
is indeed the mos maiorum of the classical world, then NR is
violating it precisely because of those things which have been
repeatedly called "straw man" arguments. The mos maiorum of
Republican Rome contained within itself the understanding that
slavery was an essential, even *necessary* part of economics and
society; that women were *not* to be given positions of authority
(outside certain religious cults) because this offended the very gods
you worship; that combat to the death was used to present the world
in submission to the Republic (the gladiators wore stylized Samnite
armour to reflect the stubborn, disgruntled tribes in their midst);
that the Sybilline books *did* require human sacrifice in case of
dire emergency. All these things were essential elements of the
world in which the Republic lived and moved and had its being...they
*are* the mos maiorum of Republican Rome, as much as the religio.

The preservation of that one place -- even
> though encumbered by the need to comply with the legal strictures
of
> modern nations -- is something many, probably most, of us are
willing to
> fight for. For us the fact that the NR "state" exists to enable
the
> Religio Publica is the one absolutely non-negotiable principle.
This is
> not intended to exclude citizens of any other religion, but to
remind
> them that this sanctuary for the Religio Romana is ultimately why
Nova
> Roma is here. They are welcome, nay, encouraged to participate in
Nova
> Roman life to the fullest -- so long as this basic principle is
> respected. Those non-practitioners of the Religio who cannot
accept
> this have simply chosen the wrong place to be, for themselves and
for
> Nova Roma.

CATO: Then what you are attempting to re-create is a religion, not a
state.


>
> Debates about modern constitutional law in Nova Roma make as much
sense
> to me as does plopping a lecture on quantum mechanics into the
middle of
> a football game. It is a category error which so basically misses
what
> Nova Roma is ultimately about as to leave me breathless with
> astonishment. I would not be surprised if some of the footballers
> wanted to smack the physicists' heads together, nor that the
physicists
> regarded the footballers as neanderthal oafs. When modern
attitudes and
> modern practices matter more than the mos maiorum, we have
profoundly
> lost our way. In an organisation dedicated to historical
recreation,
> not all opinions are equal. Historical evidence is the touchstone
of
> correct practice. The "best of Rome, ""Rome as it should have
> been,""Rome as it would be in the 21st century" are subjective
> judgments, not historical ones. We can choose what we wish to
recreate,
> to be sure, but the farther we move from a sound grounding in
historical
> evidence as the touchstone of our enterprise, the more at the mercy
of
> anyone's modern fantasy we become. >
> What Nova Roma is ultimately about is living in accordance with the
mos
> maiorum, for that is what the Religio is. If the founders were not
> lawyers who explicated every possible contingency and phrased
things
> ineptly in ways which may cause confusions, so be it. Just what
the
> hell do people thing the Twelve Tables were? The entirety of Roman
> history was an ongoing attempt to test the experiences of life
against
> the mos maiorum and to embrace necessary novelty by bringing it
within
> the understanding of a tradition stretching back to time
immemorial.
> The mos maiorum was more law than any lex or plebiscitum, any
decretum
> or edictum; it was what the rest of the panoply of Roman law was
tested
> against time and time again in the Senate, the Comitia, the forum,
the
> homes of Roman families.


CATO: see above regarding the "mos maiorum"


People who don't get that fundamentally don't
> get what Nova Roma is about. No one who has seriously studied the
> organisation's history and development can fail to miss this
fundamental
> commonality between Roma Antiqua and Roma Nova. It is the thing
which
> in the midst of all the extraordinarily frustrating and often
> counterproductive bullshit which can percolate in this group which
> sustains me and gives me hope.
>
> The love of Roman history, literature, and culture, the
reenactments,
> the sodalitates, the Academia, the political posturing on the main
list,
> the salacious muggery of the back alley -- all of this is part of
Nova
> Roma, and a vital, sustaining part.


CATO: and they were an *extensive* part of life in the
Republic...especially the raucous political posturing :)


But if it all went away tomorrow,
> the core would still remain: a place where the mos maiorum can be
lived
> and the Religio practiced. It is only if we lose that that we are,
in
> the modern vernacular, well and truly fucked.
>
> We need to find a way to explain this to those who consider joining
us,
> because to fail to do so would be dishonest. I hope you will
consider
> this a modest contribution to opening a discussion on how this can
be done.


CATO: Well said, pontifex, although as you can see above, I disagree
with one of your fundamental arguments. As it was made (finally)
clear to me, it is apparent that regardless of what the Constitution,
the Declaration, the Laws, Edicts, etc., say, NR exists to allow a
group of people to practice a religion. No "better" or "worse" than
Roman Catholicism, or Anglicanism, or Hinduism, or Judaism, or Islam,
or Animism...it's just another religion. It *is* indeed dishonest to
cloak it with a "love of Rome" or desire to "re-create Roman society"
in all its splendor, because as you have pointed out, it really, at
its core, has little to do with these. The simplest way to "explain"
this correctly is to simply only invite people who want to worship
the Roman gods to join; or better yet, present yourself *as* a
religious group. Because, pontifex, that is what you are. There is
(and I do *not* mean to sound condescending) nothing wrong with
that. It is the honest face of NR. The rest is just role-playing
and window dressing.


>
> Valete.
>
> Scaurus

vale et valete,

Cato

G. Equitius Cato G. Equitio Marino Consul quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve et salvete,

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus
<gawne@c...> wrote:

> I suppose that before we can continue, we ought to define a state.

I

> happen to think that the Nova Roman state has other functions

besides

> providing a framework for the Religio.
>
> From Merriam-Webster online:
>
> Main Entry: 1 state
> Pronunciation: 'stAt
> Function: noun
> Usage: often attributive
> Etymology: Middle English stat, from Old French & Latin; Old French
> estat, from Latin status, from stare to stand

..................................................

>> 5 a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a
> definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign b : the

political

> organization of such a body of people c : a government or

politically

> organized society having a particular character <a police state>

<the

> welfare state>
> 6 : the operations or concerns of the government of a country
> 7 a : one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal
> government <the fifty states> b plural, capitalized : The United

States

> of America
> 8 : the territory of a state
>
> For our purposes we're looking at definitions 5 and 6. Some have
> thought that we're also talking about 8, though as has been

indicated in

> recent days that claim to sovereign territory is something for the

far

> future.
>
> But looking at 5b and 5c, we can see that our state satisfies both

of

> those definitions. We also most certainly satisfy definition 6.

So we

> satisfy the understood definition of a state in ways that go beyond

the

> Religio Romana.

CATO: With all due respect, Consul, I've just created a state, which
*also* fulfills these definitions. You can find it here:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-
bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=avoriaz

It took me about 15 minutes, and already has 6 million inhabitants :)
And I haven't even decided on a religion yet...
The point I'm making is that, according to several citizens, but most
clearly explained in Pontifex Scaurus' post, NR really exists as a
religion, with the rest as sort of added eye candy. *Anyone* can
teach their children, their friends, their co-workers, the great
moral values of Rome by example; indeed, most religions teach those
same moral values: dignity, respect, piety, etc. They have *not*
been lost by the modern world. Only the Roman gods have. And, as
the pontifex points out, those gods are now being worshipped again.
By NR. NR is just a re-construction, complete with sacrifices, of
the Roman cult of the gods. The rest is play-acting. The Constitution
and Declaration are neat-sounding documents of little actual purpose.
Unless this is *not* the case, I too will surrender my citizenship.

>
> In the interest of brevity I'm not going to quote all those points

which

> Scaurus made with which I agree. Suffice to say that he and I are

very

> close in our views. The fact that I am highlighting the very

nuanced

> differences should not be taken as any sort of suggestion that I
> disagree in general with his point that the emphasis sometimes

placed on

> the term micronation has not served our state well.
>
> Valete Quirites,
>
> -- Marinus

vale et valete,

Cato

Salvete Quirites, et salve Cato,

Cato writes:

> CATO: With all due respect, Consul, I've just created a state, which
> *also* fulfills these definitions. You can find it here:
>
> http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-
> bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=avoriaz

You might want to use something like http://tinyurl.com to shorten
these long links when you post them. In any case, I get a timeout
error after I reconstruct the broken link you posted.

I suspect it doesn't matter, and that you're attempting to make some
sort of reducto ad absurdum argument. My point, however, is and remains
that Nova Roma is a state and that the state has purpose and function
which go beyond the restoration of the Religio Romana.

> The point I'm making is that, according to several citizens, but most
> clearly explained in Pontifex Scaurus' post, NR really exists as a
> religion, with the rest as sort of added eye candy.

Pontifex Scaurus doesn't speak for the State.

Senator Palladius doesn't speak for the State.

No one person is currently empowered to speak for the State.

The Voice of the State is only heard when the Comitiae vote. That is
the only time you will hear it. Even the decrees of a Dictator, while
irrefutable, are not the Voice of the State.

You have been provided with the earnest opinions of learned men. They
have perspectives on these questions which come from their own
interests. I hold them both in considerable regard, and would trust
either one of them to guard my back in a firefight. But I do not agree
with their stated views of the purpose of the Nova Roman state in every
particular.

> *Anyone* can
> teach their children, their friends, their co-workers, the great
> moral values of Rome by example;

But what they can not do, most of the time, is understand those things
in the depth and breadth that we acheive here. And because of that the
virtues are misunderstood and applied badly by well-intentioned people.
We can act as a force to change that. We can educate. We can be the
beacon light of knowledge about Romanitas.

> indeed, most religions teach those
> same moral values: dignity, respect, piety, etc. They have *not*
> been lost by the modern world. Only the Roman gods have. And, as
> the pontifex points out, those gods are now being worshipped again.
> By NR.

Not only by NR. There are other Religio Romana organizations out there
which are independent of Nova Roma. What we provide that they don't is
a complete Roman state.

> NR is just a re-construction, complete with sacrifices, of
> the Roman cult of the gods.

I do not accept that. I will never accept that. The Nova Roma which I
joined, and which elected me to its magistracies; the Nova Roma I
represent to the wider world, is not *just* the thing you describe. It
is more, and it will remain more.

Vale, and valete Quirites,

-- Marinus

Salve,

The Preamble to Nova Roma's Constitution.

We, the Senate and People of Nova Roma, as an independent and
sovereign nation, herewith set forth this Constitution as the
foundation and structure of our governing institutions and common
society. We hereby declare our Nation to stand as a beacon for those
who would recreate the best of ancient Rome. AS A NATION, NOVA ROMA
SHALL BE THE TEMPORAL HOMELAND AND WORLDLY FOCUS FOR THE RELIGIO
ROMANA. The primary functions of Nova Roma shall be to promote the
study and practice of PAGAN ROMAN CIVILIZATION, defined as the period
from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal of the
altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE and encompassing such
fields as RELIGION, culture, politics, art, literature, language, and
philosophy.

As the spiritual heir to the ancient Roman Republic and Empire, Nova
Roma shall endeavor to exist, in all manners PRACTICAL and ACCEPTABLE,
as the modern restoration of the ancient Roman Republic. The culture,
religion, and society of Nova Roma shall be patterned upon those of
ancient Rome.

What part of PRACTICAL and ACCEPTABLE do you fail to understand?

The is no PRACTICAL way that Nova Roma is going to achive the
independance needed to revive slavery even if it were desired. Talking
about it is almost as absurd as making plans to construct a fleet of
UFOs to colonize Mars as the Nova Roman Homeland, and that wild
improbility is what renders discusions of slavery the status of a
strawman argument.

L. Sicinius Drusus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Michael" <mlcinnyc@y...> wrote:
> G. Equitius Cato G. Iulio Scauro quiritibusque S.P.D.

>
> CATO: The crucial issue here, pontifex, is the definition of
> the "mos maiorum"...which mos maiorum? The one of the Roman
> Republic? Or the one of the citizens who exist today in NR? *If* it
> is indeed the mos maiorum of the classical world, then NR is
> violating it precisely because of those things which have been
> repeatedly called "straw man" arguments. The mos maiorum of
> Republican Rome contained within itself the understanding that
> slavery was an essential, even *necessary* part of economics and
> society; that women were *not* to be given positions of authority
> (outside certain religious cults) because this offended the very gods
> you worship; that combat to the death was used to present the world
> in submission to the Republic (the gladiators wore stylized Samnite
> armour to reflect the stubborn, disgruntled tribes in their midst);
> that the Sybilline books *did* require human sacrifice in case of
> dire emergency. All these things were essential elements of the
> world in which the Republic lived and moved and had its being...they
> *are* the mos maiorum of Republican Rome, as much as the religio.
>
> The preservation of that one place -- even
> > though encumbered by the need to comply with the legal strictures
> of
> > modern nations -- is something many, probably most, of us are
> willing to
> > fight for. For us the fact that the NR "state" exists to enable
> the
> > Religio Publica is the one absolutely non-negotiable principle.
> This is
> > not intended to exclude citizens of any other religion, but to
> remind
> > them that this sanctuary for the Religio Romana is ultimately why
> Nova
> > Roma is here. They are welcome, nay, encouraged to participate in
> Nova
> > Roman life to the fullest -- so long as this basic principle is
> > respected. Those non-practitioners of the Religio who cannot
> accept
> > this have simply chosen the wrong place to be, for themselves and
> for
> > Nova Roma.

G. Equitius Cato wrote:

> CATO: So, in fact, NR exists, in the real world, *solely* to

advance

> the ancient cults of Rome...contrary to what the Constitution and
> Declaration state.

And:

> CATO: Then the wording of the Constitution must be changed.

(Though not in that order - but with the rest of the context snipped
I think those two statements make more sense in that order, and I
hope by this rearrangement I have not misrepresented what you said.)

It may be true that *some members* of NR think that the religion is
the only important aspect of the organisation; others do not.

To change the constitution, it has to be approved both by the comitia
centuriata and then by a vote of the senate. Currently, the
constitution says what you quoted it as saying, which is (as you
pointed out) *not* that religion is the only important aspect. Nova
Roma exists, in the real world, to do as its citizens choose -
whether that is to be a group of people striving for the independence
of a real nation, working towards the reconstruction of an ancient
religion, seeking a more widespread appreciation of Roman culture and
values, or whatever.

Why threaten to give up your citizenship over something which has not
happened?

If there is a law proposed to change our declaration and cut out
everything apart from religious reconstruction, and the law passes, I
will understand it if everyone who is not a follower of the Religio
Romana resigns their citizenship - but if they did not vote against
the change, they have no right to complain about it. That is what
democracy is. If you leave now and say you are leaving because of a
situation which is not current, you cannot blame the current
situation for your decision, but only your fears for the future.

Livia

Salvete Quirites,

A. Apollonius Cordus wrote, addressing Domitius Constantinus Fuscus:

> Finally, let me just say that although you didn't find
> it, there was in fact a fair bit of new matter in my
> last message. One new thing was that I accepted,
> contrary to my previous statements, that you were
> right in saying that something needs to be done about
> the constitution. Either it needs to be made
> explicitly and fully flexible, or it needs to be given
> adequate protections to keep it fully rigid. My
> suggestion was that we should move on to discuss which
> of the two is preferable.

Assuming that you both think this ought to be addressed this year, I'll
ask you to please keep Consul Astur and me informed. We are both much
too busy with the day to day business of the state (and our own lives)
to be able to follow these exchanges in detail. But in the end you're
not going to get anything in front of the Comitia Centuriata without our
agreement.

Furthermore, I think that it might be wise to move the discussion now to
somewhere that the record will be easily available. Things get lost in
the volume of the main list here. You may wish to use the Nova Roma
Laws list, or you may prefer to create a specific list for this
discussion of the Constitution (and then invite interested parties to
participate.)

Valete Quirites,

-- Marinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@c...>

SNIP

> I suspect it doesn't matter, and that you're attempting to make some
> sort of reducto ad absurdum argument. My point, however, is and

remains

> that Nova Roma is a state and that the state has purpose and function
> which go beyond the restoration of the Religio Romana.

Salve Consul,

The Term "State" has some implications that are the cause of many of
our problems. I prefer the term "Nation" to "State".

Note that the Declaration of Nova Roma opens with this statement.

"We, the Senate and People of New Rome, in order to restore the
foundations of Western Civilization, declare the founding of Nova Roma
as a soverign Nation. We manifest Nova Roma as an independent world
nation and republic, with its own legal constitution and lawful
government, with all international rights and responsibilities that
such status carries."

Also note that the term "Nation" is used in the preamble of the
Constitution.

We, the Senate and People of Nova Roma, as an independent and
sovereign nation, herewith set forth this Constitution as the
foundation and structure of our governing institutions and common
society. We hereby declare our Nation to stand as a beacon for those
who would recreate the best of ancient Rome. As a nation, Nova Roma
shall be the temporal homeland and worldly focus for the Religio
Romana. The primary functions of Nova Roma shall be to promote the
study and practice of pagan Roman civilization, defined as the period
from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal of the
altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE and encompassing such
fields as religion, culture, politics, art, literature, language, and
philosophy.

As the spiritual heir to the ancient Roman Republic and Empire, Nova
Roma shall endeavor to exist, in all manners practical and acceptable,
as the modern restoration of the ancient Roman Republic. The culture,
religion, and society of Nova Roma shall be patterned upon those of
ancient Rome.

Using the concept of the Roman Nation rather than the Roman State
opens up the posibility of a National Model other than the "State"
with all of the Implications of territorial aims that it implies.

Here is an example of a group that considers itself to be a sovereign
nation, but which has no state that is independant of the territorial
States that exist.

http://www.cherokee.org/

I would sugest that the sovereign nation status claimed by the
Cherokee and other native American nations is a better model for what
we hope to accomplish than the concept of a State is.

L. Sicinius Drusus

Salvete Quirites, et salve Luci Sicini,

Lucius Sicinius Drusus wrote:

> The Term "State" has some implications that are the cause of many of
> our problems. I prefer the term "Nation" to "State".

I share your preference, Druse, but our Constitution specifies that we
are a State, and thus we need to define what sort of state we are.

We are undoubtedly also a Nation, and I think the model you offer, of
the Cherokee and other Native American nations, is a good one. Thanks
for the link.

Vale, et valete Quirites,

-- Marinus

The term "State" is only mentioned in passing in the Constitution, ie
"the State shall..." rather than Nova Roma being explictly defined as
a state. All occurances of the term could be replaced with the more
accurate term "Nation" (With the exception of the mention of the State
of Maine) and it would have zero effect on how Nova Roma is organized.
It would however help clear up misconceptions about our goals.

Drusus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@c...>
wrote:

> Salvete Quirites, et salve Luci Sicini,
>
> Lucius Sicinius Drusus wrote:
>
> > The Term "State" has some implications that are the cause of many of
> > our problems. I prefer the term "Nation" to "State".
>
> I share your preference, Druse, but our Constitution specifies that we
> are a State, and thus we need to define what sort of state we are.
>
> We are undoubtedly also a Nation, and I think the model you offer, of
> the Cherokee and other Native American nations, is a good one. Thanks
> for the link.
>
> Vale, et valete Quirites,
>
> -- Marinus

Salve Fusce,

A point, I think, well made : What about us, stupids, we thought Nova Roma
was more that the Religio ? Shall we fall on our swords in dishonour ?
Besides, were ALL the ancients romans firm believers in the Religio ? I think
not...

Moravius Laureatus


In a message dated 29/04/04 18:19:07 GMT Daylight Time,
dom.con.fus@... writes:

> Esteemed Iulius Scaurus
>
> I’ve read with attention your post and find it a magnificent contradiction.
>
> On one side you say that Nova Roma has made a mistake to present itself to
> the
> people wishing to join, by not making clear enough how the Religion is,
> effectively, the central core of what all Nova Roma is about.
> For this reason, and fairness, “we” should start a debate about how to
> solve the
> issue and not be dishonest with teh ones in future wanting to join.
>
> Where’s the contradiction? Well, a post that seemingly wants to address a
> matter
> of fairness forgets a very, basic, essential and prioritary issue: what
> about
> the people who have *already* joined, who have contributed already with
> their
> energies and, at times, money, in the mistaken opinion (but mistaken
> because,
> as you admit, you have misrepresented Nova Roma and thus you are responsible
> for it.. and I mean you as you and the ones who share your views of course,
> not
> you alone) that Religio was a part, but only a part, of Nova Roma? Shall you
> give them their money back and the economical of their hours spent working
> for
> Nova Roma, given it’s impossible to give them back their time, from the
> moment
> you published the Constitution till now?
>
> And we are back at the core of the issue. It would be nice if people would
> realize that their own personal perspective about Nova Roma are secondary,
> included the ones of the founding fathers, once you put down in the
> Constitution a sentence that, reading “The primary functions of Nova Roma
> shall
> be to promote the study and practice of pagan Roman civilization, defined as
> the period from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal
> of
> the altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE and encompassing such fields
> as
> religion, culture, politics, art, literature, language, and philosophy”,
> makes
> the Religio just one, for how important and noble (as I never denied it to
> be
> and teh Constitution goes a great lenght in affirming), of the several
> things
> Nova Roma is about.
>
> Therefore, while I share most of your ideas about micronations (the happy
> case
> of Sealand in fact shall hardly be allowed again), and I agree that Religio
> is
> important and is taken seriously in Nova Roma, I decisely reject your
> statement
> that it is “central to the mission of Nova Roma”, being only one of,
> expressly,
> seven main areas of focusing (fourteen, if you divide the study and the
> practice). And I reject that, not because that's my personal opinion that it
> isn't so, but because it's the Constitution to explicitally deny it, placing
> the Religio among many other things of equal importance. Of course,
> considering
> your statement about constitutional matters and teh discussions and analysys
> about it, one is brought to make some considerations about the value you
> seem
> to give to the Constitution's lines that do not fit your view, and that’s
> extremely sad, even if understandable, given your position within Nova Roma
> and
> the Colelgium Pontificarum, that of course is not supposed to have the most
> unbiased view about Nova Roma and the Religio.
>
> What’s even sadder is that persisting in such a line of giving to the
> Religio
> the central and supreme importance in Nova Roma is of detriment to the Res
> Publica and will eventually strangle it. We could be a great, international,
> interracial, interreligious (and the Religio wouldn’t by that be made less,
> on
> the contrary) organization capable, considering the number of people gifted
> of
> extreme enthusiasm, of superior education (that not only being a school
> degree)
> and surely of averagely superior open-mindness, of great things, be it
> international study groups, international re-enactment meetings and so on.
>
> What will you achieve, instead, trying to push the view (against the
> Constitution) that the Religio is most if not all that Nova Roma is about? A
> little group of people united by a very important thing of course, but
> unable
> to confront themselves with the others and demonstrating this unability by
> forcing out the ones not sharing their orthodox view and cheering about it.
> You, apparently, are afraid of being belittled, ridiculized and “persecuted”
> ,
> yet you are doing exactly what is needed to be treated as such, meaning
> isolating yourselves. Once, *if*, you will have managed to alienate the ones
> like Gneus Carantus and expell, sooner or later, with more or less "legal"
> ways, the more stubborn ones who do not share your views, what shall you be
> left with? Livy would say a desert that you call peace. Of course you might
> very well enjoy to live in a desert, but then one doesn’t understand your
> striving for being recognized by the others, and your having opened this
> place
> to non Religio practitioners.
>
> Now, I’ve been a citizen for fours years, I did and do my little part in
> Nova
> Roma (admittedly, more in the real life Nova Roma than in the "virtual" one,
> still…), I confide in the Constitution and I’m afraid I will always oppose
> the
> ones, like you in this case, trying to pass their own vision as THE vision.
> Change the Constitution, democratically with the mans it gives you to do so,
> but until then, don’t smuggle your *vision* of Nova Roma, no matter how
> followed it is, as Nova Roma, because until you will have 2/3 of the people
> changing the Constitution and the Senate with it, Nova Roma is, again, about
> “
> promote the study and practice of pagan Roman civilization, defined as the
> period from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal of
> the
> altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE and encompassing such fields as
> religion, culture, politics, art, literature, language, and philosophy.”
>
>
> Vale Bene
>
> DCF
> PF Constantinia
> Aedilis Urbis
>

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

L Equitius Cincinnatus Augur Quiribus salutem dicit

Salvete, Quirotes Amicique

Once, long ago, I had a childhood friend, Bob. Now this youngster was
quite advanced mentally. Though I loved sport and didn't really care
overmuch for school, I was very good at chess. Bob and I became friends and
would spend time playing chess. Bob and I would talk about various things
and he appreciated me 'watching out for the bullies'.
Anyway, I'll get to the point. Bob was, I hope he's still with us and well,
a Genius.
I asked him one day why people thought he was so smart.

He said, "Tell people what is obvious and they'll think you're a Genius!"

Scaurus, you're a Genius!
(though I've thought so since we became acquainted)

Gnaeus Equitius dixit:
"Pontifex Scaurus doesn't speak for the State.

Senator Palladius doesn't speak for the State.

No one person is currently empowered to speak for the State."

Cincinnatus: Interesting that you mention two people who have specifically
stated that the PRIMARY reason for Nova Roma is the Religio, you can add me
to that list.
Anybody that doesn't think so just isn't paying attention to what is posted,
or they're playing parse the document. Which is easy to do since many things
were SO poorly written.

Also,
Many are fond of quoting this:
"NOVA ROMA is an organization dedicated to the study and restoration of
ancient Roman culture..."

BUT They always seem to neglect to continue to this,

"The *centerpiece* of the activities of NOVA ROMA is the *Religio Romana*;
the ancient faith of the people of Rome. Both the household religion and the
so-called State religion are vital to the Religio Romana, and both are
represented in the practices of NOVA ROMA. *Our long-term goal* is the
restoration of the ancient priestly Collegia and the honoring of the full
cycle of Roman holidays throughout the year. For now, we must make do with a
schedule that is practical and the training of individuals who wish to take
up the sacred offices."

"The centerpiece of the activities of NOVA ROMA is the Religio Romana, ..."
"Our long-term goal is the restoration of the ancient priestly Collegia and
the honoring of the full cycle of Roman holidays throughout the year."

No other subject, area of interest, study, or practice is refer to in this
way, Are they?
In fact, if some people regret that they joined Nova Roma because of this,
let me tell them that there have been many who resigned because they felt
that the Religio was being neglected.
I know because they have told me.

Having said all this I agree that there is more to Nova Roma than the
religio, but until recently the religio has been viewed as nothing more that
a subject on the fringe rather then the central reason for it's birth.

Now, Scaurus asks our help,
"We need to find a way to explain this to those who consider joining us,
because to fail to do so would be dishonest. I hope you will consider
this a modest contribution to opening a discussion on how this can be done."

I believe that the application process and the "FAQ" ought to be edited to
reflect the significance of the Religio. The Religio is the primary focus of
Nova Roma, not just another area of interest.

Valete

BTW, we all use slaves today, only we call them machines. They wash and dry
our cloths and dishes, heat our homes, drive us to wherever we need, even
cut the grass. Or consider the items you purchase that are imported, who and
how they are manufactured.
________________________________________________________________________

Subject: How we explain ourselves to the world

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites.

I have read carefully Gn. Carantus' departing salvo and I shall not
dignify his aspersions cast against the Religio Romana with a response.
If he were incapable of reading the repeated assertions on the NR
webpages and in the constitution that the Religio Romana is taken
seriously in Nova Roma, is Nova Roma's state religion, and is central to
the mission of Nova Roma, then I could understand his outrage about
religious matters. However, I fail to see how a reasonable person who
has invested the appropriate amount of time in examining an organisation
he considered joining could have failed to recognise those points.

There is, however, a sense in which Nova Roma's self-presentation is
profoundly misleading to potential citizens. The micronational idea had
a certain glamour in the days of Nova Roma's founding, but I doubt very
many reasonable people can seriously believe that any nation state would
ever cede any portion of it sovereign territory, granting full,
independent extraterritoriality to a living history experiment devoted
to recreating Roma antiqua. It hasn't happened. It won't happen. And
people who try to make it happen will quickly find themselves the object
of intense and proper scrutiny by the security services of any country
in which such a thing was attempted. If Nova Roma is based on any kind
of Roman "Zionism," it is an exercise in madness. I don't plan on
joining the Roman Irgun.

It astounds me that people talk as if there were the slightest chance
that any sovereign power would ever permit Nova Roma to possess a
private army (Roman reenactors are part of the living history
experiment, not a real military force), or to reestablish slavery, or to
exercise the criminal jurisdiction of a real state. Clearly we've sent
a very wrong message if anyone harbours the slightest illusion that Nova
Roma will ever have such powers.

Nova Roma made a mistake in introducing the notion of micronationality.
What was really intended was the creation of the legal fiction of a
state which would permit the cultus of the Religio Publica to be
reestablished. It is real in the sense that we believe in the pax
Deorum and that real benefits accrue to the participants in Nova Roma
from performance of these public religious rites. It is however a
fiction in the sense that it claims statehood for no purpose but
providing a framework for the Religio Publica.

The magistracies and institutions of the legal fiction also provide us
with a way of organising ourselves as closely as we can on the Roman
model within our organisation. Organisations require internal codes of
behaviour: we call them laws, we even have a criminal code. But the
ultimate sanction is explusion from the community, like the ultimate
sanction in a club is being given the boot.

The desire to eventually obtain land, build a forum, erect temples, and
openly celebrate the public rites of the Religio Romana is real. Over
time it is almost certainly doable, although perhaps not in my lifetime.
Still, it will be done in accordance with the laws of the sovereign
nation on whose soil it is built and we shall be subject to their laws.
Within our community we may govern ourselves by our own laws, but only
to the extent that they do not contravene the laws of the nation on
whose soil our forum is built.

Once such a centre is built, there will, no doubt, be Nova Romans who
will wish to live in proximity to it. I number myself among them. It
may even be possible that a residential community based on Roman
architectural practice and dedicated to reestablishing the Religio and
Romanitas will grow up there. But we shall still be subject to the laws
of the nation on which that residential community is built.

Certainly we seek to promote the Roman virtues in the modern world, but
there is a sense in which a great deal of what Nova Roma is about is
dissent from the modern world: the recognition that seventeen hundred
years ago mankind made a terrible mistake in turning it back on
classical civilisation and a world full of Gods. People who are here
because of reeactment groups, or the cooking sodalitas, or to take a
course in the Academia, or just because they have a romantic vision of
Rome are here for valid reasons -- but they aren't necessarily here for
the ultimate reason for which Nova Roma was founded.

Most of our conflicts arise because we have not been explicit enough
about the fact that Nova Roma is an effort to raise one place within a
modern world, which regards us as eccentrics, where the ancient Gods are
revered, the mos maiorum followed, and the tragic turning away from the
classical world is rejected. The preservation of that one place -- even
though encumbered by the need to comply with the legal strictures of
modern nations -- is something many, probably most, of us are willing to
fight for. For us the fact that the NR "state" exists to enable the
Religio Publica is the one absolutely non-negotiable principle. This is
not intended to exclude citizens of any other religion, but to remind
them that this sanctuary for the Religio Romana is ultimately why Nova
Roma is here. They are welcome, nay, encouraged to participate in Nova
Roman life to the fullest -- so long as this basic principle is
respected. Those non-practitioners of the Religio who cannot accept
this have simply chosen the wrong place to be, for themselves and for
Nova Roma.

Debates about modern constitutional law in Nova Roma make as much sense
to me as does plopping a lecture on quantum mechanics into the middle of
a football game. It is a category error which so basically misses what
Nova Roma is ultimately about as to leave me breathless with
astonishment. I would not be surprised if some of the footballers
wanted to smack the physicists' heads together, nor that the physicists
regarded the footballers as neanderthal oafs. When modern attitudes and
modern practices matter more than the mos maiorum, we have profoundly
lost our way. In an organisation dedicated to historical recreation,
not all opinions are equal. Historical evidence is the touchstone of
correct practice. The "best of Rome, ""Rome as it should have
been,""Rome as it would be in the 21st century" are subjective
judgments, not historical ones. We can choose what we wish to recreate,
to be sure, but the farther we move from a sound grounding in historical
evidence as the touchstone of our enterprise, the more at the mercy of
anyone's modern fantasy we become. I know what Rome as it would be in
the 21st century is: it is the capital of the Republic of Italy, and, as
much as I like the capital of the Republic of Italy, I don't want to
waste my time recreating it. If that's what we truly want, we could
just move there.

What Nova Roma is ultimately about is living in accordance with the mos
maiorum, for that is what the Religio is. If the founders were not
lawyers who explicated every possible contingency and phrased things
ineptly in ways which may cause confusions, so be it. Just what the
hell do people thing the Twelve Tables were? The entirety of Roman
history was an ongoing attempt to test the experiences of life against
the mos maiorum and to embrace necessary novelty by bringing it within
the understanding of a tradition stretching back to time immemorial.
The mos maiorum was more law than any lex or plebiscitum, any decretum
or edictum; it was what the rest of the panoply of Roman law was tested
against time and time again in the Senate, the Comitia, the forum, the
homes of Roman families. People who don't get that fundamentally don't
get what Nova Roma is about. No one who has seriously studied the
organisation's history and development can fail to miss this fundamental
commonality between Roma Antiqua and Roma Nova. It is the thing which
in the midst of all the extraordinarily frustrating and often
counterproductive bullshit which can percolate in this group which
sustains me and gives me hope.

The love of Roman history, literature, and culture, the reenactments,
the sodalitates, the Academia, the political posturing on the main list,
the salacious muggery of the back alley -- all of this is part of Nova
Roma, and a vital, sustaining part. But if it all went away tomorrow,
the core would still remain: a place where the mos maiorum can be lived
and the Religio practiced. It is only if we lose that that we are, in
the modern vernacular, well and truly fucked.

We need to find a way to explain this to those who consider joining us,
because to fail to do so would be dishonest. I hope you will consider
this a modest contribution to opening a discussion on how this can be done.

Valete.

Scaurus

Yay, er... I mean Salvete Omnes!

I just received notice that my application for Nova Roman citizenship has
been accepted. I want to thank L. Cornelius Sulla for admitting me to gens
Cornelia and Caeso Fabius Quintilianus for helping me with the naming
process. Thanks so much. I'm very happy to be here.

valete,


Sulpicia Cornelia Sylvana

Salve!!

I would like to know what do we need to do exactly to pay via paypal to Nova Roma the Hispania Provincia Taxes. I think we need an e-mail account when within the link of "Dono Dare" at the main web page. Could you provide me with it and tell me the exact steps to follow to pay via paypal then? Thank you very much!


vale bene in pace deorum,

L·DIDIVS·GEMINVS·SCEPTIVS
PROPRAETOR·HISPANIAE



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

Salvete Quirites, et salve Luci Didi,

L·DIDIVS·GEMINVS·SCEPTIVS writes:

> I would like to know what do we need to do exactly to pay
> via paypal to Nova Roma the Hispania Provincia Taxes. I think
> we need an e-mail account when within the link of "Dono Dare"
> at the main web page.

Yes, that is correct.

> Could you provide me with it and tell me the exact steps to
> follow to pay via paypal then? Thank you very much!

Go to http://novaroma.org/main.html

Scroll down the page until you get to the "Dono Dare" link. It's
purple, and alternates between "Dono Dare" and "give to Nova Roma via
PayPal" in the white text displayed on it. Click on that link. It will
take you to a page which tells you that you're about to give money to
the Nova Roma treasury.

Enter the total amount you're transfering, and then in the comments box
below it please tell us the NovaRoman names of all the citizens you're
sending funds for. It will also help if you provide the macronational
names of those citizens.

Once you have entered all the information, click on the "continue" box
and confirm the payment. Just follow the directions from there.

If you don't already have a PayPal account, you can create one fairly
quickly. Please contact me directly via e-mail if you have any problems
with the PayPal interface, or anything else involved in getting the
funds transfered to the treasury.

Vale,

-- Marinus

Salve!

We in Hispania have already paid our taxes via paypal using the link of the main page of novaroma.org; This is the list of the citizens who have paid, name and ID (Please check it):

================================
I- Marcus Aelius Baeticus Octavianus 7029
II- Gaius Adrianus Sergius 4677
III- Marcus Adrianus Complutensis 6159
IV- Antonius Aelius Baeticus Nebrissensis 6945
V- Marianus Adrianus Sarus 1786
VI- Ennia Durmia Gemina 4240
VII- Marcus Durmius Sisena 1787
VIII- Lucius Didius Geminus Sceptius 2770
IX- Tiberius Minicius Catulus 3505
X- Aulus Minicius Iordannes Pompeianus 6905
XI- Ianus Minicius Sparsus 2943
XII- Primus Minicus Octavianus 4697
XIII- Lucius Minicius Laietanus 1030
XIV- Titus Minicius Marianus 2078
XV- Marcus Minicius Rufus 2083
XVI- Hadrianus Rutilius Bardulus 4039
XVII- Quintus Salix Cantaber Uranicus 4968
XVIII- Gnaeus Salix Galaicus 1511
XIX- Gnaeus Salix Astur 2060
XX- Claudius Salix Davianus 1880
XXI- Marcus Salix Saverius 2076
================================

We are proud to say that 21 citizens from our Province have accomplished their tax duties.

I hope the whole payment have been done correctly. I would like to know if the money have arrived and also if there have been any problem to solve it, too. :-)

Thank you very much,

vale bene in pace deorum,

L·DIDIVS·GEMINVS·SCEPTIVS
PROPRAETOR·HISPANIAE





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

A. Apollonius Cordus to his friend the Consul Cn.
Equitius Marinus, and to all his fellow-citizens and
all peregrines, greetings.

> Assuming that you both think this ought to be
> addressed this year, I'll
> ask you to please keep Consul Astur and me informed.

...

> Furthermore, I think that it might be wise to move
> the discussion now to
> somewhere that the record will be easily available.

Personally I don't feel there's any great urgency
about it, because the functioning of the political
system isn't currently causing us any problems: as far
as I'm concerned it's mostly a matter of bringing
theory into line with practice. On the other hand, it
would amount to a fairly extensive overhaul of the
constitution and would need time, so if you or your
colleague have even a couple of major projects in mind
then there probably won't be time to spare for
overhauling the constitution this year. So I'd say
let's leave it for now; but others may disagree.

As I've said before, I'm quite content to do this on
the Laws list, or indeed not at all. I'll start a
thread about it on the Laws list, and we can see who
takes it up.





____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html

G. Equitius Cato L. Sicinio Druso S.P.D.

salve

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus"
<drusus@b...> wrote>

> What part of PRACTICAL and ACCEPTABLE do you fail to understand?
>
> The is no PRACTICAL way that Nova Roma is going to achive the
> independance needed to revive slavery even if it were desired.

Talking

> about it is almost as absurd as making plans to construct a fleet of
> UFOs to colonize Mars as the Nova Roman Homeland, and that wild
> improbility is what renders discusions of slavery the status of a
> strawman argument.
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus

CATO: Drusus, once more, in a vulgar, condescending (if mispelled)
way, you do not seem to read what you criticize before opening your
mouth. I'm tired of trying to be civilized with you, as it seems to
have no impact. I'll spell it out for you: the post below has to do
with the "mos maiorum"; everything else is *incidental* and used as
an example. Please read the above sentence three or four times,
until you understand it. Re-read my post (below). Then, and only
then, if you feel it necessary, try to reply in a way that includes a
thoughtful response which actually concerns itself with the point
being made. If you do *not* understand it, try using a dictionary to
clarify the words that might puzzle you; alternatively, you could ask
someone with a better grasp of the English language to help. An
appropriate Latinism fits here: Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi
similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.

vale

Cato

>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Michael" <mlcinnyc@y...> wrote:
> > G. Equitius Cato G. Iulio Scauro quiritibusque S.P.D.
>
> >
> > CATO: The crucial issue here, pontifex, is the definition of
> > the "mos maiorum"...which mos maiorum? The one of the Roman
> > Republic? Or the one of the citizens who exist today in NR?

*If* it

> > is indeed the mos maiorum of the classical world, then NR is
> > violating it precisely because of those things which have been
> > repeatedly called "straw man" arguments. The mos maiorum of
> > Republican Rome contained within itself the understanding that
> > slavery was an essential, even *necessary* part of economics and
> > society; that women were *not* to be given positions of authority
> > (outside certain religious cults) because this offended the very

gods

> > you worship; that combat to the death was used to present the

world

> > in submission to the Republic (the gladiators wore stylized

Samnite

> > armour to reflect the stubborn, disgruntled tribes in their

midst);

> > that the Sybilline books *did* require human sacrifice in case of
> > dire emergency. All these things were essential elements of the
> > world in which the Republic lived and moved and had its

being...they

> > *are* the mos maiorum of Republican Rome, as much as the religio.
> >
> > The preservation of that one place -- even
> > > though encumbered by the need to comply with the legal

strictures

> > of
> > > modern nations -- is something many, probably most, of us are
> > willing to
> > > fight for. For us the fact that the NR "state" exists to

enable

> > the
> > > Religio Publica is the one absolutely non-negotiable

principle.

> > This is
> > > not intended to exclude citizens of any other religion, but to
> > remind
> > > them that this sanctuary for the Religio Romana is ultimately

why

> > Nova
> > > Roma is here. They are welcome, nay, encouraged to participate

in

> > Nova
> > > Roman life to the fullest -- so long as this basic principle is
> > > respected. Those non-practitioners of the Religio who cannot
> > accept
> > > this have simply chosen the wrong place to be, for themselves

and

> > for
> > > Nova Roma.

G. Equitius Cato G. Fabiae Liviae S.P.D.

Salve Livia,

I wrote what I wrote as a direct consequence of having read several
posts explaining that, in *fact*, the religio is what NR is all
about. Even Scaurus admits that NR is somewhat mis-represented by
the wording of the existing documents. That's what I responded to.
Thank you, though, for your tempered response.

vale,

Cato


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaia Fabia Livia"
<livia_lists@s...> wrote:

> G. Equitius Cato wrote:
>
> > CATO: So, in fact, NR exists, in the real world, *solely* to
> advance
> > the ancient cults of Rome...contrary to what the Constitution and
> > Declaration state.
>
> And:
>
> > CATO: Then the wording of the Constitution must be changed.
>
> (Though not in that order - but with the rest of the context

snipped

> I think those two statements make more sense in that order, and I
> hope by this rearrangement I have not misrepresented what you said.)
>
> It may be true that *some members* of NR think that the religion is
> the only important aspect of the organisation; others do not.
>
> To change the constitution, it has to be approved both by the

comitia

> centuriata and then by a vote of the senate. Currently, the
> constitution says what you quoted it as saying, which is (as you
> pointed out) *not* that religion is the only important aspect.

Nova

> Roma exists, in the real world, to do as its citizens choose -
> whether that is to be a group of people striving for the

independence

> of a real nation, working towards the reconstruction of an ancient
> religion, seeking a more widespread appreciation of Roman culture

and

> values, or whatever.
>
> Why threaten to give up your citizenship over something which has

not

> happened?
>
> If there is a law proposed to change our declaration and cut out
> everything apart from religious reconstruction, and the law passes,

I

> will understand it if everyone who is not a follower of the Religio
> Romana resigns their citizenship - but if they did not vote against
> the change, they have no right to complain about it. That is what
> democracy is. If you leave now and say you are leaving because of

a

> situation which is not current, you cannot blame the current
> situation for your decision, but only your fears for the future.
>
> Livia

I can only offer personal opinion from my own experience and thoughts
from when I joined Nova Roma. I thank that you put about that link
for that is what I always had in mind when I thought of Nova Roma.
Yes having land is possible, having culture and values and
appreciation for that which is of your culture is all possible. The
likelyhood of there ever being a Nova Roma army is not likely,
however as other cultural groups celebrate their heritage through
reinactment such could continue and those who are drawn to the armed
forces could do so in addition through the country that they reside
within.
I see it as a celebration of culture, and living the culture. And
cultures do have their own laws that govern behavior, but seem to be
successful in complying with the laws of the land in which they
reside as well. I will freely admit that my main draw to Nova Roma
was the Religio, but I also freely admit that I participate in Nova
Roma for so much more then just the Religio. I have no pratical need
of slaves with the fine technological advances that makes life easy,
and I really do seriously doubt that anyone else could show any dire
need for any... much less the fact that it is illegal and all of the
excellent opinions and thoughts of more educated and experienced
people offered. I will continue to practice within Nova Roma as MY
spiritual heritage and culture. And that is really the best that I
can do myself at this time.

Lucia Modia Lupa

>
> Here is an example of a group that considers itself to be a

sovereign

> nation, but which has no state that is independant of the

territorial

> States that exist.
>
> http://www.cherokee.org/
>
> I would sugest that the sovereign nation status claimed by the
> Cherokee and other native American nations is a better model for

what

> we hope to accomplish than the concept of a State is.
>
> L. Sicinius Drusus

Cato,

When someone shows an inability to understand a point, there is no
choice but making it simpler to the point that it appears they are
being talked down to.

1. Nova Roma is not in a postion to legalize slavery.
2. The Likelyhood that Nova Roma will ever be in a postion to legalize
slavery is so remote that it is absurd.

Is that simple enough?

Given these facts, talking about slavery is as pointless as talking
about colonizing other planets.

Yet you continue to babble about it. That leaves two possible conculsions.

1. You are too dense to understand basic logic.
2. You are attempting to introduce a strawman argument.

Which is it?

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Michael" <mlcinnyc@y...> wrote:
> G. Equitius Cato L. Sicinio Druso S.P.D.
>
> salve
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus"
> <drusus@b...> wrote>
> > What part of PRACTICAL and ACCEPTABLE do you fail to understand?
> >
> > The is no PRACTICAL way that Nova Roma is going to achive the
> > independance needed to revive slavery even if it were desired.
> Talking
> > about it is almost as absurd as making plans to construct a fleet of
> > UFOs to colonize Mars as the Nova Roman Homeland, and that wild
> > improbility is what renders discusions of slavery the status of a
> > strawman argument.
> >
> > L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> CATO: Drusus, once more, in a vulgar, condescending (if mispelled)
> way, you do not seem to read what you criticize before opening your
> mouth. I'm tired of trying to be civilized with you, as it seems to
> have no impact. I'll spell it out for you: the post below has to do
> with the "mos maiorum"; everything else is *incidental* and used as
> an example. Please read the above sentence three or four times,
> until you understand it. Re-read my post (below). Then, and only
> then, if you feel it necessary, try to reply in a way that includes a
> thoughtful response which actually concerns itself with the point
> being made. If you do *not* understand it, try using a dictionary to
> clarify the words that might puzzle you; alternatively, you could ask
> someone with a better grasp of the English language to help. An
> appropriate Latinism fits here: Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi
> similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
>
> vale
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Michael" <mlcinnyc@y...> wrote:
> > > G. Equitius Cato G. Iulio Scauro quiritibusque S.P.D.
> >
> > >
> > > CATO: The crucial issue here, pontifex, is the definition of
> > > the "mos maiorum"...which mos maiorum? The one of the Roman
> > > Republic? Or the one of the citizens who exist today in NR?
> *If* it
> > > is indeed the mos maiorum of the classical world, then NR is
> > > violating it precisely because of those things which have been
> > > repeatedly called "straw man" arguments. The mos maiorum of
> > > Republican Rome contained within itself the understanding that
> > > slavery was an essential, even *necessary* part of economics and
> > > society; that women were *not* to be given positions of authority
> > > (outside certain religious cults) because this offended the very
> gods
> > > you worship; that combat to the death was used to present the
> world
> > > in submission to the Republic (the gladiators wore stylized
> Samnite
> > > armour to reflect the stubborn, disgruntled tribes in their
> midst);
> > > that the Sybilline books *did* require human sacrifice in case of
> > > dire emergency. All these things were essential elements of the
> > > world in which the Republic lived and moved and had its
> being...they
> > > *are* the mos maiorum of Republican Rome, as much as the religio.
> > >
> > > The preservation of that one place -- even
> > > > though encumbered by the need to comply with the legal
> strictures
> > > of
> > > > modern nations -- is something many, probably most, of us are
> > > willing to
> > > > fight for. For us the fact that the NR "state" exists to
> enable
> > > the
> > > > Religio Publica is the one absolutely non-negotiable
> principle.
> > > This is
> > > > not intended to exclude citizens of any other religion, but to
> > > remind
> > > > them that this sanctuary for the Religio Romana is ultimately
> why
> > > Nova
> > > > Roma is here. They are welcome, nay, encouraged to participate
> in
> > > Nova
> > > > Roman life to the fullest -- so long as this basic principle is
> > > > respected. Those non-practitioners of the Religio who cannot
> > > accept
> > > > this have simply chosen the wrong place to be, for themselves
> and
> > > for
> > > > Nova Roma.

Salvete omnes,

I agree that slavery with respect to NR is a very absured idea as
mentioned but I wanted to point out a few things about past slavery
or servitude.

Long ago in the past I did some history papers on the economics of
slavery. On thing about it that covered almost every age from Rome
to the American South - slaves were extremely expensive (especially
gorgeous child bearing ones) and only the wealthy or extremely
wealthy could really afford them. If you look at the pay scales of
the average Roman Legionaire or worker to the Southern Rebel sodier
or Hunley crewmember, you can see that their incomes were way too
low to afford slaves. Multiplying for inflation a good slave seemed
to cost the equivelant of 50 - 250 K by todays standards. In short
slaves were attainable by the elite of society.

As far as some sort of modern servitued goes, I know some
professionals such as doctors lawyers or engineers who come from
Latin America. Last I remember was that you could get a maid for
175.00 Us / month which even I could afford.They all had them. In
Canada its a different story they find out to their dismay. Molly
maid services charge you a good 350 US to do a house spring cleaning
or an apartment move clean out; two girls working for 6 hours. A
regular cleaner or yard maintanence person charges about 12.00 US
per hour per man so a 3 hour garden cleanup is 200.00. So not only
is slavery a dead issue but I had to point out to them that full
time maids and gardeners are a luxury here only for the super rich.
The household style servants also have to live in an expensive
country as well. There you have it.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

Salvete Quirites,

Appearing now at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History:

IN STABIANO. Exploring the Ancient Seaside Villas of the Roman Elite, April
27- October 24, 2004 - In Stabiano is a selection from among the most
significant Stabian archaeological finds from the Roman residential villas of
the Vesuvian region.

My thanks to our friends in Legio XX for passing the word to me about this.

Valete,

-- Marinus

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites.

When I wrote earlier today and am writing now I have done as a
privatus. I do not speak here for the state or the Collegium
Pontificum. I speak as a historian who has carefully reviewed the
archives and spoken with many of the founders of NR with the express
intention of determining why NR was founded.

I have yet to find a founder who says anything but that the fundamental
reason for NR existence was to provide a venue within which the Religio
Romana Publica could be reestablished. People may want to regard that
as an inconvenient, perhaps even embarassing, fact, but it is a fact
nonetheless.

Nova Roma has grown swiftly to encompass other purposes as well, and no
sensible person would deny it. Nor would such a person regard those
purposes as anything but laudable.

My point was, and is, that NR encompases a hierarchy of purposes. The
most fundamental, and without which Nova Roma would be something
entirely other than what the founders established, is the provision of a
"state" within which the Religio Romana Publica can be reestablished and
facilitated. All other purposes and activities of NR must yield
priority to the fundamental when they conflict. I do not imagine that
there are many circumstances under which they should unless a citizen
subjects the Religio and its practitioners to ridicule, attempts to
repudiate the fundamental character of the religious purpose of NR
(e.g., to disestablish the Religio or to defy the decisions of its
religious authorities with respect to the practice of the Religio
Publica), or disrupts religious caerimoniae.

I think that the intrusion of the modern church-state distinction into
Nova Roma verges on an attempt to repudiate that fundamental character.
The sugggestion that the fact that there were Roman atheists provides
historical justification for introducing this modern distinction is
historically incompetent. Cicero's Aristotlean rationalism persuaded
him that divination was nonsense, but still he was an Augur because he
believed that the mos maiorum had to be respected. Lucretius', whose
_de rerum natura_ is often hailed as a classic of Epicurean atheism,
held a priesthood (I think that Lucretius' views were more complex, as
the "epistemological atheism" debate in Lucretius studies suggests). I
defy anyone to cite an example of anyone, regardless of his personal
beliefs, in the Roman republic, or the empire prior to Constantine
(excepting the madman Elagabalus),* who refused as a magistrate to
perform the required rituals of the Religio Publica. The Religio Romana
is not about orthodoxy; it is about orthopraxis. There is no set of
doctrines to which a practitioner of the Religio must subscribe; there
are rituals which a practitioner of the Religio must perform. No one
enquired into the private beliefs of a Roman magistrate so long as he
performed the required rituals of the Religio Publica. To facilitate
those not of the Religio Romana who wish to sereve as magistrates the
Collegium Pontificum has gone so far as to permit non-practitioner
magistrates to delegate performance of the required rituals to
practitioners, so long as the rituals are performed. The Religio and
the Roman state were inseparable and had nothing to do with personal
belief. It is because monotheisms place such emphasis on very specific
doctrinal positions in which their adherents must believe -- and because
we live in a world permeated with those monotheisms -- that people
assume the Religio Romana and Roman culture had to work that way. It
didn't. That is simply a historical fact. It is why Roman society
could accomodate the Kemeticism of Isis or the astral religion of
Mithras so long as the rituals of the Religio were performed. No doubt
there was a range of what moderns could recognise as degrees of "faith"
in individual Romans, but that was a private matter and had nothing to
do with the Religio Publica. This is something we need to explain to
those who consider applying for citizenship.

Let study, reenactment, the sodalitates, the Academia, the fellowship of
the main list and the back alley proliferate and those who enjoy them
continue to do so. The fact that the _fundamental_ purpose of Nova Roma
is reestablishment of the Religio Romana has no impact on those
activities so long as no citizen engaged in them attacks the Religio or
attempts to marginalise its primacy as the state religion.

My basic point is that you can strip all the other purposes and
activities away and leave only a framework for reestablishing the
Religio Publica and you will still have Nova Roma, diminished
certtainly, but still recognisably what the founders intended. But
strip away that fundamental framework for reestablishing the Religio
Publica and leave all the rest, and all you have is the SCA in togas.
It is the way it has always been in NR and, frankly, I believe that only
someone who blinds himself to this fact can join NR unaware of it.
Perhaps that blinding is sometimes intentional (some people don't want
to believe that there are people who genuinely take the Religio
seriously); often it is cultural (the American church-state distinction
is so much a part of the culture of reasonably well-educated people that
inagining it cannot be otherwise among civilised people anywhere is
pervasive -- albeit a detailed examination of the Bush administration's
agenda should disabuse people of how firmly that distinction is held by
powerful Christians even in America itself -- and that religion has
become so utterly marginal to the state except to immigrant populations
in Europe creates a similar set of historical blinders).

I personally think that the most honest way to present NR on its website
would be to have a screaming headline on the opening page which reads:
"Nova Roma is a ROMAN POLYTHEIST ORGANISATION. Non-polytheists are
welcome to become citizens, but they must recognise that any attempt to
alter the ROMAN POLYTHEIST character of the organisation will not be
tolerated. We do not enquire into the private religious beliefs of any
applicant for citizenship, but all citizens must be respectful toward
the ROMAN POLYTHEIST character of Nova Roma and the RELIGIO ROMANA. Any
citizen who wishes to become a magistrate must be willing, if not a
practitioner of the Religio Romana, to officially delegate performance
of the required rituals of the Religio Publica to a practitioner of the
Religio Romana. This is as it was in Roma Antiqua and shall always be
in Nova Roma." Is that clear enough for anyone who thinks I have the
slightest desire to trick anyone into joining NR?

Valete.

Scaurus

_____________________
* - Even the Christian emperors delegated performance of the required
rituals of the Religio Romana to practitioners until Gratian.

Gaius Minucius Hadrianus Felix Octaviae Minuciae Sabinae S.P.D.

Salve, delecta mea,

Last night's revelry did surprisingly little damage. The advice of that
Greekling physician appears to have merit. I drank several beakers of
water mixed with only a touch of wine and woke refreshed and ready for
the races today.

I was almost late, because the wall I've been warning our idiot
neighbour Varrus need shoring up collapsed after last night's rain and
slammed into the garden wall. He blathered about it not being his fault,
but I'll see that podex before the praetor if he doesn't make good the
damage. I stayed overlong supervising the shoring up of the damaged
section of garden wall. No sooner that I had made it to my seat and
after acongratulatory toast with Consul Gn. Equitius on his drivers
victory yesterday, natura summoned and I found myself making a quick
trip to the privy Iulius Scarus had thoughtfully installed in the booth.
I returned to my seat just in time to see the semi-finalists take their
preliminary lap around the circus.

The semi-finals had boiled down to a contest between White and Green.
For Factio Praesina: Caius Curius Saturniuss Euthymus and Tiberius
Anneas Othos Septimus Raurax. For Factio Albata: Cn. Salix Galacius
Vesaniucs and Gn. Equtitius Marniuss Petronius Gnipho. The drivers
took their places in the starting gates, with Vesanicus on the inside,
then Septimus Ruarax, Petronius Gnipho and Euthymus on the outside.

As Aedile Gaius Iulius stood, the crowd broke into raucous cheers
quickly changing into a chorus of chants for their favorites. The mappa
was held forth, and dropped, and the race was on!

As the four chariots raced down the first straightaway, four abreast,
Vesanicus pushed his team hard and took an early lead, a somewhat
reckless move so early in the race. As they rounded the first turn, the
other races still abreast, Vesanicus continued to pull away from the
pack, slowly increasing his lead to almost four lengths as the second
dolphin was flipped.

Then without warning, disaster struck! Just as Vesanicus pushed his car
around the first turn of the lap, there was a sickening crack as the
chariots centerpole snapped! The horses tore free of the car as it
bounced up on one wheel, teetered for a moment as if it were going to
overturn, then came to rest against the outside of the turn, leaving the
distraught driver unharmed, but out of the race.

The other chariots were far enough behind to safely avoid the debris as
they took the turn, and Septimus Raurax took the lead as he skillfully
drove his car in close along the spina. The race was down to two Greens
versus one White, and things look grim for Petronius Gnipho, boxed in
between Raurax to his front, and Eutyhmus to his outside.

The dolphins fell one by one, as the trio thundered around the circus,
the two Greens content to box in their rival, Pertronius Gnipho
seemingly unable to break free despite all of this skill. Into the sixth
lap however, the situation began to change. Septimus Rauraxs team began
to visibly tire and slow, and Euthymus saw his opportunity to take the
lead from his teammate. Lashing furiously at his team, he surged past
the lagging Raurax and moved into first placed as they rounded the turn
into the final lap. As the Ruarax focused on his faction mate, the wily
Pertronius Gnipho illustrated why he has so many victory crowns to his
credit, and darting out from behind Raurax snatched second place from
the white and fell in directly behind Euthymus as he crossed the alba
lina. So the semi-finals concluded with Factio Praesina in first and
third places with Euthymus and Raurax respectively, and Fadctio Albata
in second with Petronius Gnipho.

I shall have more news tomorrow and, I'm afraid, after today Scaurus
will only be buying half the marble for that statue of Minerva.

Vale,

Hadrianus

Salvete Omnes Novae Romae:

We have received word that my Paterfamilias, Lucius Cornelius Sulla
Felix consular has a loved one who is ill, and not doing well.

I appeal, on behalf of our familia for your intercession for divine
interventions in this difficult time for Sulla and his loved one.

Bene valete,
Pompeia

G. Iulius Scaurus D. Constantino Fusco dicit.

>Esteemed Iulius Scaurus
>

Don't call me "esteemed." You clearly don't esteem someone you accuse
three paragraphs later of committing a fraud.

>Ive read with attention your post and find it a magnificent contradiction.
>

Unlike you, I've actually talked with the people who founded NR and I
have studied its archives to discover exactly what NR was established to
be. That, of course, it is a mere historicist fallacy in the view of
your normative constitutional legalism.

>On one side you say that Nova Roma has made a mistake to present itself to the
>people wishing to join, by not making clear enough how the Religion is,
>effectively, the central core of what all Nova Roma is about.
>For this reason, and fairness, we should start a debate about how to solve the
>issue and not be dishonest with teh ones in future wanting to join.
>
>Wheres the contradiction? Well, a post that seemingly wants to address a matter
>of fairness forgets a very, basic, essential and prioritary issue: what about
>the people who have *already* joined, who have contributed already with their
>energies and, at times, money, in the mistaken opinion (but mistaken because,
>as you admit, you have misrepresented Nova Roma and thus you are responsible
>for it.. and I mean you as you and the ones who share your views of course, not
>you alone) that Religio was a part, but only a part, of Nova Roma? Shall you
>give them their money back and the economical of their hours spent working for
>Nova Roma, given its impossible to give them back their time, from the moment
>you published the Constitution till now?
>

I did not write the constitution. I did not design the website. I have
been a citizen for less than a year and a half. I have committed no
fraud on anyone. It is you who are the liar. You gave me you word
privately that you did not aim at disestablishing the Religio. And yet
every word you write on this matter aims at weaseling an interpretation
of the constitution based on a technical, lawyerly trick of treating the
document as if it were written by a team of corporate lawyers instead of
devout practitioners of the Religio with no legal training which aims at
nothing short of marginalising the Religio completely so that you can
have your

"great, international,
interracial, interreligious (and the Religio wouldnt by that be made less, on
the contrary) organization capable, considering the number of people gifted of
extreme enthusiasm, of superior education (that not only being a school degree)
and surely of averagely superior open-mindness, of great things, be it
international study groups, international re-enactment meetings and so on."

You want Nova Roma to be everything to everyone, just so long as your modernist, political-scientific-legalist notion of how everything should be done prevails. The Religio wouldn't be less under such a system? Just how damned stupid do you think I am? You wield the constitution as a weapon against the mos maiorum and the most fundamental aspects of Roman governance. You are nothing more than Lucius Appuleius Saturninus with a law degree. You are, indeed, a "Constantinus" -- you, too, stand poised to drive a sword through classical antiquity's heart like your imperial namesake, only you use the subtle assassin's blade of legal sophistry.

>And we are back at the core of the issue. It would be nice if people would
>realize that their own personal perspective about Nova Roma are secondary,
>included the ones of the founding fathers, once you put down in the
>Constitution a sentence that, reading The primary functions of Nova Roma shall
>be to promote the study and practice of pagan Roman civilization, defined as
>the period from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal of
>the altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE and encompassing such fields as
>religion, culture, politics, art, literature, language, and philosophy, makes
>the Religio just one, for how important and noble (as I never denied it to be
>and teh Constitution goes a great lenght in affirming), of the several things
>Nova Roma is about.
>

If I had you as a student in a historiography seminar, I'd flunk you
instantly for this idiotic approach to textual criticism. The words only
mean the one thing that a legalist's cramped neurons can encompass.
Their history, their context, the men who wrote them, their intentions
-- all that means nothing next to the sterile logic of a lawyer with a
legal dictionary. An approach to law more alien to the way Romans
understood jurisprudence I cannot imagine.

>Therefore, while I share most of your ideas about micronations (the happy case
>of Sealand in fact shall hardly be allowed again), and I agree that Religio is
>important and is taken seriously in Nova Roma, I decisely reject your statement
>that it is central to the mission of Nova Roma, being only one of, expressly,
>seven main areas of focusing (fourteen, if you divide the study and the
>practice). And I reject that, not because that's my personal opinion that it
>isn't so, but because it's the Constitution to explicitally deny it, placing
>the Religio among many other things of equal importance. Of course, considering
>your statement about constitutional matters and teh discussions and analysys
>about it, one is brought to make some considerations about the value you seem
>to give to the Constitution's lines that do not fit your view, and thats
>extremely sad, even if understandable, given your position within Nova Roma and
>the Colelgium Pontificarum, that of course is not supposed to have the most
>unbiased view about Nova Roma and the Religio.
>

I reject your ahistorical, legalist-constitutionalist approach to the
governance of Nova Roma. I'd oppose it as vigorously if I were a
Christian or a Buddhist. I oppose it because it is a bastardised
modernism which runs contrary to how Romans governed themselves and
dealt with law.

>Whats even sadder is that persisting in such a line of giving to the Religio
>the central and supreme importance in Nova Roma is of detriment to the Res
>Publica and will eventually strangle it. We could be a great, international,
>interracial, interreligious (and the Religio wouldnt by that be made less, on
>the contrary) organization capable, considering the number of people gifted of
>extreme enthusiasm, of superior education (that not only being a school degree)
>and surely of averagely superior open-mindness, of great things, be it
>international study groups, international re-enactment meetings and so on.
>

If the respublica is harmed by trying to govern it in accordance with
the mos maiorum, then we should just shoot it in the head like the dying
horse you'd beat it into. You would turn the respublica into a "we're
vaguely interested in Roman things club." I'm rather more than vaugely
interested in things Roman and I've got better things to do than be
lectured on how NR should be run like the European Union by someone who
thinks the proper place for the Religio Romana is on the mantel with all
the other antique knick-knacks. If you want to tell someone how to write
a constitution, write to Brussels. If for damned certain don't want a
Nova Roma run like American constitutionalism, and I find Europeanist
constitutionalism no more palatable.

>What will you achieve, instead, trying to push the view (against the
>Constitution) that the Religio is most if not all that Nova Roma is about? A
>little group of people united by a very important thing of course, but unable
>to confront themselves with the others and demonstrating this unability by
>forcing out the ones not sharing their orthodox view and cheering about it.
>You, apparently, are afraid of being belittled, ridiculized and persecuted,
>yet you are doing exactly what is needed to be treated as such, meaning
>isolating yourselves. Once, *if*, you will have managed to alienate the ones
>like Gneus Carantus and expell, sooner or later, with more or less "legal"
>ways, the more stubborn ones who do not share your views, what shall you be
>left with? Livy would say a desert that you call peace. Of course you might
>very well enjoy to live in a desert, but then one doesnt understand your
>striving for being recognized by the others, and your having opened this place
>to non Religio practitioners.
>

You are the one who is floating a novel constitutionalist theory with
the intention of forcing Nova Roma to abandon the way it has done things
since its founding You are the one who is using modernist methodology to
force Nova Roma into your modernist straightjacket -- Oh, my, we've been
acting unconstitutionally all along; how stupid of us; we need to change
things right now because some lawyer says we must. Carantus, who never
contributed a thing to NR but to bitch about it, left. As far as I am
concerned, we lost _nothing_. I am not seeking ways to drive anyone out
of NR. It would be entirely within my rights to place a motion before
the Collegium Pontificum to invoke the Blasphemy Decretum against you --
and in such an event I would be pleased to prosecute. It would be
entirely within my rights to petition the senate to remove you
immediately as Aedilis Urbis Romae for disrespect to the Religio. Have I
done any of that? No. I have bent over backwards to afford the greatest
possible freedom to diverse opinion. But I am very sick of being
lectured by an historical ignoramus about how Nova Roma is engaging in
fraud because it doesn't conduct itself exactly the way the
idiosyncratic political philosophy of a lawyer dictates. We conduct
ourselves rather closer to the way the Romans did than anything you
propose. I am sick of the sneering tone you take toward the Religio and
the Collegium Pontificum. There is no conspiracy of the Collegium to
take over Nova Roma. There does appear to be a conspiracy to neuter the
Religio and put it out to pasture so it doesn't interfere with turning
Nova Roma into a role-playing-game-cum-antiquarian-society.

>Now, Ive been a citizen for fours years, I did and do my little part in Nova
>Roma (admittedly, more in the real life Nova Roma than in the "virtual" one,
>still&), I confide in the Constitution and Im afraid I will always oppose the
>ones, like you in this case, trying to pass their own vision as THE vision.
>Change the Constitution, democratically with the mans it gives you to do so,
>but until then, dont smuggle your *vision* of Nova Roma, no matter how
>followed it is, as Nova Roma, because until you will have 2/3 of the people
>changing the Constitution and the Senate with it, Nova Roma is, again, about 
>promote the study and practice of pagan Roman civilization, defined as the
>period from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal of the
>altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE and encompassing such fields as
>religion, culture, politics, art, literature, language, and philosophy.
>

What a clever little piece of sophistry. The people who advocate Nova
Roma governing itself as it always has now have to amend the
constitution to keep it so. It's a brilliant lawyer's trick. Push it far
enough and those of us you whom insult and revile as the perpetrators of
fraud against our citizens and conspirators against the republic will
finally lose our patience and treat you as the traitor to Nova Roma you
seem aspiring to be.

Scaurus

>
>

Salve Gnaeus Crassus

Look no further the best gens in NR and one with most of its members in the Mediatlantica is the

Galeri

You can meet us at

Home page of Gens Galeria:
http://www.geocities.com/max_vladimir

You may call me Uncle Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

Vale

----- Original Message -----
From: gnaeustitiuscrassus
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 9:48 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Ave ALL


Ave all
I guess we can just call me Gnaeus Crassus for the moment for i have
no gens and thats why im posting. I am 17 years old and would like
to become a citizen and am looking for a gens, preferably one in the
Mediatlantica. I am interesting greatly in the Roman
Military....hope to hear from you.






Yahoo! Groups Links







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

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites.

Today is pridie Kalendae Maii and the Feria Floraliae; the day is
comitialis.

Tomorrow is the Kalendae Maii, the Feria Floraliae, the Feria Maia, the
Feria Bonae Deae, and the Feria Larum Publicorum; the day is fastus. On
the Feria Maia the Flamen Volcanalis (priest of Vulcan) sacrifices a
pregnant sow to her. The Feria Bonae Deae was a festival privy to
women alone on the anniversary of the dedication of her temple on the
Aventine. While scholars have investigated the rites in some detail
(primarily from sources dealing with Publius Clodius' scandalous
profanation of the rites) and H. H. J. Brouwer's _Bona Dea: the sources
and a description of the cult_ (Leiden, 1989) is a masterful study, I am
uncomfortable profaning the rites by describing them on the holy day in
a public forum. Of the Feria Bonae Deae Ovid, _Fasti_ v.147-158, says:

Quo feror? Augustus mensis mihi carminis huius
ius dabit: interea Diua canenda Bona est.
Est moles natiua, loco res nomina fecit:
[5,150] appellant Saxum; pars bona montis ea est.
Huic Remus institerat frustra, quo tempore fratri
prima Palatinae signa dedistis aues;
templa patres illic oculos exosa uiriles
leniter adcliui constituere iugo.
[5,155] Dedicat haec ueteris Crassorum nominis heres,
uirgineo nullum corpore passa uirum:
Liuia restituit, ne non imitata maritum
esset et ex omni parte secuta ~uirum~.

Why speak of it [The Lares Praetites]? The month of August will give me the
right to this song. Meanwhile the Good Goddess must be sung.
There is a natural rock, the fact gave name to the place;
They callit the Rock; it is a large part of the hill.
Here Remus has fruitlessly stood, at the time when
you birds of the Palatine gave the first sign;
There the Fathers a temple, which abhors the gaze of men,
on the gentle slope of the hill erected.
The heiress of the ancient name of Crassi dedicated this,
one who submitted her virgin body to no man.
Livia restored it, lest she fail to imitate her husband,
and in every part follow the man.

The Feria Larum Publicorum honoured the Lares who protected the state on
the anniversary of the erection of a temple in their honor was located
on the Via Sacra; a Sacellum Larum also existed on the Palatine. Ovid
and Plutarch associated dogs with the Lares Publici. According to
Plutarch, the Lares Publici wore dogskins and, according to Ovid,
statues of dogs were found on their altars. Ovid, _Fasti_ v.129-146,
said of the Feria Larum Publicorum:

Praestitibus Maiae Laribus uidere Kalendae
aram constitui paruaque signa deum:
uouerat illa quidem Curius, sed multa uetustas
destruit; et saxo longa senecta nocet.
Causa tamen positi fuerat cognominis illis
quod praestant oculis omnia tuta suis:
stant quoque pro nobis et praesunt moenibus Urbis,
et sunt praesentes auxiliumque ferunt.
At canis ante pedes saxo fabricatus eodem
stabat: quae standi cum Lare causa fuit?
Seruat uterque domum, domino quoque fidus uterque:
compita grata deo, compita grata cani.
Exagitant et Lar et turba Diania fures:
peruigilantque Lares, peruigilantque canes.
Bina gemellorum quaerebam signa deorum
uiribus annosae facta caduca morae:
mille Lares Geniumque ducis, qui tradidit illos,
Urbs habet, et uici numina terna colunt.

The Kalends of May saw the altar erected
to the guardian Lares; and the little statues of the Gods.
These Curius vowed, but the great age
destroys them and age wears down the stone.
However, the reason of the title which he applied to them
is that they stand guard over all in ssafety under their eyes.
They also stand guard over us and the walls of the city;
they are at hand and bring us help.
But before their feet a dog hewn from the same stone
stood; What was the reason for its standing with the Lar?
Each of them guards the house, each also is loyal to his master:
The crossroads are pleasing to the God, the crossroads are pleasing to
the dog.
Both the Lar and the tribe of Diana scare away thieves;
the Lares keep the nightwatch, and the dogs keep the nightwatch.
I enquired after the statues of the twin-brother Gods
qhich had fallen down under the pressure of long years.
A thousand Lares, and the Genius of the leader, who conveyed them
the city contains, and to the three numina the streets pay homage.

On the Kalends a sacrifice to Iuno was made by a Pontifex and the Rex
Sacrorum in the Comitia Calabra after which a Pontifex Minor would
announce the date of the Nonae Maii. Shortly thereafter the Regina
Sacrorum made sacrifice to Iuno in the Regia.

Valete.

G. Iulius Scaurus
Aedilis Curulis, Flamen Quirinalis et Pontifex

Salvete,

Several people have used the following quote as the basis for an
argument that the Religio Romana is not the primary focus of Nova
Roma. "The primary functions of Nova Roma shall be to promote the
study and practice of pagan Roman civilization, defined as the
period from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the
removal of the altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE and
encompassing such fields as religion, culture, politics, art,
literature, language, and philosophy." Perhaps if we break down
this sentence into individual statements, it will make more sense.

'The primary functions of Nova Roma shall be to promote the study
and practice of pagan Roman civilization.'

I understand this to mean that Nova Roma has two functions; to
promote the study of pagan roman civilization and to promote the
practice of pagan roman civilization. This defines the fundamental
focus of Nova Roma.

'For this purpose, pagan roman civilization is defined as the period
from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal of
the altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE.'

This simply defines the time period for the focus of the study and
practice.

'The study and practice of pagan roman civilization shall encompass
such fields as religion, culture, politics, art, literature,
language, and philosophy."

This defines a subset of fields of study and practice for the
primary focus: pagan roman civilization. The emphasis here, I
believe, is 'pagan'. It is my understanding that the 'pagan' part
of 'pagan roman civilization' is the Religio. Therefore, the
principal focus of Nova Roma is the study and practice of the
Religio Romana as part of ancient Roman civilization and this focus
is extended to include seven aspects of their civilization and how
they relate to Roman paganism. These fields are the religion
itself, how the Religio molded their culture and politics, pagan
art, pagan literature, and how their language and philosophy were
influenced by their spiritual beliefs.

Valete,
LCSardonicus

Mr Sardonicus wrote:

>'For this purpose, pagan roman civilization is defined as the period
>from the founding of the City of Rome in 753 BCE to the removal of
>the altar of Victory from the Senate in 394 CE.'
>
>

Salve, Luci Corneli Sardonice.

From this (slightly altered) quote from the constitution you used, I would find it obvious that the word is "pagan" is used to refer to pre-christian Rome. That the Religio is then listed as one of seven fields to be studied and practiced further rules out the possility of equating "pagan roman civilization" with "Religio Romana as practiced by the romans". The context makes the content evident.

Nova Roma was indeed founded to ensure there would be a place for the Religio Romana in the modern world. However, just because there is a place for catoliscism in Italy, the Vatican, Italy isn't focussed primarily on religion. They have as broad a field of interest as any other nation, but they still provide a spot dedicated to their history and their faith.

That is what I have perceived Nova Roma to be; A nation of citizens and laws governing them, wherein the Religio Romana shall be honored and respected, but where no more people may participate actively in the religion than in any other nation. There is a reason why we have a clergy, why not all who join Nova Roma should do so as religious savants.

And that reason is, Nova Roma is a nation. A republic of her people. She has a state religion, the priests of which are given due respect by her citizenry.

Vale, Titus Octavius Pius.

P.S. Nice to be talking to you again. :)

G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites.

In the debates that have raged for the last few weeks there is something
which I find extremely frustrating and which is, frankly, building a
whote-hot anger in me. Ever since I have been a citizen one of the
principal complaints which has been raised time and time again about
Nova Roma is that everything is so computer-oriented, that we need more
real-life activities if Nova Roma is ever going to be anything more than
just a Roman-oriented computer club. People harp on this with a
regularity like the rising and setting of the sun. People constantly
talk about recruitment so we can have more real-life activities.

As people talk about the Religio as being just one of a myriad reasons
for which Nova Roma exists, I feel the gurge build up in the back of my
throat as I meditate on a bitter irony.

Certainly people attend reenactor events, but they are the events of
independent legions, not Nova Roma, and just for the occasional weekend.
There are a handful of face-to-face meetings in the US and Europe, and
for a weekend every year. Some provinces have face-to-face meetings for
as much as an hour or two each month. All these things are good and I
support them absolutely, but altogether they represent maybe five
hundred man-hours in a year. I do not doubt that magistrates contribute
many man-hours to maintain the electronic community, but what goes on on
the net it is not real-life activity for Nova Roma

And every day, day in and day out, the practitioners of the Religio
Romana in Nova Roma stand in the real world before their real lararia
and offer to the Di Immortales real incense, real wine, real offerings
for themselves, their households, their familiae, their gentes, and the
Senate and People of Nova Roma. Every day I spend a minimum of an hour
before my real altar praying for the requests of those citizens who have
asked me as a Flamen and Pontifex to pray for their needs and to offer
on their behalf to the Di Immortales. I am severely arthritic and it is
very painful to stand for any length of time, but I do it anyway because
it is my duty as a priest even if I must cling to a walking staff to
keep standing.. Every feria priests of Nova Roma go to their real
altars and pray and make real offerings to the Di Immortales for the
Senate and People of Nova Roma. Cincinnatus, barely able to stand with
a broken hip, doned his toga praetexta and performed the caerimoniae of
the Equirriae beforfe his real altar. Athanasius, his father near
death, stood before his real altar and performed the caerimonia of the
Floralia.

I bought the two augural chickens for Nova Roma. Everyday I feed and
water them. Everyday I clean their real shit out of their real
henhouse. I check them daily to see that they have contracted no
illnesses. I provide them with the real affection that is necessary for
a pullarius to give to develop the kind of relationship which allows him
to know the augural chickens well enough to interpret the tripudium as
fully as possible. Everytime a magistrate needs the auspices taken, I
go at dawn to my real hen house make the tripudium and return to my
house to report the results. Every feria for which I am responsible I
go to my real altar on my property and offer real incense and real wine
and real grain, and the occasional real chicken, to meet the terms of
the pax Deorum which placates the Di Immortales and protects the Senate
and People of Nova Roma. For the sake of the religious education of my
fellow citizens I spend at least an hour a day researching primary texts
and translating them so I can provide information about the calendar and
the religious practice of Nova Roma for my fellow citizens every day. I
spend at least twenty hours a week in real libraries doing real
scholarship to construct caerimoniae and provide research for the
Collegium and the priesthoods. When I received no submissions for the
competition for a hymn to Flora for the Floralia, I spent twelve hours,
paltry poet that I am, composing such a hymn to Florae in Latin in
dactylic hexameter so that the closing cermonies of the Feria will have
a hymn to the Goddess. That was real time our of my real life which I
freely gave to Nova Roma for the Religio Romana.

Practitioners of the Religio Romana contribute at least twenty times
more man-hours in real-life activities, and very likely more, to Nova
Roma every year than any other sector of the respublica. It isn't the
flashy stuff. It doesn't garner publicity. But it's the one real-life
centre of real-life activity which goes on in Nova Roma day after day,
month after month, year after year.

And yet we are just one little dish on the great Nova Roman smorgasbord
from which citizens may choose, just one of a myriad of equal activities.

There is no consistent real-life activity in Nova Roma without the
Religio Romana. It is the core of our community in the real world in a
way that nothing else we do is. It is the only consistent, day in and
day out real-life activity in Nova Roma.

And it is insulting beyond the power of words to express to have this
one consistent centre of real-life activity in Nova Roma dismissed as
just one wore thing we do, when ninety percent of the rest of Nova Roma
consists of bullshitting on a computer.

If people want to reduce this core of real-life activity in Nova Roma to
a sideshow, what on earth gives them the confidence that any real-life
activities on that scale will emerge within a year? Even within a decade?

They may despise our prayers and offerings, they may regared us as an
embarassment to their grandiose plans for recruitment of more chat-room
citizens. But when they contribute an equal number of real-life
man-hours to Nova Roma, then, and only then, will I look upon these
"reformers" and "constitutionalists" as anything but play-actors
strutting on an electronic stage. And only then will I feel anything
but disdain for an electronic activity which no more contributes to
really building a real-life community than phone sex contributes to
real love-making.

I feel closer to Rome and the mos maiorum, to a real Roman way of life,
when I perform the real-life duties of the Religio than any other thing
I do in Nova Roma. And I feel nothing but a mixture of pity and anger
toward those who cannot begin to understande why that is so.

Vale.

Scaurus

Salvete Omnes!

While Scaurus and I stand at diametrical opposites on the issue of
slaughter, I do concur with the need he sees to clarify the NR
website.

Allow me to use myself as an example of naivete, or if you will,
sheer "stupidity". I read the entire website and all of its links.
Never once did I read anything which gave even an inkling that I was
joining something which condones modern day literal flesh and blood
animal sacrifice and/or slaughter. The practice was only spoken of
in the past tense "for informational purposes", with additional
caveats, while other Religio practices are described in the present
tense, as though in a "how-to" handbook.

Frankly it never dawned on me that a group of modern Western-
educated people would practice animal scrifice. Call me what you
will; I will certainly confess to having been that naive.

But now my eyes are opened. But I had already paid in my taxes.
That means that my money is furthering whatever this group does.
This is a burden upon my concience.

A simple factual message added to the home web page to the effect
that "Nova Roma condones animal sacrifice" would prevent people like
me from joining.

Meanwhile it is my own duty to move that we:

1) Offer citizens a "cruelty free" tax option to designate that
their taxes paid in will never be used for the taking of life.

2) Put a highly visible message in front of potential citizens to
the effect that Nova Roma does indeed condone animal sacrifice.

Right now, whether or not the tax money I've already paid actually
goes to buy a doomed animal, or a blade to cut its throat, my money
*is* being used to keep what I feel is a deceptive website on the
internet.

Incidentally I am not thick skinned and take no joy at entering this
fray of. But I too have a Creator which my concience requires me to
honor. I feel that like many citizens of various belief systems I
was duped into participating in and financially supporting a system
the practice of which is I find unconcionable.

It has not been my intent to present "blasphemy" herein, but to work
within the system, but *if* this be blasphemy, so be it, I can do no
other.

--Sabina Equitia Doris

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gregory Rose <gfr@w...> wrote:
> G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.
>
> I personally think that the most honest way to present NR on its
website
> would be to have a screaming headline on the opening page which
reads:
> "Nova Roma is a ROMAN POLYTHEIST ORGANISATION. Non-polytheists
are
> welcome to become citizens, but they must recognise that any
attempt to
> alter the ROMAN POLYTHEIST character of the organisation will not
be
> tolerated. We do not enquire into the private religious beliefs
of any
> applicant for citizenship, but all citizens must be respectful
toward
> the ROMAN POLYTHEIST character of Nova Roma and the RELIGIO
ROMANA. Any
> citizen who wishes to become a magistrate must be willing, if not
a
> practitioner of the Religio Romana, to officially delegate
performance
> of the required rituals of the Religio Publica to a practitioner
of the
> Religio Romana. This is as it was in Roma Antiqua and shall
always be
> in Nova Roma." Is that clear enough for anyone who thinks I have
the
> slightest desire to trick anyone into joining NR?
>
> Valete.
>
> Scaurus
>
> _____________________
> * - Even the Christian emperors delegated performance of the
required
> rituals of the Religio Romana to practitioners until Gratian.

Salve omnes.

Although I'm not a great writer here i followed the discussions of the last days.
And I have the strong feeling to say my poiny of view to all this here. But first let
me excuse when my English is not the best and i think to write in German or Latin
will not really help.


Before i decided to join NR in spring last year I was looking around on the homepage
to get an overview about NR. Let me say I also understood and understand the
preamble of NR that one of the goals IS also to become independent.
And let me say the truth, only to sign in a religious or history group I can find lots of
them in *old europe*. I fullfill my history with a Hompage in German which offers much
more about Roman life and culture than NR does at the moment and that included
the religion as well. May decision to join NR was and still is *..re-create the best of Roman culture...* in our modern world. Of course as a nation and in the future as a state.
No country gives land away its value is important because of resourses there, that is fact.
But it is also fact not every country has resourses and is on the map.
The Roman religion was not only a state religion it was much more tolerant as some of the monoteistic religions today. But also in the republic area and the emire time everybody was free to decide what he wants or not. Some Emperors didn't believe in private but build temples for the mass and some were philosophs as Marcus Aurelius.

And I have some problems to read about slavery always in the discussion about state or nation or nothing or what else someone thinks about. Of course there were slavery but don't forget the beginning of this were the POW who became slaves. In the later republic there were some edicts which made it much more complicated to stand with the slavery system and the next generations of slaves were mostly the children of them until a law banned it.
We see slavery is not a must for roman times although it was present a long time.

The interesting thing to join NR in my opinion was the republic political system with its high , let me say democratic way. Our todays so called democratic countries are much more less democratic as it seems on the first view. (how could Bush jr. became president? because of a court)
I have to visit the Un site again because some months ago i found there and essay about founding a nation/state/country which would allows us to do so. ( i know , i know .... paper does not blush)
But every thing starts with a first step, so let us walk.

Then, some notes before someone wrotes about *...not to create a roman disney world...*.
Well, maybe not a disney world, but here in Europe you can find a lot of people who go back in time to live in other times for a while. We had two experiments like this.a)1902 Schwarzwaldhaus and the other was Sibiria. You can also find projects which offers people to live ind the darkage or roman time.
So why should it not be possible for us too?? To offer interested people this possibility on our (here I use deliberate..) land in the future . As Vespasianus said: Pecunia non olet, Titus.

At least let me point out that in Australia a micronation exists (I will find it and bring it on the list here) which was founded after a tax despute with the Australian government. Well, some people here talked about such a county will defeat us, but the micronation is still there I think something around 20 years (with more then only 108 acres).

Valete
Philippus Flavius Conservatus Maior
_____________________________________________________________________
Der WEB.DE Virenschutz schuetzt Ihr Postfach vor dem Wurm Netsky.A-P!
Kostenfrei fuer alle FreeMail Nutzer. http://f.web.de/?mc=021157

Salve Drusus,

My post is about the mos maiorum. Slavery is incidental, in an
exemplary way. Please read again.


vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus"
<drusus@b...> wrote:

> Cato,
>
> When someone shows an inability to understand a point, there is no
> choice but making it simpler to the point that it appears they are
> being talked down to.
>
> 1. Nova Roma is not in a postion to legalize slavery.
> 2. The Likelyhood that Nova Roma will ever be in a postion to

legalize

> slavery is so remote that it is absurd.
>
> Is that simple enough?
>
> Given these facts, talking about slavery is as pointless as talking
> about colonizing other planets.
>
> Yet you continue to babble about it. That leaves two possible

conculsions.

>
> 1. You are too dense to understand basic logic.
> 2. You are attempting to introduce a strawman argument.
>
> Which is it?
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Michael" <mlcinnyc@y...> wrote:
> > G. Equitius Cato L. Sicinio Druso S.P.D.
> >
> > salve
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus"
> > <drusus@b...> wrote>
> > > What part of PRACTICAL and ACCEPTABLE do you fail to understand?
> > >
> > > The is no PRACTICAL way that Nova Roma is going to achive the
> > > independance needed to revive slavery even if it were desired.
> > Talking
> > > about it is almost as absurd as making plans to construct a

fleet of

> > > UFOs to colonize Mars as the Nova Roman Homeland, and that wild
> > > improbility is what renders discusions of slavery the status of

a

> > > strawman argument.
> > >
> > > L. Sicinius Drusus
> >
> > CATO: Drusus, once more, in a vulgar, condescending (if

mispelled)

> > way, you do not seem to read what you criticize before opening

your

> > mouth. I'm tired of trying to be civilized with you, as it seems

to

> > have no impact. I'll spell it out for you: the post below has

to do

> > with the "mos maiorum"; everything else is *incidental* and used

as

> > an example. Please read the above sentence three or four times,
> > until you understand it. Re-read my post (below). Then, and only
> > then, if you feel it necessary, try to reply in a way that

includes a

> > thoughtful response which actually concerns itself with the point
> > being made. If you do *not* understand it, try using a dictionary

to

> > clarify the words that might puzzle you; alternatively, you could

ask

> > someone with a better grasp of the English language to help. An
> > appropriate Latinism fits here: Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi
> > similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.
> >
> > vale
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Michael" <mlcinnyc@y...>

wrote:

> > > > G. Equitius Cato G. Iulio Scauro quiritibusque S.P.D.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > CATO: The crucial issue here, pontifex, is the definition of
> > > > the "mos maiorum"...which mos maiorum? The one of the Roman
> > > > Republic? Or the one of the citizens who exist today in NR?
> > *If* it
> > > > is indeed the mos maiorum of the classical world, then NR is
> > > > violating it precisely because of those things which have

been

> > > > repeatedly called "straw man" arguments. The mos maiorum of
> > > > Republican Rome contained within itself the understanding

that

> > > > slavery was an essential, even *necessary* part of economics

and

> > > > society; that women were *not* to be given positions of

authority

> > > > (outside certain religious cults) because this offended the

very

> > gods
> > > > you worship; that combat to the death was used to present the
> > world
> > > > in submission to the Republic (the gladiators wore stylized
> > Samnite
> > > > armour to reflect the stubborn, disgruntled tribes in their
> > midst);
> > > > that the Sybilline books *did* require human sacrifice in

case of

> > > > dire emergency. All these things were essential elements of

the

> > > > world in which the Republic lived and moved and had its
> > being...they
> > > > *are* the mos maiorum of Republican Rome, as much as the

religio.

> > > >
> > > > The preservation of that one place -- even
> > > > > though encumbered by the need to comply with the legal
> > strictures
> > > > of
> > > > > modern nations -- is something many, probably most, of us

are

> > > > willing to
> > > > > fight for. For us the fact that the NR "state" exists to
> > enable
> > > > the
> > > > > Religio Publica is the one absolutely non-negotiable
> > principle.
> > > > This is
> > > > > not intended to exclude citizens of any other religion, but

to

> > > > remind
> > > > > them that this sanctuary for the Religio Romana is

ultimately

> > why
> > > > Nova
> > > > > Roma is here. They are welcome, nay, encouraged to

participate

> > in
> > > > Nova
> > > > > Roman life to the fullest -- so long as this basic

principle is

> > > > > respected. Those non-practitioners of the Religio who

cannot

> > > > accept
> > > > > this have simply chosen the wrong place to be, for

themselves

> > and
> > > > for
> > > > > Nova Roma.

G. Equitius Cato G. Iulio Scauro quiritibusque S.P.D.


vale Scaurus et valete omnes,

Your post heartens me greatly, Scaurus,

First because, unlike some, you speak plainly and clearly, without
recourse to name-calling or mud-sling (of which I, to my regret, have
played some part as well). I only wish Carantus could read it as
well. For all his hyperbole, I believe he meant well.

Second because, unlike some, you have very clearly *not* disparaged
the practice of any other religion. As I mentioned to you in a
private correspondence, even I, a devout Anglican (if that's not too
oxymoronic), if elected to a magistracy, would adopt the outward form
and custom of the religio (barring the you-know-whats), because it is
of benefit to the state and its sacred sense of imperviousness to
time. Not even Constantine the Great, that self-proclaimed champion
of Christianity and Vice-Gerent of God on Earth, "Equal of the
Apostles", banned the practice of the religio. He may even practiced
it himself in private, to hedge his bets.

This is as clear as it can be:

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gregory Rose <gfr@w...> wrote:
> G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.
>
>
> I personally think that the most honest way to present NR on its
>website would be to have a screaming headline on the opening page
>which reads: "Nova Roma is a ROMAN POLYTHEIST ORGANISATION. Non-
>polytheists are welcome to become citizens, but they must recognise
>that any attempt to alter the ROMAN POLYTHEIST character of the
>organisation will not be tolerated. We do not enquire into the
>private religious beliefs of any applicant for citizenship, but all
>citizens must be respectful toward the ROMAN POLYTHEIST character of
>Nova Roma and the RELIGIO ROMANA.
>Is that clear enough for anyone who thinks I have the
>slightest desire to trick anyone into joining NR?

I never intended so suggest that anyone was being "tricked", but
rather that NR has, until now, been mis-represented to some degree in
its public documents, and not because it was intentional. If I have
given anyone cause to think that I saw it as intentional, then I have
erred in the presentation of my concerns. When I read the above
statement, which correlates very closely to the posts you have made
in general, then the burden is placed on *me* rather than NR, and I
think that is your point. I must ask myself, "Am *I* right for Nova
Roma?" and *not* "Is Nova Roma right for me?".

>
> Valete.
>
> Scaurus

vale et valete,

Cato

Gn. Iulius Caesar S. P. D.

Salvete, Quirites

The question that Scaurus raises is very apt, and maybe in order to
answer that it is necessary to ask why are we all here?

I certainly am not qualified to answer that for anyone other than
myself. Put simply, Nova Roma appears to me to be the only legitimate
body that seeks to reconstruct the qualities of Roman life that
together it could be argued form the "Roman experience". I also
include in my definition of legitimate an estimate of the chance for
success and survival of a group.

Beyond that it is clear the reasons are many and varied. Scarus is
absolutely right in my opinion when he comments on what could be
termed the more dramatic (my terminology) aspects to NR life. Yes,
they are all valid but something does have to underpin these. There
has to be a solid foundation.

It appears that many differ on exactly what the foundation is, so I
may as well add my five cents worth in the form of a question.

Might the foundation be something other even than religion, or
political structure, "community" spirit, living history experiments
and the myriad of other key points for different people?

Might in fact the foundation be better described as knowledge? The
loss of knowledge resultant from the collapse of the Western Empire
(albeit in a very "tatty" condition by then), a reduction in the
Roman "sphere of influence" and culture, the atrocious acts of
vandalism against literary and historical depositories and the influx
of barbarian "culture" set Europe back to, one could argue, an almost
Neolithic existence. I think everyone is agreed that the recovery of
that knowledge is essential.

Before we can build anything, or even debate what to build and where,
surely we need to know that we have sturdy foundations available?
Could we not all find a unity of purpose in a core and fundamental
pursuit of knowledge, before anything else? I know that this is
alluded to openly and indirectly throughout our website, postings,
files, articles etc. but maybe, just maybe, we have ceased to focus
as clearly as we could on that – not as individuals or groups but as
a whole "community".

If we accept the pursuit of knowledge as this shared common
denominator can we not then advance to the next step of the specific
goals of research, education and finally "recruitment" of more
citizens? Can we not focus in more microscopic detail on increasing
the number of projects we initiate and sponsor to recover knowledge
and educate the wider public (and ourselves!)?

Just as an aside I think it a remarkable tribute to all those
citizens who have been here either from inception or subsequently and
who have built something literally out of nothing, that Nova Roma
receives so many referrals on serious academic course websites,
particularly those that cover the Religio, as a cited reference. You
have already gained Nova Roma a legitimacy.

So could we not formulate, or if it exists, re-publicise what I
hesitate to allude to as a "five year plan" or similar (as many such
exercises were doomed to failure before they even left the drafting
room)? Even though I hesitate over the terminology the essence of why
we are here seems, to me at least, to be the pursuit of knowledge for
its own sake, the education of the wider world in Romanitas (as
outlined my mainstream academics) and finally a substantive push for
more citizens.

We need the structure of Nova Roman government, Religio, law and
social "order" to pull us ALL together so that what is a monumental
task can be supported by visible structures which provide that
support through being not only focal points of energy but also
increasingly accurate models. Once person may not feel the need for
elements such as the Religio, preferring a political structure.
Others will feel the need for the Religio. There is something for
everyone here and every part is necessary and vital.

I would suggest that we can safely shelve the bigger decisions and
find common cause in the meantime around these goals, with the
certainty that if we are successful in re-infusing the wider public
with that knowledge and seeing a large leap in citizen numbers, that
then will be the appropriate time to reopen the debates on what to
build and where.

We are here through the miracle of the internet and computer
technology in general. While we need to move our educational and
research activities ever further into the "real" world I think that
we can say that it is a source of strength and flexibility that
our "capital city" exists, for the moment, here in this medium.
Without the net we realistically would not be here.

With the net we can create a community that can thrive and grow free
from threats or jurisdictional issues. We can build here and now
models that can be ready to be grafted onto whatever options are made
available to us in the "real" world in the future.

I think we have barely scratched the surface of what this medium of
the "net" allows a community of like-minded individuals to achieve. A
virtual world is not by definition automatically a "fake" world. With
mismanagement it can easily become so, but with good sound management
it can in many ways be far stronger than "real" models.

Lastly maybe we ought to recall the fable of the Tortoise and the
Hare. Slow and steady is a good thing :)

<<Placing tin hat on head and ducking in case anything in this has
unintentionally offended anyone>>

Vale
Gnaeus Iulius Caesar

Gn. Iulius Caesar S.P.D.

Salvete, Quirites

I joined Nova Roma having fully read and understood that the
official religion was the Religio. I personally detest that the
Religio is referred to as Pagan, even by some of those who adhere to
it. I regard the term Pagan as a judgemental slur designing to label
and categorize it as essentially a collection of cranks. The Religio
is the Religio. It doesn't need any labels.

There is ample provision for those that do not adhere to the Religio
to remain within Nova Roma and yet stay true to their own religious
beliefs. They can have as Scaurus stated someone deputize for them
(who is an adherent) should they aspire to a magisterial position.
They could elect not to stand for any official office if they
considered that too much of a compromise, and yet remain a fully
functioning citizen. No one has to leave as I see it.

Without wanting to invoke a whole series of articles on
reconstruction and how far to take x,y, or z, there are for me
certain basic expectations that I have of an organization that lays
claim to a reconstructionist position. Ranking fairly highly up
there is that the governance of this place should reflect tradition.
The last thing that I expect, desire or need is to find a
constitution that regulates, restricts and defines (or tries to and
in my humble opinion would fail miserably in the attempt) and orders
the direction in which Nova Roma grows.

As an recent ex-pat from Britannia to Canada Occidentalis (8 years
is recent to me), and imbued with your average Briton's healthy
disrespect for any document that claims to either speak for him or
his nation I cannot say that I am overjoyed at the prospect that we
are going to invest faith in what essentially is either a millstone
slung around our necks, immutable and unchangeable or a flimsy scrap
of paper. Somehow constitutions to me always seem to fall into those
two categories. I totally ignore the ones that don't fit into those
two categories since they invariably tend to be so vapid and
irrelevant being all things to all people that they serve no defence
against the encroachment of predatory government nor do they provide
adequate protection for the nation as a whole from those who would
destroy it. Constitutions of this ilk serve merely as a totem around
which their faithful supporters can gather an exercise of massive
self-delusion that it is worth anything other than the price paid
for the box of paper it was printed on. As you may gather I really
have little time for constitutions.

While I am not a historian (extensive self-study or research in
pursuit of a hobby does not entitle one to claim what is an academic
distinction) I have a reasonable grasp of the history of my birth
nation. I also have seen a raft of petty European Community
regulations and incessant navel searching over such weighty issues
as whether to arrest the local grocer for having the temerity to
want to continue to use the Imperial scale of measurement when
selling potatoes to people who want to buy them in pounds and
ounces. This sort of petty bureaucratic persecution is the direct
result in my mind, and in the minds of a significant number of my
compatriots, of a pernicious gaggle of European Community lawyers
charged with reducing everything to a common denominator and some
ghastly flow chart of European procedure and practice.

Many will argue that there is no connection between these absurd
excesses of the Brussels Mafia and a constitution. Well to me there
is a clear path that leads directly from one to the other. A written
constitution is the starting point for an attempt to codify,
regulate and predict every nuance of life within a nation. Once we
see a constitution as a guardian of liberty we actually in my mind
make it almost certain that we will be the authors of the
destruction of that very same liberty we seek to protect.

Many adherents of a constitution as a bulwark of liberty and justice
will start with the best of intentions to try to buttress the
constitution with accompanying legislation, regulations, and
amendments, right down to by-laws. Before long you end up with a
nation that employs a man to come and give you a ticket for allowing
thistles to grow in your lawn (no – not my personal experience).
Absolute bloody nonsense. My poor old mother when she ran a small
corner store had to suffer some twit that came round and dropped
potatoes through a small metal square, to ensure that they were of
an appropriate size. Taxpayers footed the bill to pay him to do this
as a full-time job.

In both cases no consideration is given to your neighbours having
the gumption to tell you to tidy up your lawn or for someone having
the gumption not to buy small potatoes. Instead everyone has to be
protected, nannied, and generally treated as though they were
mentally defective and in need of a raft of protective legislation
lest they be taken advantage of in their disordered state of mind.
Again – absolute bloody nonsense..

So what is the connection with Nova Roma? We should have the
gumption to rely on sound common sense instead of getting locked
into trying to protect everyone's right to be everything at the same
time in the same place. To me the mos maiorum is surely what
survived – largely un-codified and unwritten into an all-defining
book/instruction manual – year-to-year, decade-to-decade, century-to-
century. It was the essence of gumption and common sense. It was the
workable and the good. Yes, it was also that which no one could be
bothered to challenge, and maybe did not command overwhelming
support but definitely did not command sufficient interest to
replace it. It was the quintessential exercise in an unwritten
constitution and yet it was more than a mere constitution can ever
be. Was it not the silent and impassive arbiter of what was
acceptable, what was Roman? To breach the mos maiorum was not an act
to be invited or taken lightly to put it mildly. It was an almost
invisible power, of legal, social, military, political standards.

I suppose that sums it up for me, that the strength of the mos
maiorum lay in its almost invisible nature, the fact that to run
contrary to it carried a social stigma, that it oozed tradition and
history. It was at the same time a living concept, reacting – albeit
gradually – to shifts in standards and behaviour. Its strength lay
also in the fact that it didn't do some dance in the wind every time
public opinion shifted.

Can we say the same of a constitution? When a politician breaches
it, anywhere in the world, is he or she execrated and do people
cross the street to avoid contact with this social outcast? No. No
one cares one whit, and why? Because to the vast majority of people
anywhere, a constitution is written by lawyers for lawyers. Only the
politically active actually, in my mind, have any faith in it or see
it as something to rally around and protect. Isn't it the case that
the average Joe Bloggs just tutts disapprovingly at the latest rip
in the fabric of what is meant to be the document that underpins
everything else, and moves on about his business? Isn't the latest
shredding of fundamental principles in this "sacred" document almost
relegated to halfway point in the national news? Isn't the
constitution just the original straw man? Well I for one think it is.

No constitution or law can replace good sense, a perception of what
is "good form" and what is not, and given all the angst that has
already been expended here over this wretched thing, is it not the
case that despite all of the best efforts of the proponents of
constitutions to say otherwise what we should aim for is a common
feeling of boundaries and limits, and is it not more likely that if
they are established they will provide the greatest protection of
both rights and customs than some scrap of paper that will get
written, re-written, vilified, stabbed, shredded and generally
dismembered. Isn't that the Roman way, than essentially opening Nova
Roma up to the not so tender mercies of lawyers (rather than
the "gentleman" amateurs of Rome) who will peer at and pick at and
scrutinize every comma and dot?

Well if the objective is to "modernize" us to the extent that we
invest our faith in such a document, instead of striving to build
that consensus of community opinion and practice which would form
the reconstituted mos maiorum, then we have failed in the one part
of reconstruction that is free and achievable now. Thought is free
and doesn't require land or forums. If we cannot find some common
standards, even now, then we are truly lost already. Assuming that
as a community we have the gumption and common sense to nurture it
to full growth we can see the mos maiorum flourish. We can on the
other hand place all our faith in a regulations and by-laws, and
then just wait and see before how it takes for some twit to be
appointed to measure the length and usage of language here, before
some clown appears to regulate the terminology of this list, to
codify and reduce to a state of anaemic blandness.

So in closing I can re-affirm I am no supporter of constitutions,
they have no real role here in Nova Roma, other than as a stop-gap
until we can generate enough common sense to see a new mos maiorum
evolve. The way of constitutions is the short step to mean faced
petty bureaucrats that took a nation as sensible, old and solid as
the UK and reduced it to a shadow of its former self-sufficiency of
national mind, purpose and standards. It is now an adjunct of some
office of the Brussels Mafia where grocers have to worry about being
imprisoned. I repeat – absolute bloody nonsense.

We don't need a constitution – all we need is a communal spine, and
if you replace that spine with a paper constitution all you have
left is some weak and flabby jellyfish flopping around on the floor.

Vale

Gnaeus Iulius Caesar

G. Equitius Cato quiritibusque S.P.D.

salvete omnes,

Well, I just re-read the Constitution. And I realized that I had
missed something all along. There, enshrined in the VERY SECOND
SENTENCE, is all the argument I need.

"We, the Senate and People of Nova Roma, as an independent and
sovereign nation, herewith set forth this Constitution as the
foundation and structure of our governing institutions and common
society. We hereby declare our Nation to stand as a beacon for those
who would recreate the best of ancient Rome."

"THE BEST OF ANCIENT ROME". The very phrase which Laenas used (in
post #22561, and I quote):

"I would summarize the strict reconstructionist point of view as 'If
it is practical and possible to do things as the ancients did, that
is the way it should be done'. The idea is to recreate the Roma of
the ancients, not some modern organization with a Roman 'flavor'.

The phrase that seems to rankle many reconstructionists is 'we want
to recreate the "`best'" of ancient Rome'. Reconstructionists do not
want to create only a subjective 'best', but all that is possible
and practical."

But here, in our own Constitution, the acknowledged highest authority
in NR, it states *exactly* that. So, unfortunately, although well-
meant and certainly heartfelt, the "strict reconstructionist" point
of view is in direct contradiction to what our Constitution itself
declares.

So, quirites, we have an interesting junction.

On the one hand, our Constitution and Declaration announce that we
are a "sovereign", "independent world nation", which claims a
specific amount of territory at some future time; we also claim "Dual
Sovereignty [spelling corrected]" over all those places we
already "own, occupy", etc., and that our nation is already "extant"
(i.e., in existence) and physically "manifest" in these places.

On the other hand, we have a group telling us that we do *not* exist
as a sovereign nation, that we exist only as a "virtual" state and
that state in itself only exists for the religio.

Do we follow they Constitution and Declaration, taking them at their
(albeit sometimes grammatically incorrect) word *as they exist now*?
Or do we signal defeat and give up, becoming one more of countless
little religious fringe groups? I say YES to the former and NO to
the latter.

I want to be a part in recreating the very best of ancient Rome.

valete,

Cato the getting-back-his-Fanaticus-ness

I am new to the group! I am also a new Latin teacher and when I was
looking at the website, I saw that there were SPQR vexilla for sale.
This may be an old topic, but are there any more for sale?

Salve Marinus

I have try to pay with paypal but they doun´t accept me cardnumber

Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@...> wrote:
Salvete Quirites, et salve Luci Didi,

L·DIDIVS·GEMINVS·SCEPTIVS writes:

> I would like to know what do we need to do exactly to pay
> via paypal to Nova Roma the Hispania Provincia Taxes. I think
> we need an e-mail account when within the link of "Dono Dare"
> at the main web page.

Yes, that is correct.

> Could you provide me with it and tell me the exact steps to
> follow to pay via paypal then? Thank you very much!

Go to http://novaroma.org/main.html

Scroll down the page until you get to the "Dono Dare" link. It's
purple, and alternates between "Dono Dare" and "give to Nova Roma via
PayPal" in the white text displayed on it. Click on that link. It will
take you to a page which tells you that you're about to give money to
the Nova Roma treasury.

Enter the total amount you're transfering, and then in the comments box
below it please tell us the NovaRoman names of all the citizens you're
sending funds for. It will also help if you provide the macronational
names of those citizens.

Once you have entered all the information, click on the "continue" box
and confirm the payment. Just follow the directions from there.

If you don't already have a PayPal account, you can create one fairly
quickly. Please contact me directly via e-mail if you have any problems
with the PayPal interface, or anything else involved in getting the
funds transfered to the treasury.

Vale,

-- Marinus



---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Mit schönen Grüßen von Yahoo! Mail.
Mit dem Yahoo! Messenger können Sie Freunde noch schneller erreichen!

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

How much are these "taxes"?
Moon
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Octavia Ulpia Teretina
<terentina2003@y...> wrote:

> Salve Marinus
>
> I have try to pay with paypal but they doun´t accept me cardnumber
>
> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@c...> wrote:
> Salvete Quirites, et salve Luci Didi,
>
> L·DIDIVS·GEMINVS·SCEPTIVS writes:
> > I would like to know what do we need to do exactly to pay
> > via paypal to Nova Roma the Hispania Provincia Taxes. I think
> > we need an e-mail account when within the link of "Dono Dare"
> > at the main web page.
>
> Yes, that is correct.
>
> > Could you provide me with it and tell me the exact steps to
> > follow to pay via paypal then? Thank you very much!
>
> Go to http://novaroma.org/main.html
>
> Scroll down the page until you get to the "Dono Dare" link. It's
> purple, and alternates between "Dono Dare" and "give to Nova Roma

via

> PayPal" in the white text displayed on it. Click on that link.

It will

> take you to a page which tells you that you're about to give money

to

> the Nova Roma treasury.
>
> Enter the total amount you're transfering, and then in the

comments box

> below it please tell us the NovaRoman names of all the citizens

you're

> sending funds for. It will also help if you provide the

macronational

> names of those citizens.
>
> Once you have entered all the information, click on the "continue"

box

> and confirm the payment. Just follow the directions from there.
>
> If you don't already have a PayPal account, you can create one

fairly

> quickly. Please contact me directly via e-mail if you have any

problems

> with the PayPal interface, or anything else involved in getting

the

> funds transfered to the treasury.
>
> Vale,
>
> -- Marinus
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.

>
>
> Mit schönen Grüßen von Yahoo! Mail.
> Mit dem Yahoo! Messenger können Sie Freunde noch schneller

erreichen!

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

Maybe you all should quit the nation stuff and work on building
a "church"? sounds like it would be more meaningful.
Moon
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "sabina_equitia_doris" <doris-
butler@s...> wrote:

> Salvete Omnes!
>
> While Scaurus and I stand at diametrical opposites on the issue of
> slaughter, I do concur with the need he sees to clarify the NR
> website.
>
> Allow me to use myself as an example of naivete, or if you will,
> sheer "stupidity". I read the entire website and all of its

links.

> Never once did I read anything which gave even an inkling that I

was

> joining something which condones modern day literal flesh and

blood

> animal sacrifice and/or slaughter. The practice was only spoken of
> in the past tense "for informational purposes", with additional
> caveats, while other Religio practices are described in the

present

> tense, as though in a "how-to" handbook.
>
> Frankly it never dawned on me that a group of modern Western-
> educated people would practice animal scrifice. Call me what you
> will; I will certainly confess to having been that naive.
>
> But now my eyes are opened. But I had already paid in my taxes.
> That means that my money is furthering whatever this group does.
> This is a burden upon my concience.
>
> A simple factual message added to the home web page to the effect
> that "Nova Roma condones animal sacrifice" would prevent people

like

> me from joining.
>
> Meanwhile it is my own duty to move that we:
>
> 1) Offer citizens a "cruelty free" tax option to designate that
> their taxes paid in will never be used for the taking of life.
>
> 2) Put a highly visible message in front of potential citizens to
> the effect that Nova Roma does indeed condone animal sacrifice.
>
> Right now, whether or not the tax money I've already paid actually
> goes to buy a doomed animal, or a blade to cut its throat, my

money

> *is* being used to keep what I feel is a deceptive website on the
> internet.
>
> Incidentally I am not thick skinned and take no joy at entering

this

> fray of. But I too have a Creator which my concience requires me

to

> honor. I feel that like many citizens of various belief systems I
> was duped into participating in and financially supporting a

system

> the practice of which is I find unconcionable.
>
> It has not been my intent to present "blasphemy" herein, but to

work

> within the system, but *if* this be blasphemy, so be it, I can do

no

> other.
>
> --Sabina Equitia Doris
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gregory Rose <gfr@w...> wrote:
> > G. Iulius Scaurus S. P. D.
> >
> > I personally think that the most honest way to present NR on its
> website
> > would be to have a screaming headline on the opening page which
> reads:
> > "Nova Roma is a ROMAN POLYTHEIST ORGANISATION. Non-polytheists
> are
> > welcome to become citizens, but they must recognise that any
> attempt to
> > alter the ROMAN POLYTHEIST character of the organisation will

not

> be
> > tolerated. We do not enquire into the private religious beliefs
> of any
> > applicant for citizenship, but all citizens must be respectful
> toward
> > the ROMAN POLYTHEIST character of Nova Roma and the RELIGIO
> ROMANA. Any
> > citizen who wishes to become a magistrate must be willing, if

not

> a
> > practitioner of the Religio Romana, to officially delegate
> performance
> > of the required rituals of the Religio Publica to a practitioner
> of the
> > Religio Romana. This is as it was in Roma Antiqua and shall
> always be
> > in Nova Roma." Is that clear enough for anyone who thinks I

have

> the
> > slightest desire to trick anyone into joining NR?
> >
> > Valete.
> >
> > Scaurus
> >
> > _____________________
> > * - Even the Christian emperors delegated performance of the
> required
> > rituals of the Religio Romana to practitioners until Gratian.

Salvete Quirites, et salve Pompeia,

pompeia_cornelia wrote:

> We have received word that my Paterfamilias, Lucius Cornelius Sulla
> Felix consular has a loved one who is ill, and not doing well.
>
> I appeal, on behalf of our familia for your intercession for divine
> interventions in this difficult time for Sulla and his loved one.

Thank you for passing the word about this Pompeia. I shall include this
person's plight in my private meditations.

I also ask all Quirites who can, in good conscience, offer prayers for
this person to please do so.

Valete Quirites,

-- Marinus

Gaius Modius Athanasius S.P.D.

Salve Doris;

I understand your passion for the preservation of life. I don't necessarily agree with your position, but I understand as I too am passionate about issues.

However, your comment below insinuates that the Romans of antiqua were somehow "less" sophisticated in thier approach to "things." It further insinuates that western society doesn't conduct animal sacrifice because they are somehow more enlightened.

Western society does conduct animal sacrifice in the form of slaughter houses. In the United States the meat and dairy industry is subsidised by the government, which means your tax dollars go to contribute the slaughter of animals -- and the meat and dairy industry within the US is not concerned about humane treatment of animals. Within Nova Roma ALL slaughter must be cunducted according to tradition, which is humane, and I would also tend to believe that the animals being offered have been well cared for within a family farm type setting (vs. factory farming).

The animals that are offered within Nova Roma are not made as burnt offerings, but are consumed. The exta, or guts, of the animal is what is made as a burnt offering. Much better than just throwing it in the trash can.

Again, I understand your passion. But animal sacrifice within Nova Roma, which is a rare practice, is not a wasteful endeavor. I believe the animal sacrifice issue is much misunderstood.

What would be the difference if a Nova Roma event used tax dollars to fund a "pig roast?" At every Lacus Magni Annual Gathering I have attended there has been meat eaten, and part of the cost of the event was paid for by tax dollars. Is it OK because the meat was purchased at a store?

Valete;

Gaius Modius Athanasius
Flamen Pomonalis

In a message dated 4/30/2004 8:00:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, doris-butler@... writes:

> Frankly it never dawned on me that a group of modern Western-
> educated people would practice animal scrifice. Call me
> what you
> will; I will certainly confess to having been that naive.

Salve Pomonaguy,

pomonaguy2000 wrote:

> I am new to the group! I am also a new Latin teacher and when I was
> looking at the website, I saw that there were SPQR vexilla for sale.
> This may be an old topic, but are there any more for sale?

The vexilla are sold by Marcus Cassius Julianus. I've cc'd a copy of
this to him. The last time I checked he had none in stock, but he may
have completed another purchase by now. You can write directly to him
at cassius622@....

Vale,

-- Marinus

Salvete Quirites,

Unforgiven wrote:

> How much are these "taxes"?

1/3000 of the GDP of your home country. For a US citizen that works out
to $12 US. For citizens of other countries it's different amounts. You
can check the tabularium for the current year tax edictum to get full
information.

The deadline for payment of this year's tax without late penalty is
midnight tonight.

Valete,

-- Marinus

The "Best of" Dead Horse has been throughly flogged as many times as
the Slavery strawman has been trotted out.

Drusus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Michael" <mlcinnyc@y...> wrote:
> G. Equitius Cato quiritibusque S.P.D.
>
> salvete omnes,
>
> Well, I just re-read the Constitution. And I realized that I had
> missed something all along. There, enshrined in the VERY SECOND
> SENTENCE, is all the argument I need.
>
> "We, the Senate and People of Nova Roma, as an independent and
> sovereign nation, herewith set forth this Constitution as the
> foundation and structure of our governing institutions and common
> society. We hereby declare our Nation to stand as a beacon for those
> who would recreate the best of ancient Rome."
>
> "THE BEST OF ANCIENT ROME". The very phrase which Laenas used (in
> post #22561, and I quote):
>
> "I would summarize the strict reconstructionist point of view as 'If
> it is practical and possible to do things as the ancients did, that
> is the way it should be done'. The idea is to recreate the Roma of
> the ancients, not some modern organization with a Roman 'flavor'.
>
> The phrase that seems to rankle many reconstructionists is 'we want
> to recreate the "`best'" of ancient Rome'. Reconstructionists do not
> want to create only a subjective 'best', but all that is possible
> and practical."
>
> But here, in our own Constitution, the acknowledged highest authority
> in NR, it states *exactly* that. So, unfortunately, although well-
> meant and certainly heartfelt, the "strict reconstructionist" point
> of view is in direct contradiction to what our Constitution itself
> declares.
>
> So, quirites, we have an interesting junction.
>
> On the one hand, our Constitution and Declaration announce that we
> are a "sovereign", "independent world nation", which claims a
> specific amount of territory at some future time; we also claim "Dual
> Sovereignty [spelling corrected]" over all those places we
> already "own, occupy", etc., and that our nation is already "extant"
> (i.e., in existence) and physically "manifest" in these places.
>
> On the other hand, we have a group telling us that we do *not* exist
> as a sovereign nation, that we exist only as a "virtual" state and
> that state in itself only exists for the religio.
>
> Do we follow they Constitution and Declaration, taking them at their
> (albeit sometimes grammatically incorrect) word *as they exist now*?
> Or do we signal defeat and give up, becoming one more of countless
> little religious fringe groups? I say YES to the former and NO to
> the latter.
>
> I want to be a part in recreating the very best of ancient Rome.
>
> valete,
>
> Cato the getting-back-his-Fanaticus-ness

Salvete Omnes et salve mi mince Druse.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus"
drusus@b...> wrote:

>>The "Best of" Dead Horse has been throughly flogged as many times

as the Slavery strawman has been trotted out.

Drusus<<

Exactly why I used the phrase to begin with, and qualified it as
a "subjective" best of. I was, and am, well aware of the wording of
our Constitution. The "best of" is what is possible and practical.

Valete,

Gaius Popillius Laenas

Salve Octavia,

You are not alone. After I changed credit cards on papal it would
not accept my second one either which is in good standing. I got
into a loop that said to go to Paypal help etc. that does not give
any solution. Your second option is to send a money order toe Wells
Maine or to your provincial governor who will takr care of things
for you. I hope someday when feesable, NR will be able to take
direct credit card payments.

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Octavia Ulpia Teretina
<terentina2003@y...> wrote:

> Salve Marinus
>
> I have try to pay with paypal but they doun´t accept me cardnumber
>
> Gnaeus Equitius Marinus <gawne@c...> wrote:
> Salvete Quirites, et salve Luci Didi,
>
> L·DIDIVS·GEMINVS·SCEPTIVS writes:
> > I would like to know what do we need to do exactly to pay
> > via paypal to Nova Roma the Hispania Provincia Taxes. I think
> > we need an e-mail account when within the link of "Dono Dare"
> > at the main web page.
>
> Yes, that is correct.
>
> > Could you provide me with it and tell me the exact steps to
> > follow to pay via paypal then? Thank you very much!
>
> Go to http://novaroma.org/main.html
>
> Scroll down the page until you get to the "Dono Dare" link. It's
> purple, and alternates between "Dono Dare" and "give to Nova Roma

via

> PayPal" in the white text displayed on it. Click on that link.

It will

> take you to a page which tells you that you're about to give money

to

> the Nova Roma treasury.
>
> Enter the total amount you're transfering, and then in the

comments box

> below it please tell us the NovaRoman names of all the citizens

you're

> sending funds for. It will also help if you provide the

macronational

> names of those citizens.
>
> Once you have entered all the information, click on the "continue"

box

> and confirm the payment. Just follow the directions from there.
>
> If you don't already have a PayPal account, you can create one

fairly

> quickly. Please contact me directly via e-mail if you have any

problems

> with the PayPal interface, or anything else involved in getting

the

> funds transfered to the treasury.
>
> Vale,
>
> -- Marinus
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.

>
>
> Mit schönen Grüßen von Yahoo! Mail.
> Mit dem Yahoo! Messenger können Sie Freunde noch schneller

erreichen!

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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
<a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:

Salvete Apollonius Cordus et Omnes:

My comments below....

> A. Apollonius Cordus to Pompeia Cornelia Strabo, and
> to all his fellow-citizens and all peregrines,
> greetings.
>
> I shan't comment on your thoughts about the blasphemy
> clause and accompanying decree, for I fear that if I
> were to do so I might provoke a certain measure of
> hostility (not from you) which at the moment I haven't
> the inclination to fight off; but I agree with some of
> what you say, and it's a matter of public record that
> I feel that the blasphemy clause, the blasphemy
> decree, and article XXI.A of the lex poenalis could
> all be revoked without significantly detracting from
> the protected and established position of the religio.

POMPEIA: Heaven's no.....we don't have to go there, atleast today.

>
> But on more specific matters:
>
> > Can the constitution be amended? Certainly, as it
> > has many times
> > through due process of law. I do believe that the
> > Tribunes could have
> > vetoed this Decretum, based on their constitutional
> > authority, on the
> > basis of the loose language, while keeping with
> > their obligations
> > toward the religio, even if the constitutions
> > language is muddy. They
> > still have the authority, in my opinion to veto
> > something which
> > presents other aspects of citizen's rights as
> > defined in the
> > constitution. The cannot veto a Dictator or
> > Interrex. They had 72
> > hours. Something would have to be repromulgated for
> > anything to change.
>
> There is one more fact which ocmplicates the picture.
> Though the tribunes can't veto a decree (or edict or
> whatever) if more than 72 hours have passed since it
> was issued, they can still veto any action carried out
> under the terms of the decree (or edict, &c.). So for
> instance, the lex Salica poenalis sets out a criminal
> offence of calumnia; but in order to try someone for
> that offence, the praetor would have to issue a
> formula (appointing the judge(s), setting the penalty,
> &c.), which is a specialized type of edict; the
> tribunes would then have 72 hours to veto the formula,
> thus blocking the trial and effectively protecting the
> defendant. So the tribunes could in theory adopt a
> policy of vetoing every formula relating to calumnia
> on the grounds that punishing anyone for calumnia
> constitutes a restriction of the
> constitutionally-guaranteed right of free expression.
> Obviously that's a pretty unlikely example, and not
> one I'd like to see, but it shows a strategy which
> could in theory be used by the tribunes to protect the
> constitution even after the initial 72 hours have
> passed.

POMPEIA; You are correct on this. I thought I had stated that the
Tribunes could veto any actions of a magistrate, but it was perhaps in
another paragraph, and your expansion of this, reaffirming that the
tribunes have powers beyond vetoing an initial promulgation, is well
noted. You are correct, and in all likelihood I muddied the
explanation, in my attempts to focus on the constitution and the religio.

>
> > Could a lex be promulaged, or we could start with a
> > Senatus Consultum,
> > stating that all public legal acts, ie respresenting
> > the entirety of
> > the state, be they religious, cultural, etc. have
> > final approval of
> > the Senate? This would still allow a Tribune veto,
> > but the final seal
> > of approval would come from the Senate.
>
> The problem is that this would raise the senate to a
> much higher position of power than is justified by
> history or by prudence.

POMPEIA; How so? in 186 BCE, according to Livy ..History of Rome
Book XXXIX, a Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus was decreed, after an
investigation of these by the Consuls, Praetores, Curule Aediles of
the priests and populace engaging in the sacrifices and festivals.
Due to a high degree of immoralities associated with these, a tight
set of parameters was levied on when, where and how you could honour
Bacchus.

To legally honour Bacchus, you had to approach the PRAETOR URBANIS
(not the PM), who would present your petition to the Senate and they
would vote on same if the Senate had atleast 100 members....the
criteria was that I think 5 or 6 could participate in the sacrifice,
etc...anyway, the Senate decreed that they weren't happy with the
monkey business...if you wish a copy of these, I shall send it to
anyone free and post paid.

This is one historical example where the Senate very much had a say on
public festivals, and such things that would affect Rome as a whole.
This also suggests to me that the Collegium Pontificium was very
accountable to the magistrates and Senate and 'not' the other way
around. They were one body of Rome, an important one, but not akin to
being like the Sanhedrin of Jesus day, or like some of the
fundamentalist Islamic religious 'regimes' (well, I think so) that
exist today.

In Nova Roma, the Senate approves just about 'everything' that is
extended to the public, which will effect our respresentation to the
world as a whole: the approve sponsored legions, sodalitates, taxes,
and projects with religious application such as the Magna Mater project.

I do not see where it is totally unviable for them not to continue
doing so in Nova Roma. And, I think it is important that public
religious festivals receive final approval from the Senate, not
because I think Priests and people are going to have wild parties (an
orgy is not a wild party, by the way) but because their detriment to
the micronation as a whole might outweigh the need to be religiously
historical. The Senate is a broad spectrum group, with Conscriptii
from all over the world, some priests some not, some practitioners,
from various walks of life, and degrees of education and background.

Now that I think of it...I see the Senate of Nova Roma already
posessing this authority, rendering the need for legislation rather
redundant, other than affirm to certain groups, important as they are,
where their constitutional parameters lie, should they be mistaken or
confused about them.

Vale,
Pompeia







Even if we were to have a

> constitutional court - and I do not recommend it - it
> would be most unwise to combine it with an unelected
> body whose members serve for life and cannot be
> removed except by others of its own members, and which
> is not bound by any particular constitutional mandate.
> Macronational constitutional courts are courts: they
> only have the power to interpret and rule on existing
> law; they can't strike down legislation just because
> they dislike it. The senate is specifically designed
> to be a political body which makes decisions based on
> what it thinks best, not on what it understands to be
> the existing law: so to give it the power to strike
> down legislation would be to give it all the powers
> necessary for it to exercise complete domination over
> the whole political system. Its decisions could not be
> challenged, because it would be the body which had the
> power to decide whether such challenges were valid.
> No, if the constitution is to be rigid and is to be
> adequately protected then it must be by a mechanism of
> judicial review: giving such powers to any currently
> existing element of the system would make that element
> able to suppress all others.
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
> your friends today! Download Messenger Now
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html