> Salvete,
>
> A gigantic yet fantastic free download at this link:
>
> http://www.fileplanet.com/files/140000/144640.shtml
>
> allows you to take control of the Carthaginian army

> the Battle of Trebia. Well worth a look!!
>
> Valete
>
> Decimus Iunius Silanus
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Political authority on the other side of the continent? That
> would be referential to what? Perhaps, let us venture... where I
>own land?
> Last time I checked the US Senate follows a similar policy, and
> consequently Hillary Clinton is currently a senator in New York,
> which, on a related subject, is on the other side of the continent
> from Arkansas.
>
> This being said... what is the point you are trying to make? I
> think, perhaps, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, you
> missed
> the portion of my post concerning land I currently own *being ceded*
> to Nova Roma?

> Though we are Nova Romans, agism loses it's trendiness and
> applicability in a ratio-based fashion. An elder man toying with the
> mind of a young boy is all in good fun, however, an elder man
> dishonoring a younger man who is nonetheless his peer, this fringes
>on breaches in ettiquette, if not old-fashioned rudeness.

> I hadn't been aware of your continuing residence within VT, as
>I'd been misinformed by the provincial government in the past, being
>told, if memory serves, that you'd relocated to NH.

>I do believe you may have misinterpreted my regard of you, thereby
>giving you acknowledgeable though small grounds to take an even more
>puerile tone against me than the one I'd been maligned heavily for
>initially having. I hope, despite all of this, to successfully
>convince you to
> calmly take a breath of air and resign from flexing those histrionic
> muscles in the future.

> I have long been a citizen and proponent of Nova Roma, and I've
> also been a supporter of a form of taxation, though I haven't felt
> motivated myself to make gigantic financial contributions to Nova

> because of my being essentially, though unintentionally, barred from
> governmental positions that I've been seeking for a long time.
>
> I have voiced my concerns about not having been made the legate

> Vermont within the Nova Brittania province in the past, simply

> of a former resident's seniority within the province. I believe it
> would be more practicial in Northern New England for me to be
> officially appointed a regional leader, recognized by Nova Roman
> government, as most Nova Roman residents of Vermont reside very

> to me. This is also insequitur of my aforementioned support of

>
> I think a more effective strategy for this consulate's year,
> would be to endorse a legate-paid tax system. Though this might

> at first somewhat fuedal, the way our government is structured, I
> believe that legates and governors of provinces should be

> for paying taxes for their positions of authority, and being funded
> partly by the citizens underneath them. E.G: I will collect taxes

> the residents of VT if made legate, and forward this money to the

> Roman federal government via paypal, other legates could

> do the same. I think this system would work better because there is

> buffer between the federal and local, which in my experience, makes
> people see the sense in separating themselves from their hard earned
> money so that it can manifest itself in our temples and cultural
> projects to come.
>
> -T. Ambrosius Quintilianus

> Salvete Quirites,
>
> Trying to think of just the right way to say something? This may

>
> <http://tam-lin.org/abby/latin.html>
>
> Valete,
>
> -- Marinus

> AVETE CIVES
>
> Here is the classification for the Ludi Romani cultural contest,
> uptodated to the II answer. It seems to be a hard task to beat Dom
> Con Fuscus!!
>
> I remember you that anytime you want to join our cultural contest,
> you can do it! Send your answer ONLY PRIVATELY TO ME...
>
> 4 pts:
> Dom Constantinus Fuscus
>
> 3 pts:
> M Iulius Aurelianus
>
> 2 pts.:
> A Minicius Iordannes Pompeianus
> P Constantinus Vetranio
> Gn Equitius Marinus
> Quintus Cassius Brutus
> H Rutilius Bardulus
> Q Salix Cantaber Uranicus
>
> 1 pt.:
> Livia Iulia Drusilla
> G. Equitius Cato
>
>
> VALETE
> L IUL SULLA

> Which leads to the second, a question. I am an Orthodox Christian.
> I cannot be anything else.

> But I want to show support for you and
> for a via moderatorum within Nova Roma. How do you think I am able
> to do this? What can I do, and by extension, other Christians in NR
> do? With the state the CP is in, it would be easier for a rich man
> to pass through the eye of the needle than for a Christian to exert
> any influence there.

>
> I do intend to run for public office when I can (this year). I can,
> without any personal fear of offending Almighty God, take a public
> oath of office. There are other Christians who cannot, and that is
> between them and their faith. I have joined your new RR List, but am
> not sure what use I can be there, not being a practitioner.
>
> Please let me know what we can do.

> Fl Vedius Germanicus G Equitio S.P.D.
>
> gaiusequitiuscato wrote (in part):
>
>> Which leads to the second, a question. I am an Orthodox Christian.
>> I cannot be anything else.
>
>
> FVG: Well, strictly speaking, you could very well be anything else,
> just
> as you were once not an Orthodox Christian. But I quibble.
>
> GEC:
>
>> But I want to show support for you and
>> for a via moderatorum within Nova Roma. How do you think I am able
>> to do this? What can I do, and by extension, other Christians in NR
>> do? With the state the CP is in, it would be easier for a rich man
>> to pass through the eye of the needle than for a Christian to exert
>> any influence there.
>
>
> FVG: If I may say so, I consider that to be a good thing. I would no
> more want a Christian (or Wiccan, or whatever) to exert any influence
> over the Collegium Pontificum-- whose mission is to exercise "general
> authority over the institutions, rites, rituals, and priesthoods of the
> public Religio Romana"-- any more than Catholics might want me to have
> any influence over the College of Cardinals, or you might wish me to
> have over the Patriarch of Constantinople.
>
> Why is it so difficult for you to understand that Nova Roma's pagans
> don't _want_ the influence, however good-intentioned, of Nova Roma's
> Christians?
>
> GEC:
>
>>
>> I do intend to run for public office when I can (this year). I can,
>> without any personal fear of offending Almighty God, take a public
>> oath of office. There are other Christians who cannot, and that is
>> between them and their faith. I have joined your new RR List, but am
>> not sure what use I can be there, not being a practitioner.
>>
>> Please let me know what we can do.
>
>
> FVG: A piece of advice, if I may; the first thing you can do is to stop
> drawing attention to your faith where it has no place, stop throwing it
> in the faces of those here who practice the Religio (whether they are
> strict reconstructionists or not), and stop trying to get involved with
> the Religio, unless it is your intention to take up its practice (as
> you
> have pretty much said is not the case).
>
> In short, Cato, mi amici, we know you're a Christian. We know you're
> Orthodox. You don't need to mention it in every other post. You're just
> baiting, and you're doing no good to Nova Roma thereby. As an example,
> I
> point to your use of the term "Almighty God" in the quote above. Your
> God is not "Almighty" in any sense, as far as I am concerned, and I
> find
> your use of that term not only insulting, but deliberately so,
> specifically because it was completely unnecessary.
>
> As Marcus Cassius has already said, there are a variety-- indeed, a
> legion-- of opportunities to explore Romanitas and the society and
> history of ancient Rome within Nova Roma that don't have to involve
> religion; any religion. You might well do better exploring those, than
> trying to interject on religious issues to no good purpose.
>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus
> Pater Patriae
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

> >
> > FVG: If I may say so, I consider that to be a good thing. I would

> > more want a Christian (or Wiccan, or whatever) to exert any

> > over the Collegium Pontificum-- whose mission is to

> > authority over the institutions, rites, rituals, and priesthoods

> > public Religio Romana"-- any more than Catholics might want me to

> > any influence over the College of Cardinals, or you might wish me

> > have over the Patriarch of Constantinople.
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >

> ... I would no
> more want a Christian (or Wiccan, or whatever) to exert any influence
> over the Collegium Pontificum-- whose mission is to exercise "general
> authority over the institutions, rites, rituals, and priesthoods of the
> public Religio Romana"-- any more than Catholics might want me to have
> any influence over the College of Cardinals, or you might wish me to
> have over the Patriarch of Constantinople.

> Salve Germanicus,
>
> In all fairness to Cato, he wrote to me very early this morning
> complaining
> that his "post" had actually been intended as a private letter to me. He
> accidently hit the wrong choice in the "reply" button. (Let this be
> yet another
> warning to us all - don't send private messages by hitting the reply
> button to
> a post. Open up a new email in your email server!) ;)
>
> I don't believe Cato was attempting to announce his faith, etc. for the
> public again, merely inform me of his situation since he and I have
> not been in
> private correspondence previously.
>
> Vale,
>
> Marcus Cassius Julianus
> Pontifex Maximus

> I've seen the statement below more time than you may imagine, and
> while it may apply to the College of Cardinals in Rome it has nothing
> to do with a proper understanding of the State Religio Romana, which
> represents all the Roman people....So do go to the Peace List and
> read Consul Marinus's learned discussion of this very matter and
> where does the 'ius' derive from.

>

> I view you as a political opponent, not as an enemy.
> The same goes
> for Caesar, Scaurus, Aventina, and several other
> Boni - for all of those
> I disagree with on political rather than ethical
> grounds.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gregory Rose <gfr@w...> wrote:

> impact it. I shall oppose as vigorously as possible the ascent of
the
> cursus honorum by anyone who denies the reality of the Di Immortales
and
> the validity of the pax Deorum and I hope that every practitioner of
the
> Religio Romana will do the same.

Now, I never take part in religious debates, but this statement of
yours (actually, your whole mail, but especially this statement) goes
beyond that.

You are, essentially, denying the right of non-practitioners to run
for elective offices on the mere basis of thei religion. That's good
to know.

More, you are actually starting, with this, the drawing of two fields:
the practitioners and everyone else, encouraging the practitioners to
boycot and being openly hostile towards all non-practitioners on the
mere basis of religion, no matter if the non-practitioner in question
would have the highest respect for the practitioenrs' beliefs, even
not believing in them himself. Now, that this aprioristic approach
comes from you is not a surprise, but publicizing is in breech of Nova
Roman law. I quote:

"Whoever incites in another person hatred, despite or enmity towards a
person or group on the basis of the religious beliefs or practices of
that person or group, or who in any other way infringes the freedom of
another person to hold religious beliefs or to engage in religious
teaching, practice, worship or observance, shall make a DECLARATIO
PVBLICA and may also be moderated as in paragraph XIV.B. above."

Now, I doubt any of the magistrates who are supposed to uphold the
laws and act for the peace of the respblica will actually act, but it
is pretty evident, in any case, you are inciting hatred, despite or
(at least) enmity towards a group (all non practitioners) on the basis
of the religious beliefs.

If I were you, I'd be actually weary of drawing such a line and trying
to have people joining two sides, because teh clash that inevitably
will follow that might have a result different from the one you
expect, you know. When you put people in the position of having to
chose one side or "die", you place even the most moderate and
respectful people in the position of having to turn exremists.

Sure, play the "I'm the herald of the true faith, side with me and
fight the unbelievers" role, but know that by doing that and
threathening the rights and position of the non practitioners within
Nova Roma, you are actually creating that hostility (that is not here
yet and was not ere in the past) that you seem so afraid of. Not
exactly a good job, for a pointifex.

DCF

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "albmd323232" <albmd32@h...> wrote:
> Salvete,
> I was wondering when the 'Interview the expert' site will be
updated?
> The last interview which was posted was for april.
>
> Valete,
> D. Claudius Aquilius Germanicus

> Salve Cassie,
>
> Fair enough, but of course nobody had anyway of knowing that, and,

> think, he's done it often enough when his posts _were_ meant to be
> viewed publically, that the point holds even if he might be

> this particular instance. He's turned it into a veritable hobby,

> it's giving nobody any benefit.
>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus
> Pater Patriae
>
> cassius622@a... wrote:
>
> > Salve Germanicus,
> >
> > In all fairness to Cato, he wrote to me very early this morning
> > complaining
> > that his "post" had actually been intended as a private letter

> > accidently hit the wrong choice in the "reply" button. (Let this

> > yet another
> > warning to us all - don't send private messages by hitting the

> > button to
> > a post. Open up a new email in your email server!) ;)
> >
> > I don't believe Cato was attempting to announce his faith, etc.

> > public again, merely inform me of his situation since he and I

> > not been in
> > private correspondence previously.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Marcus Cassius Julianus
> > Pontifex Maximus

> > impact it. I shall oppose as vigorously as
> possible the ascent of
> the
> > cursus honorum by anyone who denies the reality of
> the Di Immortales
> and
> > the validity of the pax Deorum and I hope that
> every practitioner of
> the
> > Religio Romana will do the same.

> You are, essentially, denying the right of
> non-practitioners to run
> for elective offices on the mere basis of thei
> religion. That's good
> to know.

> More, you are actually starting, with this, the
> drawing of two fields:
> the practitioners and everyone else, encouraging the
> practitioners to
> boycot and being openly hostile towards all
> non-practitioners on the
> mere basis of religion, no matter if the
> non-practitioner in question
> would have the highest respect for the
> practitioenrs' beliefs, even
> not believing in them himself. Now, that this
> aprioristic approach
> comes from you is not a surprise, but publicizing is
> in breech of Nova
> Roman law. I quote:
>
> "Whoever incites in another person hatred, despite
> or enmity towards a
> person or group on the basis of the religious
> beliefs or practices of
> that person or group, or who in any other way
> infringes the freedom of
> another person to hold religious beliefs or to
> engage in religious
> teaching, practice, worship or observance, shall
> make a DECLARATIO
> PVBLICA and may also be moderated as in paragraph
> XIV.B. above."
>
> Now, I doubt any of the magistrates who are supposed
> to uphold the
> laws and act for the peace of the respblica will
> actually act, but it
> is pretty evident, in any case, you are inciting
> hatred, despite or
> (at least) enmity towards a group (all non
> practitioners) on the basis
> of the religious beliefs.

> (snippage)
>
> >
>
>
>
> FVG: I would no
> more want a Christian (or Wiccan, or whatever) to exert any

> over the Collegium Pontificum-- whose mission is to

> authority over the institutions, rites, rituals, and priesthoods

> public Religio Romana"-- any more than Catholics might want me to

> any influence over the College of Cardinals, or you might wish me

> have over the Patriarch of Constantinople.
>
> Why is it so difficult for you to understand that Nova Roma's

> don't _want_ the influence, however good-intentioned, of Nova

> Christians?

>
> GEC:
>
> >
> > (snip)
> Pater Patriae

> ---Flavius Vedius Germanicus Omnibus S.P.D.
>
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Flavius Vedius Germanicus
> <germanicus@g...> wrote:
> > (snippage)
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > FVG: I would no
> > more want a Christian (or Wiccan, or whatever) to exert any
> influence
> > over the Collegium Pontificum-- whose mission is to
> exercise "general
> > authority over the institutions, rites, rituals, and priesthoods
> of the
> > public Religio Romana"-- any more than Catholics might want me to
> have
> > any influence over the College of Cardinals, or you might wish me
> to
> > have over the Patriarch of Constantinople.
> >
> > Why is it so difficult for you to understand that Nova Roma's
> pagans
> > don't _want_ the influence, however good-intentioned, of Nova
> Roma's
> > Christians?
>
> Pompeia: You are lumping the RR in with general paganism, in
> speaking about the difficulty your perceive on the part of Nova
> Roma's Christians (most Wiccans I know are Pagans) to know when to,
> well, more or less 'butt out' of "Pagan" affairs. We are talking
> about Nova Roma's Religio Practitioners, not Nova Roma's 'pagans',
> because, if the latter were the case, we would be including all
> Wiccans and Norse/Germanic Heathens. You were one of the latter
> until you came back to public life here recently, and nobody that I
> recall raised a major protest over your religious status, when you
> were Consul in 2001. You may not have been able to 'influence' the
> collegium (I don't know), but you seemed to have no difficulty in
> reconciling your own private faith while honouring the roles of the
> Religio Publicus in Nova Roma.
>
> I guess what I am trying to say with respect to your 'us' vs. 'them'
> stance on Christians and Wiccans vs. Pagans, is well 'get off your
> high horse" :) **Some people consider Wiccans Pagans, and some
> don't...although most Wiccans I talk to consider themselves Pagans,
> with a few exceptions...anyway**............
>
> I remember moderating an electorial debate in late 2000 where one of
> your opponents in the Consulship race asked you a question about
> your personal religion, as if it was a disease of some type, and I
> threw the question out...it was not the issue.
>
> You had left, I think in 1998, you had well, taken a leave over a
> spiritual crisis (this is in the archives on the website), having
> personal difficulties reconciling your personal faith with that of
> the Religio Romana. I am happy that you have been able to put this
> into perspective. But remember, that at one point, you were a
> nonpractitioning individual. That you were Pagan is not the same.
> It is not appropriate to interchange "Pagan" with 'Religio
> Practitioner'...yes, the latter is a Pagan faith, but it is not
> the 'State Religion' of Nova Roma.
>
> So, in a sense, when one is asking Christians to 'buzz', one is
> also tacitly suggesting that nonpractitioning wiccans, astru,
> various heathenries, etc. must do the same. As I understand it, we
> cannot tell one body of nonpractitioners to shut up, without telling
> all the others to do so. Otherwise, it would just be the old
> **yawn** religious bickering session with no true application to our
> micronatons public religious elements. In which case, many
> hyperlinks could be produced to provide one with the appropriate
> venue to engage in such ruminations, if one has the time and belly
> for that sort of thing...I see enough real blood and guts, thanks...
>
> I have read endorsements of electorial candidates in the past..."Oh,
> vote for him/her"...He/she is a 'great pagan'....yeah, ok.....but
> what is this 'great pagan's relationship with the RR, and how will
> said great pagan uphold the observances, oaths, and all that stuff
> essential to the Religio? Does said person know diddly about the
> Religio? Generally, to me, a red flag goes up, because it displays
> an obscure understanding that the goal of the Religio Romana is not
> essentially to be 'pagan', as it is to be the Religious/spiritual
> attribution of a reconstructionist micronation patterned after the
> ancient republicus.
>
> Otherwise, why was a micronation formed and not a General
> Pagan 'church' of some type??
>
>
>
> Pompeia
> >
> > GEC:
> >
> > >
> > > (snip)
> > Pater Patriae
>
>
> *Yahoo! Groups Sponsor*
> ADVERTISEMENT
> click here
> <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129e8hccd/M=298184.5285298.6392945.3001176/D=groups/S=1705313712:HM/EXP=1094823448/A=2319498/R=0/SIG=11thfntfp/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60185352&partid=5285298>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *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
> <mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

> O.S.D. G. Equitius Cato.
>
> Salvete omnes.
>
> Vedius Germanicus, with all due respect I have NEVER posted anything
> that was meant to be private before. I did, in fact, write
> privately to the Pontifex Maximus after I'd done it and apologized;
> but upon reflection decided not to say anything in public about my
> mistake because of the very fact that I didn't say anything in that
> post which I haven't said, in one form or another before. I am
> sorry if you take such umbrage, but please, think carefully before
> announcing that you have misgivings about my intentions when the
> event in question has NEVER occurred before. I do not consider
> having mis-posted ONCE the equivalent of doing it "often enough"
> to "turn it into a veritable hobby". Thank you, Vedius Germanicus.
>
> Vale et valete,
>
> Cato

> Salve,
>
> I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying you had sent private
> replies onto public lists in the past, deliberately or otherwise.

> saying you had waved your banner of Christianity inappropriately,

> deliberately so, in the past.
>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus
> Pater Patriae
>

> I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying you had sent private
> replies onto public lists in the past, deliberately or otherwise. I

> saying you had waved your banner of Christianity inappropriately,

> deliberately so, in the past.
>

> A. Apollonius Cordus omnibus sal.
>
> Private messages have brought to my attention a danger
> of misinterpretation with regard to my last message,
> namely, that I am approving the idea that
> non-practitioners ought not to be elected. It ought to
> be fairly clear on close inspection that I do not
> approve this idea. Nor did I even give unequivocal
> approval to Iulius Scaurus' suggestion that we ought
> not to vote for "anyone who denies the reality of the
> Di Immortales and the validity of the pax Deorum",
> which, let me say once again, is a group which does
> not contain the vast majority of non-practitioners.
>
>

>>"You are, essentially, denying the right of non-practitioners to run for

>--I can see the logic behind such a statement. Similar to, from the way I

>unintended consequences.

> take the oath of office you are also obliged to protect and have
> respect for the religio which is not too much to ask of anyone. I
> think the big concern is someone getting into office who would try
> and shatter the status quo by trying to water down the religio,
> making new laws to put it on the back burner etc. That is a
> reasonable concern in my opinion and I certainly do not feel
> offended, upset or threatened by their concerns."

> The argument that the ius sacra derives from all the "Roman
> people" is another example of ahistorical reasoning [...]

> The situation of Nova Roma is nothing like that of Romana antiqua. The
> majority of citizens are not practitioners and have little or no
> interest in becoming practitioners of the Religio.

> Giving control over the practice of the Religio to non-practitioners by
> virtue of their citizenship would ensure that the Religio will never be
> reconstructed.

> It guarantees that the best which could be accomplished
> is a modern parody of the Religio in which the prejudices of persons at
> best apathetic toward the Religio replace the historical mos maiorum.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, MarcusAudens@w... wrote:
> Citizens of Nova Roma both old and new:
>
> Are you tired of the argument and negative thrust of the NR Main
List???
> Are you tired of short answers, and being treated like a secondary
> citizen because you do not wish to enter into the insults and the
harsh
> environment of the Main List???
>
> Remember, that there are a few in NR who strongly believe that their
> position allows them to speak down to new citizens. This was, they
say,
> the way it was in the ancient world. That, of course, is thier
story.
>
> However, if you seek a place that is a bit softer in tone, where
your
> questions are answered civilly, where you ae welcomed as a new
citizen
> or awating citizenship, and want to get a little better oriented
before
> stepping back into the Main List with it's continuing politics,
harsh
> environment and those who set themselves up to be a superior breed -
-
> why then you are invited to join the___
>
> NewRoman@yahoogroups.com
>
> It is a moderated list that strives to keep down insulting language
and
> welcomes new members for the purposes of information and collective
> fellowship.
>
> Respectfully;
>
> Marcus Minucius-Tiberius Audens
>
> Command is a matter of wisdom, integrity, humanity, courage and
> dicipline.
>
> Sun Tzu -- "The Art of War"

>
> "You are, essentially, denying the right of non-practitioners to run
> for elective offices on the mere basis of their religion. That's good
> to know."
>
> --I can see the logic behind such a statement. Similar to, from the
> way I interpret, having a Jewish man or Muslim be Pope. Or hold any
> office of influence. I can see the honesty need to make and reasoning
> for this statement but at the sametime it can set a very bad precedent
> and have unintended consequences.
>
> "More, you are actually starting, with this, the drawing of two
> fields: the practitioners and everyone else, encouraging the
> practitioners to boycot and being openly hostile towards all
> non-practitioners on the mere basis of religion, no matter if the
> non-practitioner in question would have the highest respect for the
> practitioenrs' beliefs, even not believing in them himself."
>
> --Not necessarily. In the statement he opposes, from my
> interpretation, someone of a different belief having a position of
> influence in the Religio Romana. See the example I said above. This
> statement cannot be considered a violation of the cited law. Firstly
> the intent behind the statement was not to incite any "hatred, despite
> or enmity towards a person or group on the basis of the religious
> beliefs or practices of that person or group, or who in any other way
> infringes the freedom of another person to hold religious beliefs or
> to engage in religious teaching, practice, worship or observance..."
> but an opposal of something. Also it should be noted before you toss
> such charges around in criminal law the actus reus and mens rea are
> both usually shown to support the claim. The words speak for
> themselves and are subject to interpretation. I obviously have
> interpretted them differently. I do not believe the intent was to
> incite hatred but voice opposaly to a concept. As well it
> has what I believe the unintended consequence of restricting
> someone's ability to run for office. I am not religious so I guess it
> makes it easier for me to react with less contempt and hostility but
> still In some respects from where I sit the statements of both Flavius
> Vedius Germanicus and Domitius Constantinus Fuscus are wrong in some
> regards.
>
> Vale, Quintus Cassius Brutus
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

>
> Domitius Constantinus Fuscus,
>
> "I always thought Scaurs was able to talk for himself and explain

> words, but apparently is not. Since you have chosen to speak up

>
>

>
> Salve,
>
> "Pagan" in this context, meant "Practitioner of the Religio Romana". I
> was going for smoother-sounding prose, but ended up being imprecise.
> My apologies. You are entirely correct; I would apply my sentiment
> (that
> non-Practitioners of the Religio not have influence over the Collegium
> Pontificum) to Asatruar, Wiccans, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. as well as
> Christians.
>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Pater Patriae
> (but not Consularis; I would never knowingly assume a title to which I
> was not entitled)
>
> pompeia_minucia_tiberia wrote:
>
>> ---Flavius Vedius Germanicus Omnibus S.P.D.
>>
>>
>> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Flavius Vedius Germanicus
>> <germanicus@g...> wrote:
>>> (snippage)
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> FVG: I would no
>>> more want a Christian (or Wiccan, or whatever) to exert any
>> influence
>>> over the Collegium Pontificum-- whose mission is to
>> exercise "general
>>> authority over the institutions, rites, rituals, and priesthoods
>> of the
>>> public Religio Romana"-- any more than Catholics might want me to
>> have
>>> any influence over the College of Cardinals, or you might wish me
>> to
>>> have over the Patriarch of Constantinople.
>>>
>>> Why is it so difficult for you to understand that Nova Roma's
>> pagans
>>> don't _want_ the influence, however good-intentioned, of Nova
>> Roma's
>>> Christians?
>>
>> Pompeia: You are lumping the RR in with general paganism, in
>> speaking about the difficulty your perceive on the part of Nova
>> Roma's Christians (most Wiccans I know are Pagans) to know when to,
>> well, more or less 'butt out' of "Pagan" affairs. We are talking
>> about Nova Roma's Religio Practitioners, not Nova Roma's 'pagans',
>> because, if the latter were the case, we would be including all
>> Wiccans and Norse/Germanic Heathens. You were one of the latter
>> until you came back to public life here recently, and nobody that I
>> recall raised a major protest over your religious status, when you
>> were Consul in 2001. You may not have been able to 'influence' the
>> collegium (I don't know), but you seemed to have no difficulty in
>> reconciling your own private faith while honouring the roles of the
>> Religio Publicus in Nova Roma.
>>
>> I guess what I am trying to say with respect to your 'us' vs. 'them'
>> stance on Christians and Wiccans vs. Pagans, is well 'get off your
>> high horse" :) **Some people consider Wiccans Pagans, and some
>> don't...although most Wiccans I talk to consider themselves Pagans,
>> with a few exceptions...anyway**............
>>
>> I remember moderating an electorial debate in late 2000 where one of
>> your opponents in the Consulship race asked you a question about
>> your personal religion, as if it was a disease of some type, and I
>> threw the question out...it was not the issue.
>>
>> You had left, I think in 1998, you had well, taken a leave over a
>> spiritual crisis (this is in the archives on the website), having
>> personal difficulties reconciling your personal faith with that of
>> the Religio Romana. I am happy that you have been able to put this
>> into perspective. But remember, that at one point, you were a
>> nonpractitioning individual. That you were Pagan is not the same.
>> It is not appropriate to interchange "Pagan" with 'Religio
>> Practitioner'...yes, the latter is a Pagan faith, but it is not
>> the 'State Religion' of Nova Roma.
>>
>> So, in a sense, when one is asking Christians to 'buzz', one is
>> also tacitly suggesting that nonpractitioning wiccans, astru,
>> various heathenries, etc. must do the same. As I understand it, we
>> cannot tell one body of nonpractitioners to shut up, without telling
>> all the others to do so. Otherwise, it would just be the old
>> **yawn** religious bickering session with no true application to our
>> micronatons public religious elements. In which case, many
>> hyperlinks could be produced to provide one with the appropriate
>> venue to engage in such ruminations, if one has the time and belly
>> for that sort of thing...I see enough real blood and guts, thanks...
>>
>> I have read endorsements of electorial candidates in the past..."Oh,
>> vote for him/her"...He/she is a 'great pagan'....yeah, ok.....but
>> what is this 'great pagan's relationship with the RR, and how will
>> said great pagan uphold the observances, oaths, and all that stuff
>> essential to the Religio? Does said person know diddly about the
>> Religio? Generally, to me, a red flag goes up, because it displays
>> an obscure understanding that the goal of the Religio Romana is not
>> essentially to be 'pagan', as it is to be the Religious/spiritual
>> attribution of a reconstructionist micronation patterned after the
>> ancient republicus.
>>
>> Otherwise, why was a micronation formed and not a General
>> Pagan 'church' of some type??
>>
>>
>>
>> Pompeia
>>>
>>> GEC:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> (snip)
>>> Pater Patriae
>>
>>
>> *Yahoo! Groups Sponsor*
>> ADVERTISEMENT
>> click here
>> <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129e8hccd/
>> M=298184.5285298.6392945.3001176/D=groups/S=1705313712:HM/
>> EXP=1094823448/A=2319498/R=0/SIG=11thfntfp/*http://www.netflix.com/
>> Default?mqso=60185352&partid=5285298>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> --
>> *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
>>
>> <mailto:Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>>
>> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>This group is about the Religio Romana practiced as a modern day
>religion. That can and does include sacrifices to the gods but does
>NOT include dressing up like a refugee from Animal House.
>

>The gods
>can and should be worshipped as if we are in the century that we are
>in, not as they were thousands and thousands of years ago. The gods
>CAN and HAVE adapted to modern times. The Religio is not a game.
>This is a serious attempt to bring the practice of the Religio
>Romana to the fore.
>
>

>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novareligio/
>
>Pax,
>Seia Silvania Atia
>
>
>

> G. Equitius Cato G. Iulio Scauro S.P.D.
>
> Salve, Iulius Scaurus.
>
> Anyone who has read my public posts regarding the inviolability of
> the private practice of *anyone's* religious beliefs and my

> for the practice of the Religio Publica knows that while
> eloquent, and worthy of a place on the Rostra, your post would be
> put to use most efficiently to inflate one of the balloons for the
> Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. It's too bad you're not an

> Christian: you could set up a 60-foot column and then live atop

> St. Simeon Stylites-like, vowing to eat only insects and drink
> rainwater until I was ridden out of Nova Roma backwards on a

> or something similiarly dramatic.
>
> Do YOU ever get tired of announcing your willingness to fight to
> your very last breath for a cause (the Religio Publica) to which

> one, absolutely NO-ONE, is posing a threat?
>
> I am a citizen, with all the rights, privileges, and obligations
> thereof. If Vedius Germanicus is so aghast at the idea of a
> privately non-practitioning citizen seeking public office then he,
> as the primary writer of the Constitution, should not have allowed
> freedom of private religious expression in Nova Roma. It would
> even be acceptable if Vedius Germanicus came out and said he

> like *me* for being me (if that were the case), and opposed my
> running for office; but for you, Iulius Scaurus, a pontifex of my
> own country, to drape over your august shoulders the cloak of
> religious bigotry and try to pass it off as righteousness is
> unacceptable. Are you now so much better than those early
> Christians you abhor?
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato

> There was a clever man from Manhattan
> Who swore to protect the Religio Roman.
> He stated he would climb the cursus
> While muttering to baptize and immerse us.
> That disingenuous man from Manhattan
>
> Caesar

> There was a young man from up North
> Who panders for all he is worth.
> Though he once tried to play
> in a Moderate way
> For the Boni he now sallies forth!
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar"
> <gn_iulius_caesar@y...> wrote:
> > There was a clever man from Manhattan
> > Who swore to protect the Religio Roman.
> > He stated he would climb the cursus
> > While muttering to baptize and immerse us.
> > That disingenuous man from Manhattan
> >
> > Caesar

>
>
> This group is about the Religio Romana practiced as a modern day
> religion. That can and does include sacrifices to the gods but does
> NOT include dressing up like a refugee from Animal House. The gods
> can and should be worshipped as if we are in the century that we are
> in, not as they were thousands and thousands of years ago. The gods
> CAN and HAVE adapted to modern times. The Religio is not a game.
> This is a serious attempt to bring the practice of the Religio
> Romana to the fore.
>
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novareligio/
>
> Pax,
> Seia Silvania Atia
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->

> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/wWQplB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

>
>
> 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:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Seia Silvania Atia" <DomusLudus@...>

> The gods
> can and should be worshipped as if we are in the century that we are
> in, not as they were thousands and thousands of years ago. The gods
> CAN and HAVE adapted to modern times. The Religio is not a game.

When you say the Religio is not a game - you're absolutely right - it's not.
I take my religion and my relationship with the Gods very seriously indeed.

However I am extremely uncomfortable and indeed quite offended at someone
else telling me how they should be worshipped. By all means tell me how YOU
worship them but it's just a tad arrogant to tell people this is how it
should be done. On what authority do you claim to speak for the Gods.

I admit that some of my practise has been adapted - I burn a candle rather
than an oil lamp and I offer sacrifices on modern self igniting charcoal
blocks and , since I'm in the privacy of my own home I wers my normal
clothes. I do, however, try to keep my practice as close to what we know was
acceptable to the Gods.

To say the Gods have adapted, we should too, strikes me as nothing more than
an attempt to totally ditch the Mos Maiorum and turn the Religio into
nothing more than another neo-pagan free-for-all cult where anything goes
because "like it feels right".

If that's what you want then, by all means, worship your Gods however you
wish, that's your prerogative but please don't tell me how I SHOULD be
worshipping mine. I find that offensive to both me and my Gods!

Flavia Lucilla Merula

> was supposed to be for the back alley....

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Seia Silvania Atia" <DomusLudus@j...>
>
> > The gods
> > can and should be worshipped as if we are in the century that we

> > in, not as they were thousands and thousands of years ago. The

> > CAN and HAVE adapted to modern times. The Religio is not a game.
>
> When you say the Religio is not a game - you're absolutely right -

> I take my religion and my relationship with the Gods very

>
> However I am extremely uncomfortable and indeed quite offended at

> else telling me how they should be worshipped. By all means tell

> worship them but it's just a tad arrogant to tell people this is

> should be done. On what authority do you claim to speak for the

>
> I admit that some of my practise has been adapted - I burn a

> than an oil lamp and I offer sacrifices on modern self igniting

> blocks and , since I'm in the privacy of my own home I wers my

> clothes. I do, however, try to keep my practice as close to what

> acceptable to the Gods.
>
> To say the Gods have adapted, we should too, strikes me as nothing

> an attempt to totally ditch the Mos Maiorum and turn the Religio

> nothing more than another neo-pagan free-for-all cult where

> because "like it feels right".
>
> If that's what you want then, by all means, worship your Gods

> wish, that's your prerogative but please don't tell me how I

> worshipping mine. I find that offensive to both me and my Gods!
>
> Flavia Lucilla Merula

> Do not think the mens rea-actus reus doctrine is
> universal in criminal law,
> and besides, we do not have a clear division in Nova
> Roma between penal and
> civil law. Also, of course, in Nova Roma, even if it
> was a case of penal
> law, we do not know if the crime of CONTVMELIA
> PIETATE is a pure crime, a
> crime of result or a objective responsibility
> crimeÂ… guess what,
> judices should decide.

> A. Apollonius Cordus L. Sicinio Druso senatori
> omnibusque sal.
>
> Senator, when quoting a source would you please use
> quotation-marks or some other device to indicate where
> the quotation begins and ends. Otherwise people who
> are not familiar with your characteristic style of
> spelling and capitalization might not realize that,
> while the first part of your message is a quotation
> from a learned antiquarian, the last four paragraphs
> are the opinions of an unqualified amateur. If you
> keep doing this, people will begin to think you are
> deliberately trying to pass your own opinions off as
> those of people whose interpretations of Roman history
> deserve to be listened to.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW

> Salve Cato.
>
> Young? Thank you :)
>
> Vale
> Caesar
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gaiusequitiuscato"
> <mlcinnyc@y...> wrote:
> > There was a young man from up North
> > Who panders for all he is worth.
> > Though he once tried to play
> > in a Moderate way
> > For the Boni he now sallies forth!
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gnaeus Iulius Caesar"
> > <gn_iulius_caesar@y...> wrote:
> > > There was a clever man from Manhattan
> > > Who swore to protect the Religio Roman.
> > > He stated he would climb the cursus
> > > While muttering to baptize and immerse us.
> > > That disingenuous man from Manhattan
> > >
> > > Caesar

>
>
> Amateur? so how much do you get paid, kid?
>
> Style? Well, replying with a boorish insult isn't your usual pompus
> style of wasting twenty paragraphs to say something that could have
> been stated in one. Do you really think that impresses people?
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Apollonius Cordus"
> <a_apollonius_cordus@y...> wrote:
> > A. Apollonius Cordus L. Sicinio Druso senatori
> > omnibusque sal.
> >
> > Senator, when quoting a source would you please use
> > quotation-marks or some other device to indicate where
> > the quotation begins and ends. Otherwise people who
> > are not familiar with your characteristic style of
> > spelling and capitalization might not realize that,
> > while the first part of your message is a quotation
> > from a learned antiquarian, the last four paragraphs
> > are the opinions of an unqualified amateur. If you
> > keep doing this, people will begin to think you are
> > deliberately trying to pass your own opinions off as
> > those of people whose interpretations of Roman history
> > deserve to be listened to.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW
> Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->

> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/wWQplB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

>
>
> 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:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

> Salve
>
> as a matter of fact, Cordus might not get paid and might even be another
> unqualified amateur (yet more qualified than you, academically

> think), but that wouldn't change the fact you are an amateur as well.
> Strictly speaking, we all are amateurs at being ancient romans and

> less qualified in various sectors of roman studies. Unless you show
> qualifications (and circumstantiated ones at that, like a degree taken
> somewhere or a book you wrote), you definitely are an unqualified

> which, per se, is not this horrendous thing, btw, but it's the second or
> third time Cordus invites you to draw a distinct line from the qualified
> academic you quote and your own thoughts and teh fact you keep

> makes one wonder if you really aren't trying to give your thesis more
> importance by blending it into someone else' writings (a tricky

> academics spent years and years dividing teh original roman law, for
> instance, by the glossas that someone added to it blending their

> interpretations).
>
> It might very well be another case of not caring enough for the general
> rules of comprehension, rather than tryingto give your thoguhts more
> importance, that you are known for (your public, on this list,