Ph.Fl.Conservatus Maior omnibus salutem dicet.

And again some news :-)

Valete



Melissa xx annorum
1.10.2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Periodicum Latinum nomine Melissa, quod apud latinistas Finniae multos habet amatores, iam viginti annos Bruxellis editur.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editor Melissae responsalis est Gaius Licoppe, doctor Bruxellensis, a quo etiam Fundatio eiusdem nominis condita est.

Fundatio Melissa cum Museo Domus Erasmianae in libris Latinis edendis et in institutione vivae Latinitatis arte cooperatur.

Fasciculus Melissae centesimus vicesimus secundus hoc mense divulgabitur. Editores periodici id agunt, ut homines animadvertant, quam utile sit studium Latinum populis Europae artius coniungendis.

Auspiciis Melissae lingua Latina ita docetur, ut discipuli non tantum textus Latinos legere et intellegere sed etiam Latine scribere et loqui valeant.

Redactoribus Melissae de rebus pro viva Latinitate laudabiliter gestis gratulamur.




Venatio alcium incepit
1.10.2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Septimana vergente hornotina venatio alcium in Finnia incepit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Venationi intersunt circiter centum milia hominum, quibus duodeseptuaginta milia animalium sternere licet, quod viginti fere centesimis minus est quam autumno proximo.

Magistratus autoraedarios de periculo monent, quod alces praecipue inter venationem temere vias publicas transcurrentes faciunt.




Naufragium navis Estoniae
1.10.2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Die Martis (28.9.) decem anni post naufragium navis Estoniae acti erant. Navis illa traiectoria, iter ex Tallinna Stockholmiam faciens, in regione Finnica Maris Baltici de tertia noctis vigilia eversa et submersa est.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ex nongentis undenonaginta hominibus, qui in nave erant, tantum centum triginta septem servati sunt.

Maior pars victimarum erant Sueti aut Estonienses. Naufragium Estoniae est in Europa maxima post secundum bellum mundanum calamitas maritima.

Causa fuit, quod in saeva tempestate bucula prorae soluta et porta anteriore fracta tantum aquarum in constratum navis infimum penetraverunt, ut illa, stabilitate amissa, inclinaretur et naufragaret.

Homines in naufragio mortui die anniversario variis modis in urbibus principalibus Estoniae, Suetiae Finniaeque commemorati sunt.

In ecclesia cathedrali Aboensi orationem memorialem habuit Jukka Paarma, archiepiscopus Finniae.

Tallinnae praesidens Arnold Rüütel et summi magistratus ad monumentum naufragii ad commemorationem victimarum convenerunt.




Petroleum in periculo
1.10.2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nigeria maximam in Africa copiam petrolei gignit. Maiorem eius partem producunt societates petroleariae Shell et Agip, illa multinationalis, haec Italica.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nunc congregatio rebellium, quae regimini Nigeriae bellum minatur, illas societates accusat, quod una cum regimine in genocidio populi Nigeriani operentur.

Idem rebelles flagitaverunt, ut peregrini Nigeriam relinquerent et societates petroleariae finem productioni imponerent.

Quo factum est, ut pretium unius petrolei barilis in mercatu Neo-Eboracensi iam quianquaginta dollara superaret.

Sunt qui timeant, ne petroleum propter violentiam in Iraquia crudescentem et saevas tempestates, quae civitates petroleosas Americae septentrionalis vexaverunt, etiam carius fiat.



(all news by Tuomo Pekkanen yleradio1)
_______________________________________________________
WEB.DE Video-Mail - Sagen Sie mehr mit bewegten Bildern
Informationen unter: http://freemail.web.de/?mc=021199

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Q. Caecilius Metellus"
<postumianus@g...> wrote:

> However, I do not, can not, and will not support women in
> any of these positions within our system for as long as we state

ourselves to be

> "dedicated to the... restoration of ancient Roman culture." Let us

first change

> our aim to something more in line with what you, Cassius, and some

others

> desire, and my position will change, but for as long as our aim is

what the

> introductory page of our website states, I will hold to my

position, and voice

> it accordingly.
>
> Vale Bene,
>
> Quintus Caecilius Metellus

Good Day Novaromanis:


I just got back from England, Ireland, Belgium and Wales a few days
ago. Had the time of my life. Looks like I re-appeared in time to see
a nasty debate taking place, and since I have not had time to read
all the way through it, let me apologize if I make any statements
that are out of line.

I am shocked and saddened to see that anyone here would not accord
women the same status and rights to hold offices as men in Nova Roma,
for any reason.

All of these people who are writing in, saying "we think men and
women are equal, but as long as we are reconstructing ancient Rome
according to this or that definition, we will not support women in
this or that position" are just using a very flimsy excuse and cover
for their own chauvinism and mysoginy.


It wouldn't shock me at all to discover that the Boni idiots are
against having women in high positions; but no discerning, mature
person takes the Boni seriously anyway- however it has come to my
attention that the may have a majority in the pontifical college- how
did this come about?


I hate to make suggestions that sound untoward, but I revere and
respect the founders of Nova Roma. I think that if things have gotten
as bad as they seem, that the founders should step in and make
essential changes. The college of pontifexes cannot be allowed to sit
in positions for life if they are dominated by conservative,
brainless idiots with no depth of thought to allow for flexibility or
women in their college.


This is not to insinuate that all pontifexes are bad. But again, if
my (very high level) sources are correct in what they tell me, and if
even half of the people who have written in here to the list are
serious about thinking up excuses to not allowing women equal rights
and consideration, something must be done, or this experiment in re-
creating Rome is doomed.


I apologize for my directness in this letter, with all my heart, to
those that I love and respect who may be offended. I only react with
this disgust in the name of women everywhere who will be marginalized
by a few very bad men who have managed, somehow, to dominate some
very important intitutions in NR.



Taurinus

Well for a while there cives actually had a mature and informational discussion going on regarding the Religio. What happened to it? Individuals were exchanging quotes from text and discussing with a fair amount of neutrality and matureness. It seems it has died and building the fire up is now the name of the game again. The only I reason I say this is because of the following:

All of these people who are writing in, saying "we think men and women are equal, but as long as we are reconstructing ancient Rome according to this or that definition, we will not support women in this or that position" are just using a very flimsy excuse and cover for their own chauvinism and mysoginy.

This is the beginning of further instigation. Individuals who wish to pursue a historical model are not necessarily chauvinists or expressing any hatred of women. It also, for those who would deny it but not wish to engage this does not mean they are in denial or closet-chauvinists. It's also not any excuse to "subjugate" women. Society was very patriarchal for quite some time. Even still as that patriarchal society was dying or winding down women held high positions in some societies. Why would women have been given the role of queens and even ruled at some points until a male matured enough to rule the kingdom? Even today the Queen of England, while more honorary than anything, commands much respect and influence. The royal family may not govern the U.K. or have nay major form of rule but they can have much influence politically in affairs.

It wouldn't shock me at all to discover that the Boni idiots are against having women in high positions; but no discerning, mature person takes the Boni seriously anyway- however it has come to my attention that the may have a majority in the pontifical college- how did this come about?

I don't see how calling people idiots furthers the discussion anymore than labelling those supporting a more historical model chauvinists or displaying any degree of mysogyny. Are you suggesting that members of the Boni are immature? Just because of there views it makes those who disagree that much more mature, enlightened? Does that mean because they support one model you don't that your view is superior to theirs?

I think that if things have gotten as bad as they seem, that the founders should step in and make essential changes. The college of pontifexes cannot be allowed to sit in positions for life if they are dominated by conservative, brainless idiots with no depth of thought to allow for flexibility or women in their college.

I would say no one can say they don't respect them for introducing Nova Roma to us all. It was a great idea and I don't think anyone can argue that. Is asking them to just put the brakes on appropriate? You previously suggested the Boni had a majority in the Collegium Pontificum. Now it seems you suggest in essence by implication, that because the Boni have a majority in the Collegium that women in essence are under a dictatorship. But by the same token, asking the founders to step in and put an end to this implied dictatorship amounts to another dictatorship. You are willing to suppress one view point to bring another to the table. That is certainly what you seem to suggest. Tell me why trade one dictatorship for another? Why is it okay to suppress one view point to raise another one? Because you don't agree with it? Because the Moderati may not agree with it? If the tables were turned how would yuou feel if your view point were oppressed for the succession of
another?

I personally feel that the founders should remain in a position of neutrality. Asking them to step in and taking a partisan position is a rather drastic step. Previously I read words used to describe the historical stance like "subjugation", "discrimination", etc. But what does asking the founders to step in do? It subjugates one point of view for the rise of another. That is nothing more than a dictatorship. What makes the Moderati stance superior to the Boni stance? Taurinus please understand I am not attacking you by my words. I do not if they do come across as harsh mean them to do so. But I feel as I said that what you suggested is a very drastic step and that it amounts to a dictatorship by suppressing a point of view for the rise of another. How is that okay or even acceptable?






---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

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

A. Apollonius Cordus Galó Agorió Taurinó et Q. Cassió
Brútó et omnibus sal.

What happened to the mature debate, Brúte, is that the
people who are sufficiently respectful of the réligió
pública to want to engage in it are also sufficiently
respectful not to debate public business on a diés
nefastus públicus, which it is today.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Salve,
Well, I was simply reacting to what I read and in no way expect a reply in any specified time frame. I also don't mean to sound like I'm trying to instigate any such debate today, at this moment or whatever. I was providing my reaction to the words and not commenting specifically on arguing the Religio itself and the different points of view. But it did seemm to me that debate ceased so I put forth the statement. That's all.
vale, Quintus Cassius Brutus

"A. Apollonius Cordus" <a_apollonius_cordus@...> wrote:
A. Apollonius Cordus Gal� Agori� Taurin� et Q. Cassi�
Br�t� et omnibus sal.

What happened to the mature debate, Br�te, is that the
people who are sufficiently respectful of the r�ligi�
p�blica to want to engage in it are also sufficiently
respectful not to debate public business on a di�s
nefastus p�blicus, which it is today.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

A. Apollonius Cordus Q. Cassió Brútó omnibusque sal.

Look, I'm no expert on these things, but I've been
told by people who know what they're talking about
that discussing public business on a diés nefastus is
inappropriate, and as far as I've heard it makes no
difference whether you started it or not. That's why I
addressed you both. I'm sorry if I sounded harsh - I
was concerned to cut the discussion short before it
got any further. Dúrum fás, sed fás.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

fair enough. No you did not come across as harsh. Actions are understandable. Vale, QCB

"A. Apollonius Cordus" <a_apollonius_cordus@...> wrote:A. Apollonius Cordus Q. Cassi� Br�t� omnibusque sal.

Look, I'm no expert on these things, but I've been
told by people who know what they're talking about
that discussing public business on a di�s nefastus is
inappropriate, and as far as I've heard it makes no
difference whether you started it or not. That's why I
addressed you both. I'm sorry if I sounded harsh - I
was concerned to cut the discussion short before it
got any further. D�rum f�s, sed f�s.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

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

G. Equitius Cato quirites S.P.D.

Salvete, omnes.

I trust that as we observe the time local to the Urbs, the dies
nefastus has passed with only minor incident :-) so I bring a
question to the Forum:

Would each of the pontifices in the College please express to us,
the citizens, their opinion regarding women and their place in the
Religio Publica --- and any reasoning/supporting evidence to sustain
that opinion, whatever it might be?

I ask for two reasons.

First, simply because I am interested in hearing the voices of those
whose names we are tossing about with such abandon; second, because
unless we clearly and indisputably know where the pontifices
themselves stand, we are sort of blowing smoke into the wind.

I look forward to hearing our august College speaking as individuals.

Valete bene,

Cato

Gaius Modius Athanasius S.P.D.

I have voiced my opinion on this subject several times....

a. I SUPPORT woman pontifices. Why? Because pontifex is mostly
administrative and I believe woman could do this just as well as a man can.

b. I do NOT support woman flamen. Flamen are sacrificial priests and many
of the spouses of flamen were flaminica. Flamen is a prestigious priesthood,
and I believe if it was supposed to be open to women then it would have.

c. I do NOT support male vestals. The vestals were always woman with no
exception, I believe we should follow this.

I think woman play an IMPORTANT role in the Religio and in Nova Roma.

While I stated publically, and will do so again, I am no longer in the Boni.
I do, however, feel that Boni bashing by some individuals is wrong and
contrary to the benefit of Nova Roma. If we are ALL interested in peace then we
should strive for peace and justice for all members of Nova Roma.

I have pledged that I will work with everyone for the betterment of Nova
Roma. The Republic must continue to function higher than our petty politics.

Valete;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 10/1/2004 9:08:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mlcinnyc@... writes:

G. Equitius Cato quirites S.P.D.

Salvete, omnes.

I trust that as we observe the time local to the Urbs, the dies
nefastus has passed with only minor incident :-) so I bring a
question to the Forum:

Would each of the pontifices in the College please express to us,
the citizens, their opinion regarding women and their place in the
Religio Publica --- and any reasoning/supporting evidence to sustain
that opinion, whatever it might be?

I ask for two reasons.

First, simply because I am interested in hearing the voices of those
whose names we are tossing about with such abandon; second, because
unless we clearly and indisputably know where the pontifices
themselves stand, we are sort of blowing smoke into the wind.

I look forward to hearing our august College speaking as individuals.

Valete bene,

Cato





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

Salvete,

As a member of the Collegium Pontificum, I support women being able to hold
the office of Pontifex in Nova Roma. I also support women being able to hold
the Flaminates in Nova Roma.

Both positions have administrative and active religious duties. Together
they make up the two top levels of the Religio Romana. They are the religious
equivalents of the Senate and magistracies. All such offices were open to men
only in Roma Antiqua simply because gender inequality was an unquestioned
part of the social mores of ancient times.

I don't find that it makes sense to declare in modern times that male gender
is the only criteria for administering a religion. I also don't find it
sensible to assert that male gender is the only criteria for administering cults
of major Goddesses - such as Ceres, Flora and Pomona.

At the founding of NR it was decided that denying women equal opportunities
in both politics and religion did not constitute "reviving the best of
ancient Rome." Equality of the genders in all areas has been officially considered
"one of the few concessions to modern sensibilities" for the first five years
of NR. The Collegium Pontificum *and* the Flaminates have been open to
female Citizens for those five years. Only recently has this policy been quietly
suspended by a Boni majority in the Collegium Pontificum.

As far as I am aware nearly all (if not every one of) the conservatives who
wish to instate "traditional gender roles" originally joined a Nova Roma that
allowed women to hold these positions. It is important to remember that they
are seeking to instate policies that are NEW to NR, rather than upholding
policies previously agreed upon by this community. In short they originally
agreed to conditions they have now changed for the rest of us without consent of
the community.

Nova Roma has already had both female Pontifices and Flamines. The fact that
all have since quit Citizenship does not necessarily show disfavor of the
Gods. A far, far greater number of males who have held these positions have also
quit Citizenship.

I do not advocate changing five years of Nova Roma policy, against the will
of the majority of the Citizens, to establish gender roles that stem from
social conditions which no longer exist.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Pontifex Maximus


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

error to send the mail!!!!!.



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

Gaius Modius Athanasius Marco Cassio Iuliano salutem dicit

What about male vestals?

Can we now have male sacerdos to Bona Dea?

If we have a female Flamen Dialis what will we call her husband? Will she
be the Flaminica Dialis and he the Flamen Dialis? Will this please Iuppiter?
I don't know, but apparently you think the people should decide. The Gods
should decide, and the pontifices who have been co-opted to manage the affairs
of the State Religion should carry out the will of the Gods.

As a Flamen I communicate with Pomona, via prayer, everyday. I believe she
has shown her favor to me, and has blessed me in countless ways. Not all of
the pontifices believe as I do; that woman should be allowed to be
pontifices. However, I believe they should occupy the highest priesthood of our
republic.

You keep making this a political issue Marcus Cassius. YOU are the leader
of the Collegium Pontificum. YOU are the founder of Nova Roma. I firmly
believe that YOU should start leading the Collegium, as a true leader should,
then trying to create discord by alienating the pontifices with the citizenry of
Nova Roma. YOU should be trying to bring about a reconciliation with the
pontifices instead of playing politics.

We have too much in the way of politics.

Vale;

Gaius Modius Athanasius
Pontifex, Augur, and Flamen Pomonalis

In a message dated 10/1/2004 11:09:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,
cassius622@... writes:

Salvete,

As a member of the Collegium Pontificum, I support women being able to hold
the office of Pontifex in Nova Roma. I also support women being able to
hold
the Flaminates in Nova Roma.

Both positions have administrative and active religious duties. Together
they make up the two top levels of the Religio Romana. They are the
religious
equivalents of the Senate and magistracies. All such offices were open to
men
only in Roma Antiqua simply because gender inequality was an unquestioned
part of the social mores of ancient times.

I don't find that it makes sense to declare in modern times that male
gender
is the only criteria for administering a religion. I also don't find it
sensible to assert that male gender is the only criteria for administering
cults
of major Goddesses - such as Ceres, Flora and Pomona.

At the founding of NR it was decided that denying women equal opportunities
in both politics and religion did not constitute "reviving the best of
ancient Rome." Equality of the genders in all areas has been officially
considered
"one of the few concessions to modern sensibilities" for the first five
years
of NR. The Collegium Pontificum *and* the Flaminates have been open to
female Citizens for those five years. Only recently has this policy been
quietly
suspended by a Boni majority in the Collegium Pontificum.

As far as I am aware nearly all (if not every one of) the conservatives who

wish to instate "traditional gender roles" originally joined a Nova Roma
that
allowed women to hold these positions. It is important to remember that
they
are seeking to instate policies that are NEW to NR, rather than upholding
policies previously agreed upon by this community. In short they originally
agreed to conditions they have now changed for the rest of us without
consent of
the community.

Nova Roma has already had both female Pontifices and Flamines. The fact
that
all have since quit Citizenship does not necessarily show disfavor of the
Gods. A far, far greater number of males who have held these positions have
also
quit Citizenship.

I do not advocate changing five years of Nova Roma policy, against the will
of the majority of the Citizens, to establish gender roles that stem from
social conditions which no longer exist.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Pontifex Maximus





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

Gaius Modius Athanasius S.P.D.

This is a problem.

Here is an example of a citizen of Nova Roma essentially calling the
Collegium Pontificum a bunch of brainless idiots, and only one person, A. Apollonius
Cordus, responded with anything contrary.

Yes. Most of the pontifices within the Collegium Pontificum are
conservative, and as it should be. The role of the Collegium is to protect tradition.
Its better to have a Collegium that respects tradition, instead of discarding
it.

It would also be better for individuals wishing to "lobby" the Collegium to
be respectful in their discourse. Calling the pontifices "brainless" is a
heafty insult, and I seriously don't believe the majority of our citizens truly
believe the Collegium is staffed with a bunch of brainless idiots.

I am going to make a statement. I, as a pontifex - augur - flamen, will
continue to engage in dialogue with all the citizens of Nova Roma. To improve
dialogue and understanding and to work for a more peaceful Nova Roma.
However, if citizens continue to attack the Collegium calling us brainless then I
will excuse myself from these discussions. I have come to the table with
respect, and in a spirit of humility, but I will not continue if perpetually
insulted.

Valete;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 10/1/2004 2:34:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
quintus_cassius@... writes:

I think that if things have gotten as bad as they seem, that the founders
should step in and make essential changes. The college of pontifexes cannot be
allowed to sit in positions for life if they are dominated by conservative,
brainless idiots with no depth of thought to allow for flexibility or women in
their college.





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

test sorry



____________________________________________________________
Libero ADSL: navighi gratis a 1.2 Mega, senza canone e costi di attivazione.
Abbonati subito su http://www.libero.it

Salvete omnes,

Though I am not a practitioner of the Religio Romano, I can
certainly attest to the fact that the college of priests are
certainly very far from brainless. All have post secondary
educatation, university, one his doctorate in classics and one does
not get to these levels by being stupid.

I have written to most of them on various matters and I have been
greatly impressed not only with their knowledge of the Religio but
also their knowledge of the Judeo-Christian religions; especially
Catholicism. They could certainly give any priest, or minister a
good run for their money on any debate regarding these things. The
fact that they have some different ideas from one another, move
cautiously regarding old traditions and doctorines hardly makes them
foolish.

One comment or question please; I read up on the history of the
Vestal Virgins and I stress the word, Virgin. It seems to me that
order had extremely strict guidlines as to who qualified and what
would the goddess Vesta have to say about permitting males or
sexually active and past active females? My comments also are the
same for female flamens. As a few priests like Drusus and Scaurus
have repeatedly pointed out, the gods of Rome are rather finicky
about how rules and rituals are followed so perhaps they would be
offended by such changes. Any comments?

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius S.P.D.
>
> This is a problem.
>
> Here is an example of a citizen of Nova Roma essentially calling
the
> Collegium Pontificum a bunch of brainless idiots, and only one
person, A. Apollonius
> Cordus, responded with anything contrary.
>
> Yes. Most of the pontifices within the Collegium Pontificum are
> conservative, and as it should be. The role of the Collegium is
to protect tradition.
> Its better to have a Collegium that respects tradition, instead
of discarding
> it.
>
> It would also be better for individuals wishing to "lobby" the
Collegium to
> be respectful in their discourse. Calling the
pontifices "brainless" is a
> heafty insult, and I seriously don't believe the majority of our
citizens truly
> believe the Collegium is staffed with a bunch of brainless idiots.
>
> I am going to make a statement. I, as a pontifex - augur -
flamen, will
> continue to engage in dialogue with all the citizens of Nova
Roma. To improve
> dialogue and understanding and to work for a more peaceful Nova
Roma.
> However, if citizens continue to attack the Collegium calling us
brainless then I
> will excuse myself from these discussions. I have come to the
table with
> respect, and in a spirit of humility, but I will not continue if
perpetually
> insulted.
>
> Valete;
>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius
>
> In a message dated 10/1/2004 2:34:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> quintus_cassius@y... writes:
>
> I think that if things have gotten as bad as they seem, that the
founders
> should step in and make essential changes. The college of
pontifexes cannot be
> allowed to sit in positions for life if they are dominated by
conservative,
> brainless idiots with no depth of thought to allow for
flexibility or women in
> their college.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

G. Equitius Cato quirites S.P.D.

Salvete, omnes.

I certainly hope that my request of the College was NOT seen as in
any way connected to Taurinus' rather...intemperate...post. I
certainly don't think the CP is composed of brainless "idiots"
(although to be fair I think Taurinus was referring specifically to
the Boni within the CP), and I believe that they will come to an
opinion based on an intelligent and comprehensive understanding of
the situation.

I also have realized since I posted my request that G. Iulius
Scaurus has been working on putting together an historical overview
of the role of women in the Religio Publica for the pontifices to
review, in order to guide their decision one way or the other.

This brings me to an interesting junction, one which I think is at
the heart of this whole discussion.

If the venerable Scaurus decides, based on his historical research,
that women should NOT be allowed into the pontificate, and presents
this to the CP, we are back to square one. Then what?

Quirites, the question is not simply one of historical accuracy, per
se; as we have seen, the powers given to the CP by the Founders are
absolutely unhistorical, yet were given because the Founders saw the
perceived necessity of doing so to promote and protect the Religio
in an unkind and hostile world.

So the very authority which the CP exercizes is itself an
unhistorical adaptation to a modern set of circumstances; the hard-
line "we must absolutely obey historical dictates" therefore cannot
possibly be logically upheld by a single member of the CP, as their
own institution is supported by unhistorical powers. I humbly
request that the members of the College remember this fact when
making their decision.

The Founders were caught between two difficult choices, it appears:
either absolutely historically-faithful recreation of the society
and culture of ancient Rome, or something bigger, more encompassing;
the very revivification of the ideals *behind* ancient Rome, within
the framework of ancient Roman societal structures. They chose, I
firmly believe, the latter. We know for a fact that ancient Rome
was a precursor to Victorian England in its societal structure and
failings: a corrupt and venal body overlaid with extraordinary
achievement and idealism. I believe that Nova Roma is an attempt to
bring the achievements and idealisms of ancient Rome to life without
the corruption and decay. This is possible ONLY if we understand
the failings of ancient Rome instead of putting the ancients on
pedestals, and seek to do better guided by their principles, not
necessarily only their actions.

As Scaurus himself once said, we do not need to "create" a Rome as
it would have evolved if every influence of the past 1700 years were
to be adopted. That place already exists: it is Rome, the capital
of the Republic of Italy.

Quirites, we must be allowed to choose, to adapt, to blend, to
syncretize our knowledge with that of the ancients, to become more
like them in spirit, not in dress or manners. Anyone can put on a
bedsheet and pretend they're a "Roman". That is role-playing.
Anyone can assume the haughtiness and cruelty of the Patrician
Roman, despising the "great unwashed" masses of the Plebeians. That
is not only role-playing but dangerous, as we all know how the
Plebeians reacted to that situation, over and over again. Anyone can
bury their nose in a book and pretend that they can make the real
world subject to the vagaries and inconsistencies of their adoptive
written world. That is role-playing and worse, because as the
Nazarene once said, "The devil can quote scripture for his own
purposes."

We, the citizens of Nova Roma, are better than that.

Valete,

Cato

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

> G. Equitius Cato quirites S.P.D.
>
> Salvete, omnes.
>
> I certainly hope that my request of the College was NOT seen as in
> any way connected to Taurinus' rather...intemperate...post. I
> certainly don't think the CP is composed of brainless "idiots"
> (although to be fair I think Taurinus was referring specifically to
> the Boni within the CP),

Yes I was, and I thought that was made clear. I have once again
underestimated people's desire to be offended.


Taurinus

Here's what I wrote:


"...The college of pontifexes cannot be allowed to sit
in positions for life IF they are dominated by conservative,
brainless idiots with no depth of thought to allow for flexibility or
women in their college...."


"This is not to insinuate that all pontifexes are bad. But again, IF
my (very high level) sources are correct in what they tell me, and IF
even half of the people who have written in here to the list are
serious about thinking up excuses to not allowing women equal rights
and consideration..."



Pay attention to the IF's. I said IF. The fact that people had to
write in accusing me of calling them brainless idiots seems to imply
that they agree with the affirmative potential outcome of that IF, an
outcome that I never stated was the case. But my upset that day (for
which I am apologetic) still seemed to set some people off- and that
makes me wonder- if what I said was so absurd, why are you so
offended? Could it be that under the subconscious skin, I touched a
reality nerve?



I know that one of the Founders of Nova Roma is the Pontifex Maximus.
I read his response letter today. Once again, he has impressed me
with his wisdom and discernment. I know that there have to be other
pontifexes that are as wise as he, and they aren't in the brainless
category, by any means, nor would I ever put them there.


People say that the collegium should be conservative because
it "protects tradition"- but NR is five years old- it is not OLD
ROME, with 2700 years of Tradition behind it- what Tarquin or King
put these priests in power, or invested them with the right to
perform sacrifices and deal with the Gods on his behalf? Oh that's
right- A TARQUIN DIDN'T.


The pontifexes of NR are not the pontifexes of old. NR's Traditions
are not bound and shackled by Old Rome's.


There are not enough conservative arguments in the world to change
the fact that NR lives in the modern world, and not 2200 years ago.


The Collegium of Priests needs to be staffed with men AND WOMEN who
love the old world, who love its values, its aesthetics, who love the
Gods and Goddessess, who love the best things that Rome and the
Religio stood for, but who also live in the modern world, and don't
live fantasy lives behind a computer screen, thinking that they can
mystically transport themselves into the past and ignore the present.


Everyone of any intellect already knows, understands, and accepts the
need for the balance between reconstructionism and the flexibility of
modern perspective.


I can't believe that once again, people are using the "we are just
reconstructing it the way it was" excuse, as though they can ignore
the demands of the modern day, "just because" it was done some other
way 2000 years ago. When will this end?


Do the hard core conservatives here go to modern hospitals when they
are sick, or do they do what ancient Roman medicine advised? I bet
they go to hospitals- it's better to get antibiotics than to swallow
mixtures of bird livers and ground bone for that nasty virus. There
were no pain killers or pain medication in the ancient days- do any
of our conservatives here suffer from chronic pain? Is the label on
that medicine bottle written in ancient Latin? I bet it isn't.


How handy that they can "pick and choose" what points to be
conservative on- especially when it comes to the roles of women and
other people.




Taurinus

I, as a pontifex - augur - flamen, will

> continue to engage in dialogue with all the citizens of Nova Roma.

To improve

> dialogue

Ave Athanasi;
you know I regard you with respect and as a friend.

Let us call the pontifexes we disagree with by name.

Now 'venerable Scaurus' is indeed a scholar, and he is Boni and
pursues the Boni agenda.
Meaning he ignores history if it suits his personal interests

1. He supports the Blasphemy law. Utterly unhistorical.

2. He has not reformed the College to its historical roots. Yes, he
can spout many reasons that suit him and the Boni, but he is not
telling the cives the historical truth

3. He supports only followers of the Religio having political
positions. Utterly unhistorical.

4. The fact that you are a Pontifex, Flamen, and Augur is entirely
unhistorical and never would have been permitted in Republican Rome.
(you are entirely Innocent in this matter!).

Yet Scaurus permitted this. In Rome, these were plum important roles
and there was an unofficial agreement for 1 person to only hold one
priesthood in one college.


5. In my case, the CP has the power to strip me of my title as
sacerdos.
But they had no right to pronounce me "NEFAS" that is an illegal
assumption of power. Totally unhistorical. Today me, Tomorrow you....

6.As a woman, I find it entirely presumptuous that the history and
practices of Nova Roma will be changed by the biases of 1 Male person
or even a CP of all Male persons. We had Female flamens and
pontifeces and we will continue to do so.

6. If the CP wishes to break the NR constitution then the cives who
have the power will correct that. You can be sure.

7. We cannot and will not be bullied by an ahistorical institutions
whose current powers mimic the mediaeval College of Cardinals.

Believe me Athanasius I like you, Hadrianus, the Pontifex Maximus,

but I heartily dislike and cannot respect Fabius Maximus, Senator
Drusus, Scaurus, (I don't know about Graecus) who twist and turn
events, history to suit their personal agendas.

bene valete
M. Arminia Maior Fabiana
Propraetrix Hiberniae
scriba Iuris et
Investigatio CFQ

Salve Pontifex,

> I do not advocate changing five years of Nova Roma policy, against

the will

> of the majority of the Citizens, to establish gender roles that

stem from

> social conditions which no longer exist.

Thank you for making this important point. I could not agree with you
more, and I am encouraged to hear your opinion on this.

Arnamentia Moravia Aurelia
Sacerdos Diana

Ave



I too must say that I am impressed with the knowledge that many people at
Nova Roma have displayed. (when it is displayed). I am finishing up my BA in
History, I can't all of my fellow citizens the number of ways our nation
has helped me in my course of study. Thank you





Vale

Tiberius Arcanus Agricola

<mailto:mikeabboud@...> mikeabboud@...

<http://www.mikeabboud.com> www.mikeabboud.com

<http://mikeabboud.blogspot.com/> http://mikeabboud.blogspot.com/

_____

From: Quintus Lanius Paulinus (Michael Kelly) [mailto:mjk@...]
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 9:14 AM
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: What happened to the mature debate about the
Religio



Salvete omnes,

Though I am not a practitioner of the Religio Romano, I can
certainly attest to the fact that the college of priests are
certainly very far from brainless. All have post secondary
educatation, university, one his doctorate in classics and one does
not get to these levels by being stupid.

I have written to most of them on various matters and I have been
greatly impressed not only with their knowledge of the Religio but
also their knowledge of the Judeo-Christian religions; especially
Catholicism. They could certainly give any priest, or minister a
good run for their money on any debate regarding these things. The
fact that they have some different ideas from one another, move
cautiously regarding old traditions and doctorines hardly makes them
foolish.

One comment or question please; I read up on the history of the
Vestal Virgins and I stress the word, Virgin. It seems to me that
order had extremely strict guidlines as to who qualified and what
would the goddess Vesta have to say about permitting males or
sexually active and past active females? My comments also are the
same for female flamens. As a few priests like Drusus and Scaurus
have repeatedly pointed out, the gods of Rome are rather finicky
about how rules and rituals are followed so perhaps they would be
offended by such changes. Any comments?

Regards,

Quintus Lanius Paulinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius S.P.D.
>
> This is a problem.
>
> Here is an example of a citizen of Nova Roma essentially calling
the
> Collegium Pontificum a bunch of brainless idiots, and only one
person, A. Apollonius
> Cordus, responded with anything contrary.
>
> Yes. Most of the pontifices within the Collegium Pontificum are
> conservative, and as it should be. The role of the Collegium is
to protect tradition.
> Its better to have a Collegium that respects tradition, instead
of discarding
> it.
>
> It would also be better for individuals wishing to "lobby" the
Collegium to
> be respectful in their discourse. Calling the
pontifices "brainless" is a
> heafty insult, and I seriously don't believe the majority of our
citizens truly
> believe the Collegium is staffed with a bunch of brainless idiots.
>
> I am going to make a statement. I, as a pontifex - augur -
flamen, will
> continue to engage in dialogue with all the citizens of Nova
Roma. To improve
> dialogue and understanding and to work for a more peaceful Nova
Roma.
> However, if citizens continue to attack the Collegium calling us
brainless then I
> will excuse myself from these discussions. I have come to the
table with
> respect, and in a spirit of humility, but I will not continue if
perpetually
> insulted.
>
> Valete;
>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius
>
> In a message dated 10/1/2004 2:34:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> quintus_cassius@y... writes:
>
> I think that if things have gotten as bad as they seem, that the
founders
> should step in and make essential changes. The college of
pontifexes cannot be
> allowed to sit in positions for life if they are dominated by
conservative,
> brainless idiots with no depth of thought to allow for
flexibility or women in
> their college.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



ADVERTISEMENT

<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129mak0qr/M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705313712:HM/EXP=1096812919/A=2376776/R=0/SIG=11ldm1jvc/*http:/promo
tions.yahoo.com/ydomains2004/index.html> click here



<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2376776/rand=269443341>



_____

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!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.



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

A. Apollonius Cordus C. Equitió Catóní amícó
omnibusque sal.

> I also have realized since I posted my request that
> G. Iulius
> Scaurus has been working on putting together an
> historical overview
> of the role of women in the Religio Publica for the
> pontifices to
> review, in order to guide their decision one way or
> the other.
>
> This brings me to an interesting junction, one which
> I think is at
> the heart of this whole discussion.
>
> If the venerable Scaurus decides, based on his
> historical research,
> that women should NOT be allowed into the
> pontificate, and presents
> this to the CP, we are back to square one. Then
> what?

As you know, I quite agree that when one has
discovered the historical facts one is still a step
away from knowing what must be done here and now. But
my understanding of the work Scaurus is doing is not
so much that he is to make a recommendation which the
pontificés will then accept or reject; rather - as I
understand it - he is researching the nature of the
taboos concerningt he gender of the various priestly
offices: whether the reasons for the absence of female
fláminés or male vestals were religious, or social, or
a mixture, and precisely what they were about. Armed
with that information, the pontificés will be in a
better position, one hopes, to consider whether the
reasons which justified the way things were in
antiquity are still valid reasons or not, and
therefore what changes can be made.

This, I think, is the trick when it comes to deciding
such things; and this is why I can't agree with those
(few) people who denounce as a hypocrite anyone who
considers that historical accuracy is desirable in one
case but not another. Modius Athanasius, for instance,
has said that he would allow women to be pontificés
but not fláminés because he considers that women were
never pontificés merely for social reasons which are
now redundant but that women were never fláminés for
religious reasons which are still valid. Such a
position is not inconsistent or hypocritical, as some
people (not you, Cató) have suggested, but a coherent
and nuanced one. (I single out Athanasius not because
his view is necessarily more coherent than anyone
else's, but simply because he has explained his
position clearly several times and therefore makes a
handy example.) But here is where Scaurus' research
will come in - it will allow Athanasius, for instance,
to look at the evidence and see whether his belief in
the difference between the two offices is confirmed
and, if it is not, to reconsider his view.

So although I heartily second your statement that
Scaurus' report won't be the end of the debate; but I
would put in a plea for the pontificés to be allowed
to suspend their judgement, or at least express it
tentatively, until all the evidence is at their fingertips.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

a p.c. nova roma...wow. whats next plastic swords,
faux bear skin for legionary aguilifars?
--- AthanasiosofSpfd@...
<AthanasiosofSpfd@...> wrote:

>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius Marco Cassio Iuliano salutem

dicit

>
> What about male vestals?
>
> Can we now have male sacerdos to Bona Dea?
>
> If we have a female Flamen Dialis what will we call

her husband? Will she

> be the Flaminica Dialis and he the Flamen Dialis?

Will this please Iuppiter?

> I don't know, but apparently you think the people

should decide. The Gods

> should decide, and the pontifices who have been

co-opted to manage the affairs

> of the State Religion should carry out the will of

the Gods.

>
> As a Flamen I communicate with Pomona, via prayer,

everyday. I believe she

> has shown her favor to me, and has blessed me in

countless ways. Not all of

> the pontifices believe as I do; that woman should be

allowed to be

> pontifices. However, I believe they should occupy

the highest priesthood of our

> republic.
>
> You keep making this a political issue Marcus

Cassius. YOU are the leader

> of the Collegium Pontificum. YOU are the founder of

Nova Roma. I firmly

> believe that YOU should start leading the Collegium,

as a true leader should,

> then trying to create discord by alienating the

pontifices with the citizenry of

> Nova Roma. YOU should be trying to bring about a

reconciliation with the

> pontifices instead of playing politics.
>
> We have too much in the way of politics.
>
> Vale;
>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius
> Pontifex, Augur, and Flamen Pomonalis
>
> In a message dated 10/1/2004 11:09:51 PM Eastern

Standard Time,

> cassius622@... writes:
>
> Salvete,
>
> As a member of the Collegium Pontificum, I support

women being able to hold

> the office of Pontifex in Nova Roma. I also support

women being able to

> hold
> the Flaminates in Nova Roma.
>
> Both positions have administrative and active

religious duties. Together

> they make up the two top levels of the Religio

Romana. They are the

> religious
> equivalents of the Senate and magistracies. All such

offices were open to

> men
> only in Roma Antiqua simply because gender

inequality was an unquestioned

> part of the social mores of ancient times.
>
> I don't find that it makes sense to declare in

modern times that male

> gender
> is the only criteria for administering a religion.

I also don't find it

> sensible to assert that male gender is the only

criteria for administering

> cults
> of major Goddesses - such as Ceres, Flora and

Pomona.

>
> At the founding of NR it was decided that denying

women equal opportunities

> in both politics and religion did not constitute

"reviving the best of

> ancient Rome." Equality of the genders in all areas

has been officially

> considered
> "one of the few concessions to modern

sensibilities" for the first five

> years
> of NR. The Collegium Pontificum *and* the

Flaminates have been open to

> female Citizens for those five years. Only

recently has this policy been

> quietly
> suspended by a Boni majority in the Collegium

Pontificum.

>
> As far as I am aware nearly all (if not every one

of) the conservatives who

>
> wish to instate "traditional gender roles"

originally joined a Nova Roma

> that
> allowed women to hold these positions. It is

important to remember that

> they
> are seeking to instate policies that are NEW to NR,

rather than upholding

> policies previously agreed upon by this community.

In short they originally

> agreed to conditions they have now changed for the

rest of us without

> consent of
> the community.

=== Message Truncated ===


=====
S P Q R

Fidelis Ad Mortem.

Marcvs Flavivs Fides
Roman Citizen





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Ave Athanasi:
we are pretty much agreed that Vestals, the rite of Bon Dea and
the cults of Hercules and Silvanus and the Flamen Dialis and rex
sacrorum are sex specific,
Now as to the majority of flaminates, I have posted reams of
historical and scholarly material that these posts were viewed just
as magistrates. meaning political, they were lobbied for and
considered prime positons in the career of any up and coming
politician in Republican Rome. Men were flamens to Pomona, Ceres,
Carmentis, Flora all goddesses ,as well as to male gods;

so please what is sex specific of the majority of flamens
vale
M. Arminia Maior Fabiana

> >

Gaius Modius Athanasius Marco Cassio Iuliano salutem

> dicit
> >
> > What about male vestals?
> >
> > Can we now have male sacerdos to Bona Dea?
> >
> > If we have a female Flamen Dialis what will we call
> her husband? Will she
> > be the Flaminica Dialis and he the Flamen Dialis?
> Will this please Iuppiter?
>

Modius Athanasius,
You quote my post but those are the words of another cive. I would like to clarify that the extract cited as my words by the e-mail service are not mine but those of Taurinus. I never called the Collegium "idiots" or anything of that nature.. Vale, QCB

AthanasiosofSpfd@... wrote:

Gaius Modius Athanasius S.P.D.

This is a problem.

Here is an example of a citizen of Nova Roma essentially calling the
Collegium Pontificum a bunch of brainless idiots, and only one person, A. Apollonius
Cordus, responded with anything contrary.

Yes. Most of the pontifices within the Collegium Pontificum are
conservative, and as it should be. The role of the Collegium is to protect tradition.
Its better to have a Collegium that respects tradition, instead of discarding
it.

It would also be better for individuals wishing to "lobby" the Collegium to
be respectful in their discourse. Calling the pontifices "brainless" is a
heafty insult, and I seriously don't believe the majority of our citizens truly
believe the Collegium is staffed with a bunch of brainless idiots.

I am going to make a statement. I, as a pontifex - augur - flamen, will
continue to engage in dialogue with all the citizens of Nova Roma. To improve
dialogue and understanding and to work for a more peaceful Nova Roma.
However, if citizens continue to attack the Collegium calling us brainless then I
will excuse myself from these discussions. I have come to the table with
respect, and in a spirit of humility, but I will not continue if perpetually
insulted.

Valete;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 10/1/2004 2:34:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
quintus_cassius@... writes:

I think that if things have gotten as bad as they seem, that the founders
should step in and make essential changes. The college of pontifexes cannot be
allowed to sit in positions for life if they are dominated by conservative,
brainless idiots with no depth of thought to allow for flexibility or women in
their college.





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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
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.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

Avete Quirites:
a good friend asked me apropos this debate: where are the women?

I found out a lot of them resigned from the ML, feeling totally
sidelined by the discussions: just males ruling the roost.

So no wonder only %10 of the cives are active followers of the
Religo when they see fit to make %50 of the cives less than slaves

valete
Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana

A. Apollonius Cordus rogátor omnibus sal.

The vote with tracking number 4186 has a technical
fault. If this is you, please vote again when the
cista reopens tomorrow. Thank you.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Salvete,

As it is now 1 minute past midnight in Rome and the days of dies
nefastus and dies fastus have passed I have reopened the Cista for
voting as per the call to Contio.

Valete,

Q. Cassius Calvus

Salve Marcus Flavius Fides ~

It's in the Constitution, and has been since NR was founded. Equality
of women is a fact. Please keep in mind that while we do have
re-enactors whose Legions are as historically accurate as possible (and
rightly so), Nova Roma as a whole is a modern and vibrant society ~
hence the "Nova".

Vale
~ S E M Troianus

On Saturday, October 2, 2004, at 01:44 PM, raymond fuentes wrote:

>
> a p.c. nova roma...wow. whats next plastic swords,
> faux bear skin for legionary aguilifars?
> --- AthanasiosofSpfd@...
> <AthanasiosofSpfd@...> wrote:
>>
>> Gaius Modius Athanasius Marco Cassio Iuliano salutem
> dicit
>>
>> What about male vestals?
>>
>> Can we now have male sacerdos to Bona Dea?
>>
>> If we have a female Flamen Dialis what will we call
> her husband? Will she
>> be the Flaminica Dialis and he the Flamen Dialis?
> Will this please Iuppiter?
>> I don't know, but apparently you think the people
> should decide. The Gods
>> should decide, and the pontifices who have been
> co-opted to manage the affairs
>> of the State Religion should carry out the will of
> the Gods.
>>
>> As a Flamen I communicate with Pomona, via prayer,
> everyday. I believe she
>> has shown her favor to me, and has blessed me in
> countless ways. Not all of
>> the pontifices believe as I do; that woman should be
> allowed to be
>> pontifices. However, I believe they should occupy
> the highest priesthood of our
>> republic.
>>
>> You keep making this a political issue Marcus
> Cassius. YOU are the leader
>> of the Collegium Pontificum. YOU are the founder of
> Nova Roma. I firmly
>> believe that YOU should start leading the Collegium,
> as a true leader should,
>> then trying to create discord by alienating the
> pontifices with the citizenry of
>> Nova Roma. YOU should be trying to bring about a
> reconciliation with the
>> pontifices instead of playing politics.
>>
>> We have too much in the way of politics.
>>
>> Vale;
>>
>> Gaius Modius Athanasius
>> Pontifex, Augur, and Flamen Pomonalis
>>
>> In a message dated 10/1/2004 11:09:51 PM Eastern
> Standard Time,
>> cassius622@... writes:
>>
>> Salvete,
>>
>> As a member of the Collegium Pontificum, I support
> women being able to hold
>> the office of Pontifex in Nova Roma. I also support
> women being able to
>> hold
>> the Flaminates in Nova Roma.
>>
>> Both positions have administrative and active
> religious duties. Together
>> they make up the two top levels of the Religio
> Romana. They are the
>> religious
>> equivalents of the Senate and magistracies. All such
> offices were open to
>> men
>> only in Roma Antiqua simply because gender
> inequality was an unquestioned
>> part of the social mores of ancient times.
>>
>> I don't find that it makes sense to declare in
> modern times that male
>> gender
>> is the only criteria for administering a religion.
> I also don't find it
>> sensible to assert that male gender is the only
> criteria for administering
>> cults
>> of major Goddesses - such as Ceres, Flora and
> Pomona.
>>
>> At the founding of NR it was decided that denying
> women equal opportunities
>> in both politics and religion did not constitute
> "reviving the best of
>> ancient Rome." Equality of the genders in all areas
> has been officially
>> considered
>> "one of the few concessions to modern
> sensibilities" for the first five
>> years
>> of NR. The Collegium Pontificum *and* the
> Flaminates have been open to
>> female Citizens for those five years. Only
> recently has this policy been
>> quietly
>> suspended by a Boni majority in the Collegium
> Pontificum.
>>
>> As far as I am aware nearly all (if not every one
> of) the conservatives who
>>
>> wish to instate "traditional gender roles"
> originally joined a Nova Roma
>> that
>> allowed women to hold these positions. It is
> important to remember that
>> they
>> are seeking to instate policies that are NEW to NR,
> rather than upholding
>> policies previously agreed upon by this community.
> In short they originally
>> agreed to conditions they have now changed for the
> rest of us without
>> consent of
>> the community.
> === Message Truncated ===
>
>
> =====
> S P Q R
>
> Fidelis Ad Mortem.
>
> Marcvs Flavivs Fides
> Roman Citizen
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Salvete omnes!

I am the person who started all this, by having the unmitigated gall to apply for a position
as a pontifex (as all are invited to do on the Religio page of the Nova Roma Web site). I
filed my application late last year, and was asked to wait for an official answer until
scholarly research could be completed, which I was led to believe might be in June. It is
now October and I have yet to receive a yes or no on my application.

I am entirely open to being rejected on the merits of my experience and abilities,
particularly if that rejection is accompanied by encouragement to gain the knowledge and
skills needed.

If that rejection is based on my sex, however, it will say some very sad things to me about
Nova Roma, a project in which I have believed and which I have supported with concrete
efforts for six years. I am pleased to hear that others agree with me on this point, and look
forward to moving ahead with an organization in which men and women work together to
better understand and appreciate ancient Roman history.

Patricia Cassia
Senatrix

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@y...> wrote:

>
> Avete Quirites:
> a good friend asked me apropos this debate: where are the women?

I'm a woman and I'm here! I would have been here sooner if my novaroma.org email
address hadn't started bouncing a few months ago. I didn't notice for a few weeks because
the demands of my job were taking up all my free time at that point, and I'm still sorting
out messages that went astray.

In any case, women who may be reading this, or men who know women who are interested
in Roman history, may wish to know about the Conventus Matronarum list, a low-traffic
list for women in Nova Roma. To subscribe, send a blank email to conventusmatronarum-
subscribe@yahoogroups.com.

Patricia Cassia
Senatrix

Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana writes:
"So no wonder only %10 of the cives are active followers of the
Religo when they see fit to make %50 of the cives less than slaves"

Cassius respondit:

It seems to me that such a description is too harsh for the situation at
hand, and I'd consider it a favor if such phrases as "less than slaves" could be
avoided. Such drastic comparisons can only serve to cloud thinking on both
sides of the issue - making those who wish a return to ancient gender roles
"entrench" even further in self defense, and inflaming all others past a
reasonable point.

It is my belief that restricting the top two levels of leadership on gender
alone is unequal and unfair, and that candidates of both genders should be
evaluated on personal merit and ability. Yet I don't believe that those who
want to abandon modern sensibilities regarding gender are seeking to make women
"less than slaves." There is a difference between unequal rights and having
no rights whatever.

I don't know if there can be compromise on this issue. Either women will
continue to be allowed into the top two levels of the Religio Romana
administration, or they won't. In either outcome we may have people leave Nova Roma in
disgust - either because we've decided to officially revive gender inequality
as part of "the best of Rome," or because we've abandoned someone's treasured
ideals of history. Yet no matter what happens we should seek reasonable and
accurate oratory as much as we can. The gender situation is difficult enough
without raising the level of emotion on the list.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Pontifex Maximus



The Nova Religio Romana list: an "unofficial" Religio Romana group for the
discussion of modern Religio topics, Imperial religion, Mystery Religions,
Philosophy, Theurgy and more. URL:
_http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaReligioRomana/_ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaReligioRomana/) or subscribe by
sending a blank email to: NovaReligioRomana-subscribe@yahoogroups.com



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

Ave Juliane;
I apologize, my words were out of order for a thoughtful, reasoned
discussion.
One question I have; is when did this policy change? Who decided
in the CP that women should not be permitted to be pontifices,
flamens, and I am sure augurs?
Which of the pontifices are against this?
1. I know you are pro-pontifex, pro-flamen, pro-auger

2. I know Athanasius and Hadrianus are pro-pontifex and anti-flamen,
probably anti-auger.

Who are the rest?, Graecus, Maximus, Drusus and Scaurus

Ave Patricia Cassia; it is cold comfort to you, but Consul Astur was
rejected as a pontifex.
bene valete in pace deorum
M.Arminia Maior Fabiana

Athanasius writes:
What about male vestals?

Cassius respondit:
What about them? Are you volunteering? I would recommend talking this over
in detail with your spouse before making an official application.

Athanasius:
Can we now have male sacerdos to Bona Dea?

Cassius respondit:
Please volunteer for only one position at a time. Anyway, you're already a
Pontifex, Augur, and Flamen Pomonalis. Adding two new titles in tandem would
stretch even your admirable skills.

Athanasius:
If we have a female Flamen Dialis what will we call her husband? Will she
be the Flaminica Dialis and he the Flamen Dialis? Will this please Iuppiter?
I don't know, but apparently you think the people should decide. The Gods
should decide, and the pontifices who have been co-opted to manage the
affairs
of the State Religion should carry out the will of the Gods.

Cassius respondit:
It is unlikely that we will ever have a Flamen Dialis. With the host of
mandatory taboos that go with the office we could not possibly fill it in the
modern world - unless we made so many changes the position would be completely
unhistorical anyway.

The deciding of the gender issue is another matter. The current Collegium
Pontificum has made a change in our community without the consent of the
Citizens - to officially reinstate gender inequality as being part of "the best of
ancient Rome." Do I believe the Citizens have a say in this? Yes, I do,
since it has many repercussions in all aspects of our community. Do I believe
that the very same "strict reconstructionists" who have decided this change
should "determine the will of the Gods" for the rest of us on a one-time Augury,
with no further recourse allowed, and be left to "manage the affairs of the
Religio" without acknowledging the needs of the Citizens of Nova Roma? No,
not really. The Pontifices are supposed to be interceding on our behalf with
the Gods, not merely declaring the will of the Gods to us.

Athanasius:
As a Flamen I communicate with Pomona, via prayer, everyday. I believe she
has shown her favor to me, and has blessed me in countless ways. Not all of
the pontifices believe as I do; that woman should be allowed to be
pontifices. However, I believe they should occupy the highest priesthood of our
republic.

Cassius respondit:
I am pleased that you support female Pontifices, Athanasius. I truly do. I
also feel you've done a good job as Flamen Pomonalis. What you have not managed
to do is convince me that you are doing well in that job strictly because
you're a male, and that a woman could not fill the office as well simply
because of being female.


Athanasius:
You keep making this a political issue Marcus Cassius.

Cassius respondit:
I believe this *is* a political issue, Athanasius. The Collegium Pontificum
has made a change to the overall policies on which Nova Roma was created. It
did so without consulting the Citizens - OR the Gods. The new 'strict
conservative' majority in the Collegium simply acted on their common belief in
historical gender roles all on their own.

Athanasius:
YOU are the leader of the Collegium Pontificum. YOU are the founder of Nova
Roma. I firmly
believe that YOU should start leading the Collegium, as a true leader should,
then trying to create discord by alienating the pontifices with the
citizenry of
Nova Roma. YOU should be trying to bring about a reconciliation with the
pontifices instead of playing politics.

Cassius:
My role in the Collegium Pontificum is not that well defined. You believe
that I should be a "strong leader" and revile me for not being one. Other
Pontifices believe that the Pontifex Maximus should only be the speaker for the
Collegium Pontificum, and the member that calls the Collegium to order. The
latter definition is in fact the condition I was accepted to the position on in
the first place.

Am I creating discord by "alienating the Pontifices with the citizenry?" No,
although I think they may have done this to themselves by choosing to
rescind official Nova Roma policy regarding gender equality, and refusing to either
consult or accept the will of the Citizens that make up our community.

Vale,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Pontifex Maximus



The Nova Religio Romana list: an "unofficial" Religio Romana group for the
discussion of modern Religio topics, Imperial religion, Mystery Religions,
Philosophy, Theurgy and more. URL:
_http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaReligioRomana/_ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaReligioRomana/) or subscribe by
sending a blank email to: NovaReligioRomana-subscribe@yahoogroups.com


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

Ex Officio Propraetoris Galliae

Edictum Propraetoricium X

About the appointement of a Legate in Regio Belgica Germanica

Livia Camilla Minia Esquilina is hereby appointed as legate for
Regio Aquitania Narbonensis. She will exert in this Regio all the
responsibilities, will be held of all the obligations, and will be
able to take all the initiatives, attached to her office and to her
rank and defined in Edictum Propraetoricium I.

She is are asked to, within one week for the appointment date,
swear the public oath shown in Lex Iunia de Iusiurando
(http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/lex99191002.html). The Oath must
be published on the Gallia List and the Nova Roma Main List.

This edictum becomes effective immediately.

Given in Lutetia October the 03, Year 2004 of the current Era, in
the year of the consulship of Gnaeus Salix Astur and Gnaeus Equitius
Marinus ante diem V Non. OCTOBRAS MMDCCLVII AUC

Lucius Rutilius Minervalis
Provinciae Galliae Propraetor

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ex Officio Propraetoris Galliae

Edictum Propraetoricium X

Concernant la nomination du Légat pour la Regio Aquitania Belgica
Germanica

Livia Camilla Minia Esquilina est nommée Légat pour la Regio
Aquitania Narbonensis. Elle exercera dans cette Regio toutes les
responsabilités, sera tenue de toutes les obligations, et pourra
prendre toutes les initiatives, attachées à sa charge et à son rang et
définies dans l'Edictum Propraetoricium I.

Elle est tenue, dans les huit jours de la date de sa nomination, de
prêter le serment public requis par la Lex Iunia de Iusiurando
(http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/lex99191002.html). Le Serment doit
être publié sur la Liste de Gallia et la Liste Principale de Nova Roma.

Cet Edictum est applicable immédiatement.

Fait à Lutèce le 3 Octobre, Année 2004 de l'Ere courante, année du
Consulat de Gnaeus Salix Astur et Gnaeus Equitius Marinus ante diem V
Non. OCTOBRAS MMDCCLVII AUC.

Lucius Rutilius Minervalis
Provinciae Galliae Propraetor

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Galus Agorius Taurinus"
<g_agorius_taurinus@y...> wrote:

> Do the hard core conservatives here go to modern hospitals when

they

> are sick, or do they do what ancient Roman medicine advised? I bet
> they go to hospitals- it's better to get antibiotics than to

swallow

> mixtures of bird livers and ground bone for that nasty virus.

Salve,

Taking antibiotics to combat viral infections would be as effective
as taking ground bone and bird liver. In many way it would be worse
since bacteria generally won't mutate to resist calcium enriched
pate' but they will certainly mutate to resist unneccesary use of
antibiotics.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

Salve Athansios,

> While I stated publically, and will do so again, I am no longer in the Boni.
> I do, however, feel that Boni bashing by some individuals is wrong and
> contrary to the benefit of Nova Roma. If we are ALL interested in peace then we
> should strive for peace and justice for all members of Nova Roma.
>
> I have pledged that I will work with everyone for the betterment of Nova
> Roma. The Republic must continue to function higher than our petty politics.

It is nice to see that at least one person who claims to want to work for peace in NR with everyone
actually means it. I quite tired of the Boni bashing by people who claim that the Boni are
constantly doing the bashing. I've also stated more than once that as a very moderate Boni I would
work with anyone. But sometimes this is impossible when for example I was banned from the NewRoman
list in a very rude way by G Equitius Marinus and Marcus Minucius Audens (before I had ever posted
there). The list was advertised as 'you are all most welcome' and as the place where it is 'a more
polite venue'. There emails to me-- especially Mr Pseudo Politeness himself Master Audens-- were
extremely rude when all I had done was send in a subscription request with 'Diana Octavia here'
written in the message. I did not deserve the rudeness that I received.

Banning me from NewRoman is against my Constitutional rights as a citizen as listed in Constitution
II.B. 4 "The right to participate in all public forums and discussions, and the right to reasonably
expect such forums to be supported by the State. Such communications, regardless of their content,
may not be restricted by the State, except where they represent an imminent and clear danger to the
Republic. Such officially sponsored forums may be expected to be reasonably moderated in the
interests of maintaining order and civility; "

They are claiming now (behind my back) that the New Roman list is a private list although it was
advertised as an open list. See below-- it does not say 'only our friends are welcomed, it says that
'you are all most welcome'. It is hypocrisy like this that makes me sick.

Vale,
Diana Octavia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, jmath669642reng@w... wrote:
New NR Citizens (and Old);

Tired of surly answers and unfriendly replies? Impatient wth long
prolonged political disagreements, and personal squabbles, insults,
and harsh language?

There are other options open in Nova Roma, where your qestions are
answered civilly, your needs and concers are seriuosly considered, and
where a polite word is not sneered at.

You are invited to look into the following list if you fall under any
of the above categories: NewRoman@yahoogroups.com

Nova Roma is a place where Romans come together to talk and share
views.However, there are some here who believe that thier position
and long term experience in NR give them the right to "talk down" to
members who are either new to NR, or who are not immediately involved
in political or religious wrangling. The above list stresses rather
a more polite venue, and a less harsh environment. It is totally
voluntary and you are all most welcome. Those applicants for
citizenship are also very
welcome!! I hope to meet you there!!

Respectfully;

Marcus Minucius-Tiberius Audens


Wishing you all the best, with Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
--- End forwarded message ---

Salve Arminia,

> I found out a lot of them resigned from the ML, feeling totally
> sidelined by the discussions: just males ruling the roost.

I've been around NR since April 1999 and it has always been male dominated. I think the reason for
this is less a Religio thing and more a matter of practicality. The lady of the house usually works
full time and then has to take care of the kids, clean, cook, wash, iron, etc. Most men do help out
around the house but none of them do 50% of the housework.

I think this is why we have always had less women here. While the ladies are busy taking care of the
family the men are sitting on the computer emailing Nova Romans. I think that women simply have less
time and are more busy with real life concerns.

That wasn't meant as a guy bashing thing, but in this country at least the men do about 15% of the
housework even though both the men and the women work full time.

Vale,
Diana

Congratulations to Livia Camilla Minia Esquilina on her appointment as Legate of Regio Belgica
Germanica!
The best of luck to you in our beautiful province!

Vale,
Diana Octavia

Ex Officio Propraetoris Galliae

Edictum Propraetoricium X

About the appointement of a Legate in Regio Belgica Germanica

Livia Camilla Minia Esquilina is hereby appointed as legate for
Regio Belgica Gernamica. She will exert in this Regio all the
responsibilities, will be held of all the obligations, and will be
able to take all the initiatives, attached to her office and to her
rank and defined in Edictum Propraetoricium I.

She is asked to, within one week for the appointment date, swear
the public oath shown in Lex Iunia de Iusiurando
(http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/lex99191002.html). The Oath must
be published on the Gallia List and the Nova Roma Main List.

This edictum becomes effective immediately.

Given in Lutetia October the 03, Year 2004 of the current Era, in
the year of the consulship of Gnaeus Salix Astur and Gnaeus Equitius
Marinus ante diem V Non. OCTOBRES MMDCCLVII AUC

Lucius Rutilius Minervalis
Provinciae Galliae Propraetor

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ex Officio Propraetoris Galliae

Edictum Propraetoricium X

Concernant la nomination du Légat pour la Regio Aquitania Belgica
Germanica

Livia Camilla Minia Esquilina est nommée Légat pour la Regio
Belgica Germanica. Elle exercera dans cette Regio toutes les
responsabilités, sera tenue de toutes les obligations, et pourra
prendre toutes les initiatives, attachées à sa charge et à son rang et
définies dans l'Edictum Propraetoricium I.

Elle est tenue, dans les huit jours de la date de sa nomination, de
prêter le serment public requis par la Lex Iunia de Iusiurando
(http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/lex99191002.html). Le Serment doit
être publié sur la Liste de Gallia et la Liste Principale de Nova Roma.

Cet Edictum est applicable immédiatement.

Fait à Lutèce le 3 Octobre, Année 2004 de l'Ere courante, année du
Consulat de Gnaeus Salix Astur et Gnaeus Equitius Marinus ante diem V
Non. OCTOBRES MMDCCLVII AUC.

Lucius Rutilius Minervalis
Provinciae Galliae Propraetor

Gaius Modius Athanasius A. Apollonio Cordo salutem dicit

You are exactly correct in your assessement of my reasoning. Its not that I
*WANT* to prevent woman from the higher priesthoods -- I happen to be very
fond of woman -- its just that I have an obligation as a pontifex to ensure
the Pax Deorum.

Vale;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 10/2/2004 12:31:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,
a_apollonius_cordus@... writes:

This, I think, is the trick when it comes to deciding
such things; and this is why I can't agree with those
(few) people who denounce as a hypocrite anyone who
considers that historical accuracy is desirable in one
case but not another. Modius Athanasius, for instance,
has said that he would allow women to be pontificés
but not fláminés because he considers that women were
never pontificés merely for social reasons which are
now redundant but that women were never fláminés for
religious reasons which are still valid. Such a
position is not inconsistent or hypocritical, as some
people (not you, Cató) have suggested, but a coherent
and nuanced one. (I single out Athanasius not because
his view is necessarily more coherent than anyone
else's, but simply because he has explained his
position clearly several times and therefore makes a
handy example.) But here is where Scaurus' research
will come in - it will allow Athanasius, for instance,
to look at the evidence and see whether his belief in
the difference between the two offices is confirmed
and, if it is not, to reconsider his view.





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

Gaius Modius Athanasius S.P.D.

Last weekend I conducted a Rite of Offering to Pomona at Elysium Gathering,
as I already mentioned and was assisted by Quintus Caecilius Metellus
Postumianus -- who did an admirable job.

Yesterday I conducted a Rite of Offering to Pomona at Dayton Pagan Pride Day
with the assistance of Agrippina Modia Aurelia, who drove about an hour to
staff the Nova Roma info booth and help with the ritual. It went very well,
and the people who attended received some education on Roman ritual and custom.

Two public rituals of the Religio at large Pagan events. WOW.... and to
think, I COULD have spent this time at the computer playing politics :)

I wonder what the Gods prefer?

Valete;

Gaius Modius Athanasius
Flamen Pomonalis

In a message dated 10/2/2004 5:12:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,
rory12001@... writes:

Avete Quirites:
a good friend asked me apropos this debate: where are the women?

I found out a lot of them resigned from the ML, feeling totally
sidelined by the discussions: just males ruling the roost.

So no wonder only %10 of the cives are active followers of the
Religo when they see fit to make %50 of the cives less than slaves

valete
Marca Arminia Maior Fabiana





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

Gaius Modius Athanasius Patriciae Cassiae salutem dicit

I was suprised to see your application disregarded based on gender, and I
too wait for the research necessary. I was also suprised to see Salix Astur
denied pontifex, but that is a different story.

There has been much talk about the research by Scaurus. While Scaurus is a
man a deeply respect I *wonder* WHY all the responsibility has been placed on
him. Why can't Marcus Cassius, our Pontifex Maximus, do his own research?
Why can't he do what is necessary to present his opinion to the Collegium
with academic strength? If Marcus Cassius is the chairman of the Collegium I
would have assumed he would have wanted to conduct his own -- independant
research -- to make sure that all sides of the debate were being researched.

Marcus Cassius, as Pontifex Maximus, has the power to convene the Collegium
Pontificum and force a vote on your application for Pontifex. He did not
bring your application to an official vote, but backed down when there was
opposition. I would be happy, if I can get the help of another pontifex, to
convene the Collegium Pontificum to bring your application to an official vote.
If this is your wish let me know.

Vale;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 10/2/2004 8:14:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,
pjane@... writes:

Salvete omnes!

I am the person who started all this, by having the unmitigated gall to
apply for a position
as a pontifex (as all are invited to do on the Religio page of the Nova Roma
Web site). I
filed my application late last year, and was asked to wait for an official
answer until
scholarly research could be completed, which I was led to believe might be
in June. It is
now October and I have yet to receive a yes or no on my application.

I am entirely open to being rejected on the merits of my experience and
abilities,
particularly if that rejection is accompanied by encouragement to gain the
knowledge and
skills needed.

If that rejection is based on my sex, however, it will say some very sad
things to me about
Nova Roma, a project in which I have believed and which I have supported
with concrete
efforts for six years. I am pleased to hear that others agree with me on
this point, and look
forward to moving ahead with an organization in which men and women work
together to
better understand and appreciate ancient Roman history.

Patricia Cassia
Senatrix





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

Gaius Modius Athanasius Marco Cassio Juliano salutem dicit

Of course there can be a compromise on this issue. There can always be
compromise, at least for me. I consider myself a reasonable man, and will listen
to all sides of a debate. Politics will get us no place, and pleasing the
Gods and the Pax Deorum is what is most important.

Vale;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 10/2/2004 9:05:25 PM Eastern Standard Time,
cassius622@... writes:

I don't know if there can be compromise on this issue. Either women will
continue to be allowed into the top two levels of the Religio Romana
administration, or they won't. In either outcome we may have people leave
Nova Roma in
disgust - either because we've decided to officially revive gender
inequality
as part of "the best of Rome," or because we've abandoned someone's
treasured
ideals of history. Yet no matter what happens we should seek reasonable and
accurate oratory as much as we can. The gender situation is difficult
enough
without raising the level of emotion on the list.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Pontifex Maximus






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

Gaius Modius Athanasius S.P.D.

I NEVER stated I was anti-woman augur, I believe that woman are just as good
at divination as men; my wife is a very competant diviner for example.

Vale;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 10/2/2004 9:30:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,
rory12001@... writes:

Ave Juliane;
I apologize, my words were out of order for a thoughtful, reasoned
discussion.
One question I have; is when did this policy change? Who decided
in the CP that women should not be permitted to be pontifices,
flamens, and I am sure augurs?
Which of the pontifices are against this?
1. I know you are pro-pontifex, pro-flamen, pro-auger

2. I know Athanasius and Hadrianus are pro-pontifex and anti-flamen,
probably anti-auger.

Who are the rest?, Graecus, Maximus, Drusus and Scaurus

Ave Patricia Cassia; it is cold comfort to you, but Consul Astur was
rejected as a pontifex.
bene valete in pace deorum
M.Arminia Maior Fabiana





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

Gaius Modius Athanasius Marco Cassio Juliano salutem dicit

When we can have a discussion without the sarcasm please let me know, and
then I will engage in dialogue. Some of things you said towards the end of
your e-mail have merit, and if isolated from these comments I quote below
warrent a response. However, if you wish to engage in dialogue with me you will do
so without the sarcasm. I simply do not have time for this sort of
rhetorical device.

I am serious about dialogue and discussion, and do not want to have to sort
through e-mails to determine what is serious and what is sarcasm.

Vale;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 10/2/2004 9:59:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
cassius622@... writes:

Athanasius writes:
What about male vestals?

Cassius respondit:
What about them? Are you volunteering? I would recommend talking this over
in detail with your spouse before making an official application.

Athanasius:
Can we now have male sacerdos to Bona Dea?

Cassius respondit:
Please volunteer for only one position at a time. Anyway, you're already a
Pontifex, Augur, and Flamen Pomonalis. Adding two new titles in tandem would

stretch even your admirable skills.






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

A. Apollonius Cordus Dianae Octáviae Aventínae
omnibusque sal.

> Banning me from NewRoman is against my
> Constitutional rights as a citizen as listed in
> Constitution
> II.B. 4 "The right to participate in all public
> forums and discussions, and the right to reasonably
> expect such forums to be supported by the State.
> Such communications, regardless of their content,
> may not be restricted by the State, except where
> they represent an imminent and clear danger to the
> Republic. Such officially sponsored forums may be
> expected to be reasonably moderated in the
> interests of maintaining order and civility; "
>
> They are claiming now (behind my back) that the New
> Roman list is a private list although it was
> advertised as an open list. See below-- it does not
> say 'only our friends are welcomed, it says that
> 'you are all most welcome'. It is hypocrisy like
> this that makes me sick.

I'm sorry to hear that you're feeling sick - may I
offer some medical advice?

There is a way for citizens who feel they have been
denied their legal rights to challenge that denial.
It's the judicial system, much disparaged by yourself.
Just write to the praetórés with a petitió.

My personal opinion is that the 'New Roman' list isn't
a 'public forum' in the sense of the constitution.
This is, as so often, a problem of imprecise wording.
In a legal sense, 'public' means 'belonging to the
state', not 'open to anyone'. So it's possible for a
list to be open to everyone (or most people) but still
'private', i.e. not owned by the state.

But there is room in the law to argue for the other
view, and where the wording of a law is imprecise, the
best thing to do is test the issue using the judicial
system. That's what it's therefore - to make sure that
people obey the law, and that anyone who doesn't obey
the law can be called to account, and that if we don't
know quite what the law means it can be sorted out.

Of course, some of the moderators and all the owners
are magistrates at the moment, and can't be
prosecuted. But there are three moderators who are
not, and can be prosecuted right now. I'm sure if you
win a case against them then the others will think
again about the matter. You lose nothing by trying.

I'll be happy to give you any legal advice you need,
or you could talk to Caecilius Metellus or Equitius
Cató, or work it all out on your own. But I'm sure
you'll appreciate that when someone comes to the main
list to complain about a violation of her rights but
doesn't back that up with any legal action, people may
well think that she's less interested in justice than
in winning sympathy. And people who think their
sympathy is being sought are not likely to give it.





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Gaius Modius Athanasius Dianae Octaviae salutem dicit

If Marinus and Audens have a problem with you, one that would prevent
approving you to join a Nova Roma list I would encourage some sort of open
dialogue. Barriers can be taken down, and fences can be mended.

If Marinus and Audens read this I would like to encourage them to give a
reason WHY Diana was prohibited from the New Roman list, and what she can DO to
gain admission to the list.

If we don't learn to work together then we have learned nothing.

Valete;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 10/3/2004 4:20:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,
meretrix@... writes:

It is nice to see that at least one person who claims to want to work for
peace in NR with everyone
actually means it. I quite tired of the Boni bashing by people who claim
that the Boni are
constantly doing the bashing. I've also stated more than once that as a very
moderate Boni I would
work with anyone. But sometimes this is impossible when for example I was
banned from the NewRoman
list in a very rude way by G Equitius Marinus and Marcus Minucius Audens
(before I had ever posted
there). The list was advertised as 'you are all most welcome' and as the
place where it is 'a more
polite venue'. There emails to me-- especially Mr Pseudo Politeness himself
Master Audens-- were
extremely rude when all I had done was send in a subscription request with
'Diana Octavia here'
written in the message. I did not deserve the rudeness that I received.





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

G. Equitius Cato D. Octaviae Aventinae quiritibusque S.P.D.

Salve Octavia Aventina et salvete omnes.

Octavia Aventina (Diana, if I may), I would be happy to stand as
advocatus for you if you feel that the law is your only recourse. As
you well know, I am a firm Constitutionalist, and am very interested
in legals issues surrounding our Constitutional rights and privileges.

Vale et valete,

Cato

Ave Diana Octavia;
the women interested in the Religio are a pretty active group, with
an interest in this issue of female pontifices.
Look at the NovaReligio group and Strega_Roma, so I posed it to them:
and that was my answer, the unpleasant ML, not housework. I tend to
take them at their word.
bene valete
M. Arminia Maior Fabiana
Propraetrix Hiberniae
scriba Iuris et
Investigatio CFQ

Spectata Patricia,

the point is not about equality among Male and Female people, which by the way was unconceivable in ancient Rome and still is for everybody trying to be Roman again or at least reenacting.
The point is that you should try to accept that some identity deny something and allow something, some other will allow and deny something else: you should try to accept the existence of differences.

You can't speak of being Roman, and sitting in the Senate!, and in the meantime speaking of doing something utterly NON Roman. Please choose: either you want to be Roman or you want to be something else. I won't speak about the religious issue: from this point you should have not even applied.

I would like to stress that a kind of civilization is coming out where people think they can do anything they like. No, this is not possible in Rome. And the good old common sense could help a bit either.

Are you sure you like ancient Rome? There was no kind of equality in Rome, even putting aside the topic of slaves. There was no kind of "fighting for rights" or other modern way to look for one's whims and forgetting duties. Duties for men, different from duties for women, soldier, senators, old people, boys, sacerdotes and so on.

Don't try, I humbly suggest, to be something different from what you are. Or, to put it like an Italian proverb: "You can't go to Mass and stay at home".


Reverenter

Gallus Solaris Alexander

Bononia

ITALIA



____________________________________________________________
Libero ADSL: navighi gratis a 1.2 Mega, senza canone e costi di attivazione.
Abbonati subito su http://www.libero.it

Salvete Quirites, et salve Gai Modi,

AthanasiosofSpfd@... wrote:
[...]

> If Marinus and Audens read this I would like to encourage them to give a
> reason WHY Diana was prohibited from the New Roman list,

The moderators of the NewRoman list considered Diana's multiple requests
to join, discussed her previous record of participation in various
online groups, and decided that since she is not a new citizen and is
known to be a disruptive person who requires close supervision that she
would not be approved.

> and what she can DO to gain admission to the list.

Conducting herself in a trustworthy manner for a year or so would help.
As it stands, the moderators of NewRoman were to the point of accepting
that if *one* of the moderators had the time to review her posts and
keep a close eye on her, taking responsibility for her list behavior,
then we'd have let her in for a trial period. But none of us had the
time to dedicate to that kind of effort, given Diana's previously
established posting habits.

Regardless of Senator Audens' perhaps too-enthusiastic invitation, the
fact is that NewRoman was established as an unofficial mailing list and
remains such.

Valete Quirites,

-- Marinus

Salvete Quirites, et salve Galle Solari Alexander,

sa-mann@... wrote:

[addressing Senatrix Patricia Cassia]

> You can't speak of being Roman, and sitting in the Senate!

She most certainly can, and you'll do well to remember it. This is Nova
Roma, and it was established with a core belief that both men and women
citizens hold the complete iura publica. Every adult woman in our
Republic may vote and may stand for office. That includes religious office.

The Romans of antiquity would recognize that once women have been
granted the iura publica it's an all-or-nothing matter. The rest of us
need to recognize that too.

Vale,

-- Marinus

G. Equitius Cato G. Solaris Alexander S.P.D.

Salve, Solaris Alexander et salvete, omnes.

Fortunately, Solaris Alexander, Patricia Cassia does *not* have to
choose between being what you understand to be a "Roman" and
something else: our NOVA Roman Constitution has already pledged non-
discrimination within nova Roma's culture and society.

Solaris Alexander, we are NOT ancient Romans. We are Nova Romans.
We are not trying to bring a cardboard cut-out of the ancients to
life, but rather to bring to life the *spirit* which made the little
city on seven hills into the greatest achievement of the Western
world.

Our laws are not necessarily the laws of Roma Antiqua, our society is
not necessarily restricted to that of Roma Antiqua, and our view of
the world is not necessarily restricted to that of the ancients.

We are bound to respect, honor, and uphold our Constitution, which is
the very foundation of what it means to be a Nova Roman. That
Constitution guarantees Patricia Cassia, and any other female
citizen, exactly the same rights and privileges that are afforded our
male citizens. This is fundamental to Nova Roma. As they say in a
proverb in America, "What is good for the goose is good for the
gander".

Vale et valete,

Cato



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "sa-mann\@l...\.it" <sa-mann@l...>
wrote:

> Spectata Patricia,
>
> the point is not about equality among Male and Female people, which

by the way was unconceivable in ancient Rome and still is for
everybody trying to be Roman again or at least reenacting.

> The point is that you should try to accept that some identity deny

something and allow something, some other will allow and deny
something else: you should try to accept the existence of differences.

>
> You can't speak of being Roman, and sitting in the Senate!, and in

the meantime speaking of doing something utterly NON Roman. Please
choose: either you want to be Roman or you want to be something else.
I won't speak about the religious issue: from this point you should
have not even applied.

>
> I would like to stress that a kind of civilization is coming out

where people think they can do anything they like. No, this is not
possible in Rome. And the good old common sense could help a bit
either.

>
> Are you sure you like ancient Rome? There was no kind of equality

in Rome, even putting aside the topic of slaves. There was no kind
of "fighting for rights" or other modern way to look for one's whims
and forgetting duties. Duties for men, different from duties for
women, soldier, senators, old people, boys, sacerdotes and so on.

>
> Don't try, I humbly suggest, to be something different from what

you are. Or, to put it like an Italian proverb: "You can't go to Mass
and stay at home".

>
>
> Reverenter
>
> Gallus Solaris Alexander
>
> Bononia
>
> ITALIA
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Libero ADSL: navighi gratis a 1.2 Mega, senza canone e costi di

attivazione.

> Abbonati subito su http://www.libero.it

"Of course there can be a compromise on this issue. There can always be compromise, at least for me. I consider myself a reasonable man, and will listen to all sides of a debate. Politics will get us no place, and pleasing the Gods and the Pax Deorum is what is most important."

--Would you care to make a suggestion Athanasius as to what would be a compromise? This might get the ball rolling as well.

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]

Okay since everyone has had there turn at asking questions. I will have mine. Since this has been argued from all angles how about this:

Women as pertains to the Religio do have access. However, this boils down to a matter of respect not modernity. Just as another cive pointed out when entering the places of worship of other religions he/she (forgive me I forget who stated it) respects that religions customs by say removing of hat or shoes or whatever. The same pertains to the Religio. What makes the Religio any different? Women did have access to the Religio and positions within. There is no inequality if they had access. So what is the problem. If you try and change the Religio to suit your own purposes because of what you want or for say more personal reasons (i.e. maybe revenge if someone was rejected) then you are not only disrespecting the Religio but those who follow it and the gods of the Religio. So what is the problem when women had access?

Vale, Quintus Cassius Brutus


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

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

"Banning me from NewRoman is against my Constitutional rights as a citizen as listed in Constitution II.B. 4 "The right to participate in all public forums and discussions, and the right to reasonably expect such forums to be supported by the State. Such communications, regardless of their content,may not be restricted by the State, except where they represent an imminent and clear danger to the Republic. Such officially sponsored forums may be expected to be reasonably moderated in the interests of maintaining order and civility; ""

--Is the New Roman an official list of Nova Roma? That's a serious question not a patronizing one. If it isn't I do not see how any Amendment of NR's could have any influence therein. If I am wrong perhaps someone more knowledgable could clarify this.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

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

Salve,

"It seems to me that such a description is too harsh for the situation at hand, and I'd consider it a favor if such phrases as "less than slaves" could be avoided. Such drastic comparisons can only serve to cloud thinking on both sides of the issue - making those who wish a return to ancient gender roles "entrench" even further in self defense, and inflaming all others past a reasonable point."

--Though I may disagree with your opinion the above quote was well said. Perhaps other inflammatory discriptives that dilute the issue should be included.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

I am the moderator of Strega_Roma. I am the one that likened most
discussions on this list to rooster squabble. Not that I don't
appreciate the hard work that most of the folks on this list do, but
it was ridiculous for me to try and keep up with the constant banter
and back-and-forth that takes up much of the room on this list so I
left. I am back only long enough to give my opinion, as lowly and
unimportant as it may be to the high sandal-wearers.

Of course I understand why the heated discussions are taking place.
Of course I have an opinion on most matters, but it seems silly to
bother voicing it. Do I want to get worked up over the rules of an
organization which I must say for the most part, exists only online?
Do I have some masochistic desire to incur the wrath of some mouthy
historian who will bash my opinion into the ground? Good gods no. My
interest is only in the Religio, and that is what I hang around for,
in the hopes that the volumes of information that some of you carry in
your heads may trickle down to me.

Yet I will say this. If a woman can do the job as well as a man, you
should damn well let her do it. We are nothing more than a bunch of
people who love history. We are not living in the time that these
rules were made. Stop taking yourself so damn seriously, that toga you
are wearing was made on a modern loom.

Violentilla Galeria [Titinia] Saltatrix

Check the attachment for more information!.



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

Ave Brute;
1. excuse me are you Boni? I ask as I distinctly remember the 'tip'
the hat' remark by Drusus last year at the Religio Group. If Drusus
wishes to come here and have a civil discussion I am more than happy
to discuss sources.

2. What does 'access' mean?

3. Please read the historical and scholarly post below. Do you have
any sources to diprove them?

Religious positions were part of political power, see Livy's
discussion of the repeal of the Oppian Law, to permit women to wear
gold, purple cloth:

"what then think you must be the feelings of little women who
are affected by small things.
"Magistracies, priestly functions, triumphs, military
decorations and rewards, spoils of war - none of these fall to their
lot." Livy, 34,7

Also Hortensia in arguing that women should not pay a special tax at
the time of the triumvirs says:
"Why should we pay taxes when we have no part in the honours,
the commands, the statecraft, for you which you contend against each
other with such harmful results." Appian, Civil Wars4.32-4

Also see Cicero, Republic 1.43.6

Again I quote from Beards "Roman Religion"

"It would have made no sense in Roman terms to have claimed rights
to political power without claiming rights to religious authority and
expertise." p135

Let all true Republicans, let all women, all
Populares, claim their political power and rights to become flamens,
pontifices and augurs!

M. Arminia Maior Fabiana
pro plebibus et respublica
--- End forwarded message ---

Marinus-

> The moderators of the NewRoman list considered Diana's multiple requests
> to join, discussed her previous record of participation in various
> online groups, and decided that since she is not a new citizen and is
> known to be a disruptive person who requires close supervision that she
> would not be approved.

Do please list the names 'various online groups' where I've been put on moderation or where any
moderator even sent me a warning??? I'll make it easy for you.... The Religio list? No. The various
female lists that have come and gone? No. The back Alley? No? Caeso list for his election for
consul? No. The three different Cohors Aediles list that I've been on? No, no, and no. The New
relgio list? No. The NR Peace List? No. The Senate list? No. The Tribunes List? No. The Plebiean
list? also no.... So get your facts straight sir because I am tired of your slander.

I can list the one list where the moderator had a problem with me: This one, which you should not
even have been moderating in the first place but where you wore your mutltiple hats as Senior and
Junior Consul and both Praetores. Maybe it is that you have a problem with me since no other
moderator ever has or has had a problem with me within Nova Roma or without it. Maybe you should
start rethinking your year in office and asking yourself why so many magistrates either officially
quit or just disappeared year leaving you -- by default---with unilateral charge of this Forum to
rule with an iron fist as you saw fit.

- Diana

Salvete G. Solarius Alexander, et Salvete Omnes:

First of all, I thank those, in and out of the CP, who are trying to
brainstorm some solutions to what appears to be a chance in the
policy of the CP, on the part of some of its members. For what its
worth, I appreciate your efforts.

Now, to the comments of Solaris Alexander:


With respect, *was* the lack of equality of genders in Ancient Rome
exclusive of Ancient Roman culture *or* was it not just a part of
the prevailing trait on women in just about every part of the
Ancient World?

I think we err when we try to include their attitude of women as
exclusive to the ancient 'mos maiorum'. Can we establish this ?
Women didn't have many high administrative positions *anywhere*,
generally speaking, unless you were lucky enough to be a queen
somewhere. or were a Vestal Virgin. They were never generals,
legate, Praefectii, Signafers, Skirmishers either...not in Rome,
not *anywhere* as a norm. So, it is questionable whether
discrimination of women was part of the Mos Maiorum, and moreover,
it is unconstitutional here in Nova Roma, which is in the 21
Century, said constitution being the word of Senate and Comitia, and
is subject to the laws and customs of today, which discourage or
forbid such discrimination.

*Unless* there is a provable Religious restriction handed down which
requires a certain sex to become one of the Flamens (and not all
Flamens were the same as I understand/read) we are actually being
subjectively unconstitutional not to consider women candidates. And
what possible motivation is there, other than maintaining
inapplicable and erroneous attitudes of the the past.

Can it be proven that there were no women *Pontifices* in Antiquita
because for some historic reason they *had* to be men, from a
religious standpoint? If not, we are employing baseless and
unconstitutional discrimination. Why would some do that? Well,
those who are assuming this mindset can tell me, but I am not
completely convinced that all actions here are based on sound
historical/religious reasons.

Valete
P. Minucia Tiberia





--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "sa-mann\@l...\.it" <sa-mann@l...>
wrote:

> Spectata Patricia,
>
> the point is not about equality among Male and Female people,

which by the way was unconceivable in ancient Rome and still is for
everybody trying to be Roman again or at least reenacting.

> The point is that you should try to accept that some identity deny

something and allow something, some other will allow and deny
something else: you should try to accept the existence of
differences.

>
> You can't speak of being Roman, and sitting in the Senate!, and in

the meantime speaking of doing something utterly NON Roman. Please
choose: either you want to be Roman or you want to be something
else. I won't speak about the religious issue: from this point you
should have not even applied.

>
> I would like to stress that a kind of civilization is coming out

where people think they can do anything they like. No, this is not
possible in Rome. And the good old common sense could help a bit
either.

>
> Are you sure you like ancient Rome? There was no kind of equality

in Rome, even putting aside the topic of slaves. There was no kind
of "fighting for rights" or other modern way to look for one's whims
and forgetting duties. Duties for men, different from duties for
women, soldier, senators, old people, boys, sacerdotes and so on.

>
> Don't try, I humbly suggest, to be something different from what

you are. Or, to put it like an Italian proverb: "You can't go to
Mass and stay at home".

>
>
> Reverenter
>
> Gallus Solaris Alexander
>
> Bononia
>
> ITALIA
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Libero ADSL: navighi gratis a 1.2 Mega, senza canone e costi di

attivazione.

> Abbonati subito su http://www.libero.it

Diana Octavia Aventina wrote:

> I've been around NR since April 1999 and it has
> always been male dominated. I think the reason for
> this is less a Religio thing and more a matter of
> practicality. The lady of the house usually works
> full time and then has to take care of the kids,
> clean, cook, wash, iron, etc. Most men do help out
> around the house but none of them do 50% of the
> housework.

This is just not true.

Well, it may be true that over any given period the
split will never be *precisely* 50-50, because life
just isn't that neat and mathematical, but I take it
that you meant "50% or more", because if you meant
precisely 50% there wouldn't have been very much point
in saying it ;)

I'd like to say for the record that Cordus and I split
everything down the middle, barring illness or other
indisposition - if I do a particular task one day, you
can guarantee that the next time it needs doing, he
will do it. He probably in fact does more than half
on average, because I spend a couple of days a week at
university.

Livia





___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Salve Maior,

"1. excuse me are you Boni? I ask as I distinctly remember the 'tip' the hat' remark by Drusus last year at the Religio Group. If Drusus wishes to come here and have a civil discussion I am more than happy to discuss sources."

--Perhaps you could clarify this. If you had to choose a side I would say I fall more in line with the Boni. However, I state what I believe and feel not what any single group feels or what others may feel. I speak for myself and myself alone. If you wish to consider me Boni go ahead. I will not argue against any such classification based on belief. Such a categorization does not change my beliefs in the least. However, I do not follow the rest of statement 1 and that's what I wish to have clarified.

"2. What does 'access' mean?"

--This is a fair enough question. I had made a post a while back prior to my charges being brought to me by Nova Roma officials. In that post I stated what roles were available to women in the Religio. I will say on a side note without pointing fingers at anyone, that if for one minute there is a single female practitioner within Nova Roma who simply wants to push this issue either so they can be #1 or to prove a point then you neither deserve the position nor are worthy of it. With that said though, access is the ability to obtain positions within Nova Roma. Do women have that ability to hold religious positions? Yes they do. If the collegium had a firm hand and pushed through a more traditional Religio would it close off the Religio to women? No it would not.

"Please read the historical and scholarly post below. Do you have any sources to diprove them?"

--At this time I do not have access to Beard's work and therefore cannot comment. I see others have questioned her work here. So I will not comment on any piece by her. I therefore can only take it as one source which I will consider accurately portrayed here unless I discover otherwise. Since Beard's citation is a quick blip is it portrayed in the proper context? Or is there more to that statement that is also left out that could be pertinent to the context of it?

As it pertains to the other charming quotes well no one was asking for: ""Magistracies, priestly functions, triumphs, military
decorations and rewards, spoils of war - none of these fall to their lot."" to be the official or unofficial stated policy of Nova Roma. This boils down to a simple matter. What would be the reality of a return to a traditional Religio? Would it really cut out women? No it would not. I already, as I stated above, made clear what options were available to them. But Cassius Julianus stated it best (in my own words) that using classifications such as "slavery", "second class", discrimination", "subjugation", etc do nothing to further this discussion. They also dilute and cast one argument in a bad light with the consequence of misportraying that argument. That is politics and I am sure any well educated man or woman here could play nasty politics if they so chose. Would options still be available to women in the Religio? Yes and no one can argue otherwise. Personally I feel this is nothing more than a power grab trying to get higher positions of respect and authority. That
has no purpose in the Religio if that is the case. I may very well be wrong but sometimes that sure seems to be the case. That or underlying motives such as personal reasons. However, none of the Boni side would place women in any second class nature. If that were the case can you imagine how fast Nova Roma could just go to hell. Plus legal considerations need to be taken into consideration. Are there or would there be any laws violated? None whatsoever. But what gets me the most is a willingness to open up several positions to women but when the Vestal Virgins are brought up it meets a no. So much for that precious equality cited. I guess its a 2 way street when it serves certain beliefs but is 1 way when it might not serve that sides interest.

Quintus Brutus


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!

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

Ave;
lots of words but this seems to be the gist;

1. You are Boni but you won't comment if you got your argument from
Drusus.

2. You mention my ambitions. Here they are for all to see: I wish to
see Patricia Cassia and Consul Astur be pontifices they deserve it. I
wish to see another noble and deserving friend receive a post.

3. My sources are always cited with page numbers so you can read for
yourself and see they are in context. I suggest you visit the library.

4. You ignore my discussion and quotes that equates priestly
positions with political ones. Another Boni trait.

BRUTUS:What would be the reality of a return to a traditional
Religio?

5. Well a return to the traditional religio would mean that the
Collegium Pontificium would reform itself to be an historical
Republican institution. That means the Lex Ogulnia (cives elect the
PM) and the Lex Domitia (a special section of the cives elect the
priestly colleges)

Brutus:
Personally I feel this is nothing more than a power grab trying to
get higher positions of respect and authority. That

> has no purpose in the Religio if that is the case.

6. If you want to return to the traditional Religio then I suggest
you read Livy, these posts were highly political and prized and
carried tremendous authority. You seem entirely ignorant of the
facts.


Finally if we wish to discuss 'tradition':
where did the Collegium Pontifium get the power to overturn
the 'mos' of Nova Roma which had female pontifices and flamens?

Quirites, I put it to you: How can the Collegium Pontificium go
against the mos of the people?

bene valete in pace deorum
M. Arminia Maior Fabiana
Propraetrix Hiberniae
scriba Iuris et
Investigatio CFQ

O.S.D. G. Equitius Cato.

Salvete omnes.

Cassius Brutus, whether or not Cassius Julianus prefers not to use
such words, there is no escaping the fact that at least one of them
applies:


dis·crim·i·na·tion (n.)
[SNIP]
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than
individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination;
gender discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.


If women are not allowed to be pontifices simply because they are
women, then that is a classic example of a case of discrimination,
as defined above. I applaud the idea of trying to discuss this
situation rationally and without rancor. It is not, however, the
act of an individual truly interested in the welfare of all our
citizens to try to pretend that this idea is not something that it
in fact is.

Let's cut to the chase and put aside all the blather, shall we?


Pontiffs hold a peculiar and decidedly unhistorical level of power
and influence in Nova Roma, unlike that of a priesthood of either
gender.

If a citizen of Nova Roma is denied the position of pontiff, they
are not able to access that level of power or influence.

If that citizen is denied the position of pontiff *because* they are
a woman, and not because of any lack of "merit", they are being
discriminated against based on their gender.

It is that simple.

The question before the College of Pontiffs is: do they wish to
enshrine gender discrimination within the Religio Publica, or do
they wish to obey the dictates of our Constitution and the
historical mos maiorum of Nova Roma? --- since women have already
held pontifical positions, that is now a part of *our* unique mos
maiorum.

Scaurus' historical research is all well and good, but the fact of
the matter is that discrimination based on gender is simply wrong no
matter how many ancient writings or heiroglyphs or stelae might
support its practice. No matter what excuses are used, no matter
what authorities are tossed into the verbal mix, no matter what
level of education a particular person who favors it might or might
not have, gender discrimination is wrong. W-R-O-N-G.

Either we discriminate, or we do not. This, too, is that simple.

I trust the intelligence and probity of the citizens not to allow
such a blemish on our res publica.

Valete,

Cato

T. Aurelius Ursus Omnibus SPD;

Salvete, Fratres Sororesque!

I agree with Cato; either we discriminate or we do not. Personally,
if a female applicant is more able than a male applicant to serve the
Gods of Nova Roma, I don't see why she shouldn't be given the job.
After all, isn't the goal to serve the Gods with correct rites and
rituals? Thus, you want the best and most devoted Pontifices. If it
happens to be a woman, so be it... as long everything is observed
correctly, I don't care (and doubt the Gods do) which gender is
selected. Since there is already a precedent in Nova Roma for female
priests (from what I read here), I don't see why this is even an
issue.

Also, on a more practical note, can't women sue Nova Roma (since it
is a legal entity in the real world) if they are barred from
obtaining posts within the organization based solely on gender?

Gratias multas for your time, and letting me weigh in on this.

Valete bene optime, pro Novae Romae.

T. Aurelius Ursus

Gaius Modius Athanasius Violentillae Galeriae salutem dicit

I for one do not consider your opinion lowly and unimportant. I welcome
your input, and even though I hold views that are not the same as everyones I
still respect their right to have an opinion different than mine. My opinions
are also not necessarily set in stone either.

Vale;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 10/3/2004 4:37:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jademermaid@... writes:

I am the moderator of Strega_Roma. I am the one that likened most
discussions on this list to rooster squabble. Not that I don't
appreciate the hard work that most of the folks on this list do, but
it was ridiculous for me to try and keep up with the constant banter
and back-and-forth that takes up much of the room on this list so I
left. I am back only long enough to give my opinion, as lowly and
unimportant as it may be to the high sandal-wearers.





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

Gaius Modius Athanasius S.P.D.

Someone PLEASE education me.

What is the "tremendous authority" of being a Flamen in Nova Roma? I
consider it an honor to be the Flamen Pomonalis, and make regular public
offerings/rituals to her, but I wonder when I will receive the tremendous authority
invested in the Flaminate.

Am I missing something? As a Flamen non-Pontifex I could voice an opinion
within the Collegium, but it didn't hold any weight. Maybe a "modest voice"
but NOT "tremendous authority!"

Again, am I missing something?

Valete;

Gaius Modius Athanasius
Flamen "with tremendous authority" Pomonalis

In a message dated 10/3/2004 8:57:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,
rory12001@... writes:

6. If you want to return to the traditional Religio then I suggest
you read Livy, these posts were highly political and prized and
carried tremendous authority. You seem entirely ignorant of the
facts.





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

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

>
> Also, on a more practical note, can't women sue Nova Roma (since

it

> is a legal entity in the real world) if they are barred from
> obtaining posts within the organization based solely on gender?
>
> Gratias multas for your time, and letting me weigh in on this.
>
> Valete bene optime, pro Novae Romae.
>
> T. Aurelius Ursus

Salve,

The short answer they could petition a court and attempt to sue Nova
Roma. Here in America you can sue your barber if he didn't cut your
hair the way you wanted.

However there is the legal precident that religious organizations
can decide for themselves the qualifications of ordination of their
various ministers and one of those protected qualifications is
gender. Otherwise every Catholic Dioceses, Eastern Orthodox
Eparchy, and Orthodox Jewish Synagoge in the United States would be
in court being sued for gender discrimination as they will not
ordain women.

Vale,

Q. Cassius Calvus

Cato:

You are an Orthodox Christian, as you have stated many times. I have
wondered several times why you are so obsessed about the discipline within the
priesthoods of Nova Roma. If you are going to advocate so aggressively for woman
priests (ie., pontifices) within Nova Roma will you also do this within
Orthodox Christianity?

Seriously. It seems obvious to me that you are taking this position simply
to attack the conservative position, and more specifically the Boni position.

I have stated that I support woman pontifices, and that I like Patricia
Cassia and support her as a pontifex. However, your attack on the position of
some of the pontifices only hardens their position.

I do see hypocracy in Nova Roma. Unfortunatly, it is by an Orthodox
Christian who advocates for woman priests in Nova Roma but ignores the fact that
woman are barred from the Orthodox priesthood.

Vale;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 10/3/2004 9:05:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mlcinnyc@... writes:

Scaurus' historical research is all well and good, but the fact of
the matter is that discrimination based on gender is simply wrong no
matter how many ancient writings or heiroglyphs or stelae might
support its practice. No matter what excuses are used, no matter
what authorities are tossed into the verbal mix, no matter what
level of education a particular person who favors it might or might
not have, gender discrimination is wrong. W-R-O-N-G.





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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "sa-mann\@l...\.it" <sa-mann@l...> wrote:

> either you want to be Roman or you want to be something else.

I do not wish to be Roman. I believe that is impossible for people in the modern era, with
the vastly different cultures and technologies available to us. I cannot think like a Roman
woman, because I was not raised in that culture, no matter how much research and re-
enactment I do.

I wish to worship the Roman gods and to offer my energy and talents toward helping
others to do so. If I cannot do so in Nova Roma, I will do so elsewhere, as I already do in
my home and in my local community.

If Nova Roma is to thrive as an organization, I believe it is vital that women be encouraged
and supported in participating according to their contributions and merits. I have no
interest in belonging to a group where my only acceptable activities are cooking and
sewing, as I have seen happen to women in the historical re-enacting community.

Patricia Cassia

Gaius Modius Athanasius Quinto Cassio Bruto salutem dicit

In order for true dialogue to happen both sides of the dialogue need to
acknowlege that they make mistakes and recognize their past faults and errors.
Both sides of the dialogue need to list those things that are important, and
these topics need to be discussed without sarcasm. Much of the discussion
should be done on the phone or in person. E-mail if very limiting.

Personally, I will make the time to talk with citizens, magistrates,
priests, and senators if it means that Nova Roma will be better off. I know I have
made mistakes in the past, and I know I will make mistakes in the future; I
am not perfect.

Vale;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 10/3/2004 3:17:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,
quintus_cassius@... writes:

--Would you care to make a suggestion Athanasius as to what would be a
compromise? This might get the ball rolling as well.

Vale, Quintus Cassius Brutus





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

> The short answer they could petition a court and attempt to sue Nova
> Roma. Here in America you can sue your barber if he didn't cut your
> hair the way you wanted.
>
> However there is the legal precident that religious organizations
> can decide for themselves the qualifications of ordination of their
> various ministers and one of those protected qualifications is
> gender. Otherwise every Catholic Dioceses, Eastern Orthodox
> Eparchy, and Orthodox Jewish Synagoge in the United States would be
> in court being sued for gender discrimination as they will not
> ordain women.

Calvus is correct. Also, on a practical note, the potential rewards of suing Nova Roma are
limited by the fact that the organization's assets amount to about a week's worth of legal
fees. If we somehow were in a position to receive money from the US government -- let's
say we got a Department of Education grant to encourage Latin language in public schools
-- we would have to commit to non-discrimination in our non-religious positions, but
even then we would be allowed to choose our own priests.

Patricia Cassia

Gaius Modius Athanasius Gn. Equitio Marino salutem dicit

I understand your desire to keep the list peaceful. I also understand, and
respect the time of the moderators of the list.

I would be willing to act as a moderator of the list with the sole purpose
of monitoring the posts by Diana, working under the strict guidlines you and
the other moderators set. This will allow the list to maintain its polite
demeanor, and will allow Diana an opportunity to interact with new Citizens.
If this is something you wish to persue then e-mail me privatly.

Vale;

Gaius Modius Athanasius

In a message dated 10/3/2004 1:46:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,
gawne@... writes:

Conducting herself in a trustworthy manner for a year or so would help.
As it stands, the moderators of NewRoman were to the point of accepting
that if *one* of the moderators had the time to review her posts and
keep a close eye on her, taking responsibility for her list behavior,
then we'd have let her in for a trial period. But none of us had the
time to dedicate to that kind of effort, given Diana's previously
established posting habits.

Regardless of Senator Audens' perhaps too-enthusiastic invitation, the
fact is that NewRoman was established as an unofficial mailing list and
remains such.

Valete Quirites,

-- Marinus





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

G. Equitius Cato G. Modio Athanasio S.P.D.

Salve, Modius Athanasius.

Modius Athanasius, this is comparing apples and oranges. If Nova
Roma were an incorporated church with by-laws that stated that only
men could have religious authority, then you would have a foundation
for such a line of reasoning. As it is, you do not; it is simply
not logical.

Nova Roma is not a church.

Nova Roma has a Constitution which guarantees gender equality.

Nova Roma has a mos maiorum of its own, in which women have held
pontificates.

Nova Roma has a choice between discriminating or not discriminating.

If any pontiff "hardens their position" in support of discrimination
simply out of dislike for me, discrimination is still wrong. I do
not care if they do not like me. I care that they are willing to
promote and attempt to defend a serious social wrong within our res
publica.

Vale,

Cato

Post Scriptum - I'll be interested to see who next brings up the
question of my private religious beliefs, which have absolutely no
place in this discussion; frankly, I'm surprised that you did so,
Modius Athanasius. This is a tactic I would have thought beneath
you.

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, AthanasiosofSpfd@a... wrote:
>
> Cato:
>
> You are an Orthodox Christian, as you have stated many times. I
have
> wondered several times why you are so obsessed about the
discipline within the
> priesthoods of Nova Roma. If you are going to advocate so
aggressively for woman
> priests (ie., pontifices) within Nova Roma will you also do this
within
> Orthodox Christianity?
>
> Seriously. It seems obvious to me that you are taking this
position simply
> to attack the conservative position, and more specifically the
Boni position.
>
> I have stated that I support woman pontifices, and that I like
Patricia
> Cassia and support her as a pontifex. However, your attack on the
position of
> some of the pontifices only hardens their position.
>
> I do see hypocracy in Nova Roma. Unfortunatly, it is by an
Orthodox
> Christian who advocates for woman priests in Nova Roma but ignores
the fact that
> woman are barred from the Orthodox priesthood.
>
> Vale;
>
> Gaius Modius Athanasius
>
> In a message dated 10/3/2004 9:05:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> mlcinnyc@y... writes:
>
> Scaurus' historical research is all well and good, but the fact
of
> the matter is that discrimination based on gender is simply wrong
no
> matter how many ancient writings or heiroglyphs or stelae might
> support its practice. No matter what excuses are used, no matter
> what authorities are tossed into the verbal mix, no matter what
> level of education a particular person who favors it might or
might
> not have, gender discrimination is wrong. W-R-O-N-G.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Cato:

Beneath me?

Nova Roma IS a religious tradition, and the Religio Romana is a spiritual
tradition to those Pagans who are in Nova Roma.

It is NOT simply a political toy to be played with.

If the Religio Romana IS NOT a spiritual tradition equal to any other
religion then someone let me know now.

So according to your logic Orthodox Christianity and the Religio Romana are
NOT equal religions? One is subject to the social mores of our time, and the
other is exempt. I bring this up because you have brought up your Orthodox
Christianity before. I don't see how you can be so opposed to gender issues
in Nova Roma, but ignore them elsewere.

I see an agenda, if I am wrong then I apologize. What truly motivates you?
The Pax Deorum is MY concern.

Vale;

Gaius Modius Athanasius



In a message dated 10/3/2004 10:32:13 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mlcinnyc@... writes:

G. Equitius Cato G. Modio Athanasio S.P.D.

Salve, Modius Athanasius.

Modius Athanasius, this is comparing apples and oranges. If Nova
Roma were an incorporated church with by-laws that stated that only
men could have religious authority, then you would have a foundation
for such a line of reasoning. As it is, you do not; it is simply
not logical.

Nova Roma is not a church.

Nova Roma has a Constitution which guarantees gender equality.

Nova Roma has a mos maiorum of its own, in which women have held
pontificates.

Nova Roma has a choice between discriminating or not discriminating.

If any pontiff "hardens their position" in support of discrimination
simply out of dislike for me, discrimination is still wrong. I do
not care if they do not like me. I care that they are willing to
promote and attempt to defend a serious social wrong within our res
publica.

Vale,

Cato

Post Scriptum - I'll be interested to see who next brings up the
question of my private religious beliefs, which have absolutely no
place in this discussion; frankly, I'm surprised that you did so,
Modius Athanasius. This is a tactic I would have thought beneath
you.

Cato





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