Let me speak simple and clear, with compassion, when it is all said and done there is only one true God= JESUS>



-----Original Message-----
From: marcushoratius <MHoratius@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, Jul 19, 2010 2:30 pm
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Caro Nero: Nova Roma is Divine

  M. Moravius Ti. Marcio s. p. d.

So you say that Egyptian/Greek paganism, Judaism, Buddism, Hindu, Islam, etc. are not true religions. And exactly what makes a religious tradition a true religion?

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robin Marquardt <remarq777@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Nero- Cultor,
> Sorry for the offense.
>
> Beyond a matter of faith, I'll do my best to explain: Let's say that
> Christianity is the true religion, as opposed to Egyptian/Greek paganism,
> Judaism, Buddism, Hindu, Islam, etc.
>
>
> Then, if Christianity is the true religion, Jesus Christ Himself could have
> picked any nation on earth to foster His works.
>
> That being said, Apollo (God the father) chose Rome!
> Can I get an amen?!
>
> That is my best explanation. To the masters and doctors that share exacting
> Roman history from true Roman perspective, I humbly concede.
> Ti. Marci Quadra
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roma is Divine
>
>
> Salve,
> I am a Cultor, telling me through the added prayers at the end that I am a
> sinner and need to confess is offensive.
> How is the holy see proof of the republican divinity? To me it is not in any way
>
> and I would love an explanation.
> Di Te Incolumem Custodiant
> Nero
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robin Marquardt <remarq777@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 1:35:15 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roma is Divine
>
> Salve Nero,
> The Holy See is living proof that our ancient Roman Republic is divine [1].
>
> A tragic consequence of human nature is that people en mass cannot accept the
> heirs of leaders of the great nation or religion (Emperor Caesar, Jesus Christ)
> to inherit the throne. Thus, with the great wisdom of our forefathers,
> procreation is eliminated for these leaders (abstinent Roman Catholic Christian
> priests).
>
> Regarding Rome's great ancient Emperors (they're all great regardless of their
> sins because they perpetuated the dream that is Rome forever), for example Arcus
>
>
> Marcius, and Caligula; if you go to a Roman Catholic Mass, the priest and all
> the people confess being sinners and ask for forgiveness [2].
>
> In this context, I intercede daily for the fallen Emperor, Caligula, that his
> sins may be forgiven. Incidentally by chance, on Caligula's birthday (8/31/06
> Thursday) I quit all my vices of 23 â€" 29 years (drugs, alcohol, and pornography)
>
>
> cold turkey, with a vow to Apollo to keep these vices out of the rest of my
> life.
>
> Thus, I include Caligula in my prayers saying before every meal: Saint Paul pray
>
>
> for us; Blessed Diego pray for us; Chief Matapang pray for us; King Kamehameha
> pray for us; Caesar pray for us; and I celebrate Caligula's birthday every year
> on August 31.
>
> In other words, we can pray for each other, time irrelevant; Nova Roma is
> divine.
>
> Bona fide,
> Tiberius Marcius Quadra
>
> 1.The Bible, being for everyone obedient: But you are a chosen people, a royal
> priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the
> praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 1 Peter
> 2:9
> http://carefulfornothing.com/2010/07/13/prayer-seventh-in-a-series/
>
> 2. I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have
> sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have
> done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all
> the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the
> Lord our God.
> http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/english/p00186.htm
>
> ________________________________
> From: Nero <rikudemyx@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 2:42:06 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] The divinity of the republic and emperors?
>
> Salvete,
> I am curious, I often hear that the republic of our forefathers was divine, the
> the Roman Republic was sacred, how was this so? It is obvious that our republic
> has fallen into the category of less then divine, but if something our fathers
> did for the republic of Rome made it sacrosanct then perhaps the fighting would
> stop?
>
> Also, I am curious as to who among us follows the belief of the divinity of the
> emperors? For those that do, do you consider them all divine or only the ones
> that were recognized as so by the ancients?
>
> Simple questions to hopefully a better road for us Romans,
>
> DVIC
> Nero
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>







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

Gaius Tullius Valerianus Germanicus omnibus in foro S.P.D.

A gentle reminder of the words of the Constitution of Nova Roma:

"The *Religio Romana*, the worship of the Gods and Goddesses of Rome, shall
be the official religion of Nova Roma. All magistrates and Senators, as
officers of the State, shall be required to publicly show respect for the
Religio Romana and the Gods and Goddesses that made Rome great. Magistrates,
Senators, and citizens need not be practitioners of the *Religio Romana*,
but may not engage in any activity that intentionally blasphemes or defames
the Gods, the *Religio Romana*, or its practitioners."

Fellow citizens, there has been a great deal of religious strife manifest in
our Forum and our Republic recently. Let us try to remember the spirit of
tolerance in which our *patres patriae *established Nova Roma, and at the
same time avoid breaking our laws by defaming the *Religio Romana.* We are
all welcome to our own *cultus privatus, *that was foundational to Nova
Roma's existence. But having ones own *cultus privatus *does not mean
defaming the *cultus deorum. *
*
*
*Valete!
*

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 8:04 PM, <geranioj@...> wrote:

>
>
> Let me speak simple and clear, with compassion, when it is all said and
> done there is only one true God= JESUS>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: marcushoratius <MHoratius@... <MHoratius%40hotmail.com>
> >
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Mon, Jul 19, 2010 2:30 pm
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Caro Nero: Nova Roma is Divine
>
> M. Moravius Ti. Marcio s. p. d.
>
> So you say that Egyptian/Greek paganism, Judaism, Buddism, Hindu, Islam,
> etc. are not true religions. And exactly what makes a religious tradition a
> true religion?
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Robin
> Marquardt <remarq777@...> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Nero- Cultor,
> > Sorry for the offense.
> >
> > Beyond a matter of faith, I'll do my best to explain: Let's say that
> > Christianity is the true religion, as opposed to Egyptian/Greek
> paganism,
> > Judaism, Buddism, Hindu, Islam, etc.
> >
> >
> > Then, if Christianity is the true religion, Jesus Christ Himself could
> have
> > picked any nation on earth to foster His works.
> >
> > That being said, Apollo (God the father) chose Rome!
> > Can I get an amen?!
> >
> > That is my best explanation. To the masters and doctors that share
> exacting
> > Roman history from true Roman perspective, I humbly concede.
> > Ti. Marci Quadra
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:06 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roma is Divine
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> > I am a Cultor, telling me through the added prayers at the end that I
> am a
> > sinner and need to confess is offensive.
> > How is the holy see proof of the republican divinity? To me it is not
> in any way
> >
> > and I would love an explanation.
> > Di Te Incolumem Custodiant
> > Nero
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Robin Marquardt <remarq777@...>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 1:35:15 AM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roma is Divine
> >
> > Salve Nero,
> > The Holy See is living proof that our ancient Roman Republic is divine
> [1].
> >
> > A tragic consequence of human nature is that people en mass cannot
> accept the
> > heirs of leaders of the great nation or religion (Emperor Caesar,
> Jesus Christ)
> > to inherit the throne. Thus, with the great wisdom of our forefathers,
>
> > procreation is eliminated for these leaders (abstinent Roman Catholic
> Christian
> > priests).
> >
> > Regarding Rome's great ancient Emperors (they're all great regardless
> of their
> > sins because they perpetuated the dream that is Rome forever), for
> example Arcus
> >
> >
> > Marcius, and Caligula; if you go to a Roman Catholic Mass, the priest
> and all
> > the people confess being sinners and ask for forgiveness [2].
> >
> > In this context, I intercede daily for the fallen Emperor, Caligula,
> that his
> > sins may be forgiven. Incidentally by chance, on Caligula's birthday
> (8/31/06
> > Thursday) I quit all my vices of 23 ��" 29 years (drugs, alcohol, and
> pornography)
> >
> >
> > cold turkey, with a vow to Apollo to keep these vices out of the rest
> of my
> > life.
> >
> > Thus, I include Caligula in my prayers saying before every meal: Saint
> Paul pray
> >
> >
> > for us; Blessed Diego pray for us; Chief Matapang pray for us; King
> Kamehameha
> > pray for us; Caesar pray for us; and I celebrate Caligula's birthday
> every year
> > on August 31.
> >
> > In other words, we can pray for each other, time irrelevant; Nova Roma
> is
> > divine.
> >
> > Bona fide,
> > Tiberius Marcius Quadra
> >
> > 1.The Bible, being for everyone obedient: But you are a chosen people,
> a royal
> > priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may
> declare the
> > praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful
> light. 1 Peter
> > 2:9
> > http://carefulfornothing.com/2010/07/13/prayer-seventh-in-a-series/
> >
> > 2. I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters,
> that I have
> > sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I
> have
> > done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever
> virgin, all
> > the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for
> me to the
> > Lord our God.
> > http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/english/p00186.htm
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Nero <rikudemyx@...>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 2:42:06 PM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] The divinity of the republic and emperors?
> >
> > Salvete,
> > I am curious, I often hear that the republic of our forefathers was
> divine, the
> > the Roman Republic was sacred, how was this so? It is obvious that our
> republic
> > has fallen into the category of less then divine, but if something our
> fathers
> > did for the republic of Rome made it sacrosanct then perhaps the
> fighting would
> > stop?
> >
> > Also, I am curious as to who among us follows the belief of the
> divinity of the
> > emperors? For those that do, do you consider them all divine or only
> the ones
> > that were recognized as so by the ancients?
> >
> > Simple questions to hopefully a better road for us Romans,
> >
> > DVIC
> > Nero
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

Salve,

How do I join Xenia Project? I just write my name in participants page?

Provincia Brasilia has a large territory, so I´d like to receive citizens for oficial meetings, if they want.

Vale,

you mean Atthis he died and rose and is the intessesor all over Europe ; recent finds of epigraphy dating from 50 C.E. in Spain and Germany are the proor. Attis' ressurection is celebrated every year during the Megalesia, later called Easter.
vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, geranioj@... wrote:
>
> Let me speak simple and clear, with compassion, when it is all said and done there is only one true God= JESUS>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: marcushoratius MHoratius@...
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, Jul 19, 2010 2:30 pm
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Caro Nero: Nova Roma is Divine
>
>   M. Moravius Ti. Marcio s. p. d.
>
> So you say that Egyptian/Greek paganism, Judaism, Buddism, Hindu, Islam, etc. are not true religions. And exactly what makes a religious tradition a true religion?
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robin Marquardt remarq777@ wrote:
> >
> > Salve Nero- Cultor,
> > Sorry for the offense.
> >
> > Beyond a matter of faith, I'll do my best to explain: Let's say that
> > Christianity is the true religion, as opposed to Egyptian/Greek paganism,
> > Judaism, Buddism, Hindu, Islam, etc.
> >
> >
> > Then, if Christianity is the true religion, Jesus Christ Himself could have
> > picked any nation on earth to foster His works.
> >
> > That being said, Apollo (God the father) chose Rome!
> > Can I get an amen?!
> >
> > That is my best explanation. To the masters and doctors that share exacting
> > Roman history from true Roman perspective, I humbly concede.
> > Ti. Marci Quadra
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Riku Demyx rikudemyx@
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:06 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roma is Divine
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> > I am a Cultor, telling me through the added prayers at the end that I am a
> > sinner and need to confess is offensive.
> > How is the holy see proof of the republican divinity? To me it is not in any way
> >
> > and I would love an explanation.
> > Di Te Incolumem Custodiant
> > Nero
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Robin Marquardt remarq777@
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 1:35:15 AM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roma is Divine
> >
> > Salve Nero,
> > The Holy See is living proof that our ancient Roman Republic is divine [1].
> >
> > A tragic consequence of human nature is that people en mass cannot accept the
> > heirs of leaders of the great nation or religion (Emperor Caesar, Jesus Christ)
> > to inherit the throne. Thus, with the great wisdom of our forefathers,
> > procreation is eliminated for these leaders (abstinent Roman Catholic Christian
> > priests).
> >
> > Regarding Rome's great ancient Emperors (they're all great regardless of their
> > sins because they perpetuated the dream that is Rome forever), for example Arcus
> >
> >
> > Marcius, and Caligula; if you go to a Roman Catholic Mass, the priest and all
> > the people confess being sinners and ask for forgiveness [2].
> >
> > In this context, I intercede daily for the fallen Emperor, Caligula, that his
> > sins may be forgiven. Incidentally by chance, on Caligula's birthday (8/31/06
> > Thursday) I quit all my vices of 23 â€" 29 years (drugs, alcohol, and pornography)
> >
> >
> > cold turkey, with a vow to Apollo to keep these vices out of the rest of my
> > life.
> >
> > Thus, I include Caligula in my prayers saying before every meal: Saint Paul pray
> >
> >
> > for us; Blessed Diego pray for us; Chief Matapang pray for us; King Kamehameha
> > pray for us; Caesar pray for us; and I celebrate Caligula's birthday every year
> > on August 31.
> >
> > In other words, we can pray for each other, time irrelevant; Nova Roma is
> > divine.
> >
> > Bona fide,
> > Tiberius Marcius Quadra
> >
> > 1.The Bible, being for everyone obedient: But you are a chosen people, a royal
> > priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the
> > praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 1 Peter
> > 2:9
> > http://carefulfornothing.com/2010/07/13/prayer-seventh-in-a-series/
> >
> > 2. I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have
> > sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have
> > done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all
> > the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the
> > Lord our God.
> > http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/english/p00186.htm
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Nero rikudemyx@
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 2:42:06 PM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] The divinity of the republic and emperors?
> >
> > Salvete,
> > I am curious, I often hear that the republic of our forefathers was divine, the
> > the Roman Republic was sacred, how was this so? It is obvious that our republic
> > has fallen into the category of less then divine, but if something our fathers
> > did for the republic of Rome made it sacrosanct then perhaps the fighting would
> > stop?
> >
> > Also, I am curious as to who among us follows the belief of the divinity of the
> > emperors? For those that do, do you consider them all divine or only the ones
> > that were recognized as so by the ancients?
> >
> > Simple questions to hopefully a better road for us Romans,
> >
> > DVIC
> > Nero
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

What other religion, espcially that had to make it thru the Julio Claudian period has survived with the number of believers in the world?  Only Chritianity!




-----Original Message-----
From: rory12001 <rory12001@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, Jul 19, 2010 5:44 pm
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Caro Nero: Nova Roma is Divine

  you mean Atthis he died and rose and is the intessesor all over Europe ; recent finds of epigraphy dating from 50 C.E. in Spain and Germany are the proor. Attis' ressurection is celebrated every year during the Megalesia, later called Easter.
vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, geranioj@... wrote:
>
> Let me speak simple and clear, with compassion, when it is all said and done there is only one true God= JESUS>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: marcushoratius MHoratius@...
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, Jul 19, 2010 2:30 pm
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Caro Nero: Nova Roma is Divine
>
>   M. Moravius Ti. Marcio s. p. d.
>
> So you say that Egyptian/Greek paganism, Judaism, Buddism, Hindu, Islam, etc. are not true religions. And exactly what makes a religious tradition a true religion?
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robin Marquardt remarq777@ wrote:
> >
> > Salve Nero- Cultor,
> > Sorry for the offense.
> >
> > Beyond a matter of faith, I'll do my best to explain: Let's say that
> > Christianity is the true religion, as opposed to Egyptian/Greek paganism,
> > Judaism, Buddism, Hindu, Islam, etc.
> >
> >
> > Then, if Christianity is the true religion, Jesus Christ Himself could have
> > picked any nation on earth to foster His works.
> >
> > That being said, Apollo (God the father) chose Rome!
> > Can I get an amen?!
> >
> > That is my best explanation. To the masters and doctors that share exacting
> > Roman history from true Roman perspective, I humbly concede.
> > Ti. Marci Quadra
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Riku Demyx rikudemyx@
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:06 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roma is Divine
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> > I am a Cultor, telling me through the added prayers at the end that I am a
> > sinner and need to confess is offensive.
> > How is the holy see proof of the republican divinity? To me it is not in any way
> >
> > and I would love an explanation.
> > Di Te Incolumem Custodiant
> > Nero
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Robin Marquardt remarq777@
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 1:35:15 AM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roma is Divine
> >
> > Salve Nero,
> > The Holy See is living proof that our ancient Roman Republic is divine [1].
> >
> > A tragic consequence of human nature is that people en mass cannot accept the
> > heirs of leaders of the great nation or religion (Emperor Caesar, Jesus Christ)
> > to inherit the throne. Thus, with the great wisdom of our forefathers,
> > procreation is eliminated for these leaders (abstinent Roman Catholic Christian
> > priests).
> >
> > Regarding Rome's great ancient Emperors (they're all great regardless of their
> > sins because they perpetuated the dream that is Rome forever), for example Arcus
> >
> >
> > Marcius, and Caligula; if you go to a Roman Catholic Mass, the priest and all
> > the people confess being sinners and ask for forgiveness [2].
> >
> > In this context, I intercede daily for the fallen Emperor, Caligula, that his
> > sins may be forgiven. Incidentally by chance, on Caligula's birthday (8/31/06
> > Thursday) I quit all my vices of 23 â€" 29 years (drugs, alcohol, and pornography)
> >
> >
> > cold turkey, with a vow to Apollo to keep these vices out of the rest of my
> > life.
> >
> > Thus, I include Caligula in my prayers saying before every meal: Saint Paul pray
> >
> >
> > for us; Blessed Diego pray for us; Chief Matapang pray for us; King Kamehameha
> > pray for us; Caesar pray for us; and I celebrate Caligula's birthday every year
> > on August 31.
> >
> > In other words, we can pray for each other, time irrelevant; Nova Roma is
> > divine.
> >
> > Bona fide,
> > Tiberius Marcius Quadra
> >
> > 1.The Bible, being for everyone obedient: But you are a chosen people, a royal
> > priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the
> > praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 1 Peter
> > 2:9
> > http://carefulfornothing.com/2010/07/13/prayer-seventh-in-a-series/
> >
> > 2. I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have
> > sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have
> > done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all
> > the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the
> > Lord our God.
> > http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/english/p00186.htm
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Nero rikudemyx@
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 2:42:06 PM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] The divinity of the republic and emperors?
> >
> > Salvete,
> > I am curious, I often hear that the republic of our forefathers was divine, the
> > the Roman Republic was sacred, how was this so? It is obvious that our republic
> > has fallen into the category of less then divine, but if something our fathers
> > did for the republic of Rome made it sacrosanct then perhaps the fighting would
> > stop?
> >
> > Also, I am curious as to who among us follows the belief of the divinity of the
> > emperors? For those that do, do you consider them all divine or only the ones
> > that were recognized as so by the ancients?
> >
> > Simple questions to hopefully a better road for us Romans,
> >
> > DVIC
> > Nero
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>







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

Religious wars and forced conversions tend to increase numbers. Islam does the same thing.

Hinduism didn't do any of that. It's one of the few countries that I as an ethnic Jew don't have to worry about anti-semitism. May the gods make us prosper and polytheism take back Europe!
vale
Maior

>
> What other religion, espcially that had to make it thru the Julio Claudian period has survived with the number of believers in the world?  Only Chritianity!
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rory12001 rory12001@...
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, Jul 19, 2010 5:44 pm
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Caro Nero: Nova Roma is Divine
>
>   you mean Atthis he died and rose and is the intessesor all over Europe ; recent finds of epigraphy dating from 50 C.E. in Spain and Germany are the proor. Attis' ressurection is celebrated every year during the Megalesia, later called Easter.
> vale
> Maior
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, geranioj@ wrote:
> >
> > Let me speak simple and clear, with compassion, when it is all said and done there is only one true God= JESUS>
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: marcushoratius MHoratius@
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Mon, Jul 19, 2010 2:30 pm
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Caro Nero: Nova Roma is Divine
> >
> >   M. Moravius Ti. Marcio s. p. d.
> >
> > So you say that Egyptian/Greek paganism, Judaism, Buddism, Hindu, Islam, etc. are not true religions. And exactly what makes a religious tradition a true religion?
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robin Marquardt remarq777@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve Nero- Cultor,
> > > Sorry for the offense.
> > >
> > > Beyond a matter of faith, I'll do my best to explain: Let's say that
> > > Christianity is the true religion, as opposed to Egyptian/Greek paganism,
> > > Judaism, Buddism, Hindu, Islam, etc.
> > >
> > >
> > > Then, if Christianity is the true religion, Jesus Christ Himself could have
> > > picked any nation on earth to foster His works.
> > >
> > > That being said, Apollo (God the father) chose Rome!
> > > Can I get an amen?!
> > >
> > > That is my best explanation. To the masters and doctors that share exacting
> > > Roman history from true Roman perspective, I humbly concede.
> > > Ti. Marci Quadra
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Riku Demyx rikudemyx@
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:06 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roma is Divine
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve,
> > > I am a Cultor, telling me through the added prayers at the end that I am a
> > > sinner and need to confess is offensive.
> > > How is the holy see proof of the republican divinity? To me it is not in any way
> > >
> > > and I would love an explanation.
> > > Di Te Incolumem Custodiant
> > > Nero
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Robin Marquardt remarq777@
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 1:35:15 AM
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roma is Divine
> > >
> > > Salve Nero,
> > > The Holy See is living proof that our ancient Roman Republic is divine [1].
> > >
> > > A tragic consequence of human nature is that people en mass cannot accept the
> > > heirs of leaders of the great nation or religion (Emperor Caesar, Jesus Christ)
> > > to inherit the throne. Thus, with the great wisdom of our forefathers,
> > > procreation is eliminated for these leaders (abstinent Roman Catholic Christian
> > > priests).
> > >
> > > Regarding Rome's great ancient Emperors (they're all great regardless of their
> > > sins because they perpetuated the dream that is Rome forever), for example Arcus
> > >
> > >
> > > Marcius, and Caligula; if you go to a Roman Catholic Mass, the priest and all
> > > the people confess being sinners and ask for forgiveness [2].
> > >
> > > In this context, I intercede daily for the fallen Emperor, Caligula, that his
> > > sins may be forgiven. Incidentally by chance, on Caligula's birthday (8/31/06
> > > Thursday) I quit all my vices of 23 â€" 29 years (drugs, alcohol, and pornography)
> > >
> > >
> > > cold turkey, with a vow to Apollo to keep these vices out of the rest of my
> > > life.
> > >
> > > Thus, I include Caligula in my prayers saying before every meal: Saint Paul pray
> > >
> > >
> > > for us; Blessed Diego pray for us; Chief Matapang pray for us; King Kamehameha
> > > pray for us; Caesar pray for us; and I celebrate Caligula's birthday every year
> > > on August 31.
> > >
> > > In other words, we can pray for each other, time irrelevant; Nova Roma is
> > > divine.
> > >
> > > Bona fide,
> > > Tiberius Marcius Quadra
> > >
> > > 1.The Bible, being for everyone obedient: But you are a chosen people, a royal
> > > priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the
> > > praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 1 Peter
> > > 2:9
> > > http://carefulfornothing.com/2010/07/13/prayer-seventh-in-a-series/
> > >
> > > 2. I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have
> > > sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have
> > > done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all
> > > the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the
> > > Lord our God.
> > > http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/english/p00186.htm
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Nero rikudemyx@
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 2:42:06 PM
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] The divinity of the republic and emperors?
> > >
> > > Salvete,
> > > I am curious, I often hear that the republic of our forefathers was divine, the
> > > the Roman Republic was sacred, how was this so? It is obvious that our republic
> > > has fallen into the category of less then divine, but if something our fathers
> > > did for the republic of Rome made it sacrosanct then perhaps the fighting would
> > > stop?
> > >
> > > Also, I am curious as to who among us follows the belief of the divinity of the
> > > emperors? For those that do, do you consider them all divine or only the ones
> > > that were recognized as so by the ancients?
> > >
> > > Simple questions to hopefully a better road for us Romans,
> > >
> > > DVIC
> > > Nero
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

A. Tullia Scholastica praetoria omnibus S.P.D.

Reminder: This discussion on religion is getting rather heated. As
Tullius Valerianus noted, we may all have our own beliefs, but not defame
the Religio Romana. I shall add that it is not appropriate to defame ANY
faith, or the historical background thereof. This behavior violates the
spirit of tolerance in Nova Roma, and is treading dangerously close to, if
not actually over, the boundaries of the normal behavioral standards
expected in this forum. In addition, the peregrini and socii are our guests
here, and are not afforded the same latitude as citizens (never have been,
so far as I know), and need not fan the flames by making contributions of
dubious merit.

Please let us drop this topic. We have serious business before us in
the Senate, and do not need any flame wars from those who have too much time
on their hands...or from anyone else.

If anyone is so bored that heated conversation is deemed necessary to
spice up one¹s life, I can assign some homework which should keep you quite
occupied...

Valete.


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

M. Hortensia A. Tulliae spd;
I was going to contact you and ask you to moderate the uni-believers. Nova Roma is a polytheistic organization dedicated to the restoration of the gods, proselytizing by stray monotheists in the Forum is deeply offensive to us.
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@...> wrote:
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica praetoria omnibus S.P.D.
>
> Reminder: This discussion on religion is getting rather heated. As
> Tullius Valerianus noted, we may all have our own beliefs, but not defame
> the Religio Romana. I shall add that it is not appropriate to defame ANY
> faith, or the historical background thereof. This behavior violates the
> spirit of tolerance in Nova Roma, and is treading dangerously close to, if
> not actually over, the boundaries of the normal behavioral standards
> expected in this forum. In addition, the peregrini and socii are our guests
> here, and are not afforded the same latitude as citizens (never have been,
> so far as I know), and need not fan the flames by making contributions of
> dubious merit.
>
> Please let us drop this topic. We have serious business before us in
> the Senate, and do not need any flame wars from those who have too much time
> on their hands...or from anyone else.
>
> If anyone is so bored that heated conversation is deemed necessary to
> spice up one¹s life, I can assign some homework which should keep you quite
> occupied...
>
> Valete.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Gaius Tullius Valerianus Germanicus omnibus in foro S.P.D.

Salvete omnes!

On what I hope is a final note or this discussion, Nova Roma obviously
welcomes and embraces people of all faiths, which is precisely what makes
speculating about one of those faiths being "the one true faith" so
offensive to our pluralistic society. Nova Roma has its own religion, though
of course no citizens are obligated to follow it, we are all obligated to
respect it, both by law and basic decency. There are specialty lists where
one can discuss such topics (e.g.,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NR_Christians/ a group specifically for Nova
Roman Christians) without danger of proselytizing to an unwilling audience.


Valete!

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:17 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@...

> wrote:

>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica praetoria omnibus S.P.D.
>
> Reminder: This discussion on religion is getting rather heated. As
> Tullius Valerianus noted, we may all have our own beliefs, but not defame
> the Religio Romana. I shall add that it is not appropriate to defame ANY
> faith, or the historical background thereof. This behavior violates the
> spirit of tolerance in Nova Roma, and is treading dangerously close to, if
> not actually over, the boundaries of the normal behavioral standards
> expected in this forum. In addition, the peregrini and socii are our guests
> here, and are not afforded the same latitude as citizens (never have been,
> so far as I know), and need not fan the flames by making contributions of
> dubious merit.
>
> Please let us drop this topic. We have serious business before us in
> the Senate, and do not need any flame wars from those who have too much
> time
> on their hands...or from anyone else.
>
> If anyone is so bored that heated conversation is deemed necessary to
> spice up one�s life, I can assign some homework which should keep you quite
> occupied...
>
> Valete.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

Cato Maiori sal.

Setting aside the incredibly inaccurate, uneducated business with Attis (please don't start *that* old baloney again), you are suggesting, by extrapolation, that it is impossible for humans to develop theologies based on either their own growing understanding of the divine *or* actual, real, divine revelation?

Are you denying the possibility of divine revelation itself - or the actions of the divine in the mortal world?

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Judaism, Christianity and Islam all derive from syncretic polytheistic cults.
> Yahweh is a conflation of a Canaanite storm god baal with the Ugaritic El, Jesus is related to Attis and the various dying gods, the history of kingship of the Near East, and possibly Serapis-Osiris; scholarly research is ongoing. Mary has Isis' symbolism and clearly is modelled on Cybele. Allah had sister goddesses and was worshipped in the Ka'aba along with Al Manat, Al 'Uzza and Al Lat.
>
> all 3 so-called exclusive monotheisms arose from the oldest strate of religion ; polytheism. And scholarly research & archeology have amply demonstrated that. When such persons then say such a belief in their various cultus' exclusivity and non-syncretic origin is 'faith' they've left the world of rational discourse and are no different than Darwin deniers.
> optime vale
> Maior
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> > Cato Neroni Marco Quadrae sal
> >
> > The biggest difference, though, is that Roman polytheism was not exclusive, per se; the Romans recognized and adopted many of the gods they came in contact with from other cultures and viewed Them as aspects of the gods they already knew.
> >
> > Christianity is exclusive.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robin Marquardt <remarq777@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve Nero- Cultor,
> > > Sorry for the offense.
> > >
> > > Beyond a matter of faith, I'll do my best to explain: Let's say that
> > > Christianity is the true religion, as opposed to Egyptian/Greek paganism,
> > > Judaism, Buddism, Hindu, Islam, etc.
> > >
> > >
> > > Then, if Christianity is the true religion, Jesus Christ Himself could have
> > > picked any nation on earth to foster His works.
> > >
> > > That being said, Apollo (God the father) chose Rome!
> > > Can I get an amen?!
> > >
> > > That is my best explanation. To the masters and doctors that share exacting
> > > Roman history from true Roman perspective, I humbly concede.
> > > Ti. Marci Quadra
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@>
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:06 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roma is Divine
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve,
> > > I am a Cultor, telling me through the added prayers at the end that I am a
> > > sinner and need to confess is offensive.
> > > How is the holy see proof of the republican divinity? To me it is not in any way
> > >
> > > and I would love an explanation.
> > > Di Te Incolumem Custodiant
> > > Nero
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Robin Marquardt <remarq777@>
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 1:35:15 AM
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roma is Divine
> > >
> > > Salve Nero,
> > > The Holy See is living proof that our ancient Roman Republic is divine [1].
> > >
> > > A tragic consequence of human nature is that people en mass cannot accept the
> > > heirs of leaders of the great nation or religion (Emperor Caesar, Jesus Christ)
> > > to inherit the throne. Thus, with the great wisdom of our forefathers,
> > > procreation is eliminated for these leaders (abstinent Roman Catholic Christian
> > > priests).
> > >
> > > Regarding Rome's great ancient Emperors (they're all great regardless of their
> > > sins because they perpetuated the dream that is Rome forever), for example Arcus
> > >
> > >
> > > Marcius, and Caligula; if you go to a Roman Catholic Mass, the priest and all
> > > the people confess being sinners and ask for forgiveness [2].
> > >
> > > In this context, I intercede daily for the fallen Emperor, Caligula, that his
> > > sins may be forgiven. Incidentally by chance, on Caligula's birthday (8/31/06
> > > Thursday) I quit all my vices of 23 â€" 29 years (drugs, alcohol, and pornography)
> > >
> > >
> > > cold turkey, with a vow to Apollo to keep these vices out of the rest of my
> > > life.
> > >
> > > Thus, I include Caligula in my prayers saying before every meal: Saint Paul pray
> > >
> > >
> > > for us; Blessed Diego pray for us; Chief Matapang pray for us; King Kamehameha
> > > pray for us; Caesar pray for us; and I celebrate Caligula's birthday every year
> > > on August 31.
> > >
> > > In other words, we can pray for each other, time irrelevant; Nova Roma is
> > > divine.
> > >
> > > Bona fide,
> > > Tiberius Marcius Quadra
> > >
> > > 1.The Bible, being for everyone obedient: But you are a chosen people, a royal
> > > priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the
> > > praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 1 Peter
> > > 2:9
> > > http://carefulfornothing.com/2010/07/13/prayer-seventh-in-a-series/
> > >
> > > 2. I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have
> > > sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have
> > > done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all
> > > the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the
> > > Lord our God.
> > > http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/english/p00186.htm
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Nero <rikudemyx@>
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 2:42:06 PM
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] The divinity of the republic and emperors?
> > >
> > > Salvete,
> > > I am curious, I often hear that the republic of our forefathers was divine, the
> > > the Roman Republic was sacred, how was this so? It is obvious that our republic
> > > has fallen into the category of less then divine, but if something our fathers
> > > did for the republic of Rome made it sacrosanct then perhaps the fighting would
> > > stop?
> > >
> > > Also, I am curious as to who among us follows the belief of the divinity of the
> > > emperors? For those that do, do you consider them all divine or only the ones
> > > that were recognized as so by the ancients?
> > >
> > > Simple questions to hopefully a better road for us Romans,
> > >
> > > DVIC
> > > Nero
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>

Amen to that, brother!

Valete!

Tibiria Octavia Aculeo


On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:37:40 -0500, Gaius Tullius Valerianus
<gaius.tullius.valerianus@...> wrote:

> Gaius Tullius Valerianus Germanicus omnibus in foro S.P.D.
>
> Salvete omnes!
>
> On what I hope is a final note or this discussion, Nova Roma obviously
> welcomes and embraces people of all faiths, which is precisely what makes
> speculating about one of those faiths being "the one true faith" so
> offensive to our pluralistic society. Nova Roma has its own religion,
> though
> of course no citizens are obligated to follow it, we are all obligated to
> respect it, both by law and basic decency. There are specialty listswhere
> one can discuss such topics (e.g.,
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NR_Christians/ a group specifically forNova
> Roman Christians) without danger of proselytizing to an unwilling
> audience.
>
>
> Valete!
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 9:17 PM, A. Tullia Scholastica
> <fororom@...
>> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> A. Tullia Scholastica praetoria omnibus S.P.D.
>>
>> Reminder: This discussion on religion is getting rather heated. As
>> Tullius Valerianus noted, we may all have our own beliefs, but notdefame
>> the Religio Romana. I shall add that it is not appropriate to defame ANY
>> faith, or the historical background thereof. This behavior violates the
>> spirit of tolerance in Nova Roma, and is treading dangerously close to,
>> if
>> not actually over, the boundaries of the normal behavioral standards
>> expected in this forum. In addition, the peregrini and socii are our
>> guests
>> here, and are not afforded the same latitude as citizens (never have
>> been,
>> so far as I know), and need not fan the flames by making contributionsof
>> dubious merit.
>>
>> Please let us drop this topic. We have serious business before us in
>> the Senate, and do not need any flame wars from those who have too much
>> time
>> on their hands...or from anyone else.
>>
>> If anyone is so bored that heated conversation is deemed necessary to
>> spice up one�s life, I can assign some homework which should keep you
>> quite
>> occupied...
>>
>> Valete.
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

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

Cato Maiori sal.

Do you really *never* learn?

"CONTVMELIA PIETATE (Offences against Piety):

Whoever incites in another person hatred, despite or enmity towards a person or group on the basis of the religious beliefs or practices of that person or group, or who in any other way infringes the freedom of another person to hold religious beliefs or to engage in religious teaching, practice, worship or observance, shall make a DECLARATIO PVBLICA and may also be moderated as in paragraph XIV.B. above." (lex Sal. poen. pars altera 18

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> M. Hortensia A. Tulliae spd;
> I was going to contact you and ask you to moderate the uni-believers. Nova Roma is a polytheistic organization dedicated to the restoration of the gods, proselytizing by stray monotheists in the Forum is deeply offensive to us.
> Maior
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@> wrote:
> >
> > A. Tullia Scholastica praetoria omnibus S.P.D.
> >
> > Reminder: This discussion on religion is getting rather heated. As
> > Tullius Valerianus noted, we may all have our own beliefs, but not defame
> > the Religio Romana. I shall add that it is not appropriate to defame ANY
> > faith, or the historical background thereof. This behavior violates the
> > spirit of tolerance in Nova Roma, and is treading dangerously close to, if
> > not actually over, the boundaries of the normal behavioral standards
> > expected in this forum. In addition, the peregrini and socii are our guests
> > here, and are not afforded the same latitude as citizens (never have been,
> > so far as I know), and need not fan the flames by making contributions of
> > dubious merit.
> >
> > Please let us drop this topic. We have serious business before us in
> > the Senate, and do not need any flame wars from those who have too much time
> > on their hands...or from anyone else.
> >
> > If anyone is so bored that heated conversation is deemed necessary to
> > spice up one¹s life, I can assign some homework which should keep you quite
> > occupied...
> >
> > Valete.
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

Hello! My Roman Name is Tiberia Octavia Aculeo and I am new to this group. I am a newly reborn Pagan into the religion of Religio Roma and I would like to learn about the Roman culture since I have to brush up on it.

C. Maria Caeca Omnibus in foro S. P. D.

Oh, I just can't resist, (smile). If A. Tullia Scholastica Magistra says
she can keep you occupied for some time, please, *please* take her at her
word! She can keep you busy for hours, and hours, and *hours* ...and then
give you more! I know ...first hand, (smile), and soon will, again!

Valete bene,
Maria Caeca ...somewhat daunted by the very thought of such an offer coming
from my Magistra!

Salve,

I love the name and welcome to Nova Roma, since you are a new citizen, I
believe there's a list dedicated to getting you more settled in. If you
have any questions don't hesitate to ask..

P.S. Where bouts you from?

Vale,
Aeternia

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Absinthe666 <cheetahgirl5@...> wrote:

>
>
> Hello! My Roman Name is Tiberia Octavia Aculeo and I am new to this group.
> I am a newly reborn Pagan into the religion of Religio Roma and I would like
> to learn about the Roman culture since I have to brush up on it.
>
>
>


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

Salve,

I add my welcome to Aeternia's, but she hit send before me (harrumph) and,
besides, I was trying to figure out the Dative of your cognomen. but
welcome to NR! Indeed there is a group dedicated to helping new cives
orient themselves! To subscribe, just send a blank email to
Newroman-subscribe@yahoogroups.com there, you will find many long time
citizens who would be eager to provide you with help, advice, and mostly
answers!

Meanwhile, may I suggest you prowl around on our web site, and especially
check out our Religio Romana list, as well as any number of articles on the
RR, written by several citizens.

Again, you are most welcome here, and, if I can ever be of assistance to
you, please don't hesitate to contact me, privately.

Vale quam optime,
Maria Caeca

Salve! I'll extend my welcome as well (always glad to see new Romans around
the forum!). The new Roman list Aeternia mentioned is at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newroman/?yguid=456777858 if you haven't found
it yet. It helps supplement this Main List with helpful stuff for newer
citizens.

Welcome again!

~ Gaius Tullius Valerianus Germanicus

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Belle Morte <syrenslullaby@...>wrote:

> Salve,
>
> I love the name and welcome to Nova Roma, since you are a new citizen, I
> believe there's a list dedicated to getting you more settled in. If you
> have any questions don't hesitate to ask..
>
> P.S. Where bouts you from?
>
> Vale,
> Aeternia
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Absinthe666 <cheetahgirl5@...>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hello! My Roman Name is Tiberia Octavia Aculeo and I am new to this
> group.
> > I am a newly reborn Pagan into the religion of Religio Roma and I would
> like
> > to learn about the Roman culture since I have to brush up on it.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


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

C. Equitius Cato T. Octaviae Aculeoni sal.

Welcome to the Respublica!

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Absinthe666" <cheetahgirl5@...> wrote:
>
> Hello! My Roman Name is Tiberia Octavia Aculeo and I am new to this group. I am a newly reborn Pagan into the religion of Religio Roma and I would like to learn about the Roman culture since I have to brush up on it.
>

Maior Catoni sd;

And you still dont know the law. You & every other civis in NR is free to go out to the temple, mosque, church, hall, he or she wishes &
enjoy his or her various cults.

You've probably stirred up more religious hatred than any single person in Nova Roma. I actually feel sorry for the other Christian cives here.

So stop your ridiculous threats, the majority of polytheists here support me and I suggest you spend a week in a monastery to learn some humility and love.
vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Maiori sal.
>
> Do you really *never* learn?
>
> "CONTVMELIA PIETATE (Offences against Piety):
>
> Whoever incites in another person hatred, despite or enmity towards a person or group on the basis of the religious beliefs or practices of that person or group, or who in any other way infringes the freedom of another person to hold religious beliefs or to engage in religious teaching, practice, worship or observance, shall make a DECLARATIO PVBLICA and may also be moderated as in paragraph XIV.B. above." (lex Sal. poen. pars altera 18
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > M. Hortensia A. Tulliae spd;
> > I was going to contact you and ask you to moderate the uni-believers. Nova Roma is a polytheistic organization dedicated to the restoration of the gods, proselytizing by stray monotheists in the Forum is deeply offensive to us.
> > Maior
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@> wrote:
> > >
> > > A. Tullia Scholastica praetoria omnibus S.P.D.
> > >
> > > Reminder: This discussion on religion is getting rather heated. As
> > > Tullius Valerianus noted, we may all have our own beliefs, but not defame
> > > the Religio Romana. I shall add that it is not appropriate to defame ANY
> > > faith, or the historical background thereof. This behavior violates the
> > > spirit of tolerance in Nova Roma, and is treading dangerously close to, if
> > > not actually over, the boundaries of the normal behavioral standards
> > > expected in this forum. In addition, the peregrini and socii are our guests
> > > here, and are not afforded the same latitude as citizens (never have been,
> > > so far as I know), and need not fan the flames by making contributions of
> > > dubious merit.
> > >
> > > Please let us drop this topic. We have serious business before us in
> > > the Senate, and do not need any flame wars from those who have too much time
> > > on their hands...or from anyone else.
> > >
> > > If anyone is so bored that heated conversation is deemed necessary to
> > > spice up one¹s life, I can assign some homework which should keep you quite
> > > occupied...
> > >
> > > Valete.
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>

>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica C. Mariae Caecae quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque
> bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
> C. Maria Caeca Omnibus in foro S. P. D.
>
> Oh, I just can't resist, (smile).
>
> ATS: LOL!
>
>
> If A. Tullia Scholastica Magistra says
> she can keep you occupied for some time, please, *please* take her at her
> word! She can keep you busy for hours, and hours, and *hours* ...and then
> give you more!
>
>
> ATS: Well, it keeps you out of trouble! Wanna translate some nice
> passages of Tacitus? Thucydides, maybe? Write out the complete paradigms of
> some nice Latin verbs? Greek ones are even more fun...
>
>
> I know ...first hand, (smile), and soon will, again!
>
> ATS: Oh, now by the time you have to start doing homework again, it
> should take only a few minutes! You will be an old hand at it!
>
> Valete bene,
> Maria Caeca ...somewhat daunted by the very thought of such an offer coming
> from my Magistra!
>
> ATS: ROFL! Now, it¹s not THAT bad! Moreover, you have only seven more
> lessons to do...
>
> Vale, et valete!
>
>
>

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

True, but it never truly feel until him
DVIC
Nero


________________________________
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 2:31:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Caro Nero: Nova Roma is Divine

I think one could say that Rome was already in the cycle of chaos well
before Theodosius.

Vale,

Sulla

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salve,
> And now for the obverse, let's say Roman Paganism is the true religion.
> That
> Rome flourished for the better part of 2000 years because they were pious
> and
> true, cared and tended to the Gods, Conquered some 1/6 of the earth until
> the
> true Religion was banned by theodosius, the Gods withdrew and 10 years
> later
> Rome fell into chaos and ruin.
> Di Te Incolumem Custodiant
> Nero.
>
> P.S. I generally don't get mad on this board but no one disses on my Gods
>
> Can I get an amen?
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robin Marquardt <remarq777@... <remarq777%40yahoo.com>>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 2:28:23 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Caro Nero: Nova Roma is Divine
>
>
> Salve Nero- Cultor,
> Sorry for the offense.
>
> Beyond a matter of faith, I'll do my best to explain: Let's say that
> Christianity is the true religion, as opposed to Egyptian/Greek paganism,
> Judaism, Buddism, Hindu, Islam, etc.
>
> Then, if Christianity is the true religion, Jesus Christ Himself could have
>
> picked any nation on earth to foster His works.
>
> That being said, Apollo (God the father) chose Rome!
> Can I get an amen?!
>
> That is my best explanation. To the masters and doctors that share exacting
>
> Roman history from true Roman perspective, I humbly concede.
> Ti. Marci Quadra
>
> ________________________________
> From: Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@... <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roma is Divine
>
> Salve,
> I am a Cultor, telling me through the added prayers at the end that I am a
> sinner and need to confess is offensive.
> How is the holy see proof of the republican divinity? To me it is not in
> any way
>
> and I would love an explanation.
> Di Te Incolumem Custodiant
> Nero
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robin Marquardt <remarq777@... <remarq777%40yahoo.com>>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 1:35:15 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roma is Divine
>
> Salve Nero,
> The Holy See is living proof that our ancient Roman Republic is divine [1].
>
>
> A tragic consequence of human nature is that people en mass cannot accept
> the
> heirs of leaders of the great nation or religion (Emperor Caesar, Jesus
> Christ)
> to inherit the throne. Thus, with the great wisdom of our forefathers,
> procreation is eliminated for these leaders (abstinent Roman Catholic
> Christian
> priests).
>
> Regarding Rome's great ancient Emperors (they're all great regardless of
> their
> sins because they perpetuated the dream that is Rome forever), for example
> Arcus
>
> Marcius, and Caligula; if you go to a Roman Catholic Mass, the priest and
> all
> the people confess being sinners and ask for forgiveness [2].
>
> In this context, I intercede daily for the fallen Emperor, Caligula, that
> his
> sins may be forgiven. Incidentally by chance, on Caligula's birthday
> (8/31/06
> Thursday) I quit all my vices of 23 – 29 years (drugs, alcohol, and
> pornography)
>
> cold turkey, with a vow to Apollo to keep these vices out of the rest of my
>
> life.
>
> Thus, I include Caligula in my prayers saying before every meal: Saint Paul
> pray
>
> for us; Blessed Diego pray for us; Chief Matapang pray for us; King
> Kamehameha
> pray for us; Caesar pray for us; and I celebrate Caligula's birthday every
> year
> on August 31.
>
> In other words, we can pray for each other, time irrelevant; Nova Roma is
> divine.
>
> Bona fide,
> Tiberius Marcius Quadra
>
> 1.The Bible, being for everyone obedient: But you are a chosen people, a
> royal
> priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare
> the
> praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 1
> Peter
> 2:9
> http://carefulfornothing.com/2010/07/13/prayer-seventh-in-a-series/
>
> 2. I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I
> have
> sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have
>
> done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin,
> all
> the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to
> the
> Lord our God.
> http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/english/p00186.htm
>
> ________________________________
> From: Nero <rikudemyx@... <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 2:42:06 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] The divinity of the republic and emperors?
>
> Salvete,
> I am curious, I often hear that the republic of our forefathers was divine,
> the
> the Roman Republic was sacred, how was this so? It is obvious that our
> republic
> has fallen into the category of less then divine, but if something our
> fathers
> did for the republic of Rome made it sacrosanct then perhaps the fighting
> would
> stop?
>
> Also, I am curious as to who among us follows the belief of the divinity of
> the
> emperors? For those that do, do you consider them all divine or only the
> ones
> that were recognized as so by the ancients?
>
> Simple questions to hopefully a better road for us Romans,
>
> DVIC
> Nero
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links






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

Salve,
I was at work all day so I did not get to read the responses until now, and have
decided to consolidate my answer into one post.
1. As was stated before and IS stated in the constitution the Religio is the
official religion here, to have your own beliefs is one thing but to come onto a
post a blatently say there is only one god and christianity is the only way is
in my eyes blasphemy, rude, and just against the constitution. If the worship of
the Gods is our religion then denouncing them by claiming there is only one god
seems paradoxical to me. If in the old days one had walked into the senate house
and told Cicero the same thing would they all have just laughed it away? Each
person is entitled to their own belief but remember when you joined Nova Roma
you agreed to the constitution.
2. Granted I delete a lot of emails, especially the ones where fighting seems to
breed, but in my eyes Cato has been a fair protector of both sides, both
defending his faith and the rights of the Religio. To me it seems like some
people just like to play kick the Cato.
3. My origional questions stand if anyone cares to be civil about them.
4. Everyone have a great week I know it's monday but trudge through, were Romans
nay?
Di Vos Incolumes Custodiant
Nero.



________________________________
From: rory12001 <rory12001@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 9:09:27 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: De religionibus


Maior Catoni sd;

And you still dont know the law. You & every other civis in NR is free to go out
to the temple, mosque, church, hall, he or she wishes &

enjoy his or her various cults.

You've probably stirred up more religious hatred than any single person in Nova
Roma. I actually feel sorry for the other Christian cives here.

So stop your ridiculous threats, the majority of polytheists here support me and
I suggest you spend a week in a monastery to learn some humility and love.
vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Maiori sal.
>
> Do you really *never* learn?
>
> "CONTVMELIA PIETATE (Offences against Piety):
>
> Whoever incites in another person hatred, despite or enmity towards a person or
>group on the basis of the religious beliefs or practices of that person or
>group, or who in any other way infringes the freedom of another person to hold
>religious beliefs or to engage in religious teaching, practice, worship or
>observance, shall make a DECLARATIO PVBLICA and may also be moderated as in
>paragraph XIV.B. above." (lex Sal. poen. pars altera 18
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > M. Hortensia A. Tulliae spd;
> > I was going to contact you and ask you to moderate the uni-believers. Nova
>Roma is a polytheistic organization dedicated to the restoration of the gods,
>proselytizing by stray monotheists in the Forum is deeply offensive to us.
> > Maior
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@> wrote:
> > >
> > > A. Tullia Scholastica praetoria omnibus S.P.D.
> > >
> > > Reminder: This discussion on religion is getting rather heated. As
> > > Tullius Valerianus noted, we may all have our own beliefs, but not defame
> > > the Religio Romana. I shall add that it is not appropriate to defame ANY
> > > faith, or the historical background thereof. This behavior violates the
> > > spirit of tolerance in Nova Roma, and is treading dangerously close to, if
> > > not actually over, the boundaries of the normal behavioral standards
> > > expected in this forum. In addition, the peregrini and socii are our
>guests
> > > here, and are not afforded the same latitude as citizens (never have been,
> > > so far as I know), and need not fan the flames by making contributions of
> > > dubious merit.
> > >
> > > Please let us drop this topic. We have serious business before us in
> > > the Senate, and do not need any flame wars from those who have too much
>time
> > > on their hands...or from anyone else.
> > >
> > > If anyone is so bored that heated conversation is deemed necessary to
> > > spice up one¹s life, I can assign some homework which should keep you
quite
> > > occupied...
> > >
> > > Valete.
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>







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

True, but it never truly fell until him
DVIC
Nero

________________________________
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 2:31:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Caro Nero: Nova Roma is Divine

I think one could say that Rome was already in the cycle of chaos well
before Theodosius.

Vale,

Sulla

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salve,
> And now for the obverse, let's say Roman Paganism is the true religion.
> That
> Rome flourished for the better part of 2000 years because they were pious
> and
> true, cared and tended to the Gods, Conquered some 1/6 of the earth until
> the
> true Religion was banned by theodosius, the Gods withdrew and 10 years
> later
> Rome fell into chaos and ruin.
> Di Te Incolumem Custodiant
> Nero.
>
> P.S. I generally don't get mad on this board but no one disses on my Gods
>
> Can I get an amen?
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robin Marquardt <remarq777@... <remarq777%40yahoo.com>>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 2:28:23 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Caro Nero: Nova Roma is Divine
>
>
> Salve Nero- Cultor,
> Sorry for the offense.
>
> Beyond a matter of faith, I'll do my best to explain: Let's say that
> Christianity is the true religion, as opposed to Egyptian/Greek paganism,
> Judaism, Buddism, Hindu, Islam, etc.
>
> Then, if Christianity is the true religion, Jesus Christ Himself could have
>
> picked any nation on earth to foster His works.
>
> That being said, Apollo (God the father) chose Rome!
> Can I get an amen?!
>
> That is my best explanation. To the masters and doctors that share exacting
>
> Roman history from true Roman perspective, I humbly concede.
> Ti. Marci Quadra
>
> ________________________________
> From: Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@... <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roma is Divine
>
> Salve,
> I am a Cultor, telling me through the added prayers at the end that I am a
> sinner and need to confess is offensive.
> How is the holy see proof of the republican divinity? To me it is not in
> any way
>
> and I would love an explanation.
> Di Te Incolumem Custodiant
> Nero
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robin Marquardt <remarq777@... <remarq777%40yahoo.com>>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 1:35:15 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roma is Divine
>
> Salve Nero,
> The Holy See is living proof that our ancient Roman Republic is divine [1].
>
>
> A tragic consequence of human nature is that people en mass cannot accept
> the
> heirs of leaders of the great nation or religion (Emperor Caesar, Jesus
> Christ)
> to inherit the throne. Thus, with the great wisdom of our forefathers,
> procreation is eliminated for these leaders (abstinent Roman Catholic
> Christian
> priests).
>
> Regarding Rome's great ancient Emperors (they're all great regardless of
> their
> sins because they perpetuated the dream that is Rome forever), for example
> Arcus
>
> Marcius, and Caligula; if you go to a Roman Catholic Mass, the priest and
> all
> the people confess being sinners and ask for forgiveness [2].
>
> In this context, I intercede daily for the fallen Emperor, Caligula, that
> his
> sins may be forgiven. Incidentally by chance, on Caligula's birthday
> (8/31/06
> Thursday) I quit all my vices of 23 – 29 years (drugs, alcohol, and
> pornography)
>
> cold turkey, with a vow to Apollo to keep these vices out of the rest of my
>
> life.
>
> Thus, I include Caligula in my prayers saying before every meal: Saint Paul
> pray
>
> for us; Blessed Diego pray for us; Chief Matapang pray for us; King
> Kamehameha
> pray for us; Caesar pray for us; and I celebrate Caligula's birthday every
> year
> on August 31.
>
> In other words, we can pray for each other, time irrelevant; Nova Roma is
> divine.
>
> Bona fide,
> Tiberius Marcius Quadra
>
> 1.The Bible, being for everyone obedient: But you are a chosen people, a
> royal
> priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare
> the
> praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 1
> Peter
> 2:9
> http://carefulfornothing.com/2010/07/13/prayer-seventh-in-a-series/
>
> 2. I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I
> have
> sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have
>
> done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin,
> all
> the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to
> the
> Lord our God.
> http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/english/p00186.htm
>
> ________________________________
> From: Nero <rikudemyx@... <rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 2:42:06 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] The divinity of the republic and emperors?
>
> Salvete,
> I am curious, I often hear that the republic of our forefathers was divine,
> the
> the Roman Republic was sacred, how was this so? It is obvious that our
> republic
> has fallen into the category of less then divine, but if something our
> fathers
> did for the republic of Rome made it sacrosanct then perhaps the fighting
> would
> stop?
>
> Also, I am curious as to who among us follows the belief of the divinity of
> the
> emperors? For those that do, do you consider them all divine or only the
> ones
> that were recognized as so by the ancients?
>
> Simple questions to hopefully a better road for us Romans,
>
> DVIC
> Nero
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

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







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

M. Moravius Piscinus cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Neptunus Salaciaque vos ament

Hodie est ante diem XIII Kalendas Sextilias; haec dies comitialis est: Ludi Victoriae Caesaris; Sol in Leonem transitum facit, Favonius

AUC 707 / 46 BCE Ludi Victoriae Caesaris

Upward gazing, do you mark
the ancient risings of the Signs? for look
where Dionean Caesar's star comes forth
in heaven, to gladden all the fields with corn,
and to the grape upon the sunny slopes
her colour bring! ~ Vergil, Eclogue 9.46-49

Begun in 46 BCE to celebrate the victory of Julius Caesar over Pomeius Magnus at Pharsalus, these games originally honored Venus Genetrix. After the assassination of Caesar in March, the Ludi Victoriae Caesaris took on a different significance. During the games 44 BCE the comet of Caesar (Halley-Bopp) arrived. Comets were taken by the masses to be omens of dire events (Manilius, Astronomicon 1.874: fati miseratus). This comet was considered especially significant as it could be seen during the day. But Augustus reversed common understanding. He claimed that the comet was the genius of Caesar ascending to the Gods. Again in 18 BCE, when another comet was seen during the Ludi Caesaris, Augustus was to declare that it was the divine Caesar returned to view the games held in his honor.

"Never more than then from skies all cloudless fell the thunderbolts, nor blazed so oft the comet fire of bale." ~ P. Vergilius Maro, Georgic 1.486-487

It isn't quite clear in what month the comet arrived. Did it arrive during Caesar's funeral games? Or was it during the games for Venus Genetrix that the comet arrived? These games for Venus were normally held in the fall. But then the Ludi Victoriae Caesaris of Quinctilius, the month of Caesar's birth, were also originally offered to Venus Genetrix, too. From what Pliny has to say, the games of Venus, held so soon after Caesar's death, would not seem to indicate his funeral games, while the traditional games for Her in autumn are probably too distant in time. But all of the symbolism placed on the appearance of this hairy star would seem today to have better suited the games of July.

"Rome is the only place in the whole world where there is a temple dedicated to a comet; it was thought by the late Emperor Augustus to be auspicious to him, from its appearing during the games which he was celebrating in honour of Venus Genetrix, not long after the death of his father Cæsar, in the College which was founded by him. He expressed his joy in these terms: 'During the very time of these games of mine, a hairy star was seen during seven days, in the part of the heavens which is under the Great Bear. It rose about the eleventh hour of the day (circa 5:00 PM) , was very bright, and was conspicuous in all parts of the earth. The common people supposed the star to indicate, that the soul of Cæsar was admitted among the immortal Gods; under which designation it was that the star was placed on the bust which was lately consecrated in the forum.' This is what he proclaimed in public, but, in secret, he rejoiced at this auspicious omen, interpreting it as produced for himself; and, to confess the truth, it really proved a salutary omen for the world at large." ~ Plinius Secunda, Historia Naturalis 2.23 (93)


AUC 817 / 64 CE: The Great Fire of Rome continued into its third day

"Nero at this time was at Antium, and did not return to Rome until the fire approached his house, which he had built to connect the palace with the gardens of Mæcenas. It could not, however, be stopped from devouring the palace, the house, and everything around it. However, to relieve the people, driven out homeless as they were, he threw open to them the Campus Martius and the public buildings of Agrippa, and even his own gardens, and raised temporary structures to receive the destitute multitude. Supplies of food were brought up from Ostia and the neighbouring towns, and the price of corn was reduced to three sesterces a peck. These acts, though popular, produced no effect, since a rumour had gone forth everywhere that, at the very time when the city was in flames, the emperor appeared on a private stage and sang of the destruction of Troy, comparing present misfortunes with the calamities of antiquity." ~ P. Cornelius Tacitus, Annales 15.39


AUC 397 / 356 BCE: Birth of Alexander the Great

It is not by coincidence that the start of the Ludi Victoriae Caesaris should fall on the birthday of Alexander the Great. Caesar sought to overshadow the Macedonian King. Alexander's accomplishments were greatly admired by his contemporaries in the West, justifying Livy's longest digression

"The mention, however, of so great a king and commander induces me to lay before my readers some reflections which I have often made when I have proposed to myself the question, 'What would have been the results for Rome if she had been engaged in war with Alexander?' The things which tell most in war are the numbers and courage of the troops, the ability of the commanders, and Fortune, who has such a potent influence over human affairs, especially those of war. Any one who considers these factors either separately or in combination will easily see that as the Roman empire proved invincible against other kings and nations, so it would have proved invincible against Alexander. Let us, first of all, compare the commanders on each side. I do not dispute that Alexander was an exceptional general, but his reputation is enhanced by the fact that he died while still young and before he had time to experience any change of fortune. Not to mention other kings and illustrious captains, who afford striking examples of the mutability of human affairs, I will only instance Cyrus, whom the Greeks celebrate as one of the greatest of men. What was it that exposed him to reverses and misfortunes but the length of his life, as recently in the case of Pompey the Great? Let me enumerate the Roman generals-not all out of all ages but only those with whom as consuls and Dictators Alexander would have had to fight-M. Valerius Corvus, C. Marcius Rutilus, C. Sulpicius, T. Manlius Torquatus, Q. Publilius Philo, L. Papirius Cursor, Q. Fabius Maximus, the two Decii, L. Volumnius, and Manlius Curius. Following these come those men of colossal mould who would have confronted him if he had first turned his arms against Carthage and then crossed over into Italy later in life. Every one of these men was Alexander's equal in courage and ability, and the art of war, which from the beginning of the City had been an unbroken tradition, had now grown into a science based on definite and permanent rules. It was thus that the kings conducted their wars, and after them the Junii and the Valerii, who expelled the kings, and in later succession the Fabii, the Quinctii, and the Cornelii. It was these rules that Camillus followed, and the men who would have had to fight with Alexander had seen Camillus as an old man when they were little more than boys.

"Alexander no doubt did all that a soldier ought to do in battle, and that is not his least title to fame. But if Manlius Torquatus had been opposed to him in the field, would he have been inferior to him in this respect, or Valerius Corvus, both of them distinguished as soldiers before they assumed command? Would the Decii, who, after devoting themselves, rushed upon the enemy, or Papirius Cursor with his vast physical courage and strength? Would the clever generalship of one young man have succeeded in baffling the whole senate, not to mention individuals, that senate of which he, who declared that it was composed of kings, alone formed a true idea? Was there any danger of his showing more skill than any of those whom I have mentioned in choosing the site for his camp, or organising his commissariat, or guarding against surprises, or choosing the right moment for giving battle, or disposing his men in line of battle and posting his reserves to the best advantage? He would have said that it was not with Darius that he had to do, dragging after him a train of women and eunuchs, wrapped up in purple and gold, encumbered with all the trappings of state. He found him an easy prey rather than a formidable enemy and defeated him without loss, without being called to do anything more daring than to show a just contempt for the idle show of power. The aspect of Italy would have struck him as very different from the India which he traversed in drunken revelry with an intoxicated army; he would have seen in the passes of Apulia and the mountains of Lucania the traces of the recent disaster which befell his house when his uncle Alexander, King of Epirus, perished.

"I am speaking of Alexander as he was before he was submerged in the flood of success, for no man was less capable of bearing prosperity than he was. If we look at him as transformed by his new fortunes and presenting the new character, so to speak, which he had assumed after his victories, it is evident he would have come into Italy more like Darius than Alexander, and would have brought with him an army which had forgotten its native Macedonia and was rapidly becoming Persian in character. It is a disagreeable task in the case of so great a man to have to record his ostentatious love of dress; the prostrations which he demanded from all who approached his presence, and which the Macedonians must have felt to be humiliating, even had they been vanquished, how much more when they were victors; the terribly cruel punishments he inflicted; the murder of his friends at the banquet-table; the vanity which made him invent a divine pedigree for himself. What, pray, would have happened if his love of wine had become stronger and his passionate nature more violent and fiery as he grew older? I am only stating facts about which there is no dispute. Are we to regard none of these things as serious drawbacks to his merits as a commander? Or was there any danger of that happening which the most frivolous of the Greeks, who actually extol the Parthians at the expense of the Romans, are so constantly harping upon, namely, that the Roman people must have bowed before the greatness of Alexander's name-though I do not think they had even heard of him-and that not one out of all the Roman chiefs would have uttered his true sentiments about him, though men dared to attack him in Athens, the very city which had been shattered by Macedonian arms and almost well in sight of the smoking ruins of Thebes, and the speeches of his assailants are still extant to prove this?

"However lofty our ideas of this man's greatness, still it is the greatness of one individual, attained in a successful career of little more than ten years. Those who extol it on the ground that though Rome has never lost a war she has lost many battles, whilst Alexander has never fought a battle unsuccessfully, are not aware that they are comparing the actions of one individual, and he a youth, with the achievements of a people who have had 800 years of war. Where more generations are reckoned on one side than years on the other, can we be surprised that in such a long space of time there have been more changes of fortune than in a period of thirteen years ? Why do you not compare the fortunes of one man with another, of one commander with another? How many Roman generals could I name who have never been unfortunate in a single battle! You may run through page after page of the lists of magistrates, both consuls and Dictators, and not find one with whose valour and fortunes the Roman people have ever for a single day had cause to be dissatisfied. And these men are more worthy of admiration than Alexander or any other king. Some retained the Dictatorship for only ten or twenty days; none held a consulship for more than a year; the levying of troops was often obstructed by the tribunes of the plebs; they were late, in consequence, in taking the field, and were often recalled before the time to conduct the elections; frequently, when they were commencing some important operation, their year of office expired; their colleagues frustrated or ruined their plans, some through recklessness, some through jealousy; they often had to succeed to the mistakes or failures of others and take over an army of raw recruits or one in a bad state of discipline. Kings are free from all hindrances; they are lords of time and circumstance, and draw all things into the sweep of their own designs. Thus, the invincible Alexander would have crossed swords with invincible captains, and would have given the same pledges to Fortune which they gave. Nay, he would have run greater risks than they, for the Macedonians had only one Alexander, who was not only liable to all sorts of accidents but deliberately exposed himself to them, whilst there were many Romans equal to Alexander in glory and in the grandeur of their deeds, and yet each of them might fulfil his destiny by his life or by his death without imperiling the existence of the State.

"It remains for us to compare the one army with the other as regards either the numbers or the quality of the troops or the strength of the allied forces. Now the census for that period gives 250,000 persons. In all the revolts of the Latin league ten legions were raised, consisting almost entirely of city troops. Often during those years four or five armies were engaged simultaneously in Etruria, in Umbria (where they had to meet the Gauls as well), in Samnium, and in Lucania. Then as regards the attitude of the various Italian tribes-the whole of Latium with the Sabines, Volscians, and Aequi, the whole of Campania, parts of Umbria and Etruria, the Picentines, the Marsi, and Paeligni, the Vestinians and Apulians, to which we should add the entire coast of the western sea, with its Greek population, stretching from Thurii to Neapolis and Cumae, and from there as far as Antium and Ostia-all these nationalities he would have found to be either strong allies of Rome or reduced to impotence by Roman arms. He would have crossed the sea with his Macedonian veterans, amounting to not more than 30,000 men and 4000 cavalry, mostly Thracian. This formed all his real strength. If he had brought over in addition Persians and Indians and other Orientals, he would have found them a hindrance rather than a help. We must remember also that the Romans had a reserve to draw upon at home, but Alexander, warring on a foreign soil, would have found his army diminished by the wastage of war, as happened afterwards to Hannibal. His men were armed with round shields and long spears, the Romans had the large shield called the scutum, a better protection for the body, and the javelin, a much more effective weapon than the spear whether for hurling or thrusting. In both armies the soldiers fought in line rank by rank, but the Macedonian phalanx lacked mobility and formed a single unit; the Roman army was more elastic, made up of numerous divisions, which could easily act separately or in combination as required. Then with regard to fatigue duty, what soldier is better able to stand hard work than the Roman?

"If Alexander had been worsted in one battle the war would have been over; what army could have broken the strength of Rome, when Caudium and Cannae failed to do so? Even if things had gone well with him at first, he would often have been tempted to wish that Persians and Indians and effeminate Asiatics were his foes, and would have confessed that his former wars had been waged against women, as Alexander of Epirus is reported to have said when after receiving his mortal wound he was comparing his own fortune with that of this very youth in his Asiatic campaigns. When I remember that in the first Punic war we fought at sea for twenty-four years, I think that Alexander would hardly have lived long enough to see one war through. It is quite possible, too, that as Rome and Carthage were at that time leagued together by an old-standing treaty, the same apprehensions might have led those two powerful states to take up arms against the common foe, and Alexander would have been crushed by their combined forces. Rome has had experience of a Macedonian war, not indeed when Alexander was commanding nor when the resources of Macedon were still unimpaired, but the contests against Antiochus, Philip, and Perses were fought not only without loss but even without risk. I trust that I shall not give offence when I say that, leaving out of sight the civil wars, we have never found an enemy's cavalry or infantry too much for us, when we have fought in the open field, on ground equally favourable for both sides, still less when the ground has given us an advantage. The infantry soldier, with his heavy armour and weapons, may reasonably fear the arrows of Parthian cavalry, or passes invested by the enemy, or country where supplies cannot be brought up, but he has repulsed a thousand armies more formidable than those of Alexander and his Macedonians, and will repulse them in the future if only the domestic peace and concord which we now enjoy remains undisturbed for all the years to come." ~ Titus Livius 9.17-19


Ante Urbem Condita 509 / 1262 BCE: The Founding of the Pythian Games and the embarkation of Jason and the Argonauts.


Our thought for today is more of a prayer and a reminder too that sometimes one must simply cast your fate to the winds and trust in the Gods. Here the example is the prayer of Jason, taken from Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica 4.674-5:

"Whosoever You may be among the Gods, I shall follow wherever You may lead, in faithful trust that You do not deceive."

M. Moravius salutem

Then I shall respond simply and clearly that you have just insulted all religions, including your own.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, geranioj@... wrote:
>
> Let me speak simple and clear, with compassion, when it is all said and done there is only one true God= JESUS>
>
>
>

Salve,

And just because one christian or muslim acts stupid because he is being
pious in the extreme manner doesn't mean that all christians are out to be
unholy monsters. Even though my mother is against paganism, I know that
being a monotheist does not really contradict smartness. I mean, I turned
24 this month and my mother's in her seniors and I disagree with my mom
about the catholic religion. Doesn't mean I can't just hope for my mother
to understand where I am coming from.

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:34:59 -0500, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

> Cato Maiori sal.
>
> Do you really *never* learn?
>
> "CONTVMELIA PIETATE (Offences against Piety):
>
> Whoever incites in another person hatred, despite or enmity towards a
> person or group on the basis of the religious beliefs or practices of
> that person or group, or who in any other way infringes the freedom of
> another person to hold religious beliefs or to engage in religious
> teaching, practice, worship or observance, shall make a DECLARATIO
> PVBLICA and may also be moderated as in paragraph XIV.B. above." (lex
> Sal. poen. pars altera 18
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>>
>> M. Hortensia A. Tulliae spd;
>> I was going to contact you and ask you to moderate the uni-believers.
>> Nova Roma is a polytheistic organization dedicated to the restoration
>> of the gods, proselytizing by stray monotheists in the Forum is deeply
>> offensive to us.
>> Maior
>>
>> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "A. Tullia Scholastica" <fororom@>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > A. Tullia Scholastica praetoria omnibus S.P.D.
>> >
>> > Reminder: This discussion on religion is getting rather heated.
>> As
>> > Tullius Valerianus noted, we may all have our own beliefs, but not
>> defame
>> > the Religio Romana. I shall add that it is not appropriate to defame
>> ANY
>> > faith, or the historical background thereof. This behavior violates
>> the
>> > spirit of tolerance in Nova Roma, and is treading dangerously close
>> to, if
>> > not actually over, the boundaries of the normal behavioral standards
>> > expected in this forum. In addition, the peregrini and socii are our
>> guests
>> > here, and are not afforded the same latitude as citizens (never have
>> been,
>> > so far as I know), and need not fan the flames by making
>> contributions of
>> > dubious merit.
>> >
>> > Please let us drop this topic. We have serious business before
>> us in
>> > the Senate, and do not need any flame wars from those who have too
>> much time
>> > on their hands...or from anyone else.
>> >
>> > If anyone is so bored that heated conversation is deemed
>> necessary to
>> > spice up one¹s life, I can assign some homework which should keep you
>> quite
>> > occupied...
>> >
>> > Valete.
>> >
>> >
>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> >
>>
>
>


--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Cato T. Octaviae Aculeoni sal.

And here you say some very wise things indeed.

In ancient Rome, the pax Deorum - our contract with the Di Immortales and the foundation of peace, prosperity, and the health of the State - relied upon the sacra publica - the acts of the State as a whole towards the gods. To quote "The Religions of Rome":

"...there must have been many who were profoundly grateful to the gods for recovery from illness, others who were deeply impressed by a divine vision; conversely, at every period in Rome's history, there must have been some who professed themselves thoroughly sceptical about the gods and their supposed activities. In some ways, that is just like today. The crucial difference is that these experiences, beliefs and disbeliefs had no particularly privileged role in the defining of an individual's actions, behaviour, or sense of
identity. We have the notion, which they did not, of an individual having a 'religious identity' that can be distinguished from his or her identity as a citizen..."

For the most part, the festivals were conducted on their [the Peoples'] behalf by dignitaries - priests, occasionally priestesses, and magistrates. The only obligation which was generally supposed to fall on the individual citizen was simply to abstain from work while the ceremonies were going on. How far this was obeyed in practice, we do not know...But on no interpretation does the extent of the citizens' necessary involvement in public ritual go any further. This might in turn imply that these public performances were something quite apart from the individual's life...only the remote awareness that somebody somewhere was protecting the city's relationship with the gods." ("Religions of Rome", Beard, North & Price, Cambridge 1998, pp.42-43, 48)

While there were numerous intimate and private celebrations that co-incided with the great official State observations (e.g. the Parilia, the Saturnalia etc.) and especially observances centered around the family (e.g. the Parentalia, the Lemuria, etc.), the citizens' only public *obligation* was to recognize and respect that, whatever they were doing in their private life, the vast wheels of the State were being turned by the great public observances of the rituals to the gods.

Religious trouble arises here in Nova Roma because there is a persistent error led by a few who believe that we must create some kind of structured orthodoxy that reaches into every citizens' personal life; that no expressions of individual belief or practice should be allowed to surface; that any objection to the way the religious "experts" carry on their obligations must be met with thunderous official rage and personal abuse. Any individual expression of religious independence is met by the threat of the anger of the gods and - more recently - by consistent suggestions that all of the "unbelievers" be cast out into the utter darkness that exists outside the Respublica.

This kind of response to the very Roman act of questioning is a hallmark of fear and instability; the fear that the sacra publica cannot stand on their own and the instability of the accusing party's own private religious feelings.

The sacra publica, the religiones Romanae, are strong enough and vital enough that they do not need to be built on the foundation of comparison or contrast. They stand, by themselves and for themselves, as the fundamental element of the contract - the pax Deorum - between the State and the gods, and they don't need to "prove" that they are "better" than anything at all. They are ours communally, unique and purposeful and utterly Roman. The sacra publica do not need to create some desperately uneducated and scurrilous "lineage" to give them value or substance; they do not need any further validation than that the gods have seen fit to acknowledge the rebirth of the Respublica. *That* should be our goal.

The idea that the religiones Romanae are made stronger by someone screeching "you can't say this" or "you can't say that" or "my gods are better than yours" is utterly ridiculous and has proved - repeatedly - to be useless and divisive. If I had lived in ancient Rome and been a normal, regular citizen, then as long as I recognized and fulfilled my public duties if my neighbors saw me march around occasionally with an ikon of the Theotokos they'd probably have just shrugged and said "Well, he's an odd one isn't he", not followed me around and poked me with sticks and declared that I was going to cause the collapse of the whole Respublica.

The vitriol and abuse spurred on by any individuals' personal religious insecurities cannot - and will never - aid in the growth and health of the State.

Vale,

Cato

Welcome Tiberia Octavia Aculeo!

I am happy to see you with us here in Nova Roma.


I can't help but notice your email address nameconsists of the Biblical number
assigned to Satan, 666. Please understand that although I believe in radical
forgiveness (Colin Tippin: www.radicalforgiveness.com), even the devil if s/he
ever becomes willing, the number 666 is used against Rome by certain Christian
sects. Thus, I respectfully ask that you remove the 666 from you email address
name.

Honestly, if you do or don't remove the 666, it personally does not effect me; I
am just concerned for others, and perhaps non-Nova Romans using it against us.

Nonetheless, welcome to Nova Roma and enjoy the many gifts our citizens share.

Tiberius Marcius Quadra


________________________________
From: Absinthe666 <cheetahgirl5@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 12:32:07 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] I am new to this group


Hello! My Roman Name is Tiberia Octavia Aculeo and I am new to this group. I am
a newly reborn Pagan into the religion of Religio Roma and I would like to learn
about the Roman culture since I have to brush up on it.







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

Salve Maior,
Acknowledging that religion is only one aspect of great societies, I offer this
insight as I would share with my own.

RELIGION - Re Legion or King's Legion.
True Religion - What is acceptable and manageable by the nation, by the city,
and by the person.

Monotheism vs Polytheism
The God in charge (Romans call father Apollo) knows that we have only 24 hours
per day, so to simplify our lives, Apollo said, "you shall have no other God's
before me." In other words, “make Apollo God the Father first.”

METAPHOR
How many countries is the USA? ONE
How many people are in the USA? 300 million

SIMILARLY
Apollo, God the father, is the entire controlling group of space aliens.
Jesus Christ the son, God, is the one human sent down by Apollo.
The Holy Spirit is the risen crucified Jesus Christ.
God the Trinity is the religious equivalent the mathematical repeat sign.
The devil is the portion of space aliens that are immoral and unethical.
An Angel is assigned an angle of a person.
Saints are a descendent practice of polytheism.

We the people, living spirits, are on earth (purgatory) with freewill to choose
to love one another as Jesus Christ loves us: UNCONDITIONALLY from abuse to
honor.

Simply stated: TRUE = UTILITY
The foundation of these beliefs is my witnessing paranormal events, and the
answer to the questions:
Where is heaven? Heaven is having above the ground to the ends of the infinite
universe.
What is Hell? Hell is jail.
What is the Big Bang Theory? If the explosion precedes an implosion, THIS – life
as we know it, happens over and over, over number of millennia I can try to
imagine.

There is good and bad in everything, with action and reaction inevitable; choose
wisely.
Respectfully,
Tiberius Marcius Quadra



________________________________
From: rory12001 <rory12001@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 5:56:41 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: HAIL APOLLO: Nova Roma is Divine


Salvete;
I'm surprised at both of you:) - didn't the Divine Julian say that Cybele is the
Mother of the gods in his exquisite oration:

" She is the mistress of all life, and the cause of all generation, who most
easily confers perfection on her productions, and generates and fabricates
things without passion, in conjunction with the father of the universe. She is
also a virgin, without a mother, the assessor of Jupiter, and the true parent of
all the gods: for receiving in herself the causes of all the intelligible
supermundane gods, she becomes a fountain to the intellectual gods."

Actually was Julian divinized? If not that would be a great thing for Nova Roma
to do. We need to worship men & women who have become gods.
optime vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robin Marquardt <remarq777@...> wrote:
>
> AMEN!
>
>
> Nero,
> Please notice that I did not say Roman paganism... I wouldn't want to tell the

> world that the Roman Catholic Church is the descendant of Roman paganism - so I
>
> won't.
>
>
> Ever appreciating Roman history,
> Tiberius Marcius Quadra
>
> ________________________________
> From: Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:35:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Caro Nero: Nova Roma is Divine
>
>
> Salve,
> And now for the obverse, let's say Roman Paganism is the true religion. That
> Rome flourished for the better part of 2000 years because they were pious and
> true, cared and tended to the Gods, Conquered some 1/6 of the earth until the
> true Religion was banned by theodosius, the Gods withdrew and 10 years later
> Rome fell into chaos and ruin.
> Di Te Incolumem Custodiant
> Nero.
>
> P.S. I generally don't get mad on this board but no one disses on my Gods
> Can I get an amen?
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robin Marquardt <remarq777@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 2:28:23 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Caro Nero: Nova Roma is Divine
>
> Salve Nero- Cultor,
> Sorry for the offense.
>
> Beyond a matter of faith, I'll do my best to explain: Let's say that
> Christianity is the true religion, as opposed to Egyptian/Greek paganism,
> Judaism, Buddism, Hindu, Islam, etc.
>
> Then, if Christianity is the true religion, Jesus Christ Himself could have
> picked any nation on earth to foster His works.
>
> That being said, Apollo (God the father) chose Rome!
> Can I get an amen?!
>
> That is my best explanation. To the masters and doctors that share exacting
> Roman history from true Roman perspective, I humbly concede.
> Ti. Marci Quadra
>
> ________________________________
> From: Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roma is Divine
>
> Salve,
> I am a Cultor, telling me through the added prayers at the end that I am a
> sinner and need to confess is offensive.
> How is the holy see proof of the republican divinity? To me it is not in any
>way
>
>
>
> and I would love an explanation.
> Di Te Incolumem Custodiant
> Nero
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robin Marquardt <remarq777@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 1:35:15 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roma is Divine
>
> Salve Nero,
> The Holy See is living proof that our ancient Roman Republic is divine [1].
>
> A tragic consequence of human nature is that people en mass cannot accept the
> heirs of leaders of the great nation or religion (Emperor Caesar, Jesus Christ)
>
> to inherit the throne. Thus, with the great wisdom of our forefathers,
> procreation is eliminated for these leaders (abstinent Roman Catholic Christian
>
> priests).
>
> Regarding Rome's great ancient Emperors (they're all great regardless of their

> sins because they perpetuated the dream that is Rome forever), for example
>Arcus
>
>
>
> Marcius, and Caligula; if you go to a Roman Catholic Mass, the priest and all
> the people confess being sinners and ask for forgiveness [2].
>
> In this context, I intercede daily for the fallen Emperor, Caligula, that his
> sins may be forgiven. Incidentally by chance, on Caligula's birthday (8/31/06
> Thursday) I quit all my vices of 23 â€" 29 years (drugs, alcohol, and
>pornography)
>
>
>
> cold turkey, with a vow to Apollo to keep these vices out of the rest of my
> life.
>
> Thus, I include Caligula in my prayers saying before every meal: Saint Paul
>pray
>
>
>
> for us; Blessed Diego pray for us; Chief Matapang pray for us; King Kamehameha

> pray for us; Caesar pray for us; and I celebrate Caligula's birthday every year
>
> on August 31.
>
> In other words, we can pray for each other, time irrelevant; Nova Roma is
> divine.
>
> Bona fide,
> Tiberius Marcius Quadra
>
> 1.The Bible, being for everyone obedient: But you are a chosen people, a royal

> priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the

> praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 1 Peter
>
> 2:9
> http://carefulfornothing.com/2010/07/13/prayer-seventh-in-a-series/
>
> 2. I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have

> sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have
> done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all
>
> the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the

> Lord our God.
> http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/english/p00186.htm
>
> ________________________________
> From: Nero <rikudemyx@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 2:42:06 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] The divinity of the republic and emperors?
>
> Salvete,
> I am curious, I often hear that the republic of our forefathers was divine, the
>
> the Roman Republic was sacred, how was this so? It is obvious that our republic
>
> has fallen into the category of less then divine, but if something our fathers

> did for the republic of Rome made it sacrosanct then perhaps the fighting would
>
> stop?
>
> Also, I am curious as to who among us follows the belief of the divinity of the
>
> emperors? For those that do, do you consider them all divine or only the ones
> that were recognized as so by the ancients?
>
> Simple questions to hopefully a better road for us Romans,
>
> DVIC
> Nero
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> <!-- #ygrp-mkp { border:1px solid
> #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;} #ygrp-mkp hr {
> border:1px solid #d8d8d8;} #ygrp-mkp #hd {
> color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0;}
> #ygrp-mkp #ads { margin-bottom:10px;} #ygrp-mkp .ad { padding:0 0;} #ygrp-mkp
>
> .ad a { color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;} #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc {
> font-family:Arial;} #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd { margin:10px
> 0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;} #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc
>.ad
>
> { margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;} a { color:#1e66ae;} #actions {
> font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;} #activity {
>background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}
>}
> #activity span { font-weight:700;} #activity span:first-child {
> text-transform:uppercase;} #activity span a {
> color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;} #activity span span { color:#ff7900;}
> #activity span .underline { text-decoration:underline;} .attach {
> clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
> 0;width:400px;} .attach div a { text-decoration:none;} .attach img {
> border:none;padding-right:5px;} .attach label {
> display:block;margin-bottom:5px;} .attach label a { text-decoration:none;}
> blockquote { margin:0 0 0 4px;} .bold {
> font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;} .bold a {
> text-decoration:none;} dd.last p a { font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}
> dd.last p span { margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}
> dd.last p span.yshortcuts { margin-right:0;} div.attach-table div div a {
> text-decoration:none;} div.attach-table { width:400px;} div.file-title a,
> div.file-title a:active, div.file-title a:hover, div.file-title a:visited {
> text-decoration:none;} div.photo-title a, div.photo-title a:active,
> div.photo-title a:hover, div.photo-title a:visited { text-decoration:none;}
> div#ygrp-mlmsg #ygrp-msg p a span.yshortcuts {
> font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;} .green {
> color:#628c2a;} .MsoNormal { margin:0 0 0 0;} o { font-size:0;} #photos div
>{
>
> float:left;width:72px;} #photos div div { border:1px solid
> #666666;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;} #photos div label {
>color:#666666;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;}
>}
> #reco-category { font-size:77%;} #reco-desc { font-size:77%;} .replbq {
> margin:4px;} #ygrp-actbar div a:first-child {
> margin-right:2px;padding-right:5px;} #ygrp-mlmsg {
> font-size:13px;font-family:Arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;} #ygrp-mlmsg
> table { font-size:inherit;font:100%;} #ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {
> font:99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif;} #ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {
> font:115% monospace;} #ygrp-mlmsg * { line-height:1.22em;} #ygrp-mlmsg #logo
>{
>
> padding-bottom:10px;} #ygrp-mlmsg a { color:#1E66AE;} #ygrp-msg p a {
> font-family:Verdana;} #ygrp-msg p#attach-count span {
> color:#1E66AE;font-weight:700;} #ygrp-reco #reco-head {
> color:#ff7900;font-weight:700;} #ygrp-reco { margin-bottom:20px;padding:0px;}

> #ygrp-sponsor #ov li a { font-size:130%;text-decoration:none;} #ygrp-sponsor
> #ov li { font-size:77%;list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;} #ygrp-sponsor
>#ov
>
> ul { margin:0;padding:0 0 0 8px;} #ygrp-text { font-family:Georgia;}
> #ygrp-text p { margin:0 0 1em 0;} #ygrp-text tt { font-size:120%;}
>#ygrp-vital
>
> ul li:last-child { border-right:none !important; } -->
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>







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

Cato Marcio Quadrae sal.


O.o


Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robin Marquardt <remarq777@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Maior,
> Acknowledging that religion is only one aspect of great societies, I offer this
> insight as I would share with my own.
>
> RELIGION - Re Legion or King's Legion.
> True Religion - What is acceptable and manageable by the nation, by the city,
> and by the person.
>
> Monotheism vs Polytheism
> The God in charge (Romans call father Apollo) knows that we have only 24 hours
> per day, so to simplify our lives, Apollo said, "you shall have no other God's
> before me." In other words, “make Apollo God the Father first.”
>
> METAPHOR
> How many countries is the USA? ONE
> How many people are in the USA? 300 million
>
> SIMILARLY
> Apollo, God the father, is the entire controlling group of space aliens.
> Jesus Christ the son, God, is the one human sent down by Apollo.
> The Holy Spirit is the risen crucified Jesus Christ.
> God the Trinity is the religious equivalent the mathematical repeat sign.
> The devil is the portion of space aliens that are immoral and unethical.
> An Angel is assigned an angle of a person.
> Saints are a descendent practice of polytheism.
>
> We the people, living spirits, are on earth (purgatory) with freewill to choose
> to love one another as Jesus Christ loves us: UNCONDITIONALLY from abuse to
> honor.
>
> Simply stated: TRUE = UTILITY
> The foundation of these beliefs is my witnessing paranormal events, and the
> answer to the questions:
> Where is heaven? Heaven is having above the ground to the ends of the infinite
> universe.
> What is Hell? Hell is jail.
> What is the Big Bang Theory? If the explosion precedes an implosion, THIS â€" life
> as we know it, happens over and over, over number of millennia I can try to
> imagine.
>
> There is good and bad in everything, with action and reaction inevitable; choose
> wisely.
> Respectfully,
> Tiberius Marcius Quadra
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: rory12001 <rory12001@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, July 20, 2010 5:56:41 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: HAIL APOLLO: Nova Roma is Divine
>
>
> Salvete;
> I'm surprised at both of you:) - didn't the Divine Julian say that Cybele is the
> Mother of the gods in his exquisite oration:
>
> " She is the mistress of all life, and the cause of all generation, who most
> easily confers perfection on her productions, and generates and fabricates
> things without passion, in conjunction with the father of the universe. She is
> also a virgin, without a mother, the assessor of Jupiter, and the true parent of
> all the gods: for receiving in herself the causes of all the intelligible
> supermundane gods, she becomes a fountain to the intellectual gods."
>
> Actually was Julian divinized? If not that would be a great thing for Nova Roma
> to do. We need to worship men & women who have become gods.
> optime vale
> Maior
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robin Marquardt <remarq777@> wrote:
> >
> > AMEN!
> >
> >
> > Nero,
> > Please notice that I did not say Roman paganism... I wouldn't want to tell the
>
> > world that the Roman Catholic Church is the descendant of Roman paganism - so I
> >
> > won't.
> >
> >
> > Ever appreciating Roman history,
> > Tiberius Marcius Quadra
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:35:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Caro Nero: Nova Roma is Divine
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> > And now for the obverse, let's say Roman Paganism is the true religion. That
> > Rome flourished for the better part of 2000 years because they were pious and
> > true, cared and tended to the Gods, Conquered some 1/6 of the earth until the
> > true Religion was banned by theodosius, the Gods withdrew and 10 years later
> > Rome fell into chaos and ruin.
> > Di Te Incolumem Custodiant
> > Nero.
> >
> > P.S. I generally don't get mad on this board but no one disses on my Gods
> > Can I get an amen?
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Robin Marquardt <remarq777@>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 2:28:23 AM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Caro Nero: Nova Roma is Divine
> >
> > Salve Nero- Cultor,
> > Sorry for the offense.
> >
> > Beyond a matter of faith, I'll do my best to explain: Let's say that
> > Christianity is the true religion, as opposed to Egyptian/Greek paganism,
> > Judaism, Buddism, Hindu, Islam, etc.
> >
> > Then, if Christianity is the true religion, Jesus Christ Himself could have
> > picked any nation on earth to foster His works.
> >
> > That being said, Apollo (God the father) chose Rome!
> > Can I get an amen?!
> >
> > That is my best explanation. To the masters and doctors that share exacting
> > Roman history from true Roman perspective, I humbly concede.
> > Ti. Marci Quadra
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 6:03:06 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roma is Divine
> >
> > Salve,
> > I am a Cultor, telling me through the added prayers at the end that I am a
> > sinner and need to confess is offensive.
> > How is the holy see proof of the republican divinity? To me it is not in any
> >way
> >
> >
> >
> > and I would love an explanation.
> > Di Te Incolumem Custodiant
> > Nero
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Robin Marquardt <remarq777@>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 1:35:15 AM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roma is Divine
> >
> > Salve Nero,
> > The Holy See is living proof that our ancient Roman Republic is divine [1].
> >
> > A tragic consequence of human nature is that people en mass cannot accept the
> > heirs of leaders of the great nation or religion (Emperor Caesar, Jesus Christ)
> >
> > to inherit the throne. Thus, with the great wisdom of our forefathers,
> > procreation is eliminated for these leaders (abstinent Roman Catholic Christian
> >
> > priests).
> >
> > Regarding Rome's great ancient Emperors (they're all great regardless of their
>
> > sins because they perpetuated the dream that is Rome forever), for example
> >Arcus
> >
> >
> >
> > Marcius, and Caligula; if you go to a Roman Catholic Mass, the priest and all
> > the people confess being sinners and ask for forgiveness [2].
> >
> > In this context, I intercede daily for the fallen Emperor, Caligula, that his
> > sins may be forgiven. Incidentally by chance, on Caligula's birthday (8/31/06
> > Thursday) I quit all my vices of 23 â€" 29 years (drugs, alcohol, and
> >pornography)
> >
> >
> >
> > cold turkey, with a vow to Apollo to keep these vices out of the rest of my
> > life.
> >
> > Thus, I include Caligula in my prayers saying before every meal: Saint Paul
> >pray
> >
> >
> >
> > for us; Blessed Diego pray for us; Chief Matapang pray for us; King Kamehameha
>
> > pray for us; Caesar pray for us; and I celebrate Caligula's birthday every year
> >
> > on August 31.
> >
> > In other words, we can pray for each other, time irrelevant; Nova Roma is
> > divine.
> >
> > Bona fide,
> > Tiberius Marcius Quadra
> >
> > 1.The Bible, being for everyone obedient: But you are a chosen people, a royal
>
> > priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the
>
> > praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 1 Peter
> >
> > 2:9
> > http://carefulfornothing.com/2010/07/13/prayer-seventh-in-a-series/
> >
> > 2. I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have
>
> > sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have
> > done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all
> >
> > the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the
>
> > Lord our God.
> > http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/english/p00186.htm
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Nero <rikudemyx@>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Mon, July 19, 2010 2:42:06 PM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] The divinity of the republic and emperors?
> >
> > Salvete,
> > I am curious, I often hear that the republic of our forefathers was divine, the
> >
> > the Roman Republic was sacred, how was this so? It is obvious that our republic
> >
> > has fallen into the category of less then divine, but if something our fathers
>
> > did for the republic of Rome made it sacrosanct then perhaps the fighting would
> >
> > stop?
> >
> > Also, I am curious as to who among us follows the belief of the divinity of the
> >
> > emperors? For those that do, do you consider them all divine or only the ones
> > that were recognized as so by the ancients?
> >
> > Simple questions to hopefully a better road for us Romans,
> >
> > DVIC
> > Nero
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> > <!-- #ygrp-mkp { border:1px solid
> > #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;} #ygrp-mkp hr {
> > border:1px solid #d8d8d8;} #ygrp-mkp #hd {
> > color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 0;}
> > #ygrp-mkp #ads { margin-bottom:10px;} #ygrp-mkp .ad { padding:0 0;} #ygrp-mkp
> >
> > .ad a { color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;} #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc {
> > font-family:Arial;} #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc #hd { margin:10px
> > 0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;} #ygrp-sponsor #ygrp-lc
> >.ad
> >
> > { margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;} a { color:#1e66ae;} #actions {
> > font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;} #activity {
> >background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}
> >}
> > #activity span { font-weight:700;} #activity span:first-child {
> > text-transform:uppercase;} #activity span a {
> > color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;} #activity span span { color:#ff7900;}
> > #activity span .underline { text-decoration:underline;} .attach {
> > clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
> > 0;width:400px;} .attach div a { text-decoration:none;} .attach img {
> > border:none;padding-right:5px;} .attach label {
> > display:block;margin-bottom:5px;} .attach label a { text-decoration:none;}
> > blockquote { margin:0 0 0 4px;} .bold {
> > font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;} .bold a {
> > text-decoration:none;} dd.last p a { font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}
> > dd.last p span { margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}
> > dd.last p span.yshortcuts { margin-right:0;} div.attach-table div div a {
> > text-decoration:none;} div.attach-table { width:400px;} div.file-title a,
> > div.file-title a:active, div.file-title a:hover, div.file-title a:visited {
> > text-decoration:none;} div.photo-title a, div.photo-title a:active,
> > div.photo-title a:hover, div.photo-title a:visited { text-decoration:none;}
> > div#ygrp-mlmsg #ygrp-msg p a span.yshortcuts {
> > font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;} .green {
> > color:#628c2a;} .MsoNormal { margin:0 0 0 0;} o { font-size:0;} #photos div
> >{
> >
> > float:left;width:72px;} #photos div div { border:1px solid
> > #666666;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;} #photos div label {
> >color:#666666;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;}
> >}
> > #reco-category { font-size:77%;} #reco-desc { font-size:77%;} .replbq {
> > margin:4px;} #ygrp-actbar div a:first-child {
> > margin-right:2px;padding-right:5px;} #ygrp-mlmsg {
> > font-size:13px;font-family:Arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif;} #ygrp-mlmsg
> > table { font-size:inherit;font:100%;} #ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {
> > font:99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif;} #ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {
> > font:115% monospace;} #ygrp-mlmsg * { line-height:1.22em;} #ygrp-mlmsg #logo
> >{
> >
> > padding-bottom:10px;} #ygrp-mlmsg a { color:#1E66AE;} #ygrp-msg p a {
> > font-family:Verdana;} #ygrp-msg p#attach-count span {
> > color:#1E66AE;font-weight:700;} #ygrp-reco #reco-head {
> > color:#ff7900;font-weight:700;} #ygrp-reco { margin-bottom:20px;padding:0px;}
>
> > #ygrp-sponsor #ov li a { font-size:130%;text-decoration:none;} #ygrp-sponsor
> > #ov li { font-size:77%;list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;} #ygrp-sponsor
> >#ov
> >
> > ul { margin:0;padding:0 0 0 8px;} #ygrp-text { font-family:Georgia;}
> > #ygrp-text p { margin:0 0 1em 0;} #ygrp-text tt { font-size:120%;}
> >#ygrp-vital
> >
> > ul li:last-child { border-right:none !important; } -->
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Salvete omnes,

please, forgive my mistake, by which I included two items already approved in this session agenda: Poltava Municipium and right to use NR logo for me.
Below is corrected announcement:

Tribunus Plebis Marcus Octavius Corvus omnibus S.P.D.

Salvete, Citizens of Nova Roma

The auspicia having been taken by Censor et Augur Caeso Fabius
Buteo Modianus and found to be propitious, C. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus Consul,
C. Curius Saturninus, M. Octavius Corvus, C. Aqvillivs Rota, Tibuni Plebis have
called the Senate to order.

The Senate shall be called into session with discussions beginning
from Monday 00.01 hrs CET Roma, 19 July 2010 to Friday 00.01 hrs CET
Roma, 23 July 2010 [Sunday18.01 EST 18 July to Thurs 18.01 hrs EST 22
July].

Voting on the agenda will then begin on Friday 23 July 2010 at
00.02 hrs CET Roma [Thursday 18.02 22 July] and conclude on Sunday 25
July 2010 at 00.02 CET Roma [Saturday 18.02 24 July].


For the information of the citizens of Nova Roma, here is a brief outline of the
Senate's agenda:

1. Changes to our by-laws must be submitted by the end of the
fiscal to allow a concordance with our corporate needs a that of the
Res Publica;
2. Appontment of a new CFO is needed before the end of the fiscal
year;
3. Immediate action is needed to correct our IT problems in time
for fall elections;
4. And mounting civil discord, a lack of magistrates, and disputed
elections do not afford swift and decisive decisions on these and
other issues as required at this time.

Valete bene in pace Deorum,

Marcus Octavius Corvus
Tribunus Plebis

Lentulus Aemiliae sal.

You an anyone can join the Xenia Project by simply adding your name to the list, and filling out the required information.

Please, Aemilia Regilla, give me all the information that is asked,
and I add you, or you can do it yourself if you understand wiki editing.

http://novaroma.org/nr/Nova_Roman_Xenia_Project

VALE!
CN LENTULUS
magister aranearius

--- Mar 20/7/10, V. Aemilia <aemilia.regilla@...> ha scritto:

Da: V. Aemilia <aemilia.regilla@...>
Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Xenia Project
A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Data: Martedì 20 luglio 2010, 02:29







 









Salve,



How do I join Xenia Project? I just write my name in participants page?



Provincia Brasilia has a large territory, so I´d like to receive citizens for oficial meetings, if they want.



Vale,

























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

Laenas Maiori sal.

Again (and again) moderating free speech that does not pose a threat to NR is against the Constitution.

Are you advising Scholastic to commit the same act that you were recently condemned for? If you were to be re-elceted Praetor, would YOU moderate the "uni-believers"?

I think Cato is right about one thing, you really haven't learned anything on this issue.

> > > M. Hortensia A. Tulliae spd;
> > > I was going to contact you and ask you to moderate the uni-believers. Nova Roma is a polytheistic organization dedicated to the restoration of the gods, proselytizing by stray monotheists in the Forum is deeply offensive to us.
> > > Maior
>

Cato Laeno sal.

WAIT

did you just say I might be *right* about something? I'm speechless! So instead, I shall sing!

Higgledum-piggledum
Gaius Popillius
stated that Cato has
got something right!
Iuppiter, Iuno,
Minerva and Neptune are
roaring with laughter and
heav'nly delight!

Mind you, it's not a true double-dactyl (it's missing the sexasyllabic word there) but still...

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius" <gaiuspopillius@...> wrote:

> I think Cato is right about one thing,

Salve Cato, amice.

Pretty good I think ;-)

Laenas

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Laeno sal.
>
> WAIT
>
> did you just say I might be *right* about something? I'm speechless! So instead, I shall sing!
>
> Higgledum-piggledum
> Gaius Popillius
> stated that Cato has
> got something right!
> Iuppiter, Iuno,
> Minerva and Neptune are
> roaring with laughter and
> heav'nly delight!
>
> Mind you, it's not a true double-dactyl (it's missing the sexasyllabic word there) but still...
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius" <gaiuspopillius@> wrote:
>
> > I think Cato is right about one thing,
>

In a message dated 7/19/2010 6:28:03 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
rory12001@... writes:

I was going to contact you and ask you to moderate the uni-believers. Nova
Roma is a polytheistic organization dedicated to the restoration of the
gods, proselytizing by stray onotheists in the Forum is deeply offensive to
us.

Who is US? I'm a member of a polytheistic organization and I really don't
care. And most NR citizens really do not care either. So, stop talking
about us. Just talk about you. You are the one offended, not US.

Q. Fabius Maximus




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

This Xenia Project is a good idea; it runs parallel to exchange student co-ops.


Can someone tell me what my Log In ID is... its been a while & I forgot.

Gratia,
Ti. Marci Quadra


________________________________
From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus <cn_corn_lent@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, July 21, 2010 12:25:16 AM
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Xenia Project


Lentulus Aemiliae sal.

You an anyone can join the Xenia Project by simply adding your name to the list,
and filling out the required information.

Please, Aemilia Regilla, give me all the information that is asked,
and I add you, or you can do it yourself if you understand wiki editing.

http://novaroma.org/nr/Nova_Roman_Xenia_Project

VALE!
CN LENTULUS
magister aranearius

--- Mar 20/7/10, V. Aemilia <aemilia.regilla@...> ha scritto:

Da: V. Aemilia <aemilia.regilla@...>
Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] Xenia Project
A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Data: Martedì 20 luglio 2010, 02:29



Salve,

How do I join Xenia Project? I just write my name in participants page?

Provincia Brasilia has a large territory, so I´d like to receive citizens for
oficial meetings, if they want.

Vale,

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







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

Maior Laenati spd;
oh my, I'm going to post from my trial. Cordus so clearly explained all this! vale Maior.
**********************************************************************

A. Apollonius T. Julio judici praeclaro sal.

Perhaps, distinguished judex, you like M. Hortensia. Perhaps you dislike her.
Perhaps you find her amusing. Perhaps you find her irritating. Perhaps you
think she is admirable. Perhaps you think she is deplorable. I don't know, and
it does not matter, because I am confident that you will not allow your personal
opinions about her to influence the solemn sentence that it is your duty, as the
voice of justice in this case, to pronounce. But I can say with certainty that
you do indeed have personal opinions about her. How can I be certain? Because
everyone who participates in the daily life of Nova Roma, and anyone who has
participated in it at any time during the last seven years, has personal
opinions about her. Because, throughout those seven years, she has been a
prominent part of public life: she has energetically undertaken many projects to
enrich the cultural life of the community, and she has always expressed her
views about the pressing concerns of the day, and, in particular, she has been
elected many times by the people of Nova Roma to carry the honours and burdens
of public office.

In this court today she is at risk of being forever excluded from that life.
She may never again be able to undertake the heaviest and hardest tasks our
community can ask a citizen to perform, nor win the honour and esteem that are
the prizes of that work. The populus may be forever denied the right to cast
their votes for her as they have voted for her time and time again in the past.
So I ask you not to make this decision without considering very carefully the
arguments and the evidence I shall present.


THE QUESTION TO BE DECIDED
--------------------------

What is the question that you have to decide? It is this: has Q. Metellus
proved to you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that M. Hortensia used her magisterial
powers to act against the lawful right of C. Equitius to participate without
restriction in the public fora of Nova Roma. Let me divide that into parts. Q.
Metellus must prove it to you: as the lex Salicia poenalis (ch. 6.3) says, 'The
burden of proof in any action is on the actor'. He must prove it beyond
reasonable doubt: the same lex (ch. 6.2) says, 'A reus shall be presumed
innocent until guilt is determined by the iudices beyond a reasonable doubt. If
proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not presented, the iudices must
acquit the reus.' And the lex Salicia judiciaria (ch. XIV) says, 'in case of
doubt, [the judex] must *not* condemn the reus'. These parts are easy and
clear, but important. What of the rest?


THE DEFINITION OF THE OFFENCE
-----------------------------

Intent
------

The definition of abusus potestatis, of course, is found in the lex poenalis,
ch. 17.1, and Metellus has already cited it. But I want to focus on a
particular phrase: M. Hortensia is only guilty if she 'has used [her]
magisterial powers to act against the lawful rights of a person'. 'Has used her
magisterial powers *to act* against the lawful rights of a person'. If she has
used her magisterial powers and, in doing so, she has acted against someone's
rights, that is not enough. She must use her powers specifically *to* act
against those rights. Her purpose in acting must be to infringe those rights.
She must *intentionally* infringe someone's rights. Metellus accepts this, and
that is why he says that she acted 'knowing that her action would be an
infringement upon the rights of a citizen', as he says in his opening argument.
He does not ask you to condemn her unless he proves, beyond reasonable doubt,
not only that she infringed the lawful rights of C. Equitius, but also that she
*knew* that her action would be an infringement of his lawful rights; in other
words, he must prove beyond reasonable doubt that she *intended* to infringe his
lawful rights.

In view of the agreement between the two parties about this element - the
necessity of knowledge, i.e. intention - I do not suppose it is necessary to
spend any more time on the point. But if, despite our agreement, you feel
inclined to doubt that this element is a necessary and fundamental part of the
case that must be proven to you, then I ask you to say so now in order that I
may try to persuade you of it.

The act
-------

And what must Metellus prove she did, and intended to do? He says that she used
her magisterial powers to infringe C. Equitius' right under ch. II.B.4 of the
lex constitutiva: the right 'to participate in all public fora and discussions'.
What is this right? Is it an absolute right? Is it absolutely forbidden for a
magistrate in any circumstances to limit a citizen's right to participate in a
public forum? No. Metellus himself has pointed to one exception: 'except where
they represent an imminent and clear danger to the Republic'. In the same place
in the lex we find a further statement: 'officially sponsored fora may be
expected to be reasonably moderated in the interests of maintaining order and
civility'. Now, what effect does this have? Metellus does not mention it at
all. Our presiding consul, P. Memmius, says that this statement contradicts the
previous one, and that the contradiction is resolved by the lex Octavia de
sermone. It isn't necessary for me to repeat the consul's interpretation here:
it can be found in his formula. I put forward another interpretation. The two
statements are not contradictory but complementary: they create two different
exceptions to the right of unrestricted participation in the public fora.
Participation may be restricted if it forms 'an imminent and clear danger to the
republic', *or* if the restriction is 'in the interests of maintaining order and
civility'. If participation is restricted for either of those reasons, then the
restriction is lawful, and there is no abusus potestatis.

Perhaps you will prefer P. Memmius' interpretation of the 'order and civility'
clause, or perhaps you will prefer mine. (You cannot, at any rate, choose
Metellus' interpretation, because he does not offer you any interpretation.)
Either way, you must also consider the lex Octavia de sermone. The consul says
that this statute resolves the conflict between the 'imminent and clear danger'
clause and the 'order and civility' clause. I say there is no conflict, but the
lex Octavia is still important because it clarifies the 'order and civility'
clause. It says (ch. III), 'The Praetores are empowered to create and enforce
policies of acceptable behavior in the public fora'. What is 'acceptable
behaviour', and how does it relate to 'order and civility'? Now, Metellus says
that the lex Octavia 'gives the praetorship the right to create and enforce such
policies of acceptable behaviour within those fora supported by the state. It
explicitly subjects this authority, however, to the guarantees of the
Constitution, specifically those guarantees to the right of free speech.' He is
entirely correct. The lex Octavia says specifically that the praetores' powers
of moderation are 'subject to Constitutional free speech guarantees'. So the
test of 'acceptable behaviour' cannot *replace* the test of 'order and
civility'. But equally it cannot be meaningless, or it would not have been
included in the lex. It is, in fact, the same thing. The lex Octavia is saying
this: participation in public fora may be restricted in the interests of
maintaining order and civility. In order to maintain order and stability, the
praetores may, if they choose, create policies about what behaviour is
acceptable for the purposes of the 'order and civility' test and what is
unacceptable. This is the answer to the question, 'what is order and civility?'
The answer is, the praetores can create policies to determine what behaviour is
orderly and civil and what behaviour is disorderly and uncivil.

So, in short, M. Hortensia did not infringe C. Equitius' right to participate in
public fora if she imposed moderation 'in the interests of maintaining order and
civility', or, to put the same thing in another way, if she imposed moderation
in order to enforce a policy defining 'acceptable behaviour'. Therefore M.
Hortensia is not guilty of abusus potestatis unless she placed C. Equitius on
moderation and her doing so was not reasonable moderation 'in the interests of
maintaining order and civility' or the enforcement of 'policies of acceptable
behaviour'.

The full definition
-------------------

Putting everything together, I say that Q. Metellus must:

1. prove beyond reasonable doubt that M. Hortensia used her magisterial powers
to place C. Equitius on moderation;
and
2. prove beyond reasonable doubt that she intended to use her magisterial
powers to place him on moderation;
and
3. prove beyond reasonable doubt that placing him on moderation was not
reasonable moderation in the interests of maintaining order and civility;
and
4. prove beyond reasonable doubt that she knew that placing him on moderation
was not reasonable moderation in the interests of maintaining order and
civility.

Unless Metellus proves *all* these things so that you have no doubt about any of
them, you must absolve M. Hortensia.


In my next three messages I'll explain why I say he has not proved these things

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius" <gaiuspopillius@...> wrote:
>
> Laenas Maiori sal.
>
> Again (and again) moderating free speech that does not pose a threat to NR is against the Constitution.
>
> Are you advising Scholastic to commit the same act that you were recently condemned for? If you were to be re-elceted Praetor, would YOU moderate the "uni-believers"?
>
> I think Cato is right about one thing, you really haven't learned anything on this issue.
>
>
> > > > M. Hortensia A. Tulliae spd;
> > > > I was going to contact you and ask you to moderate the uni-believers. Nova Roma is a polytheistic organization dedicated to the restoration of the gods, proselytizing by stray monotheists in the Forum is deeply offensive to us.
> > > > Maior
> >
>

Ummm...

And yet you wanted to moderate the non believers....Now there is some irony
there.

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:15 AM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> Maior Laenati spd;
> oh my, I'm going to post from my trial. Cordus so clearly explained all
> this! vale Maior.
> **********************************************************************
>
> A. Apollonius T. Julio judici praeclaro sal.
>
> Perhaps, distinguished judex, you like M. Hortensia. Perhaps you dislike
> her.
> Perhaps you find her amusing. Perhaps you find her irritating. Perhaps you
> think she is admirable. Perhaps you think she is deplorable. I don't know,
> and
> it does not matter, because I am confident that you will not allow your
> personal
> opinions about her to influence the solemn sentence that it is your duty,
> as the
> voice of justice in this case, to pronounce. But I can say with certainty
> that
> you do indeed have personal opinions about her. How can I be certain?
> Because
> everyone who participates in the daily life of Nova Roma, and anyone who
> has
> participated in it at any time during the last seven years, has personal
> opinions about her. Because, throughout those seven years, she has been a
> prominent part of public life: she has energetically undertaken many
> projects to
> enrich the cultural life of the community, and she has always expressed her
> views about the pressing concerns of the day, and, in particular, she has
> been
> elected many times by the people of Nova Roma to carry the honours and
> burdens
> of public office.
>
> In this court today she is at risk of being forever excluded from that
> life.
> She may never again be able to undertake the heaviest and hardest tasks our
> community can ask a citizen to perform, nor win the honour and esteem that
> are
> the prizes of that work. The populus may be forever denied the right to
> cast
> their votes for her as they have voted for her time and time again in the
> past.
> So I ask you not to make this decision without considering very carefully
> the
> arguments and the evidence I shall present.
>
> THE QUESTION TO BE DECIDED
> --------------------------
>
> What is the question that you have to decide? It is this: has Q. Metellus
> proved to you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that M. Hortensia used her
> magisterial
> powers to act against the lawful right of C. Equitius to participate
> without
> restriction in the public fora of Nova Roma. Let me divide that into parts.
> Q.
> Metellus must prove it to you: as the lex Salicia poenalis (ch. 6.3) says,
> 'The
> burden of proof in any action is on the actor'. He must prove it beyond
> reasonable doubt: the same lex (ch. 6.2) says, 'A reus shall be presumed
> innocent until guilt is determined by the iudices beyond a reasonable
> doubt. If
> proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not presented, the iudices must
> acquit the reus.' And the lex Salicia judiciaria (ch. XIV) says, 'in case
> of
> doubt, [the judex] must *not* condemn the reus'. These parts are easy and
> clear, but important. What of the rest?
>
> THE DEFINITION OF THE OFFENCE
> -----------------------------
>
> Intent
> ------
>
> The definition of abusus potestatis, of course, is found in the lex
> poenalis,
> ch. 17.1, and Metellus has already cited it. But I want to focus on a
> particular phrase: M. Hortensia is only guilty if she 'has used [her]
> magisterial powers to act against the lawful rights of a person'. 'Has used
> her
> magisterial powers *to act* against the lawful rights of a person'. If she
> has
> used her magisterial powers and, in doing so, she has acted against
> someone's
> rights, that is not enough. She must use her powers specifically *to* act
> against those rights. Her purpose in acting must be to infringe those
> rights.
> She must *intentionally* infringe someone's rights. Metellus accepts this,
> and
> that is why he says that she acted 'knowing that her action would be an
> infringement upon the rights of a citizen', as he says in his opening
> argument.
> He does not ask you to condemn her unless he proves, beyond reasonable
> doubt,
> not only that she infringed the lawful rights of C. Equitius, but also that
> she
> *knew* that her action would be an infringement of his lawful rights; in
> other
> words, he must prove beyond reasonable doubt that she *intended* to
> infringe his
> lawful rights.
>
> In view of the agreement between the two parties about this element - the
> necessity of knowledge, i.e. intention - I do not suppose it is necessary
> to
> spend any more time on the point. But if, despite our agreement, you feel
> inclined to doubt that this element is a necessary and fundamental part of
> the
> case that must be proven to you, then I ask you to say so now in order that
> I
> may try to persuade you of it.
>
> The act
> -------
>
> And what must Metellus prove she did, and intended to do? He says that she
> used
> her magisterial powers to infringe C. Equitius' right under ch. II.B.4 of
> the
> lex constitutiva: the right 'to participate in all public fora and
> discussions'.
> What is this right? Is it an absolute right? Is it absolutely forbidden for
> a
> magistrate in any circumstances to limit a citizen's right to participate
> in a
> public forum? No. Metellus himself has pointed to one exception: 'except
> where
> they represent an imminent and clear danger to the Republic'. In the same
> place
> in the lex we find a further statement: 'officially sponsored fora may be
> expected to be reasonably moderated in the interests of maintaining order
> and
> civility'. Now, what effect does this have? Metellus does not mention it at
> all. Our presiding consul, P. Memmius, says that this statement contradicts
> the
> previous one, and that the contradiction is resolved by the lex Octavia de
> sermone. It isn't necessary for me to repeat the consul's interpretation
> here:
> it can be found in his formula. I put forward another interpretation. The
> two
> statements are not contradictory but complementary: they create two
> different
> exceptions to the right of unrestricted participation in the public fora.
> Participation may be restricted if it forms 'an imminent and clear danger
> to the
> republic', *or* if the restriction is 'in the interests of maintaining
> order and
> civility'. If participation is restricted for either of those reasons, then
> the
> restriction is lawful, and there is no abusus potestatis.
>
> Perhaps you will prefer P. Memmius' interpretation of the 'order and
> civility'
> clause, or perhaps you will prefer mine. (You cannot, at any rate, choose
> Metellus' interpretation, because he does not offer you any
> interpretation.)
> Either way, you must also consider the lex Octavia de sermone. The consul
> says
> that this statute resolves the conflict between the 'imminent and clear
> danger'
> clause and the 'order and civility' clause. I say there is no conflict, but
> the
> lex Octavia is still important because it clarifies the 'order and
> civility'
> clause. It says (ch. III), 'The Praetores are empowered to create and
> enforce
> policies of acceptable behavior in the public fora'. What is 'acceptable
> behaviour', and how does it relate to 'order and civility'? Now, Metellus
> says
> that the lex Octavia 'gives the praetorship the right to create and enforce
> such
> policies of acceptable behaviour within those fora supported by the state.
> It
> explicitly subjects this authority, however, to the guarantees of the
> Constitution, specifically those guarantees to the right of free speech.'
> He is
> entirely correct. The lex Octavia says specifically that the praetores'
> powers
> of moderation are 'subject to Constitutional free speech guarantees'. So
> the
> test of 'acceptable behaviour' cannot *replace* the test of 'order and
> civility'. But equally it cannot be meaningless, or it would not have been
> included in the lex. It is, in fact, the same thing. The lex Octavia is
> saying
> this: participation in public fora may be restricted in the interests of
> maintaining order and civility. In order to maintain order and stability,
> the
> praetores may, if they choose, create policies about what behaviour is
> acceptable for the purposes of the 'order and civility' test and what is
> unacceptable. This is the answer to the question, 'what is order and
> civility?'
> The answer is, the praetores can create policies to determine what
> behaviour is
> orderly and civil and what behaviour is disorderly and uncivil.
>
> So, in short, M. Hortensia did not infringe C. Equitius' right to
> participate in
> public fora if she imposed moderation 'in the interests of maintaining
> order and
> civility', or, to put the same thing in another way, if she imposed
> moderation
> in order to enforce a policy defining 'acceptable behaviour'. Therefore M.
> Hortensia is not guilty of abusus potestatis unless she placed C. Equitius
> on
> moderation and her doing so was not reasonable moderation 'in the interests
> of
> maintaining order and civility' or the enforcement of 'policies of
> acceptable
> behaviour'.
>
> The full definition
> -------------------
>
> Putting everything together, I say that Q. Metellus must:
>
> 1. prove beyond reasonable doubt that M. Hortensia used her magisterial
> powers
> to place C. Equitius on moderation;
> and
> 2. prove beyond reasonable doubt that she intended to use her magisterial
> powers to place him on moderation;
> and
> 3. prove beyond reasonable doubt that placing him on moderation was not
> reasonable moderation in the interests of maintaining order and civility;
> and
> 4. prove beyond reasonable doubt that she knew that placing him on
> moderation
> was not reasonable moderation in the interests of maintaining order and
> civility.
>
> Unless Metellus proves *all* these things so that you have no doubt about
> any of
> them, you must absolve M. Hortensia.
>
> In my next three messages I'll explain why I say he has not proved these
> things
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, "Gaius"
> <gaiuspopillius@...> wrote:
> >
> > Laenas Maiori sal.
> >
> > Again (and again) moderating free speech that does not pose a threat to
> NR is against the Constitution.
> >
> > Are you advising Scholastic to commit the same act that you were recently
> condemned for? If you were to be re-elceted Praetor, would YOU moderate the
> "uni-believers"?
> >
> > I think Cato is right about one thing, you really haven't learned
> anything on this issue.
> >
> >
> > > > > M. Hortensia A. Tulliae spd;
> > > > > I was going to contact you and ask you to moderate the
> uni-believers. Nova Roma is a polytheistic organization dedicated to the
> restoration of the gods, proselytizing by stray monotheists in the Forum is
> deeply offensive to us.
> > > > > Maior
> > >
> >
>
>
>


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

A. Apollonius T. Julio judici praeclaro sal.

Allow me now to move on to the first major factual issue in dispute: whether M.
Hortensia unlawfully infringed the rights of C. Equitius.


THE LAWFULNESS OF THE ACT
-------------------------

Has Q. Metellus proved beyond reasonable doubt that M. Hortensia's decision to
place C. Equitius on moderation in the second edictum of 6 June was not a
reasonable act of moderation in the interests of maintaining order and civility
(part 3 of my analysis of the definition of this offence, in my opening
message)? He has not.

The vetoes
----------

Metellus seems to suggest that the vetoes of the first edictum of 6 June prove
that the second edictum of 6 June was illegal, or at least that the first
edictum of that day was illegal. Neither suggestion is correct.

A veto is not a legal judgment, and it is certainly not a definitive legal
judgment issued by a person or body with the constitutional power to make
definitive rulings on the lawfulness of things. All that a veto proves is that
the magistrate who issued it thinks that something is illegal, or at least
contrary to the spirit of the law (which is not the same thing). So the fact
that Max. Valeria Messalina, C. Petronius Dexter, and C. Aquillius Rota vetoed
the first edictum of 6 June proves nothing more than the fact that they believed
it was illegal.

What's more, these vetoes certainly do not prove that the *second* edictum was
illegal. Quite the contrary: the vetoes were based on the part of the first
edictum that said that Cato was being moderated 'For violating the moderation
measure using deceptive means', and this phrase was not present in the second
edictum, so there is no reason event to think that the same three people
believed the second edictum to be illegal. Judex diligentissime, there is no
need for you to spend any time at all considering this vacuous argument advanced
by the prosecutor.

The lex Octavia
---------------

Metellus says that the edictum was 'contrary to the law' and makes various
arguments in support of this proposition. One is that 'she and her colleague
had failed in their duty to publish such policies of acceptable behaviour which
may then be enforced'. This is plainly a reference to the lex Octavia de
sermone, ch. III, which says, 'The Praetores are empowered to create and enforce
policies of acceptable behavior in the public fora.' It will immediately be
obvious that this does not give the praetores a 'duty to publish such policies',
as Metellus says: it merely gives them to power to do so. But when he says
'which may then be enforced', he seems to be arguing that the praetorices had no
power to place people on moderation unless they were doing so in order to
enforce 'policies of acceptable behaviour' that they had previously published.
I give two answers to this: first, it is irrelevant to the present case, because
their edictum of 6 June was in fact enforcing policies of acceptable behaviour
that the praetrices had created; second, it is in any case wrong.

A policy is a rule or guideline about future behaviour. On 31 March the
praetrices sent C. Equitius a private e-mail that I shall produce. It said,
'there have been complaints of posting of Religious texts without an historical
or scholarly discussion. The usage LORD, is inflammatory, implying religious
exclusivism. Please keep your posts in context. This is a suggestion that you
moderate your behavior on the ML.' On a day between 29 and 31 May they sent
another private e-mail referring to his message of 29 May (number 75905 in the
archives). It said, 'this a a private warning to remind you that posting
religious spam is not permitted on the Main List.' Later, on 31 May, they sent
him another private e-mail saying, 'you previously had been warned not to post
bare religious texts on the Main List. This is considered spam and the
praetrices have received complaints of proselytizing from the quirites.' It
informed him that he had been placed on moderated status for 24 hours. It is
quite clear from this that the praetrices had created a policy, namely to forbid
the publication of 'bare' religious texts without any 'historical or scholarly
discussion'. The person concerned, C. Equitius, was informed of this policy and
given two warnings, and the policy was later enforced by the imposition of a
brief period of moderation. Therefore it cannot be doubted that the praetrices
had created (and enforced) a policy of acceptable behaviour, exactly as they
were empowered to do by the lex Octavia.

Metellus talks of policies being 'published'. The lex Octavia says absolutely
nothing about publishing the policies that the praetores are empowered to
create. The lex does not even require them to tell anyone privately, or to
issue warnings before enforcing their policies. However, in this case the
praetrices did tell Cato about the policy, and did give him a warning, before
taking steps to enforce the policy. The policy was also, as it happens,
published, though not by them: Cato himself published the relevant part of the
e-mail of 31 May in his message number 75923.

The second edictum of 6 June, which forms the basis of this prosecution, imposed
24 hours' moderation on Cato 'for failing to moderate his religious postings as
requested by the praetores'. This was therefore a further enforcement of the
same policy.

The second edictum of 6 June also imposed a period of 30 days on moderated
status 'for violating his May 31st penalty of 24 hour moderation by posting an
unmoderated message'. Some explanation of this is necessary. On 1 June a
person named C. Sentius Leoninus sent a message (number 75945) to the e-mail
list. This message opened with a salutation in the name of Cato, and was signed
in that name. It spoke in the first person as if written by Cato, and it quoted
from a private e-mail that had been sent to him by the praetrices: there was
therefore very good reason to believe that it had been written by Cato.
Moreover, it was addressed 'omnibus in foro', and was therefore evidently
intended by its author to be published on the Nova-Roma@yahoogroups e-mail list.
There was no obvious way in which C. Sentius could have acquired it except from
Cato himself, and there was accordingly every reason to think that Cato had
agreed to its publication by him, and had probably asked him to do it. The
praetrices therefore had substantial evidence that Cato had deliberately
arranged for a message written by him to be published on the e-mail list during
a period when he knew that he had been placed on moderated status in order to
prevent him publishing messages there without approval; in short, the praetrices
believed, for good reasons, that Cato had deliberately circumvented their
imposition of moderation upon him.

It is true that there is no written evidence that the praetrices had created a
policy specifically forbidding people from circumventing their orders. There
was no need. When a magistrate gives an order, it would be entirely redundant
for that magistrate also to say, 'I order you to obey my order'. The very act
of imposing moderation on Cato necessarily and indisputably implies the
existence of a policy forbidding the person concerned from disobeying or
circumventing the moderation. To argue otherwise would be ludicrous. Therefore
the praetrices did, by necessary implication, create a policy forbidding Cato
from publishing messages by proxy during his period of moderation, and the
second edictum of 6 June enforced this policy.

I have shown that M. Hortensia did create policies of acceptable behaviour. But
even if you decide that she did not, it makes no difference, because Metellus is
completely wrong to say that a praetrix cannot place someone on moderation
except to enforce policies of acceptable behaviour that she has already created.
The lex Octavia says no such thing. It simply says that she has the power to
create and enforce such policies. It is important to notice the structure of
ch. III of the lex. First, it says, 'The Praetores are hereby given the powers
and duties of moderators for all public fora sponsored or owned by the central
government of Nova Roma, save for those exceptions listed below.' (The phrase
'save for those exceptions listed below' plainly qualifies the immediately
preceding phrase, 'all public fora sponsored or owned by the central government
of Nova Roma'. The exceptions in question are given in the next chapter, ch.
IV, which indentifies various fora that are not within the power of the
praetores.) The next sentence is, 'They are empowered to use all moderation
features provided, subject to Constitutional free speech guarantees, Tribunician
intercessio, and any leges explicitly setting list policies.' These two
sentences make it very clear that the praetores have all the powers available to
the moderator of any Yahoogroups e-mail list, including, of course, the power to
place members on moderated status. It says that they may use all those powers
'subject to Constitutional free speech guarantees, Tribunician intercessio, and
any leges explicitly setting list policies'. In other words, they may not use
those powers if it would be incompatible with ch. II.B.4 of the lex
constitutiva, nor if the tribuni plebis veto their use, nor if it would be
incompatible with any lex that may happen to contain policies about what people
can and cannot say on the e-mail list. (At no time during the term of office of
M. Hortensia was there any lex containing policies about what people can and
cannot say on the e-mail list, so we can ignore the final clause.) Observe that
it does not say that the praetores may only use those powers to enforce policies
that they have created or published. On the contrary, it positively says that
they *may* use those powers as long as this is permitted by the lex constitutiva
and is not vetoed by the tribuni. The statement about creating and enforcing
policies comes later, and there is no indication that it is intended to modify
or qualify what has already been said. It is simply a different topic: it says
that, as well as using the powers of moderators in any way that is not forbidden
by the lex constitutiva or by tribunician veto, they can also, if they choose,
create policies to guide or announce the way they will use those powers, and
they can enforce those policies.

Therefore there was no legal obligation at all for the praetrices to create
policies before they could use their constitutional powers to maintain order and
civility. They were fully entitled to use their powers as they saw fit, within
the limits of ch. II.B.4 of the lex constitutiva, i.e. they could restrict C.
Equitius' participation so long as this was reasonable in the interests of
maintaining order and civility.

Order and civility
------------------

I argue that the second edictum of 6 June was an act of reasonable moderation in
the interests of maintaining order and civility for three principal reasons:
first, it was reasonable for M. Hortensia to think that C. Equitius was
endangering order and civility by publishing unaccompanied Christian texts, and
it was therefore reasonable in the interests of maintaining order and civility
for her to use the tool of moderation to discourage him from doing so; secondly,
the edictum was in any case principally a reaction to his ignoring previous
warnings, contravening clear policy, and circumventing his earlier moderation,
and was therefore reasonable in the interests of maintaining order; thirdly, the
praetrices are empowered by law to determine what constitutes an act of
reasonable moderation in the interests of maintaining order and civility, and if
they decided that the edictum was such an act then it is not the place of this
court to question that decision.

In support of the first reason, M. Hortensia will give evidence that she
received complaints about Cato's religious messages and that she was herself
concerned about the possibility of very heated public arguments resulting,
especially bearing in mind that similar things had happened in the past and had
even resulted in citizens leaving Nova Roma. Already by 23 March this year an
argument between Cato and M. Moravius had prompted swearing from one citizen
(message 74589) and disparaging remarks made by another about the sacra of a
third (74600). I make it clear that I do not blame Cato for either of these
things: the point is simply that such discussions were liable to become
unpleasant and uncivil. From 27 March Cato began publishing messages about
dates in the Christian calendar, including quotations from religious texts
(74631, 74649, 74688, 74703, 74704, 74962, 75064), a practice that promised to
raise similar arguments in the future. A further argument about religion
(beginning with message 75318), though not directly arising from these messages,
showed once again that such discussions were likely to descend to an uncivil
tone (e.g. 75381, 75382). M. Hortensia will give evidence that even the consul
P. Memmius himself was worried about this possibility. In this context, and in
view of the complaints she had received about similar previous messages, it was
reasonable for M. Hortensia to see Cato's message 75905 as a risk to order and
civility.

Secondly, it is important to remember that the 24 hours' moderation imposed in
the second edictum of 6 June was not merely for sending that message but 'for
failing to moderate his religious postings as requested by the praetores'. Cato
had been warned before not to publish messages of this kind, and had even been
placed on moderation for doing so. He had also been reprimanded for this
message itself, and his response was message 75923, which plainly demonstrated
his rejection of the warning and his disinclination to abide by the rule that
the praetrices had clearly communicated to him. He had therefore not only
disobeyed magisterial orders but had given every indication that he would
continue to do so. In these circumstances it was entirely reasonable for M.
Hortensia to regard his publication of message 75905 as a threat to order and it
was reasonable for her to place him on moderated status in the interests of
maintaining order, both by deterring Cato himself from further disobedience to
the orders of magistrates and to negate any public perception that magisterial
orders could be disobeyed with impunity. What's more, Cato's apparent
conspiracy with another citizen to publish a message on the e-mail list despite
being placed on moderation showed an even more serious and deliberate
disobedience. Magistrates must be able to enforce their decisions. The
imposition of a further 30 days' moderation as a punishment for trying to
circumvent his original punishment was therefore also entirely reasonable in the
interests of maintaining order.

Finally, T. Juli, it would in any case be quite wrong for you to attempt to
replace M. Hortensia's judgment of what was reasonable in the interests of
maintaining order and civility with your own ideas on this subject. Magistrates
are elected by the populus to carry out their duties according to their own
judgment, and they must be free to do so. In particular, the praetores are
specifically stated by the lex Octavia to be free to create and enforce policies
of acceptable behaviour. Others may have their own views about what constitutes
reasonable moderation or acceptable behaviour, but they have not been elected to
make those decisions. And you, optime judex, have not been elected to make
those decisions. You were not in that office at that time: you were not the one
receiving complaints, you were not the one carefully monitoring the mood of the
forum, you were not the one bearing responsibility for ensuring its good order,
you were not the one would would be criticized if things went wrong. You should
be very reluctant to decide that you are in a better position now than she was
then to assess what was reasonable and necessary to maintain order and civility.
Could any magistrate function if he or she knew that after the year was over a
court such as this could second-guess his or her decisions without bearing any
of the responsibility? Would anyone even volunteer to be a magistrate if a
single judex sitting in a single court could, at some later date, decide to
impose penalties up to and including expulsion from Nova Roma just because that
judex thought he or she had made a bad decision? Of course if a magistrate
deliberately and intentionally breaks the law then she must be punished, but not
simply because an unelected judex thinks that she made the wrong decision in
good faith. Therefore even if you do not agree that M. Hortensia's second
edictum of 6 June was a reasonable act of moderation in the interests of
maintaining order and civility, I urge you not to place your opinion about that
of the person who was consciously chosen by the people of Nova Roma to make
those decisions. If M. Hortensia, in possession of all the facts and in the
very midst of what was going on, decided that it was reasonable to issue that
edictum to maintain order and civility, then that in itself is very strong
evidence that it was reasonable.

For all these reasons, I say that Metellus has not proved beyond a reasonable
doubt that M. Hortensia's second edictum of 6 June was not an act of reasonable
moderation in the interests of maintaining order and civility. Indeed I say
that he cannot ever prove that, because the edictum was an act of reasonable
moderation in the interests of maintaining order and civility. But in my next
message I shall show why, even if you completely reject these arguments and
decide that he has proved it was not, M. Hortensia is still not guilty of this
offence because she believed that it was.

Salvete,

Perhaps, but my friend Cordus' arguments were rejected were they not? Isn't that why you were condemned? And was the reason not misabuse of magisterial power for trying to moderate a particular "uni-believer" even after being legally vetoed?

Laenas

>
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:15 AM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Maior Laenati spd;
> > oh my, I'm going to post from my trial. Cordus so clearly explained all
> > this! vale Maior.
> > **********************************************************************

A. Apollonius T. Julio judici praeclaro sal.

I conclude this 'opening speech' by presenting my arguments on the final part of
Q. Metellus' allegation: that M. Hortensia knew or believed that what she was
doing was illegal.


KNOWLEDGE AND INTENT
--------------------

Both Q. Metellus and I say that you must not find M. Hortensia guilty of this
offence unless Metellus has proved to you beyond reasonable doubt that she knew
she was doing something contrary to the law, i.e. she knew that her second
edictum of 6 June was not a reasonable act of moderation in the interests of
maintaining order and civility. I shall now demonstrate that he has not proved
this.

'Must have known'
-----------------

Q. Metellus in his opening argument has said that 'the actions of the defendant
must have been known to have been in direct violation of the Constitution of
Nova Roma and the Lex Octavia de Sermone.' This is shown straight away to be
wrong, I suggest, by my previous messages. Because in those messages I put
forward an interpretation of the lex constitutiva and the lex Octavia, and that
interpretation supported the legality of M. Hortensia's actions. And even if
you decide, o optime judex, that my interpretation is wrong, I suggest to you
that it is still a reasonable and plausible interpretation. It is an
interpretation that any reasonable person could have believed. And therefore it
is simply impossible to say that M. Hortensia, or anybody else, 'must' have
known that the second edictum of 6 June was illegal, because it is perfetly
possible that she, or anyone else, could have interpreted the law in this way
and therefore believed that the edictum was lawful.

Therefore Metellus cannot simply say, 'According to one interpretation of the
law, this edictum was clearly illegal: therefore M. Hortensia must have known it
was illegal'. No, because she may have interpreted the law differently. The
argument proves nothing. Metellus must point to evidence that proves to you,
beyond reasonable doubt, that she *did* know her edictum was illegal. I shall
now consider the various ways he tries to prove this.

Vetoes
------

Metellus mentions a number of vetoes that he seems to say must have caused M.
Hortensia to realize that issuing her second edictum of 6 June would be illegal.
The first he cites is the veto of our presiding consul, P. Memmius, on 21
February. That veto is completely irrelevant to this case: it was veto of a
completely different edictum that imposed moderation on completely different
grounds, and the reasoning that P. Memmius gave in announcing his veto of that
edictum was in no way relevant or transferable to the situation that faced the
praetrices on 6 June.

The next veto he mentions is that of three tribuni plebis against the first
edictum of 6 June. I have discussed this point in my previous message, and
there is no reason to re-argue it here. In short, the veto shows only that
three tribuni plebis believed the edictum to be illegal, not that it actually
was. But the question now is slightly different: did the veto convince M.
Hortensia that the first edictum of 6 June was illegal? For the answer we can
look at her actions at the time, supplemented by the evidence she will give in
this trial. What, at the time, was her response to the veto? She issued the
second edictum of 6 June. This was the same as the first one except for one
important change: she had removed any allegation that C. Equitius had used a
false identity to circumvent his moderation. She will explain the reasons for
this in her evidence. It is simple enough: she knew that C. Sentius was a real
person, not a false identity created by Cato, and therefore she knew that the
first edictum was wrong. Accordingly she issued a new edictum with the flaw
removed.

It is also instructive on the point to look at the messages M. Hortensia
published after the second edictum. In message 76128 she wrote that 'Anyway the
new edict has been suitably edited. And shouldn't pose a problem for the
tribunes.' This is further evidence that she believed the new edictum had no
legal problems, the fault with the first having been removed from the second.

If she had decided to go ahead and do something that she knew was illegal, why
would she have bothered to change it at all? Why not simply keep Cato on
moderated status in defiance of the tribunician veto? It makes no sense at all.
The fact that she issued a new edictum is in fact very strong evidence that she
believed the new edictum *was* legal, because it corrected the major flaw in the
old one. Issuing the second edictum could not possibly have been intended to
achieve anything except to make the moderation of Cato for 90 days, which she
realized was based on mistaken grounds in the first edictum, unarguably legal.
If she had believed that the second edictum was illegal, there would have been
no reason at all for her to issue it: she might as well have stood by the first
one. So the vetoes, far from proving Metellus' case, actually disprove it.

Other evidence produced by the prosecution
------------------------------------------

What else does Q. Metellus produce to prove beyond reasonable doubt that M.
Hortensia knew her second edictum of 6 June was illegal? Nothing. He has no
witnesses who heard her say that she believed there were legal problems with the
second edictum. He has no private e-mails in which she appears to accept the
legal reasoning or statutory interpretations of the people who said she had no
power to issue it. He cannot point to anything she said in public that even
hints that she had any doubt at all about the legality of her second edictum.

This is not his fault. It would, I suggest, be impossible for him to produce
such evidence, because there is none. Because M. Hortensia did in fact believe
that what she was doing was within the law, and for that reason she is not
guilty of this offence. In my submission, diligentissime judex, you could stop
the case here and now and say 'ABSOLVO' because Metellus has not produced any
evidence that could possibly prove beyond reasonable doubt that she did anything
illegal or that she knew or even suspected that she was doing anything illegal.
And remember, the burden of proof is on him: he has to prove his allegations to
you. The accused does not have to prove anything. Nonetheless, she shall.

Evidence for the defence
------------------------

I have already referred to a number of public documents, but I list them again
here for your convenience:

In the archive of the Nova-Roma@yahoogroups e-mail list, messages 74589, 74600,
75381, 75382 are examples of the sort of heated and uncivil discussion that had
arisen and was likely to arise again, as a result of arguments about religion.

Message 75923 is evidence that C. Equitius was inclined to reject the
praetrices' authority and thus undermine their ability to maintain order.

I also referred to message 76128, a message that M. Hortensia published after
her second edictum of 6 June that further proves that she did not believe it was
illegal and did not accept the legal reasoning of those who said it was.

But in my next messages I shall produce further evidence in the form of private
e-mails and statements by witnesses.

You will read the evidence of M. Hortensia herself, in which she will tell you
her experience of these events and her reasons for doing what she did. You will
see that she did not at any time accept any of the arguments against the
legality of her actions and certainly did not know or believe, as Metellus
alleges, that her second edictum of 6 June was contrary to any law.

You will see the private e-mail she sent to C. Equitius on 31 March warning him
about his publications of religious texts. Another e-mail sent at some time
between 29 and 31 May cannot be found in M. Hortensia's records but its
existence is proved by message 75923 from the e-mail list; later on 31 May she
sent a further e-mail imposing 24 hours' moderation for continuing to publish
religious texts, and this e-mail will be produced. These three e-mails, I
argue, show that M. Hortensia had indeed created a policy of acceptable
behaviour under the lex Octavia.

You will also read the evidence of eminent and respected senatores and principes
civitatis. K. Buteo Quintilianus censorius will bear witness to M. Hortensia's
hard work and attention to her duties as a magistrate. C. Curius, Cn. Lentulus,
and M. Lucretius, who have all had many dealings with M. Hortensia and can speak
from experience of her private and public conduct, will all say that they do not
believe she would deliberately or knowingly break the law.

T. Juli, honestissime judex, I submit to you that when you see all this evidence
you will not only have a reasonable doubt about the allegations of Q. Metellus,
but in fact you will be quite convinced that M. Hortensia placed no unlawful
restrictions on C. Equitius' participation in public fora and she did not know
or believe that she was doing so. In other words, the evidence that will follow
will show that M. Hortensia is not guilty of this offence.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> A. Apollonius T. Julio judici praeclaro sal.
>
> Allow me now to move on to the first major factual issue in dispute: whether M.
> Hortensia unlawfully infringed the rights of C. Equitius.
>
>
> THE LAWFULNESS OF THE ACT
> -------------------------
>
> Has Q. Metellus proved beyond reasonable doubt that M. Hortensia's decision to
> place C. Equitius on moderation in the second edictum of 6 June was not a
> reasonable act of moderation in the interests of maintaining order and civility
> (part 3 of my analysis of the definition of this offence, in my opening
> message)? He has not.
>
> The vetoes
> ----------
>
> Metellus seems to suggest that the vetoes of the first edictum of 6 June prove
> that the second edictum of 6 June was illegal, or at least that the first
> edictum of that day was illegal. Neither suggestion is correct.
>
> A veto is not a legal judgment, and it is certainly not a definitive legal
> judgment issued by a person or body with the constitutional power to make
> definitive rulings on the lawfulness of things. All that a veto proves is that
> the magistrate who issued it thinks that something is illegal, or at least
> contrary to the spirit of the law (which is not the same thing). So the fact
> that Max. Valeria Messalina, C. Petronius Dexter, and C. Aquillius Rota vetoed
> the first edictum of 6 June proves nothing more than the fact that they believed
> it was illegal.
>
> What's more, these vetoes certainly do not prove that the *second* edictum was
> illegal. Quite the contrary: the vetoes were based on the part of the first
> edictum that said that Cato was being moderated 'For violating the moderation
> measure using deceptive means', and this phrase was not present in the second
> edictum, so there is no reason event to think that the same three people
> believed the second edictum to be illegal. Judex diligentissime, there is no
> need for you to spend any time at all considering this vacuous argument advanced
> by the prosecutor.
>
> The lex Octavia
> ---------------
>
> Metellus says that the edictum was 'contrary to the law' and makes various
> arguments in support of this proposition. One is that 'she and her colleague
> had failed in their duty to publish such policies of acceptable behaviour which
> may then be enforced'. This is plainly a reference to the lex Octavia de
> sermone, ch. III, which says, 'The Praetores are empowered to create and enforce
> policies of acceptable behavior in the public fora.' It will immediately be
> obvious that this does not give the praetores a 'duty to publish such policies',
> as Metellus says: it merely gives them to power to do so. But when he says
> 'which may then be enforced', he seems to be arguing that the praetorices had no
> power to place people on moderation unless they were doing so in order to
> enforce 'policies of acceptable behaviour' that they had previously published.
> I give two answers to this: first, it is irrelevant to the present case, because
> their edictum of 6 June was in fact enforcing policies of acceptable behaviour
> that the praetrices had created; second, it is in any case wrong.
>
> A policy is a rule or guideline about future behaviour. On 31 March the
> praetrices sent C. Equitius a private e-mail that I shall produce. It said,
> 'there have been complaints of posting of Religious texts without an historical
> or scholarly discussion. The usage LORD, is inflammatory, implying religious
> exclusivism. Please keep your posts in context. This is a suggestion that you
> moderate your behavior on the ML.' On a day between 29 and 31 May they sent
> another private e-mail referring to his message of 29 May (number 75905 in the
> archives). It said, 'this a a private warning to remind you that posting
> religious spam is not permitted on the Main List.' Later, on 31 May, they sent
> him another private e-mail saying, 'you previously had been warned not to post
> bare religious texts on the Main List. This is considered spam and the
> praetrices have received complaints of proselytizing from the quirites.' It
> informed him that he had been placed on moderated status for 24 hours. It is
> quite clear from this that the praetrices had created a policy, namely to forbid
> the publication of 'bare' religious texts without any 'historical or scholarly
> discussion'. The person concerned, C. Equitius, was informed of this policy and
> given two warnings, and the policy was later enforced by the imposition of a
> brief period of moderation. Therefore it cannot be doubted that the praetrices
> had created (and enforced) a policy of acceptable behaviour, exactly as they
> were empowered to do by the lex Octavia.
>
> Metellus talks of policies being 'published'. The lex Octavia says absolutely
> nothing about publishing the policies that the praetores are empowered to
> create. The lex does not even require them to tell anyone privately, or to
> issue warnings before enforcing their policies. However, in this case the
> praetrices did tell Cato about the policy, and did give him a warning, before
> taking steps to enforce the policy. The policy was also, as it happens,
> published, though not by them: Cato himself published the relevant part of the
> e-mail of 31 May in his message number 75923.
>
> The second edictum of 6 June, which forms the basis of this prosecution, imposed
> 24 hours' moderation on Cato 'for failing to moderate his religious postings as
> requested by the praetores'. This was therefore a further enforcement of the
> same policy.
>
> The second edictum of 6 June also imposed a period of 30 days on moderated
> status 'for violating his May 31st penalty of 24 hour moderation by posting an
> unmoderated message'. Some explanation of this is necessary. On 1 June a
> person named C. Sentius Leoninus sent a message (number 75945) to the e-mail
> list. This message opened with a salutation in the name of Cato, and was signed
> in that name. It spoke in the first person as if written by Cato, and it quoted
> from a private e-mail that had been sent to him by the praetrices: there was
> therefore very good reason to believe that it had been written by Cato.
> Moreover, it was addressed 'omnibus in foro', and was therefore evidently
> intended by its author to be published on the Nova-Roma@yahoogroups e-mail list.
> There was no obvious way in which C. Sentius could have acquired it except from
> Cato himself, and there was accordingly every reason to think that Cato had
> agreed to its publication by him, and had probably asked him to do it. The
> praetrices therefore had substantial evidence that Cato had deliberately
> arranged for a message written by him to be published on the e-mail list during
> a period when he knew that he had been placed on moderated status in order to
> prevent him publishing messages there without approval; in short, the praetrices
> believed, for good reasons, that Cato had deliberately circumvented their
> imposition of moderation upon him.
>
> It is true that there is no written evidence that the praetrices had created a
> policy specifically forbidding people from circumventing their orders. There
> was no need. When a magistrate gives an order, it would be entirely redundant
> for that magistrate also to say, 'I order you to obey my order'. The very act
> of imposing moderation on Cato necessarily and indisputably implies the
> existence of a policy forbidding the person concerned from disobeying or
> circumventing the moderation. To argue otherwise would be ludicrous. Therefore
> the praetrices did, by necessary implication, create a policy forbidding Cato
> from publishing messages by proxy during his period of moderation, and the
> second edictum of 6 June enforced this policy.
>
> I have shown that M. Hortensia did create policies of acceptable behaviour. But
> even if you decide that she did not, it makes no difference, because Metellus is
> completely wrong to say that a praetrix cannot place someone on moderation
> except to enforce policies of acceptable behaviour that she has already created.
> The lex Octavia says no such thing. It simply says that she has the power to
> create and enforce such policies. It is important to notice the structure of
> ch. III of the lex. First, it says, 'The Praetores are hereby given the powers
> and duties of moderators for all public fora sponsored or owned by the central
> government of Nova Roma, save for those exceptions listed below.' (The phrase
> 'save for those exceptions listed below' plainly qualifies the immediately
> preceding phrase, 'all public fora sponsored or owned by the central government
> of Nova Roma'. The exceptions in question are given in the next chapter, ch.
> IV, which indentifies various fora that are not within the power of the
> praetores.) The next sentence is, 'They are empowered to use all moderation
> features provided, subject to Constitutional free speech guarantees, Tribunician
> intercessio, and any leges explicitly setting list policies.' These two
> sentences make it very clear that the praetores have all the powers available to
> the moderator of any Yahoogroups e-mail list, including, of course, the power to
> place members on moderated status. It says that they may use all those powers
> 'subject to Constitutional free speech guarantees, Tribunician intercessio, and
> any leges explicitly setting list policies'. In other words, they may not use
> those powers if it would be incompatible with ch. II.B.4 of the lex
> constitutiva, nor if the tribuni plebis veto their use, nor if it would be
> incompatible with any lex that may happen to contain policies about what people
> can and cannot say on the e-mail list. (At no time during the term of office of
> M. Hortensia was there any lex containing policies about what people can and
> cannot say on the e-mail list, so we can ignore the final clause.) Observe that
> it does not say that the praetores may only use those powers to enforce policies
> that they have created or published. On the contrary, it positively says that
> they *may* use those powers as long as this is permitted by the lex constitutiva
> and is not vetoed by the tribuni. The statement about creating and enforcing
> policies comes later, and there is no indication that it is intended to modify
> or qualify what has already been said. It is simply a different topic: it says
> that, as well as using the powers of moderators in any way that is not forbidden
> by the lex constitutiva or by tribunician veto, they can also, if they choose,
> create policies to guide or announce the way they will use those powers, and
> they can enforce those policies.
>
> Therefore there was no legal obligation at all for the praetrices to create
> policies before they could use their constitutional powers to maintain order and
> civility. They were fully entitled to use their powers as they saw fit, within
> the limits of ch. II.B.4 of the lex constitutiva, i.e. they could restrict C.
> Equitius' participation so long as this was reasonable in the interests of
> maintaining order and civility.
>
> Order and civility
> ------------------
>
> I argue that the second edictum of 6 June was an act of reasonable moderation in
> the interests of maintaining order and civility for three principal reasons:
> first, it was reasonable for M. Hortensia to think that C. Equitius was
> endangering order and civility by publishing unaccompanied Christian texts, and
> it was therefore reasonable in the interests of maintaining order and civility
> for her to use the tool of moderation to discourage him from doing so; secondly,
> the edictum was in any case principally a reaction to his ignoring previous
> warnings, contravening clear policy, and circumventing his earlier moderation,
> and was therefore reasonable in the interests of maintaining order; thirdly, the
> praetrices are empowered by law to determine what constitutes an act of
> reasonable moderation in the interests of maintaining order and civility, and if
> they decided that the edictum was such an act then it is not the place of this
> court to question that decision.
>
> In support of the first reason, M. Hortensia will give evidence that she
> received complaints about Cato's religious messages and that she was herself
> concerned about the possibility of very heated public arguments resulting,
> especially bearing in mind that similar things had happened in the past and had
> even resulted in citizens leaving Nova Roma. Already by 23 March this year an
> argument between Cato and M. Moravius had prompted swearing from one citizen
> (message 74589) and disparaging remarks made by another about the sacra of a
> third (74600). I make it clear that I do not blame Cato for either of these
> things: the point is simply that such discussions were liable to become
> unpleasant and uncivil. From 27 March Cato began publishing messages about
> dates in the Christian calendar, including quotations from religious texts
> (74631, 74649, 74688, 74703, 74704, 74962, 75064), a practice that promised to
> raise similar arguments in the future. A further argument about religion
> (beginning with message 75318), though not directly arising from these messages,
> showed once again that such discussions were likely to descend to an uncivil
> tone (e.g. 75381, 75382). M. Hortensia will give evidence that even the consul
> P. Memmius himself was worried about this possibility. In this context, and in
> view of the complaints she had received about similar previous messages, it was
> reasonable for M. Hortensia to see Cato's message 75905 as a risk to order and
> civility.
>
> Secondly, it is important to remember that the 24 hours' moderation imposed in
> the second edictum of 6 June was not merely for sending that message but 'for
> failing to moderate his religious postings as requested by the praetores'. Cato
> had been warned before not to publish messages of this kind, and had even been
> placed on moderation for doing so. He had also been reprimanded for this
> message itself, and his response was message 75923, which plainly demonstrated
> his rejection of the warning and his disinclination to abide by the rule that
> the praetrices had clearly communicated to him. He had therefore not only
> disobeyed magisterial orders but had given every indication that he would
> continue to do so. In these circumstances it was entirely reasonable for M.
> Hortensia to regard his publication of message 75905 as a threat to order and it
> was reasonable for her to place him on moderated status in the interests of
> maintaining order, both by deterring Cato himself from further disobedience to
> the orders of magistrates and to negate any public perception that magisterial
> orders could be disobeyed with impunity. What's more, Cato's apparent
> conspiracy with another citizen to publish a message on the e-mail list despite
> being placed on moderation showed an even more serious and deliberate
> disobedience. Magistrates must be able to enforce their decisions. The
> imposition of a further 30 days' moderation as a punishment for trying to
> circumvent his original punishment was therefore also entirely reasonable in the
> interests of maintaining order.
>
> Finally, T. Juli, it would in any case be quite wrong for you to attempt to
> replace M. Hortensia's judgment of what was reasonable in the interests of
> maintaining order and civility with your own ideas on this subject. Magistrates
> are elected by the populus to carry out their duties according to their own
> judgment, and they must be free to do so. In particular, the praetores are
> specifically stated by the lex Octavia to be free to create and enforce policies
> of acceptable behaviour. Others may have their own views about what constitutes
> reasonable moderation or acceptable behaviour, but they have not been elected to
> make those decisions. And you, optime judex, have not been elected to make
> those decisions. You were not in that office at that time: you were not the one
> receiving complaints, you were not the one carefully monitoring the mood of the
> forum, you were not the one bearing responsibility for ensuring its good order,
> you were not the one would would be criticized if things went wrong. You should
> be very reluctant to decide that you are in a better position now than she was
> then to assess what was reasonable and necessary to maintain order and civility.
> Could any magistrate function if he or she knew that after the year was over a
> court such as this could second-guess his or her decisions without bearing any
> of the responsibility? Would anyone even volunteer to be a magistrate if a
> single judex sitting in a single court could, at some later date, decide to
> impose penalties up to and including expulsion from Nova Roma just because that
> judex thought he or she had made a bad decision? Of course if a magistrate
> deliberately and intentionally breaks the law then she must be punished, but not
> simply because an unelected judex thinks that she made the wrong decision in
> good faith. Therefore even if you do not agree that M. Hortensia's second
> edictum of 6 June was a reasonable act of moderation in the interests of
> maintaining order and civility, I urge you not to place your opinion about that
> of the person who was consciously chosen by the people of Nova Roma to make
> those decisions. If M. Hortensia, in possession of all the facts and in the
> very midst of what was going on, decided that it was reasonable to issue that
> edictum to maintain order and civility, then that in itself is very strong
> evidence that it was reasonable.
>
> For all these reasons, I say that Metellus has not proved beyond a reasonable
> doubt that M. Hortensia's second edictum of 6 June was not an act of reasonable
> moderation in the interests of maintaining order and civility. Indeed I say
> that he cannot ever prove that, because the edictum was an act of reasonable
> moderation in the interests of maintaining order and civility. But in my next
> message I shall show why, even if you completely reject these arguments and
> decide that he has proved it was not, M. Hortensia is still not guilty of this
> offence because she believed that it was.
>