Forum Romanum


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: New List Policies-Proposals for discussion
From:	radams36@--------
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 00:05:23 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@g...> wrote:
> Salve,
>
> I would like to address some concerns that have been brought to my
attention
> in recent weeks and solicit opinions. We do have an issue with the
amount
> of traffic our List sees on a monthly basis, and some of the
policies below
> would address the high volume of posts. Other proposals are more
in the
> "housekeeping" area and would simply serve to make the functioning
of the
> List a bit smoother. Please note that none of the following
policies are
> being made official at this time. I am merely interested in
hearing what
> the List members think, so please feel free to chime in and discuss
the
> issues. This is your List and your choices and opinions determine
how this
> List will function.
>
> 1. Signatures: the new policy would require that all posts are
signed. This
> has been a rather small problem but one which a number of people
have
> approached me about. Considering that all members receive
the "welcome"
> text containing our policies, even non-citizens would know to sign
posts
> with their mundane name.
>
> 2. Posting of Policies: the new policy would require that I post
the entire
> "welcome/policy" text to the Main List on a monthly basis. Some
feel this
> would be beneficial as a reminder to members as to how they are to
behave,
> while others feel it is unnecessary repetition, as the file is
available
> 24/7 on the website for personal review.
>
> 3.Number of messages: a point has been raised that a small number
of members
> make the vast majority of posts. For the sake of discussion, let
us say the
> new policy would limit all members to a maximum of three posts per
day.
> Obviously, there will be some excellent arguments for and against
this one,
> so I am eager to hear what people think. Monthly traffic on the
List *is*
> averaging 1000 posts, but on the other hand this is currently our
*main*
> forum.
>
> 4. Politics: an argument has been made that the intense focus on
politics
> here on the Main List drowns out all other interests. For the sake
of
> discussion, let us say the new policy would require that all
political
> discussion would be moved to a new official list for that express
purpose.
> Needless to say, this will also bring many good arguments on both
sides. On
> the one hand, it would allow those interested in detailed political
debate
> to do so, but election time could get interesting, as could
determining what
> is and is not a political post.
>
> 5. E-mail addresses: the new policy would require all citizens to
use their
> official (listed with the Censors) e-mail address for the Main
List. This
> would make it very simple to verify whether a poster is a citizen
or not.
> It would also eliminate the ability for some, and I will admit this
is a
> small but bothersome bunch, to have multiple accounts/personas
under which
> they post.
>
> Well, there they are. These are just rough ideas at this point,
and I am
> sure between the debates and discussions they will likely change a
bit
> before reaching their final state. I look forward to your
participation in
> making this List a smoother-running and more pleasant place to post.
>
> Vale,
> Priscilla Vedia Serena
> Curatrix Sermonis

As a new citizen, I don't know how much weight my opinions have, but
here goes:

1. Seems unnecessary and not very useful.
2. Not a bad idea - could help new citizens understand the guidelines.
3. I am VERY much against this - freedom of speech should be a very
high priority, IMHO, and this would curtail it considerably.
4. I wouldn't mind seeing the political discussions, which I find
uninteresting, moved. However, I'm not sure how practical this is and
how the distinction would be made between political and non-political
issues. I'm voting "No" on this for the time being, but an
explanation of how the decision would be made on what goes where
might sway me.
5. Posting from different accounts, and respect for individual
privacy, mandates a resounding "No" vote on this.

Respectfully,

Regimus Palaeologus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] First NR meeting in Bs. As. / 1er. encuentro NR en Bs.As.
From:	octavianuslucius@--------
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 00:51:21 -0000

Salvete omnes.
It is an honour for me to announce that next Saturday, several NR
citizens from Buenos Aires shall meet together. Any further
information is written at the provincial mailing list (in spanish
only).Or, if you wish, you can email me.
I wish to thank Marcus Furius for his invaluable help.
Valete bene
Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
Popraetor provinciae Argentinae

Salvete omnes.
Es un honor para mí anunciar que el próximo sábado, muchos ciudadanos
NR de Buenos Aires nos encontraremos. Para mayor información,
dirigirse a la lista provincial, o pueden escribirme un email.
Quiero agradecer a Marcus Furius por su invalorable ayuda.
Valete bene
Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
Popraetor provinciae Argentinae

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] animal sacrifice
From:	margali <margali@-------->
Date:	Wed, 04 Jul 2001 21:03:47 -0400

Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with
QMQP; 4 Jul 2001 16:53:56 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO dilbert.sacoriver.net)
(65.162.192.4) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 Jul 2001 16:53:56 -0000
Received: from oemcomputer (max306.sacoriver.net
[65.162.193.54]) by dilbert.sacoriver.net (8.9.3/8.9.0) with SMTP
id
MAA26428 for <novaroma@-------->; Wed, 4
Jul 2001 12:53:54 -0400 (EDT)
X-eGroups-Return:
sentto-1520-24175-994267156-margali=99main.com@--------
X-Sender: anubis@--------

Subject: Re: [novaroma] Animal Sacrifice
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 12:48:45 -0400
From: "Julie & Lawrence Brooks" <anubis@-------->
Reply-To: novaroma@--------
To: <novaroma@-------->

As a Wiccan, I personally want no involvement with anything that
has to
do with animal sacrifice. I would report such an act, if I
witnessed it,
to the proper authorities for animal abuse.

Varia Cassia

Is this you? Yes, you did say that you would report any act of
sacrifice as abuse.
That is a direct quote, including header. If it is not you, I
suggest that somebody trace this person and find out who is
forging your online persona.

margali

~~~~~
the quote starts here:
As I said in my post "I" want no involvement in it. It is your
business
what you choose to do as long as it is within the law. We all
have to
follow our own moral and ethical codes. Again, if I saw the
animal was
being abused, as has happened in some cases, I would turn them in
within a
heartbeart. I did not say that this particular person (whoever
it was, I
can't keep the names straight yet), would do so.

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: LAND PURSUITS: ADDRESS FROM PROPRAETRIX CANADA ORIENTALIS
From:	"Teleri ferch Nyfain" <rckovak@-------->
Date:	Wed, 4 Jul 2001 21:05:12 -0400

Salvete,

<<<DRUSUS scripsit:
The "Bible Belt" dosen't cover all of the
Southern States. Large parts of South and West Texas
are predominatly Mexican-American (Catholic). Many
areas of Louisinia are mainly Cajun (Catholic). South
Floridia has a very diverse mixture of faiths,
including one county (Palm Beach) that boasts having a
majority of it's household of the Jewish faith.
Atlanta has a very large Asian Indian population, who
recently built a Hindu Temple (Pagan to the
Fundementalists) without incedent.>>>

Let's not forget Asheville, NC, which has a national reputation as a Freak
capitol (Yea, Rolling Stone magazine) and a very large, vocal population of
Pagans. We are a very liberal, alternative island in a sea of Baptists.
I'd love to see a Temple built here (but land here is fairly expensive, or
else located in the middle of inaccessible mountainsides)

Valete,
Helena Galeria

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: LAND PURSUITS: ADDRESS FROM PROPRAETRIX CANADA ORIENTALIS
From:	trog99@--------
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 01:45:39 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Teleri ferch N--------n" <rckovak@e...> wrote:
> Salvete,
> Salvete Helena Galeria et alii:

Now this is something I did not know about NC. Learn something new
everyday.

And while I am at it, Helena, thanks for your offering to Ceres on
behalf of my provincia.

Keep well,
Pompeia Cornelia
>
> <(snip)...although I thank you for your info too, Druse......>
> Let's not forget Asheville, NC, which has a national reputation as a
Freak
> capitol (Yea, Rolling Stone magazine) and a very large, vocal
population of
> Pagans. We are a very liberal, alternative island in a sea of
Baptists.
> I'd love to see a Temple built here (but land here is fairly
expensive, or
> else located in the middle of inaccessible mountainsides)
>
> Valete,
> Helena Galeria

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Public Attacks on Religio Romana
From:	Maximina Octavia <myownq@-------->
Date:	Wed, 4 Jul 2001 16:42:13 -0700 (PDT)

Julie & Lawrence Brooks <anubis@--------> wrote:
As I said in my post "I" want no involvement in it. It is your business
what you choose to do as long as it is within the law. We all have to
follow our own moral and ethical codes. Again, if I saw the animal was
being abused, as has happened in some cases, I would turn them in within a
heartbeart. I did not say that this particular person (whoever it was, I
can't keep the names straight yet), would do so. T

There are humane ways to kill and and inhumane. And yes there are slaughter
houses which do it inhumanely, and I think that it is wrong, because there
is no need for that. We all have to eat, it's the way nature balances
itself. I just do not happen to agree with animal sacrifice or human
sacrifice for any reason, especially for the reason of some so-called deity,
who may or may not exist, or may be just figments of our imagination. I'm
sorry if this statement may tick someone(s) off, but again I am entitled to
my opinion.

Those who feel they can justify such an animal sacrifice within their own
moral, ethical and religious rights, then that is up to them. I don't live
with their code, I live with mine.

Varia Cassia

Varia Cassia (Julie and Lawrence Brooks),

How dare you? You have gone too far with me, Miss, when you attacked the Religio Romana and the dieties. Do you think this is just a role-play site or game?

There must be a law that deals with those who publically denounce the gods as "so-called" or "figments of the imagination", and I am turning *you* in for that. This, to me, is far worse than animal sacrifice and I am a vegetarian! I would rather you had attacked me personally.

This is just the kind of religious intolerance all true Nova Romans seek to escape

I will not forgive or forget this attack.

Maximina Octavia

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

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Trimming Posts
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Wed, 4 Jul 2001 22:40:31 -0400

Salve,

I'd like a moment of your time to address a matter of netiquette. There are
a growing number of posters who are including *all* of a post to which they
are replying, without using any indication where one post ends and the other
starts. In several cases members are re-posting a 20-40 line post simply to
add one or two sentences at the end.

Now, it is true enough that there is no *rule* against this, but I would ask
that all members take a bit more care to trim their posts. I always assume
that when someone takes the time to post they wish to be heard and
understood. I believe you will find that if you cut and paste *just* the
portion<s> of the post you are addressing, your post will be clearer and
better understood.

Please take a moment to trim down your posts. It will help all of us to
better hear your words. If anyone needs help in learning how to cut and
paste and quote txt, I am more than happy to assist you. Drop me a line
off-list at justicecmo@-------- and I'll set you up.

Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena
Curatrix Sermonis

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


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Public Attacks on Religio Romana
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 4 Jul 2001 22:37:00 -0400

Salvete

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maximina Octavia [mailto:myownq@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 7:42 PM
>
> There must be a law that deals with those who publically denounce
> the gods as "so-called" or "figments of the imagination", and I
> am turning *you* in for that.

The Nova Roman Constitution (paragraph IV.A.) states: "Magistrates,
Senators, and citizens need not be practitioners of the Religio Romana, but
may not engage in any activity that intentionally blasphemes or defames the
Gods, the Religio Romana, or its practitioners."

In my opinion, claiming that the Gods of Rome do not exist would certainly
qualify as an intentionally blasphemous statement, and thus in flagrant
disregard not only for the written terms of our Constitution, but the
sensibilities of the many followers of the Religio Romana here in Nova Roma.
The original statement you quoted did have a number of qualifiers in it, but
that would be a judgement for a trail to undertake.

However, our current Praetores have been quite relucant in the past to
pursue any prosecution in which a specific penalty has not previously been
spelled out for the crime in question. This would be such a case, although I
would remind all that the Law Committee will be coming out with a
comprehensive code and procedure within the next couple of months, which
should include such blasphemous statements within its purview.

In the meantime, I would suggest you get in touch privately with the
Praetores to review the possibilities.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
ICQ: 106199729
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Public Attacks on Religio Romana
From:	"Julie & Lawrence Brooks" <anubis@-------->
Date:	Wed, 4 Jul 2001 22:46:00 -0400

Varia Cassia (Julie and Lawrence Brooks),

How dare you? You have gone too far with me, Miss, when you attacked the Religio Romana and the dieties. Do you think this is just a role-play site or game?

There must be a law that deals with those who publically denounce the gods as "so-called" or "figments of the imagination", and I am turning *you* in for that. This, to me, is far worse than animal sacrifice and I am a vegetarian! I would rather you had attacked me personally.

This is just the kind of religious intolerance all true Nova Romans seek to escape

I will not forgive or forget this attack.

Maximina Octavia

What are you turning her into?

We feel that each person is responcible for thier own actions. Not a God or Goddess telling you what to do, that is a cop out. If YOU kill something in the Name Of the Gods than it is still YOU that has KILLED not the Gods. No matter how you suger coat it or try to justify it. Your actions are between you and your Gods. We Kill eveyday when we breathe, walk, eat and go about our lives. This is part of our world. Do not make up a reason like Religion to Kill an animal, man or plant. Eccept what you are and try to be the best of it.

By the way Religion is Man/Woman made and is therefore a creation of the mind.

Laurencius Cassius

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

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Public Attacks on Religio Romana
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 03:08:00 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@n...> wrote:

SNIP
>
> In my opinion, claiming that the Gods of Rome do not exist would
certainly
> qualify as an intentionally blasphemous statement, and thus in flagrant
> disregard not only for the written terms of our Constitution, but the
> sensibilities of the many followers of the Religio Romana here in
Nova Roma.
> The original statement you quoted did have a number of qualifiers in
it, but
> that would be a judgement for a trail to undertake.
>

Salvete,

Allthough I do not take blasphemous statements lightly, I would like
to point out that these statements were made by one of our newer
citizens, who may not be aware of this law.

The list rules do forbid "Bashing of any religion. It is OK to discuss
your own disagreements with various faiths, but not to disrespect the
rights of others to believe in those faiths." but do not make it clear
that statements that blaspheme the Gods of Rome is a crime.

Since we do not have Lex that defines the punishment for blasphemy
yet, and this is a new citizen who may have been unaware that she
could have been violating our laws, I think a warning would be enough
in this case.

I would also suggest that we add a warning to the list rules that
blasphemy against the Gods is a crime, so that in the future new
citizens will be forewarned.

Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Public Attacks on Religio Romana
From:	trog99@--------
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 03:11:27 -0000

--- Salvete Omnes:

Although I am not much for *me too* posts, I concur with the analysis
of Druse.

I think a warning is sufficient for a first time error, and perhaps we
need to review guidelines in this regard, and make well defined laws,
as Consul Germanice has indicated.

Bene vale,
Pompeia Cornelia

In novaroma@--------, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> wrote:
> --- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@n...>
wrote:
>
> SNIP
> >
> > In my opinion, claiming that the Gods of Rome do not exist would
> certainly
> > qualify as an intentionally blasphemous statement, and thus in
flagrant
> > disregard not only for the written terms of our Constitution, but
the
> > sensibilities of the many followers of the Religio Romana here in
> Nova Roma.
> > The original statement you quoted did have a number of qualifiers
in
> it, but
> > that would be a judgement for a trail to undertake.
> >
>
> Salvete,
>
> Allthough I do not take blasphemous statements lightly, I would like
> to point out that these statements were made by one of our newer
> citizens, who may not be aware of this law.
>
> The list rules do forbid "Bashing of any religion. It is OK to
discuss
> your own disagreements with various faiths, but not to disrespect
the
> rights of others to believe in those faiths." but do not make it
clear
> that statements that blaspheme the Gods of Rome is a crime.
>
> Since we do not have Lex that defines the punishment for blasphemy
> yet, and this is a new citizen who may have been unaware that she
> could have been violating our laws, I think a warning would be
enough
> in this case.
>
> I would also suggest that we add a warning to the list rules that
> blasphemy against the Gods is a crime, so that in the future new
> citizens will be forewarned.
>
> Vale,
> L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Religion
From:	"Julie & Lawrence Brooks" <anubis@-------->
Date:	Wed, 4 Jul 2001 23:02:06 -0400

So what do you people do to those who do not agree with you and who can and
do think for themselves. Religion is very subjective and was even in the
Roman times.

Laurecius Cassius

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Religion
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 03:38:14 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Julie & Lawrence Brooks" <anubis@s...> wrote:
> So what do you people do to those who do not agree with you and who
can and
> do think for themselves. Religion is very subjective and was even in the
> Roman times.
>
> Laurecius Cassius

Salve Laureci Cassi,

In you home you are free to be a Roman Pagan, a Wiccan, a Christian,
or even an Atheist, and your right to do so is protected under our
Constitution.

Our Constitution also gives the Religio the status of the state
religion, and forbids attacks against the state religion. Public
statements that the Gods don't exist is something that most Roman
Pagans consider an attack on our religion. We do not have a punishment
enacted into law yet, but it could go as far as banishment when we
vote on this later this year.

The rules of this list also forbid attacks against ANY religion, and
the punishment for that is within the Imperium of the Moderator. She
maintains a rule of privacy in placing citizens on moderated status,
though she has made statements that she gives people a warning.

You have the right to disagree with sacrifice. We have many Roman
Pagans who feel the Gods no longer require this from us.

Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Public Attacks on Religio Romana
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Wed, 04 Jul 2001 23:41:12 -0400

Salvete cives et amici ab Nova Roma,

I just noticed citizen Varia Cassia's statement in her post on animal
sacrifice and was greatly offended at what I saw.

> I just do not happen to agree with animal sacrifice or human
> sacrifice for any reason, especially for the reason of some so-called deity,
> who may or may not exist, or may be just figments of our imagination.

Rarely if ever do other citizens criticise other peoples believes in the way
she criticised ours. How dare she do it to us, and at all places, Nova Roma!
This is clearly a law broken. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion but
there is sensible lines. The state religion is one of them. Its also law.
The state religion is a very large part of the fabric of Roman culture and
society. Vraia Cassia was clearly undermining this and therefore undermining
our beloved res publica and nation. I am disappointed, and comming from one
of our very own citizens... I really hope something is done, be it a
official apology or trial. A part of what we stand for is being destroyed by
one citizens thoughtless criticism and mindless remarks, shameful indeed...

"Quamquam cupido sis delictum ab sui crebro suum mater ab vitualis"
"Though ambition may be a fault in itself it is often the mother of virtues"

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Canada Orientalis Provincia
www.freehost.nu/members/canorien
--

Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Religion, Animal Sacrifice, etc.
From:	trog99@--------
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 04:15:28 -0000

Salvete Omnes:

Although the subject of animal sacrifice falls well within the purview
of discussing Roman culture, let me say that I hate it.

Why? Because in every list I have been exposed to, here, Hellenion,
Religio Romana, it invariably stirs up bad feelings and dissent among
the list contributors, which to me,is rather self-defeating
spiritually. Is it proper to insult each other and bring each other
to tears over a ritual? Seems to me we are missing the picture,
although I am not a spiritual authority by any means.

I have been subject to Christians who are willing to shred eachother
over minor doctrinal differences, too.

And I have my perspectives on animal sacrifice, but I will not confuse
this thread by talking about them now.

A novus civi made a couple of remarks as to the existance of the gods
in her argument to negate the actual need for animal sacrifice.

A couple of citizens are offended by this. And, although the remarks
made by the new citizen were probably not calculated or meant as an
intentional offence, I can understand how fervent practitioners of the
Religio would be upset. I would not appreciate being told my god does
not exist.

I ask the offended practitioners look at the *intent* behind the
remarks: was it really meant to upset or offend, or was it said in
the heat of the moment, as part of an argument?

This is a new member who is not quite *used* to Nova Roma and the
fervent treasure of the Religio as the state religion, but here is
someone who is interested enough in Rome to join us and offer her
talents as an ordo equaetrian.

This new member teaches Wicca, believes in the three-fold rule, and is
connected heavily with the natural as well as spiritual elements. Can
you see, for but a moment, that she might have a problem with the
sacrifice of animals? Did she overstep her bounds? I would have to
say, well *yes*. Did she do this will calculated malice? I truly do
not think so........it was just that she *hit a nerve*.

We are all human folks, and not one of us can claim perfection.

And Cassia has had enough opposition to her remarks that I'm she
realizes this, and will probably be more mindful of others' religious
sensitivies.........I believe this because it is built right into her
belief system. I also believe she is entitled to her belief system.

And lets not hear any more talk of unforgiveness, which I also believe
was said in the heat of the moment by a very sweet girl who is totally
incapable of rote *unforgiveness* from what I can tell.

Hey, I can show you medical/nursing studies which connect
unforgiveness with a multiplicity of maladies nobody wishes to be
burdened with.

Let us celebrate...........and not sweat the small stuff, ok?

Bene valete
Pompeia Cornelia

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Banishment?????
From:	"Pompeia Cornelia Strabo" <scriba_forum@-------->
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 04:35:55 -0000

Salvete Druse et Omnes:

Personally I will fight any *banishment* legislation on anything but
repeated offences against the Religio.

You seem to have the inside scoop........who is supplying you with this
information.......care to share??

What was said today is not grounds for banishment, just a misdemeanor as a
component of an argument deserving of a reminder of list guidelines, and
nothing more.

Of all the trouble makers we have had on this list........you have no idea.

I am not a legalist, and I have to look at the intent behind someones's
actions before I throw them off the Tarpein Rock for defying the letter of
the law.

Killing someone who made a slip x 1 is not going to make me or you a holier
person, sorry. This thinking is just a bit too fundamentalist to be
virtuous, in my opinion.

Valete,
Pompeia

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Blasphemy? No?
From:	Iulia66198@--------
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 00:55:08 EDT

Salvete omnes...

I am posting this on behalf of Nerva, as he is currently unable to do so
himself.

Iulia Cassia

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

Salvete,

The supposedly "blasphemous" statement by Varia Cassia referred to
the gods, "who may or may not exist, or may be figments of the
imagination".

Predictably, uninformed people are getting indignant and crying about
"blasphemy" and the law being broken, yada yada yada...

First, "blasphemy" is nowhere defined in NR law. In all other law
codes in civilized nations, crimes are given legal definitions so that
charges may be exact and precise, and not guided by the mere opinion of
some individual. So we have definitions for 'murder' and 'extortion'.
But in NR's law, there is no definition of blasphemy whatsoever. So the
question is, how can you convict someone of a crime when you literally
do no not know what the crime is?

Secondly, in NR when there is no explicit law, we follow PRECEDENT.
And by PRECEDENT, saying the gods do not exist {and the poster in
question did not even say that} is not a crime. How do I know this?

Last summer I said on the mainlist what I believe to be true. "The gods
do not exist and can therefore not vent wrath upon anyone". There was a
lot of flaming and anger over that....with the end result that there was
NO LEGAL CHARGE MADE, and thus, no conviction.

Since then, absolutely NO CHANGE has been made to rectify the lack of
defintion of the word "blasphemy". NRs magistrates have apparently not
considered the matter important enough.

Conclusion: In light of the above, without a defintition of blasphemy,
and the precedent established by the fact that no legal action was
taken against me last year, that there is now a precedent that
professions of unbelief are not blasphemous.

Nerva

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Public Attacks on Religio Romana
From:	"Julie & Lawrence Brooks" <anubis@-------->
Date:	Wed, 4 Jul 2001 23:33:16 -0400

Now that some people's blood pressure seems to be skyhigh, I'll will try once more to clarify my statement. At no time did I state that Nova Roma's religion or gods did not exist - or anyone's elses deities for that matter.

What my statement referred to was the philosophical debate about whether or not deity exists at all. This has been a debate since the idea of religion has been around. Religious schools has debated this concept for centuries - before Rome and after Roman. Religion is a human construct and therefore also subject to human error, falacies and falsehoods. People of good conscious should questions their motives on issues of importance, such as this one currently being discussed on animal sacrifice.

It is too bad that some people see questioning one's religion and motives for doing such an act as an act of treason of some kind.

Varia Cassia

----- Original Message -----
From: Lucius Sicinius Drusus
To: novaroma@--------
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 11:08 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Re: Public Attacks on Religio Romana

--- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@n...> wrote:

SNIP
>
> In my opinion, claiming that the Gods of Rome do not exist would
certainly
> qualify as an intentionally blasphemous statement, and thus in flagrant
> disregard not only for the written terms of our Constitution, but the
> sensibilities of the many followers of the Religio Romana here in
Nova Roma.
> The original statement you quoted did have a number of qualifiers in
it, but
> that would be a judgement for a trail to undertake.
>

Salvete,

Allthough I do not take blasphemous statements lightly, I would like
to point out that these statements were made by one of our newer
citizens, who may not be aware of this law.

The list rules do forbid "Bashing of any religion. It is OK to discuss
your own disagreements with various faiths, but not to disrespect the
rights of others to believe in those faiths." but do not make it clear
that statements that blaspheme the Gods of Rome is a crime.

Since we do not have Lex that defines the punishment for blasphemy
yet, and this is a new citizen who may have been unaware that she
could have been violating our laws, I think a warning would be enough
in this case.

I would also suggest that we add a warning to the list rules that
blasphemy against the Gods is a crime, so that in the future new
citizens will be forewarned.

Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus

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

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

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Free Speech
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 04 Jul 2001 22:19:26 -0700

Ave,

I think we need to tread very carefully, extremely carefully before we
start legislating limits on free speech. I think there needs to be some
protections (slander and libel, threats to the state, calls for
succession, and gens dissension) but keep them at a bare minimum. So,
please if we are going to start legislating this...and I honestly do not
really see the need.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Free Speech
From:	"Pompeia Cornelia Strabo" <scriba_forum@-------->
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 05:50:37 -0000

Ave Pater Sulla:

Yes, I also think that this must be dealt with carefully.

First, I do not see this as an appropriate venue to disregard the existance
or the importance of anybody's deities.

Second, I think when people do, once, not realizing the sensitivities
involved, to wit, respect and adoration of the Religio, Roman Deities etc.
succumb to a statement questioning the existance of same, that we error on
this side of caution in terms of overreacting.

If this is a multiple offence, then I would concur... you are gone! A once
time slip by a new citizen? I will hear of nothing more than a private note
from the censor or curatrix sermonen saying, "hey would ya tone it down
here.......you are in Rome and some Romans who are deeply connected to the
dieties you claim do not exist"

That's it, that's all............and more often than not, this is
satisfactory.

We can emotionlessly quote laws (which do not yet exist) to those who ask
what could happen to them if they offend Nova Roma. Nice.....very
nice...makes people think, "hey, we've got it together"...yeah, right. How's
about saying "hey, we all make mistakes".......nahhh

The above also makes us look very heartless. Again, I think we have to look
at the motive behind something that was said, and not just what was said,
especially with a first slip.

I am sorry. I am all for law. But when compassion is removed from law, it
is not justice........because compassion is the art of looking at the total
picture, rendering the law a dynamic vehicle in the protection of us all.

Love to Pater Sulla,
Pompeia

>From: Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
>Reply-To: novaroma@--------
>To: "novaroma@--------" <novaroma@-------->
>Subject: [novaroma] Free Speech
>Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 22:19:26 -0700
>
>Ave,
>
>I think we need to tread very carefully, extremely carefully before we
>start legislating limits on free speech. I think there needs to be some
>protections (slander and libel, threats to the state, calls for
>succession, and gens dissension) but keep them at a bare minimum. So,
>please if we are going to start legislating this...and I honestly do not
>really see the need.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: First NR meeting in Bs. As. / 1er. encuentro NR en Bs.As.
From:	trog99@--------
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 06:22:42 -0000

---

Salve Amicus Propraetor Argentina Luci Pompei:

I am so delighted that you will meeting with your civites! I am
equally delighted to be meeting with a few of mine at a provincial
gathering on Aug. 3,4 5. AND, I have the honour of meeting my
Provincial Procurator, Appius Tullius Marcellus Cato this weekend at
my residence.
I am preparing a special feast for him!

I hope you have a wonderful time, and please send us a report about
the gathering!

Bene vale et Buona Fortuna Perpetua Amicus,
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo
Propraetrix pro temp
Canada Orientalis
NOVA ROMA

In novaroma@--------, octavianuslucius@i... wrote:
> Salvete omnes.
> It is an honour for me to announce that next Saturday, several NR
> citizens from Buenos Aires shall meet together. Any further
> information is written at the provincial mailing list (in spanish
> only).Or, if you wish, you can email me.
> I wish to thank Marcus Furius for his invaluable help.
> Valete bene
> Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> Popraetor provinciae Argentinae
>
> Salvete omnes.
> Es un honor para mí anunciar que el próximo sábado, muchos
ciudadanos
> NR de Buenos Aires nos encontraremos. Para mayor información,
> dirigirse a la lista provincial, o pueden escribirme un email.
> Quiero agradecer a Marcus Furius por su invalorable ayuda.
> Valete bene
> Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> Popraetor provinciae Argentinae

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Dr. Suess Latin- was Animal Sacrifice
From:	CmndrZil@--------
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 03:01:35 EDT

Aulus Sertorius said:

>>One last note, has anyone else seen the latin translation of Cat in Hat by
Dr.Seuss? I was looking through the bookstore the other day and I saw the
book in the Latin lauguage section. Now that I think about it, that book
would come in handy for those who were learning latin for the first time.
>

My Latin club bought it for my school library. It was rather cute. The
translators did a good job of meter and rhyme, but I don't think it would be
good for those who are just beginning their Latin studies. It's a nice idea,
but if you're going to learn Latin, you need phrases like "the farmer's
daughters are in the field behind the farmhouse," and "Hercules killed it
with a club." You don't learn all of the necessary words for "kill" from Cat
in the Hat. If you can't say kill at least ten ways in Latin, what can you do?

Tarquinia Euphemia

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Public Attacks on Religio Romana
From:	CmndrZil@--------
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 03:28:20 EDT

In a message dated 7/4/01 11:18:32 PM, anubis@-------- writes:

>It is too bad that some people see questioning one's religion and motives
>for doing such an act as an act of treason of some kind.

You know, we're not going to agree. If someone says there is/are no higher
power(s), people of all faiths will react strongly. In fact, people of all
faiths react strongly no matter what is said about (a) higher power(s).

Quite a few people were offended by what you said. Many others told them to
give you the benefit of the doubt, to trust that you had good intentions.
Maybe you mis-spoke or didn't make yourself clear. The statement that "it's
too bad" doesn't convince me that you're intentions were pure at heart. How
about "I'm sorry about the miscommunication, I didn't mean to offend you?"

I'm not CALLING (not yelling) for an apology, but forgiveness comes a whole
lot easier with one.

Tarquinia Euphemia

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Banishment?????
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 08:58:22 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Pompeia Cornelia Strabo" <scriba_forum@h...> wrote:
> Salvete Druse et Omnes:
>
> Personally I will fight any *banishment* legislation on anything but
> repeated offences against the Religio.
>
> You seem to have the inside scoop........who is supplying you with this
> information.......care to share??
>
> What was said today is not grounds for banishment, just a
misdemeanor as a
> component of an argument deserving of a reminder of list guidelines,
and
> nothing more.
>
> Of all the trouble makers we have had on this list........you have
no idea.
>
> I am not a legalist, and I have to look at the intent behind someones's
> actions before I throw them off the Tarpein Rock for defying the
letter of
> the law.
>
> Killing someone who made a slip x 1 is not going to make me or you
a holier
> person, sorry. This thinking is just a bit too fundamentalist to be
> virtuous, in my opinion.
>
> Valete,
> Pompeia
>
Salve,

As to the statement made yesterday, I have allready said that a
warning is all that is needed.

As to banishment, I go by this precedent.
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/sen99011001.html

Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Free Speech
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 09:12:18 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@e...> wrote:
> Ave,
>
> I think we need to tread very carefully, extremely carefully before we
> start legislating limits on free speech. I think there needs to be some
> protections (slander and libel, threats to the state, calls for
> succession, and gens dissension) but keep them at a bare minimum. So,
> please if we are going to start legislating this...and I honestly do not
> really see the need.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Salve Luci Corneli,

The legeslation allready exists. Section VI A of the Constitution
allready bans attacks on the Religio.

THAT it's a crime has allready been decided.
WHAT the punishment will be has not, though a precedent exists for
Banishment.

Since Banishment is an extreme penality I think it should be reserved
for extreme cases (Which this incedent is NOT)

Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Hm (was the Religio Hysteria)
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 11:15:57 +0200

Salvete Quirites,

Some have said that being able to take criticism and responding to it in an
intelligent and rational way is an indication of someone's level of depth,
self-knowledge and wisdom. I think this is true. Unfortunately, fanatics
don't need ratio, as they have the truth! It's saddening to see that the
remotest bit of criticism on the Religio Romana, id est doubts regarding it,
are interpreted as a crusade against it. It makes those people as hysterical
as christian, muslim or whatever fundamentalists.

For instance, the Collegium Pontificum is much broader in vision than some
people here. Look at me, for instance; they have made me a Lupercus Fabianus
on basis of my knowledge and engagement, while my beliefs are more agnostic
than most other Religio practicioners. This broad-mindedness deserves a lot
of praise.

In short, I don't need farizeans here.

Valete bene,
S. Apollonius Draco

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Animal Sacrifice
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 09:59:09 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Marcus Cassius Julianus" <cassius622@a...> wrote:
> --- In novaroma@--------, "Aulus Sertorius" <aulus_sertorius@e...> wrote:
> > Salve,
> >
> > I'm curious as to if anyone in today's world still practices animal
> sacrifice whether for tradition or for the religous aspect of it and
> what are the views of Nova Romans about this practice going on in the
> modern world? If we were to build a temple, would we include these
> acts that were quite common in ancient Rome and Greece. Of course, if
> one was to do it - it would have to be eaten otherwise the local law
> enforcement might have something else to say. Does anyone see it as
> wrong, right or maybe even useful in pleasing the gods?
>
> Cassius:
> As I am sure you have seen by now, Nova Romans are divided on the
> question of animal sacrifice. I personally do not care for it, even
> though I do eat meat, and though sacrifice is legal in the US, and
> even though it is at least in theory more humane than "commercial"
> methods of slaughtering.
>
> I have a *personal* dislike for sacrifice simply because I do not
> feel it is necessary in the modern world. Most religion and
> spirituality seems to have evolved beyond the need for it... and I am
> convinced on a personal level that the Gods do not require the life
> force of animals in order to survive. In the ancient
> world "sacrifice" was a way to give something of importance to the
> Gods. Animals were wealth. Today, animals are not the expression of
> wealth for most of us. I can't think of any Nova Romans who count
> their worldly belongings in the number of cattle they own.
>
> Yet there are those that disagree with me. I respect that opinion
> though I cannot endorse it. My *hope* is that sacrifice will not
> become an official policy. Most modern people have neither the
> facilities, knowledge or circumstances to do it in the way it would
> need be done. SOME people DO have the knowledge and circumstances to
> get it right. Folks living on a farm, etc. But that is a far cry from
> the urban lives of most of us.

DRUSUS: In Roma Antiquita most people measured their wealth in
sesterces rather than livestock, but that was NOT seen as a reason NOT
to have sacrifices. They simply purchased an animal to offer.

I Don't look on sacrifice as a means of "feeding the Gods", but rather
as a boon granted to us by the Gods. The basic outline of the rite is
the animal is inspected to assure it's healthy, The priest performs
the rites that transfer ownership of the animal to the God(s) and asks
the God(s) to sanctify the victim, the victim is killed by the Temple
attendents, who are skilled butchers, and the sanctified meat is then
eaten in a community feast.

I consider this last act, which I think the Christian Ecurist is based
on, an essentil part of the rite. The bonding of the community through
a common meal, and the personal interaction with the God(s) by
partaking of the sanctified meat as a boon the God(s) have granted us.
If it was sacrifice in the pure sense of giving something up, the the
entire victim would be burned on the altar in all cases, rather than
just in a few cases.

Since we are currently scattered around the globe, I see NO reason for
sacrifices at this time. We can't send the meat over the internet!
;o). At some future date when we have a forum, with citizens who wish
to do so living near by, or events large enough for enough citizens to
partake of the sacred meal, then a sacrifice would be proper.

Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Blasphemy + Blood sacrifice
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 11:54:43 +0100

Salvete omnes

>I just do not happen to agree with animal sacrifice or human
>sacrifice for any reason, especially for the reason of some so-called
deity,
>who may or may not exist, or may be just figments of our imagination. I'm
>sorry if this statement may tick someone(s) off, but again I am entitled to
>my opinion.

Where is the blasphemy? The author of this statement, Varia Cassia, has
simply expressed her doubt about the existence of the Gods. To express a
doubt is not blasphemy. Blasphemy is to express a false certainty such as
afirming that "The Gods, definitely do not exist".

I find the definition of 'blasphemy' quite associated with that of
'superstition', for the former normally stems from the latter. The ancients
(Plutarch is a good example) defined "supertition" in two possible ways:
1) Excess of piety or belief leading one to afirm what cannot be known with
certainty, or to honour the Gods more than one's DUTY at the cost of
degrading one's dignity.
2) Atheism, which is complete lack of piety or belief.
These are the extremes of piety. All that is in between - including the
doubting positions - would be considered reasonable and proper of a learned
mind.

Now, to those who have attacked Varia Cassia:
A doubt similar to hers is presented by Cicero in his work on Theology
(branch of Philosophy that deals with the nature of the Gods) called 'De
Natura Deorum'. In this dialog, the doubt is presented by a character who is
the Pontifex Maximus!!!! Nevertheless it is an healthy Philosophical
discussion where none of the characters seems to be shocked with the
statement.
Of course, in Cicero's work, that statement was said in the presence of
people who were educated and with knowledge of Philosophy. But then aren't
we forced to conclude that what moves your accusations is the fact that you
are uneducated and ignorant about Philosophy?

Now, to Varia Cassia:
The Religio Romana is a thing to be done even if it is not believed. Each
person has a different idea about the Gods. I have my own. Nevertheless,
independently of one's ideas, the Religio Romana is to be done. Done for the
sake of Rome, done for the sake of the Family, DONE! We must DO the Religio
Romana much more than we must BELIEVE it. Belief is a question of personal
feeling or decision, or even one of Philosophical concern. To DO the Religio
Romana is rather a question of CULTURAL IDENTIFICATION for just as Cicero
says, "Each CITY has its own religion".

Now, on the subject of killing animals:
The Religio Romana has precedent for both practices. King Numa who is said
to have been one of the founders of the Religio Romana (second only to
Romulus himself) is said to have forbidden blood sacrifice, a position that
I defend should be applied to the PUBLIC CULT of Nova Roma. Let us read this
passage from [Ovid, Fasti, 337]:
"Of old the means to win the goodwill of gods for man were spelt and the
sparkling grains of pure salt. As yet no foreign ship had brought across the
ocean waves the black-distilled myrrh; the Eufrates had sent no incense,
India no balm, and the red saffron's filaments were still unknown. The altar
was content to smoke with savine, and the laurel burned with crackling loud.
To garlands woven of meadow flowers he who could violets add was rich
indeed. The knife that now lays bare the bowels of the slaughtered bull had
in sacred rites no work to do. (...)"
So, we see that the Religio Romana was also subject to evolution, and while
the posture, the form of the prayers and other attitudes were more or less
kept, the diet of the Gods changed over time. Nowadays blood sacrifice is
not well accepted by many. In my opinion this is one thing that we can
easily eliminate from the PUBLIC CULT of Nova Roma without affecting the
general character of the Religio Romana. Even more because the elimination
of blood sacrifice will also eliminate many enemies that otherwise we would
have to face.

Valete bene in pace deorum

Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Pontifex

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


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Blasphemy? No?
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 07:03:44 -0400

Salve,

<<I am posting this on behalf of Nerva, as he is currently unable to do so
himself.

Iulia Cassia>>

Nerva unsubscribed from the Main List the other night. He *has* been able
to post to the Back Alley list, so I am unsure as to his reason for not
being able to resubscribe to this List and post for himself.

Please pass along that if he is having trouble resubscribing he should
contact me off-list and I will assist him. Other than technical trouble on
his end and his choice to unsubscribe there is no reason he is unable to
post here.

Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena
Curatrix Sermonis

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


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Totalitarism
From:	"Marek Grajek" <MarekJG@-------->
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 09:46:07 +0200

Salve,

Gaeus Salix Astur wrote:

> Besides, if you are against an "excessive and general involvement" in
> politics, I guess you must support totalitarism in all its forms,
> including Communism and Fascism. Those two systems have been very good
> at avoiding "excessive and general involvement".

I'm afraid you missed your argument, Sir. During the WW II my family was
reduced (in terms of numbers) to 5% of its initial state as a result of the
combined operations of 2 largest totalitarian regimes of the 20th century -
nazi and soviet ones. I was born and lived a large part of my life under
another communist regime, mild in comparison with the mentioned ones, but
sufficiently ugly to cure anyone from totalitarian instincts. This
information is provided just as a lesson for you that careless selection of
ad personam type arguments may be a rather risky business.

Now, let's get back to the main discussion. Do you know how the ancient
Greeks used to call a man who tried to stay beyond the local politics? The
term used was - IDIOTA (more or less - a man who does not care, who deems
everything as equal). Remebering this lesson of the history I am unlikely to
persuade anybody refraining from the participation in politics. I try to
remember however, what is politics itself. I usually define it as the
organization of the human society facilitating achievement of the generally
accepted goals. Politics abstracted from these goals is a pure game, is form
without matter. I was trying to express my fear that this is exactly what
happens to the political life of NovaRoma.

Vale bene,

CMA

-----------------R--E--K--L--A--M--A------------------
O ciuchach, kosmetykach i innych kobiecych sprawach...
http://polki.interia.pl/

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Religion
From:	Maximina Octavia <myownq@-------->
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 00:45:07 -0700 (PDT)

Julie & Lawrence Brooks <anubis@--------> wrote:
So what do you people do to those who do not agree with you and who can and
do think for themselves. Religion is very subjective and was even in the
Roman times.

Laurecius Cassius

Salve Laurecius Cassius,

It is very honorable for you to come to the defense of your wife, however, there was a clear *threat* to turn someone in who practices their religious beliefs in a manner that is not agreed upon by Varia.

Everyone at Nova Roma is free to think for themselves. Let's not cloud the issue by alluding that it is otherwise. The issue is respect or that lack of it as presented in the form of a threat and publicly defaming and denouncing the deities and the importance of the religion of this micronation which you and Varia are a part of.

I would never come to your temple, domain, home or coven and threaten to turn you in or publicly denounce your beliefs because I disagreed with your religious practices. This main list is my home, domain and temple for Nova Roma, a place where I feel safe to practice my religion and speak respectfully and even disagree with others without being subjected to defamation, disrespect or threats.

Furthermore, I would not practice any type of religious duties that would cause me to break the laws of our various macronations and neither would the majority of Nova Romans in my humble opinion. To even suggest that these citizens would do so and jeopardize the existence of Nova Roma is preposterous.

Please understand, that in my opinion the type of statements Varia made are a clear and present danger to Religio Romana and represent persecution to me as a believer. In history, big conflicts were started with "Small" statements.

Valete, Maximina Octavia

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

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

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Public Attacks on Religio Romana and Voting
From:	"Gregorius" <centurion-gregorius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 01:59:34 -0700

Salvete Cives!
I am Marcus Claudius Gregorius, a new citizen of Nova Roma. In presenting
myself to you, I find I have the opportunity to do several things which
attracted me to Roma when first I stumbled upon her.
One is that most Noble of Roman deeds .. voting. Another is to debate with
Romans about issues of state. The opportunity to cast my thumb in the
direction of choice concerning how discipline might be handled on the list
comes as a relief to me since observing the list for the last two weeks has
left me with a strong desire to make some sort of statement concerning rude
or offensive posting.

Our dedicated Curatrix Sermonis has my deep respect for handling what
appears to be a most difficult job, but for all the supposed moderation,
quite a bit of personally offensive material has met my old soldiers' eyes
here. While a Wiccan Animal rights activist might wax existential in
questioning ones need to sacrifice living beings, it is doubtful that when
these subjects come up that said pro-lifer will be silent. It is possible
that moderation of that persons posts will be required to prevent them from
blaspheming.
Personally, I sacrifice to Jupiter and Mars on the field of SCA combat in
the hopes of garnering much Honor and Glory for the Gods by vanquishing my
opponents. This type of activity could be construed as kind of Simulated
Human Sacrifice and will undoubtedly offend many, perhaps even including
Christians who's Ritual Canibalism (the sacrament) I find personally
offensive.

However, this is Rome. Let us not blaspheme nor sling personal attacks at
our noble Brothers and Sisters. Those who do... must be silenced. Moderating
those posts is the correct method as I see it. Notifying the Cives that
someone has been reprimanded and that their posts are moderated MUST be done
in my view. Also, I believe the nature of the offence should be reported; a
person posting from multiple names and/or email accounts should be disclosed
for example or a person prone to pornographic spamming should be exposed,
( unless they expose themselves of course! oops.) .. Crimes against the
State should be well defined in the Lex and sanctions against criminals
should be delineated. Perhaps unrepentant offenders should be purged and
traitors should suffer the ultimate punishment, okay okay not killed but
banished MAYbe.

Finally, I think that a solution to the problem of long exchanges on
subjects on the list might be handled the way that Radio Traffic is done.
Once initial contact and discourse on a subject is established on the main
list, Interested Parties could continue the thread on another list or
channel so to speak. This might require an inordinate amount of management
from the Curatrix but I offer the idea to you for discussion.
Thank you all for listening to my diatribe, I shall endeavour to be less
verbose in my future posts.
Please note that I meant no personal offense in the afforgoing but offer
these words as a means to help us all build a better Nova Roma where we
don't have to resort to the Old World methods of getting along.. Optio! my
Gladius!
Lastly I should like to publicly thank the Gentes and Materfamilias of Gens
Claudius for accepting me to this excellent Patrician Gens.

Salve Claudio! Salve Luna! Salve Mars!

Gregorius
o{}========={}=========={}o
Fortitudo et Honor!
Strength and Honour!
o{}========={}=========={}o

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Animal Sacrifice
From:	loos@--------
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 10:18:20 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> wrote:
> --- In novaroma@--------, "Marcus Cassius Julianus" <cassius622@a...>
wrote:
> > --- In novaroma@--------, "Aulus Sertorius" <aulus_sertorius@e...>
wrote:
> > > Salve,
> > >
> > > I'm curious as to if anyone in today's world still practices
animal
> > sacrifice whether for tradition or for the religous aspect of it
and
> > what are the views of Nova Romans about this practice going on in
the
> > modern world? If we were to build a temple, would we include these
> > acts that were quite common in ancient Rome and Greece. Of course,
if
> > one was to do it - it would have to be eaten otherwise the local
law
> > enforcement might have something else to say. Does anyone see it
as
> > wrong, right or maybe even useful in pleasing the gods?
> >
> > Cassius:
> > As I am sure you have seen by now, Nova Romans are divided on the
> > question of animal sacrifice. I personally do not care for it,
even
> > though I do eat meat, and though sacrifice is legal in the US, and
> > even though it is at least in theory more humane than "commercial"
> > methods of slaughtering.
> >
> > I have a *personal* dislike for sacrifice simply because I do not
> > feel it is necessary in the modern world. Most religion and
> > spirituality seems to have evolved beyond the need for it... and I
am
> > convinced on a personal level that the Gods do not require the
life
> > force of animals in order to survive. In the ancient
> > world "sacrifice" was a way to give something of importance to the
> > Gods. Animals were wealth. Today, animals are not the expression
of
> > wealth for most of us. I can't think of any Nova Romans who count
> > their worldly belongings in the number of cattle they own.
> >
> > Yet there are those that disagree with me. I respect that opinion
> > though I cannot endorse it. My *hope* is that sacrifice will not
> > become an official policy. Most modern people have neither the
> > facilities, knowledge or circumstances to do it in the way it
would
> > need be done. SOME people DO have the knowledge and circumstances
to
> > get it right. Folks living on a farm, etc. But that is a far cry
from
> > the urban lives of most of us.
>
> DRUSUS: In Roma Antiquita most people measured their wealth in
> sesterces rather than livestock, but that was NOT seen as a reason
NOT
> to have sacrifices. They simply purchased an animal to offer.
>
> I Don't look on sacrifice as a means of "feeding the Gods", but
rather
> as a boon granted to us by the Gods. The basic outline of the rite
is
> the animal is inspected to assure it's healthy, The priest performs
> the rites that transfer ownership of the animal to the God(s) and
asks
> the God(s) to sanctify the victim, the victim is killed by the
Temple
> attendents, who are skilled butchers, and the sanctified meat is
then
> eaten in a community feast.
>
> I consider this last act, which I think the Christian Ecurist is
based
> on, an essentil part of the rite. The bonding of the community
through
> a common meal, and the personal interaction with the God(s) by
> partaking of the sanctified meat as a boon the God(s) have granted
us.
> If it was sacrifice in the pure sense of giving something up, the
the
> entire victim would be burned on the altar in all cases, rather than
> just in a few cases.
>
> Since we are currently scattered around the globe, I see NO reason
for
> sacrifices at this time. We can't send the meat over the internet!
> ;o). At some future date when we have a forum, with citizens who
wish
> to do so living near by, or events large enough for enough citizens
to
> partake of the sacred meal, then a sacrifice would be proper.
>
Vale,

Going along those lines, I feel that if the religio would have
continued over the last 2 millenaries we could have the actual killing
made in the slaughterhouse by or under the surveillance of priests
(like the Kosher label) and have only the civic gathering and cooking
and consomation of the meat done publicly.
This seems a natural evolution of the rite since even in ancient times
the killing was often done by skilled butchers (the assistants) not
the priests.

As I said some times ago: Thanksgiving is a sort of animal sacrifice.

Vale

Manius Villius Limitanus

> Vale,
> L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Public Attacks on Religio Romana
From:	loos@--------
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 10:00:14 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@b...> wrote:
> Salvete cives et amici ab Nova Roma,
>
> I just noticed citizen Varia Cassia's statement in her post on
animal
> sacrifice and was greatly offended at what I saw.
>
> > I just do not happen to agree with animal sacrifice or human
> > sacrifice for any reason, especially for the reason of some
so-called deity,
> > who may or may not exist, or may be just figments of our
imagination.
>
> Rarely if ever do other citizens criticise other peoples believes in
the way
> she criticised ours. How dare she do it to us, and at all places,
Nova Roma!

Salve,

did you read what was posted ?
She made a basic statement of tolerance : "might or might not exist"
"I do not agree".
"Those who feel they can justify such an animal sacrifice within their
own moral, ethical and religious rights, then that is up to them. I
don't live with their code, I live with mine."

All those are the tolerance statements that are necessary in order to
peacefully live alongside people of various faiths.

The reactions of our senior consul seem like those of an Xtreme
Xristian or muslim, again an attack againt Human Rights: The right to
practise and praise any faith of your choice, even atheism.

This week seems to be particularly rich in demonstrations of the path
of totalitarism.
Remember when the taleban seized the power in Afganisthan they first
only asked more respect for the muslem religion (and at that time had
an extremely large popular support from all classes and genders), the
remainder came afterwards.

Even more I think we are on a slippery path lead by the Vedii which
should be democratically removed from charge in order for Rome to get
back its majesty.

Manius Villius Limitanus.

> This is clearly a law broken. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion
but
> there is sensible lines. The state religion is one of them. Its also
law.
> The state religion is a very large part of the fabric of Roman
culture and
> society. Vraia Cassia was clearly undermining this and therefore
undermining
> our beloved res publica and nation. I am disappointed, and comming
from one
> of our very own citizens... I really hope something is done, be it a
> official apology or trial. A part of what we stand for is being
destroyed by
> one citizens thoughtless criticism and mindless remarks, shameful
indeed...
>
> "Quamquam cupido sis delictum ab sui crebro suum mater ab vitualis"
> "Though ambition may be a fault in itself it is often the mother of
virtues"
>
> --
> Amulius Claudius Petrus
> Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
> Canada Orientalis Provincia
> www.freehost.nu/members/canorien
> --
>
> Gens Claudia Website:
> www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/

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


Subject:	[novaroma] ATTN (Religio Romana): ante diem III Nonas Quinctilias (July 5th)
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 13:38:44 +0100

Salvete omnes

This is a dies nefastus publicus (NP), a day for special religious
observance on which no legal action can take place.

Today is the Poplifugia ("The Flight of the People"). The meaning of the
rite was already forgotten in the Republican period. It may celebrate the
flight of the people during the tempest that blew when Romulus ascended to
Heaven as Qvirinvs... Or it can remind of when the Fidenii attacked after
the Gauls sacked the city... Or it can mean a completely different thing.
Anyway, the rite may be linked to the Regifugium ('Flight of the King')
celebrated in February, and the rite may have consisted of some ritual
flight of the croud throughout the streets of Rome.

The month of Quinctilis was renamed Iulius in 44 BCE in honour of the
deified C. Iulius Caesar. This month is sacred to Iuppiter.

Dii vos bene ament

Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Pontifex

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


Subject:	[novaroma] On Varia Cassia's words, was Re: Public Attacks on Religio Romana
From:	Steven - Piparskeggr <catamount_grange@-------->
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 08:23:14 -0500

Ave Varia Cassia,

Julie & Lawrence Brooks wrote:
>
> Now that some people's blood pressure seems to be skyhigh, I'll will try once more to clarify my statement. At no time did I state that Nova Roma's religion or gods did not exist - or anyone's elses deities for that matter.
>
> (excise clarification)
>
> Varia Cassia
>

If it helps calm the debate any: I did not fire off a retort at you as I
saw that you were trying to actually debate using points of logic and
philosophy. The existence of Deity or deity is an old one, perhaps as
old as man having time left over from hunting-gathering.

I took from your introduction as a Wiccan, that you do have a self-ideal
of That Which is Holy.

You stated an opposition to animal sacrifice, I stated a counterpoint
<shrug>, which I thought addressed my part in the conversation.

--
=========================================
In Amicus sub Fidelis
- Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator
Cives et Paterfamilias
My homestead
http://www.river-wood-samfelag.org
File of my Poems and Songs
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/Pip_music/files/

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: LAND PURSUITS: ADDRESS FROM PROPRAETRIX CANADA ORIENTALIS
From:	"yquere@--------"<yquere@-------->
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 15:40:33 +0200

Salvete Omnes,

Just a word to express that besides the fact I think Nova
Roma is not mature enough to acquire some land right now,
I strongly recommand not to try to purchase some land in
France for NR european activities.

Several reasons for that :
- Real estate is quite high right now in France
- We may be entering a recession era with slightly
postponed from the US situation (this is a controversial
economic issue and I won't developpe further).
- Religious and communitary activities such as NR are
very bad seen in France, many people would consider NR as
being a sect, and recent legislation in France banned
sectarian organisations.

Bene Valete
Ianus Querius Armoricus Lutecio
Propraetor Galliae

> ---------- Initial message -----------
>
> From : LSergAust@--------
> To : scriba_forum@--------,
NovaRoma@--------, Senate@novaroma.org
> Cc :
> Date : Tue, 3 Jul 2001 12:32:06 EDT
> Subject : [novaroma] Re: LAND PURSUITS: ADDRESS FROM
PROPRAETRIX CANADA ORIENTALIS
>
>
> Salve Pompeia Cornelia
>
> This is an excellent, well thought-out analysis. You
are to be commended
> for it.
>
> I agree that a location in eastern Canada would be a
logical place for
> our first colonia. I suspect, however, that there will
always be vocal
> people who would prefer it to be on the other side of
the pond. Perhaps
> if we have a definite plan, with a committment for our
second colonia to
> be on the opposite side of Mare Atlantica from the
first, this would
> satisfy European cives.
>
> Vale,
>
> L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
>
>
> certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.
>
> (You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas
anymore.)
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

--------------
Profitez de l'offre spéciale Liberty Surf !
50 h / 95 F TTC par mois tout compris pendant 3 mois
http://register.libertysurf.fr/subscribe_fr/signup.php3

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


Subject:	[novaroma] New Email List
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 13:50:43 -0000

Salvete omnes

In response to those calls from people who are dismayed by the
(sometimes quite technical) legislative and other political
discussions that sometimes take place here, I have created a new
email list:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Vedian_Baths

I intend to use this new list as a sounding board for ideas
concerning pending legislation, and to get input from the People on
other important affairs. It is strictly informal and unofficial, in
the tradition of the ancient public baths where the people would
gather in comfort and discuss the news of the day, out of the hot sun
of the Forum.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Roman Sacrifice is not sacred meal (was Animal Sacrifice)
From:	amg@--------
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 14:07:21 -0000

Salvete

Drusus said:

>In Roma Antiquita most people measured their wealth in
> sesterces rather than livestock, but that was NOT seen as a reason
> NOT
> to have sacrifices. They simply purchased an animal to offer.
>
> I Don't look on sacrifice as a means of "feeding the Gods", but
>rather
> as a boon granted to us by the Gods. The basic outline of the rite
> is
> the animal is inspected to assure it's healthy, The priest performs
> the rites that transfer ownership of the animal to the God(s) and
> asks
> the God(s) to sanctify the victim, the victim is killed by the
> Temple
> attendents, who are skilled butchers, and the sanctified meat is
> then
> eaten in a community feast.
Well, I respectfully disagree. The last statement is not true.
Although the animal was sanctified, the meat eaten by the community
was not. It was instead 'profane'.
The Romans were very concerned with property, and as such they
distinguished what was property of the Gods (sacred) and what was
property of the humans (profane). This was applied for example to the
division of days into Fasti and Nefasti.
Now, what happenned at the sacrifice? Yes, the sacrificer sanctified
the victim by the 'mola salsa', the wine and the knife. After this
the victim was SACRED. After killing the victim, the entrails were
examined in order to check if the Gods had accepted the victim. If
all went ok, the sacrificer offered the entrails on the fire of the
altar. But after that a very important thing was done: the sacrificer
PROFANATED the rest of the meat by touching it. In this way the meat
returned to the property of humans. The banquet took place after this
act.
A reflection of this is also found in Cato for a domestic sacrifice
(see Cato, De Agricultura 132, also available at the NR site). In the
end of the sacrifice to Iuppiter Dapalis, Cato says:
'Iovi caste profanato sua contagione'
'To Iuppiter you shall piously profane his [offerings] with [your]
touch'

So, the correct way to interpret a sacrifice is:
1) Humans want to appease or call the favour of a deity by offering
her victim.
2) Humans sanctify the victim, which comes to be property of the
deity.
3) Then it is considered that the deity will cede a part of the meal
to humans. As such, humans 'make themselves invited' to join the
deity on the meal. So humans make a part of the offering 'profane'
again through the touch, and eat that part of the meal as if they
were sitting at the same table with the deity.

So, humans feel the presence of the deity not because they are
consuming a sacred meal or absorbing a part of the deity (as is the
case of the Eucharist), but because they are sharing the banquet with
the deity at the same table (though the deity eats something sacred
while humans eat something profane, which is just).

> If it was sacrifice in the pure sense of giving something up, the
> the
> entire victim would be burned on the altar in all cases, rather than
> just in a few cases.
Yes, but you must enumerate those cases in order to understand the
reason. The victim was all burnt when the DEITY WAS AN UNDERWORLD
DEITY. Besides being gods of agricultural prosperity, the Underworld
gods were also the gods of death and putrefaction. So it was
considered that if an offering was made to those gods, that offering
was authomatically deteriorated/polluted and not proper for human
consumption. Probably, to share a banquet with those gods would also
call death on the participants.

Valete bene
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Pontifex

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Public Attacks on Flavius Vedius (was Re: Public Attacks on Religio Romana)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 14:21:18 -0000

Salve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: loos@-------- [mailto:loos@--------]
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 6:00 AM
>
> The reactions of our senior consul seem like those of an Xtreme
> Xristian or muslim, again an attack againt Human Rights: The right
to
> practise and praise any faith of your choice, even atheism.

Oh, sweet merciful bloodstained Gods! Can I not make a single post to
this list which you don't somehow twist around to use as an attack
upon myself?

If you will bother to read the actual post I sent on the subject
(which I doubt you did or will do), you will notice that I was
careful to note the presence of many qualifiers in her statement,
making the charge of blasphemy ambiguous. I further stated that the
question of whether or not her statements were actually blasphemous
was something best decided by a trial. Then, I mentioned that we have
no definitive law on our books even defining the penalty for such an
action, and instructed the person to seek the advice of the Tribunes.
For this I am some sort of Ayatollah? You are delusional!

Your continued pattern of spewing forth outrageous lies to further
some pathological hatred of me is really becoming tiresome. You
haven't contributed a single thing here besides strife and dischord.
If you had an honorable bone in your body, you would be on your belly
groveling for the forgiveness of the People here for your abuses of
the freedoms they somehow manage to enjoy responsibily.

Congratulations; you are the prime reason that we need, and will
have, laws against slander and libel. And I will be pleased as Punch
to undertake the first prosecution under those laws.

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Religion
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 14:24:17 -0000

Salve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julie & Lawrence Brooks [mailto:anubis@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 11:02 PM
>
> So what do you people do to those who do not agree with you and who
can and
> do think for themselves. Religion is very subjective and was even
in the
> Roman times.

We respectfully inform them that Nova Roma was founded specifically
as a place where practitioners of the Religio Romana could gather
together and practice their faith, and that without the Religio, Nova
Roma itself would not exist.

We further remind them that our Constitution defines the Religio
Romana as the State religion, and specifically prohibits public
professions of blasphemy against it.

We point out that tolerance of other beliefs does not require us to
be tolerant of attacks on our own, and that most people are perfectly
capable of holding in their heart whatever beliefs they wish-- from
Christianity to Wicca to the Religio Romana-- without denegrating the
beliefs of others.

Indeed, we point out that in those rare cases where people feel that
their own beliefs do _not_ allow them to go through life without
passing judgemental, insulting, and demeaning remarks about the
Religio Romana (and it has happened in the past), then they and we
are best served by a parting of the ways.

In other words, you are free to hold whatever beliefs you wish. You
are not free to insult the Gods of Rome or the Religio Romana. It is
a simple system, and it's worked well for us thusfar.

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Religion-well said!
From:	asseri@--------
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:43:32 EDT

In a message dated 7/5/01 9:28:10 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
germanicus@-------- writes:

> In other words, you are free to hold whatever beliefs you wish. You
> are not free to insult the Gods of Rome or the Religio Romana. It is
> a simple system, and it's worked well for us thusfar.
>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
Salvete ,
this is a wonderful statement and at least it also speaks for how I feel on
the subject.

Prima Ancinna Drusila
no body famous

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

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


Subject:	Dr. Suess in Latin (was RE: [novaroma] Animal Sacrifice)
From:	"C. Minucius Hadrianus" <shinjikun@-------->
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 11:01:06 -0400

Salve,

I haven't seen the "Cat in the hat", but I did see a copy of "Green eggs and
ham" in Latin at a Chapters in Ontario. Damn near bought it to, but I was
low on $ at the time :)

Vale,

C. Minucius Hadrianus
Legatus of Massachusetts

-----Original Message-----
From: Aulus Sertorius [mailto:aulus_sertorius@--------]
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 10:20 AM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: [novaroma] Animal Sacrifice

Salve,

I'm curious as to if anyone in today's world still practices animal
sacrifice whether for tradition or for the religous aspect of it and what
are the views of Nova Romans about this practice going on in the modern
world? If we were to build a temple, would we include these acts that were
quite common in ancient Rome and Greece. Of course, if one was to do it - it
would have to be eaten otherwise the local law enforcement might have
something else to say. Does anyone see it as wrong, right or maybe even
useful in pleasing the gods?

Myself, I don't see it as right nor wrong. If it pleases the gods, do it
because you get to feast afterwards on the meat and you may get the gods'
blessings. If it doesn't, or if it is illegal, you might aswell avoid it.
But what different is killing an animal for religous purposes and then
feasting than to say, kill an animal for immediate consumption?

One last note, has anyone else seen the latin translation of Cat in Hat by
Dr.Seuss? I was looking through the bookstore the other day and I saw the
book in the Latin lauguage section. Now that I think about it, that book
would come in handy for those who were learning latin for the first time.

Vale,
---
-Aulus Sertorius Doctus
"Doctus Maximus!"

Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail
account at http://www.eudoramail.com

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

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

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


Subject:	Re: Dr. Suess in Latin (was RE: [novaroma] Animal Sacrifice)
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:24:17 US/Central

Salvete

> I haven't seen the "Cat in the hat", but I did see a copy of "Green eggs and
> ham" in Latin at a Chapters in Ontario.

I wonder if the translators managed to use as few words in "Green Eggs and Ham"
as Dr. Seuss. I've got a wonderful copy of "Quomodo Invidiosolus Nomine
Grinchus Christi Natalem Abrogaverit". I'll have to look for the others.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Tribune's Opinion: Closing Threads
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:52:30 US/Central

Tribunus Plebis T Labienus Quiritibus SPD

My apologies for not addressing this issue in a timely manner. I have been
dealing with a sick daughter.

If I recall correctly, there have been three instances in which Curatrix Vedia
declared a message thread to be closed. The topic of the first was the
Falklands war, the second was the language policy of this list, and the third
was animal rights. The only one I have interposed my veto against was the
conversation concerning the language policy. I did not intercede against the
first act of censorship because I missed it due to personal problems that kept
me from paying as much attention to Nova Roma as I would have liked, and
therefore could not veto it in a reasonably timely manner. In the third case,
my colleague was mostly incommunicado, and I would therefore not have been able
to effectively act against the curatrix' action. In retrospect, I should have
done so regardless. C Cassius is correct when he states that I am not
infallible.

As may be inferred from the preceding, it is my opinion that any attempt to
stop a thread that is not causing direct and unequivocal harm to the state is
unconstitutional, regardless of that thread's subject matter. This is not to
say that the curator sermonis may not place controls upon the form that such a
thread's conversation may take. If the thread devolves into a flame contest,
then the curator sermonis has the authority to censor the posts of the
individuals involved.

I read section II.B.4 of the constitution as giving cives the right to state
their opinion on any subject they like in official forums, so long as they do
so in a civil manner. The interpretation of what is and is not civil rests in
the hands of the curator sermonis. Therefore, in general, so long as I believe
that Curatrix Vedia is not interfering with any given civis' ability to express
his or her opinions on any subject, I will not veto her reasonable interference
with the manner in which that civis expresses them.

Valete

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Public Attacks on Religio Romana
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gaius=20Quirinus=20Caesar?= <gaius_quirinus_caesar@-------->
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 15:45:38 +0200 (CEST)

Salvete omnes,
I think tath nobody here must judge Varia Cassia
before her Paterfamilias -who is the our Pontifex
Maximus-, Marcus Cassius Julianus.
Vale,
Gaius Quirinus Caesar Italicus

______________________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Il tuo indirizzo gratis e per sempre @yahoo.it su http://mail.yahoo.it

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Italian Mail-List
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Gaius=20Quirinus=20Caesar?= <gaius_quirinus_caesar@-------->
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:00:24 +0200 (CEST)

Salvete omnes,
it's open, for ALL the citizens interesed, the new
meiling-list of the Provincia Italia at this adress:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nr_italia

Thanks for the time.
Vale,
Gaius Quirinus Caesar

______________________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Il tuo indirizzo gratis e per sempre @yahoo.it su http://mail.yahoo.it

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: New Email List
From:	manius_constantinus_serapio@--------
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 14:02:07 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@n...>
wrote:
> Salvete omnes
>
> In response to those calls from people who are dismayed by the
> (sometimes quite technical) legislative and other political
> discussions that sometimes take place here, I have created a new
> email list:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Vedian_Baths
>
> I intend to use this new list as a sounding board for ideas
> concerning pending legislation, and to get input from the People on
> other important affairs. It is strictly informal and unofficial, in
> the tradition of the ancient public baths where the people would
> gather in comfort and discuss the news of the day, out of the hot
sun
> of the Forum.
>
> Valete,

MANIVS CONSTANTINVS SERAPIO CONSVLI FLAVIO VEDIO GERMANICO S.P.D.

simply: thank you.

>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>

> email: germa--------s@-------- > AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Provincia Italia
From:	manius_constantinus_serapio@--------
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 14:04:44 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, manius_constantinus_serapio@h... wrote:
> AVETE OMNES!
>
> there is a new mailing list for Provincia Italia without any
> restriction! People interested in this Provincia can subscribe
> immediately!
>
> Novaroma-Italia
> NR_Italia@--------
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nr_italia
>
> gratias!
>
> VALETE MANIVS-CONSTANTINVS-SERAPIO

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] On Varia Cassia's words, was Re: Public Attacks on Religio Romana
From:	"Julie & Lawrence Brooks" <anubis@-------->
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:46:36 -0400

Ave,

Well with all the posts flying around at this point and not having the opportunity to see names on a regular basis, I couldn't tell you at this point who said what and who flamed who. Honestly, I don't mind a difference of opinion, I expect it. But I do expect people to honor that I cannot go against what I feel is personally wrong, nor would I expect anyone else to do the same.

In any case, the point seems moot, as someone pointed out in a post that Nova Roma does not condone animal sacrifice anyway. Although, I did not see those people who condone it getting their heads bitten off for going against a Nova Roma policy.

Ah well, I'm sure things will calm down.

Vale,
Varia Cassia

----- Original Message -----
From: Steven - Piparskeggr
To: novaroma@--------
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 9:23 AM
Subject: [novaroma] On Varia Cassia's words, was Re: Public Attacks on Religio Romana

Ave Varia Cassia,

Julie & Lawrence Brooks wrote:
>
> Now that some people's blood pressure seems to be skyhigh, I'll will try once more to clarify my statement. At no time did I state that Nova Roma's religion or gods did not exist - or anyone's elses deities for that matter.
>
> (excise clarification)
>
> Varia Cassia
>

If it helps calm the debate any: I did not fire off a retort at you as I
saw that you were trying to actually debate using points of logic and
philosophy. The existence of Deity or deity is an old one, perhaps as
old as man having time left over from hunting-gathering.

I took from your introduction as a Wiccan, that you do have a self-ideal
of That Which is Holy.

You stated an opposition to animal sacrifice, I stated a counterpoint
<shrug>, which I thought addressed my part in the conversation.

--
=========================================
In Amicus sub Fidelis
- Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator
Cives et Paterfamilias
My homestead
http://www.river-wood-samfelag.org
File of my Poems and Songs
http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/Pip_music/files/

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

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

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Religion
From:	"Julie & Lawrence Brooks" <anubis@-------->
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 08:46:34 -0400

Excuse me, but the only person on this list that has been threatened is me. I suggest you reread my posts. I said that I would take no part in such a ceremony, which means I would not be on anyone's personal space, home or whatever if I knew such a thing was going on. However, if I did indeed witness a sacrifice and I thought that the animal had suffered needlessly, I would indeed report it to the authorities, who could then decide what was legal and what was not. Where is that a threat. It is simply someone who is questioning whether a situation is right or wrong and leaving it to the authorities to take care of. I did not harm anyone, nor burn someone house's down or any such thing. That would be the same as listening to some guy beat his wife next door and do nothing because it is none of my business.

Some of you have talked about intolerance. The only intolerance I see here are from some of the people of Nova Roma. We still have higher outside laws that need to be adhered to or followed. If some of you on Nova Roma feel threatened by a difference of opinion, then maybe you should start examining yourselves. No one has been flamed, threatened or ridiculed in any of my posts. I wish I could say the same for some of you.

Nova Roma keeps claiming it is not a cult. Well some of you act like it is.
Anyone whos says or does anything that is of a difference of opinion with Nova Roma is ridiculed, threatened, flamed and ultimately silenced. Maybe Nova Roma hides its cult inside its a body of orders called a constitution.

Varia Cassia

----- Original Message -----
From: Maximina Octavia
To: novaroma@--------
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 3:45 AM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Religion

Julie & Lawrence Brooks <anubis@--------> wrote:
So what do you people do to those who do not agree with you and who can and
do think for themselves. Religion is very subjective and was even in the
Roman times.

Laurecius Cassius

Salve Laurecius Cassius,

It is very honorable for you to come to the defense of your wife, however, there was a clear *threat* to turn someone in who practices their religious beliefs in a manner that is not agreed upon by Varia.

Everyone at Nova Roma is free to think for themselves. Let's not cloud the issue by alluding that it is otherwise. The issue is respect or that lack of it as presented in the form of a threat and publicly defaming and denouncing the deities and the importance of the religion of this micronation which you and Varia are a part of.

I would never come to your temple, domain, home or coven and threaten to turn you in or publicly denounce your beliefs because I disagreed with your religious practices. This main list is my home, domain and temple for Nova Roma, a place where I feel safe to practice my religion and speak respectfully and even disagree with others without being subjected to defamation, disrespect or threats.

Furthermore, I would not practice any type of religious duties that would cause me to break the laws of our various macronations and neither would the majority of Nova Romans in my humble opinion. To even suggest that these citizens would do so and jeopardize the existence of Nova Roma is preposterous.

Please understand, that in my opinion the type of statements Varia made are a clear and present danger to Religio Romana and represent persecution to me as a believer. In history, big conflicts were started with "Small" statements.

Valete, Maximina Octavia

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

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

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

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

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Roman Sacrifice is not sacred meal (was Animal Sacrifice)
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 16:57:42 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, amg@c... wrote:
> Salvete
>
> Drusus said:
>
> >In Roma Antiquita most people measured their wealth in
> > sesterces rather than livestock, but that was NOT seen as a reason
> > NOT
> > to have sacrifices. They simply purchased an animal to offer.
> >
> > I Don't look on sacrifice as a means of "feeding the Gods", but
> >rather
> > as a boon granted to us by the Gods. The basic outline of the rite
> > is
> > the animal is inspected to assure it's healthy, The priest
performs
> > the rites that transfer ownership of the animal to the God(s) and
> > asks
> > the God(s) to sanctify the victim, the victim is killed by the
> > Temple
> > attendents, who are skilled butchers, and the sanctified meat is
> > then
> > eaten in a community feast.
> Well, I respectfully disagree. The last statement is not true.
> Although the animal was sanctified, the meat eaten by the community
> was not. It was instead 'profane'.
> The Romans were very concerned with property, and as such they
> distinguished what was property of the Gods (sacred) and what was
> property of the humans (profane). This was applied for example to
the
> division of days into Fasti and Nefasti.
> Now, what happenned at the sacrifice? Yes, the sacrificer
sanctified
> the victim by the 'mola salsa', the wine and the knife. After this
> the victim was SACRED. After killing the victim, the entrails were
> examined in order to check if the Gods had accepted the victim. If
> all went ok, the sacrificer offered the entrails on the fire of the
> altar. But after that a very important thing was done: the
sacrificer
> PROFANATED the rest of the meat by touching it. In this way the
meat
> returned to the property of humans. The banquet took place after
this
> act.
> A reflection of this is also found in Cato for a domestic sacrifice
> (see Cato, De Agricultura 132, also available at the NR site). In
the
> end of the sacrifice to Iuppiter Dapalis, Cato says:
> 'Iovi caste profanato sua contagione'
> 'To Iuppiter you shall piously profane his [offerings] with [your]
> touch'
>
> So, the correct way to interpret a sacrifice is:
> 1) Humans want to appease or call the favour of a deity by offering
> her victim.
> 2) Humans sanctify the victim, which comes to be property of the
> deity.
> 3) Then it is considered that the deity will cede a part of the
meal
> to humans. As such, humans 'make themselves invited' to join the
> deity on the meal. So humans make a part of the offering 'profane'
> again through the touch, and eat that part of the meal as if they
> were sitting at the same table with the deity.
>
> So, humans feel the presence of the deity not because they are
> consuming a sacred meal or absorbing a part of the deity (as is the
> case of the Eucharist), but because they are sharing the banquet
with
> the deity at the same table (though the deity eats something sacred
> while humans eat something profane, which is just).

Salve

Allthough I may have been mistaken in the exact nature of the flesh
of the victim, this meat was looked on as different from that
obtained by a mudane butchering process. People felt a conection with
the divine when partaking of sacrifical meat.

Whatever the nature of this meat, the God(s)have returned it to
humans for their use. To sacrifice an animal and let the gift that
has been returned to humans go to waste is showing a disrespect
towards the God(s) that have returned a portion of the victim.

This is why I feel that sacrifices are not desirable as long as we
remain primarily an internet nation.

Vale
L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] A Home for Nova Roma
From:	Daniel Dreesbach <stakor2000@-------->
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:50:27 -0700 (PDT)

If we do own land we definitely should pay the taxes
of the government. We dont need to cause the ire of
the government that set the taxes. We need to support
the governments right to set taxes or surely they will
expect us to do the same for them.
--- exitil@-------- wrote:
> As a sovereign nation, NR should, if it were to have
> land, refuse to pay
> taxes to those governments that it does not request
> the services of. If NR
> does not put US hospitals, military, or law
> enforcement to use, it should not
> have to pay for their existence or maintenance; nor
> should taxes be paid on
> land that it owns, as if rent to a nation that still
> owns the land. Either
> NR owns the land, or it does not. Also, I believe
> present property taxes are
> not meant as rent to the government, or at least,
> that is not the image of
> those taxes that is presented to landowners - the
> land taxes are to fund
> various things, which means that, in the case of NR
> not using those things
> that "the government" provides, it should not be
> required to pay for those
> things that the land taxes generally go toward
> either.
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Roman Sacrifice is not sacred meal (was Animal Sacrifice)
From:	amg@--------
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 18:35:00 -0000

Salve L. Sicini Druse

> Allthough I may have been mistaken in the exact nature of the flesh
> of the victim, this meat was looked on as different from that
> obtained by a mudane butchering process. People felt a conection
with
> the divine when partaking of sacrifical meat.
>
> Whatever the nature of this meat, the God(s)have returned it to
> humans for their use. To sacrifice an animal and let the gift that
> has been returned to humans go to waste is showing a disrespect
> towards the God(s) that have returned a portion of the victim.
>
> This is why I feel that sacrifices are not desirable as long as we
> remain primarily an internet nation.
Well said. I fully agree, though as I have stated before I go even
further as to defend that blood sacrifice should not be allowed in
the public cult of Nova Roma.

Vale bene et dii the ament

Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Pontifex

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Free Speech
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 12:38:29 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes; et salve, censor Sulla.

--- Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@--------> wrote:
> Ave,
>
> I think we need to tread very carefully, extremely carefully before
> we
> start legislating limits on free speech. I think there needs to be
> some
> protections (slander and libel, threats to the state, calls for
> succession, and gens dissension) but keep them at a bare minimum.
> So,
> please if we are going to start legislating this...and I honestly do
> not
> really see the need.

I agree. Not only there is no need to legislate against this kind of
so-called "blasphemy"; it would be against everything we stand for.

As for your comments above, I just have to say that I wouldn't consider
"calls for seccession" or "gens dissension" (?) dangerous issues. I do
see the need of protection from slander and libel and threats to the
state (something that still needs to be defined); I guess THIS is what
the office of Curatrix Sermonis should exist for.

=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Public Attacks on Flavius Vedius
From:	Bill Gawne <gawne@-------->
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 16:07:55 -0400

Flavius Vedius Germanicus scripsit:

[quoting Manius Villius Limitanus]
> > The reactions of our senior consul seem like those of an Xtreme
> > Xristian or muslim, again an attack againt Human Rights: The right to
> > practise and praise any faith of your choice, even atheism.

> Oh, sweet merciful bloodstained Gods! Can I not make a single post to
> this list which you don't somehow twist around to use as an attack
> upon myself?

I know you asked that rhetorically, esteemed Germanicus, but my
honest answer is "Probably not."

However, please step back a moment and realize that even though
these attacks are no doubt hard for you to take, they say as much
about the person(s) who makes them as they do about you. I think
many of us can see the truth of the matter, and conclude for
ourselves.

A wise man once told me to choose my enemies carefully, since
in the course of a worthwhile life we will all acquire some.
>From what I have seen in my time reading the posts here in NR,
the Vedii honor, dignity, and authority are in good shape.

[Germanicus addressing Limitanus again:]
> Your continued pattern of spewing forth outrageous lies to further
> some pathological hatred of me is really becoming tiresome.

It has, I agree. I've gotten to the point where I only read it
for its comic farsical value. If this were a USENET newsgroup,
I might have nominated Limitanus for a Kook Of The Month award
by now. He'd at least be deserving of honorable mention in
the net.kook FAQ.

> Congratulations; you are the prime reason that we need, and will
> have, laws against slander and libel. And I will be pleased as Punch
> to undertake the first prosecution under those laws.

Oh gosh, do you have to? (In honesty, I can see that you do.)
He's so funny, and his oh-so-serious comments are so delightfully
ridiculous.

Limitanus, if you've read this far, I tried real hard to take you
seriously for a couple of months. I've given up. You sometimes
say some good things, but your overall presentation and deportment
are such as to ruin the message because the messenger is such a
dofus.

Gnaeus Equitius Marinus / Bill Gawne

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Personal Reflections on Recent Religio Comments
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 16:53:39 -0400

Salve Varia Cassia et cives,

> How dare she do it to us, and at all places, Nova Roma! This is clearly a law
> broken. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion but there is sensible lines. The
> state religion is one of them.

Yesterday in my post I must admit I did over react to the comments of
citizen Varia Cassia. I was offended, although now having some time to
reflect on what I said earlier I have some changed opinions on the subject.

The statement from Varia was not directed to be offensive and by reading
more recent explanations from her I believe this. She is entitled to a
personal opinion and that should be respected.

Just because you *can* criticise does not make all criticism appropriate. It
was her opinion, but I and many others I am sure, would of appreciated
bypassing this uneasy topic full of personal feelings. In my "opinion" the
gods must not delighted in being called "fragments of ones imagination"
either. Then again that's just my interpretation. Words on such topics must
be chosen *very* carefully.

Citizens, we should all have the right to criticise in a friendly and
respectable manner. Though we must be careful of others when doing this.
Varia Cassia and all citizens of Nova Roma I regret my harshness in my last
message, but I hope you take heed to what I have written today.

Vale,

"Quamquam cupido sis delictum ab sui crebro suum mater ab vitualis"
"Though ambition may be a fault in itself it is often the mother of virtues"

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Canada Orientalis Provincia
www.freehost.nu/members/canorien
--

Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Personal Reflections on Recent Religio Comments
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 14:00:16 -0700

Ave,

We all have personal opinions, we all have a right to those opinions.
Personal opinions should be protected free speech. We need to tread
very carefully here....because this can easily turn into Roman Pagans
persecuting other religious groups here. I am not talking about Roman
Pagan versus Christian. I am talking ALSO about Roman Pagan vs. Other
Pagan, Roman Pagan vs. Jewish etc. Nova Roma allows for religious
freedom of worship. It clearly states that anyone can be of any
religious affialiation unless you are Senators and Magistrates. Now,
unfortunately I do not have the time to pull the relevant sections of
the constitution in this, I am on my way to work. But, as I said before
we need to tread very carefully in this.

I voice my opinion as a Jew. As a Jew who has served Nova Roma with all
of his heart and dedication. As a Jew who has been respectful of the
Religio, who has worked hard to help the Religio. And will continue to
serve Nova Roma and the Religio til the day I die.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Amulius Claudius Petrus wrote:
>
> Salve Varia Cassia et cives,
>
> > How dare she do it to us, and at all places, Nova Roma! This is
> clearly a law
> > broken. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion but there is sensible
> lines. The
> > state religion is one of them.
>
> Yesterday in my post I must admit I did over react to the comments of
> citizen Varia Cassia. I was offended, although now having some time to
> reflect on what I said earlier I have some changed opinions on the
> subject.
>
> The statement from Varia was not directed to be offensive and by
> reading
> more recent explanations from her I believe this. She is entitled to a
> personal opinion and that should be respected.
>
> Just because you *can* criticise does not make all criticism
> appropriate. It
> was her opinion, but I and many others I am sure, would of appreciated
> bypassing this uneasy topic full of personal feelings. In my "opinion"
> the
> gods must not delighted in being called "fragments of ones
> imagination"
> either. Then again that's just my interpretation. Words on such topics
> must
> be chosen *very* carefully.
>
> Citizens, we should all have the right to criticise in a friendly and
> respectable manner. Though we must be careful of others when doing
> this.
> Varia Cassia and all citizens of Nova Roma I regret my harshness in my
> last
> message, but I hope you take heed to what I have written today.
>
> Vale,
>
> "Quamquam cupido sis delictum ab sui crebro suum mater ab vitualis"
> "Though ambition may be a fault in itself it is often the mother of
> virtues"
>
> --
> Amulius Claudius Petrus
> Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
> Canada Orientalis Provincia
> www.freehost.nu/members/canorien
> --
>
> Gens Claudia Website:
> www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Blasphemy + Blood sacrifice
From:	Carmen Pehnec <europamoon7@-------->
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 13:55:39 -0700 (PDT)

--- Antonio Grilo <amg@--------> wrote:
> Salvete omnes
>
> >I just do not happen to agree with animal sacrifice
> or human
> >sacrifice for any reason, especially for the reason
> of some so-called
> deity,
> >who may or may not exist, or may be just figments
> of our imagination. I'm
> >sorry if this statement may tick someone(s) off,
> but again I am entitled to
> >my opinion.
>
> Where is the blasphemy? The author of this
> statement, Varia Cassia, has
> simply expressed her doubt about the existence of
> the Gods. To express a
> doubt is not blasphemy. Blasphemy is to express a
> false certainty such as
> afirming that "The Gods, definitely do not exist".
>
> I find the definition of 'blasphemy' quite
> associated with that of
> 'superstition', for the former normally stems from
> the latter. The ancients
> (Plutarch is a good example) defined "supertition"
> in two possible ways:
> 1) Excess of piety or belief leading one to afirm
> what cannot be known with
> certainty, or to honour the Gods more than one's
> DUTY at the cost of
> degrading one's dignity.
> 2) Atheism, which is complete lack of piety or
> belief.
> These are the extremes of piety. All that is in
> between - including the
> doubting positions - would be considered reasonable
> and proper of a learned
> mind.
>
> Now, to those who have attacked Varia Cassia:
> A doubt similar to hers is presented by Cicero in
> his work on Theology
> (branch of Philosophy that deals with the nature of
> the Gods) called 'De
> Natura Deorum'. In this dialog, the doubt is
> presented by a character who is
> the Pontifex Maximus!!!! Nevertheless it is an
> healthy Philosophical
> discussion where none of the characters seems to be
> shocked with the
> statement.
> Of course, in Cicero's work, that statement was said
> in the presence of
> people who were educated and with knowledge of
> Philosophy. But then aren't
> we forced to conclude that what moves your
> accusations is the fact that you
> are uneducated and ignorant about Philosophy?
>
> Now, to Varia Cassia:
> The Religio Romana is a thing to be done even if it
> is not believed. Each
> person has a different idea about the Gods. I have
> my own. Nevertheless,
> independently of one's ideas, the Religio Romana is
> to be done. Done for the
> sake of Rome, done for the sake of the Family, DONE!
> We must DO the Religio
> Romana much more than we must BELIEVE it. Belief is
> a question of personal
> feeling or decision, or even one of Philosophical
> concern. To DO the Religio
> Romana is rather a question of CULTURAL
> IDENTIFICATION for just as Cicero
> says, "Each CITY has its own religion".
>
>
> Now, on the subject of killing animals:
> The Religio Romana has precedent for both practices.
> King Numa who is said
> to have been one of the founders of the Religio
> Romana (second only to
> Romulus himself) is said to have forbidden blood
> sacrifice, a position that
> I defend should be applied to the PUBLIC CULT of
> Nova Roma. Let us read this
> passage from [Ovid, Fasti, 337]:
> "Of old the means to win the goodwill of gods for
> man were spelt and the
> sparkling grains of pure salt. As yet no foreign
> ship had brought across the
> ocean waves the black-distilled myrrh; the Eufrates
> had sent no incense,
> India no balm, and the red saffron's filaments were
> still unknown. The altar
> was content to smoke with savine, and the laurel
> burned with crackling loud.
> To garlands woven of meadow flowers he who could
> violets add was rich
> indeed. The knife that now lays bare the bowels of
> the slaughtered bull had
> in sacred rites no work to do. (...)"
> So, we see that the Religio Romana was also subject
> to evolution, and while
> the posture, the form of the prayers and other
> attitudes were more or less
> kept, the diet of the Gods changed over time.
> Nowadays blood sacrifice is
> not well accepted by many. In my opinion this is one
> thing that we can
> easily eliminate from the PUBLIC CULT of Nova Roma
> without affecting the
> general character of the Religio Romana. Even more
> because the elimination
> of blood sacrifice will also eliminate many enemies
> that otherwise we would
> have to face.
>
> Valete bene in pace deorum
>
> Antonius Gryllus Graecus
> Pontifex
>
>
>Salvete Omnes,

I have to wholeheartedly agree with Pontifex Graecus
on this issue. I believe condoning blood sacrifice
would greatly hurt Nova Roma in the long run. Most
people already associate ancient Rome with enough
violence (blood sports, religious persecutions, blood
sacrifice, etc.,). Let's be honest here, ancient Rome
gained quite a reputation for these activities, along
with being the best killing machine in ancient
history. I would personally like to see Nova Roma
improve on our ancestors reputation and one of the
ways to do that, is to eliminate the violence unless
it is strictly for entertainment purposes. I can at
times understand why many individuals I have mentioned
Nova Roma to shudder at the idea of a new Rome. It is
up us to improve this jaded image not enhance it as we
would be doing by such open displays of violence. Not
to mention that these activites would draw large
groups of demonstrators and gain us unneeded bad
publicity. Well, enough said on my part.

Vale,

Pompeia Antonia Caesar

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] First NR meeting in Bs. As. / 1er. encuentro NR en Bs.As.
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Ignacio=20Nachimowicz?= <eleuteria56@-------->
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:45:40 -0500 (CDT)

--- octavianuslucius@-------- escribió: > Salvete
omnes.
> It is an honour for me to announce that next
> Saturday, several NR
> citizens from Buenos Aires shall meet together. Any
> further
> information is written at the provincial mailing
> list (in spanish
> only).Or, if you wish, you can email me.
> I wish to thank Marcus Furius for his invaluable
> help.
> Valete bene
> Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> Popraetor provinciae Argentinae
>
> Salvete omnes.
> Es un honor para mí anunciar que el próximo sábado,
> muchos ciudadanos
> NR de Buenos Aires nos encontraremos. Para mayor
> información,
> dirigirse a la lista provincial, o pueden escribirme
> un email.
> Quiero agradecer a Marcus Furius por su invalorable
> ayuda.
> Valete bene
> Lucius Pompeius Octavianus
> Popraetor provinciae Argentinae
Mi nombre es Gaius Egnatius Gnarus y desearía conocer
más detalles acerca del encuentro que se realizará el
próximo sábado.
>
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Obtenga su dirección de correo-e gratis @yahoo.com
en http://correo.espanol.yahoo.com

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


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Public Attacks on Religio Romana and Voting
From:	"Domna Claudia Auspicata" <comptess@-------->
Date:	Fri, 6 Jul 2001 10:01:03 +1200

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Salve Marce Claudio Gregorio!

Welcome to Nova Roma and Welcome to Gens Claudia!
Although our Mater has probably already done so I extend another
invitation to join us on our gens list.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gensClaudia

Vale bene
Domna Claudia Auspicata

Salvete Cives!
I am Marcus Claudius Gregorius, a new citizen of Nova Roma.
<snippa>
Lastly I should like to publicly thank the Gentes and Materfamilias
of Gens
Claudius for accepting me to this excellent Patrician Gens.

Salve Claudio! Salve Luna! Salve Mars!

Gregorius

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBO0TjgYq7vhC1EO9bEQLrJACgh6hcrKxdNSRAfZt4vKFdCtmftAoAn0+/
BVcn3e7cZa1pzK+zwz0jXts3
=7GTC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Roman Sacrifice is not sacred meal (was Animal Sacrifice)
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 22:15:32 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, amg@c... wrote:
> Salve L. Sicini Druse
>
> > Allthough I may have been mistaken in the exact nature of the flesh
> > of the victim, this meat was looked on as different from that
> > obtained by a mudane butchering process. People felt a conection
> with
> > the divine when partaking of sacrifical meat.
> >
> > Whatever the nature of this meat, the God(s)have returned it to
> > humans for their use. To sacrifice an animal and let the gift that
> > has been returned to humans go to waste is showing a disrespect
> > towards the God(s) that have returned a portion of the victim.
> >
> > This is why I feel that sacrifices are not desirable as long as we
> > remain primarily an internet nation.
> Well said. I fully agree, though as I have stated before I go even
> further as to defend that blood sacrifice should not be allowed in
> the public cult of Nova Roma.
>
> Vale bene et dii the ament
>
> Antonius Gryllus Graecus
> Pontifex

Salve,

I would not go as far as saying that it should not be allowed, rather
that blood sacifice should be severely restricted in the public cult.
I would consider it proper to make such a sacrifice at such times as
the establishment of the Pomoerium when we start to build our Forum,
at the dedication of State Temples within that forum, or other events
of great importance to the Religio or the State, provided that we are
capable of doing it corectly at that time. The kind of events I'm
talking about might occur every 10 to 20 years.

I don't see any reason to make sacrifice a routine occurance in the
state cult, even if we become capable of doing so.

That is NOT to say that private citizens should be under any
restrictions regarding sacrifice, other than that it be done in a
manner that maintains the Dignitas of the Gods.

Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Personal Reflections on Recent Religio Comments
From:	Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@-------->
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 18:14:16 -0400

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix wrote:

> We all have personal opinions, we all have a right to those opinions.
> Personal opinions should be protected free speech. We need to tread
> very carefully here....because this can easily turn into Roman Pagans
> persecuting other religious groups here. I am not talking about Roman
> Pagan versus Christian. I am talking ALSO about Roman Pagan vs. Other
> Pagan, Roman Pagan vs. Jewish etc.

Agreed. Although with the right to voice ones opinions comes the
responsibility of being respectful of the way you voice them. This seems to
be the problem in the majority of religio comments. It is one thing to
receive respectful criticism where one tells another about there opinion in
a non-insulting manner. It's a different thing altogether when ones tell you
there opinion in an *insulting* manner.

Criticism can a great thing when it is conducted in a friendly manner. I
welcome friendly criticism completely because it opens the mind to new ideas
and views. Unfriendly criticism does the opposite. Thus, causing conflict.

"Quamquam cupido sis delictum ab sui crebro suum mater ab vitualis"
"Though ambition may be a fault in itself it is often the mother of virtues"

--
Amulius Claudius Petrus
Retarius Officium Canada Orientalis
Canada Orientalis Provincia
www.freehost.nu/members/canorien
--

Gens Claudia Website:
www.freehost.nu/members/gensclaudia/

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Personal Reflections on Recent Religio Comments
From:	"Robert Woolwine" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 22:41:55 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Amulius Claudius Petrus <pkkt@b...> wrote:
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix wrote:
>
> > We all have personal opinions, we all have a right to those
opinions.
> > Personal opinions should be protected free speech. We need to
tread
> > very carefully here....because this can easily turn into Roman
Pagans
> > persecuting other religious groups here. I am not talking about
Roman
> > Pagan versus Christian. I am talking ALSO about Roman Pagan vs.
Other
> > Pagan, Roman Pagan vs. Jewish etc.
>
> Agreed. Although with the right to voice ones opinions comes the
> responsibility of being respectful of the way you voice them. This
seems to
> be the problem in the majority of religio comments. It is one thing
to
> receive respectful criticism where one tells another about there
opinion in
> a non-insulting manner. It's a different thing altogether when ones
tell you
> there opinion in an *insulting* manner.
>
> Criticism can a great thing when it is conducted in a friendly
manner. I
> welcome friendly criticism completely because it opens the mind to
new ideas
> and views. Unfriendly criticism does the opposite. Thus, causing
conflict.

Ave,

Equal blame must be shared with the way of those few
citizens/observers have chosen to interpret comments. Many times in
Nova Roma we have seen people READ INTO posts. It has happened to
me, it has happened to others. I must echo the recommendation of a
number of people who state that before you respond to something with
pure emotion...wait 24-48 hours. I have tried to follow this
recommendation myself. I think those people who chastized Varia
Cassia would have been been taken better if they followed that
advice. Again, this is just my honest opinion.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Personal Reflections on Recent Religio Comments
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 05 Jul 2001 23:39:53 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Robert Woolwine" <alexious@e...> wrote:

SNIP
>
> Ave,
>
> Equal blame must be shared with the way of those few
> citizens/observers have chosen to interpret comments. Many times in
> Nova Roma we have seen people READ INTO posts. It has happened to
> me, it has happened to others. I must echo the recommendation of a
> number of people who state that before you respond to something with
> pure emotion...wait 24-48 hours. I have tried to follow this
> recommendation myself. I think those people who chastized Varia
> Cassia would have been been taken better if they followed that
> advice. Again, this is just my honest opinion.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Salvete,

Well a day has passed. ;o)

The part of the comment that upset me wasn't expressing doubt about
the existance of the Gods. I am quite used to people calling them
myths. It was the comment about contacting the authorities, which has
been repeated.

First of all as a Nova Roman citizen, and a Paterfamilis, I have the
right to conduct the Religious affairs of my household and my Gens as
I see fit. IF I feel that a sacrifice to the Gods is needed, then it
is my right to make that sacrifice, provided that it is not done in an
impius manner that insults the Gods of Rome.

Second, as a US citizen I have the right to include a sacrifice in my
observances.

Therefore, should any person, Nova Roman citizen or not, or group such
as PETA, profane my rites, they will find themselves on the short end
of a civil rights lawsuit.

Valete,
L. Sicinius Drusus

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


Subject:	[novaroma] Breaking Macro.. laws/Religio
From:	Antonius Corvus Septimius <antoniuscorvusseptimius@-------->
Date:	Thu, 5 Jul 2001 16:45:42 -0700 (PDT)

Let us remind ourselves that a representative of any
macronational authority will look upon anyone's report
of illegal action, not as a point of view.And no
authority that I am aware of will be in a innocent
until proven quilty state of mind in regerds to
religious sacrifices. Recent issues have made me come
to the conclusion that it is quite the opposite.
One's personal objection to practices that ARE within
macronational legalities should be kept as such.
Otherwise, calling legal attention to a person(s)
will cause more distrust toward we who live the
religio.
Being found guilty or not.By the simple fact of being
legally scrutinized, others that have the power to
allow us to grow within a macronation will keep this
question of legal scrutinization as a third
thought.The second being a (natural) question of
legitimacy.
Having much to loose already (without breaking
macronational laws), it would be extremely unwise for
those of us who are honored to be able to practice our
religio, to go around breaking the law.
I write this as a reminder that we will already have
eyes upon our actions. And I ask that while we are in
our infancy as a micronation, that no one assume that
there are macronational laws being broken. Until one
KNOWS the law is being broken.I offer another thought.
Instead of calling the authorities to figure out
wether or not a religious rite falls within mac....
legalities,
I humbly request that one find out for his/her self.
The authorities already have their hands full, and to
have a false alarm would just be wasting their time..
And harming our future.

With much respect,
A. Corvus Septimius

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

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