What do we mean by a spiritual Roman nation? What role does the Roman Republic play?

[Gaius Florius Lupus]

By your own admission you are forcing your views on others by stating we all must honor and respect the religio or else. How is your argument even relevant when you contradict yourself?

What contradiction? Honoring and respecting the Cultus Deorum is in our Declaration, as Cominius Laenas has nicely pointed out. And we all have signed it.

By the way the Religio Romana cannot be intolerant by definition due to its polytheistic nature and the respect, which is given to the sacra privata. Only monotheism and atheism can be intolerant.
Our Emperor Alexander Severus for example who was a firm practitioner of the Religio Romana had an image of Jesus of Nazareth in his personal shrine, it is said. This is the kind of tolerance and respect I am talking about. The incompatibility of Christianity and the Cultus Deorum was postulated by the Christian side, not by the side of the Cultus Deorum. Even under the leadership of a Roman Collegium Pontificum, other gods like Jesus, Buddha, Allah, Krishna or even the FSM would not be oppressed. We do not need to fabricate a problem, when there is none.

[Lucius Metilius Niger]

for me the "spiritual Nation" is ROMANITY today.
it is the global cooperation, and fraternity, without any sort of ethnical/sexual/political clivages between people.
the Nation is the People.
Values and virtues of the RR and CPR and others groups are the same.

[Publius Iulius Albinus]

By the way the Religio Romana cannot be intolerant by definition due to its polytheistic nature and the respect, which is given to the sacra privata. Only monotheism and atheism can be intolerant.

I'd be wary about making absolute statements like that. Certainly the modern form of Roman paganism is more tolerant--but that's an extension of the general trend towards religious tolerance in Western society. You'll still run into Modern Pagans--reconstructionists included--that are hostile or intolerant of other religions or beliefs. I know I have--Recons that are culture-essentialist to the point of racism, Neopagans that blame Christians for everything, et al.
Not to mention that the historical manifestation of Roman polytheism was not entirely tolerant and open. There was hostility towards practices and customs deemed too foreign or strange--hence the repression of Judaism, or Druidism in Gaul and Britain, or the outright persecutions of Early Christianity for that matter. The Romans were a culturally imperialist people, and religion was intertwined into that cultural expression. Of course, I'm not saying that historical Roman religion was entirely intolerant, either--they were syncretic and adopted foreign gods and practices, we all know this; but it was always on their terms, and even then the integration was often slow and difficult.

We must be careful about proclaiming that Roman religion cannot possibly be intolerant. That can easily become a path of laziness and arrogance. It removes the impetus for each one of us, ourselves, to strive for religious tolerance and acceptance.

[Octavia Aurelia Fulva]

There was hostility towards practices and customs deemed too foreign or strange--hence the repression of Judaism, or Druidism in Gaul and Britain, or the outright persecutions of Early Christianity for that matter.

Oh, of course, we need to keep in mind that being friendly to other people you are trying to conquer and rule isn't a very logical position. In one of her last meetings, Ana María Vazquez Hoys Ph.D. exposed the fact that most of the violence towards European cultures and tribes and Early Christianity was due political issues. The way Roman conquered always had a strong background of "fear to the gods" like happened to Carthago, long before any war conflict, Rome sent their ambassadors to "present" their respect to the local protector gods and took back with them figures and statues to welcome those gods in Rome, so they won't become faith-enemies and by this, they supposed those gods won't act against them in the incoming events.
But of course, they need to keep conquered people calm, and a priest, shaman or religion leader may inflame the spirits of their people to rise up against Rome, then that needs to be stopped.
An example of this are 2 early Christians martyrs Justa and Rufina who were tortured and killed but not because were forced to renounce their faith but because they bothered and disturbed during a roman festival and also, smashed an image of Venus, that is breaking the laws, the pax romana, and they did it many times, being punished in other ways to try to make them stop that behaviour (something that didn't happen) .

I don't mean everything was super happy friendly in religion abouts for the Romans, but trying to see this from an objective point, the politics and control had a very heavy weight in their decisions and behavior. Something that we may need to keep in mind, as don't think their spirituality concept was anything closer to actual.

Valete.

[Gaius Florius Lupus]

Not to mention that the historical manifestation of Roman polytheism was not entirely tolerant and open. There was hostility towards practices and customs deemed too foreign or strange--hence the repression of Judaism, or Druidism in Gaul and Britain, or the outright persecutions of Early Christianity for that matter. The Romans were a culturally imperialist people, and religion was intertwined into that cultural expression. Of course, I'm not saying that historical Roman religion was entirely intolerant, either--they were syncretic and adopted foreign gods and practices, we all know this; but it was always on their terms, and even then the integration was often slow and difficult.

Ancient Rome was intolerant towards certain practices, not the foreign gods themselves.
Judaism was punished for their intolerance towards the imperial cult, Druidism was wiped out because they practiced human sacrifices, Christians were only persecuted after they burned down Rome.

Polytheism does per definitionem not deny other gods. This is what I mean with tolerance.
It is of course not necessarily tolerant against all religious practices, especially when they include outright crimes and aggressions towards other gods or humans. Tolerance of crime can in some cases even make one an accomplice of the crime.
Here is where laziness actually sets in. Especially in our modern times a false understanding of tolerance is used as an excuse for being lazy and not acting against an obvious crime committed in the name of religion or culture.

Valete!

[Gaius Curtius Philo]

Salve Lupe,

Well said.

[Numerius Antonius Paullus]

Salvete Omnes

Hello one and all. I have been following this thread for some time and find myself compelled to speak. I find that in many ways, the way the RR is set up with magistrates and such inhibits its ability to connect and associate with the greater CDR community. The primary reason behind this I will explain by using my other group I participate in, the Northwest Civil War council.

Some time ago, if memory serves, four years ago, the unit I am in, which at that time was the 10 N Y CAV. We had a gentleman in our group that decided that he was going to bypass the chain of command and have him instated as Major of Cavalry by becoming buddy buddy with the battalion staff and the "magistrates " of the group ( which is a huge jump, first sgt. To major). This man the. Proceeded to abuse his power to harass and bully people into doing what he wanted. Eventually getting his fingers in everything, including the coffers of the club. It got so bad that his attacks against my unit commander forced my unit to change sides (becoming the 1st NC CAV.) which there are still caused grief and made the vendetta continue. He eventually abused his power so much that he was expelled. Not before causing irreparable damage to the club and damaging how we are seen among others. We are still recovering.

How does this lengthy story relate?

The RR is a group that does not simply represent the CDR but so much more. Yes, in an organizational way it makes sense to have some sort of set up to run the group, but to be honest much of the offices really, at least in my mind only causes drama via politics and power playing and really has no real connection to the CDR and in some ways it can harm it. This is why I am leery of large "reproductions" of every aspect of the Republic. That is not to say I loathe the RR and it's orginzation but it does at times worry me. I've already ridden the politics power play train before and have no wish to see the CDR harmed by something that means well but has the potential to damage the image of the CDR and the whole concept of Romean reconstruction.

All of that being said the RR can be a vehicle for good as well but there must be serious attention paid to developments and the paths the RR goes down.


These are my views. Purely opinion, but based on observations.

Valete bene

N. Antonius Paullus

[Lucius Aurelius Curio]

Curio Paulle Sal.

Okay, it occurs to me that maybe you don't fully understand how the system of the Roman Republic is established. There is a clear separation between the CDR and the main body of the RR. This was established long ago. The only two exceptions to this is that for now the CC appoints Sacerdotes based upon their applications and past experience in RR, nothing more. The second exception rests in that when we don't have a Sacerdos to perform a specific rite we have the Consules do so. I find that very beneficial to the CDR, don't you?

Getting past all that, I fail to see how the magistracies damage the CDR in any way, shape or form. We have many individuals within the Roman Republic that are always looking for new ways to raise funds so we can build temples and altars to the gods. Does this seem detrimental to the CDR? Because it certainly doesn't to me.

As per your example, there is no way to get 'past' the magistrates in the RR. We are elected by the people, end of story. The people choose us, and we have two magistracies devoted towards looking for corruption within these posts. The first is the Plebeian Tribune, the vanguard for the plebeians. They make sure the plebeians are being treated fairly and no corruption is happening. They have the ability to veto ANY edict or lex, so long as both Tribunes are in agreement. The second of these is the Censores. They make sure that moral behavior is being followed by our magistrates and citizens. In this capacity, they have the ability to issue a Nota against a citizen breaking the Mos Maiorum of the RR. And if it's not legitimate, the other Censor can veto it. Checks and balances, amice. Checks and balances.

In closing, I fail to see how our magistracies are in any way detrimental to the development of the CDR. The RR itself has brought together very intelligent minds to compile evidence on how our ancestors worshipped the gods, and the best ways to modernize certain principles. These minds have pretty much all been magistrates.

Vale Bene!

L.Aurelius Curio

[Numerius Antonius Paullus]

Paulle Curio sal.

Do not get me wrong amice, I do understand, what could essentially be considered separation of "church and state" in the RR but that does not remove the possibility of a magistrate harming the CDR. By the statement being that a magistrate represents the RR, respectively they also represent the RR 's relationship with the CDR within the Republic and also in the larger community. So if a magistrate finds a way to mistreat their power (in whatever form that may be) affects and harms the relationship between the CDR and the Republic and in turn harms the image of the Republic among cultores who wish to seek a place to learn. I do ask patience with me as I am trying to form cohesive points after being awake for 24hours at work.

The long and the short of it is, that I do not disagree with the need for magistrates nor do I say that the ones we have are incapable of doing the jobs appointed to them. I only express that the more complex the system, the higher chance of a repeat of other failures to happen. All it would take is a cadre of like minded people to become elected who by their own plans only wish to use the Republic as a vehicle for their own means to absolutely ruin the relationship between the Republic and the CDR and the cultores within. It is a concern, nothing more. For I have seen it happen before in two places, my own club, and NR. This is not to say that the Republic is either, but it is a warning that one must be ever vigilant to be aware of such things or be doomed to find the Republic a ghost town bereft of the respect of the CDR community.

Valete bene

N. Antonius Paullus

[Gaius Florius Lupus]

I second what Antonius Paullus said.
We have formidable magistrates in our Republic and it is a bright example for a working democratic structure, but the organizational structure itself is not helpful. It scares people away who would otherwise want to join, and it causes unnecessary frictions between members and creates an atmosphere of inequality when issues are discussed. Simple citizens may feel subconsciously intimidated by the titles and be less willing to speak freely.

It would be nice, if our Republic could become an umbrella organization for all Roman-related activities. But due to our organizational structure we get a lot of rejection from members of other organizations who do not know us well.

We should think about what will really help us to become more inclusive and to enable more cooperation with other communities. Our political offices certainly will not.
Would it not be great to have a central register of all people with Roman names and being able to certify their identity, no matter which organization they belong to?
Would it not be great, if other organizations would be able to use our forum to communicate instead of cumbersome Yahoo mailing lists or Facebook groups?
Would it not be great, if the Denarius was a real, fully convertible currency that citizens and non-citizens could use alike?
Would it not be great to become a platform, where different organizations could come together and coordinate their activities and projects?

This is not going to happen, while we have an own government and an own legislation. We appear too much as a closed community to the outside world. No outsider really understands the difference between us and Nova Roma.
Sometimes less can become more.
I would like to ask the Senate to give it a serious thought. Our political structure is not essential for our Republic. Giving it up could open many doors.

Valete, amici!