America, Fuck Yeah!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-08-2012, 12:46 PM
RE: America, Fuck Yeah!
Nice vid here from a level-headed UKer



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2012, 04:10 PM
RE: America, Fuck Yeah!
(28-08-2012 12:38 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(28-08-2012 03:21 AM)Humakt Wrote:  If your working on it, its not done is it. Your linky to the wiki takes me to a page is telling me the page doesnt exist, did you mistype, if so repost.

Lastly, the romans were incredibly cosmapolitan about religion. Far from all blieving the same thing. The adoption of local gods was standard, There pragmatic practice, was not to impose their religion on the conquered, but build temples to the local gods and in that respect they differ in no way from their other methods of social control.

Was the roman state, completly devoid of religious artifice, no there were religious bodies that had a cermonial roll, the vestal virgins, Ceaser's first step to power was from a religous position even the arena is the result of a religious practice. But, Ceaser moved up and on into a position with power and the arena became and was more an object of social control than a religious observance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_ancient_Rome

Ya, thats better Smile, interesting read. I think what reading it has reinforced in me, is that when we talk about religion and what the romans understood as religion arent really the same thing. When we talk about religion for better or worse we generally mean christianity, which by its very nature is incapable of tolerating the other and demands absolutes in every avenue of life. Whereas to the romans religion is a means to an end, primarily social stabilty. On top of this our times are very different the main reason seperation of church and state is not a concept the roman would recognise is religion was the "natural" state of things, whereas now its closer to being a life style choice. My main point however was that the church was not a governing body with legislative power in Rome, sure they were religious, but the priests didnt set policy, the state was run by the senate either solely, or as a tool of the emporers in later periods.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2012, 09:02 PM
RE: America, Fuck Yeah!


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2012, 12:48 AM
RE: America, Fuck Yeah!


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2012, 06:40 PM
RE: America, Fuck Yeah!


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 06:28 PM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2012 06:44 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: America, Fuck Yeah!
(28-08-2012 04:10 PM)Humakt Wrote:  
(28-08-2012 12:38 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_ancient_Rome

Ya, thats better Smile, interesting read. I think what reading it has reinforced in me, is that when we talk about religion and what the romans understood as religion arent really the same thing. When we talk about religion for better or worse we generally mean christianity, which by its very nature is incapable of tolerating the other and demands absolutes in every avenue of life. Whereas to the romans religion is a means to an end, primarily social stabilty. On top of this our times are very different the main reason seperation of church and state is not a concept the roman would recognise is religion was the "natural" state of things, whereas now its closer to being a life style choice. My main point however was that the church was not a governing body with legislative power in Rome, sure they were religious, but the priests didnt set policy, the state was run by the senate either solely, or as a tool of the emporers in later periods.

Do you have any evidence supporting your claim?

Because I really don't feel like fighting an assertion made with out it.

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_p...man_Empire

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 06:58 PM
RE: America, Fuck Yeah!


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2012, 09:49 PM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2012 09:55 PM by Humakt.)
RE: America, Fuck Yeah!
(02-09-2012 06:28 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(28-08-2012 04:10 PM)Humakt Wrote:  Ya, thats better Smile, interesting read. I think what reading it has reinforced in me, is that when we talk about religion and what the romans understood as religion arent really the same thing. When we talk about religion for better or worse we generally mean christianity, which by its very nature is incapable of tolerating the other and demands absolutes in every avenue of life. Whereas to the romans religion is a means to an end, primarily social stabilty. On top of this our times are very different the main reason seperation of church and state is not a concept the roman would recognise is religion was the "natural" state of things, whereas now its closer to being a life style choice. My main point however was that the church was not a governing body with legislative power in Rome, sure they were religious, but the priests didnt set policy, the state was run by the senate either solely, or as a tool of the emporers in later periods.

Do you have any evidence supporting your claim?

Because I really don't feel like fighting an assertion made with out it.

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_p...man_Empire

You've done a fine job for me. The opening statement of the page you posted fits the bill.

As the Roman Republic, and later the Roman Empire, expanded, it came to include people from a variety of cultures, and religions. The worship of an ever increasing number of deities was tolerated and accepted. The government, and the Romans in general, tended to be tolerant towards most religions and cults.[1] however some religions were persecuted for political reasons rather than dogmatic zeal,[2] and other rites banned which involved human sacrifice.[3].

Of the persecutions, listed the Druids were disliked for there practices of human sacrafice. But, it is as the focus of coninued briish resistance that the romans were intolerant of.

The Jewish revolts and the burning of the temple, can be cited as religious persecution. But this is somewhat ignoring that the Jews revolted against the rule of rome, as is the case with all such revolt the romans not only put down the revolt, but did so in such a way as to be an example to others. As to the burning of the temple, it should be noted that the temple was still there and acting as a centre of jewish worship before the revolt and during roman rule.

It is not an intolerance of religion, it is an intolerance of defiance to roman rule. That religions were often the focusing points around which defiance formed and was directed is hardly surprising.

As to providing further evidence, it is genarally held as a characteristic of the romans that almost every work concerning the romans will list it as a characteristic, even the "evidence" youve presented of roman persecution opens with the citation that the general state of affairs to be one of toleration, then cites some exceptions.. So for "evidence", I'll submit the current state of the academic study of roman history.

Do you perhaps have a source that puts forth the case that the romans were religiously intolerant?

Of course, when I started to talk on the subject, I did specifically frame my assertion as the roman republic. With the the imperial age things did change, especially with the imperial cults and paticularly with Constantine. But, by the time Constantine is on the go, rome is almost unrecognisable.

Of the example cited in the wiki, only one falls within the era of the republic that being the Bachannals, not something I really know anything about but having read the following page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senatus_con...chanalibus ) here is listed the proscription :

henceforth they shall not form conspiracies among themselves, stir up any disorder, make mutual promises or agreements, or interchange pledges; no one shall observe the sacred rites either in public or private or outside the city.

The primary proscription is against conspiries and stirring up disorder, so it seems to me that the worshipers of Bachus were persecuted for that behaviour and not for the sole reason of there religion.

I'll leave you to decide, if theres anything else you want to say on the subject or not.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2012, 12:31 AM
RE: America, Fuck Yeah!


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2012, 03:28 PM
RE: America, Fuck Yeah!


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: