((Voting lasts through Monday afternoon-ish. Depends on when I get a chance to do a little update and contact the winners. If you would like through Monday entirely just send me a quick PM.))
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
(( nope, no problem, I am holding my vote but I want to make sure I don't miss it ))
"Senator Krupt, I entirely disagree with you; religion has no part to play in politics and the state should not dabble in religion.
"Firstly, we have the power to prevent worship to other Gods of other peoples, through the legislation we can enact; that most of us in this chamber think their views nonsense is irrelevant, as they will receive ultimate judgement when they die. How can we promote the right to worship freely and think freely if we prevent many from doing so? It is hypocrisy on the highest level.
"On the spread of religion into politics, need we look further than the emerging conflict with our tribal neighbours? While in this chamber we have kept the argument within the bounds of reason, on the streets or in the barracks any opposition to the war is quickly silenced by a quick "the Gods will it" or "the Gods will protect us" or even "the Gods will smite our foes". In every city on the continent, this call to arms can be heard, regardless of religious affiliation, for seemingly every man in the world is favoured by the Gods over all others. That is not to say that we should not revere the Gods for their great powers, but the use of religion as a tool to pass through your policies is plain nonsense. Subject to their whims and vices, their support is not guaranteed and their record of attendance when needed is hardly reliable. Was not the King appointed by the Gods as sole ruler with it being divine right that the crown should pass to his children? Now the crown sits empty in the centre of this house as a symbol of the support of the Gods for this house. Have we all failed to see the gross irony here?" He pauses. The embarrassed silence that envelops the room answers his question. "When this house is not in session, I perform my duties as a judge. A magistrate only wishes to hear the facts. The jury does not listen to arguments of faith. A proved murderer who repents before the Gods will still be hanged while an innocent who never prays receives no punishment. We have not yet descended into the anarchic situation where a man can be institutionally murdered for not following the right Gods, not preferring cats to dogs or not liking the right colour." His stern face silences the laughs in the chamber. "I, for one, hope we never do, but if we become a theocratic nation, what barriers are there to this tragedy? Similarly, the sole basis of policy should be sound reasoning. The only sound reasoning that stands up in a court of law is logic. The Gods have no part to play in the politics of men. The use of religion in politics should stop. Full stop." -Marcellus Smigt
Last edited:
(( OK, I just want to say that IRL I agree with you 100%. If I had a 'hot button' issue separation of church and state would probably be it. But we're playing in the 14th Century! Did anyone with any power actually think this way in 1356? Obviously leaders disregarded the church when they saw fit, but the reasons for that are nothing like what you outline above. I feel like many of us are applying our modern, 21st century zeitgeist to this game, and the results make very little sense in context.
Also, more relevant, what is the status/existence of religious minorities in Atlantis at this time? Is it mostly limited to conflicts among followers of different gods in the same pantheon, or are there significant numbers of followers of different pantheons, or even monotheists from the old world? The answer to these questions will influence how I respond to this post ))
Also, more relevant, what is the status/existence of religious minorities in Atlantis at this time? Is it mostly limited to conflicts among followers of different gods in the same pantheon, or are there significant numbers of followers of different pantheons, or even monotheists from the old world? The answer to these questions will influence how I respond to this post ))
((Whilst it may seem a modern issue, there was much argument over the issue in both the ancient and medieval world at the top of the social ladder: Socrates, for example, was executed for his disrespect of the gods and there were many calls in the aftermath from prominent philosophers to limit the power of the priests; in medieval Europe, Kings were in constant conflict with the Pope as the church further infringed on their powers, arguing that they should separate themselves from external control, often dressing it up as the only moral course of action, either by picking their own bishops or by establishing a new rival leader of the faith, sometimes, like the western schism surrounding Avignon, very successfully. I do not think that, especially in such a radical city as Alzanti, which has been separated from old world values for so long and is a republic (almost always the areas where radical ideas took hold), it would not have arisen, particularly wish so many ambitious senators who wished to weaken their rivals. In ancient Rome we see constant changes between the interplay of different factions for just such a reason; see Sulla stripping power from the Tribunes so as to gain more influence. The rights of the common people proposed by Graetius is similarly radical for the time, yet you are not objecting to it on the basis that the Kings of the old world trampled on their subjects.))
(( OK, thanks. I include Graetius' rights of the common man, as well as the apparently large-scale abolitionist movement in my mention of the 'modern zeitgeist'. There are probably other things too that I forgot or failed to notice because of how ingrained these things are today. That comment was not meant to single you out!
I do think there is a difference between the politicians seeking to protect/expand their power against the church, a conflict that is as old as monarchs themselves, and arguing for the separation of church and state for the protection of worshipers, as you did, and, as you rightly point out, as the Populares do. Also, as you correctly suggest, I made the mistake of comparing Atlantis to medieval European monotheism rather than ancient polytheism, which is probably a better model. From the ancient world there are many examples. Now back to character rather than trying to deus ex machina your arguments away
))
Murmurs arise from the crowd following Senator Smigt's expression of this position of radical, or, some would argue, heretical, tolerance. After watching the restlessness in the hall extend for several minutes, Pontia Krupt rises quietly from her seat. She does not apply the traditional tactics of hand waving and loud proclamations. Instead, she begins to speak only loudly enough to be heard. Over the course of the first several seconds of her speech, the senate chamber quiets, and all eyes turn back to her
In the matter of policy I remain independent of political parties so as to better serve the general will. Whether I join a ruling party, in order to better influence its direction, remains to be decided. Thus I will not trouble you with my vision of policy, which is largely irrelevant in the current election. But this election seems to be hinging as much on philosophy as on policy. Perhaps it is appropriate, since we are the first generation of our great, democratic experiment. Regardless, it is to the philosophy of governance that I now turn.
I think we all agree that our goal is to promote justice and well-being for our nation and, for most of us, all of its people. This task, so simply stated, is not so easily realized. That is why we in this congress seem to spend more time discussing philosophies of government and justice than political policy. So from whence comes justice and well-being? How may we most beneficially bring these desirable qualities into this government? The answer to the first question is one we all know - the gods themselves are the sole arbiters of justice. I mentioned earlier what happened the last time mortals tried to usurp the gods in this role. Does anyone here want to make the same mistake again?
Pontia pauses briefly to survey the room, as if asking each member of congress individually. Before the audience has time to let their thoughts drift, she he continues just as quietly
No, we do not. Following these two basic, indisputable premises, we must conclude that the optimal government, the one that best protects justice and well-being, must be a government that follows the gods. It has been said in these halls that the simple phrase 'the gods will it' can be used to justify any act, catastrophe, or triumph. But who are we to make a judgment of what the gods will? Such arguments are the misguided bantering of fools. It is the tragic usurpation of the divine by man. A government that follows the gods as a general guiding principle does not need to use the gods to justify everything that it does. For that the gods saw fit to endow us with reason. To use this gift, then, must also be the will of the gods, and a government based on reason must also be divinely inspired.
This, my fellow senators, is the only way forward for our nation - we must seek divine guidance in our lives and our leadership, and follow reason in all of our actions. This is why we can never do as Senator Smigt suggests, and remove the gods from government.
I do think there is a difference between the politicians seeking to protect/expand their power against the church, a conflict that is as old as monarchs themselves, and arguing for the separation of church and state for the protection of worshipers, as you did, and, as you rightly point out, as the Populares do. Also, as you correctly suggest, I made the mistake of comparing Atlantis to medieval European monotheism rather than ancient polytheism, which is probably a better model. From the ancient world there are many examples. Now back to character rather than trying to deus ex machina your arguments away
))Murmurs arise from the crowd following Senator Smigt's expression of this position of radical, or, some would argue, heretical, tolerance. After watching the restlessness in the hall extend for several minutes, Pontia Krupt rises quietly from her seat. She does not apply the traditional tactics of hand waving and loud proclamations. Instead, she begins to speak only loudly enough to be heard. Over the course of the first several seconds of her speech, the senate chamber quiets, and all eyes turn back to her
In the matter of policy I remain independent of political parties so as to better serve the general will. Whether I join a ruling party, in order to better influence its direction, remains to be decided. Thus I will not trouble you with my vision of policy, which is largely irrelevant in the current election. But this election seems to be hinging as much on philosophy as on policy. Perhaps it is appropriate, since we are the first generation of our great, democratic experiment. Regardless, it is to the philosophy of governance that I now turn.
I think we all agree that our goal is to promote justice and well-being for our nation and, for most of us, all of its people. This task, so simply stated, is not so easily realized. That is why we in this congress seem to spend more time discussing philosophies of government and justice than political policy. So from whence comes justice and well-being? How may we most beneficially bring these desirable qualities into this government? The answer to the first question is one we all know - the gods themselves are the sole arbiters of justice. I mentioned earlier what happened the last time mortals tried to usurp the gods in this role. Does anyone here want to make the same mistake again?
Pontia pauses briefly to survey the room, as if asking each member of congress individually. Before the audience has time to let their thoughts drift, she he continues just as quietly
No, we do not. Following these two basic, indisputable premises, we must conclude that the optimal government, the one that best protects justice and well-being, must be a government that follows the gods. It has been said in these halls that the simple phrase 'the gods will it' can be used to justify any act, catastrophe, or triumph. But who are we to make a judgment of what the gods will? Such arguments are the misguided bantering of fools. It is the tragic usurpation of the divine by man. A government that follows the gods as a general guiding principle does not need to use the gods to justify everything that it does. For that the gods saw fit to endow us with reason. To use this gift, then, must also be the will of the gods, and a government based on reason must also be divinely inspired.
This, my fellow senators, is the only way forward for our nation - we must seek divine guidance in our lives and our leadership, and follow reason in all of our actions. This is why we can never do as Senator Smigt suggests, and remove the gods from government.
"Members of the house, the honourable Senator speaks truly: it falls upon us to resolve how democratic government should operate and maintain the liberties and freedoms of those we serve both abroad and, more importantly in this case, at home. She agrees with me that the only reason is the legitimate way to govern. Her stance seems logical and fair, but still it is wrong." A stunned silence filled the room, before members on the opposite bench begin to heckle. The Senator holds out a hand for silence. "The Gods have indeed bestowed unto us reason, but they have also bestowed unto us arms with which to hit, teeth with which to bite, hands with which to violate and the ability to rape, to maim, to kill. Just because it is there does not mean it must be used. If we follow the good lady's argument to it's logical conclusion, we would live in a society of criminals; everyone of us would be a divinely inspired thief, rapist or murderer. Clearly this is not the case. Clearly her theory is unfounded and I begin to wonder who she is, in her own words, "to make a judgment of what the gods will". This statement is indeed self-defeating, for if we cannot judge what the gods will, why make their will the foundation of government?" The room is silent as the Senators avoid answering. "The fact that reason is what separates us from the beasts of the plains or the fish of the seas does not make religion necessary in government. It is precisely this type of illogical argument that proves we are better off without the priests' effects in politics." -Marcellus Smigt
Last edited:
((Before criticising any anachronistic idea here, remember everything here is anachronistic.))
((But there is a point where it becomes unrealistic, so it is worth questioning if we think it's getting stupid; we aren't going to pretend that that people of Atlantis had the internet in the 14th century...))
Last edited:
((The Atlantean Senate certainly does. At any rate, Atlantis has been isolated for centuries from the wider world: radical societal divergences are feasible, though unwelcome - some may say this Senate features more racquets than bulls.))
Recognizing that this debate was passing from a mild banter to a fully fledged debate on the senate floor, Pontia was on her feet before Senator Smigt finished his oration. This time, she addresses him directly
Senator Smigt, you are an eloquent speaker, to be sure, but your arguments misrepresent the gods in ways that are surprising coming from someone as educated as yourself. You must certainly realize that the will of the gods is understood at a general level through their actions and histories, past through the sands of time. How else do we know their domains, their glory, or even of their existence? It is through these revelations that we understand their role as the keepers of justice and well-being, and understand the basic tenants by which they expect us to live. It is only in specific actions that we must tread carefully around the phrase 'the will of the gods'. For these, we have reason, as you agree. In this body, we must keep the gods as our guiding principle - and use reason to determine our actions.
As for your horrible butchery of my logic, yes, we have hands with which to hit. We also have hands with which to love, to work, and to feed. Just as the gods are divided into east and west, north and south (( * )), so too everything on earth can be divided among its possible uses. Even reason itself, which you hold in such high esteem, can be used to nefarious ends. It seems to me, senator, that the next logical step in your argument is to completely replace the gods with reason - if they are out of the government on what basis do you propose to keep them in the home? Or even in the temple? Just as these hands can be used for good or ill, so your reason can be used in an attempt at good governance... or in an attempt to do away with the gods themselves. Is this what you seek senator?
Senator Krupt does not sit down. She stares pointedly at Senator Smigt, awaiting his inevitable response
(( *who else thinks Levi-Strauss would have had a field day with this pantheon?
Also, I almost asked you, since you have just been blasting my divine foundation of ethics without really providing an alternative, to present a positive theory of ethics based on reason, but decided I REALLY didn't want to hear a summary of Kant or something ))
Senator Smigt, you are an eloquent speaker, to be sure, but your arguments misrepresent the gods in ways that are surprising coming from someone as educated as yourself. You must certainly realize that the will of the gods is understood at a general level through their actions and histories, past through the sands of time. How else do we know their domains, their glory, or even of their existence? It is through these revelations that we understand their role as the keepers of justice and well-being, and understand the basic tenants by which they expect us to live. It is only in specific actions that we must tread carefully around the phrase 'the will of the gods'. For these, we have reason, as you agree. In this body, we must keep the gods as our guiding principle - and use reason to determine our actions.
As for your horrible butchery of my logic, yes, we have hands with which to hit. We also have hands with which to love, to work, and to feed. Just as the gods are divided into east and west, north and south (( * )), so too everything on earth can be divided among its possible uses. Even reason itself, which you hold in such high esteem, can be used to nefarious ends. It seems to me, senator, that the next logical step in your argument is to completely replace the gods with reason - if they are out of the government on what basis do you propose to keep them in the home? Or even in the temple? Just as these hands can be used for good or ill, so your reason can be used in an attempt at good governance... or in an attempt to do away with the gods themselves. Is this what you seek senator?
Senator Krupt does not sit down. She stares pointedly at Senator Smigt, awaiting his inevitable response
(( *who else thinks Levi-Strauss would have had a field day with this pantheon?
Also, I almost asked you, since you have just been blasting my divine foundation of ethics without really providing an alternative, to present a positive theory of ethics based on reason, but decided I REALLY didn't want to hear a summary of Kant or something
))
"I am forced to reconsider my position in this Senate, listening now to the words of the parties involved. I am afraid that I must renounce my Mercator's membership, as they terrify me to no end - I have no wish to have my name placed upon the horrible deeds they propose, and to further my disquiet the ideals of Senator Tsharthagion do horrify me. His proposed enslavement of the Urollan's just the most notable of his goals that leaves me wondering what type of man he can be, and what type of party the Mercator's will become with him as their head." - Alexite Wardoxan ((I hope this is okay.))
((I believe its fine, though you might wanna check the second post to do the unvote correctly))
"Senator Alexite, my dearest trading comrade. Why must you renouce your vote? Other than Senator Pavo, no other member of the Mercators have advocated slavery. In fact quite a few, including myself, have denounced his views. Much like everyman finds his fortune by different paths, so do the Mercators believe every man can have different views."
-Solangus
(( He's not changing his vote, only his party membership. See his vote quoted below. ))
"I share your feelings Senator Wardoxan. I too voted on the Populares due to the horrifying ideas of the Mercator's leadership. The Urollans maybe close to barbarians but they are still our fellow Atlanteans, we will need to eventually face them and bring them to our fold, to teach them the glories of the old Atlantean civilization. But slavery? No, once they were equal members of the Atlantean society and we should strive to bring them back again.
I myself am an Ollan, the Urollans are close to my people both in ethnicity and traditions, they may have chosen the vile path of raiding of plundering, but seeing such a treatment of people so close to mine utterly repulses me"
-Skantus Volaris
I myself am an Ollan, the Urollans are close to my people both in ethnicity and traditions, they may have chosen the vile path of raiding of plundering, but seeing such a treatment of people so close to mine utterly repulses me"
-Skantus Volaris
Recognizing that this debate was passing from a mild banter to a fully fledged debate on the senate floor, Pontia was on her feet before Senator Smigt finished his oration. This time, she addresses him directly
Senator Smigt, you are an eloquent speaker, to be sure, but your arguments misrepresent the gods in ways that are surprising coming from someone as educated as yourself. You must certainly realize that the will of the gods is understood at a general level through their actions and histories, past through the sands of time. How else do we know their domains, their glory, or even of their existence? It is through these revelations that we understand their role as the keepers of justice and well-being, and understand the basic tenants by which they expect us to live. It is only in specific actions that we must tread carefully around the phrase 'the will of the gods'. For these, we have reason, as you agree. In this body, we must keep the gods as our guiding principle - and use reason to determine our actions.
As for your horrible butchery of my logic, yes, we have hands with which to hit. We also have hands with which to love, to work, and to feed. Just as the gods are divided into east and west, north and south (( * )), so too everything on earth can be divided among its possible uses. Even reason itself, which you hold in such high esteem, can be used to nefarious ends. It seems to me, senator, that the next logical step in your argument is to completely replace the gods with reason - if they are out of the government on what basis do you propose to keep them in the home? Or even in the temple? Just as these hands can be used for good or ill, so your reason can be used in an attempt at good governance... or in an attempt to do away with the gods themselves. Is this what you seek senator?
Senator Krupt does not sit down. She stares pointedly at Senator Smigt, awaiting his inevitable response
(( *who else thinks Levi-Strauss would have had a field day with this pantheon?
Also, I almost asked you, since you have just been blasting my divine foundation of ethics without really providing an alternative, to present a positive theory of ethics based on reason, but decided I REALLY didn't want to hear a summary of Kant or something
Senator Smigt stands slowly, his face the image of calm, his hands steady and unclenched. He waits, as the murmurs spread throughout the room. He returns Senator Krupt's stare unblinking. Silence descends, and only they does he begin, slow and controlled in his speech.
"Good Senator, indeed I do understand how we have learned of the Gods, their powers and their glory; it was through the writings and chronicles of men, "But who are we to make a judgment of what the gods will?" Who are we, therefore, to take the views of the writers of the Holy Scrolls as the same as the Gods? We do know of their actions, but beyond the facts we leave merely speculation, which as I remind you is not worthy of much in a court of law. You may object to this on theological grounds, but are we really going to suppose the Gods would have chronicled their actions, which they would know for ever, not the people, awestruck and mortal, wishing to pass on their knowledge to future generations? Furthermore, does not every temple in this fair city keep their own records of the events of antiquity, which rarely corroborate and often blatantly contradict each other? How does this provide a stable foundation for the law? Reason, by contrast, is a constant throughout time and space, incorruptible by petty desires. You say it can be used to justify nefarious acts, but I cannot think of such a line of reasoning that doesn't collapse on further investigation."
Ponita Krupt opens her mouth, ready to reply, but Senator Smigt raises a hand to show he wishes to continue. She yields the floor.
"As for your closing question, I wish to distance myself from such a sentiment; law is the realm of reason, but that does not mean that the temples are not the realm of the Gods or the house a shrine of privacy. If we attempt to rid this country of the Gods, I would be deeply saddened, for, not only is this a contradiction of the rights, proposed by the Populares, that I entirely support, but it would also remove from the land some of the most beautiful artworks and poignant writings. If reason is used to its logical end, we do not do away with other paths to ultimate truth, but embrace them; in their proper place the Gods can enrich our culture, in the wrong one they can cloud our minds and our judgement. We should confine the Gods to their temples where they belong, and ensure the law is moulded only in the hot fires of reason, where it can be strengthened by logical debate."
To cheers from behind, him he sits, deliberately contrasting his calm demeanour to the tense atmosphere opposite him. The presiding magistrate indicated that Senator Krupt had the floor, and Marcellus rests his chin on his hands in thought, still gazing at the woman standing on the far bench, waiting for her reply.
((Mercators; an impeachment conspiracy is welcome owing to Pavo's notoriety, though please don't kill him. I'll post ICly after the elections.))
Pontia Krupt cocks her head slightly, as if trying to wrap her head around the arguments presented. She slowly breaks into a smile, then chuckles, breaking the tension among the devout senators around her. She continues in the same calm, quiet voice with which she had begun
Senator Smigt, do you hear your own arguments? You speak of reason and logic as you espouse 'clear' conclusions, the arguments for which are absent from your lofty rhetoric. You dismiss arguments because you 'cannot think' of one? I provided an example not a few minutes ago. You are providing an example as you speak, corrupting reason to bite the very hands that gave you this gift. Do you really believe that the senators here, the best and brightest of our nation, cannot see through your ruse?
And do you doubt the divine inspiration of the sacred texts? The eternal gods may not need to chronicle their doings and their will for themselves, but if they did not then how do we, mere mortals, understand their will? For the gods to fail to provide us with such information must mean that they either do not know that we cannot know their will without their guidance, the implication being that they are stupid, or that they do not care about the fates of mortals. Which of these explanations do you espouse senator? Or are you willing to admit that the gods have indeed left us with guidance?
Part of me fears your answer, Senator, if you believe that the best the gods can do for us is to 'enrich our culture'. Are inspiring great works of art the only thing for which the gods are meaningful? What can the gods do when 'confined' to their temple? What are temples in this horrible world you propose except the penitentiaries of the gods? Do you really think that you can contain a god? No, Senator, the gods walk among us, and will always walk among us, whether you want them to stay in their temples or embrace their guidance.
(( thanks for that debate, theAhawk, fun times. Unfortunately, I think I am done with it for now - I have it too often in real life to be willing to spill more than the nearly 20-paragraphs we have already exchanged. Take the last word, we can pretend we went round and round until everyone else in the room got sick of us, which is usually the way these things end in real life anyway... :/ ))
Senator Smigt, do you hear your own arguments? You speak of reason and logic as you espouse 'clear' conclusions, the arguments for which are absent from your lofty rhetoric. You dismiss arguments because you 'cannot think' of one? I provided an example not a few minutes ago. You are providing an example as you speak, corrupting reason to bite the very hands that gave you this gift. Do you really believe that the senators here, the best and brightest of our nation, cannot see through your ruse?
And do you doubt the divine inspiration of the sacred texts? The eternal gods may not need to chronicle their doings and their will for themselves, but if they did not then how do we, mere mortals, understand their will? For the gods to fail to provide us with such information must mean that they either do not know that we cannot know their will without their guidance, the implication being that they are stupid, or that they do not care about the fates of mortals. Which of these explanations do you espouse senator? Or are you willing to admit that the gods have indeed left us with guidance?
Part of me fears your answer, Senator, if you believe that the best the gods can do for us is to 'enrich our culture'. Are inspiring great works of art the only thing for which the gods are meaningful? What can the gods do when 'confined' to their temple? What are temples in this horrible world you propose except the penitentiaries of the gods? Do you really think that you can contain a god? No, Senator, the gods walk among us, and will always walk among us, whether you want them to stay in their temples or embrace their guidance.
(( thanks for that debate, theAhawk, fun times. Unfortunately, I think I am done with it for now - I have it too often in real life to be willing to spill more than the nearly 20-paragraphs we have already exchanged. Take the last word, we can pretend we went round and round until everyone else in the room got sick of us, which is usually the way these things end in real life anyway... :/ ))
((To renounce party membership just send a request to the party leader to be removed. To un-vote, you need to follow the rules in the voting post.))
((I quite agree; it was fun but it really is going nowhere!))
The atmosphere in the chamber has become tense, as Senator Smigt stands. The sun is setting and the meeting will shortly be called to an end, but he wishes to make his voice heard once more.
"I stand by my arguments; the scenario you constructed is not the logical progression and leaves me without such a situation where reason can be corrupted. I do doubt divine inspiration for the texts; if they want to give us guidance, why talk in riddles not come to us directly? I do think the Gods should be worshipped in the temples, but not the courtrooms or the senate. I do think the Gods should stay out of politics."
Throughout the short address the shouts from the opposite bench had grown and grown. At the end of it, the Senator was shouting above the din. When he finished, he went to sit down, but from the opposite bench a shout of "Kill the heretic" came from the brimming anger of one of the most devout of the aristocrats. A fist fight in the centre of the hall erupted, the lictors talking some minutes to end the squabble, but the worst injury was a nose bleed. The presiding magistrate closed the meeting, saying that this was an issue to be resolved by the people in an election, and forbade further debate in the house.
The atmosphere in the chamber has become tense, as Senator Smigt stands. The sun is setting and the meeting will shortly be called to an end, but he wishes to make his voice heard once more.
"I stand by my arguments; the scenario you constructed is not the logical progression and leaves me without such a situation where reason can be corrupted. I do doubt divine inspiration for the texts; if they want to give us guidance, why talk in riddles not come to us directly? I do think the Gods should be worshipped in the temples, but not the courtrooms or the senate. I do think the Gods should stay out of politics."
Throughout the short address the shouts from the opposite bench had grown and grown. At the end of it, the Senator was shouting above the din. When he finished, he went to sit down, but from the opposite bench a shout of "Kill the heretic" came from the brimming anger of one of the most devout of the aristocrats. A fist fight in the centre of the hall erupted, the lictors talking some minutes to end the squabble, but the worst injury was a nose bleed. The presiding magistrate closed the meeting, saying that this was an issue to be resolved by the people in an election, and forbade further debate in the house.
- Status