Before the third century CE, Rome was one of the largest and most complex societies to date. As the majority of societies before them, Rome’s population believed in polytheism. Polytheism calls for worship of a pantheon of gods rather than only one. Each god in the pantheon had its own specialty. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was the god of the sky and thunder, while Neptune was the god of the seas and rivers. The pantheon of gods was a way to explain and understand the happenings of the earth, such as storms and floods. Everything from a good harvest to safe travel across the seas was credited to the Gods. In the absence of modern science, it makes a lot of sense and provided a stable belief system that allowed the society to run smoothly. The citizens feared the gods, and prayed to them in times of both hardship and good fortune.

Conversely, Christianity suggests the belief of only one God. To someone who has been praying to the same gods their whole life, Christianity could easily be seen as dangerous or senseless. To a Roman, Christianity could seem dangerous because it could upset the pantheon of gods, and bring their wrath upon their village, town or city. It could seem senseless because one god controlling everything might be less believable than having many gods that each have their own specialty. Parts of Roman culture were based around its religion. Christianity challenges that culture, and therefore would affect the stability of the Roman society.

The Romans being introduced to Christianity is an example of a clash of religions. For comparison, when Atheism was introduced to Christianity, it was not received so well. Just as the Monotheistic Romans feared Christianity, Christian societies have historically feared atheism. The inquisition and the holocaust are also examples of religious beliefs affecting the stability of a society and causing fear. Long story short, history shows a trend of new or differing religious beliefs not being accepted well, and sometimes blamed for the problems of the society. For this reason, Rome fearing Christianity was completely valid because it is human nature to do so.

Christianity making its way into the Roman Empire is at its most basic level a change of sorts. Any change that effects something such as the government or the religious beliefs of a society on a large scale will be feared as a threat and immoral. History has proven that this fear is human nature, and therefore it is justified.

420 Words

By MIDN 3/C Ionatan Soule

While the Judeo-Christian model of monotheism is common in our modern western culture, this was not always the case.  The birth and death of Jesus Christ, beginning what became known collectively as the religion of Christianity, introduced something new into a relatively peaceful time—the Pax Romana.  Under Caesar Augusta, the Pax Romana was a time of growth, abundance, and peace for the Roman Empire.  Like a pebble thrown into a glass pond, the establishment of Christianity sent ripples that disrupted the established peace.  To the Romans, the spread of Christianity posed a distinct and unique threat to the Empire simply because it was new and, more importantly, different.

In the beginning, Christianity posed no threat to the Empire simply because it had not reached the necessary critical mass.  This soon changed, however, as it grew to acquire more and more followers.  Its rapid expansion and growing popularity rightly caused worry among the Roman polytheists because Christianity believed in a monotheistic model. Immediately an issue can be seen: poly- versus mono-theist.  But, there was more to it than just this disagreement.  As laid out in “Voyages,” Roman gods played an integral part in Roman life.  They were worshipped during religious sacrifices and looked upon to bring prosperity to the Roman Empire.  Each god represented a different aspect of life and each was prayed to individually depending on the nature of the prayer.  The fact that Christians refused to partake in these ceremonies insulted other Romans and raised many suspicions.  Additionally, since Romans believed that the gods were actively protecting the Roman Empire, the Christian’s refusals to participate threatened the Empire and the Pax Romana.

Another and possibly more serious issue was the semi-divinity of the Roman Emperors.  Christians, believing in only one god, refused outright to give the Emperor the respect and treatment he demanded from the Roman people.  Their refusal to follow the Emperor and acknowledge his divine status was the most threatening aspect of the Judeo-Christian model.  They simply were not buying into the Roman system.  In Roman’s eyes, the threat compounded when Christian preachers began voicing their ideas, teaching in the street things that directly opposed Roman’s religious and governmental status quo.

The early Christians posed a threat to the Roman Empire simply because they were different.  Though they may have posed no physical threat, their new ideas opposed the Roman ideals that were sustaining the Pax Romana.

Word count: 400

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/christianityromanempire_article_01.shtml

The default train of thought in regards to today’s religion is that of monotheism, and that is a difficult thing to grasp due to the wide range of varying beliefs in the world. Even today there are cultures that still believe in a polytheistic religion, for example, Hinduism and Buddhism, which rank fourth and fifth respectively, are two large polytheistic religions thriving in the world today. We live in a world that is far more connected and understanding of different cultures than the Romans did in 3^rd c. CE. That is why I think it was a valid fear of the Romans to be concerned with the Christians who practiced faith in a different way.

The Roman polytheistic religion, as stated in “Voyages Ch. 7,” had many gods that the citizens were encouraged to worship, from Jupiter to Mars as well as others that were public obligations. The demand for public worship and belief of these gods is that it created things for the government. Also stated in “Voyages” is the fact that officials would spend government money on public cults for these gods. A strong following of these different gods would provide the government with an escape on mistakes made, like losing a battle could be placed on a lack of worship to Mars, which could then fall back on the citizens. The government was given the power to strike fear into its citizens with the use of the divine figures, which then gave the ability to govern the people with less backlash.

The spark of Christianity gave the Romans fear. It was something new, something different, and in human nature they did not respond well. The Romans knew that they would miss out on the opportunity to completely control the Christians, because they saw similar repercussions from the Jews, as read in “Voyages.” When the Romans seized control of Judaea they were faced with confrontation and challenges from the Jews in the area. The difference in religion creates a barrier between civilizations, and often leaves one viewed as “barbaric” or “uncivilized” due to their difference of thinking. This barrier for the Romans created fear, and caused them to oppress Jews and Christians.

This difference leads to an “immoral” view of the Christian’s actions. The reason for this immorality is strictly due to the difference between the religions. Cultures get used to a certain way of thinking and path of life, and the Christians challenged that. It can be compared to having children out of wedlock in today’s society, where many people with strong religious beliefs view it as wrong, but it’s just another way of life for some. Similarly, Christians did not agree with the polytheistic religion, so they embarked on their separate journey. No one is right or wrong, but it did scare the Romans, and understandably so.

 

Word Count: 471

http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/05/the-changing-global-religious-landscape/

“Voyages” book in weekly readings

Christianity in Rome before the third century CE was outlawed and many believed that its ideas threatened the empire as a whole. Through the teachings of Jesus, Christianity taught many people new ideas and how to properly live their lives, promising salvation after death to those who devoted their life to only god. Christianity began to spread into Rome when decades after Jesus’ death, the Apostle Paul wrote much of the New Testament in the Bible. Paul was a Roman citizen and sent many of his teachings in the Bible to communities throughout the Roman Empire. Christianity eventually spread throughout the entire empire and became Rome’s official religion under Constantine the Great.

Persecution of the Christians in the Roman Empire happened between 64 CE and 313 CE. The Great Fire of Rome in 64 CE is often seen as the beginning of this persecution. The Emperor Nero blamed Christians for the fire which is completely absurd. In fact, Nero is rumored to have started this fire himself- which gave him the ability to punish the Christians. However, before Christianity, the practice of worshiping a monotheistic god was unheard of at the time. Many people feared this new religion because they did not understand it. The most common Roman religion at the time was polytheistic, and included many superstitions about how the gods were feeling. The Romans would do well as long as the gods were happy. Although the spread of a monotheistic religion throughout Rome was originally feared due to the threat of the stability of the Empire, this fear was valid because it introduced a very different way of practicing religion and thinking in Rome at the time.

The social issues related to the growth of Christianity in Rome was that it delegitimized the fact that Roman citizens had to have exclusive loyalty to the state.  Cairns states how, “The exclusive sovereignty of Christ clashed with Caesar’s claims to his own exclusive sovereignty” (Cairns).  Although the Roman Empire practiced syncretism, they demanded that people’s loyalty was to the state alone. The Roman people were expected to practice the state polytheistic religion with many festivals throughout the year. The Christians were not able to participate in these festivals because they were only interested in worshiping one god. The lack of participation by the Christians at these festivals added to the segregation of faiths in the Roman culture, and eventually led to the fear and misunderstanding of Christianity itself. Also, many Christians were forced to worship in solitude during the night because it was outlawed by the Roman state. Many people feared Christianity because it seemed very mysterious to them and they did not understand it. People were also not interested in hearing about a religion that was not sponsored by the state. In the early third century, a Roman government official told Christians: “I cannot bring myself so much as to listen to people who speak ill of the Roman way of religion (Brown).” People feared Christians because they believed that Christians did not support Rome. They also feared it because it was not a state-sponsored religion. Both these fears are valid in the eyes of the Roman people because the citizens were interested in peace.

WC: 500

Brown, Peter. “The World of Late Antiquity”, pg. 17, Thames and Hudson, 1971.

Cairns, Earle E. (1996). “Chapter 7:Christ or Caesar”. Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church (Third ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan.

The idea that Romans would have a fear of Christianity is very valid considering the circumstances of the times. Christianity, while destined to grow and expand, was seen as a genuine threat to the Roman Empire leading up to 3rd c. CE. Its ability to conform mass groups of people was unlike any religion prior, and at a time when the stability and future of Rome was potentially uncertain, the idea of another large group of people coming together under common ideas could easily be seen as trouble by Roman leadership. Fear that a religion could change an entire way a society operates was alarming for the Romans and by taking steps to keep it under control, they could maintain order and mitigate potential uprisings. Looking at the course of history, religion is one of the major themes of conflict. By suppressing Christianity, the Romans could focus solely on the maintenance and expansion of their empire.

A monotheistic religion, at the time, went against the grain of religious and spiritual practices of the early Roman Empire. Not only considered strange, it was something that underwhelmed the state, and caused tension between its citizens. This idea, that Rome’s own citizens could cause its collapse, was more realistic and dangerous than any outside threat and was one of the reasons Christianity was looked down upon.

The idea of a new religion shaping the structure of a fragile republic was not something to be taken lightly. In a society that viewed their ruler as a sort of God, Christianity takes away an emperors validity by focusing on only one true God. Christianity showed how fragile the Roman society really was. It was cult like and taboo, but had the potential to completely change Roman culture. Christianity didn’t exude the same warlike, rallying call that polytheistic Roman religions offered prior. It was a genuine threat to their dominance as an Empire and something the Romans really couldn’t control without apparent force.

Christianity ended up having a direct impact on the empire when Constantine accepted it and moved the Roman capital. The aftermath of this split the Empire in two, making Christianity officially accepted after being put down for so long. Like many things that are different and new, Christianity was genuinely feared by the Roman Empire. The implications of accepting a new religion in their society would completely shift Roman culture. The end result was a powerful and captivating religion that changed not only the Roman Empire, but the course of history as a whole.

 

(421 Words)

It is quite obvious that the perception of a democracy has changed significantly since the Athenian model. Although there was plenty of representation in the Athenian model of a democracy, if it were to be implemented today, there would be many obvious and stark contrasts that would keep it from working effectively. In Athenian democracy, not all groups of people were recognized. Many people were denied the right to have a say in any kind of change or the implementation of laws.

In our RTTP exercise, there were people that were not allowed to speak during assembly because they were not citizens, or they were Metics. Not only this, but women were unfairly kept from having a say, along with slaves and other minority groups of people. This is one major difference between the Athenian system and our system today. People are able to speak regardless of their gender, and can also earn citizenship. Our government system has improved in this aspect, as it allows for everyone to have a say, and also allows for new opinions and also grievances that the Athenians were not hearing from the minority groups that they excluded.

Excluding minority groups from having a say in politics is about as undemocratic as possible.  A successful democracy is formed through allowing everyone to participate in politics, and hearing every possible viewpoint and concern before passing things in to legislation. The Athenians were relying on wealthy citizens or citizens with lots of people power to make decisions through a flawed democracy. The way to improve on this aspect is to allow everyone to speak, in order to ensure that everyone is somewhat content with the outcome of the legislation that is being passed.  Although the United States has learned this, it took time to realize that in order for a democracy to be true to itself, it must recognize all groups of people and attempt to hear their opinions in order to find success and a prosperous society. Overall, it is evident that a democracy must contain several things in order to be successful. It must be an all-encompassing government where all opinions are heard, and must also gain its power and success from the fact that it listens to all minorities and groups of people.

The glaring difference between the Democracy we have today, versus what was in place in ancient Athens is the level of representation in government. The idea of Democracy shares some similarities and differences, but that is the one that stands out the most to me. The modern idea of Democracy is one that includes all people, and that is pressed into our minds from a young age, which in turn makes it stand out much more when they exclude people from government activities.

In ancient Athens they refused to let women, slaves, or people who were not born in Athens vote or take place in government. Obviously, values of our civilizations are different, but it is to the definition of Democracy that we have been taught since a young age that I am comparing. They, like early on in America’s Democracy, only let wealthy, land owning men vote and take part in government activities. It takes time to get a system correct, and that is why after they began to struggle, the Athenians came together and held an assembly where they voted upon things such as a wider range of government participants. A major part of a successful democracy is citizen participation, which they realized and considered expansion of eligible citizens.

In America, things also started lopsided and only favored one faction of the U.S. population, but years and years later America experiences a Democracy where all citizens (above 18) are eligible to vote. This style of Democracy is much different than that of Athens, but it is what we have come to know as Democracy, and is also a government “for the people.” All people in the United States are able to vote, unless they are not a citizen or under 18 years of age, and that creates a great deal of representation in government from the people of the U.S. It also strengthens the Democratic values of the government as it forces candidates to try and sway the citizens in their favor, and can assist in getting real results from political figures as they work to keep their job.

It can be said that voting and participation is down in America, and is not well represented in government. According to an article on Pew Research voter participation has “surged” in most states compared to the last primaries. These stats are coming from polls that usually see low participation, so if these are up, the next presidential election will probably see record turn outs. People can also argue that states can use gerrymandering as a way to sway results and skew representation. This is an unconstitutional action if done so to sway the votes of ethnic groups, but is legal if done so for partisan reasons, according to an article by The Washington Post. The article says that the Supreme Court is finally looking into making a ruling on whether it is legal or not.

 

Word Count: 488

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/03/turnout-in-this-years-u-s-house-primaries-rose-sharply-especially-on-the-democratic-side/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/07/the-supreme-court-will-soon-consider-gerrymandering-heres-how-changes-in-redistricting-could-reduce-it/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f06ecae14416

 

Kody Crider

HH215

Blog 2

Direct vs Representative

Democracy if a form of government where the citizens have the ability to have freedom, equality, and have a say in the way they are governed. The two types of democracy I will be comparing is representative democracy, which America has today, and direct democracy, which is what the Athenians had hundreds of year ago. It is my opinion that representative democracy is the fairer and better way to ensure the government is run correctly and the voice of the people is heard.

In a direct democracy, the people have direct say and influence over the decisions of laws. While this seems like a good idea, this could lead to controversy and a weak government because people from the city, town, state, etc. could form a majority to influence what they want to be passed or not passed. In a representative, we have elected party officials that express the voices of the people in their party. A small group of people represent those who elected them and they are more willing to go along with the ideologies of the party.

Using an example from our reacting to the past assignment, direct democracy allowed for the denial of slaves and metics to be able to vote. This vote was most likely determined due simply to the opinions the voters had of these slaves and metics as scum and thieves. The slaves and metics really had no chance of having the right to vote. Although it was passed initially, it was shortly reversed because of these reasons. If there was a representative democracy, the slaves and metics would have most likely had a better chance of the decision going in their favor and remaining that way. They would have had elected officials arguing for their case and the vote would have been taken by elected and educated representatives, not by a random group of citizens.

An example from today’s society is simply the type of government we have. We have a different version of democracy then what the Athenians had. We elect everyone who is selected to run for office, whether it be the president, congressmen or woman, cabinet members, senators, etc. Our government is ran by people we trust to express our voices and people we have elected to run our country with the best interest in mind. It is my opinion that representative democracy is the fairest and most efficient way to have the people’s voices heard while also maintaining a fair and efficient government.