Before the 3^rd c. CE, Romans feared the expansion of Christianity because they saw them as a threat to the stability of the empire. I believe that the fear that the Romans felt was valid because of the impact Christianity had in the empire and the outbreaks caused by different provinces who opposed Christianity. The imperial government was very susceptible of any rising society and the officials always made sure to monitor these societies very closely. Christians met privately at night and early in the mornings to sing hymns and worship Christ. That behavior was very unusual for the Romans; they usually control everything that happens within the empire, but Christianity was becoming out of their reach because of their privacy. Romans began to doubt the loyalty of the Christians and feared that they were conspiring against the Roman Empire. While the Christian leaders confirmed their loyalty to Rome, they still bound themselves to keep certain commands and refused to worship the traditional gods of Rome. Romans were unfamiliar with monotheism, and they characterized that behavior as stubbornness. The Eastern provinces were disturbing the peace to show their discontentment with the Christians and they wanted Christians to be legally punished for their stubbornness.

Christians were feared because not only they were very committed to their religion practices and boundaries, but they were also expanding the religion by converting other habitants of Rome. Traditionally, a wife has to follow the religion and worship the gods of her husband. She is expected to ignore any other foreign religion that surfaces in Rome. However, many wives were converting to Christianity. In addition, Christians were also reaching out to slaves. When slaves attended the Christian meetings, they felt powerful because they were treated fairly with respect and were able to find their identity through Christianity (Russell). In Corinthian, St. Paul suggested that if slaves have the opportunity to gain their freedom, they should do so. While Paul is not trying to abolish slavery, he is telling slaves that it is okay to turn against their masters and break the rules of the Empire. Due to the Christian expansion and their beliefs, Christians were blamed for many things that went wrong in Rome. Romans felt as if Christianity was a poison for Rome, and it was ruining the traditional way that Romans rule the empire.

Finally, Christians condemned the pagans. Christians were preaching against the pagans, and that behavior was not welcomed in Rome because traditionally, Romans were welcome to practice the religion of their choice, as long as it did not interfere with Roman practices, or threaten the peace. However, that did not stop the Christians to do what they believed was right. When Roman officials try to stop them, Christians were relentless and chose prison, torture, and even death rather than rejecting their religion. Facing that kind of determination, the Romans felt threatened because they feared that they were losing the control of the empire. While they were able to abuse the body of Christians, but they felt powerless because they could not control what they do, or who they influence.

180. G. Russell. “The Jews, the Roman Empire, and Christianity, A. D. 50-180.” Greece & Rome, vol. 6, no. 18, 1937, pp. 170–178. JSTOR

Page count : 545

Ever since the birth of civilization there has been an undeniable interest and belief in a higher power. Although it’s true that different societies had shown their faith in different ways, there was a common norm before the 3^rd century CE to practice a religion in which there were multiple gods, and faith was pledged to one of them. When a new group came along that went against the grain and practiced monotheism or, the belief of a single God, it was inevitable that they would be scrutinized and questioned for their beliefs. Christianity arose in the ancient world, and it was met with a great deal of backlash from the Romans. This backlash eventually led to a fear that the Roman Empire would be in danger should Christianity take over.

Christianity as we see it today is a normal everyday practice. Now, seeing it from the eyes of a Roman, Christianity can seem fairly odd to say the least. They would hear of stories of Christians eating the body of Christ, and drinking his blood. They believed in a man who died and rose from the dead to walk amongst the living. Did they pledge faith in ghost? Was this some kind of sadistic cult? Were these people just plain crazy? It is only natural that many people would be fearful of who Christians truly were and how their ever growing religion would have an impact on Roman society.

Whether they knew it or not, Christians were shaping the world around them. For so long, society had believed in multiple gods, going against that notion and only believing in one God sparked an interest and opened the minds of the Roman people to a different religion and a different way of life. As religion was a huge part of someone’s life in ancient Rome, having a new faith could have a direct impact on their functionality as a citizen. For example, Christians believe in having Sunday as a day of rest and devotion to God in which even work would be set aside for worship. As a Roman leader, seeing a large number of the populous taking Sunday off from work can be worrying. Society still needs to function and how could this be done if Christians took a whole day off from collecting crops, catching fish, or crafting valuable tools? Of course, today’s society has adapted to this day of rest and found a way to function despite it, but in 3^rd century CE, this was a whole new problem that Roman society was tasked with solving.

The emergence of Christianity in Roman society was yet another obstacle that threatened to tear apart the Empire. The fear and resentment that had initially taken over, would eventually have to be overcome in order for the Roman Empire to continue to thrive into what we know it as today.

Jacob Ramos

Category=Christianity Through the Lens of Polytheism

Word Count: 479

When Christianity began to spread throughout Ancient Rome, the Romans became very nervous, and for good reason. A change to Christianity as a prominent religion would threaten the polytheistic Roman religion that had been in place for many years. The Christian religion would undoubtedly change the entire culture of Ancient Rome. This would become a major issue in Rome as they would take extreme measures including mass executions of Christians.

Being a monotheistic government was far from anything that had taken place in Rome prior to the 3rd c. CE. The Roman religion was largely based on the worship of many Greek gods whom sacrifices were made to. The Romans sacrifices were supposed to inevitably get them to bless the Roman Empire. Looking at it from their point of view, if Christianity were to “infiltrate” the Empire, then the gods would not look at them in the same light and it would affect their security that the gods gave them. Their unwillingness to participate could be viewed as disgracing the gods.

Another factor that would cause the Romans to be intimidated by the up and coming religion was the way that their empire was set up. In Ancient Rome, government and religion were greatly tied together. With the Romans refusing to simply adapt to the culture that was already in place, it could be viewed as a major threat to the entire empire. The more people that decided to choose Christianity, the more people that would be less likely to participate in the Roman government. If the people were not willing to participate, then the empire would take a major hit and possibly fall. While Christianity wouldn’t cause it to fall, they ended up not being completely wrong about it taking over and becoming a large part of their government moving forward. Christianity would eventually prevail in the Roman Empire and take the polytheistic religion’s place as the prominent religion. Becoming a major part of their government, Christianity began to change the culture of Ancient Rome over time.

After looking at all of these facts, I believe that the Romans’ fear of Christianity was very legitimate. Although the Romans took very extreme actions towards suppressing the new religion, they had their reasons. It can be extremely intimidating when a new idea comes along and challenged an entire way of life that has been established for such a long period of time. There have been numerous examples since then where the same thing took place.

Word Count = 414

Democracy has been an ideal chased through eras, but captured by very few. It all started the same way, across generations, across eras, across history. In someone’s heart, at some time, they fulfilled an innate yearning for a better way to represent the country through democracy. While the rules of the system deviate, the ideas behind the system remain constant. When people look for shining examples of democracy, they look at two places; America and Athens, but the two political systems may not be as familial as we think. The most striking contrast manifests itself in the interactive exclusivity of Athenian Democracy compared to the American system.
The most exclusive club in the world might elicit the Forbes Billionaire list in modern times, but in the ancient Greek world, it was the honor of being a full-fledged Athenian citizen. Women, slaves, children, aliens, medics, warfighters, and for a period of time only those with both parental figures having the coveted Athenian citizenship, could not even be considered for citizenship. Once the exclusive status was achieved, not being engaged would characterize you as an, “Idiot.” As Thucydides famously said, “We do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say that he has no business here at all.” Once entrance is gained, there are membership requirements that extend beyond the normal facets of American democracy.
This was contrasted from the very beginnings of the American democracy rooted in “all men are created equal, … , unalienable rights.” The American system replaced that exclusivity with opportunity. According to the Migration Policy Institute, 37 million people today were not United States Citizens at birth. The United States is not an exclusivity club, but is more of a welcoming club than that of ancient Greece. That is coupled with the rights of the American Citizen being granted to women, slaves, and every legal citizen. Even enemy combatants and foreign nationals are treated according to that code. American democracy does not discriminate, so even as we wage wars on the other side of the globe, the rules of engagement ground American Force in the principles they are fighting for. In contrast to Athenian Democracy, American’s, while encouraged, are not forced to participate in the political process. In fact, only 61.4% of Americans eligible to vote, actually vote in national elections according to the U.S. Census Bureau. A figure that would have resulted in mass political uprisings in the ancient world.
As the great experiment of democracy continues to journey forward, the exclusivity of Athenian Democracy is not in place in American democracy. As democracy continues to rage across generations, across eras, across the rest of history, the memory of the mistake of the Athenians will forever be etched in our memories.

Athenian democracy system is different from our representative democracy, but it has significant similarities that cannot be ignored. Just like the founding fathers wrote the constitution to protect the freedom of Americans, Athenians were very concerned with the freedom of the individual of the citizens of Athens.  During the colonial era, the British did not respect the privacy and freedom of American citizens and Thomas Jefferson wrote the bills of rights, a formal document informing the British colonists that we are aware of our alienated rights and we were willing to go to any measures to enjoy our freedom as citizens. Similarly, Athenians sought freedom for every citizens, and prohibited slavery. Solon freed enslaved debtors by cancelling all of their debts and he forbid any future enslavement of debtors.

In addition, Athens prevented the lower class from being dominated by the elite class. Any Athenian citizen was allowed to represent himself in court and not have a representative from the elite class. Athens made it so that citizens from a lower class did not have to depend on someone from a higher class. Also, if a person elects to have a representative in court, many laws were set in place in order to ensure that the representative was not trying to manipulate the client. For example, if a wealthy person is going against someone that is much poorer, Athenians create a system to allow them to be on the same playing field. They ensure that the rich person is not bribing any other members of the court. “There was another safeguarad against elite manipulation – the suspicion of the jury itself. The jurors were wary of the rhetorical smoke-and-mirror tactics of deceptive speakers, especially when directed against private citizens” (Alwine 2016). Just like our judicial system, every party going into the courtroom has the same rights, regardless of social status. In our society, if a lawyer cannot be afforded, one is provided in order to make up for the unfair advantage that comes with the lack of knowledge and experience in the court system.

Furthermore, the votes of each social class mattered for Athenians. Decisions that affect the government of Athens happen during assemblies, and every attendants of these assemblies were encouraged to continue attending with a guaranteed pay. While everyone was being paid, regardless of social class, the pay played a huge role for the lower class because they give up multiple days of work to attend these assemblies, which can lead to a financial challenge. While America does not pay its citizens to vote, every citizen is encouraged to do so, and also to take part of important discussions that influence the decisions of American citizens.

Citation :

Alwine, Andrew T. (2016). “Freedom and Patronage in the Athenian Democracy”. The Journal of Hellenic studies (0075-4269), 136

In today’s politics, representation gives people a government that does not run under a mob-like rule. The founding fathers found it necessary to avoid a government that was governed by the elite, so that all people, regardless of race, gender, or social status, would eventually be heard equally. The representative democracy model provides the best balance in government.

In the Athenian democracy, the majority rule and do not permit the minorities, such as metics, women, and slaves, to vote. Even though discrimination and oppression is a reality in the present, representative democracies provide the minorities with the security of their fundamental rights. Under a representative model like the U.S. government, minorities have a better chance to be heard and represented fairly.

In a representative government, elected officials are chosen to represent the values and opinions of a group of people. The politicians are well educated in law and policy (foreign and domestic), and often seek out the guidance of other well-educated individuals when debating political issues. When discussing new proposals, they use ample time to review the pros and cons of the proposed law and make decisions based on the overall interest of the state. In the Athenian model, the greed and selfishness of the assembly led to a juror payment system. The failed system eventually led to people receiving payments for attending festivals. The system left Athens’ economy in ruins, thus resulting in little money to support its military forces.

Politicians make the decisions on foreign policy. In Athenian democracy, laws and foreign policy (e.g., treaties and alliances) were unstable because of public persuasion. One example is the shifting alliances between Athens and Sparta. The general population, who are usually less educated and easily manipulated, do not offer stability in the decisions made in government. Representative democracies provide more stable foreign policy and laws.

Overall, the U.S. representative democracy is more efficient than the Athenian democracy model. It provides equal representation of minorities, prevention of full elite control, and educated decisions on foreign policy and state laws.