Humanities Politics and Religion in the Bacchanalian Affair of 186 BCE Discussion I need an original post that is at least 200 words responding to Part A. Then I need three student responses to post, at least 100 words, that can be found in Part B. Please respond to student response like you are talking to them directly. Do not say ” I agree with this student”¦.this student’s use of “¦..etc”¦” Chicago Style Format
PART AWhy, according to the article by Sarolta Takacs, (“Politics and Religion in the Bacchanalian Affair of 186 B.C.E,”) did the Roman Senate feel the need to suppress and ultimately control the cult of Bacchus in Rome? Are there later parallels to the Roman treatment of the Christians? Are there contemporary parallels?
PART B
1
“Why, according to the article by Sarolta Takacs, (“Politics and Religion in the Bacchanalian Affair of 186 B.C.E,”) did the Roman Senate feel the need to suppress and ultimately control the cult of Bacchus in Rome? Are there later parallels to the Roman treatment of the Christians? Are there contemporary parallels? The Roman Senate felt that they had to suppress and control the cult of Bacchus because the senate feared that the cult would attract young men. This was an issue because young men were the future of Rome and the cult would threaten that future. So instead of the senate leaving the cult to its own devices they controlled it. There are parallels on how the Romans treated the Christians and how the Roman treated the Cult of Bacchus. Romans treated both the Christians and Cult of Bacchus like second class citizens but after a while slowly integrated their customs in to Roman culture. I think we see this in Asian. For a long time Asian countries pushed out Westernized customs but after a while they integrated western culture into their own. https://learn.umuc.edu/d2l/le/content/350716/viewContent/14850543/View ”
2″It seems to me that there were a few reasons for the Senate suppressing the cult of Bacchus. The obvious reason is that the cult was viewed as a threat which could compromise military-aged males. At this time, Rome still had plenty of enemies and the elites realized that peace had a way of coming to a sudden end at times. Another reason for the suppression is perhaps a power move on the part of the Senate. A reminder that they still make the rules and that they are in charge. There are definitely parallels to the Christian treatment to an extent. They were both alien cults and while Christianity wasn’t pushing drinking and revelry, it was about peace and pacifism (at the time) which could also be a bit of a threat to a warring country. Also, Christianity didn’t really fit in with the “all-inclusiveness” of Roman Gods since in Christianity there is only one God.
A contemporary parallel would probably be communist China. China has famously clamped down on religious organizations. One has to look no further than Tibet and the exile of the Dali Lama. There are also recent reports of “re-education camps” detention centers for one million Uighurs and other Muslims. I believe that these are definitely good examples of suppression.”
3″According to Sarolta Takacs, the Roman Senate felt the need to suppress and ultimately control the cult of Bacchus, because they felt threatened by the group. The Roman Senate expected everyone to be in the same group with them, and adhere to their statuses and hierarchies. They did not want someone with a low status in Roman society, to have a high status within the cult, and therefore have a power over high-status Romans. They could not know that they were really in charge, if it were possible for other Romans to have divided loyalties. For example, if a cult leader made an edict that was counter to what the Roman Senate wanted, how could the Senators know if they would be obeyed, or if people would choose to follow their cult leader? There are parallels to the later Roman treatment of the Christians. The Romans did not like the fact that Christians worshiped a God outside of their pantheon, and followed religious leaders who existed outside of the Roman political/religious system. There are contemporary parallels, too. One example is China, where they desire to control religions through the state. They would like to have official religious leaders be appointed/approved by politicians, and be primarily loyal to politicians. The article from the New York Times describes a crack-down against a Christian church that spoke out against Chairman Xi. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-vatican-c”¦
This is a recent article that talks about the situation with the Catholic church in China right now. The “official” Catholic churches have bishops who are approved through Beijing, instead of through the Vatican. The state of China is threatened by this outside loyalty, and the chance that worshipers will listen to other views than the ones that they approve. This is a parallel with the way the Roman Senate felt threatened by a secondary loyalty for Roman citizens, to an outside cult. “