Originally Posted by combatmedic (Post 1282517)

The Romans did have a state religion, Astromancer. They had one from the time of King Numa all the way to the end of the Empire in 1453 AD; it just wasn't the same state religion the whole time. I suggest that polytheists make a different sort of claim than monotheists. Syncretism is possible with either set of theological assumptions, but it's arguably easier with polythiesm. The same goes for pluralism. Please note that the Romans did, at various times, ban certain cults that made trouble for the Republic/Empire, or that grossly offended the sensibilities of the elite.

Oh, and it's no fair to make bold claims, like 'the US has never been an empire' and then forbid anyone to challenge said claims. Either make statements you can defend, or don't make them. :)

I'm going to ask again- can we please move the non-Traveller stuff to PMs? I'm perfectly happy to discuss imperialism, secularism, federalism, militarism, and Astromancerism in a more appropriate venue. I'm offering you that venue; let's talk about this stuff in PMs.

Originally Posted by jason taylor (Post 1282539)

Yes, but you attributed a specific motive to "the government", other then what would have been it's stated one. To do that you would either have to posit a conspiracy containing enough government members to be said to represent it in a meaningful sense, that is yet kept from the general population, most of whom serve the government at some point in their lives. Or you would have to assume false consciousness.
Alternatively you can posit that this only refers to the topmost levels of The Government. For two hundred years.

Originally Posted by combatmedic (Post 1282545)

'Government'= the people in power. It's shorthand, and not hard to understand. I dislike games of semantics.People are often hypocrites. We've kept up the hypocrisy for a couple of centuries in this country.

Originally Posted by jason taylor (Post 1282548)

Hairsplitting is useful once in awhile to defrag your brain. You still haven't told me what the principles of Astromancerism are though.

Originally Posted by combatmedic (Post 1282554)

It appears to be: copy the Jacobins, while denying French influence.:0

Originally Posted by jason taylor (Post 1282583)

Before Mr Hackard sends his bolt of lightning from on high, lets get back to imperial customs. You still haven't told what you think of the "hawkplants" idea.

Originally Posted by Astromancer (Post 1281554)

I could easily see a "Decentralise the Empire to protect our freedoms" faction fighting a "Centralise the Empire so it's strong enough to protect our freedoms" faction. The in-fighting would be epic and nasty.

Originally Posted by ak_aramis (Post 1282510)

Saying "We can't but you can" is no protection to the people, only the member states. It's worse than no protections at all for many of the people.

Originally Posted by jason taylor (Post 1282583)

You still haven't told what you think of the "hawkplants" idea.