Pages

Wednesday, October 14, 2026

Are We Going The Way Of The Roman Republic?

Since reading this fascinating book, I haven't 
been able to shake the feeling that we may be
facing the same demise as that of this once
powerful empire.

I'm not an expert on the history of the Roman empire or on the story of our own, but I do find some striking parallels between the two world powers. 

For example, what is now the United States was also first governed by a monarchy, then as a republic, and then...

Here's the fascinating Roman story:

The Roman Kingdom was  founded in 753 BC and was successful in establishing colonies well beyond its borders. Kings continued to rule the new nation until the monarchy was overthrown in 509 BC. The resulting  Roman Republic was ruled by officials elected by a legislative assembly.

Julius Caesar, one of the more powerful of these elected rulers, was elevated by the Roman Senate to the status of a god after his assassination in 44 BC. His son Octavian proclaimed himself "the son of a god" and was named "Augustus" (majestic) and "Princeps" (first) by the Senate. He was later honored with the title "Pater Patriae" (father of the country).   

Octavian, now known as Caesar Augustus, was emperor at the time of Jesus's birth, and was revered as one of a pantheon of Roman deities. He became known as the first emperor of the expanding Roman empire, effectively ending the republic that had existed for centuries. The Roman Senate wasn't abolished, but became a rubber stamp for his policies. 

Many of the emperors that followed, notably rulers like Caligula, Claudius, Nero and Domitian, had elaborate temples erected for the veneration of the empire, and subjects were to offer token sacrifices as signs of their pledge of allegiance to the emperor ("Caesar is Lord"). Domitian, the virtual dictator in power when the New Testament book of Revelation was written, declared himself "Dominus et Deus" (Lord and god) and persecuted Jews and Christians who refused to comply with his orders. Christians, of course had their own alternative confession, "Jesus is Lord," and opposed any such pledge.

The gradual decline and ultimate fall of the empire occurred over centuries of time. After a thousand-year history, Rome, like every other world empire, eventually came to an end. 

Here is a helpful analysis in a Wikipedia article:

The fall of the Western Roman Empire, also called the fall of the Roman Empire or the fall of Rome, was the loss of central political control in the Western Roman Empire, a process in which the Empire failed to enforce its rule, and its vast territory was divided among several successor polities. The Roman Empire lost the strengths that had allowed it to exercise effective control over its Western provinces; modern historians posit factors including the effectiveness and numbers of the army, the health and numbers of the Roman population, the strength of the economy, the competence of the emperors, the internal struggles for power, the religious changes of the period, and the efficiency of the civil administration. Increasing pressure from invading peoples outside Roman culture also contributed greatly to the collapse. Climatic changes and both endemic and epidemic diseases drove many of these immediate factors. The reasons for the collapse are major subjects of the historiography of the ancient world and they inform much modern discourse on state failure.

History may not repeat itself, but there are often significant parallels we can take lessons from, the first being that no world empire lasts forever.

Friday, October 9, 2026

Some Reflections On Ballot Questions 1, 2 and 3


Should followers of Jesus weigh in on the three ballot
questions that have to do with amending our state
constitution? 

The older I get, the more I realize that since I will never know everything about everything, I can never assume to be absolutely right about everything. So take these reflections as food for thought, not as irrefutable truths:

Ballot Question #1:
Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to (i) protect the freedom to make personal decisions about prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion, miscarriage management, and fertility care; (ii) protect doctors, nurses, and patients from being punished for these decisions; and (iii) allow for restrictions on access to abortion during the third trimester of pregnancy except when the patient's health is at risk or the pregnancy cannot survive?

To be clear, I believe human life should be considered precious at any stage of development, and never terminated as a convenient means of birth control. However, there may still be some questions worth considering and praying over, like whether we should criminalize the use of a morning after pill in the case of a twelve-year-old victim of rape or incest, to cite an extreme example.

Some reflections: Throughout history we have made distinctions between prenatal human life and postnatal human personhood. In the frequent cases of natural abortions (many happening even before individuals know they are pregnant), we don't consider miscarriages in quite the same way as we do the loss of an already born baby. That is, we don't normally name miscarried zygotes, embryos or fetuses, issue birth or death certificates, count them in any census, or have a memorial service for the miscarried human life. But we do all of these when we welcome an addition to the family at birth or memorialize the loss of a born baby. This doesn't at all mean we should not take miscarriages seriously, or minimize the deep grief so often associated with the loss of an anticipated new member of a family.

But should all terminations of a pregnancy, at whatever stage, be considered an act of murder, as in the killing of a baby person? And should any of us assume the right to make all such judgments, or should that right, and that responsibility, be reserved for the person (and their family and congregational family) carrying a precious human life in formation? And are there easy answers in cases where exceptional factors are at play, like the life and health of a mother being at risk, or when there is a fetus with some serious or fatal abnormality? And should not men be held primarily responsible for unwanted pregnancies rather than women carrying that responsibility alone?

Here are some further thoughts: 

Ballot Question #2:
Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to (i) remove the ban on same-sex marriage; (ii) affirm that two adults may marry regardless of sex, gender, or race; and (iii) require all legally valid marriages to be treated equally under the law?

Few issues have created so much distress or caused so much division as the question of whether, how, or why some people are born with differing sexual or gender orientations or characteristics. In my years of counseling and pastoral experience, I've come to accept the fact that virtually no one actually chooses to be orientated differently from the majority of their peers, and that in fact many would give anything to experience what most consider "normal" heterosexual relationships. 

But there do appear to be natural differences in the human family in this area, just as some people are born left-handed, some right-handed, and some are ambidextrous, for no known or preventable reason. After learning to know and respect many differently-oriented individuals over a lifetime, I no longer see this as having an easy answer. At the very least, I have to ask whether society is better off having gay and lesbian individuals in committed and stable relationships rather than having them experience secretive, unstable and/or promiscuous ones. I do believe celibacy can clearly be a God-honoring choice for any of us, especially since Jesus himself was celibate, but realize that's a hard ask, and may be more difficult for some than others. I also realize that fellow believers who take the Bible seriously don't all come to the same conclusions about this kind of "disputable matter."

And is there any hypocrisy involved in a major political party in Virginia championing an openly gay candidate for statewide office in 2025 and now advocating for voting No to Ballot Question #2? 

Here are some more reflections: 

Ballot Question #3:
Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended (i) to provide for the fundamental right to vote in the Commonwealth, (ii) to revise the qualifications of voters so that a person convicted of a felony is not entitled to vote during his period of incarceration but is automatically invested with the right to vote upon release from incarceration, and (iii) to update the existing prohibition on voting by persons found to be mentally incompetent to instead apply to persons who have been found to lack the capacity to understand the act of voting?

While I will never know everything about everything, I affirm this one without reservation. The other two I may pray more about before I settle on a simple yes, no or blank response. 

Thursday, October 1, 2026

September DN-R Justice Matters Guest Column

Stephano Colosi has been incarcerated since 2000 and is dedicated to justice reform, especially as it pertains to youthful offenders and aging persons in prison. His column appeared in Friday's paper. Justice Matters columns are provided by members of the Valley Justice Coalition, a local citizen voice for criminal justice reform in our community and in the Commonwealth since 2014.

Youthful Offenders, Serious Crimes, and Redemption
Stephano 'Nick' Colosi

The punishment of youthful offenders who commit serious crimes raises one of the most difficult questions in criminal justice. How should society balance accountability and public safety with the recognition that a young person is not yet a fully developed adult? Modern neuroscience, criminology, and rehabilitation research increasingly demonstrate that youthfulness matters--not to excuse serious crime, but to recognize a person's ability to grow and change.

The Developing Youth Brain

Brain development continues well beyond adolescence. The prefrontal systems responsible for impulse control, judgement, planning, risk assessment, and consideration of long-term consequences continue developing into the mid 20's. A major Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ("OJJDP") study of 1,354 serious juvenile offenders found that desistance from crime was associated with increasing psychosocial maturity and that brain development plays an important role in the transition away from offending.

This does not mean that every young offender will change. Rather, it means that age at the time of the offense is an important factor in assessing culpability and future dangerousness. The United States Supreme Court in Graham v. Florida (560 U.S. 48, 2010), recognized this principle in cases limiting the harshest punishment for juveniles, including mandatory life without parole.

Why Young People Commit Crime

Youthful criminal behavior rarely has a single cause. Environmental circumstances can include poverty, unstable homes, abuse, neglect, exposure to violence, substance abuse, dysfunctional families, and association with the welfare system. Peer pressure and association with criminal adults can also strongly influence decision-making.

Learned behavior is another important factor. Children who repeatedly observe violence, criminal conduct, or substance abuse may come to believe those behaviors are normal. Adolescents may be particularly susceptible to peer influence because their desire for acceptance and immediate rewards can outweigh consideration of long-term consequences.

"These salient characteristics mean that it is difficult even for expert psychologists to differentiate between the juvenile whose crime reflects unfortunate, yet transient immaturity, and the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption. Accordingly, juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offenders." (HN 6, Graham v. Florida)

- Stephano Colosi 1037581 welcomes mail at Buckingham Correctional Center, P.O. Box 430, Dillwyn, Va 23936