Yet another guest post by Dr. A. R. Wallace.

Henry VIII’s difficulties with Papal power are notorious. But few know that Napoleon Bonaparte had some problems of his own with the Pope. And he dealt with these problems in a far more aggressive fashion than the famous English king with six wives.

The French Revolution was a backlash against not only monarchy, but the Catholic church. The new popular government disestablished the Roman Catholic church, culminating in The law of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy of 1790. There was to be just one bishop for each Department, and in a radical move to democratize the church, the Bishop, like the priests, was to be elected by the people. Furthermore, all clergy were to swear allegiance to the state and king above the Pope. King Louis XVI delayed signing the law, hoping for concessions from Pope Pius VI that might have allowed a dilution of the bill, but eventually signed it on the day after Christmas, 1790.

The Pope repudiated any priests who obeyed the law, France recalled its ambassador to the Vatican, and the Papal Nuncio was recalled from Paris. Anti-Catholic feeling grew, and the revolutionary government, which had deposed the King in 1791, outlawed “ËœSunday’ (dimanche) and all Saint’s Days in 1793, shortly after executing the King. The French Republican Calendar was introduced, with its ten day weeks and ten hour days, but one day off in ten instead of one in seven was not at all popular, and not surprisingly the calendar was abandoned by 1795.

In 1796 French Republican troops under Bonaparte invaded Italy and defeated the papal army. Pius VI sued for peace, but in late December 1797 rioters killed the French Ambassador in Rome. The French marched on Rome, entered it unopposed, and proclaimed a Roman Republic in 1798. They demanded the Pope renounce his temporal authority— when he refused they took him prisoner, along with all his regal regalia. The regalia were melted down, and Pius VI died in captivity seven months later, on August 29, 1799.

Pius VI was embalmed, but not buried until 30 January 1800 as Napoleon attempted to bring the Catholic Church back into France. But no burial service was performed because there were no clergy acceptable to both church and state.

The new pope took the name Pius VII, and had to be crowned with a papier-mâché tiara because Napoleon’s troops had the genuine article, and the institution took place in Venice because the French held Rome. Pius VII and Napoleon Bonaparte continued skirmishing, but fortunately only with words: the Pope wanted the territories of the Papal States returned, while Napoleon wanted Vatican support for his rule. A compromise was eventually reached on all issues: the Papal States were returned in 1800, a covenant was negotiated in 1801, Pius VI was buried at Rome in 1802, and Pius VII attended Napoleon’s coronation in 1804, where he received a tiara with one of the stolen gems from the old collection.

But good relations did not last. The French invaded the Papal States again in 1808, and this time, Pius VII excommunicated Napoleon. This Pope was also captured by the French and remained a captive for more than six years until freed after British victories in Europe. The Papal States were restored, and Pius wrote letters urging leniency for Napoleon, who was eventually exiled to St. Helena in the south Atlantic. Napoleon died there in 1821, and Pius died in 1823.

That’s an anti-papal record that Henry VIII never came close to matching.

Yet another guest post by Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace.

Gamaliel was a prominent Pharisee of the New Testament. The Acts of the Apostles reports (5:34) how his voice of reason prevented the Sanhedrin from urging the death penalty on Peter and the Apostles in the first days of the church: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do “¦ leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop then; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.” The effect was somewhat successful—the Apostles were flogged, but their lives were spared—and Peter and his friends lived to preach another day.

Gamaliel’s earlier influence was on Paul, who boasted (Acts 22:3) “Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.” Indeed Gamaliel is still widely revered by the Jews as one of their greatest teachers. In the Talmud he is known as Rabban, the first leader of the school of Hillel, who is famous for a saying close to that of Jesus on law (Matthew 22:36) “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow; that is the whole Law: the rest is commentary.”

Byzantium tradition suggests that Gamaliel was baptized, along with Nicodemus, by Peter and Paul. Not surprisingly, the Jewish tradition says otherwise.

More recently, Gamaliel was the middle name of our 29th President, Warren G. Harding. Although no-one “Ëœmisunderestimated’ him, and he won the 1920 election by a substantial majority, he was not a lucid speaker. He introduced some new words into our lexicon, the most famous being “Ëœnormalcy’, but was often so opaque that journalist H.L. Mencken invented the word “Gamalielese” to describe it: “Ëœ[Harding] writes the worst English that I have ever encountered. It reminds me of a string of wet sponges; it reminds me of tattered washing on the line; it reminds me of stale bean soup, of college yells, of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it”¦”

The Gamaliel of the New Testament certainly deserved better.

This is a guest post by regular commenter Lirelou. A multilingual former US military officer with experience across the globe, the Korea-based veteran wrote a fine piece of pessimistic realism about the threats to future peace in East Asia. Published with permission.

My personal assessment about the chances of long term peace in East Asia are pessimistic. The “pax Americana” is coming to an end, but I do not see an Asian “age of aquarius” on the horizon. Rather, we are seeing a nationalist resurgence in China, Korea, and Japan—the legacy of state indoctrination programs in the two former, and recidivist nationalism in the latter.

The reunification of Korea is inevitable, but it will be a far more painful process than many Koreans expect. Once that pain is felt, who will they blame? The extreme left, which may be discredited when Nork gulags are revealed, will point the finger at the U.S. Right-wing nationalists will look to Japan, as Korea would never have been divided and developed into a modern nation much like Singapore and Taiwan were it not for Japan’s colonialism. That argument is likely to find support among the Korean populace, and will likely whet their appetite for revenge. Add to this the very real possibility that China’s continued economic rise has by that time cut into the Korean GDP (adding to real price of reunification), and you may have a social discontent factor that is presently absent in South Korea.

The North Koreans and Iranians, neither one of which may currently possess the bomb, have in essence pulled out the cork on the nuclear issue. In the early post-reunification phase, U.S. pressure will keep the Koreans from going nuclear. Once U.S. forces leave the Peninsula, which I believe will be within two to three years following reunification, the gloves will be off. Depending upon Japanese assessment of the “Korean threat” at that time, Japan will have to decide on whether to remain under the U.S. “nuclear umbrulla”, which will imply both a continued U.S. troop presence in Japan, and perhaps an increase in U.S. air power capabilities, or whether to begin developing its own nuclear and force projection options to counter those of Korea.

An external factor that must be considered will be the U.S. political scene in the post-reunification period. If the Iraq and Afgan wars are perceived to have been failures, the American public will be less supportive of a continued U.S. troop presence in Asia, particularly if that presence could draw us into a Korean-Japanese conflict. My own suspicion is that the sizeable Korean-American community will prove as formidable at applying political pressure as the Irish-Americans in the Northeast, the Jewish communities of the major cities, and the Cuban-Americans in South Florida, all of which have had their say in American domestic and foreign policy. They have not always obtained what they wanted, but their power is recognized and respected. Korean-Americans have the further advantage of potential ties to the religious right. Thus Japan’s assessment of Korean-American political influence (vis-a-vis Japanese-American political influence) may be another factor that could possibly spur its own nuclear program.

All in all, not a rosy picture for peace in East Asia in the wake of Korean reunification. Of course, I’ve been wrong before. And I hope I’m wrong this time. Unfortunately, I have also been right at times when all the analysts were saying something else. That’s the part that bothers me.

Another guest post by amateur theologian Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace.

Catholic Bishops at the funeral of Pope John Paul II. See another telling picture here.

Christian Bishops traditionally wear purple robes. The significance of the color, especially in clothing, dates back to antiquity.

Purple frequently emerges as a color for monarchs and religious leaders in the Old Testament. Moses’ second-in-command Aaron, who wore a purple priestly uniform in the flight from Egypt. It was also associated with royalty, as seen when the Kings of Midian lost their purple coats to Gideon. Daniel was clothed in purple after helping his king. The color’s importance was not unique to Israel. In the Roman Senate, only the Emperor was entitled to wear a purple toga (although Senators were allowed a purple stripe).

Purple dye came from two sources. The more common variant was a mixture of indigo (blue) and madder (red) plant dyes that produced a dull, light purple that faded with washing and sunlight. A more effective and permanent concoction was extracted from small marine snails, a secret discovered by the Minoans at around 1750 BCE (and only rediscovered recently). Production of this dye in Roman times centered in Tyre on the Lebanese coast, and the color remains known as “ËœTyrian purple’ even today. Because each sea snail produced just one drop of the dye, it was much more valuable than gold!

Rome fell, the Byzantine Empire crumbled, and Tyrian purple disappeared from commerce during the Dark, or at least Purple-less, Ages. For centuries, only the duller plant dye purple was available for the robes of the monarchy and bishops of Europe.

All that changed 150 years ago, when entrepreneur-chemist William Perkin stumbled across the first synthetic purple dye in his home laboratory in London. Perkin was just eighteen years old and attempting to synthesize the malaria prophylactic quinine. Serendipitously, he discovered “Ëœmauve’ and thereby revolutionized the textile industry. To what degree his discovery was related to the subsequent doubling of the number of bishops in the Church of England, we can only guess…

So think of William Perkin when next you meet a bishop—and try and imagine what a dull world it must have been before the advent of synthetic dyes.

Another guest post from amateur theologian Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace.

Abraham is the shared patriarch of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and in some cases the purported biological ancestor of the 12 million Jews, 2 billion Christians and 1 billion Muslims alive today. And like so many characters in our Bible, he is not particularly likable when the chips are down.

The Jewish and Christian traditions hold that Abraham started in Ur and meandered to Canaan, becoming a very wealthy man (Genesis 11 – 25). On the way he pretends his wife is his sister so a Pharaoh can sleep with her (Genesis 12), rescues his nephew Lot from a brigand king (Genesis 14), has a son, Ishmael, by his wife’s maid, Hagar (Genesis 16), circumcises himself at age 99 (ouch!), along with all his household (Genesis 17), argues with God over the iniquity of destroying Sodom if there are 10 righteous people there (Genesis 18) [there weren’t ““ chapter 19], repeats his appalling treatment of his wife to King Abimelech of Garar (Genesis 20), and at last has a long-desired son, Isaac, by his wife Sarah (Genesis 21).

And then comes the story that is so difficult to our modern ears, especially in this time when terrorists immolate themselves and others “because it is the will of God”Â?. Abraham is prepared to kill both his sons—Ishmael by exposure in the desert (Chapter 21) and Isaac on a sacrificial altar (Chapter 22)—at God’s behest. Islamic tradition is a little kinder, since Abraham is only told to sacrifice one son, Ishmael (Koran 37, 102). Fortunately no physical harm is done, although we may wonder what psychological damage would be done under such circumstances.

Both sons return for their father’s funeral “¦ although we don’t get any hints of what they said.

Jewish (Genesis 25, 13) and Islamic (Koran 7, 160) traditions agree that Ishmael had twelve children, who became twelve tribes of Arabs, while Jewish tradition has Isaac having two sons, Esau and Jacob (Genesis 25), and Jacob in turn having twelve sons who founded the twelve tribes of Israel. Alas they have rarely got along with each other.

So that is the father of the three great Middle Eastern religions, but we’d probably put Abraham in jail if he were alive today. Either way, he certainly wouldn’t pass a background check for appointment to the priesthood. How things change.

First order of business: Gaijin Biker has figured out how to solve our North Korean problem!

Next: guest post by commenter Lane. Begin:

This article in the Khaleej Times is a classic expose of the alcohol trade amongst the Third World guests in Saudi Arabia. Entitled “Saudis shocked at discovery of wine factories”, (which is like “Kansas shocked at discovery of cornfields” or “French shocked at discovery of vineyards”), it makes for fascinating reading:

Saudi society continues to refuse to admit alcohol use is rife in the country, with the authorities arguing that those who engage in the illegal activity aim to spread evil without realising that large amounts of alcoholic drinks are due to local demands.

Shocked? Flabbergasted! We’d never have imagined it!

The report said that further searches of the property provided details of how large quantities of wine were being produced, using heavy machinery to process the grapes, rat carcasses to accelerate the fermentation process as well as sewage water and several banned chemicals.

Let’s hope that the rat had been hung and aged for a long time; there’s nothing more guaranteed to spoil a good vintage than an immature rat. Same principle with the sewage.

Guest commentary from Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace, published in print in a local newsletter.

The Protestant Revolution was sparked by a Augustian monk and former lawyer Martin Luther from Eisleben, a town in what is now central Germany. Destined for a legal career, he unexpectedly entered a monastery in 1505—one story is that he was terrified by a thunderclap and promised St. Anna he would become a monk if he was spared electrocution. In any case he took his vows seriously enough to thoroughly study the Bible, and he was ordained a priest in 1507. He spent time in Rome in 1511, and then became part of the ecclesiastical hierarchy in Wittenberg, being appointed Lecturer on the Bible in 1513.

At about this time he became incensed at the brazen hawking of indulgences by the local Archbishop, apparently to fund the purchase of additional dioceses and the building of St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican. Luther was appalled—salvation, he believed, came through faith alone, not the church. On Halloween 1517 he nailed his famous 95 Theses (short statements) to the door of Wittenberg Cathedral. This was the common way of beginning ecclesiastical debates in those days. He was even soft on Rome, laying blame for the abuse on the sellers, as stated in the 91st theses: “If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the Pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved.” He was answered by the Pope’s representative, the Dominican monk John Tetzel, who contributed 106 theses in reply.

Although Tetzel’s views were dogmatic, the debate could have ended amicably. But several slips and Luther’s mercurial temper sent the argument out of bounds. Luther was summoned to Rome but declined on grounds of ill health. Judges were empanelled in Augsburg, Germany as Luther became more and more estranged from Rome. He returned to Wittenberg in 1519 and aligned himself with local nobility, who protected him from papal forces.

Thus it was by accident or destiny that Luther the Reformer had become Luther the Antipapal Revolutionary, and perhaps to signify this he grew a substantial beard. He also redoubled his efforts to simplify the faith to its biblical origins. Finding the Vulgate (Latin) translation less than ideal, he acquired skills in Hebrew and Greek, and began to translate the Bible for himself. He began the New Testament in 1521 and published it anonymously in 1522, eventually finished the Old Testament in 1534. Luther’s books were not the first translated into German, but they were the first popularly successful translations, greatly aided by the recent commercialization of the printing press.

Luther also married a former nun called Catherine and together they had six children. This might seem like a stark turnaround, although recall that celibacy for Catholic priests had only been enforced since 1022 by Pope Benedict VIII. Marriage did not mollify Luther’s temper, and he continued to produce innumerable anti-papal tracts. He also wrote a vitriolic screed against the Peasant Uprising of 1524, entitled “Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants,” encouraging the nobility to vent swift and bloody punishment upon them. True to his medieval Christian background, he also wrote “On the Jews and their Lies” in 1543, which urged the destruction of all their synagogues, schools, houses and books, and confiscation of their wealth. The Lutheran Church has disassociated itself from this anti-Semitic tract—albeit it only since 1983!

Luther inspired the the rise of the Protestant church in Germany and Scandinavia, which, centuries later, spread to the United States. Quite an impressive legacy for a grumpy old man.