What the WEIRD West doesn't get about Putin

Mark Movesian, writing for First Things, challenges conventional Western "wisdom" about Vladmir Putin, providing some valuable advice which our own political leaders would do well to heed (but probably won't).

Last Friday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”—the breakfast salon of the bien pensant—Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Rick Stengel took on Vladimir Putin. Stengel attempted to explain how Putin’s conduct in Ukraine damages Putin’s own interests. Putin, Stengel told his interlocutor Steven Rattner with an air of frustration, “is making fundamental errors” that would get him in trouble with the Russian people. “He’s moving further away from the West,” Stengel said, at a time when “people want to be closer to the West.” Rattner agreed that Putin is being “irrational.” Isn’t it obvious?

In fact, it isn’t at all obvious that Putin is being irrational or that people around the world want to be closer to the West, at least not in the way Stengel seems to think. It is very difficult for Americans to understand this, but on many issues we are cultural outliers. America, especially its professional class, has what psychologists call a WEIRD culture—Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic. WEIRDs are very secular. They place great emphasis on personal autonomy; indeed, autonomy may be their most important value. That’s one reason why America works so hard to support movements like feminism and gay rights abroad.

By contrast, most of the world’s cultures are not WEIRD. They are not secular and do not see personal autonomy as the most important value. Jonathan Haidt explains this very well in his recent book, The Righteous Mind. Many world cultures, Haidt writes, have an “ethic of community” that sees people principally as members of collectives—families, tribes, and nations—with strong claims to loyalty. Many have an “ethic of divinity,” which holds that people’s principal duty is to God, not themselves. “In such societies,” Haidt writes, “the personal liberty of secular Western nations looks like libertinism, hedonism, and a celebration of humanity’s baser instincts.”

Putin is many things, but he is not a WEIRD. He has been making clear for years that he does not aspire for Russia to become a WEIRD society. The values he promotes are nationalism, authority, loyalty, and religion. Especially religion. As a perceptive post by national security expert John Schindler explains, Putin’s worldview contains a large element of Holy Russia/Third Rome ideology, “a powerful admixture of Orthodoxy, ethnic mysticism, and Slavophile tendencies that has deep resonance in Russian history.” Of course, Putin may be insincere. Like many dictators, he may simply be using religion to his advantage. But, even if his convictions are phony, the challenge he poses to the West is fundamentally a cultural and ideological one.

And many Russians support him. Putin has been extremely good at exploiting the suspicion that many Russians feel about the West and its values—especially America and its values. Notwithstanding Stengel’s assertion, Putin is not acting against the wishes of his own people. Indeed, his popularity at home has been growing since the start of the Ukraine crisis. And, as Schindler explains, it’s not only Russians who think the way Putin does. “There are plenty of people in the world who don’t like Putin or Russia, yet who are happy that someone, somewhere is standing up to American hegemony.” The thuggery in Ukraine will cost him some of this support. But many people will be inclined to dismiss Putin’s conduct as a reassertion of Russia’s traditional interest in its near-abroad.

In other words, our conflict with Russia is not simply about politics, or economics, or even national security. It’s about culture and values. It’s not that Putin insufficiently appreciates what WEIRDness requires. He’s not a WEIRD at all. He doesn’t want to be. The people who run our foreign policy should understand this. If Stengel’s appearance on Friday is any indication, they don’t.

West Indies bishops denounce blackmail attempt by Obama, Cameron to force acceptance of "gay rights"

It is truly a despicable thing when the two ostensibly most "civilized" nations in the world attempt to impose an immoral, and patently uncivilized, agenda upon developing nations under the guise of promoting "human rights." The Anglican bishops of the West Indies have urged their government to resist efforts by U.S. President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron to blackmail their country into caving to the "gay rights" movement.

George Conger reports for Anglican Ink:

The Anglican bishops of the West Indies have urged their governments to hold fast and resist pressure from Britain and the United States to legalize gay rights and gay marriage.

In a statement released on 25 April 2013 following the House of Bishops meeting in Barbados, bishops of the Church the Province of the West Indies (CPWI) reiterated their belief in marriage “definedas a faithful, committed, permanent and legally sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman.”

“The idea of such unions being constituted by persons of the same sex is, therefore, totally unacceptable on theological and cultural grounds,” the bishops said. The CPWI consists of eight dioceses: the Diocese of Barbados, the Diocese of Belize, the Diocese of Guyana, the Diocese of Jamaica and the Cayman Islands, the Diocese of the Bahamas and the Turks and Caicos Islands, the Diocese of the North Eastern Caribbean and Aruba, the Diocese of Trinidad and Tobago and the Diocese of the Windward Islands.

The 23 active and retired members of the house of bishops observed that the push to redefine marriage was coming from abroad. There have been “trends within countries of the developing world and international forums, and in which these countries exercise a controlling interest, in which matters related to human sexuality have been elevated to the level of human rights and are being promulgated as positions which must be accepted globally.”

Failure to exceed to these new orthodoxies “results in the threat of various sanctions, including the withholding of economic aid,” they said, explaining that there has been in the US and Europe “a re-definition of gender to accommodate gay, lesbian and transgendered people, and the creation of a plurality of definitions which leaves the issue of gender to self-definition, thereby dismissing traditional definition of male and female.”

This was accompanied by the “passage of legislation among a number of metropolitan nations whereby marriage is defined as a human right in which any two persons may be joined, inclusive of persons of the same sex. The ‘marriage’ of persons of the same sex is justified as a human right on the basis of marital equality with heterosexual unions.”

Government had no authority to define marriage, but should provide the“legal framework for protecting” marriage while also protecting homosexuals “against abuse and injustice.”

Pressure on Caribbean political leaders to act according to the dictates of the political and moral sensibilities of overseas governments was intolerable they said. “The dangling of a carrot of economic assistance to faltering economies should be seen for what it is worth and should be resisted by people and government alike.”

Nor was the West in a position to dictate its morality to the people Caribbean.

“The threat and use of economic sanctions are not new experiences for us, neither is the claim to a superior morality convincing for peoples who have known the experience of chattel slavery in our past. While claiming to invoke human rights as the basis for such imposition, we submit that the same principle must allow us the right to affirm our cultural and religious convictions regarding our definitions of that most basic of social institutions, marriage,” the bishops said.

On 6 Dec 2011 the White House released a memorandum from Pres. Barack Obama entitled “International Initiatives to Advance the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Persons” that directed US government agencies to push the administration’s support for the gay agenda working with overseas governments and organizations.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron at the October 2011 Commonwealth heads of Government meeting in Australia threatened countries that ban homosexuality with losing aid payments unless they conformed to his government’s standards.

Lord, have mercy upon us.
Christ, have mercy upon us.
Lord, have mercy upon us.

Just one more reason why government and healthcare are a bad combination

Tony Woodlief from WORLD magazine has this disturbing report from across the pond where, as you probably know, the government is in charge of healthcare.

This week I read about a British doctor censured by a government medical licensing board for discussing his faith with a patient. According to one news report, the patient, a young man, saw the doctor for what appeared to be mental health problems. After securing his patient’s permission to talk about their shared, professed Christian faith, the doctor did so.

The young man’s mother, upon hearing about this, filed a complaint with government authorities. As an aside, when a 24-year-old man’s mama is inclined to get offended on his behalf because someone talked to him about Jesus, that may well be a clue into not only his problems, but also the decline of manhood across Western civilization.

Because the doctor won’t take a slap on the wrist, this is becoming a bigger issue, and he may lose his license. From his point of view, he offered his patient something that may well cure his ills.

Though I’m sorry for the doctor’s trouble, I love this kind of case because it flushes out into the open folks who want to imagine that our faith is something that can be confined to the private sphere and still retain meaning. If our faith is anything other than a talisman worn around our necks, then it is applicable—indeed, essential—to our well-being. To imagine that all problems confronting patients can be resolved by adjusting something in the body or the brain is to reconceptualize man as machine, which is something I suspect even many of my atheist friends won’t embrace.

Man has a soul, or sometimes we might say “a heart,” and by this we mean something more than a blood-pumping muscle. This heart can be dreadfully sick, indeed can be dying, and often is. No pills or physical procedures can fix this, because it is rooted in the disconnection from God that has plagued him since the Fall.

I have a friend—a very successful businessman—who went to his doctor years ago plagued by depression. After doing a physical exam and taking a personal inventory, his doctor told him his problem is spiritual. He wrote down on a prescription pad the name of a good pastor.

My friend went to see the pastor, and after some time came back into the Church he had abandoned years ago. Today he is immersed in a prison ministry, reaching out to some of the most broken people in society. He is transformed, and this great change is spilling over into the lives of his wife and his children. All of them are being rescued, and if we are to describe the Christian life in any way, we must describe it that way, as a great rescue from despair.

I understand why a proselytizing doctor would make some people uneasy. He might abuse his authority, after all. In the same way he might overprescribe medication, or misdiagnose an illness, or molest a vulnerable patient. We, of course, tolerate and manage all those risks because the alternative is to eviscerate the ability of doctors to heal. Why then, in light of those risks, are we so worried that someone might talk about Jesus to his patients?

Because deep down we are convinced that Jesus is irrelevant to the state of a patient’s health, and that any doctor who doesn’t agree is inherently unfit.

All of which makes me think that it’s not the doctor who is incompetent in this case but British medical authorities who imagine man has no soul.

More good news: Scotland rejects euthanasia bill

Across the pond, via the BBC:

The Scottish Parliament has rejected plans to give terminally ill people the right to choose when to die, despite claims they were widely backed.

Independent MSP Margo MacDonald's End of Life Assistance Bill aimed to make it legal for someone to seek help to end their life.

Ms MacDonald, who has Parkinson's disease, claimed there was wide public support for the legislation.

But the bill was defeated by 85 votes to 16 with two abstentions.

MSPs were allowed a rare free vote on the bill, rather than on party lines, and it was supported by a number of members from across the Holyrood parties.

It is not illegal to attempt suicide in Scotland but helping someone take their own life could lead to prosecution.

The End of Life Assistance Bill would have allowed people whose lives become intolerable through a progressive degenerative condition, a trauma or terminal illness to seek a doctor's help in dying.

It also proposed a series of safeguards which would prevent abuse of the legislation.

Ms MacDonald said it was important to allow terminally ill people some dignity.

Speaking at MSPs debated the bill in parliament, she added: "The idea of assisting someone to achieve a peaceful death, within the law, in accordance with what that person considers to be a dignified fashion, is alive and well."

Ms MacDonald also attacked the "Care not Killing" alliance of 50 groups, including faith-based organisations, which campaigned strongly against the bill.

Some critics have claimed it could have led to Scotland becoming a "suicide tourism" destination, along with other countries where the practice is legal, such as Switzerland.

There have also been concerns it could fail to safeguard frail, elderly people.

Holding up a piece of literature linked to the group, she said: "I'll cut to the chase and condemn as unworthy and cheap, the contribution made by the publishers and authors of this catalogue of linguistic contortions, headed 'Care not Killing'.

"This postcard was distributed through churches and caused alarm among frail, elderly and disabled people."

Scottish Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon said she was opposed to the bill, adding the Scottish government's view was that it did not support a change in the law.

She said: "I personally find myself particularly concerned and fundamentally concerned about the difficulty I think would always and inevitably be present in determining that someone choosing to end their life had not been subjected to undue influence."

During the debate, MSPs from all parties spoke out for and against the bill.

Labour MSP Michael McMahon described it as "dangerous and unnecessary", while the two Green MSPs - Robin Harper and Patrick Harvie - said current laws were unclear and "served nobody".

Lib Dem MSP Ross Finnie, who convened a special Holyrood committee set up to scrutinise the legislation reiterated its conclusion that it was "not persuaded that the case had been made to decriminalise the law of homicide as it applies to assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia".

In England, the director of public prosecutions previously indicated it was unlikely that legal action would be taken against those who assist the suicide of friends or relatives who have a settled and informed wish to die.

However, no such guidance has been given in Scotland.

MSPs are also currently considering a separate bill to strengthen palliative care for the terminally ill, although Holyrood's health committee has questioned the need for legislation to improve services.

The rejection of the bill came after Lord Falconer launched an inquiry into assisted dying in the UK, insisting it would be "an objective, dispassionate and authoritative analysis of the issues".

Eurofantasy crumbling

As the fantasy utopia known as the European Union and its common currency, the Euro, continues to unravel one country at a time (first Greece, now Ireland, next Portugal?), the voices of sanity are finally being raised to call into question the whole idea of a consolidated European superstate. It's been a long time coming.

Plane crash that killed Poland's president also claimed several religious leaders

From Ted Olsen at Christianity Today's LiveBlog:

The death of Polish President Lech Kaczynski, his wife, Poland’s senior military officers, the head of the country’s central bank, and other top government officials has dominated coverage of Saturday’s plane crash. But several prominent religious figures were among the 95 killed in the crash as well.

Among them: Lutheran bishop Adam Pilch, who was on the plane as head of head of Poland’s Protestant military chaplaincy. Poland’s Gazeta Bielsko-Biata newspaper notes that the Saturday remembrance ceremony the many political and military figures were flying to was to be Pilch’s last official act in his chaplaincy role. The pastor was well known in Warsaw as pastor of Holy Trinity Lutheran Church (which Pope Benedict XVI visited in 2006) and later Church of the Assumption.

Orthodox archbishop Miron Chodakowski and Roman Catholic bishop Tadeusz Ploski, two other senior military chaplaincy leaders, also died in the crash.

Bronislaw Gostomski is one of the few religious figures to die in the crash and get significant attention in the Western press. That’s because he was a priest in Shepherds Bush, London (he had been the personal chaplain of Ryszard Kaczorowski, Poland’s last president-in-exile, who also died in the crash).

Other religious figures in the crash were Ryszard Rumianek (the Roman Catholic rector of Warsaw's Cardinal Wyszynski University), Zdzislaw Krol (chaplain of Poland's Katyn Families Association), and Józef Joniec, the priest who headed Poland’s Parafiada organization (a Catholic youth ministry).

Pope Benedict offers prayers and condolences for Poland

Vatican City, Apr 10, 2010 / 11:29 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The Holy Father expressed his sorrow over the death of Polish President Lech Kaczynski and those accompanying him on a flight to Russia on Saturday morning. Pope Benedict remembered all of those who died and implored "a special blessing to the people of Poland from God omnipotent."

According to CNN, President Kaczynski, his wife, top members of the Polish government, army and several Church authorities were on the plane that went down just seconds from landing at the airport of Smolensk, Russia. The aircraft apparently clipped some trees with a wing as it made its way through heavy fog. Reports vary on the number of people on the plane, but counts run from 89 to 132 people, none of whom survived.

The delegation was headed to the small village of Katyn, a few kilometers from Smolensk, in a landmark visit to observe the 70th anniversary of the execution of more than 20,000 Polish officers during World War II.

Pope Benedict XVI wrote in his telegram to the acting President of the Polish Parliament, Bronislaw Komorowski, that it was with "profound sorrow" that he learned of the deaths of those who were on their way to Katyn.

He remembered the president, the exiled ex-president of the Republic Ryszard Kaczorowski, Army chaplain and Bishop Tadeusz Plozki, Orthodox Archbishop Miron Chodakowski and Evangelical military pastor Adam Pilsch by name.

He entrusted all of the victims of the crash "to the goodness of merciful God" and prayed, "May He take them into his glory."

To the families of the dead and to all Poles he sent his "sincere condolences" and assured his them of spiritual closeness.

"In this difficult moment," he closed, "I implore for all the people of Poland a special blessing of God omnipotent."

Pray for the people of Poland: President and other leaders killed in plane crash

MOSCOW — A plane carrying the Polish president, Lech Kaczynski, and dozens of the country’s top political and military leaders crashed in a heavy fog in western Russia on Saturday morning, killing everyone aboard.

Television showed chunks of flaming fuselage scattered in a bare forest near Smolensk, where the president was arriving for a ceremony commemorating the murder of more than 20,000 Polish officers by the Soviet secret police after the Red Army invaded Poland.

The governor of Smolensk region, Sergei Antufiyev, said the plane did not reach the runway but instead hit the treetops and broke apart. His spokesman later said that air traffic controllers had recommended the president’s jet land at another airport because of bad visibility, but that the crew decided to land anyway. The crash came as a staggering blow to Poland, wiping out a large swath of the country’s leadership, including the commanders of all four branches of the military, the head of the central bank, the president and many of his top advisors. In the numb hours after the crash, leaders in Warsaw evoked the horror of the massacre at Katyn, which stood for decades as a symbol of Russian domination.

“It is a damned place,” former president Aleksander Kwasniewski told TVN24. “It sends shivers down my spine. First the flower of the Second Polish Republic is murdered in the forests around Smolensk, now the intellectual elite of the Third Polish Republic die in this tragic plane crash when approaching Smolensk airport.”

“This is a wound which will be very difficult to heal,” he said.