Two Very Different "Men of the Year" and How They Define Our Times

The US magazine Time and the UK newspaper the Times both selected very different men of the year for 2013.  Each reflects ascendant spirits with very different worldviews.

Time magazine chose Pope Francis.  The Times selected Russian president Vladimir Putin.

In some ways, this is amazingly Augustinian.  St. Augustine wrote of the division between the City of Man and the City of God.    Vladimir Putin has emerged as a near czar of an expanding informal Russian Empire.  He follows the early 19th century British model of using economics to influence and profit from other nations. But he also follows a very Russian path of controlling border nations to keep the homeland secure.  In this way, Third Rome very much resembles the first.

Pope Francis, known as Jorge Mario Bergoglio before March 13, has emerged as a Catholic Father for his times.  The Cold War needed, for example, the iron tough, theologically sound, and eternally compassionate Pope John Paul II.  No pope since the Middle Ages had the impact of the man Catholics and many other Christians call "John Paul the Great" (a moniker not bestowed on a Pope since the 600s.)  His leadership made the Roman Catholic Church a mighty fortress again, regaining credibility and luster after the tragic World War II years.

The 21st Century, however, challenges Christianity in a different way.  Many are lost and want to be found.  While the Church certainly will not abandon doctrine, Francis has pointedly emphasized love, forgiveness, and compassion for the vulnerable.  This may not look like power, but it works effectively in contrast.  John Paul II's expression of these sentiments helped the Polish Pope bring down the Eastern Bloc.  Francis' message will thrive in places such as Cuba, where Communism lost credibility years ago.  Or Africa where Christians face determined Islamic expansionists.  The Christian faith at its core remains the simplest and most profound way to make sense of man's place in the world.  Pope Francis, agree or disagree with the details of some of his pronouncements, is a powerful ambassador of faith.  He senses that the world is changing and seeks to adapt Catholic teaching to it without abandoning fundamental foundations of faith.

Power matters to Putin, too.  He has gradually absorbed Belarus, convincing that impoverished republic to cede sovereign right after sovereign right.  Before Christmas, he offered a bailout to corrupt and struggling Ukraine.  Historically Belarus is "White Russia," Russia proper is "Great Russia," and Ukraine is "Little Russia."  Ukraine, however, is where Russia began.  Russian nationalism craves respect and seeks to ground its actions in tradition and history.  Putin's slow moves westward reflect these old habits.

But how well grounded is that power?  Russia has relied heavily on natural gas revenues to fund its return to world prominence.  The United States, however, as reported by the Washington Free Beacon, could undermine Putin's plans.  As West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Texas sprout gas wells that rely on cheap hydrofracturing techniques, they threaten to undercut Russian dominance of this market in the Eastern Hemisphere.  In the same way that late 20th century Middle Eastern oil was cheaper for Americans to buy abroad than produce at home, so US gas undermines Russia and depresses prices in the entire gas market.

Unless Russia can diversify or convince Obama to shut off the tap, the moment in the sun carved out by Putin for Russia could be brief.

Putin's hard nosed domestic approach runs counter to Francis' preaching as well.  The Russian president is essentially conservative in the European sense (not, I repeat, not the American. Or the British, for that matter.)  European conservatives emphasize order above liberty.  They prefer control and predictability in both domestic and international affairs.  Russia particularly has feared the advance of uncontrolled social movements regardless of whether they were ruled by the czar or the Politboro.

These two men both qualify as "Man of the Year" for different reasons.  And there is no reason to think that their influence and appeal will diminish in the next 12 months.  What should be troubling for the United States is that neither figure needs to account for America in any way in terms of his ideals, values, or morality. We are no longer a major part of their conversation.  Whether one sees the US as a powerful example of a Judeo-Christian republic or a force for liberty and natural rights, the demise of America under Obama is underscored by the emergence of these men.

Secularism As a Religion

In the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church controlled society. It saw itself as a parent of the people, guiding them away from sin, by persuasion if possible and by force if necessary. This, as well as Puritan theocracies in early New England, gave religious authority a bad name for intolerance and tyranny.

Religious authorities in those times and places used the power of the state to curb people's natural rights to think and make choices about religion. The United States Constitution responded to such fears by weighing in against the establishment of any particular denomination as an official religion. It balanced this language by providing that government cannot prevent the free exercise of religion either.

This reflects a general trend in Western Civilization towards the religion-neutral state. Certainly this has sparked arguments and dissention as some occasionally go too far in wiping away religious references in government controlled zones. It does not mean that religion has been officially established when high school football teams pray in the locker room before a game.

In recent years, the religion-neutral state has started to transform into the religiously hostile state. France recently outlawed the Muslim practice of burkha wearing among women. They argued that women wear the clothing under duress. I wonder how they determined that every Muslim woman in the entire country has rejected that tradition. Headscarves are also not permitted in that country's schools.

Most frightening is the recent prosecution by Obama's Justice Department of a principal and an athletic director in federal court because they prayed before a meal. The ACLU claims that the entire school district has "flagrantly" defied their interpretation of the First Amendment for years. They could spend six days in federal prison for praying.

Secularism has become, in some ways, a religion. It has no god and no soul, but it does keep a creed and a faith in a flawed perception of the Constitution. When good men go to jail for simply exercising their natural right to speak and freely exercise their religion, secularist tyranny has emerged. These men forced no one to pray with them, whether they were adults or students. However they violated the conformity of thought that secular tyranny seeks to impose, regardless of a man or woman's natural rights. Obama recently removed the legal and liability protections once enjoyed by medical practitioners who refuse to participate in procedures that are against their faith.

The victims of secularist tyranny are not only Christians, but also Jews, Muslims, or anyone else with an abiding and principled faith in their religion. Tolerance of different religions is great and necessary in a free society. Left wing government today actively campaigns against the faithful, proving that our nation grows less free every day that left wing Democrats remain in power.