Comments Posted By George Michalopulos
Displaying 151 To 180 Of 3,426 Comments
George, I was wrong. As Mitrich has pointed out above, the ability of the Congress to restrict the boundaries of the Supreme Court is in Article III, that Article which sets up and authorizes the Supreme Court in the first place. I regret the error. But the fundamental argument still stands: the Congress has the right to restrict the Supreme Court. (BTW, the Supreme Court’s right of “judicial review” was something that it gave to itself in Marbury vs Madison. In other words, this right is not in the Constitution either.)
» Posted By George Michalopulos On April 29, 2013 @ 9:43 pm
Again, Madame, you cause me to blush!
» Posted By George Michalopulos On April 28, 2013 @ 9:09 pm
» Posted By George Michalopulos On April 28, 2013 @ 9:08 pm
Well, he overturned the Nixon/Ford/Carter era of stagflation, ushering in the longest era of economic vitality in the US, from 1983-2007. Bush was responsible for his own mistakes. The Supreme Court justices are a problem but that’s one that’s baked into the cake unfortunately. If I had the power to redo the Constitution, I would limit their terms to five years and could be renewed only by appearing to the Congress and answering pointed questions. Besides, the Congress bears more responsibility for our justice system run amok. In Article I of the Constitution, the Congress has the power to restrict the authority of the Supreme Court.
In foreign policy he kept us out of war and brought down the Soviet Union. Not a small feat.
» Posted By George Michalopulos On April 28, 2013 @ 9:08 pm
Carl, no one I know wants to return to the ancient practice of near-lifetime excommunication and/or exile to the Narthex for sexual sinners. That is a red herring. Truth be told, I very much doubt that the vast majority of people who are up in arms about these social issues (and by this I mean Conservatives and Traditionalists) want to fight this weary battle. We’d rather not. Unfortunately we’re forced into this because the Liberals and Sexual Liberationists are forcing this battle, it is they who are bringing it into the Church, pace Fr Jillions, Arida, and the rest of the East Coast academic and intellectual elite.
You are providing aid and comfort to this sordid enterprise in an unwitting fashion. Eventually I think you’ll get it but by then it will be too late. Remember: the old-line Episcopalians were civil to a fault and because of their devotion to the cult of WASP uber-politeness, they lost their Church.
» Posted By George Michalopulos On May 9, 2013 @ 10:34 pm
Michael, you and Lex hit the nail right on the head. The very term “sexual minorities” is not only offensive but gives the game away. We lost in the whole “gay marriage” debate when we adopted the locution “gay marriage.” Then it was only a matter of time, because who after all is against “marriage”?
» Posted By George Michalopulos On May 9, 2013 @ 10:30 pm
Yes, Michael, thank you. It was Greg Louganis.
» Posted By George Michalopulos On May 4, 2013 @ 7:10 pm
Basil’s onto something here. Homosexual assault is very much underreported for a variety of reasons (just as is heterosexual assault). It might be pointed out that that famous Greek-Samoan diver who came out in the 90s (Peter Somethingorother, I can’t remember his name) wrote in his autobiography that his first sexual experience as a teenager was a homosexual assault in which the assailant brandished a knife.
» Posted By George Michalopulos On May 3, 2013 @ 7:26 am
Well, assume that it is possible for several people to experience the same hallucination (which you of all people should know better). It follows therefore that you not only did not “scrub” your site –since you had no need to–but you and your friends, acquaintances and partisans, do not champion the cause of “sexual minorities.” In other words, you do not believe in the concept of “sexual minorities” or in the need for the Church of Christ to be “inclusive”? Would that be a fair assumption?
» Posted By George Michalopulos On May 1, 2013 @ 9:59 pm
Carl, I’m glad you agree with me that libel is a terrible thing. I’m sure that His Beatitude will be glad to know that you have finally seen the light.
» Posted By George Michalopulos On April 27, 2013 @ 9:11 pm
Actually Dr Stankovich, I have read your website on occasion. It’s very well executed what with the graphics and all. It’s just that I don’t agree with many of your basic premises, nor can I countenance the pastoral confusion exhibited by the likes of Fr Robert Arida. The fact that such confusion obtains on your blog leads me and others to suspect that the net effect of such confusion is to muddy the waters enough within Orthodoxy so that “dialogue” has a safe haven. The object of course is that once orthodoxy becomes optional, then it will become irrelevant as has happened in many of the mainline Protestant denominations. This may not be your intent but to those who have been wounded by the culture wars in the other Christian confessions the pattern is all=too-familiar.
As for a “man in error [digging' a hole...and [falling] into it himself”, I am somewhat taken aback by your laudatory language regarding “The Chancellor of the OCA.” This is startling on many fronts. The first objection of course is did this same Chancellor exhibit the same amount of respect for The Primate of the OCA? Secondly, did his accusations against said Primate not involve “scurrilous gossip and fabrication”? Third, such language confirms my suspicions that the OCA has now returned to the bad old days of Strong Chancellor/Weak Diocesan model of governance in which Syosset is the (admittedly Poor Man’s) Vatican City.
As we head into Holy Week, may I suggest a truce of sorts? I will do the necessary diligence, including asking The Chancellor himself if he believes in the concept of “sexual minorities” if you or others on your website will exert the same diligence to investigate charges against His Beatitude.
» Posted By George Michalopulos On April 27, 2013 @ 7:02 am
I first saw it on the “We Are Their Legacy” website. It has since been scrubbed clean.
» Posted By George Michalopulos On April 26, 2013 @ 10:22 pm
Anonymous, this line that keeps on being trotted made sense in an assertive, talking-point kind of way except for one thing: it was only asserted, never proven. When exactly did Metropolitan Jonah act “unilaterally” and “like a cowboy”? When he didn’t “unilaterally” accept Fr Simeon into the OCA?
Indeed, the paucity of this charge leveled against His Beatitude continues to astound me. Do you understand what the office of Primate entails, both from a canonical basis as well as the plain statutes of the OCA?
» Posted By George Michalopulos On April 19, 2013 @ 8:42 am
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
» Posted By George Michalopulos On April 18, 2013 @ 2:42 pm
Philippa, I was speaking rhetorically but also positing a very real solution to the way bishops and priests are kept in line by the present Star Chamber system of “verdict first, trial later” to which I add “must keep closed at all costs.”
I should have added that standing courts should exist and that their proceedings should be patent and transcribed. And the “loser pays” aspect of it should be removed. If a bishop in good faith brings a bill of particulars against another bishop and the accused is exonerated, in no way should the accusatory party be made to pay with losing his own bishopric.
Under the present system, corruption festers because and whispering campaigns ensue because nobody wants to bring an accusation against another bishop on the off-chance that he might be exonerated.
» Posted By George Michalopulos On April 18, 2013 @ 9:11 am
Agreed. I look at it this way: how have we as free-born Americans, come to the point where psychological testing is required to stay in a job. Can anybody say “Soviet Union”?
» Posted By George Michalopulos On April 17, 2013 @ 11:37 pm
I don’t. Given the history of the OCA and its kangaroo courts, I very much doubt it. But let’s not forget that when the OCA convenes such a body it’s always ad hoc and is governed in an arbitrary way. At least that’s they way things run with priests. However with a bishop, that’s a whole other ball of wax. Then the eyes of worldwide Orthodoxy are really on you and you have to make an effort to abide by the canons. If memory serves, twelve (12) bishops would be needed to adjudicate the trial. Twelve bishops takes it out of the hands of just the OCA. I supposed bishops from other jurisdictions would have to be called in.
This is one reason that Anglo-Saxon society progressed on a rule-of-law, evidentiary basis rather than a tribal, arbitrary one. The election of twelve jurors for a trial made it almost impossible for corruption to set in and with the necessity of a unanimous verdict to condemn a man to death, very unlikely to execute an innocent man.
Anyway, back to the issue at hand. If a bishop demands a trial then we could expect to see the Synod in the future act in its usual arbitrary fashion.
» Posted By George Michalopulos On April 17, 2013 @ 9:38 pm
If I may, I think that His Grace should have refused either “offer” and demanded a spiritual court.
» Posted By George Michalopulos On April 17, 2013 @ 4:42 pm
You may be on to something here.
» Posted By George Michalopulos On April 17, 2013 @ 4:41 pm
I would suggest that those of our readers who want to, should contribute to his sustenance. Is there anybody close to His Grace who knows his needs and can tell us where to direct our giving?
» Posted By George Michalopulos On April 17, 2013 @ 4:41 pm
Even better. I never thought about the fact that Jesus Himself had 70 disciples total. Perhaps that should be the outside boundary for a diocese? 70 parishes or 3-hour drive, whichever is greater.
If I may expand: the dysfunction that exists on the Synod would never have happened had the OCA had at least 24 diocesan (not auxiliary) bishops. With over 700+ parishes this is not an impossibility (unless of course one subscribes to the notion that every bishop must make at least $75,000/yr and must travel with a retinue every time he boards a plane.) Anyway, with just the handful that we have (9-10 plus assorted vacancies) it’s very possible for a small, corrupt circle to derail an agenda. Think of a dysfunctional family comprised of a husband, wife, resident, unemployed brother-in-law, three children, etc, in which one of the adults is a raging alcoholic and everybody else has to walk on egg-shells to avoid a scene. That’s essentially what we have in the OCA today and have had for quite awhile. Although a healthy local Church will always have a couple of bad apples, a Synod made up of at least two dozen men cannot be dictated to by the outrageous whims of a rotten set of 2-3 within it. It’s just not possible. (This assumes of course that every bishop is equal and has an equal vote.)
Let’s expand on this. If the 55 or so bishops of the ACOB congealed into a Holy Synod, with each bishop being sovereign over a more compact diocese, a natural checks-and-balances would accrue. In this sense, the OCA has shown a way forward with a “Holy Synod” and a “Lesser Synod.” Let’s say the USA had a local Church of 72 bishops. Twelve could sit on a Lesser Synod, the rest on the Holy Synod. To prevent institutionalism, all it would take would be a rotation on the Lesser Synod. Perhaps the terms of service on the Lesser Synod would be three years and a rotation of four men would come off every year, to be replaced by someone who hasn’t yet served on the Lesser Synod.
Anyway, the more the merrier.
» Posted By George Michalopulos On April 17, 2013 @ 4:39 pm
Speaking for myself (and possibly Gail) I would respond: Not at all! We love Bishop Basil. I know he’s got a lot on his plate, but there’s an easy way out of it: more dioceses and more bishops! Dioceses should be as compact as possible. The distance between the farthest parish and the episcopal seat should be no more than six hours. Day trips, not Grand Tours requiring logistics are the way to run the Church (which is the diocese).
» Posted By George Michalopulos On April 17, 2013 @ 11:42 am
Good point, why would any Orthodox priest from another jurisdiction want to join the OCA now? Anybody with common sense would run from the Syosset Soviet like a scalded dog.
» Posted By George Michalopulos On April 16, 2013 @ 9:40 am
If I may ask, which Archpastor gave you such advice? Ours (Dmitri of Thrice-blessed memory) all but ordered our parish to get involved in the local ecumenical movement here in Tulsa. It was a confluence of an OCA Reader, the Catholic monsignor, and a MS Lutheran priest who started the Annual March for Life here. The more I read, the more I realize how fortunate we were in the South to have the Venerable Dmitri as our archpastor.
» Posted By George Michalopulos On April 16, 2013 @ 9:39 am
And let’s not forget the fact that he didn’t have any skeletons rattling in his closet nor any pending legal actions against him. It was a perfect storm really: weakness of character together with clean living and an ability to stay out of trouble. Dithering yes, but also lucky. Question is, will the luck hold out?
» Posted By George Michalopulos On April 16, 2013 @ 9:35 am
Regardless of the merits of Fr Paul (and I known nothing of him), I still exhort you all in the Midwest to get on the stick and nominate somebody at your earliest convenience. Don’t fall for that nonsense that we in the South have been subjected to, i.e. there are no qualified candidates. You guys known your region, known which priests are stand-up guys, and know what your needs are. Go for it. Otherwise, you’ll get some company man from Corporate (like Dn Eric Wheeler) shoved down your throats.
» Posted By George Michalopulos On April 15, 2013 @ 10:27 pm
Duly noted. Thanks for reminding me, I made the addition earlier.
» Posted By George Michalopulos On April 15, 2013 @ 10:23 pm
It’s amazing how quickly we forget that military violence frees a lot of people and nations.
» Posted By George Michalopulos On April 24, 2013 @ 2:10 pm
Again, I never said that either Cheney or Rumsfeld were “men of the Left.”
» Posted By George Michalopulos On April 21, 2013 @ 8:24 pm
Back To Stats Page
If I did, then I stand corrected. For the record, neither Dick Cheney nor Donald Rumsfeld were then Neocons. That does not mean that they did not pursue a possibly misguided Neocon policy. Again for the record, when I say Neocon I mean those who in a previous incarnation were actually Trotskyites, Neoliberal, or Liberal but then migrated Rightward and landed in the Republican Party. While their Rightward migration at least as far as economics and social policy are concerned was welcome, their insistence that non-European/non-Christian peoples have the same hunger for Classical Liberalism and Republicanism (i.e. what our Founding Fathers believed) is comical. And their insistence that America embrace a Wilsonian Crusading spirit to foist our principles upon others is disastrous.
» Posted By George Michalopulos On April 21, 2013 @ 8:22 pm