Clearing the Decks for 2020?

It’s now become obvious to me what’s going on during the present moral panic about sexual assault.

It’s not about harassment or sexual assault per se. That’s the moral cover no doubt and it’d be fine and dandy if at the end of the day powerful men didn’t act like horndogs with women, but that’s not what’s going on here. But if the Democrats really cared about women being treated like human beings they would have never nominated Bill Clinton, nor would Hillary fawn all over a pervert like Harvey Weinstein.

I first got an inkling that something was afoot about two weeks ago when Sen Elizabeth Warren was asked if Donna Brazeal’s allegations of the Democratic primary being rigged were true. She didn’t equivocate; she came right out and said “yes”. It’s clear to me now: the target is Hillary. And Warren was trying to take her out of consideration for 2020. It didn’t work though. Or at least Hillary didn’t get the hint.

So now we come to the present sexual panic. Warren’s shot across Hillary’s bow wasn’t enough. It seems that somebody got to Brazeal and asked her if she liked her kneecaps. Although she did much damage to the Democrats with her book, she’s now gone on an apology tour, saying “I-didn’t-mean-that-the-primaries-were-rigged-and-that-Hillary’s-campaign-HQ-was-run-like-a-cult- and-they-were-racist-and-sexist-to-me-and-I-told-them-I’m-not-Patsy-the-Slave”, but something else. Not that. You misunderstood me. We’re cool. (BTW, don’t read my book and forget that I dedicated it to Seth Rich. That’s a big nothing-burger.) Nothing to see here, move along.

Enter Roy Moore, stage right. This was manna from heaven for the Dems –for about a day or two. Unfortunately, when it comes to all things sexual, the left has a tremendous blind spot. They don’t understand that once you open that Pandora’s Box, there’s no telling what demons will fly out and who will be targeted. They should have learned their lesson with the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill imbroglio way back in the 90s. A new employment minefield entitled “sexual harassment” was let loose on the body politic. Unfortunately, it didn’t take out Thomas (who’s still on the Supreme Court) but it well-nigh destroyed Bill Clinton’s presidency. And it hurt Hillary somewhat in 2016 and now it’s burying her chances for 2020.

But there’s more. I don’t know what crazy pills the Democrats are taking, thinking that only Republicans engage in a “war on women” but it’s now clear that that’s far from the case. Enter Sen Al Franken, Democrat from Minnesota, and aspiring golden boy for 2020.

Yes, you read me right. Al Franken was being groomed as the centrist alternative to Pocahantas and the younger, less creepier version of Joe Biden. Only now we know that he’s only slightly less creepier. But maybe not! He’s certainly stupider than Biden. Or at least more immature. In his grinning photo with Lee Ann Tweeden he shows about as much maturity as a freshmen frat boy after drinking a six-pack. He was in his fifties and married at the time he posed for that picture. Now another woman has come forward and said he squeezed her on the bottom while they posed together for a photo taken by her husband.

Sen Kirsten Gillebrand (D-NY) has now come out and said that it would have been better for all if Bill Clinton had resigned his presidency in 1998. (She’s clearly running for vice president.) A week ago, this would have been nothing less than blasphemy in Democratic circles. Not Bill, not The Big Dog. That’d be akin to Republicans saying that Ike was a commie spy. So you see where this is going: in order to take out Hillary and Uncle Joe (who has dozens of cringe-inducing photos of himself with females of all ages), the Democrats have to Nixonize Clinton. Franken is collateral damage.

Battle lines are being drawn. On one side are the New Feminist Avengers and on the other side are the Clintonistas. Gillebrand merely fired the first shot. Others are piling on board. Ken Starr is no longer being reflexively viewed as a sex-obsessed perv who was jealous of all the action that Slick Willie was getting. Starr’s revelations are now going to be the lodestar of the New Feminism and anybody who questions his findings on will be thrown out of the party leadership.

This means that Hillary, more than anybody, is caught on the horns of a dilemma. Not only was she the enabler of her husband’s predatory behavior, she had an active hand in destroying the lives of many of Bill’s accusers.

For months now, the left has been signaling Hillary to go home and bake cookies, look after he grandchildren and generally not make a nuisance of herself. The trouble is, she won’t go away. She’s owed. And she’s powerful. If nothing else, she knows where the bodies are buried. Make no mistake: Hillary had it within her power to destroy Bill’s chances for the presidency back in 1992. In doing so, she could have taken out the Democratic Party as well. But she didn’t. She played Tammy Wynnette and “stood by her man”, effectively immunizing Bill from any further accusations.

A deal was made: I’ll stand by my husband but when the time comes, I’m going to be president. Make it happen or else I walk.

That’s what I mean when I say “she’s owed”. Because in her mind’s eye, she –more than anybody else–saved the Democratic Party. And lest anyone forget, she got 3.5 million more votes than Trump. She won’t go quietly into that good night.

So what’s the Democratic Party to do? Align themselves with the New Feminist Avengers or go with the same-old/same-old? Right now, they’re horribly misplaying the Franken imbroglio. There was a 24 hour window of opportunity last week when Franken could have resigned and we’d be past all this by now and all the firepower could have been leveled at the Republicans with their Moore problem. Valerie Jarrett, tweeted as much. With a Democratic governor, Minnesota would have replaced Franken with another Democrat. There would have been no loss politically speaking. (That’s what I mean by misplaying it.)

Unfortunately, Franken (or his 2020 handlers) dug in his heals and decided to remain in the Senate. This is a Godsend to the Republicans in that it takes the heat off of Roy Moore (who will probably win the Alabama seat). It’s also a gift to the GOP because as long as Franken stays in the Senate, it take away their feminist street cred. And will further infuriate the feminists. What should have been over and done by now will fester for months to come –all to the Democrat’s disadvantage.

So, how will it all play out? Will Hillary put on her Masked Feminist Avenger suit and go after Franken and anybody else who has a skeleton or two in the closet (possibly even her own husband)? Will Franken continue to keep his head down and let the Ethics Committee “do its work” (i.e. bury the whole mess) or will Gillebrand and other newly-empowered women office-holders continue to scream bloody murder? I don’t know. As Zhou En-lai said about the French Revolution, “it’s too early to tell”.

But I’d keep my eye on a couple of things to see which way the wind is blowing. Like, more revelations about Biden, more leaks about possible indictments against Hillary and more incriminating photos of Franken. (Isn’t it odd that these photos came out right about now? Was it the GOP’s way of taking the heat off of Moore? Tweeden is a conservative Republican in you case you didn’t know.)

Regardless, we’re observing nothing less than a covert civil war within the ranks of the left. And it may get overt real soon. I’m curious though, at the end of the day, will the left finally learn their lesson, that there is such a thing as the maxim of unintended consequences? (One unintended consequence will be fewer women being hired in the halls of Congress.)

As usual, time will tell.


  1. I have faith that they will self-destruct. They are a sideshow. The truly menacing evil is Islam. Feminazism only weakened us for a few decades. This is the light at the end of the tunnel. They are falling all over each other in self-doubt.

    “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.” James 1:8

    But it will probably be ugly. How does one revanche from feminism, pray tell? That has genuinely given me cause for pause. I don’t think that the man on the street will be able to distinguish responsible patriarchalism from misogyny given the blurring of distinctions and political correctness of the past few decades.

    I mean, it really could get ugly. That is what I was concerned about earlier.

    • George Michalopulos says

      A civilization “revanches” from the end-state of nihilism only when patriarchy reasserts itself. If the males of said civilization are feminized and/or homosexualized beyond repair (i.e. “soy boys”), then the resultant vacuum will be filled by virile young men from another culture. The Goths in ancient times who crossed the Roman limes and carved out their own kingdoms for example or today, Moslem young men turning London, Berlin and Paris into Islamic cities.

  2. Jim of Olym says

    No one so far has accused Jill Stein of groping anyone of either ‘sex’. Of course, she didn’t win by a looooong shot! Evidently groping wins?

  3. Moral equivalency.


    Pass the bowl back to George.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Except for this one fact: so far, there is no evidence against Moore and what has been brought forward has pretty much crumbled. (I admit that the allegation of him “dating” a fourteen year old is damning, however at this point it remains only that –an allegation.)

      Now I realize that a 32 yr old man dating a 19 yr old woman raises eyebrows today but several decades ago it was not remarkable. My own in-laws were 11 years apart in age when they courted and were married for over 50 years.

      • Why does it “raise eyebrows” when the ages of a couple don’t match but not when their races don’t match? Thanks to Hollywood, the latter is now acceptable to many.

        • Yeah, Hollywood influenced Moses when he married that Ethiopian gal. Race is a fiction and God doesn’t care if skin colors match.

        • An unwelcome truth says

          J Clivas, you’re right there.

          Traditionally, an older husband and a younger wife was very common, but mixed race couples were extremely rare, and generally frowned upon, at least until the past 50/60 years.

          I’d be interested in hearing peoples’ thoughts on this…

          • George Michalopulos says

            In the pre-industrial age the onset of menarche was usually around 16-17. Refrigeration and the growing of fruits in hothouses during their off-season has pushed this down dramatically in the past century, to 11-13. Couple that with the automatic placement of young girls on BCPs is not good for all concerned. Especially the young girls as there’s a correlation between contraceptives and depression:


      • The only thing that’s problematic is the 14 year old (this would have been about the Theotokos’ age when she conceived by the Holy Spirit). It is about when puberty begins so it’s not pedophilia but underage whatever . . .

        Beyond that, the time lag, the circus of women coming forward only now. I reject the whole thing, honestly. This is exactly the kind of intrigue you would expect when a society rejects the patriarchy and embraces an artificial set of milestones regarding sexual interaction. God makes females start menstruating when they are about 14 in a pre-modern culture, perhaps a year or two less in modern culture given the high state of health care.

        The purpose of menstruation is reproduction.

        It really isn’t any more complicated than that but we make it so because we say that girls should wait and get an education or live life, or date, or whatever . . .

        Nonetheless, the game is afoot when puberty strikes and that’s just the way it is. We are hopelessly prudish as a society in this regard. It’s tragic really. It warps our whole way of looking at these issues dramatically away from how the Church Fathers would have seen them.

        If there’s another viable standard of morality, I must have missed it.

        • Gail Sheppard says

          I hate to be indelicate, Misha, but that’s where George has allowed you to take this with all this talk about menstruation. When you can tell me a boy is capable of being a man and taking care of a woman and a family at around 10, when he has his first wet dream, then we’ll talk. The reality is both sexes are years away from being able to manage sex and children, especially in this day and age. There are no extended families anymore. No one to help raise children. There are fewer ways to eat directly off the land or from the sea. There is absolutely no homogeny with respect to social behavior. In many cases, men can’t provide essentials like housing and food without the woman also working and women often require an education (not as a luxury, but as a necessity) because they are not physically strong enough to do a man’s work. This world cannot support what you’re suggesting.

          And you may be surprised to learn that it *is* possible for men and women to “fall in love” and stay in love. People *do* form attachments to one another. It’s the same attachment God had in mind for Adam and Eve. (Ever hear a woman complaining about every little thing her husband does and then at the end say, “But that’s my Frank!” That’s attachment. – Watch some reruns of “All In The Family” and tell me Archie is not attached to Edith.)

          God did not create Eve to procreate. Procreation, as we know it, didn’t even exist. God gave Eve to Adam as a helpmate so he wouldn’t be alone. After the fall, God leveraged that connection for procreation. You can’t reduce the man/woman relationship to some kind of biological destiny. Human beings were created in the image of God! We don’t exist to multiply. If that were true, men and women would not outlive their ability to procreate.

          To suggest promoting chastity, especially among children, is “prudish” borders on blasphemy in my opinion because violates everything the Church teaches us about the body being the temple of the Holy Spirit. Scripture actually teaches us it is good for a man NOT to have sexual relations with a woman. When God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply, He did so in the context of filling the earth and subduing it so they could have dominion over it (over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth). I think we can safely say we’ve “been there and done that.” We’re living in the last days.

          • M. Stankovich says

            It is nearly one year ago to date that I sat at the desk of Archbishop Benjamin of San Francisco’s desk and pursued what anyone with a common sense drawn from the Patristic “mind” of the Holy Fathers, and a love and devotion for her who is the Mother of the Author and Fashioner of our Creation, already knew to be True and Dogmatic. Regardless of the narrative manner in which the events are conveyed to us, the Fathers are adamant and absolutely clear that the creation of Eve was not an “after-thought,” an “amendment, or a “corrective” to the original plan of Creation, God seeing Adam’s “predicament,” but intended before the ages.

            As Gail correctly indicates, neither was Eve created specifically to procreate, if one intends to refer to procreation in the terms we now associate with “genitally-reproduced” offspring. Scott has long insisted that we were “created with everything we need,” sexually/genitally for procreation – “this fits inside of that” – yet there is not a word of corroboration contained in the Genesis scriptural account. Sts. Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Ephraim the Syrian, Maximos the Confessor, John of Damascus, Symeon the New Theologian, and Gregory Palamas all believed that Adam and Eve were intended to live the “angelic life,” free from sexual passion and lust for one another; Sts. Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Ephraim, and St. John of Damascus specifically taught that they would have procreated – blessed to “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion” (Gen. 1:28) – in a non-genital, non-sexual manner, “likened unto the angels,” but in a manner “not made known to us.” And it is the description of the nature and being of the Holy Angels found in the Exposition of the Orthodox Faith of the Pillar of and Defender of Orthodoxy, our Teacher and Father, St. John of Damascus that is the irrefutable definition of the “angelic life.”

            Why, St. Chrysostom asks, did the Genesis writer even bother to memorialize the fact that “the two were naked, both Adam and his wife, and were not ashamed [οὐκ ᾐσχύνοντο] (Gen. 2:25), even noting that they had no perception they were “naked” [γυμνός] until after their disobedience (Gen 3:10)? Specifically because St. Chrysostom signals this epic dissolution of our “day without end” with four words from the Septuagint: “Αδαμ δὲ ἔγνω Εὔαν” (“Adam knew Eve.”) (Gen. 4:1) Genital sexuality and the associated passions and lusts of the flesh are first described by the Scripture only following the expulsion of our humanity from the Paradise of our Creation, and that is all we are told. All of this business of age of the onset of puberty and its relationship to take-your-head-out-of-your-butt anything worthy of our discussion in a reasonable context of Orthodox cosmology and anthropology (and please, while you’re on a break from the Wikipedia School of Medicine, do check out precocious puberty, which could conceptually & quite reasonably drop this entire blasphemous line of thinking down to age 8 – which is in fact pedophilic…) is shameful. Indelicate, Gail? You should be standing with a heel of your Prada ensconced in the right hepatic duct of his liver. Now that is indelicate. [And a complete joke, Mr. Michalopulos, hereby issued as a disclaimer in the interest of avoiding lawsuits, and evidence of participation in the #idialeditback program]. One man’s repentance is another man’s “here we go again…”

            • Joseph Lipper says

              There is also that quote, I believe attributed to St. Gregory Nazianzus, “That which is not assumed, is not redeemed.”

              Christ assumed the fullness of humanity in His Person, but He did not sexually reproduce. He was not even born from sexual reproduction. In Christ’s Person, the act of sexual reproduction was neither assumed, nor redeemed.

              • It is also worth pondering that, although ultimately born of sexual union, the conception of a great number of major persons in salvation history was accomplished only by the direct intervention of God. Isaac, Samuel, John the Forerunner, and our Most Blessed and Holy Mother the Theotokos, to name only a few. They were children of promise and not “of the flesh” alone.

              • Tim R. Mortiss says

                I still can’t figure out how the idea even arises in the first place, given the two creation accounts, the obvious biological facts, and Christ’s own endorsements, including the repetition of Genesis.

                A strange dualism of some kind, I think. But then, as a husband of 50 years, a father of five children and grandfather of 12, with a wonderful daughter-in-law and a couple of princes of sons-in-law, my spiritual insights may be clouded and obscured by ordinary experience and common sense.

                • Tim,

                  As a husband of 37 years and grandfather of six I know exactly what you mean, and I’d love to have a long conversation with you about this subject.

                  Suffice it for now to say that the correct word would not be be dualism. It would be ambivalence.

                  • Tim,

                    Checking for a reply, I’m laughing almost hysterically at my own words. To clarify, the ambivalence of which I speak is that of the Fathers and the Church.

                    I doubt I’ll ever reach the age of 120 like Moses, but so far so good.

                    “Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died. His eyes were not dim nor his natural vigor diminished.”

                    • Tim R. Mortiss says

                      I follow. The dualism of which I spoke is of course that aspect of the old heresy that regarded things of the body with distaste.

                      Again, to me it’s hard to see how the question even gets asked in the first place. It doesn’t strike me as likely. I’m perfectly happy, though, to concur in Mr. Lipper’s praise of what he thinks of as Plan B!

              • Joseph Lipper,

                Although your overall point is valid, I wonder about your exact statement here when you say…

                In Christ’s Person, the act of sexual reproduction was neither assumed, nor redeemed.

                I’m not arguing, mind you, just wondering. One can say that the “act” was not assumed, but He did become fully man with all the ‘equipment’ of a man. Might it rather be said that precisely by not exercising the act, he healed the inherent created nature of man as male and female, restoring us to what we are according to our creation? Again, I don’t know. I’m just wondering. Do you perhaps have some sources in the Fathers for your statement?

                And while we’re on the subject I sometimes wonder about taking St. Gregory’s true saying too literally. For example, He did not assume female nature unless, as I suppose (but don’t know), since the woman came from man and is/was “in Adam” she is also assumed in Him. Other things that were not assumed (in terms of His actual experience) are old age, any of a vast array of illnesses, etc.

                Once again, I am not arguing with you; and I’m certainly not arguing with St. Gregory. But I do wonder sometimes about these things. If anyone here has any thoughts or expertise on these matters, I would be very interested in being enlightened.

                • Joseph Lipper says

                  Brian, please forgive me, I am not a scholar and have no theological degrees like many on this blog, and I don’t want to speculate too much either. Perhaps others have some additional insights. I appreciate correction.

                  My understanding about the redemption of the female nature is that Christ’s humanity is given from His Mother. Although Christ is fully male, He assumes the humanity given to Him from His Mother, and thus the female nature is also restored. The woman is saved by giving birth to Christ God who has assumed her humanity and flesh.

                  From what I gather, sexual reproduction was neither God’s original intention for mankind, nor is it His final intention for mankind. Rather, it seems to represent a plan “B” for a fallen humanity.

                  I think we would all agree though that it is still a wonderful blessing. Thank God for plan “B”!

                • Joseph Lipper says

                  Brian, also as an afterthought, I’ve read that the Church fathers teach that Christ’s birth was not vaginal. This is described in the Protoevangelium of James from where we get the life of the Theotokos and Saints Joachim and Anna, and also the description of the Feast of the Entry of the Mother of God in the Temple. In this account, the Mother of God was overshadowed by a cloud at Christ’s birth, and He passed directly through the womb miraculously.

                  The womb of the Mother of God had become the Holy of Holies, and Christ’s birth did not violate her virginity by passing through the birth canal. Perhaps because of this, the Church also has a canon that proclaims that Christ had no afterbirth.

                  • The Protoevaglrion of James was rejected by the Church.

                    • Joseph Lipper says

                      johnkal. even though it was rejected as part of the New Testament, it wouldn’t be fair to say that it was rejected by the Church. It is from this account that we have the lives of Saints Joachim and Anna and the Feast of the Entrance of the Mother of God in the Temple which we just celebrated in Church. It is from this beautiful account that we have more about the life of the Theotokos and Saint Joseph the Betrothed and also about Christ’s birth. It is in this account that much of the Tradition of the Church is corroborated.

                  • M. Stankovich says

                    It seems to me that you are missing the point of the incarnation altogether if you intend to somehow segregate the humanity of Jesus Christ from us, humans. Rather than reading secondary sources of information and speculate, you have the rich hymnography of the Church, as well as the Patristic “mind” of the Holy Fathers, expressed in the highest authority of the Church, the Councils. And where better to learn and understand the human nature of the Son of God made man but Chalcedon:

                    Accordingly while the distinctness of both natures and substances was preserved, and both met in one Person, lowliness was assumed by majesty, weakness by power, mortality by eternity; and, in order to pay the debt of our condition, the inviolable nature was united to the passible, so that as the appropriate remedy for our ills, one and the same “Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus,” might from one element be capable of dying and also from the other be incapable. Therefore in the entire and perfect nature of very man was born very God, whole in what was his, whole in what was ours. By “ours” we mean what the Creator formed in us at the beginning and what he assumed in order to restore; for of that which the deceiver brought in, and man, thus deceived, admitted, there was not a trace in the Saviour; and the fact that he took on himself a share in our infirmities did not make him a partaker in our transgressions. He assumed “the form of a servant” without the defilement of sin, enriching what was human, not impairing what was divine: because that “emptying of himself,” whereby the Invisible made himself visible, and the Creator and Lord of all things willed to be one among mortals, was a stooping down in compassion, not a failure of power. Accordingly, the same who, remaining in the form of God, made man, was made man in the form of a servant. For each of the natures retains its proper character without defect; and as the form of God does not take away the form of a servant, so the form of a servant does not impair the form of God…

                    Accordingly, the Son of God, descending from his seat in heaven, and not departing from the glory of the Father, enters this lower world, born after a new order, by a new mode of birth. After a new order; because he who in his own sphere is invisible, became visible in ours; He who could not be enclosed in space, willed to be enclosed; continuing to be before times, he began to exist in time; the Lord of the universe allowed his infinite majesty to be overshadowed, and took upon him the form of a servant; the impassible God did not disdain to be passible Man and the immortal One to be subjected to the laws of death. And born by a new mode of birth; because inviolate virginity, while ignorant of concupiscence, supplied the matter of his flesh. What was assumed from the Lord’s mother was nature, not fault; nor does the wondrousness of the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, as born of a Virgin’s womb, imply that his nature is unlike ours. For the selfsame who is very God, is also very man; and there is no illusion in this union, while the lowliness of man and the loftiness of Godhead meet together. For as “God” is not changed by the compassion [exhibited], so “Man” is not consumed by the dignity [bestowed]. For each “form” does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh; the one of these shines out in miracles, the other succumbs to injuries. And as the Word does not withdraw from equality with the Father in glory, so the flesh does not abandon the nature of our kind. For, as we must often be saying, he is one and the same, truly Son of God, and truly Son of Man. God, inasmuch as “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Man, inasmuch as “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” God, inasmuch as “all things were made by him, and without him nothing was made.” Man, inasmuch as he was “made of a woman, made under the law.” The nativity of the flesh is a manifestation of human nature; the Virgin’s child-bearing is an indication of Divine power. The infancy of the Babe is exhibited by the humiliation of swaddling clothes: the greatness of the Highest is declared by the voices of angels.

                    While the Resurrection Octoechos poetically and ethereally speaks of the “King of Heaven who, out of his love for for man, comes to recall Adam,” John the Evangelist is very frank: “Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο,” and the Word became flesh; he became what we are at our basest element, and as the Chalcedon Fathers acknowledge, the Eternal God and Creator debased himself, taking the form of a servant to become everything we are, except sinful. The Theotokion of Tone 8 of the Resurrection Octoechos says, “For He took flesh from a pure virgin; and after assuming it He came forth from her, not two persons, but one in two natures. Therefore, confessing Him as perfect God and perfect man, we confess Christ our God!” And as the Fathers conclude, “To Him be Glory and Honour forever. Amen.”

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      This is truly lovely. Thanks Dr S for supplying us with this acta from Chalcedon. Quite moving.

                    • Joseph Lipper says

                      Yes thank you, it’s important not to imply that Christ’s human nature is somehow different from our own, or as you post from Chalcedon, “nor does the wondrousness of the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, as born of a Virgin’s womb, imply that His nature is unlike ours.”

                      I see now that St. John of Damascus writes in his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith:

                      “ It was the birth that surpassed the established order of birthgiving, as it was without pain; for, where pleasure had not preceded, pain did not follow. And just as at His conception He had kept her who conceived Him virgin, so also at His birth did He maintain her virginity intact, because He alone passed through her and kept her shut.”

                      However, I stand corrected by St. John of Damascus as he continues:

                      “While the conception was by ‘hearing’, the birth was by the usual orifice through which children are born, even though there are some who concoct an idle tale of His being born from the side of the Mother of God. For it was not impossible for Him to pass through the gate without breaking its seals. Hence, the Ever-Virgin remained virgin even after giving birth…”

                      I guess it’s just a mystery how this happened and probably best not to infer too much, but it does sound somehow like a different way of giving birth.

                      From the Council of Trullo :

                      “CANON LXXIX.
                      As we confess the divine birth of the Virgin to be without any childbed, since it came to pass without seed, and as we preach this to the entire flock, so we subject to correction those who through ignorance do anything which is inconsistent therewith.”

                      This sounds like the Council is saying there was no afterbirth in Christ’s nativity.

                    • Yes. Michael. Thank you, indeed!

                    • Joseph L.–the reason you sight are the same reasons the apocryphal writings were rejected–too mush about the childhood of Jesus.

                    • Joseph Lipper says


                      The Protoevangelium of James doesn’t go much beyond Christ’s Nativity. The very brief narrative about the Nativity of Christ ends with Herod’s massacre of the infants and with Mary hiding the newly born Jesus. Most of the Protoevangelium has to do with the Theotokos.

                      Interestingly, this account portrays Christ as being born in a cave which is always how Christ’s Nativity is portrayed in Orthodox icons. It is part of our Church’s tradition that doesn’t come from the four Gospels, and thus we have our Orthodox Christmas Kontakia:

                      Today the Virgin gives birth to the Transcendent One, / And the earth offers a cave to the Unapproachable One! / Angels with shepherds glorify Him! / The wise men journey with a star! / Since for our sake the Eternal God was born as a Little Child!

  4. Gail Sheppard says

    This is not about the ages “not matching” or a chance encounter that leads to a long, stable marriage. This is about a pattern of unhealthy, predatory behavior. If you wipe the accusations off the table, Moore would still be guilty. How do I know? He admitted it.

    Moore indicted himself when he acknowledged in a recent interview with Hannity, he could not categorically deny that he dated young women in their teens when he was in his 30s. When Hannity pressed him if he had ever dated 16-, 17- or 18-year-olds, he answered “not generally, no” and added that dating a girl in her late teens “would have been out of my customary behavior.” So it happened.

    He goes on to say, “I don’t remember dating any girl without the permission of her mother.” Think about this for a minute. (1) These women were so young, it required the permission of their mothers, (2) there was more than one and (3) Moore pursued girls whose mothers were so compromised, they allowed it, which suggests these girls were already being victimized . . . by their own mothers.

    Predators pick on the weak.

    I do not view this issue as one of “morality,” as it has less to do with the principles of right and wrong than it does with pathology. It’s a sickness. It suggests the man is not capable of respecting healthy boundaries. In my experience, people with unhealthy boundaries in one situation tend to have unhealthy boundaries in others.

    Pointing the finger at the Democrats is a poor attempt to get the spotlight off of Moore. I have no respect for people who engage in diversionary tactics and I am astounded they don’t think we see through it. If Moore doesn’t win, it won’t be because of the Democrats, who wouldn’t have voted for him anyway; it will be because Republicans, like me, will dismiss him as being unfit. Instead of salvaging the situation by making Moore agree to give up his seat if he wins, they are trying to get him into office, at whatever cost, so they can maintain control of the Senate. Years from now, they will see this backfire. They’ve just thrown whatever legitimacy we could have had with the left out the window. The left now KNOWS we only take the high ground when it serves us (we are exactly like them). And they are splitting the Conservative party in two because more than a few of us aren’t SO committed to the cause that we will excuse predatory behavior.

    Suggesting that an older man dating a teenager is the same sort of brutish behavior all women can expect from any man (in other words, “get over it”) or that we women are single-handedly responsible for this boorish behavior because we took over the workforce (what do you call us now, George: New Feminist Avengers? I see Misha is once again spewing the garbage you said you had banned) shows just how weak and pathetic your position is. You’re fooling nobody and like Moore, are indicting yourself. We are (I am) beginning to see you for who you really are. Not a white knight fighting for good, but more of an opportunist who will put a spin on just about anything for an audience. Seriously, shame on you George.

    And those of you who think a woman would not come forward 40 years later, you are mistaken. 48 years ago, a coach at my high school harassed my boyfriends, refusing to let them into our dances at school. He even told the football team that anyone who dated me would be off the team. One day, he followed me to the mall and asked me to get into his car. I made an excuse. I went home and told my mother. She did nothing. Last year, when I returned to Tucson, it occurred to me (now a grown woman) that I couldn’t have been the only one. So I asked the question on my high school website. 5 women came forward. These are women who just happened to see that website, that day, 48 years later. There is no telling how many there were over the course of his employment. They said the same, or worse, had happened to them. One was chase around a classroom. Another wouldn’t tell us her experiences because things didn’t end too well. We all thought (1) we were the only ones and (2) that we must have been doing something wrong or it wouldn’t have happened. So I called the police knowing there was little they could do, as this man is now dead. What they DID do, however, is contact the school to let them know that this happened to us, in our brand new school, on the east side, during the mid 60s, way back when there were no “Feminist Avengers” and we were all just innocent young women. That guy was the pillar of his church, too, and had daughters. So, yeah, it happens.

    Typical 14-year-old girl . . .

    • George Michalopulos says

      Gail, I wasn’t exonerating Moore in the least –at least if in actuality he molested a 14 year old girl. I’ve said that he should pull out if that was indeed the case. I also said that the case against him seemed particularly flimsy.

      I said that it was the 18 & 19 year olds he was dating that to me seemed not inappropriate.

      • George Michalopulos says

        P.S. For what it’s worth, I don’t consider you to be a New Feminist Avenger. I was thinking more of Chelsea Handler who now “believes Juanita Broaddrick” and Sen Gillebrand who now says that Bill Clinton should have resigned back in 98.

        I call them “New” because where were they ten, twenty years ago?

      • Gail Sheppard says

        Forget about the case(s). Consider what he said. If I asked you if you had dated teenagers when you were 32, would you have said “it was not customary” or would you have said “no?”

        He has trouble with boundaries whether or not he touched those young women.

        • George Michalopulos says

          I don’t dispute your point Gail. There’s a creepizoid factor here, I’ll grant you that.

          My only concern is: where will this all lead? Will there be false allegations? What do you think? That being said, so far, the list of predators is almost exclusively a Democratic one. All I did was point that out.

          I also pointed out that there’s a hidden agenda among some on the left to take out Franken, Hillary and Biden from consideration in 2020. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that).

          I believe that the allegations against Charlie Rose were brought forward to screw over Biden as Biden is accused of doing the same thing –skinny dipping in front of grown women–that Rose is accused of doing. It’s all rather tidy if you ask me. Weinstein’s behavior takes out Hillary, Spacey’s behavior with a 14 yr old boy takes out Moore and now Rose’s skinny dipping takes out Biden. It seems orchestrated.

        • Peter A. Papoutsis says

          The points raised by Gail and George are true, but again, we are missing the point. Like I said with Trump, I will say again with Moore. It is NOT about Moore! It is about the people of this Nation deciding who THEY want not who THE ELITE want.

          I am not here to exonerate Trump, Moore or whoever, but these are the candidates that we have that we the people can use and have used, a la Trump, to let the wealthy 1% of this country and the wealthy 1% of the world know that WE THE PEOPLE want to be in charge of our own destiny.

          Look at what we have as politiciansl, which I agree is bad, but where are all the good men and women who can and should serve our Republic? NOT IN POLITICS! So we do the best with what we got and what we got are these guys. Unfortunate to say, but that is the reality.

          Finally remember one thing and ONLY one thing in this context: Feudalism is the Rule not Republicanism. The American Republic was the great exception to this Rule and this is why we were great, and America was great because America was good (i.e. Christian).

          America lost her goodness. Can she get it back? That’s up to us and the Will of God. Pray for America, bring in the harvest, and stop getting lost in the weeds. Its about us not them.

          Thank you.


      • “I’ve said that he should pull out” – a rather unfortunate turn of phrase, George…

    • Estonian Slovak says

      Not sure about Moore. I share your outrage about Misha’s over the top statements about women. But then, Gail, why have you nothing to say when Mr. Millman comes on this blog, threatens me, Dr. Stankovich and others? And you join George and Dino, begging him not to leave? What gives?

      • Gail Sheppard says

        Because, Estonian Slovak, I am reading Peter’s heart. I’ve actually never read the threats. I suspect I just scrolled through them due to lack of interest. If he threatened you and Michael, I’m fairly sure it’s just his old man dying. He’s in transition.

        No, I don’t want Peter to leave because I think this is the only true dialog he’s likely to get. He may not always like it, but we’ve been good for him. YOU’VE been good for him, as has Michael. I suspect the things we’ve said will stay with him as he gnaws on it awhile.

        With respect to Dino, I don’t know what to say. I love him, too, of course (more maybe, but that’s a personal thing); however, I sense that there may be a good reason for him to take break. He is trying to keep himself in check which is good. We may be a distraction for him at this point.

        Misha is dangerous to himself. George assures me he has repented, but I don’t see it and because I truly love Misha, I feel the need to challenge his thinking at every juncture. Otherwise, why would I bother?

        I pay attention to different things, I guess.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Like everybody here, Gail, you’re a good person. I’m gonna miss Dino and Peter. As for Misha, I do believe that he has repented of his views on concubinage.

          As for myself, I replied to Brian re my own thoughts about the legacy of this blog. That being said, in the calculus of whether to stay or go, I’m going to take your insight regarding “the only true dialog” that Peter (and others) may have into consideration.

          As always, your thoughts on this matter, as well as everybody else’s are much appreciated.

          • Misha is willing to set the concubinage question aside indefinitely for the greater good until he can thoroughly review the writings of the Fathers on the particular question. His impressions from what he has read are, after all, not Holy Writ.

            So let us dispense with that.

            As to “jail bait”: The thing that is really getting lost in this discussion is the role of the girls. I remember having to walk into a middle school between class periods one day in order to retrieve some document from the office there I needed when I had my practice. I was dressed nicely in a suit and tie, shaven, slender, etc.

            I got cat calls from 14 year old girls in the hallway.

            That was 2006. It’s worse today. “Oops, I did it again.” educated class after class of pubescent teenage girls of the power they had if they wanted to exercise it.

            Let’s not be coy here.

            • Gail Sheppard says

              Misha, what do you think the chances are that those young girls who were making those catcalls were sexualized too early? I’m guessing the odds are great.

              • George Michalopulos says

                Bingo! Gail, as usual. I for one despise the hypersexualization of our entire consumerist society.

                There’s this commercial about some financial services company that uses 6 year olds and has them talk like aging boomers (like myself) about retirement. It’s on every YouTube I watch and I absolutely hate it.

                I cry a little inside. Why the heck can’t we just let children be innocent. I didn’t know how babies were made til I was 14 and no was no worse for the wear. I treasure my childhood memories and I can’t thank my parents enough for the Herculean efforts they enacted to make my childhood innocent and carefree.

                Forgive the ramble.

                • As serious as I can be, I have never heard anyone provide a rationale for late marriage in our society that actually holds water or makes sense from a Patristic standpoint. We do not believe that marriage should be based on something as fickle as infatuation, which arises and dissipates within about 18 months (Google phenylethylamine, PEA, the infatuation hormone that has inspired countless works of romantic art and countless dramatic adventures). We see marriage as permanent. There is no rational reason why a 17 year old guy and a 14 year old girl, both Orthodox, should not marry and begin forming a household other than conventional wisdom and certain legal restrictions in the West. Certainly there can be no objection from the standpoint of Tradition.

                  Now, they both might continue their educations allowing for the fact that the girl would have to put childbearing first as a priority and then see what educational opportunities were available in the locale where her husband could find work. No one is against the education of women. Christ made that clear. Furthermore, you would have little economies of scale arise around the educational facilities geared toward facilitating family life.

                  “Be fruitful and multiply.” That does not sound like a suggestion to me. More of an imperative. Especially given the demographics we face vis a vis the welfare state on the one hand and Islam on the other.

                  Prudishness no longer serves any purpose. The great lie of the 20th century is that we should try to control reproduction by means other than holy matrimony.

                  Really, there is one and only one problem that the West has, all others flow from it:

                  Females do not want to settle down and become mothers early enough, nor do males wish to marry the girls they date.

                  The missing link is commitment. And commitment requires faith.

        • Peter Ray Millman says

          Gail, thank you for your Christ like kindness to me and your clairvoyance. You have been a great help to me; I hope to become a saint in the making like you. You have really helped me, and I treasure your wisdom and counsel. You will always be in my prayers that God will continue to bless you and use you mightily as He has most assuredly done. Please pray for me a sinner. Out of all the people on this forum, you and George have been the kindest to me. That’s it; I’m done for good.

        • Estonian Slovak says

          Well, Gail, I don’t know that I’ve been good for anybody. I wasn’t man enough to be a good husband to my late wife nor a good father to my sons.
          What I DO know is that words mean something. I learned that as a 7 year old boy, back in the second grade, some 58 years ago. I quoted something from a Dr. Doolittle book to my classmate, he misunderstood and promptly punched me out.
          I also know a thing or two about narcissism. I’m recovering from that affliction myself and see now how adversely my behavior affected those around me. My late mother suffered from that affliction. It wasn’t until about a month before her death that she told me an uncle had abused her. So, I have zero tolerance for anyone destroying a child’s innocence.
          I’m going to go with Dr. Stankovich on this. Giving someone a pass online to vent his threats is doing him no service. I thought we all were required to own up to our words and deeds, before God and our fellow man. I’m certainly guilty of many wicked words and deeds. I’ve paid a price for them. I continue to pay a price for them. I pray for Peter, you, George, and everyone else here.

          • Gail Sheppard says

            You know that words mean something, Estonian Slovak. I don’t know that everybody does.

            When I was coming into the Church (it took a very long time), I remember being shocked by some of the things that were coming out of my mouth. It’s like the Church amped up everything, the good and the bad, and it was all spewing out of me. I try to remember that when I see other people in the throes of trying to figure out just what’s happening to them. No one who embarks on this journey comes out unscathed. Our Peter is very much like his predecessor which makes me smile. I can see them both cutting off an ear, can’t you? 🙂

            God’s not done with him yet.

            I so appreciate your prayers.

        • M. Stankovich says


          I too pay attention and react to different things, and to things differently.

          It had come to a point on the Child & Adolescent Psychiatry Unit at the Naval Medical Center that I just did not feel comfortable closing my office door when doing therapy sessions with young early-adolescent and adolescent girls because the intensity of their pain from sexual abuse was so intense. I am a big proponent of conjoint family therapy – involving parents and siblings as agents of comfort and healing – but the families can be so tenuous (e.g. 30-something parents in their 3rd marriage, with children ranging from toddlers to early adolescents – where military police literally barged into my session to arrest a father for molesting his now adopted 4-yr. old daughter…). And I would be sitting across from a an otherwise beautiful young girl in a hospital gown and robe who came in through the ER with an acetaminophen overdose, who reported feeling “nothing,” who stared at me empty. But if I could initiate the discussion, if I could convince and assure the atmosphere of safety and protection, the catastrophe would be nearly overwhelming. And it was nearly always a traumatic sexual violation of trust, and it is nearly always a traumatic violation of innocence; unpredicted, unexpected, and for so many, absolutely unbelievable and unimaginable. It happened so many times [which is why I keep referring to the research article from the University of New Hampshire: nearly 25% of all adolescent girls are sexually assaulted by age 17, yet thread after thread on this site lusts after pedophilic male bullshit], I went to the Captain, the Chief Psychiatrist of the Dept., and I asked for a couch in the office, because mothers needed something to sit on as they literally “scooped up” to hold their sobbing daughters for as long as it took. And I sat with them, fighting my urge to “do something,” because the urge to “wrap it up with a good cry” would impede the work of healing. I had to join a men’s therapy group on my own. For years I lived and worked with this, the only male, with some patients as young as five; in our evening adult out-patient groups, survivors of sexual abuse could be in their 70’s. Please, those of you mouth breathing examples of beta-male faggotry who believe that “radical feminism” and “matriarchy” is at the core of the destruction of our culture, explain to me how it is that, in 2017, in the United States of America, 25% of all adolescent females are sexually abused or assaulted by the age of 17 and ego-compromised men insist that women are the source of this “cosmic disruption.” We, men, will answer to God our Creator for this assumption of an entitlement never intended for us, and is bound up in our terror of the admission that we cannot love our wives “as Christ also loved the Church,” (Eph. 5:25) because of the extent of our own self-loathing. I leave it at that.

          All of this is to say I am acutely sensitive to those who have been abused, robbed of their innocence, intimidated, humiliated, scorned, made to feel worthless or hopeless, or simply “unworthy.” And I do not care who you are, what you are, or what the circumstance in your life or times happened to be – death, loss, disappointment, fear, anguish, or your own despair. Nothing, and I repeat, nothing justifies nor gives mitigation to acts of humiliation or vilification, which is the murder of hope; and some would say better that you outright take someones life than destroy their spirit of hope, their vigor, and their inspiration. When a man sets upon someone in such a way as to intentionally vilify and intimidate, he is a coward, not acting out of strength or “greatness of character.” And the depth of this cowardice cries out to heaven itself because its victims are always the weakest and incapable of defending themselves, and the angels weep because these victims remember such hurt for a lifetime. There is no defense, and there is no excuse for such behaviour. Ever. And it should never, ever be tolerable or tolerated, online or offline.

          • Michael Bauman says

            Michael S. Agree 100%. The Christian hierarchy requires men to give of ourselves as Christ gives of Himself. I failed at that miserably with my late wife. My living wife, the beloved of God Merry, makes it possible for me to be better still I fail. It is a horrible violation of the Christian revelation to call for dominance and control of women. That is not Christian headship.

            Both my late wife and Merry were abused as children. I suspect my late wife’s abuse included sexual abuse but Merry was sexually abused at age 9 by a school bus driver. He later escalated to rape and murder of another child because a crooked judge let him off for his month’s long assault on my wife.

            Merry has worked quite hard to recover and has triumphed by the grace of God. Still, effects linger. My late wife never did recover. Many strains on our marriage made worse by my own sins and stupidity of the type Misha recommends.

            We are all poisoned by the hypersexualization of our anti-culture. It really is as if a spirit of fornication is loose. It manages to hit whatever buttons we have. That includes the dominance buttons. That includes, IMO, whatever weaknesses and pathology is in our bodies.

            Both men and women are caught up in it. It does no good to say it is the fault of one sex over another. Yet, if we are to hold true to Christian principles we must say it is we men who must lead the battle to restore some semblance of purity, chastity and faithfulness. That includes not violating in any way women and children even in fantasy. That includes rejecting both the ravagings of predatory men and women plus not believing the salacious sladerings of vindictive women. But most importantly, we must clean out whatever perversity lurks in our own closets and the dark basement of our souls. All will be revealed.

            God forgive me a sinner.

          • Joseph Lipper says

            M. Stankovich,

            Good words, thanks for sharing.

          • Peter Ray Millman says

            I really have been trying to leave this forum and will do so after this last post.

            This is the most disgusting, filthy, vile, evil post I have ever read by anyone anywhere in my entire life. Michael Stankovich, cease and desist immediately or I will sue you in court.

            • George Michalopulos says

              To all: I beg you, please keep your criticisms non-personal. I don’t want to see any lawsuits arising because of this blog nor do I want to be a party to any lawsuit. That’s why all comments go into moderation in the first place.

              Please. I can be accused of many things, but moral cowardice isn’t one of them. Unlike Stan the Tran who really does spew vile hatred, I allow commentary. He does not (hence his cowardice).

              I believe in the First Amendment. I’m fanatical about it. It doesn’t hurt my feelings when a public figure is called a name, even if it’s vile and hateful (OK, as a Christian it does but you get the point, satire, yada, yada, yada). But nobody on this blog (myself included) is a public figure.

              No threats, no calumnies, no viciousness. Please.

              Peter, Dr S, as to why I’ve allowed this back-and-forth to go on between the two of you is because there were valid criticisms that you both made against each other and in the spirit of fairness, I’ve allowed the other to respond. That being said, I am asking both of you to repent of any personal animus which caused provocation on the other party’s part and to publicly apologize to each other right now. Please. Otherwise, I will remove those offending comments.

              • Michael Bauman says

                George, that is”free speech”. You need to take more control.

              • M. Stankovich says

                Mr. Michalopulos,

                You are absolutely mistaken in assuming I am motivated by “personal animus,” and I have neither felt nor thought anything of the sort. I have not, nor will I ever purposefully act in such a way as to make someone badly about themselves as a person; perhaps frankly examine their behaviour, but I do not demean nor vilify persons, and I certainly make no comment as to a person’s “mental health” or “personality” whom I have not examined personally or am not aware of a diagnosis or state that is a matter of public record. That will bring you to court.

                I am moved in my heart very deeply by Gail’s observation: “People fall in love with your writing until you turn your sword on them. But you just can’t help yourself in this regard.” I can help myself, even if my motivation and passion, at least in my own mind, is intended for good. It is a familiar, uncomfortable, embarrassing position to feel disappointment in the end result, and I ask forgiveness for offending.

                What I will not do, however, is repent of the words I have posted directly above – derived in sum from the writings and thoughts of our Blessed Father Climacus, John of the Ladder – or any similar words that speak to Truth. “Disgusting, filthy, vile, [and] evil?” You be the judge to their voracity and/or “offense,” Mr. Michalopulos, but I certainly will not be intimidated in retracting. You allowed my every post to be stalked with rude & offensive comments for weeks, and I literally ignored them, never responding once. I resent the implication that I “provoked” or deserved insults as “valid criticism in the spirit of fairness.”

                In the real world, a punkassed Crips gang member told another patient he was going to cut my throat on my birthday this year with a knife he would steal from our kitchen. I called the police, they took his ass to ground hard, hooked him up, found a kitchen knife on him, and I agreed to press charges. From the back of the car, he asked to speak to me, and he said, “I wouldn’t have hurt you, man, I was gonna hurt myself because I’m depressed.” I said, “Then you’ve learned an invaluable lesson in the power of words.” He went to jail. I did not have “personal animus” for this man, but neither did I wet my diaper, or were my hands shaking. “He who brings me justice draws near; who will stand against me?” (Isa. 50:8) Enough has been said.

                • George Michalopulos says

                  Still, please dial it back a notch. How you physically deal with a Crip is not the norm for how I ask all of us to deal with each other on this blog.

                  • George,

                    In my opinon, you reap what you sow. And what have you sown?

                    You continually talk about H Weinstein and show pictures of H Clinton embracing him well before any of the news on him was made public. Gutter trash when you know D Trump took pictures with the guy as well.

                    You allow Nevins to constantly berate Orthodoxy.
                    You allowed Millman to get a little abusive. If I recall, he ‘warned’ me over addressing him by his last name, but it is simply how I address men. I address women by their first names; generally.
                    You allow Pennington to justify his commentary about women on the basis of menstruation start dates and it gets printed?

                    If you enjoy gutter trash; how would you expect more?

                    The person that needs to dial things back is you. Free speech does not require allowing any of the things I highlighted for you. Reflect a bit my friend.


                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Anon, I allow a multitude of opinions on this site. All I ask is that the authors strive to be considerate.

                      As for Mr Nevins, I gave him some parameters on how to be more deliberate and to the point; he followed them. I’m not going to change the goalposts on him when he’s playing by the rules that I set.

                      As for Mr Pennington, I told him that chastity is the norm for the Church. Please read that again. And again if need be. (On the other hand, the liberals over The Wheel or Public Orthodoxy don’t believe it.) For him to make mention of the start of menarche is neither here nor there, it’s just an observable fact. As to the fact that the onset of a female’s first sexual experience being timed to its [menarche] onset is noncontroversial. It is the subject of innumerable monographs in The New England Journal of Medicine, The Journal of the American Medical Association and various other journals associated with evolutionary psychology. I’m not going to apologize for scientific observations, neither should Misha nor should you.

                  • M. Stankovich says

                    Mr. Michalopulos,

                    In my more cynical moments, I have always imagined that you use the First Amendment to justify your “allowing” these back-and-forths purely for their entertainment value – like a Roman emperor with the lion show. Whatever…

                    You will recall, Mr. Michalopulos, that at the height of that initial epic hounding regarding my “credentials,” I sent you a copy of my CA Dept. of Corrections ID – the one where an applicant is scrutinized backwards, forwards, & sideways as to background, education, employers, even your neighbors – by the FBI, Homeland Security, US & CA Depts. of Justice (Madonna Mia!), and very clearly on that ID it says, “MD, MSW.” And I said to you, “just so someone has proof.” And when, in the 4th recent go-round – with the appearance of the moderately ostensible addition of “Son, you need to retire,” – you again had the opportunity to quash this foolishness (and I owe Monk James a debt of gratitude for his effort), silence, even allowing a disparaging comment immediately following yours. It went on for days when you could have ended that contentiousness with very little intervention into the process of the “First Amendment.” Again, you are telling me to “dial back,” when I did not respond once to comments that I am mentally ill, have a personality disorder, am a heretic, an “operative” for for homosexuality, and a cause for the death of the Church. Not once. If I read you correctly, you indicate these to be “valid criticisms.” So be it.

                    You seem to have missed my point regarding the Crip who threatened me and how I chose to manage the situation. My point was very simple: I chose to hold him accountable for his actions. That’s it. Now, we obviously choose to interpret the First Amendment differently: never on my former site would you have read a poster say to an Orthodox priest, “I am going to hunt you down and find you,” leaving the rest of your visitors to wonder if this was “rhetorical license,” a joke of sorts, only several posts later to discover it was dead serious. It never would have seen the light of day, and the offending poster never would have returned. That’s referred to as the Hamlet interpretation: “Out of my stars it cannot be. It hath made me mad.” Beside the fact that the behaviour is despicable, it is disrespectful to the majority, disrespectful to your OG’s (old-time ganstas), and eventually drives them away. But that’s me.

                    As I have said many times, Mr. Michalopulos, I am always grateful for your providing this forum, appreciate your loyalty to your commitment, and comfortable in sharing my opinion(s) with you directly. You are in my prayers that our God will direct you, and I hope my words are received in the same spirit in which they are offered.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Dr S, in deference to your credentials (which you kindly provided me), I’ve always called you “Dr S” and defended such verbiage.

                      As for the Crip who attacked you, you handled it correctly. While I don’t doubt that it was possible that he was acting out in order to get help, I’m a big believer in shooting (metaphorically) first and asking questions later when it comes to self-defense. You acted rightly and are alive today because you did so.

                    • Peter A. Papoutsis says


                      If you do not stop your wicked ways I will punish you by taking you to another White Sox game.

                      You have been warned.


                  • Straight Outta Compline

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      Mr. Michalopulos,

                      The title is a hardly worth the effort to mention, in all honesty. Billy Jack Sunday, brilliant, by any standard.

                    • Peter A. Papoutsis says

                      For Michael Stankovich:

                      Hi Michael,

                      Just came across a Mr. Warren Throckmorton. He is an Evangelical who also does not believe in Reparative Gay Therapy (But Once Did), but he seems to have gone over into full blown acceptance of the Gay lifestyle. Do you have any thoughts on him? If not that’s cool. Just wanted to know.

                      Take care.


                • Michael S.,

                  I believe you when you write…

                  I am moved in my heart very deeply by Gail’s observation: “People fall in love with your writing until you turn your sword on them. But you just can’t help yourself in this regard.” I can help myself, even if my motivation and passion, at least in my own mind, is intended for good. It is a familiar, uncomfortable, embarrassing position to feel disappointment in the end result, and I ask forgiveness for offending.

                  Nevertheless, when I read some of your posts I am reminded of the proverb.

                  There is one who speaks like the piercings of a sword,
                  But the tongue of the wise promotes health.

                  Truth is a sword that cuts deep into the heart, but it is only by the virtue of gentleness that it passes easily through defensive armor and finds resonance there. Please don’t allow the content and motivation behind your posts to be wasted by wielding this sword in a way that provokes readers to raise shields of iron in defense.

                • Michael S.,

                  Forgive me. I need to add that it is not my intent to single you out as ‘the culprit. Nor do I think threats (or “warnings” if some prefer) are acceptable. It is the fact that the content your contributions is otherwise of so much value that motivates my comment.

            • Michael Bauman says

              Peter, stop!.

            • Joseph Lipper says

              Peter Ray Millman,

              Please, M. Stankovich is not making any personal references in his post. I didn’t read that his post was about you at all. Not one bit. Please tell us what you find so offensive about his post.

            • “Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!”

              -Epistle to the Church at Corinth

              I strongly suspect that if these two brothers in Christ actually knew one another in the entirety of their respective lives rather than by the few words exchanged here they would share not only respect, but affinity as well.

      • Estonian Slovak, For the record, I never begged Peter Millman not to leave. But, I did ask M. Stankovich not to leave a couple weeks ago. I on the other hand am gone. This will be my last post on Monomakhos. Also for the record. There is not one person here with whom I would not break bread with and have a beer or glass of wine, we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. I truly enjoyed my time here, but it’s time to go. Please remember that no matter how fierce the debate becomes you are Christians first and foremost. God bless all. Until we meet again, I leave you with and pray….Matthew 22:37-40

        • George Michalopulos says

          Dino, someday, I’m gonna take you up on that –breaking bread and hoisting a drink or two.

      • Peter Ray Millman says

        Estonian Slovak,
        Exaggerate much? You were never threatened; you were warned. Big difference. I sensed a lot of hate and hostility coming from you, and I warned you to back off. Nothing wrong with that. Michael was never threatened. He slandered me with his bogus claims of having made a racist remark. Instead of apologizing like any decent person would and should have done, he doubled down on his comments. I graciously offered him an olive branch which he refused. Michael has nothing to complain about and should stop acting like a drama queen. His attempts at damage control are both silly and contemptible. He was exposed and he didn’t like it. He is the only poster on this forum who was given a cease and desist order on another orthodox website by a holy priest. Remember, people who dwell in glass houses should not throw stones. I believe that Michael is a deeply disturbed, mentally ill individual. I say good riddance to bad rubbish. Glad I won’t have to put up with his churlish nonsense any more.

        Specifically, I was apologizing to George and “very worried” for my silly, childish, inappropriate, churlish, immature, reprehensible comments in response to “very worried.” Those were the only two people I was apologizing to; basically, I felt silly and was temporarily not demonstrated the love of Christ and was becoming a stumbling block. My advice to you and anyone else is to just let it go- and let me depart in peace.

    • Moore was also banned from the city’s shopping mall, due to complaints about him bothering young girls. To put a man who has been banned from a shopping center in the Senate is very troubling, to say the least.l

  5. Gail Sheppard says

    Michael, I greatly admire passion in men, especially when they’re defending the Church. You have never failed me on that front.

    Your delivery can be rough, though. “Mouthbreather?” Really? 🙂

    People fall in love with your writing until you turn your sword on them. But you just can’t help yourself in this regard. Like the Prophet Elias, you have to tell the truth and I admire that.

    Finally, I know what a lot of people don’t know about you, i.e. that you are a very kind man. You care deeply about people. I’ve counted on this in the past and, again, you haven’t failed me.

    I hope one day Peter and Dino, et al., will come back to this site when they’ve sufficiently recovered from the trauma of being in our midst. I believe they will. We all do.

    I suspect God loves you very much, Michael.

    • Michael Bauman says

      Gail, I too know Michael S as a kind and generous man. Despite our many public jousts. Knowing him has helped make me a better Christian.

      Michael, a blessed Thanksgiving to you and your family and a productive Nativity Fast.

      It is unlikely that I will ever share with you the splendor of the Pacific sunset nor have the opportunity to introduce you to the peaceful expanse of the ocean of grass in the Flint Hills of Kansas as the sun glistens over the undulating valleys. Still, it would be a great joy to do either.

  6. The site fell into the gutter.

    How many times does Weinstein get an article? Just because there is a pre-shoe drop picture of him and HC; it gets reprinted here? News flash; there was a pre-shoe drop picture of Trump and Weinstein as well. Add a little Misha boasting about 14 year old girls catcalling, and some moral equivalency with Franken clowning and Moore dating PURE 14 year old women and hmmm. Then truth reared up its ugly head and Millman got called on the carpet for his ‘warnings’ that were slightly less than threats. (I was warned, but he’s got 3000 facebook friends, so he must be great.)

    GM’s crusade to fight moral depravity hit a road block when he started boasting about Trump (‘grab em by the ya ya) and finding humor in the sicko Weinstein hugging HC while falling for Pizzagate, but staying on the fringes of I don’t know on Roy, banned from the mall, Moore.

    Reality check.

    The inconsistent application of moral standards is its own immorality.

    Stankovich has given you lots of good advice Michalopulos, why don’t you start taking it once in awhile. Millman didn’t like my use of the last name if I recall which is what I was warned about unless I have forgotten. But I got three last names in one paragraph and most anyone should know who I am by it.

    For starters, you can stop Nevins from condemning the churches philosophy. Unless he has cogent commentary, I see no reason for you allowing him to post. Then when Pennington mentions little girls catcalling him; you can nix that. (think about it man) And if Millman warns someone for using his last name versus his first, how about it? Juicy s.i.? Or posts unworthy?

    Lord knows you screened a few of my comments that were actually pretty hardnosed rebukes of clerics usually.

    Take it up a notch.

  7. Michael Bauman says

    My rules for engagement on the internet learned by violating every one of them:
    1. Do not react. 2. If personally attacked assume the attacker is correct and repent. 3. Give thanks to God in humility for what is said in response. 4. Pray for the salvation of the other person’s soul.