Gays of Rage and Other Deep Thoughts

George Takei -- Hollywood Intellectual


George Takei — Hollywood Intellectual

In my earlier post on the recent Obergefel ruling, I went out on a limb and made a dire prediction. Namely that rather than being gratified by the hallucinatory redefinition of marriage by the Supreme Court, the Brownshirted vanguard of Gay, Inc. would not be mollified. I said this because my gut instinct is that the consciences of people in general cannot be salved after a sexual sin has occurred –irregardless of what that sin is.

My specific charge was that sins involving homoerotic acts are even more debilitating to the conscience. Hence the need to go on rampages. As long as there was one benighted rube out there who thinks differently, then the work of the Social Justice Warrior is never done. The Crusade must continue until everyone exhibits nothing but adulation with this decision.

Recent events are proving my assertion correct.

Case in point: George Takei, an aging actor whose only claim to fame was playing Lt Isoruku Zulu on the old Star Trek series, recently lashed out in a most petulant fashion against Justice Clarence Thomas. Takei used racial slurs against Thomas and received little to no opprobrium for it (see: The Federalist). The silence from the hyper-aggrieved black agitators who are wont to jump on any perceived slight against black folks was deafening. As to why he didn’t go after Justices Alito, Roberts or Scalia who are exemplars of White Christian OppressorsTM is beyond me.

In another unfortunate outburst, another gay Social Justice Warrior screamed hysterically at Gov Greg Abbott of Texas as they were both about to board an airplane. Abbott, who is paralyzed from the waist down was most likely terrified at the vehemence of that outburst. No doubt, being a paralytic, he was at a loss as to how to defend himself should it be necessary.

In yet another instance, Brendan Eich (who lost his job at Mozilla) was ridiculed by the sensitive soul who brought the original charges against him. In an email exchange, Eich was asked how he has spent the last year, to which he replied “still unemployed.” His nemesis, rather than sympathizing with his plight continued to turn the knife in his back, triumphantly declaring that he was now happily “married” to a person of the same sex.

So much for live and let live.

Clearly, the tide has turned against us. And it is not just gays who rage against the heterosexist patriarchy but Right-thinking heterosexuals as well. This brings us to the curious case of Miss Shannon Deep, “an essayist, dramaturg [sic] and play-write.”

Deep, a former Orthodox Christian, has taken it upon herself to pronounce judgment on Bishop Thomas Joseph of the Antiochian Diocese of Charleston.Her diatribe is entitled “You Don’t Own Marrige,” and was published in (where else?) The Huffington Post. You should read it in its entirety.

Where to begin? How about here: Bishop Thomas is not some obscurantist monastic or time-serving mediocrity who was thrust into the Episcopate because there was nobody else available. Nor is he unaware of the world and its challenges. He’s a well-regarded author of several books and monographs, including a book on human stem-cell research and embryology. I’m sure in a head-to-head debate with Deep he’d knock down her arguments in no time flat.

In reality though, her arguments don’t stand because of another reason, mainly because Deep is a self-proclaimed apostate. You might as well have Richard Dawkins write a treatise on Arianism. It may be well-written, it may very well be entertaining and who knows? one might even learn a thing or two, but at the end of the day, you know it’s nothing but a meaningless circle-jerk. You’d be better off learning Klingon and attending poetry readings at the next StarCon.

This can’t be said often enough: what gives her the right to condemn the teachings of a Church which she is not a part of is beyond me. Therefore, everything that proceeds from that point on is null and void. Her arguments merit no response.

She could, if she were so inclined, go join one of the many Episcopalian churches in The Big Apple, where gay “marriage” is a done deal. In the past, I’ve pleaded with the gay rights activists in the Orthodox Church to do the same. Why not? What’s holding them back? Because this was never about “diversity” and “tolerance” in the first place. They won’t be happy until the last Orthodox church either performs gay weddings or is closed down.

But that’s not all that’s going on here. Deep, is showing her bona fides to her peers. What better way than by taking cheap shots at a man who probably doesn’t even know her. It’s two-fer actually: see, I’m not like those backward Jesus-Christers back in Appalachia. I’ve “evolved.”

She may get an off-off-Broadway production of some miserable play she’s written because of her epistle. She may even get that part in The Vagina Monologues or appear on Chelsea Lately. Who gives a rip? Most ordinary people don’t but The Theatre is her bread-and-butter.

Like most Social Justice Warriors, she is a bully and a coward. She condemns from a safe distance, knowing full well that His Grace can’t —and more importantly, won’t–harm her in any way. We Christians are like that. (And don’t give me any shopworn arguments about the Crusades or the Inquisition.)

This is nothing more than cheap courage.

If she were truly brave, if she were truly concerned about “gay rights,” she’d pick out an Imam and address her vitriol to him. I hear tell that they don’t cotton to light-loafers in Araby –something about throwing them off of roofs or stoning them to death. My guess is that Deep will exercise prudence in this regard and pass on my advice.

She could also point her finger at the ultra-orthodox Jews in Jerusalem who stabbed nine marchers at the Jerusalem Gay Pride parade nearly to death just the other day. I have a feeling that that particular incident will be overlooked as well. She is in The Theatre after all, and you-know-who are very prominent in show business.

It’s just little ole’ us that’s gonna get the brunt of it. And it’s only going to get worse. The Great Falling Away is underway. In the meantime, give His Grace a call, drop him a line if you’re so inclined, keep him, and all Orthodox bishops in your prayers, especially those who have shown the courage to stand in the breach and proclaim the Gospel.

And Shannon, you’re right on one point: Bishop Thomas doesn’t “own marriage.” But neither does the Supreme Court. Christ does. Bishop Thomas is merely the Custodian of Christ’s teachings. You may not like it, but that’s the way it is. And no amount of hysteria is going to change that.

Comments

  1. Robert Ainsworth (Athanasius) says

    Excellent post. And 100% true.

    More than a decade ago I was asked why I opposed same-sex “marriage”. After all,” these people only want tolerance”. My reply was that marriage simply cannot take place between two humans of the same gender, and that the gay lobby doesn’t seek tolerance – they demand our approval.

  2. Patrick Henry Reardon says

    From my perspective the chief merit of Bishop THOMAS’s pastoral letter is its wider audience and more penetrating interest. Bishop THOMAS showed himself to be, not just a bishop speaking to the Church, but also a prophet speaking to the world.

    Most Orthodox response to the decision of the Supreme Court—ROCOR’s is the major and obvious exception—consists in declarations that we-Orthodox-will-never-do-this.

    So what? Everybody already knows the Orthodox won’t do this.

    Bishop THOMAS went much further and actually said what needs to be said: Namely, this decision of the Supreme Court is an insult to the Creator and an affront to the structure of Creation. Nobody should do this.

    This more radical aspect of Bishop THOMAS’s statement is what most offended Miss Deep: He dared to go outside the Church and speak to the world with the authority of God’s voice. This is the kind of response we need more of.

  3. Christopher (the first) says

    (And don’t give me any shopworn arguments about the Crusades or the Inquisition.)

    Ah shucks. What is a modernist to do if he can’t regurgitate the core myths of his religion?

    I tell you, if you start to edit such golden nugets from this blog these folks will not be nearly as boring to wade through as they are presently – I mean, they might actually have to say something interesting…

  4. Daniel E Fall says

    Poserville all the way. You nailed it George. I won’t waste my time on the article.

    Now if you could see it the other way cuz it is sort of an epidemic on the right.

  5. GOAPriest says

    Lt Isoruku Zulu? Huh? Its Hiakru Sulu…

  6. Thomas Barker says

    She could, if she were so inclined, go join one of the many Episcopalian churches in The Big Apple, where gay “marriage” is a done deal.

    As a rule of thumb, you know you’re in a gay Episcopalian church when only half of the men are kneeling.

    • Priest Raphael says

      Men? Are there still men in in the Episcopalian Church? Other then gay men, that is….

      • Christopher (the first) says

        A few.

        Our small Orthodox mission parish rents the rarely used (by them) 100 year old chapel of a local Episcopalian Church. The priest is a Traditional Christian, who refuses to perform “gay marriages” for example. Of course, he is a dying breed and will not be tolerated for too much longer, but he exists. May God bless him and his!!

      • Thomas Barker says

        There is no doubt that some should be charged with male fraud. But people are in the Episcopal Church for a variety of reasons. And all joking aside, I hope that many find their way to the Orthodox Church.

      • Patrick Henry Reardon says

        Respectfully, Father Raphael, your purity of heart is showing.

        For that reason I won’t encourage you to think more closely on what Thomas Barker was trying to say.

        • Thomas Barker says

          Father Pat,

          I thought I would get booed off the blog for that one. When I was in the Episcopal Church, there was a great emphasis on humor. I’ve wondered many a time if that was peculiar to my community, or typical throughout the denomination.

    • Not bad, but I think you’re mistaken by half. The term “gay Episcopal church” is simply redundant.

  7. Mark E. Fisus says

    Clearly Miss Deepsh-t was not properly educated. The Orthodox condemnation of homosexual marriage doesn’t come just from Leviticus, but Church tradition and witness too. It’s like she’s projecting the Protestant bible-thumping mentality onto the Church.

    • Tim R. Mortiss says

      I doubt it can be called Protestant “bible-thumping mentality” to cite to Jesus’ own words on marriage in Matthew’s Gospel, or St. Paul’s words on the subject of same-sex relations at several places in his epistles.

      The “Levitical” thing has become a touchstone for people like this lady; quotations from the New Testament are a very good response.

    • Patrick Henry Reardon says

      The Orthodox condemnation of homosexual marriage doesn’t come just from Leviticus, but Church tradition and witness too.

      And simple biology.

      • George Osborne says

        Even simple homoerotic lust is condemned by the Fathers. Just read St. Basil the Great’s “On Renunciation,” for example. All – meaning without exception – of the reliable monastic fathers warned novice monks and even experienced older monks from even creating close friendships and to avoid casual contact as the plague. So, someone may say “This is clearly for monks; not for the rest of us.” Oh, really, then read St. Gregory Palamas’ Triads and especially his work on the defense of the Hesychast Fathers. The spirit of monasticism in our Church is the simple Apostolic life to which all of us are called to live. Monks just chose to live it without the distractions of relationships and possessions. But we are all called to live it as best we can regardless of our situation, married or single, rich or poor, powerful or humble.

        Clearly, the witness of Orthodoxy – without exception – is that homoeroticism and lust is sinful. Why? Because if we are truly Orthodox in our thinking and experience, we must defer to the Fathers as reliable interpreters of our Faith. And they unanimously declare it to be so. Why? Because our fundamental confession in such matters is that when one’s nous is purified and enters into the heart, it is illumined by the Holy Spirit and deified. When and only when this happens can one truly theologize as did the Fathers. If we reject this fundamental point and witness, we may be many things, but we are not Orthodox. Patinated protestants, maybe. But not Orthodox.

        Ok, and by the way, a short rant if you will. Please, if you are not a bishop, please stop ranting about Canons this and Canons that. No one below the rank of bishop is qualified to make an interpretation because such opinions simply have no actual merit. Sharing your private opinion in a public forum on such lofty issues is spiritually dangerous as it leads inevitably to prelest, vain-glory and pride. You might even be right. But it’s not the “job” you were called for. There are servants who take instruction and masters who give it. For what it’s worth, please just stop.

        That’s all!

        • M. Stankovich says

          Mr. Osborne,

          I would suggest to you that “homoerotic lust” – being foreign and contrary to our created nature “as it was in the beginning” – and a consequence of our fallen humanity and this broken world, is hardly “simple.” Nevertheless, St. John Climacus has proposed an entire “ladder” of reasons to avoid close friendships and to avoid casual contact (e.g. gossip, the spirit of judgment, jealousy, etc.) that bear no relationship to “homoerotic lust” whatsoever. As to which “spirit” we are all called to live, the monastic or the Apostolic, you may enjoy Fr. Florovsky’s, “Antinomies of Christian History: Empire and Desert,” in Christianity and Culture from his Collected Works, Vol. II.

          Finally, I would argue that most references to the Canons of the Church are ignorantly done so in the spirit of the US Federal Sentencing Guidelines, rather than – as Fr. John Meyendorff has noted in Byzantine Theology – an appreciation for a need for “parameters,” yet a clear understanding there would be no “legislation in the Kingdom which is to come.” Likewise, many of the finest commentaries regarding the Canons, the “spirit of the Canons,” and the “economy of the Canons” were written by other than bishops. And this being the case, if your concern in sharing “private opinion in a public forum on such lofty issues is spiritually dangerous as it leads inevitably to prelest, vain-glory and pride,” then the Triads of St. Gregory Palamas make the Canons pale by comparison. But then again, what topic on this forum, ultimately, does not have the capability to lead to “prelest, vain-glory and pride?”

        • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

          This quote from a Holy Father and other Patristic and other ecclesiastical and even BIBLICAL injunction would seem to indicate that men, if left to their own devices, would NATURALLY be drawn toward such stimulation!!!
          I had a Professor ay Wayne who, like many social scientists and anthropologists, considered that all men and women are born NATURALLY omni-sexual—-susceptible to getting sexually aroused by ANYTHING: Bedclothes, trees, nursing and rutting animals and so on and that it was only such cultural factors as religion that labored mightily and mostly successfully to harness and channel these NATURAL impulses into selected and “traditional” channels.
          I think it would be more intelligent to inveigh against UNHOLY practices rather than use the most problematic (even if comforting) “unnatural.”

          • Gail Sheppard says

            RE; “This quote from a Holy Father and other Patristic and other ecclesiastical and even BIBLICAL injunction would seem to indicate that men, if left to their own devices, would NATURALLY be drawn toward such stimulation!!!”

            Well, Your Grace, this argument became less compelling when God made woman. It was not God’s intention to leave men to their own devices. . . in many, many ways.

            • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

              Oh, I was referring to behavior AFTER God derived woman from man and, of course, after the fall. I didn’t make any statements or arguments, as you imply, BEFORE the fall. Thanks for telling us the limits of God’s intentions!

          • lexcaritas says

            Your Wayne State professor spoke nonsense. He has told us more about himself than men human beings in general–or he is very deluded.

            His testimony is not something I have witnessed in myself or generally among friends and acquaintances over six decades, in multiple states and several foreign countries..

            lxc

            • M. Stankovich says

              Or he he had studied Freud. Not to belabour the point, but you will recall that Jeffrey Dahmer made a childhood association between killing a small animal and sexual stimulation. This is not at all uncommon among psychopathic individuals. Paraphilic associations are as bizarre as Vladyka describes, and worse. Welcome to the world of forensic psychiatry.

              • lexcaritas says

                I don’t give two hoots about Freud. Tell me what kind of life he lived; tell as about his sanctity, his goodness. Chesterton was on the mark when he laid blame for the state we’re in–and he saw in before 1920–to our willingness to follow Darwin, Marx and Freud–instead of Christ.

                The Wayne State professor and many social scientists and anthropologists, were said to consider that “all men and women are born NATURALLY omni-sexual—-susceptible to getting sexually aroused by ANYTHING: Bedclothes, trees, nursing and rutting animals and so on”. The use of the adjective “all” makes the statement categorically false on its face. Beyond that, it does not apply to anyone I know and few whom I have known over six decades. If it applies to any, they are the minority and suffer from psychological disorders. A focus on disorder is not the way to treat the generally healthy among whom most of us spend our time. The model is not Jeffrey Dahmer, but Christ and we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He is. May He be the focus of our attention and of our talk.

                Christ in our midst.

                • M. Stankovich says

                  lexcaritas, are you (and the 5 jackasses who “disliked” the post) serious? Do you see anywhere in my response a call to abandon our Lord and unite yourself unto Freud? You took it upon yourself to “suck the breasts of kings” (Isa. 60:16), as it were, and dismiss Vladyka’s comment as “nonsense” and “delusion,” simply because it rested outside the general experience of you and the people you happen to know. Sadly, it does not happen to fall outside my experience. And had you politely inquired before shooting yourself in the foot, I would have told you that I don’t give one hoot about about Freud (whatever it is you mean by “hoot”), but neither is it my place to judge him. And for the record, in setting Valdyka to scorn, you set the focus by insisting the disorder is an impossibility. I merely corrected you by making its context the minority. I believe this is referred to in the Psalms as, “He dug a pit to trap others, and fell in himself.” (Ps. 7:15)

        • “Ok, and by the way, a short rant if you will. Please, if you are not a bishop, please stop ranting about Canons this and Canons that. No one below the rank of bishop is qualified to make an interpretation because such opinions simply have no actual merit. ”

          Well, there are canon lawyers who work with the canons all the time- they are neither bishop nor priest. . . . . Of course people can discuss the canons, that’s how the laity grows..

          • Tim R. Mortiss says

            Besides, George has a blog to run here; everything is grist for the mill!

          • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

            Well, Colette, it’s nonsense to say discussing the canons makes ANYBODY grow!!

          • George Osborne says

            Sorry, Colette, I absolutely disagree with your statement. Of course trained canon lawyers can discuss the content of canons as they are trained ecclesiastical attorneys. But they are not authorized to pronounce on them as to meaning and especially application. For example, the canons of St. John the Faster ameliorate some harsher earlier canons…but no one abrogated the earlier canons. So, what value is it for a layman or even a canon lawyer to discuss a canon when its actual application is left up to an individual bishop or more properly a synod of bishops? We converts seem to think that the canons are some sort of magic spell book that can be pulled up and quoted randomly to prove a point while even the most distinguished commentators such as Zoharis and Balsamon disagreed on certain points. So, who makes the decision on what particular canon applies? Who decides when you have conflicting canons which one is applicable? Who decides to apply rigor or leniency? Why your bishop, of course. So why pull up and throw around citations when they are essentially meaningless until interpreted properly and applied? See, canon law is like Scripture. It is a part of our Tradition. Just as we believe only the Fathers are reliable interpreters of Scripture, so also the canons which are an integral part of that Tradition. Your comment and the fact that it was so well “liked” simply indicates to me that there are a whole lot of folks haunting this blog that don’t understand what the canons are, how they are applied and that their personal, private interpretation is meaningless because that person cannot APPLY the canon. Therefore it becomes personal opinion as I have opined before, just as we abhor private interpretation of Scripture in favor of the apostolic mind of the Church, likewise the canons.

            I know you probably will disagree but I hope your reason for disagreeing is less visceral and more “reasoned.”

            And, God forbid anyone seeks to to “grow” into a bishop! I had a good friend (a senior archimandrite) once tell me he’d rather be in hell with a broken back than be a bishop! The only way for a layman to grow is to study the Fathers and try to absorb what crumbs fall on the floor in these sad days. As St. Ignaty Brianchaninov said in “The Arena” – even back in his day – the era of startsy was coming to an end and that henceforth the Holy Spirit would speak to most men in the study of the Fathers. I think he was right. Thank God not all startsy are gone, but they are like lamps under baskets and equally hard to find—discounting of course those that want to be found! But say what you will, the Fathers are our only reliable guide.

            • Tim R. Mortiss says

              For what it’s worth (little enough, I reckon), I read Scripture much more than I read canons. “Much more” would be putting it mildly…..

  8. Texan Orthodox says

    George,

    Great post. But reference your 1st paragraph — come on, “irregardless” isn’t a word. Unless you’re in Raleigh, N.C., and you eat at the “Irregardless Café.” Been there. Good food.

  9. As I have contended previously, “nothing new here.” Same old, same old. Perfectly matches the witness of the Old and New Testament narrative and the narrative of world history in general. What did we expect them to do? They are, at least and sadly, being consistent.

    Jesus’ exhortations do not presuppose a level playing field. They do not presuppose a reasonable adversary. They do not presuppose fair and equitable behavior. The Sermon on the Mount, just to take one example of Our Lord’s teaching, simply offers what we are to do regardless of what the adversary does.

    Sometimes the environment in which we live and work and minister will be favorable and sometimes it will not. Our behavior manifests the very life of the Lord by grace and is, therefore, to be the same, today, yesterday, and tomorrow. Circumstances and the adversary do not define our behavior even though they do constitute the environment in which our behavior occurs. They do not define of our behavior. Our behavior is defined by the Lord and proceeds from the Lord as a synergistic manifestation of grace.

    I must not allow the adversary to convince me to relate to them they way they are relating to me. I will not be defined in any way by their tactics.

    “Save O Lord, them that hate and wrong us, and make temptation for us, and let them not perish because of us, sinners, but teach them righteousness in the way You can.”

  10. “And simple biology.”

    Well, yes, but I wouldn’t use that argument with secular people. Because then you’ll have to be prepared to define what exactly is “biological”? They may argue that promiscuity is “natural” or “biological” because you have urges that gives you desires to cheat on your spouse.

    Unless you’re a biologist or psychiatrist/psychologist with the appropriate credentials, I’ll stay away from using biology to support your arguments.

    • Patrick Henry Reardon says

      Unless you’re a biologist or psychiatrist/psychologist with the appropriate credentials, I’ll stay away from using biology to support your arguments.

      Oh, knock it off. God save us all from these stupid “credentials”!

      Anybody with half a brain can spot the biological structure of sex.

  11. Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

    It’s time someone stands up or marches against the heterosexual ASSAULT on Christian and “Natural” marriage called DIVORCE ! As many as 50% of American marriages are destroyed by heterosexual DIVORCE, and the TRADITIONAL marriage of One man and ONE woman is being daily destroyed and OFTEN this destruction of traditional Marriage is pandered to by Orthodox clergy who READILY bless these destructive divorces because this or that traditional marriage of one man and one woman “WAS A MISTAKE!!!!!!!!!!.”
    Let’s March Against OppositeSex Divorce–the Destroyer of traditional marriages everywhere!!

    • Gail Sheppard says

      Yeah, I’m kind of with you on this, Your Grace.

    • Nicholas Chiazza says

      Thank you, Vladyka. I fervently believe that marriage is not to be taken lightly. If two people cannot see beyond the fairy tale picture, and realize that marriage carries challenges and problems as well as blessings, or have the gumption to deal with them, they are better off single.

  12. cynthia curran says

    Well, believe it or not Donald Trump anti-free trade which is similar to Bernie Sanders lead me back to the right somewhat. Both have the position that people should be guarantee a factory job which is not conservative. Sorry, to all those Trump fans but Trump is doing a double standard since there are a lot of foreign companies in the US for example the foreign car companies. I reason i turn against the right is last year I needed helped with medical insurance and governor Brewer did the extension of medicaid access and almost all the Republicans were opposed.

  13. Michael Kinsey says

    Gay marriage is vapid, not Holy. For me it seems like a craving for a cardboard and sand sandwich which has no appeal whatsoever to my taste buds. We were all hardwired by the Holy God with the same type of taste-bud. Sexual appetites are no different, you have to learn to like it. I never went to that school, no one should send their children to that school either. Ask the street vendors if anyone is selling sand and cardboard sandwiches.At least the demonic hasn’t assaulted our taste buds,except for cigarettes.

    • Nicholas Chiazza says

      “Gay marriage is vapid, not holy.” Cardboard sandwiches? Such nasty similes, Michael. On what are you basing this? Do you know any married gay people? Or any gay people period? Oh well, go ahead and rant and suck your sour grapes about gay marriage. Your hot air will dissipate very quickly in a court room, if you can’t support your views. No doubt my comment will earn me “dislikes” from the peanut gallery, which I will treasure. Don’t ever think think your political views are part of Orthodox Christianity. That is a very dangerous road to take.

  14. “Unless you’re a biologist or psychiatrist/psychologist with the appropriate credentials, I’ll stay away from using biology to support your arguments.

    Oh, knock it off. God save us all from these stupid “credentials”!

    Anybody with half a brain can spot the biological structure of sex.”

    What a glaring example of a response to a post that was not read very carefully!