Just Sayin’

It’s been rather comical watching the Ruling Class have a collective nervous breakdown over The Donald’s recent recommendations regarding the banning of all Moslems from entering the country. It’s especially delicious to see the Republicans trip up all over themselves trying to be the first to condemn their front-runner.

To take collective action against an entire group of people can’t be done. It’s unconstitutional we are told.

Except that it has. And when a Democrat does it, it’s not unconstitutional.

Let us take a trip down Memory Lane, when another president did exactly that. (No, I’m not talking about FDR and his internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.)

Source: The American Presidency Project

Sanctions Against Iran Remarks Announcing U.S. Actions.
April 7, 1980

Jimmy CarterEver since Iranian terrorists imprisoned American Embassy personnel in Tehran early in November, these 50 men and women—their safety, their health, and their future—have been our central concern. We’ve made every effort to obtain their release on honorable, peaceful, and humanitarian terms, but the Iranians have refused to release them or even to improve the inhumane conditions under which these Americans are being held captive.

The events of the last few days have revealed a new and significant dimension in this matter. The militants controlling the Embassy have stated they are willing to turn the hostages over to the Government of Iran, but the Government has refused to take custody of the American hostages. This lays bare the full responsibility of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Revolutionary Council for the continued illegal and outrageous holding of the innocent hostages. The Iranian Government can no longer escape full responsibility by hiding behind the militants at the Embassy.

It must be made clear that the failure to release the hostages will involve increasingly heavy costs to Iran and to its interests. I have today ordered the following steps.

First, the United States of America is breaking diplomatic relations with the Government of Iran. The Secretary of State has informed the Government of Iran that its Embassy and consulates in the United States are to be closed immediately. All Iranian diplomatic and consular officials have been declared persona non grata and must leave this country by midnight tomorrow.

Second, the Secretary of the Treasury will put into effect official sanctions prohibiting exports from the United States to Iran, in accordance with the sanctions approved by 10 members of the United Nations Security Council on January 13 in the resolution which was vetoed by the Soviet Union. Although shipment of food and medicine were not included in the U.N. Security Council vote, it is expected that exports even of these items to Iran will be minimal or nonexistent.

Third, the Secretary of Treasury will make a formal inventory of the assets of the Iranian Government, which were frozen by my previous order, and also will make a census or an inventory of the outstanding claims of American citizens and corporations against the Government of Iran. This accounting of claims will aid in designing a program against Iran for the hostages, for the hostage families, and other U.S. claimants. We are now preparing legislation, which will be introduced in the Congress, to facilitate processing and paying of these claims.

Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.

In order to minimize injury to the hostages, the United States has acted at all times with exceptional patience and restraint in this crisis. We have supported Secretary-General Waldheim’s activities under the U.N. Security Council mandate to work for a peaceful solution. We will continue to consult with our allies and other friendly governments on the steps we are now taking and on additional measures which may be required.

I am committed to resolving this crisis. I am committed to the safe return of the American hostages and to the preservation of our national honor. The hostages and their families, indeed all of us in America, have lived with the reality and the anguish of their captivity for 5 months. The steps I have ordered today are those that are necessary now. Other action may become necessary if these steps do not produce the prompt release of the hostages.
Thank you very much.

Note: The President spoke at 3:10 p.m. to reporters assembled in the Briefing Room at the White House.


  1. Mark E. Fisus says

    Carter banned people from a country, not from a specific religion.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Yes, and it was a generalized ban at that.

      You are all missing the point: what Trump did was raise the stakes of the debate so that now even his critics admit that the President has plenary powers to restrict immigration based on a whole variety of criteria.

      If he had said “we should only restrict all Syrians” people would have condemned him nonetheless. Now even his critics assume that restrictions are valid –something they wouldn’t have done before.

      It’s a brilliant negotiating tactic. And it’s working.

      • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

        George, you should read what you wrote:

        “he Donald’s recent recommendations regarding the banning of all Moslems from entering the country”


        • George Michalopulos says

          Well, Japan and Israel ban ALL Moslems from emigrating. Just sayin’.

          • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

            “From EMIGRATING? They insist on KEEPING THEM?
            Neither Japan nor Israel claims to be a Christian nation, as so many native jingoists like to claim about America!

            • George Michalopulos says

              Just because a nation is Christian doesn’t mean that it can’t have an immigration policy. Anymore than it can’t have a court system (“judge not lest ye be judged”) or a defense ministry (“he who lives by the sword dies by the sword”).


            • cynthia curran says

              Bishop Tikon I agree wit you.. Isreal is next door to lots of Moslem countries and some of them have express its annihilation of Isreal.. I don’t understand George’s support for a mean sprit person like Trump. If he wanted a person on the right, Ted Cruz is a lot more conservative than Donald Trump. Trump is only conservative on immigration. At one time Trump proposed to seize 14 percent of the assets of wealthy persons which sounds like something Bernie Sanders would do.

              • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                cynthia The failed Iranian politician Ahmadi-nejad did indeed express his hope that Israel would be wiped off the map. As you and I know, the USSR was wiped off all maps in the last century. Wiping anything off any map does not mean annihilating it!

          • From “emigrating”?

            Japan and Israel ban just about everybody from *immigrating* but it has nothing to do with Muslims in particular. At least they’re consistent.

            • George Michalopulos says

              That’s not true. Anybody who is not a Moslem can apply for residency to either Japan or Israel. Granted, it is difficult –exceedingly difficult–to go through the process, but there is no blanket bar against any group of people –except Moslems.

              Let us relish the hypocrisy of this regarding the case of Israel: an Arab man who is descended from generations of Palestinian inhabitants, and who is an actual citizen of Israel, with full voting rights, served in the IDF, and even can stand for the Knesset, can NOT bring his Moslem wife (from say, Jordan) to live in Israel or even the Occupied Territories.

              And Bibi Netanyahu condemns Trump for his blanket, temporary ban on Moslem immigration? Can you say chutzpah?

              • Japan has no religious restrictions for residency or citizenship. There is no Japanese ban on Muslims or Islam. You never fail to fail to do your homework.

                Israel is, of course, a very special snowflake (and, of course, if you travel to Israel and also elsewhere in the middle-East, it’s really best to have two passports, and *not* just for the Israelis).

                • http://www.snopes.com/muslims-in-japan/

                  I guess it’s just “Another Narrative Fail” by George.

                  • George Michalopulos says
                    • Amusingly, Mr. Michalopulos own link proves his assertions wrong. He doesn’t even read his hastily googled attempts at refutation!

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      And yet, the reality on the ground is that (and I’m gonna type real slow here): no Moslem is allowed to immigrate to Japan.

                      Tell you what, let’s use the same verbiage the Japanese (and Israelis) do while abiding by the actual facts on the ground. I’d be ok with that.

                    • LOL. You make it too easy.

                      Even these people, whoever they are, say that: “Officially, immigration to Japan is not closed to Muslims. But the number of the immigration permits given to the applicants from Islamic countries is very low.”

                      You said:
                      “Anybody who is not a Moslem can apply for residency to either Japan or Israel. Granted, it is difficult –exceedingly difficult–to go through the process, but there is no blanket bar against any group of people –except Moslems.”

                      George, just admit your original statement was in error.

              • “apply for residency” – or citizenship? Which form of migration are you talking about? Those are two different things.

            • Mark E. Fisus says

              Japan and Israel ban just about everybody from *immigrating*

              They don’t discriminate. They just hate everyone.

              • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                Japan has barely enough arable land to feed its population. That is why even Eastern Orthodox Japanese cremate the dead (the ashes are brought to Church for 40 days),
                Contrast them with Texas!

  2. Prediction: After the next extremist attack–a school, a theater, a shopping mall–Donald Trump is going to look like Albert Einstein. He can see today what you’ll see tomorrow; in two months, you’re going to hold the exact same opinion.

    Trump realizes that we are at war; he’s prescient. A temporary halt in Muslim immigration to get our bearings is urgently needed. Anything else is suicide. More and more, Trump is reminding me of Winston Churchill.

    • O yeah:
      8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens

      (3) Security and related grounds
      (A) In general Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in—
      (i) any activity (I) to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or (II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,
      (ii) any other unlawful activity, or
      (iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means,

      is inadmissible.

      (B) Terrorist activities
      (i) In general Any alien who—
      (I) has engaged in a terrorist activity;
      (II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));
      (III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;
      (IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of—
      (aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
      (bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;
      (V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
      (VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
      (VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
      (VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
      (IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,

       is inadmissible.

    • “a school, a theater, a shopping mall”

      I think white Americans born right here in this country have attacked all of these places by now, but nobody in their right minds would say we’re at war with whiteness.

    • Terry Myles says

      Winston Churchill?!?! Seriously, Winston Churchill!!!!

  3. Not the same thing at all. Invalidating “all visas issued to Iranian citizens” is different than doing so for all Muslims. States and religions are different things. And Trump didn’t clarify his remarks regarding Americans who also happen to be Muslim until the next day, which would have put him in the equally shameful position as FDR relative to his treatment of American citizens of Japanese descent. However, it’s easier to determine national origin than religious affiliation, and freedom of religion is enshrined in the First Amendment whereas national origin lacks such protection.

    I know thoughtful, comprehensive writing is typically eschewed here, but a more appropriate, pertinent piece for you to have posted is Peter J. Spiro’s Op-Ed, “Trump’s Plan Is Awful. And Constitutional.” in the New York Times: http://nyti.ms/1lur0XU.

  4. Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

    George, you messed up and got it all wrong! NO ONE is objecting to banning ANY group as such. That big draft-dodging SISSY,, Donald Trump, wants to ban those who are faithful to a specific RELIGION., We object, or should object, to banning any group ON THE BASIS OF THEIR RELIGION! THAT is what is UNPRECEDENTED and anti=American about that draft-dodging SISSY’s outburst!
    That draft-dodging Sissy, Donnie Trump, IS NOT AN ORACLE!

    That draft-dodging Sissy, Donnie Trump, has attacked one of our Four Freedoms.
    That was even too much for the Republican SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE! Are you more politicall discerning than Mr Ryan?

    • I must disagree, your Grace.

      The time has come to eschew self destructive political correctness that would welcome in those who seek our destruction and use logic and common sense to help insure that doesn’t happen.

      What Mohammad’s hordes couldn’t do through strength of arms (Lepanto, Malta, Vienna) they are now doing by exploiting our suicidal “tolerance” and immigration policy.

      Enough already.

      • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

        “Steven!” Should we blow up the Statue of Liberty or just scrape off her words? Does she realize she’s foisting a suicidal policy on us?

        • Your Grace-

          Well she is a statue so I don’t think she realizes her error 🙂

          Personally I don’t subscribe to many of the Enlightenment and Masonic principles that our country was founded upon or which the Statue of Liberty represents so that point is rather moot as far as I am concerned.

          The fact is that no nation is obligated to undermine her own safety by allowing those who wish us harm to freely enter. And I don’t believe for one second that we will be able to screen them all out.

        • Thomas Barker says

          The Statue of Liberty is one of the largest idols ever constructed. It represents the pagan goddess Libertas of the Romans. And we know what the gods of the pagans are.

    • ReaderEmanuel says

      Your Grace, you are making the same error that so many of the people in this country and elsewhere are making. Islam is not simply a religion. It’s also a socio-economic way of life, just like socialism, communism, capitalism, or any other kind of “ism”. And that way of life is completely incompatible with ours. We have many laws that go against what Islam teaches. They have Sharia, which would be abhorrent to the average westerner. Trump does not wish to ban them because of their religion per se, he wants to ban them because of their social ideology.

      • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

        :ReaderEmanuel”! You said, ” Islam is not simply a religion. ” You are confusing “religion” with “belief system”
        Religion is not simple at all.

        You said, “We have many laws that go against what Islam teaches.” Name acouple of those laws of ours that go against what Islam teaches.

        You said “They have Sharia, which would be abhorrent to the average westerner.” Most Muslims in the world do NOT have shariah. Only those Bush Buddies, the Saudis!

        Why didn’t Donny Trump explain his reason for wanting to ban Muslims to somebody besides you? And WHY is he more worthy than Muslims to be an American?

  5. Monk James says

    This essay’s comparison of Donald Trump’s suggestion that the US reject the visa applications of all Muslims with the US’s rejection of irani visa applications in1980 puts the two in false apposition.

    And this apposition is just as false when Trump invokes the US’s anti-Axis movements during WW2.

    The cognitive dissonance here is the result of identifying state-issued credentials with religious affiliations, or apples with oranges, as they say.

    On the other hand, were Trump to suggest that the US reject the visa applications of citizens of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, we would at least then have an exact parallel.

    It’s far from clear that such a shift in american foreign policy would deflect terrorists, nor would a wholesale blockage of syrian refugees.

    Sending in the infantry or the air force will inevitably result in an unthinkable number of non-combatant casualties, so that’s not a good option.

    What might be of help, though, is for the US to partner with Russia and our european allies to send in ‘surgical strike’ teams (‘Black Ops’, ‘Special Ops’) to make Syria (e.g.) a safer place by neutralizing/removing the antagonists of the troubles there, whether motivated by fanatic and false religions or otherwise. Perhaps then there won’t be so many desperate refugees.

    NOTE: I am NOT advocating murder. That’s what the bad guys do, and we Christians must strive to avoid taking human life.

    • Trump has spoken repeatedly about creating safe zones in Syria so that we don’t have refugees.

      I think that’s a good idea. Once these Christian cities are abandoned, they will never be Christian again.

  6. U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part II › § 1182
    “Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President”
    “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

  7. Sanctions against a foreign country and barring immigration by race are completely unrelated.

    • Is Islam now a race? O good.

      • Of course, Islam is not a race. It’s adherents, in fact, pride themselves on being non racist and color blind. I was referring to George’s original comment. At the time I wrote the one liner, it appeared as if lmine was the first comment. George stated:

        If he had said “we should only restrict all Syrians” people would have condemned him nonetheless. Now even his critics assume that restrictions are valid –something they wouldn’t have done before.

    • Islam is not a race.

  8. I hear many pundits state Trump’s proposal is unconstitutional. They are absolutely wrong, as non-citizens have no constitutional rights. America can close the borders to all immigrants today and nothing in the Constitution would be violated. Also, how many are really going to not vote for Trump due to this proposal? The Muslims and PC liberals who wouldn’t vote for him anyway. The average American is not going to be heartbroken if another Muslim is never again allowed in this country.

  9. You might want to be real careful here George, Remember these evangelical zionists that you so adore appear unable to separate middle eastern Christians with real complaints over Israeli policy from Muslims they label terrorists. I know the xenophobia warms your little heart, but it might come back to smack middle Eastern Orthodox as well.

  10. U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part II › § 1182
    “Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President”
    Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

  11. Michael Warren says

    A nation which cannot secure its borders which encourages hostile immigration for political ends will end up dissolving itself. Most Syrian refugees are people fleeing war and terror enabled by electric Uncle Sam. Others, however, are the terror implements of police state ambitions and policy by false flag and funded and trained and armed by Emperor Obama for political ends. Since the conversation has been intentionally sabotaged by American liberals for authoritarian ends which represent a direct threat to the American people, a policy restricting settlement of these refugees coupled with a new, political dialogue in America is the only safe course to follow from this point.

  12. Trump/Wall 2016 says

    Christians and Moslems are prohibited from permanently settling in Israel due to their racist laws. Furthermore, Israeli law bars all Moslems from Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip from entering Israel, even if they are married to Israeli citizens.

  13. Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

    Well, that draft-dodging sissy, Donnie Trump, with his anti-Christian exhortation to ban all Muslims from immigrating, has done it again—-but his basest of all bases will still sing his praises.and put jesuitry and casuistry in the shade, by claiming his willingness to speak unspeakable nonsense is NOBLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD!
    People compare his blowhardiness to that of Mussolini! It’s unfair to Mussolini who served his own country in uniform at least and didn’t brag about his cunning. Even Hitler served!
    The Republicans are scraping the bottom of the barrel with their many,many hopefuls. Perhaps history,once again repeating itself will have the ignorant find their refuge in a half-baked, draft-dodging sissy demagogue!

    • Daniel E Fall says

      You are on fire Bishop Tikhon!

      Thanks for the truth and the laugh.

    • Fitz: Speaking of demagogues, your protege Obama served in the military when?

      • Daniel E Fall says

        There is a vast difference between not volunteering and five deferrments. Right or wrong, at least slick willy’s deferrments were for vocal opposition.

        There are a host of more respectable candidates on the other side. And if they weren’t so busy pandering to the base by slamming Obama, maybe they might come off as cogent.

        (I like Christie and Rubio, but Rubio’s response to the Oval Office speech of late was poorly done)

        • DF:

          Right or wrong, at least slick willy’s deferrments were for vocal opposition.

          When did ANYONE’S “vocal opposition” to ANYTHING earn that person a draft deferment???????

          • Daniel E Fall says

            Correction noted.

            Slick Willy’s deferments were for education. However, he was VERY vocally opposed and discussed his objections in a paper. I made a mistake reflecting on his opposition as reasons. I voted for Slick Willy, but was disappointed in him for the Lewinsky matter.


      • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

        “Fr Blues,” I’m not the one who spoke of anyone, such as Donny Trump, as a “demagogue” YOU ARE!
        If I HAD to, I’d prefer to categorize him as a kind of generic blowhard. President Obama was not a sissy draft-dodger.

        • Fitz; Quit while you can. YOU DID write the following quotation while referring to Trump as a draft-dodging sissy:

          “The Republicans are scraping the bottom of the barrel with their many,many hopefuls. Perhaps history,once again repeating itself will have the ignorant find their refuge in a half-baked, draft-dodging sissy demagogue!”

          It appears to me your dementia is in full swing. You are however correct regarding Obummer’s not being a draft dodger. I never said he was. The draft ended in 1973 and he would have only been 12 years old at the time. He is something far worse; he is a radical Marxist with an Islamic mindset hell bent on destroying the greatest nation the world has ever known.

          By the way, you really seem to have an unhealthy obsession with Texas and its conservative political climate . The transparent hatred your have for the state is apparent to anyone who reads your vicious comments on this blog.

          • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

            Fr. Blurs, don’t be silly! Anyone who thinks President Obama is a radical Marxist could probably not define Marxism at all, and if he SAID it….more to be pitied than blamed.
            I do think Donny Trump is a draft-dodging sissy, and I know what draft-dodging is, while everybody knows what a sissy is.
            As for Texas: I’m not obsessed with it: it’s just the only state that is always huffing and puffing in the headlines, like its politicians. I’ would LOVE not having to deal with it any more than with South Dakota or Vermont!. I used to love attending St Seraphim in Dallas from 1961-65. I also had a close friend in the service with me from Houston.
            If something is transparent, it’s apparent. Not a discovery of note…
            I apologize for denying I identified Donny Trump as a demagogue! I did that, and I still do! In the meantime he cattily claimed that Mrs. Clinton got :shlonged!” What an example of Great America!

  14. Michael Kinsey says

    You all don’t seem to get it, yet. There are no good guys. Satan’s kingdom is always divided against itself, and the US and NATO are certainly part of it. The 10 kings of the Antichrist hate the great whore and make her desolate and burn her with fire. The great whore and the 10 kings of the Antichrist are all part of Satan’s kingdom. Nationalism, serves only itself, and it lives in each nation, ignoring the Word of God, building the beast in competition with the other nations. The 10 kings are horns, religions. Taoism, Hinduism, Judaism, Confucianism,Buddhism, 5 fallen, One is, Authentic Christianity,. The 1 to come Pseudo Christianity)is broken up into 4 parts, fallen Christianity, Orthodoxy, mostly by warfare, from the 1st and 2nd horsemen, Islam, Communism, Catholicism, obvious, Protestantism, having a righteousness of a sort, and the New Age Movement.
    These unite under the false prophet, the Pope in Ecumenism. The great i whore is the godless secular humanism which leads to occultism, which is unending conflict with any religious values. These are the king of the South and the King of the North who contend in the end of the world. The fallen religious will destroy the secular humanism ( and occultism) of the mark of the beast. But Antichrist will be destroyed by the Stone not made with human hands, The Royal Law ,which forces the sower to reap what he sowed, destroying death by death..
    The brilliance of the Holy Scripture is beyond human conception, no man is this perfectly truthful, having no variation. The Ancient of Days will come, and the Kingdom will be given to the Saints.. End of Story, but the beginning of Life Eternal in God’s Holy Restoration of His Fallen Creation. Nothing, absolutely nothing can stop this Holy Restoration.

    • You are completely right, but the Church has never held that nation-states are irrelevant. They have a duty to their citizens to protect and serve. They do not have a duty to import every potential ne’er-do-well from across the globe.

      • George Michalopulos says

        Touche! In Deuteronomy we are told that “the nations are the adornment of creation” and that every nation has an angel assigned to it. Until the Kingdom which is to come finally arrives, nations are the God-sanctioned order for mankind.

        • It only begs the question of what “nations” means. Certainly a nation in the time in which Deuteronomy was written was vastly different from the nation-states that arose over the last two centuries. Even “France” as a “nation” in fact as well as name is something that came into existence only between 1870 and 1914 (read Eugen Weber’s book Peasants to Frenchmen).

        • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

          “Why do the nations rage?”

          I liked the bit about each nation having an angel assigned to it that George unearthed from the Torah! The Jews’ association with Zoroastrians was not a complete bust, then!

          We should have realized that during the War! We could have prayed that the Angels of Germany, Japan, and Italy would come to our aid. Which Angel was assigned to Maoist China?

          What happened to the Angel of Sparta? Of the Etruscans? Of the Incas? of the Aztecs? Of the Neanderthalers? Of the Mongol Horde?

          • Thomas Barker says

            Your Grace,

            Was there not a powerful evil spirit (“the prince of the kingdom”) assigned to Persia, as described by the angel who visited the Prophet Daniel? The angel Michael joined in the struggle against the dark angel of Persia. From the Book of Daniel, Chapter 10:

            12 Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words.

            13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

            14 Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days.

            • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

              According to the Holy Glorious Prophet Isaiah, The King of Persia, Cyrus (Persian: Kurush: Greeks can’t say ‘SHibboleth) is God’s ANOINTED. God was called “Lord of Light” by the Persians “Ahura Mazda”, He was, indeed, oposed by the evil Ahriman—no doubt Daniel’s “evil spirit. The Jews did, apparently, get (or refine their concept of) angels and Satan from the Persians.

          • The angel of the Republic of Texas has clearly been disproving the theology that angels aren’t subject to carnal temptations by going on the longest cocaine bender in history.

    • Jim of Olym says

      Now I know why the Apocalypse of St. John is not read liturgically! Thank you, Mr. Kinsey

      • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

        It was the very last book to be accepted, albeit reluctantly, as canonical in the East. with the limitation of not being read in Church. The Roman Church accepted iinto their canon of Scripture much earlier.
        The Epistle of James was the last book to be accepted by the Roman Church, albeit reluctantly. It had been accepted in the East much earlier. One might almost call it a compromise :swap!”
        Modern Greeks and Americans got very interested in Revelations–some now even PREACH sermons based on it!!!!!!!

        • Boris Jojic says

          Didn’t Luther want to remove the Epistle of St.James from the Canon of Scripture? He couldn’t quite suceed,but moved it to the back of the New Testament where hr hoped few would read it !

          • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

            Right, Boris! Dr Luther called it the Epistle of STRAW!

          • Boris Jojic is almost right, but might better study some more. May the Lord bless him to do that.

            Luther had nothing to do with the sequence of the books of the New Testament as we now have it, orthodox and otherwise.

      • Peter A. Papoutsis says


        The Apocalypse of St. John may not be read liturgically, but much of the symbolism in Orthodox Temples come from the Apocalypse of St. John. Further, a number of Church Fathers, like St. Andrew of Ceasarea, have published whole commentaries on it. In fact a very good Orthodox Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John can be found here:

        The Apocalypse of St. John

        Take care,


        • Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster says

          I share your deep respect, Peter, for the Apocalypse of St. John, a biblical text often studiously avoided in Orthodox communities perhaps owing to its invisibility in our lectionary.

          Earlier this year at St. Herman of Alaska Orthodox Church (ROCOR) in Stafford, VA, I finally concluded a parish adult Bible study of the last book of the New Testament, which spanned 63 Wednesday evening class sessions! We obviously took our time and studied the text carefully, with attention to historic misinterpretations, appropriate applications to current events and ecclesial trends, personal anecdotes, and other worthwhile excursi. We also used, as a very readable but historically and hermeneutically rich secondary text, Fr. Lawrence Farley’s The Apocalypse of St. John in Ancient Faith Publishing’s “Orhodoxy Bible Study Companion Series.”

          The one constant theme in the Apocalypse (or Book of Revelation) is perseverance. That is a spiritual counsel pertinent to all circumstances and eras and one that we faithful Christians ought to heed, in particular, in the dark days ahead in this country.

          • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

            Fr Webster:
            “the Apocalypse of St. John, a biblical text often studiously avoided in Orthodox communities perhaps owing to its invisibility in our lectionary.”

            Seems to me the Church Fathers mostly gave that book a pass as well. Or is there a commentary on the book by a Church Father that Fr Webster recommends?

            • Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster says

              More Latin Church Fathers than Greek provided commentaries extant today.

              Perhaps the best of the former was the Venerable Bede’s in the 8th century; English translations are readily available in paperback. Full commentaries in Greek by Oecumenios of Constantinople and Andrew of Caesarea in the 6th century are also available in English translation, most recently in a single volume in the excellent Ancient Christian Texts series translated by William C. Weinrich, edited by Thomas C. Oden (a distinguished Methodist scholar who respects the patristic heritage), and published in 2011 by InterVarsity Press.

              A modern Orthodox commentary by Archbishop Averky of Holy Trinity Seminary (Jordanville) was published in English in 1987, but that slim volume relies heavily on Andrew of Caesarea.

              • Peter A. Papoutsis says

                That is correct. To add Prof. Jeannie Constantinou also recently provided an English translation of St. Andrew of Ceasarea’s commentary currently available on Amazon and Barnes & Noble.


              • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                Thanks! I’m sure various Greek speaking PEOPLE have commented on Revelations And Venerable Bede was an excellent historian. Are the Greek commentators cited considered to be Church Fathers in the Orthodox Church?

              • M. Stankovich says

                You beat me to the punch, Fr. Alexander, in noting Vladyka Averky’s commentary. While it indeed is a “slim” volume, it is a powerful overview for and guide for those undertaking an initial reading the Apocalypse of St. John, written by a father of our generation.

          • Peter A. Papoutsis says

            Amen, and Amen. Thank you Father. May you have a blessed up coming feast of the Nativity. Please keep me and my family in your prayers.


    • Michael Kinsey says

      Forgot Islam, demonic from the start. That makes 10 kings

      • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

        Islam is not demonic.
        Rather, as St John of Damascus tells us, it is a heresy.
        Islam worships our God, but we believe and reach that Islam and its teachings about God are mistaken.
        The Church of Russia carries on a continuing dialogue with the higher clergy of Islam in the Islamic Republic of Iran, I don’t think even Mr Kinsey would accuse the Russian Church of holding friendly dialogues with the demonic!!!
        The Russian clergy meet annually with those Muslim clergy for many years, Of course their dialogue with the Islamic clergy of the various nations in the Russian Federation is of much longer standing.Thanks to ISLAM and Muslim shariah-observant Islamic governments, the monastery of St Catherine on Mt Sinai exists for centuries upon centuries; moreover, since that monastery was protected from Iconoclastic Constantinople, the holy icons there and elsewhere in the Muslim Middle East, made not with egg tempera, but through the original medium of wax-caustic, survive as well. Without such Islamic protection and shelter such treasures would have bee lost forever!

  15. Peter A. Papoutsis says

    Vatican issues new directive for Jewish-Christian Dialogue.

    I love this quote:

    “In concrete terms this means that the Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews. While there is a principled rejection of an institutional Jewish mission, Christians are nonetheless called to bear witness to their faith in Jesus Christ also to Jews, although they should do so in a humble and sensitive manner, acknowledging that Jews are bearers of God’s Word, and particularly in view of the great tragedy of the Shoah.”

    So no mission to the Jews, the Jews do not need the Gospel, and the Epistle to the Hebrews didn’t mean what it meant.

    Welcome to Babylon!

    • Peter, it is better not to rely on synopses or statements by liberal Jesuits. Furthermore, your own short-hand is goes too far. The document doesn’t say “no mission” to the Jews. It says no “institutional” mission to them. It doesn’t say they don’t “need” the Gospel or Christ. It may say that to the Hebrews doesn’t mean exclusively or exactly what we are used to thinking it does.

      I need to read the document more carefully and in toto but I think it says that Catholics should witness to their faith but not undertake “organized efforts” to convert Jews.

      Charitably, we could say this is in part a recognition of the grace that flows unmerited from being descended from faithful Abraham and from being custodians of the Torah entrusted to them by Christ through Moses. I see there is a companion statement recently issued by certain Orthodox Rabbis acknowledging that Christianity as part of God’s plan to save the human race. May that perception on their part grow and transform their thinking more and more . . .

      One could see the document as a recognition that one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar. In my experience of (dare I say it) many decades, it is hard to deny the Church as a whole, laity and many clergy alike, have a thin understanding of the Torah and little appreciation for Judaism–which they find it impossible to view or hear in a friendly light. In many cases, our perception rises to out-right animosity, rationalized by a stereo-typical, flattened misreading of the Gospel accounts and an ignorance of (i.e. little first-hand experience with) both the Torah and the early Mishna and midrashim the discursive approach to learning and argument favored for millenia by Jewish educational institutions.

      This is not to say that Jewish people do not need Christ–as do all men–nor that they do not suffer from their inability to believe in the Incarnate God and the Holy Trinity. But the question for the Church is whether God is calling us to a new and more effective way to present Him Who is the Way, the Truth and the Life to them in a way that they can see and know Him, and whereby the veil will at last be lifted, as St. Paul says, from their heart. So that all Israel may be saved.

      Another question, which is like it is: What can we, as Christians–yes, Orthodox Christians–learn from them and their preservation of the Torah, which few of us hardly know with any degree of intimacy because we are convinced that it has been effectively abrogated and render null and void, even though our Lord told us he came not to destroy the Law or the Prophets but to fulfill them, that not one jot or tittle would be lost, and that He is the telos of the Law (not so much its temporal end as its spiritual objective). Could what they know help us in any way come closer to achieving that objective? Can we help them achieve the goal by the witness of our own Faith in Him.


      • Peter A. Papoutsis says

        Actually I have read the new Vatican document and have prepared a formal response to this utter heresy. Once I polish it up and have it reviewed I will offer it to George for publication I’d he so chooses. Suffice it to say that I was being very charitable to the Vatican’s new heretical document. I suggest you read it yourself as I did and if you are not horrified I would greatly suggest you re-examine the New Testament.

        • George Michalopulos says

          I look forward to publishing it.

          • Peter A. Papoutsis says

            Funny how the Fed is wanting to raise Interest rates now at the end of President Obama’s term in office?

            Fed to raise Interest rates.



            • Daniel E Fall says

              Low oil prices can drive inflation. Not to mention the fear of rising interest rates is a subjective, but effective economic stimulus.

              When interest rates are low; they can only stay flat or rise. If they were ten percent; there might be three directions. Classicly, the Fed is very conservative.

              Interest rates were horrible during the Carter term.

              There is no conspiracy.

              • Tim R. Mortiss says

                Interest rates have been ridiculously low for years. When we bought the house we still live in in 1979, the mortgage was 10 percent….

                Zero interest is great for people with no money.

              • Peter A. Papoutsis says

                I respectfully disagree. Also, and this coming from someone who was raised and education from oil and gas funds as my father, and later me, had to deal with various middle-men Petroleum companies when we ran our gas station. The rising of oil prices have less to do with supply and demand and more to do with how much profit an oil company wants to make in any given quarter.


              • DF:

                Low oil prices can drive inflation.

                Huh? Lower prices ARE DE-flation.

                • Daniel E Fall says

                  The relationship between lower oil and lower inflation or deflation has really never been shown. The relationship between rising oil is more certain, but cheap gas can heat the economy. Judging by the numbers of cars on the roads, the economy is at a good clip.

                  In more general terms, the worst rates I rrcall were under the one term Carter. Some conspiracy.

                  • DF:

                    The relationship between lower oil and lower inflation or deflation has really never been shown.


  16. Peter A. Papoutsis says

    Here is a quick synopsis of the Here…er…mystery of Jewish salvation without Jesus Christ:

    Vatican Issues new directive towards the Jews.


    • Both Judaism and Islam pretty much reject the Gospels of Mathew Mark Luke and John, the overwhelming content of them anyway if not actually everything altogether. While the “Issa” that the Moslems refer to may pertain to the Historical Jesus he is a complete fiction apart from the Gospels. They have their “Issa” in judgement times wielding a cross as a weapon against christians and in judgment against them, something really crazy like that in their eschatology. Judaism still maintains that someone rolled back the rock covering Jesus’s tomb and escaped with His body, “so that the last heresy may be greater than the first” if I have that worded correctly, should be pretty close.

      Judaism and Islam actually are somewhat similar religions themselves, both being “monotheistic” having no “Trinitarian” conception at any level. When the Catholics already about a thousand years ago decided to also make their doctrine teach that the Holy Spirit “proceeds” from the Son as well as from the Father then they did create a kind of miss-mash of the Holy Trinity, confusing what were the very well Church defined Three Persons of the Holy Trinity. Roman Catholicism way back then had already theologically brought itself closer to the monotheism of Judaism and Islam. Of course St. Photius was the Saint who definitively explained the heresy of the ‘filioue.’ So really, particularly post Vatican ll not much surprise Roman Catholicism, Judaism and Islam are finding so much in common.

      • Tim R. Mortiss says

        Hard to prove, that last paragraph. But who needs proof?

        • Well common, prove what, “last paragraph,(?)” which part? On a blog such as this kind where folks go back and forth 30-40 times on a single item who is “proving” what to whom? It’s a blog, not a technical handbook. Usually, people will put forth certain things known to be generally factually true, of course ‘maybe,’ and then draw something from that.

          Ok, from OrthodoxWiki maybe this can help:

          “Objections on doctrinal grounds
          It is contrary to Scripture, particularly in John 15:26: “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.” Thus, Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit’s procession in terms of the Father.
          The justifications for including the filioque in the Creed—bolstering the divinity of the Son and emphasizing the unity of the Trinity—are redundant, given the original wording of the Creed. That is, the Son already is described as “light of light, very God of very God,” and so forth. The Spirit also “with the Father and Son together is worshiped and glorified.” Additionally, the Creed itself begins with a statement of belief in “one God.”
          The filioque distorts Orthodox Triadology by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. Traditional Triadology consists in the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit’s procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed.
          Given the previous objection, the repercussions to the acceptance of the filioque into church life are potentially massive. Because how we relate to God is significantly affected by what we believe about him, false beliefs lead to damaging spirituality. One objection often raised about Filioquist theology is that it undermines the role of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Thus, with his role being denigrated, his traditional ministries are effaced or replaced. The Church’s unity becomes dependent on an office, spirituality becomes adherence to the letter of the law rather than its spirit, sacraments come to be understood in terms of validity, and a spirit of legalism prevails.
          Objections on canonical and historical grounds
          Though not really a question of heresy, a common objection is to the means of inserting the filioque into the Creed. That is, unlike the original adoption of the Creed at Nicea and its subsequent revision at Constantinople, the decision to include the filioque in the Creed was not done by an Ecumenical Council. Rather, it was initially inserted by the Third Synod of Toledo, Spain (589).
          Rome resisted the inclusion of the filioque for centuries. Leo III, the Pope of Rome at the time the filioque began its history in Western theology, strongly advised against its inclusion, even though he agreed with the soundness and validity of the doctrine contained in filioque. Later, however, Rome contradicted its previous more Orthodox stance by the promulgation of the filioque, thus anathematizing its own spiritual forebears.”

          • George Michalopulos says

            Cy, picking up on your excellent exposition on the Filioque, we could say that the logical end of this novelty is that because the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, they are in fact two separate and co-equal gods, each of which has the power to produce the Spirit from within them.

            We can go even further: because the “Father” implies arche, then the “Son” –who is begotten–is now a lesser god, one who could produce the Spirit but to a lesser extent than the Father.

            In essence, we would be legitimizing polytheism (or at least duo-theism). As such I now see (and am thankful for the resolute Orthodox opposition to the Filioque.

            • Peter A. Papoutsis says

              This is why theology matters, and ecumenism truly is a pan-heresy. Thank you George.


            • I’ve to wonder if maybe at some point the Pontificate noticed the Creed of Nicene fails to mention any Papacy and so might try to include something like “and the Bishop of Rome, vicar of Christ, infallible in theology, sovereign primate of the Church.” Maybe in fewer words, “and Bishop of Rome, Peter first among apostles” or another line about Peter and the Church not in the Creed. I think then Roman Catholics thought to “improve” the Creed, and like also the Virgin Mary and Her “Immaculate Conception” to also “elevate Her” and so thereby trying to make for greater “piety” but its all conjecture, not in writings.
              Not theologically tenable. If Virgin Mary was “immaculately conceived” She would share trait with Jesus Second Person of the Triune. Then the Pope also “infallible in matters of Faith” joins the whole Trinity.
              So, with Roman Catholic “Triadology” you almost have to include two more, Theotokas and the Pope for a “Quintile” aspect to the Trinity. Heresy. Lord wants His Church delivered unto Him Clean with a Sparkle.

            • Tim R. Mortiss says

              Well, my comment was indeed pretty ambiguous, and I am certainly Orthodox on the question. But I have seen several times over the years assertions that the insertion of the filioque has led to every imaginable ill in the civilization of the West, not just Western Christianity (I exaggerate, to be sure– but not by much)…..those are the things that are hard to prove!

              • Yes, “proof” can be rough! Remember the O.J. trial? Or how many miracles did Jesus perform right before and in front of all the pharisees and scribes and it was not good enough evidently for them.
                Flip side is that for the Roman Catholics the “proof” they require for “canonization” is a whopping two full entire miracles! Lets see, there was a real bad toothache and doctors said you have to have a root canal and lo behold, the nerve died!! (still should have the procedure to remove dead nerve). Next miracle was a backache, Vicodin was not even working, and then, then, the “in-law” moved out and backache healed!! So when it comes to “proof” there can be different all different kinds, airtight, preponderance, circumstantial, or just a low bar altogether like for Vatican sainthood test.

                • Tim R. Mortiss says

                  Yes, I’ve been a trial lawyer for 42 years, and find that if I can produce two miracles in a case before the jury I’ve got it made!

                  Sometimes I’ve pulled it off with only one….

                  • Almost sounds like Miracle on 34th Street. We are still in the Christmas Spirit. Nativity on the 7th!

    • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

      God can save Buddhists too, if He chooses to do so! Nobody’s going to throw any Scripture texts at Him to object!!!……..

      • He can but it would be contrary to his divine revelation.

        • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

          It would be contrary to His divine revelation the way YOU understand that revelation. He is incomprehensible in the language of the Divine Liturgy.

          • Peter A. Papoutsis says

            It would be contrary to The teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostles, St.Paul, the teaching of the Church, etc. It’s good to know that the great apostasy of 2 Thess. Ch.2 is well under way. This tells me that Jesus’ return is also proceeding as well.

            This whole discussion tells me I did the right thing in writing my editorial on Rome’s recent heresy. The fault lines of apostasy are so much clearer now than ever before. Glory be to God!


            • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

              Inconceivable, incomprehensible, ever-existing, eternally the Same. Still waiting to hear if Peter’s theology is cataphatic or apophatic.Happy New Year to all!

              • Peter A. Papoutsis says

                It’s Hellenic and Orthodox. Happy New Year!

                • Michael Warren says

                  Peter, let me point out that you are being told by a supposedly Orthodox hierarch that Buddhism has the potential of saving souls and that you as an Orthodox Christian are wrong in maintaining a strong stance about the specific character of Orthodoxy and insisting it be preached to others.

                  As a faithful and communing member of the OCA, I would like to reassure you that such views are not held by our local church, not taught in our seminaries and are regarded as heretical, pregnant of ecumenist Renovationism.

                  While it is true that CHRIST is the ultimate JUDGE and the SAVIOUR of humanity, to imply that there is no longer an Apostolic Commission or that all religions equally save is extreme branch theory ecumenist heresy. Implying that exceptions justify lack of Orthodox evangelism is presumption of the Mercy of GOD, a grievous sin, and a fundamental dereliction of Orthodox pastorship.

                  Please accept my apologies for the abuse you have suffered at the hands of unwell people who are retired and no longer represent their dioceses nor the Orthodox Church in America in any official capacity. You did not deserve to be abused that way for stating core Orthodox Christian dogmatic teaching. Please pray for us to root out our tares amidst the wheat.

                  • Peter A. Papoutsis says

                    Absolutely I will pray for you. Please also do the same for me and mine.

                    Peter A. Papoutsis

                    • Michael Warren says

                      May GOD set us all on the right path, unite us, and guide us in fidelity to HIM in HIS Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church.

  17. Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

    WHAT HAPPENED TO ANTIOCHIAN PARTICIPATION IN THIS FORUM? Is there some kind of semi-Maoist cultural oppression behind their absence?

    • For my part, there have been a number of posts recently about OCA inside politics that don’t particularly interest me. Also December is a very busy month.

  18. So Met. Joseph has condemned Trump’s proposal and violence against Muslims. But there was no press release when followers of the demonic Islamic religion shot over two dozen innocent people, Christians among them. Why? What Orthodox person has done to Muslims in kind?

    The fact is, no foreign national has a right to be in this country. When Islam ceases to be violent and gives up the doctrine of taqiyya, perhaps we can open our door to them again.

    • Watch this video of MSNBC panel discussion from minute 28 to 38. The cognitive dissonance is excruciating. They all know Trump’s plan is necessary but are terrified of sounding racist.


      • George Michalopulos says

        Ages, it’s especially delicious to see Liberal’s heads exploding because of the cognitive dissonance.

        • Daniel E Fall says

          My head is exploding over the doubled edged dissonance on pot.

          For years, the liberals were against smoking when it was an oligarchy. And the right wanted the status quo. Now the liberals want smoking and the right don’t.


          Get a mop.

          No smoking please-it stinks.

    • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

      “Ages” speaks of the “demonic Moslem religion.” Why “demonic?” St John of Damascus, like his father and grandfather before him, served as Vizier to the Umayyad Caliph of Damascus. he, and his family were able to keep their holy Icons (like the monks of St Catherines Monastery on Mt Sinai) because the tolerant Moslems did not destroy them or punish those who had them, UNLIKE the Christian Byzantine authorities who taught and enforced ICONOCLASM.
      How could the foremost dogmatic theologian of the Church NOT NOTICE that Islam is Demonic?
      And how did large Christian communities survive in the Middle East even into our times under Islamic governments? 8 (eight) million Egyptian Christians (Copts) even into the 20th centuryL 400,000 Armenian and “Assyrian” Christians in the ISLAMIC Republic of Iran today?
      Why is Russia backing the Islamic Assad? Is Putin fostering a “demonic” religion?

      • John of Damascus said that Islam was “a forerunner of the Antichrist.”

      • Your Grace-

        Mohammadism is certainly a practical religion in many respects. Regarding St. John of Damascus: it is well known that Jihadis would tolerate the conquered Dhimmis as long as there was something to gain. In the case of St. John this was at a time when they needed Christians in high places to help run things for the new “management” until they got a handle on such marvels as sewage systems, as well as Math and Science (which we are told came FROM the Mohammadists and not from the Byzantine Greeks they stole it from).

        Once Christians were no longer needed, well…..welcome to Dhimmi status.

        I’m having a hard time understanding your defense of a religion which has caused so much pain and suffering to millions of Christians since its founder was deceived by a demon 1400 years ago.

        • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

          I’m not defending Islam, Steven–I consider that a calumny. I DO defend Muslims. Christians claim, rightly, to have higher moral STANDARDS, but their conduct is no more virtuous than that of Muslims.Surely you know that in Muslim Egypt That bogeyman “dhimmi” status allowed everyone BUT Muslims to control everything in Egypt save the army, right up until Nassar. In Nassar’s day there were approximately 8,000,000 Copts in Egypt, plus Melkites, and Jews. There’s your dhimmi status!
          Most Muslim mothers would have LOVED to have their sons exempted from military service by paying a tax!!
          “FORERUNNERS OF THE ANTICHRIST!” Who is NOT a “forerunner” of the Anti-Christ?” What do we really have there? PRE hoc ergo propter hoc?

          • Your Grace-

            There are different modes of defending. I do not believe you are defending the truthfulness of Mohammadism but you do seem to have a blind spot to the inherent evil of Mohammad’s religion and a rose colored outlook regarding the history of Christian and Mohammadist relations.

            I meant you no calumny and I think to suggest otherwise on your part is a stretch.

      • If the Koran was not dictated by an Angel, what was it dictated by?

    • I am thrilled to find mention of the term “taqiyya” here. This and related Islamic ideological tactics (and wholesale strategies) must be publicized to those who live in the innocent belief that, as with Orthodox, most Christian, and Jewish representatives, credence must also be extended to Islamic representatives when they speak on the faith and aims of their ideology.

      Thank you.

  19. Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

    George Michalopulos said this:
    “To take collective action against an entire group of people can’t be done. It’s unconstitutional we are told.”

    We have free speech, so we can be told anything, constitutionally speaking. Having said that, one must admit that banning all adherents of one religion from immigrating is not American AT ALL.
    i assume that any decent supreme court justice would agree. Or?

  20. Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

    On which day of the week is Monomakhos updated? Anybody?