Orlando: I Know –Let’s Blame Conservatives!

If there’s any doubt that the false religion of secularism, Progressivism, what-have-you is on the verge of a nervous breakdown, it’s being dispelled right before out eyes.

Last Sunday, in the wee hours of the morning, 49 patrons of a gay bar were killed by a lone gunman and some fifty others were wounded. Within a few hours, it was obvious that the gunman, a certain Omar Siddique Mateen, took to heart his Imam’s pronouncements that it was “compassionate” to kill homosexuals. And so he did.

The fact that he posted Fakebook photos of himself during this rampage, all the while pledging allegiance to ISIS (or “ISIL” in our great president’s words) meant nothing to our hostile elite and their stenographers in the mainstream media.

More facts about his hatred of the West spilled out in due time. As a fourteen-year-old, he praised the 9/11 bombings; later he called the Tsarnaev brothers his “homeboys.” Co-workers and schoolmates related tales of how uncomfortable he made them feel. Employers likewise said nothing, otherwise the ACLU would come raining down subpoenas on their heads and their lives would be destroyed. (See: Zimmerman, George.)

But no, The New York Times, Salon, and The Huffington Post laid the blame squarely at the feet of Christians. And Republicans. And Southerners; basically all Americans in general. You see, he was born in America and that made him an “American.” The fact that he was a registered Democrat, and a jihadist, and a homosexual meant nothing at all.

Move along now, nothing to see here; just another Angry White American MaleTM going on another rampage. Don’t our elites understand facts?

I mean, what’s a self-respecting jihadi supposed to do? Like Major Nidal Hassan, he screamed “Allahu akbar!” while he’s spraying a room with bullets and to the elite media it’s all a real head-scratcher. These poor jihadis just can’t catch a break no matter how hard they try. Maybe if they dropped an atomic bomb with the words “God is great” they’d get the message? Somehow, I doubt it even then.

An interesting observation: if Dylann Roof was emblematic of all Southerners and therefore we had to remove the Rebel Flag from everywhere, wouldn’t it make sense to remove Koran’s (excuse me: Qu’rans) as well? And shouldn’t we have the Mayor of Orlando asking for every Imam’s sermon to be sent to City Hall for investigation? Logic would demand it, no?

But there I go again. Silly me. I actually have the temerity to think that there are no double standards. After all, we’re all the same, aren’t we? Diversity is wonderful, unless of course your a white, Christian male, then you’re a bigot. No tolerance for you, Bubba.

Luckily for those of us on the Right, Milo Yiannopoulos, the “gaytriarch” has exposed the sheer, neon-colored hypocrisy of the Left.

I’ve been following Yiannopoulos for quite awhile now. A provacateur and proud conservative, he has dared to say what those of us on the Right have been unable to say and to point out the the sheer evil stupidity of the Left. For his pains, he was banned from Twitter. It was only because of the outcry generated from alternative media that this ban was lifted. (Kudos especially to The Drudge Report.)

Currently, he’s on his “Angry Faggot Tour” on college campusus, instructing the young scholars in our midst on the necessity of free speech. Usually he gets shouted down and sometimes even accosted for his efforts. Silly Milo, don’t you know that you’re causing “microagressions” and invading “safe spaces”?

Milo can take care of himself. He’s a one-man invasion force for sanity and free speech. He’s worth ten –make that a hundred–establishment Republicans. What I would give to have him give a spinal transplant to the Cuckservatives in Congress. (I’m looking at you, Paul Ryan.)

Seriously though, what we are seeing is nothing less than the implosion of the entire Proglib paradigm. What’s a good cultural Marxist to do when two of its most cherished victim groups come into collision with one another? Basically, go into a corner and cry and try to shift the blame elsewhere. Otherwise their dirty little secret is exposed for all the world to see. In the hierarchy of victimology, Islam trumps homosexuality. But that’s an inconvenient truth isn’t it?

That’s why blame muse be shifted from Islam to the GOP and our nominee. And the NRA, and Christians, and rednecks, and Americans for good measure. Otherwise, the grievance groups that make up the modern Democratic Party will start cleaving themselves off from each other. Make no mistake, there is no way that the Left will alienate Islamic extremists; not only are they deathly afraid of them but they are the “homegrown” shock troops of the New World Order.

Yiannopoulos is right to call them out for the blatant hypocrisy. He won’t have any of it. And neither should we. Luckily for us, John Brennan, Obama’s own CIA director today threw his boss under the bus in his sworn testimony before the Congress.

It’s a start.


  1. Michael Kinsey says

    Those who make a lie, love a lie, and beleive a lie, all liars do not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Punishment enough .indeed for blatant hipocracy the Left is addicted to. Divine Justice Rules, thier lies cannot change one jot or tittle of the Royal Law. The Words of Jesus Christ come to mind. Those upon whom the Tower of Sidon fell upon, were not the worse sinners in Isreal, but unless ye repent ,ye shall likewise perish. I been engaged online with some pro-choice HOOMies, of the HOLY ORDER who consent and some pratice abortion. The HOOM was a mixed bag. These call themselves Holy, and the Holy God’s servants. But is obvious, they do not have God’s Revelation to thier human heart, and they consider themselves superior. Elitism is the refined essence of the antichrist and is a justification( being superior) for any abuse. Thier Satanic Lord they serve, looks at them with the same sneer with which they view me. Why do the hang around that guy?

  2. The Brexit vote too—a politician gets killed and the Stay campaign immediately blames Leave, based on flagrant lies.

    Interesting how this is all happening at once. Those who want to destroy what’s left of the West are out in the open now.

    • Rymlianin says

      It would seem that to “get it’s message across”, our national leaders must now depend on killing somebody to get public attention. By the way, Omar Siddiq Mateen was homosexual , according to his wife. He was a habitué of the gay nightclub and a steroid addict (Roid rage??) .

  3. Gregory Manning says

    How very interesting that the number of gay people purchasing firearms has doubled or tripled. Gun ranges and firearms instructors are reaching out to gays basically saying “We don’t care about your lifestyle; you should learn to protect yourselves. Welcome!” What does the left do now that their favorite victim class now supports the 2nd. Amendment?
    On a lighter note: A local redneck wag claims that some of these jihadists were actually shouting “Aloha Snack Bar!”

  4. Gregory Manning says

    Milo isn’t alone. Gay Patriot has been mocking the left across the board for some time now. Warning: Some (actually, most) of the commentary includes sarcasm, snark, and a lot of otherwise hurtful language!

    • M. Stankovich says

      Best laugh of the week, from the Gay Patriot: “I guess you can’t blame them for regurgitating the talking points their Democrat masters feed them. Actually, yes you can. These people are the stupidest people in all of history.” Until that point, I was scolding myself for pursuing the tangent… Interesting link, Gregory. Thanks.

  5. You are seeing the future in microcosm.

    The War will likely be between two great forces, let’s call them Gog and Magog. Both are distortions of the Truth. One arose out of the desert about 1400 years ago. It is a form of Arianism, so to speak. It denies the divinity of Christ. That is Islam (IS)

    The other is Western Heterodoxy (WH). Roman Catholicism, Liberal Christianity and Progressive Secular Humanism are all cut from the same cloth and all lead to the same end. They too are heresies in their own right. In attributing the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit to the Son, the Latins inadvertently denigrated the Holy Spirit and, in turn, called into question the very divinity of Christ, for it was by the Holy Spirit that the Word became flesh. Gog and Magog.

    Roman Catholicism elevates a fallen human “vicar of Christ” above the Holy Spirit as He manifests Himself in a Great and Holy Synod in its doctrine of Papal Infallibility. From this presumption, the other Western heresies emerged: Protestantism, the Enlightenment, Secular Humanism and finally “Liberal Christianity”. They are all one force and are going to battle IS.

    I suggest that the Orthodox stay out of this battle as long as possible, since both sides are morally and theologically compromised and misguided. Muslims are fairly conservative in their morality. Liberals tend to be good to the poor and less fortunate. There is merit in both camps. Yet there is also tragic error and unspeakable sin.

    “Beware how you eat with sinners.”

    • Pat Reardon says

      Misha declares, “Roman Catholicism, Liberal Christianity and Progressive Secular Humanism are all cut from the same cloth and all lead to the same end.”

      No, they’re not.

      Indeed, your confusion is reflected in the mixed metaphors.

      • Fr. Patrick,

        Have you been following this pope, the first Episcopalian pope, I mean? Why do you think the Enlightenment occurred in Western Europe? If one man is the measure of all things (the pope), then why not any man reading the Bible (Protestantism), or Everyman (Vox Dei, Vox populi).

        A+ and A- and A. Same cloth, same end. Apostasy.

        • Episcopalian? C’mon, Misha; don’t damn the man with faint praise. Bergolio is the first Marxist Pope. He is the very culmination of the Long March through the Institutions. I’ll bet he even has one of those chic little Che berets in his closet, for when the boys get together for drinks.

          “Roman Catholicism, Liberal Christianity and Progressive Secular Humanism are all cut from the same cloth and all lead to the same end.”

          Yes. They didn’t start out that way, but the depredations of Marxism have pretty much had the effect of contaminating them. Most Christians don’t realize–or, are only now waking up to the fact—that Marxism is the single greatest enemy of the Church, modern society, and western culture. It’s also the single greatest enemy of Classical Liberalism, to which it bears little resemblance. I wish so-called Liberals would open their eyes to they more nearly resemble citizens of the old Soviet Union, rather than Americans.

          If we wish to save the church, we have to start identifying Marxist delusions wherever they rear their ugly heads, and speaking up against them forcefully at every opportunity. I believe every Christian should read Marx.

      • Michael Bauman says

        Fr. Pat, ordinarily I would not say anything against your reasoning as it is usually quiet good. Here, however, I think you miss the mark. There is little if any separation between much modern Protestant thought and nihilist modernism unfortunately the RCc born out if schism as it was is flowing the same direction.

        • Pat Reardon says

          “There is little if any separation between much modern Protestant thought and nihilist modernism unfortunately the RCc born out if schism as it was is flowing the same direction.”

          It is very discouraging to read comments like this. Do they point, I wonder, to a chronic Orthodox inability to parse?

          Anyway, this bog site seems to be going insane of late.

          • Michael Bauman says

            Sorry to discourage you. I realize that much the same can be said about we Orthodox and that few would be comfortable in a church that actually lived as we imagine the Church lived in the past.

            Nevertheless I find little value in parsing hypothetical abstractions while recognizing the value of parsing in specific situations with specific people at specific times.

            However if we don’t recognize the foundational flaws of Protestant thought and the RCC plan for healing the schism is through us submitting to the Pope there will be little to parse. There is one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. While Christ’s grace overflows to all who seek the truth, we have the fullness. How does one parse that?

            If we end up in our version of the catacombs what and how we parse will become clear. What I parse matters little to anyone but myself. I am sure if I held the same responsibility as you, I would perhaps parse more.

          • M. Stankovich says

            Welcome to the life raft, Fr. Patrick. May I take your drink order?

          • Michael is correct though apparently going through some grammatical/typing challenges. Liberal Protestantism and Roman Catholicism are going down the same progressive rabbit hole and the Phanar is hell bent on dragging the Church down the same. It openly included Uniatism in its draft documents which even went further than a Unia and delved into liberal Protestant Baptismal Theology and Anglican Branch Theory. It has all been very well documented. They are de facto apostate.

            The current Pope, though a sweet old man, is a doctrinal disgrace. He has totally succumbed to the spirit of this age. Any closing of doctrinal understanding with Rome on the Orthodox side is simply a step in that evil direction. I also sympathize with traditionalist Catholics who were born into their heresy through no fault of their own and have seen their confession disintegrate before their eyes.

            I, for one, am more than ready for traditionally minded bishops to gather and cast out the progressives and not so closeted Uniates. It is long overdue and their continued presence and toleration within the Church is increasingly harmful to the faithful, and on a daily basis. If Bartholomew had been a little more daring and gotten his way, much property would be in dispute as we now speak. If you do not think that the Phanar is above confiscating parish property of those who wish to remain Orthodox, think again. A similar scenario unfolded in the Episcopal Church and continues to this day.


            It’s not amusing anymore nor is the doting, grandfatherly graciousness of traditional hierarchs Christ-like anymore. It is time for the laity to explain to the clergy their responsibility and demand action or withhold support for their livelihood since “What harmony is there between Christ and Belial?”

  6. Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

    Omar, in bragging about acting for ISIL and Al Qaeda showed he didn’t even know they were sworn enemies! He knew less about Islam than most Christians! I’m sure those enemies were glad to get the publicity, but they were no more supporting Omar than George is! He’s just an American of a certain type with which we are familiar: “cause-oriented” like Freboro Baptists and the two big-hair guys, Donnie Trump and the President of North Korea—all three soul brothers!

    • George Michalopulos says

      Sorry Your Grace, but even the idiots of Freeboro Baptist don’t go around shooting their fellow Americans. Come to think of it, neither did Mateen. According to witnesses, he blabbered on and on about how America is attacking “his country” (Afghanistan). I guess this gives the lie to the glorious melting pot.

      • It’s “Westboro Baptist Church” , not “Freeboro” . (and I think it can’t be pointed out enough that they are not a “church” even by the most Protestant low-church definition , but are a personality cult built around the peculiar teachings of the founder Fred Phelps ; most of what they do isn’t theologically motivated , it’s all about financial gain from the numerous lawsuits they launch against individuals and cities who they claim are suppressing their 1st amendment free speech rights . ) But George is correct , the Westboro-ites don’t go around shooting people. The psychological and emotional suffering they inflict is reprehensible , but as far as I know they don’t practice violence . Wesboro-ites seek to provoke others to act out in violence against them , so they can then turn around and sue that person or persons , or sue the police for not protecting them. The best policy is to IGNORE them. Do not engage .

    • Anonymous again says

      Do you mean Westboro Baptist (dba God hates f@gs)? Never heard of Freeboro Baptist.

      • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

        Yes, I mean them, those patriotic, God-fearing, Republican, conservative, Babtists, that dare to behave as some contributors to Monomakhos would love to behave and who would be CHEERING Omar Mateen if his parents hadn’t been Afghan immigrants and he hadn’t been a Muslim. Otherwise they could’ve just revealed how much they enjoyed seeing the LGBT getting their just desserts! It was a coin toss….”Who do we want to hurt more, Moslems or Sodomites?” The Moslems won the toss!
        Poor Omar didn’t live long enough to know how much Hezbollah and ISIL hate each other—he was poorer educated about Islam than are many other Americans, and claimed he was acting for BOTH!
        I wonder if the congress of miscellaneous primates gathered on Crete discussed anything IMPORTANT such as the increased association of Muslims and Christians with each other?

        • What a disgusting post, completely unbecoming for one who holds the episcopal dignity. I can’t tell which is more unnerving: your vile comparison between this shooter and your fellow Christians or your continual cheerleading for the death cult of Mohammad.

          • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

            Steven, if you can’t tell you can’t tell I can’t help you there. By the way, are you medicated? I have not led any cheers for Islam, or, to use your comic book terminology, “the the death cult of Muhammad.”

          • Diogenes says

            Well put. That was as utterly disgusting as it was vacuous.

        • Sorry your Grace, but the Westboro folk are card carrying DEMOCRATS and in fact Phelps has been and perhaps still is a Democrat operative.

          Nice try.

          • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

            “really!” Don’t feel sorry. I carelessly forgot that some Southern Democrats mirror conservative Republicans, or, better, Recessives.”

            • You may have “carelessly forgotten” that the Southern Democrat that you describe is long gone, and has been since Reagan left the party. Phelps is an operative of the Democrats, has run for office as a Democrat, and seems to display some of the identifying marks of one.

              Feel free, Your Grace, to identify with him and defend him, but I will pass.

              Have a nice day.

        • Fred Phelps was a registered Democrat. Omar Mateen was also a registered Democrat . Does that somehow imply “guilt by association” for Democrats ? No. Both Phelps and Mateen were hateful nuts . If they had been Republicans it would not mean their views were typical of most Republicans and because they were Democrats it doesn’t mean their views were typical of most Democrats. Give it a rest . You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

          • If they had been Republicans it would not mean their views were typical of most Republicans

            True, but the media would report as though it were typical.

            When it’s a Muslim terrorist, it’s “not all Muslims.” When it’s a white male, it’s sexism/bigotry/homophobia and all white males are guilty by association.

        • Cynthia mae Curran says

          Bishop Tikhon has a sense of humor.I think only a small group of Republican conservatives really wanted gays to be killed. Anyway, George has his views and I don’t like Cuckservative which means you watched you wife have sex with a black man as an insult. Its a form of cuckold with a more negative view. I don’t like Milo either.

          • George Michalopulos says

            Cynthia, you’re wrong about the racial angle to the whole cuckservative meme. All we mean by it is that cuckservatives and cuckliberals are similar to knowing cuckolds in that both camps don’t care about their patrimony. In other words one doesn’t care about his genetic inheritance while the other doesn’t care about his nation.

            • Peter Millman says

              Hi George,
              I was curious that as a neocon, did you support George W. Bush’s illegal, criminal invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq? Remember, before Dunderhead’s benighted invasion, ISIL did not exist. Many thanks.

              • George Michalopulos says

                Peter, I’m gonna come clean: I supported the war in Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan. First because of their conquest of Kuwait then because Iraq was believed to possess weapons of mass destruction. Now we know that we were misled (interestingly enough by George Tenet, who was first Bill Clinton’s CIA director.) Afghanistan of course was the nexus of Al Quaeda. I thought that the conquest of Afghanistan was a justified retaliation whereas the conquest of Iraq was a spoiling action against further international terrorism. It had nothing to do with neoconservatism as far as I was concerned.

                That being said, our nation was wrong to invade Iraq, overthrow Khaddafi, and try to destabilize Syria. (And now of course we gotta conquer Russia!) You are 100% correct: before our military actions there was no ISIS.

                As a former Truman/JFK Democrat I became a Reagan Democrat then a Republican. In other words, I switched parties only once. If being a former Democrat-now-Republican makes me a “neocon” in your eyes, I take great umbrage. Even as a Democrat, I and my family have always taken those socially cultural and nationalist views that were championed by the Democrats of old and being promulgated today be Pat Buchanan, i.e. “paleoconservatism” or what I choose to call “conservatism.”

                So yes, I was wrong to support the overthrow of Saddam.

                • Tim R. Mortiss says

                  So, George, you can be wrong without being part of a globalist conspiracy to destroy our freedoms. So, perhaps, can others…..

                • I was in favor of decapitating the Iraqi government and installing a newly led regime under American dominance. Hussein attempted to assassinate the elder Bush. That would have been enough justification in my eyes.

                  However, our involvement in the Middle East has been a tangled web indeed, from Mossadegh (and even before) on. It is due to that sly talking false prophet from beneath the earth, crude oil. In any case, we decided to engage in nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan. What could go wrong? Never again with my ok. Bosnia/Serbia were Western attrocities resulting in Islamist KLA Kosovo. Enough is enough. Yet we never learn. Iran, Syria, ? . . .

                  First of all, Western culture is not superior to theirs. It is merely sick in a different way. Second of all, we have no idea what we are doing in the first place or how to do it if we did. We say we want to democratize them but that is a lie. We want some institutions we can point to as being representative but we want them to agree with us on policy, that is the primary goal. Well, they’re not going to agree en masse to cultural degeneration and expropriation of their only source of wealth.

                  Last but not least, we have contributed to the de-Christianization of the region and to a massive influx of Muslim immigration which has inundated Europe and upset the status quo there. Perhaps God will use this to some good. But unintended consequences have been very costly. And last of all, there seems no end in sight to the volatility or animosity created by all this activity.

                  Thus, it’s a recipe for an ongoing series of disasters leading to a great, barbarous, climactic War of Wars. And what do you know? With an economic downturn on deck to assault the West, again due to its own malfeasance, the need for armed conflict may arise rather “out of thin air”. War has a proven track record of uniting the public and driving economic growth and employment.

                  Stay tuned.

                  • Michael Bauman says

                    War does not help the nation economically. It diverts resources from the private to the public sphere and increases the national debt.

                    It does increase the power and wealth of the cronies.

                    • During WWII we had full employment and several years of 12% growth. WWII is what ended the Great Depression, not the New Deal.

          • Estonian Slovak says

            I don’t think ANY Republicans want gays killed. When those of you on the left liken Republicans to Nazis and Kluxers, you insult Jews and Blacks who were victims of bigotry.
            We want to win souls ; you can’t convert people if you kill them. This goes for Jews, Muslims, and gays.
            BTW, Cynthia, all the segregationist governors of the South were Republicans, right? George Wallace? Lester Maddox?

        • Chris Banescu says

          Bishop Tikhon’s (Fitzgerald) visceral hatred, libelous comments, and pathological obsession with smearing all conservative Christians can only come from one source. It is not flesh and blood that fuels his darkness and maliciousness. “Jesus asked him, saying, “What is your name?” And he said, “Legion,” (Luke 8:30)”

          A likely reason for this mental breakdown, spiritual darkness, diabolical pride, and hatred directed at all those who preach truth and righteousness can also be glimpsed from St. Ignatius Brianchaninov warnings in the book “The Arena: An Offering to Contemporary Monasticism,” as explained by Fr. Thomas Hopko:

          St Ignatius insists that ascetical efforts and bodily disciplines are essential as means to the fulfillment of Christ’s evangelical teachings. He says that those who neglect these means leave themselves victims of the crudest forms of carnal passions gluttony, greed, lust and anger. But the holy father reserves more violent warnings for those who make ascetical discipline the very essence of their spiritual life.

          Those who practice immoderate bodily discipline, use it indiscreetly, or put all their trust in it, seeing in it their merit and worth in God’s sight, fall into vainglory, self-opinion, presumption, pride, hardness and obduracy, contempt of their neighbors, detraction and condemnation of others, rancor, resentment, hate, blasphemy, schism, heresy, self-deception and diabolic delusion.

          The saint is especially hard on monastics who allow the devil to destroy them through the acquisition of costly things, or through decorating their cells, or through being excessively concerned with buildings, gardens and furniture. He speaks of abuses of fasting which lead to the attribution of “special significance to dry bread, mushrooms, cabbage, peas or beans,” abuses that “corrupt the ascetic” and reduce “sensible, holy and spiritual exercises” into “senseless, carnal and sinful farces,” producing “conceit and contempt for his neighbors, which snuffs out the very conditions for progress in holiness.”

          The saint also criticizes those who allow the devil to dupe them into “attaching an exaggerated importance to the material side of church services, while obscuring the spiritual side of the rites; thus hiding the essence of Christianity from those unfortunate people and leaving them only a distorted material wrapper or covering….” He is especially strict in his warning against “carnal and animal (perhaps better translated psychic) zeal,” which, he says, is not “divine and spiritual zeal,” but rather “zeal without understanding, which leads to conceit and pride.”

          • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

            Chris, my child, please identify one or more of what you call my “libellous comments.” I don’t hate conservatives—viscerally or non-viscerally. Which of them, according to your “lights” (!) have I “smeared?” I ask in order to give you a way out of bearing false witness, which I know you must hate.

          • M. Stankovich says

            Mr. Banescu,

            In proceeding with the flow of the times here of late, certainly you have lost your mind. And what, exactly, has “invaded” you to speak in such a manner to the very anointed shepherd of God in such an insulting and crass manner? Demons? Arrogance? Or simple stupidity?

            While I would appreciate your finding for me the special designation “conservative Christian” in the Holy Scripture, the writings of the Holy Fathers, or our Holy Tradition, I seem to recall that it was self-proclaimed “conservative Christians” of the far-right – Jerry Falwell & Pat Roberts, in specific -who blamed the 911 jihadist attacks on NYC, literally & directly, on homosexuals; and as I recall, they actually broadcast footage of the carnage in NYC with scenes of shameful activity from the NYC Gay Pride Parade in a “causal” statement. The Phelps Westboro Church routinely picketed the funerals of American soldiers killed by Muslim jihadists, not because of anything to do with Islam or religion, but because it was a sign of God’s wrath on the country for homosexuality, and openly accepting homosexuals into the military. There is a pervasive and outright hatred and disgust for homosexuality and homosexuals among “conservative Christians,” and while Vladyka Tikhon’s comment may be crude in form, he is absolutely correct in content. And do not even begin the pretense of suggesting to me that we are somehow exempt from this despicable disease, despite our claim to “love the sinner, but hate the sin.” It is a total fabrication & a lie.

            If you would charge Vladyka Tikhon with “visceral hatred, libelous comments, and pathological obsession with smearing all conservative Christians,” I suggest you find a case worthy of invoking the commentary of the Saints. In this case, you did nothing more than climb into a slow express elevator with a skunk.

          • Peter Millman says

            Hi Chris,
            After your diatribe against Bishop Tikhon, I hope you are prepared to publiclly apologize to him for your slanderous remarks. All the best.

        • Actually, the good bishop has a point, albeit made in a shotgun from the hip manner. This IS (Islamic State) vs. Gay Pride is a fascinating phenomenon in and of itself, but around it swirl all sorts of lovely little dark forebodings. I am Orthodox. I believe that homosexual sodomy is a mortal sin. I also believe that Islam is a false religion. I’m reminded of the French maxim about strangling the last monarch with the entrails of the last priest. Though I believe homosexual behavior to be a sin, I would never lift a finger against a homosexual in anger. That’s not my place. “Vengeance is mine, saith the LORD.” I leave that to Him if He chooses to exercise it. With Muslims, it is a bit different. We are already at war with them. Not being in the armed forces, dealing with that threat is not my place either.

          I do not believe that Islam is a religion of peace. Muhammad may have had good intentions. I suspect he did. There is some good stuff in Islam and it is incumbent upon Westerners to admit this. He claimed to be in the line of the biblical prophets. He wanted a religion for the Arab people since it seemed to him that the Jews and the Syrians had their own religion. He probably thought that God was calling him to do the honors. He may have been an epileptic, who knows. He went into trances and received inspiration. Now inspiration can be angelic or diabolical, as we know. Hard to tell. We Christians have a way to tell. Let he who has ears hear.

          But regardless, he himself knew that demons were in the neighborhood. The book The Satanic Verses was based on a spell he had where he was tempted to allow another God to be worshipped besides Allah. But then his “real” angel came back to him and continued.

          What I mean is, he could have made it all up or felt inspired and put some good as he saw it into his new religion and also, unknowingly, had demons whisper heresy in his ear as well. The surah Ikhlas, for instance, is an explicit denial of the Trinity and Incarnation. But it is also a denial of heretical Christianity, which influenced him, no doubt.


          قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ
          اللَّهُ الصَّمَدُ
          لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ
          وَلَمْ يَكُن لَّهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ
          “He is Allah, Allah the Self-Sustaining
          He does not beget, nor is He begotten,
          Nor is there anyone at all like Him.”

          These verses not only refute Orthodox Christianity, but Nestorian as well. It is unclear as to whom exactly they were directed. What seems to be the case is that demons possessed him at some point. His notion of the Mahdi is a carbon copy of the biblical Antichrist.


          In other words, if Christianity is true . . .

          There is a connection here worth mentioning, a word to the wise. Russians look at Shiites and Sunnis differently. Shiite Islam is the product of Islam encroaching into Iraq and Iran where there was already Zarathustrianism: Ahura Mazda, etc. Google it. When Islam hit the Persians, THEY WERE ALREADY MONOTHEISTS. Forgive the all caps but it is a point worth emphasizing. God had already reached out to them in some way, or they had reached out to God. In any case, they had a basic idea of good and evil, morality, etc. What the Persians did is gut Islam and put a Muslim veneer on Zarathustrianism. For the mystical side of it, Sufism arose. The Green One (al-Khidr), etc.

          Thus endeth the lesson.

          • Gregory Manning says

            Surely you meant to say “I believe that ALL sodomy is a sin.”

            • Gregory,

              I could indeed say that. But what I meant was what I said. I single out homosexual sodomy as particularly problematic, man lying with man as he does with woman. I was not endorsing heterosexual sodomy, of course. But nothing that men and women do together compares as an “abomination” to what two men do. It is the confusion, the misplaced mechanics, the lack of procreative teleology that makes it utterly vain and disordered. In theory, a man and woman can conceive a child. It is irrelevant if that man and that woman can conceive a child. The attraction was given for that purpose, so that they would be fruitful and multiply. Thus, it is a blessed attraction. The sexual attraction of men for men, on the other hand, is diabolical. It has no purpose other than for one to demean the other, to dominate the other. Yet they are both men. That is the problem. They are each, deep down, meant to dominate. Thus the conflict, violence, etc. It’s all quite sick really.

              With women, it’s less drastic but still a disorder. Women subconsciously need to be dominated. Not in a bad way, in a loving way, but dominated or managed. Woman was made as a helpmate for man. That was her function before the Fall. So in a lesbian couple, each wants to be dominated, but it comes naturally to neither. In a gay male couple, each wants to dominate, but submission doesn’t always come naturally to either, thus the violence.

              Now, there is a joke that has some considerable truth to it that puts this on display. What does a lesbian bring to a second date? A U-haul. What does a gay man bring to a second date? What second date?

              You have to have a sense of humor to enjoy this world. There is a lot of pathos here.

              • Gregory Manning says

                There are two problems with your assertions:

                Human nature being what it is, heterosexuals are prone to comparing their sexual sins to homosexual sins and consoling themselves by thinking that, though their acts of sodomy (or whatever extra-marital sexual activities they engage in) are sinful, they’re nothing compared to homosexual sodomy–much like the publican and the pharisee. The heterosexual makes a reckless error in judgement if he believes God will make the same comparison and judge him less strictly. It doesn’t work that way.

                The primary missing-of-the-mark of SSA lies in the fact that it is primarily a disordered or broken affection. That many if not most people focus exclusively on the element of procreation as the distinguishing normative factor in heterosexual relations and never mention love is sadly revealing. If everybody leaves love out of the discussion then what is described as normative is exactly what exists in the animal kingdom–and it is love, that uniquely human affection, which raises us up above the animals. If homosexuals are driven by merely sexual urges (albeit sinful ones), then heterosexuals are likewise driven by merely sexual urges–just like in the animal kingdom. The only difference being that one cannot produce offspring while the other can. All very functional; very utilitarian. But if you factor in the uniquely human desire and capacity for love then the picture changes doesn’t it? It’s no longer simply right kind of sex begets babies; right kind of sex begets babies. That people generally overlook the crucial role that love, the desire for intimate affection plays in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships is further revealed in the frequent prescription of celibacy as a solution. So prevalent is this prescription, that all people struggling with sex out of wedlock essentially get the message that celibacy is an end in itself. It is not. Seek Christ and you will find not only celibacy but chastity as well. Without Christ, celibacy, as an end in itself, will get you neuroses.

                One other observation I would make in this vein regards the prevalent belief that those who have chosen the celibate life have (gasp!) forsaken the option to engage in sex. Well, this is true. But what actually makes the choice so very, very difficult is that person has forsaken ever experiencing the very powerful embrace of intimate affection.Some months ago, George reported on a deacon who, being gay, asked to be released from the diaconate. Do you remember the reason he gave? He could no longer take the loneliness. So powerful is the preoccupation with the sexual component in our estimation and judgement of human relationships that we overlook the more profound brokenness of human affection which lies at the heart of most sexual dysfunction. Indeed, so completely missing is this from all discussions I’ve encountered, I’ve pretty much concluded that heterosexuals know little of it themselves. The sin, the missing-of-the-mark, of the SSA individual is in “looking for love in all the wrong places”–the sex is simply the gateway to the experience of intimate affection. The SSA individual feels threatened by the Church because he believes he’s being told that the suppress his quest for affection. The truth is that the desire to love and be loved is actually natural to human nature and, rightly lived out, the Church has no objections. Where the SSA misses the mark is in seeking it from those who cannot fully give it because they’re looking for it themselves and have little or none to spare. Hence, the short-term nature of most SSA relationships. It is this futile and misplaced quest, especially when it incorporates sex, that the Church cannot condone, for to do so would make her an enabler of a “lifestyle” which is a dead end, and, given the alarming frequency with which SSA individuals commit suicide, literally so.

                • I do not think you are correct about the love and affection angle. I do not think that homosexuality is about love or affection at all. Animals love, they love each other and have affection for each other, and we love them and they love us. Don’t try to convince me of the opposite because it is demonstrably false unless you wish to play games with words.

                  The problem with homosexuality stems from sexual identity. “Who am I as a sexual actor?” One can be loving and affectionate without sexual attraction ever arising at all. But in some people, the sexual attraction does arise either before, after or during the love and affection. Two different channels of energy. For males, the sexual channel vis a vis females is a channel of possession or dominance – to make this other mine, my own – to enter the other. For females, the sexual channel is to attract the other, to become the other’s, to be his – to be entered by the other. Forgive me for being explicit in a way, but that’s the nature of this conversation. The language gets confused sometimes and people say all sorts of loosely accurate or inaccurate things to express these impulses, but that is it. Male proactive, female attractive/receptive. Now, don’t get me wrong, females will be quite “proactive” in attracting males. Our culture is a testament to this. But that’s the underlying impulse at work.

                  And it gets totally distorted in homosexual relations. Just MHO.

                  • Michael Bauman says

                    Misha I think you miss the point: all sexual sin is about disordered affection. St. Paul condemned them all. It is the disorder that creates the lonliness since there is no mate that allows for union natural or sacramental. All such disordered affection is therefore sterile even if children are technologically or accidentally produced. The fecundity of a Godly marriage goes far beyond simple procreation. A Christian marriage is about expressing the fullness of God’s abundance including but not limited to children.

                    When folks harden the disorder by identifying with it makes the sterility intractable.

                    St. Gregory of Nyssa felt the command to be fruitful and multiply had been adequately fulfilled and would continue but the other aspects of marriage should be emphasized.

                    It is this fullness of marriage to which we should witness. Anything else is fruitless.

                    • Pdn. Brian Patrick Mitchell says

                      Michael, I agree with much of what you say, particularly about the value of marriage apart from procreation. But saying “all sexual sin is about disordered affection” seems to equate affection with pleasure, thereby missing the part of the problem Misha is talking about, which is sexual addiction having very little to do with what we normally call “affection.” That part of the problem may have begun as disordered affection, but it may also have begun in other ways, and it may not even involve other persons. It may involve animals and even inanimate objects that have become somehow eroticized.

                      And wasn’t St. Gregory of Nyssa plainly wrong about the commandment to be fruitful and multiply being adequately fulfilled? We’re at 6 billion and counting, and the Christian part of that 6 billion would not now exist if Christians had taken St. Gregory’s advice and stopped being fruitful and multiplying. Nowadays we face a very real danger of shrinking churches because Christian couples, without a procreative imperative, are stopping at two, which isn’t even replacement since it takes more than two children per woman just to perpetuate the species.

                  • Gregory Manning says

                    Nothing personal Misha. Really. But those are some of the worst assertions I’ve ever come across. Nevertheless, in fairness, I have to ask you if you base your assertions on actual experience; do you actually know from first hand experience what your’re talking about? Or are you an arm-chair authority? Frankly, it takes a lot of cheek to make pronouncements on the nature of a cross you do not actually carry. And despite your final claim, it seems quite a stretch to call those opinions “humble”.

                    • “Misha I think you miss the point: all sexual sin is about disordered affection.”

                      That is precisely my point. No it is not. It is not “disordered affection”, period. That is a false diagnosis. What sexual sin is, is disordered attraction, not affection. These are two entirely different things. The attraction is as I described it. True affection is harmless. Men have affection and love for other men. Women for women. Nothing whatsoever wrong with that in any way shape or form. However, attraction is a different matter. And the nature of the attraction for men is a urge to dominate and enter (not to hurt, mind you). The urge for women is to be dominated and entered (again, not to be hurt).

                      One need not be an expert or have a list of degrees to figure this out. It most certainly is the nature of normal male-female relations and the misplacement of the counterparts explains the pathology of homosexual relations.

                      Now, you may ask yourself why so many people avoid characterizing it this way. That is most certainly a question worth exploring. Moreover, it is saying nothing particularly condemnatory about homosexuals themselves. If they wish to pursue these impulses amongst themselves, though the Church and I teach that it is immoral, it’s not the end of the world. I live and let live for the most part.

                      Honestly, I rarely comment on this particular issue and am thoroughly bored with it. We had a Pride festival in the town I live in and I went downtown during it and took a look around. Everybody was having fun. Not my cup of tea but I don’t feel threatened. I have acquaintance who are “gay” and we get along. We just generally don’t discuss their proclivities.

                      But the above description makes perfect sense to me as a heterosexual male and I would be deeply surprised if it were far from the mark. Now, what, if anything, to do about it is up to the person formulating their normative beliefs. If reparative therapy might benefit from this understanding, so be it. But I’m not interested in forcing anyone into such therapies unless they desire to do so. The Church’s teaching is crystal clear on the subject: The impulse is disordered but not a sin in itself unless it is indulged; the activity is sinful in and of itself. People can accept that or reject that but that is indeed the teaching of the Apostles, the faith that established the world.

                      PS: Additionally, this is one reason that feminism is so utterly wrongheaded and unnatural and one reason why modern conservatives have such an awful time dealing forthrightly and honestly with both of these issues. They are not being honest with themselves or with their critics.

                      I’m not talking about equal pay for equal work. I’m talking about the fundamental differences between male and female biology and psychology.

                    • Gregory,

                      “Nothing personal Misha. Really. But those are some of the worst assertions I’ve ever come across.”

                      Why are they “the worst”? I have said nothing condemnatory in the slightest as far as I can tell. All I have suggested is that it seems to me, based on the heterosexual attraction that I do experience and the patterns that I have witnessed among gays as well as their own self descriptions that the above makes perfect sense.

                      I have not a word of physical condemnation to pronounce against those who experience homosexual attraction or those who act on it. I believe it is spiritually dangerous and that the disordered nature of the relations has generally harmful consequences. But the attraction to cigarettes (tobacco being a natural substance, mind you) also has harmful consequences and we don’t ban smoking in general, just where it affects others.

                      Now, no doubt that homosexual relations are more serious than smoking, but there is a certain imperfect similarity there. We all breathe. But what are we meant to breathe? Clear air, or smoke? Do both make us feel good? Do we desire both?

                    • Anonymous says

                      You just made Misha nervous that gay folk actually seek affection and love and not just romper room sex. This is the assertion made by Arida et al. And the only difference is the critical piece at the end of your script where you explain the homosexuals are affection seekers versus affection givers. And perhaps Misha’s notions are not without some validity; after all, don’t homosexuals adopt and show love towards a child? That is, isn’t Misha a little right to be nervous?

                    • Neither the fact that homosexuals seek or show affection makes me nervous in the least, nor do their sexual proclivities in general. However, misplaced sexual attraction is misplaced sexual attraction. If being attracted to adults of the opposite sex does not appeal to them enough to indulge exclusively in that behavior, there is no guarantee that they will confine their deviance to one particular class of persons, animals or things.

                      After all, natural sexual attraction is very strong and was given as a blessing to further procreation as well as to enjoy. But people can enjoy all sorts of unnatural things as well, unnatural and harmful things. The sexual attraction might be just as strong or stronger. And there is no necessary rhyme or reason to deviance.

                      So before we start placing children with people who have misplaced sexual attraction, we might want to make sure that they will confine their deviance to those with whom it is legally permissible to have sexual relations. But, of course, in the “bad old days” homosexual sodomy was illegal, wasn’t it. So how is a person to tell what is right or wrong?

                      Oh, I get it! All that matters really is how you feel.

                      Makes perfect sense.

                      PS: How do homosexual couples reproduce? Let’s say that there is a natural desire in human beings to sexually biologically reproduce. How does a homosexual do this?

                      Well, one could use a surrogate I suppose. Expensive, complicated. But how do you get your own children, created in your image, like you? You could adopt of course, that’s possible. But there is still that “my own, like me” thing. How does a homosexual couple reproduce to create new homosexuals?

                      Well, I’ll leave that to your imagination. But the answer should give you indigestion.

                      And, sadly, due to the politically correct political climate, the research to uncover this hornets nest will likely not be done for at least another generation. But, if I am right, we do not have another generation (25 years or so) before “You know Who” returns.

                      At this point, it would be wise to recall Christ’s words about those who harm little ones:

                      Whether it be at the hands of the keepers of the toll-houses and cleansing fire, or in hellfire itself, I’m sure the wrath that such people suffer will be horrific.

                      “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” Matthew 18:6

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      Gregory Manning rightfully describes the need and desire of all human beings for love, affection, acceptance, partnership, and camaraderie. It is only in this broken and fallen world, in our fallen and rebellious humanity that we men have so lost any reasonable conception of “masculinity,” of sensitivity, and vulnerability, literally terrified that we will be misperceived as homosexual. It would be humorous if it were not so pitiful. And Anonymous, you are a leering, imbecile of a human being. Research has shown, time and again, that homosexuals are no more likely to perpetrate child sexual abuse than anyone else.

                      I want to be absolutely clear here when I say that I do not support anyone who takes a position that differs from the teachings of the Orthodox Church – from the Scripture, the Holy Fathers, and our Holy Tradition – in regard to the anthropology of our created humanity, “as it was in the beginning,” created in the very image and likeness of our God. Yet, in our fallen world, in our fallen and broken humanity, in which we all walk the path to the never-ending Day of the Kingdom which is to come, homosexuality exists. To say otherwise is childish stupidity. Yet the Great & Holy Council had pages to speak of nuclear weapons, but not a single suggestion on how to live one’s life in repentance of homosexuality, yet without love, intimacy, and companionship.

                    • Gregory Manning says

                      It’s OK, Misha. I didn’t assume you were being condemnatory. When I said your “assertions” were the worst I was talking about the assertions you made to account for or explain SSA. Someone such as myself would have known right off the bat you didn’t truly understand the nature of this burdensome cross since you don’t carry it. “Walking a mile in another man’s moccasins”; that sort of thing. My original point was that it is dangerous to talk about the abomination of homosexual sodomy in such a way as to imply, however slightly, that there are some sodomies which, though bad, aren’t as bad. As I said, it’s human nature to compare one’s sin to that of another (the publican and the Pharisee) in an effort to convince oneself that God will surely do the same thing and His judgement won’t be quite so bad. But, as Fr. Hopko correctly pointed out, God does not judge on the curve.
                      Annonymous, I’m going to hold off on saying much about gay adoptions other than to say I don’t approve of them. This website is run by a self-identified bisexual and is pretty much devoted to the defense of the traditional family. The gay community utterly detests the fellow so he must be onto something. At any rate, there are plenty of gay men and women who have serious objections to gay people adopting.

                    • “My original point was that it is dangerous to talk about the abomination of homosexual sodomy in such a way as to imply, however slightly, that there are some sodomies which, though bad, aren’t as bad.”

                      Yes, and I am contradicting you head on. Homosexual sodomy is far worse than heterosexual sodomy. I am stating that boldly and decisively just so you get it. It is an abomination and unspeakably evil.

                      Second, I think I’m spot on regarding homosexual attraction. It has precious little to do with affection or love, everything to do with misplaced sexual attraction or lust. Sexual attraction is normal, excessive or misplaced sexual attraction is lust. Homosexuality is simply a form of lust, not love, not affection. Lust. Now, it may coincide with affection or love. It may develop out of affection or love. But it is neither affection nor love. It is lust.

                      Whether I personally have experienced it is irrelevant. I have known enough homosexuals in my life, listened to them, and run across enough descriptions by them of their feelings to realize what they are descibing. It’s ugly in a way, to be sure. But I suppose that depends on how you look at it really. I simply look at them as people who either through abuse or some misidentification of attraction ended up with a psychosis that is hard to kick or control. Much like those who are attracted to animals, little children or inanimate objects. In fact, it’s exactly the same thing, really.

                      Now, the question is what, if anything, to do about it. Normalizing it as acceptable is, of course, out of the question. It is perversion. Nothing more. However, if perverts wish to keep it to themselves; i.e., consenting adults, and not rub the perversion in everyone’s face, then I for one can’t get upset about it. They have been told. If they die in their sins, so be it.

                      But that’s really the long and short of it.

                    • Anonymous/Stankovich,

                      “And Anonymous, you are a leering, imbecile of a human being.”

                      I’m amused that you condemn yourself as a pervert. That’s too funny. I won’t argue with you, of course. I doubt there is much honest research on the question of homosexual couples abusing adoptees. It is too politically sensitive a topic. My guess is that each such “family” is a bomb waiting to go off to produce other homosexuals or pedophiles through the mechanism of pederasty or lesbian sexual abuse.

                      “Yet the Great & Holy Council had pages to speak of nuclear weapons, but not a single suggestion on how to live one’s life in repentance of homosexuality, yet without love, intimacy, and companionship.”

                      And that is one reason that the council is neither “Great” nor “Holy”. Scripture and the Fathers condemn homosexual behavior in the most severe and unambiguous ways possible. The fact that it is rampant in Western culture and that the council did not even mention it should signify to everyone that it is rather a puny, unholy council.

                    • Something just dawned on me [re Manning and Stankovich]. I mean, it’s none of my business and I don’t think less of either of them, though it may be coloring their remarks and approach to Orthodoxy.

                      That would make perfect sense from their comments. If one completely conflates love, affection, intimacy and companionship with lust, then somehow one is not able to experience the one without the other. That must be a facet of the perversion, the misplaced sexual attraction. It’s not that homosexuality is a function of affection. It’s that these people are unable to experience real love, only lust. I assume that that is an emptiness in the soul as it is with all other addictive behaviors. A God-shaped hole, so to speak.

                      Well, it is not up to me to analyze it and solve it. More than likely the messenger would be condemned, given this political climate. I mean, if there were a cure for crack or heroin addiction, would addicts flock to get it? Only if it made them feel better than their current high.

                      God is the only really reliable high.


                      I mean, if they could learn to think of other men as being like animals or cartoon characters for whom they have wholesome affection; and to look at women as being shapely, submissive creatures whom they have a God given right to dominate while loving and not hurting, well, who knows . . .

                      But all of that is totally within the Law of God.

                      PS: This would also account for the plushophilia phenomenon that so tickled Mika Brzezinski. I’ll bet SSA’ers invented it, or some other variety of deviant sexuality. It would also explain why it is difficult for straight men to have friendships with decidedly gay men (but not necessarily bisexuals). Gay men probably cannot distinguish masculine affection from sexual intimacy.

                      Thanks guys. I always wondered about that stuff. I mean, it’s not a preoccupation but just little things that make you go, hmm.

                      I mean, hell, sometimes I feel like I’m living in a cartoon. Don’t you?

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      It seems to me that the “cartoon” here is the empty anthropology you present, that actually begins with Gen. 2:18:

                      And the Lord God said, [It is] not good [οὐ καλὸν εἶναι] that the man should be alone [μόνον], let us make for him a help [βοηθὸν] similar [ὅμοιος] to him.

                      Secondly, St. Chrysostom’s commentary broadens this initial, preliminary impression:

                      ‘I do not want him to be alone,’ Scripture is saying, ‘but to have some support from company, and not this only but a helpmate suited to him should be produced,’ hinting at woman. Thus He said, ‘Let us make him a helpmate,’ and added, ‘like himself,’ so that when shortly you saw wild beasts produced and all the birds of heaven, you would not thing reference was made to them. I mean, even if many of the brute beasts helped him in his labors, there was still nothing equivalent to a woman, possessed as she was of reason. Thus he said, ‘a helpmate like himself.’ (On Genesis, Homily XIV, 17)

                      A short comment, then. on the terminology: it should be noted that the word being used here for “alone,” is derived from the Greek μόνον, and think “mono-,” as in “single, one.” βοηθὸς is generally intended to mean a “helper” (“So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper [βοηθός]” (Heb. 13:6); St. Chrysostom speaks of “leaders who are in need of nothing, fulfilled, helpers [καὶ βοηθὸς] who are likewise obedient and naturally good” ; and St. John of Damascus employs a derivative, “O Lord, hurry to aid/assist [εἰς τὸ βοηθῆσαί μοι σπεῦσον] me.” The point is that it takes very little to establish a Scriptural/Patristic foundation in our anthropology for the need for affection, intimacy and companionship.

                      Further, then, without ever touching on the issue of sexuality, i.e. the casual physical-genital expression of what is believed to be affection, intimacy and companionship in our fallen world, there is first Gen. 2:24:

                      Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall join to his wife [τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ]: and they shall be one flesh [σάρκα μίαν].

                      Again, St. Chrysostom is helpful in appreciating this progression:

                      From where, after all, did he come to know that there would be intercourse between man and woman? I mean, the consummation of that intercourse occurred after the Fall; up till that time they were living like angels in paradise, and so they were not burning with desire, not assaulted by other passions, not subject to the needs of nature, but on the contrary were created incorruptible and immortal, and on that account, at any rate, they had no need to wear clothes. “They were both naked,” the text says, remember, “and were not ashamed.” You see, while sin and disobedience had not yet come on the scene, they were clad in that glory from above which caused them no shame; but after the breaking of the law, then entered the scene both shame and awareness of their nakedness. (On Genesis, Homily XV, 14)

                      Met. Anthony (Bloom) speaking On Men and Women) noted that in Gen 2:21, “The Lord God caused a deep sleep [ἔκστασιν] to fall on Adam [ἐπὶ τὸν ᾿Αδάμ],” or a “trance” or “state of ecstasy” came upon Adam. This is distinct from “anesthesia” where one is “unconscious,” whereas ἔκστασιν refers to “standing aside from,” yet acknowledging at some level:

                      Indeed here again is also a loss of awareness of self understood as self-centredness, perception of self, but it is more than self and not less than self. And the birth of Eve is an event in which Adam, who had reached the limit of what the immature complexity of the original human being was, outgrew himself, as it were, became more than he was, or rather became more fully what he was.

                      The point here is that, living in this angelic life (“living like angels in paradise,” cf. St. John of Damascus’ description of the angels as “neither married, nor reproducing,” and cf. Matt. 22:30, “For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven.”), they were not yet sexual, but demonstrated that they were created with the capacity to love both God and one another. With all respect to John Milton, “paradise” may have been lost but nothing, including the ability to experience “real love,” that was bestowed in the Creation, “as it was in the beginning.”

                      Finally, I have frequently and consistently maintained that our Orthodox anthropology is a complex συμφωνία of biology (which includes medical, genetic, and epigentic), psychological (which includes psychiatric & frequently developmental/neurodevelopmetal), social (which includes environment, family, ethnicity, race), and spirituality (which includes religion, spirituality, ethics, morality, sobriety). If your analogy of “the-better-high-than-another” addiction insight and “it just struck me” homosexuality insight are the best you have, I would suggest that you should not attempt to attempt to “analyze it and solve it” because you are patently & categorically unqualified for the task. While I remain at odds with Gregory that I must have borne the cross of homosexuality, or clinical depression, or chemical dependency, or bipolar disorder, or psychotic disorder, and so on, to be of any help, worse in my mind is attempting to impose Google authority off the top of your head. Casual debate is one thing, holding an ethical standard based on qualification is something else entirely. And no, I do not think I live in a cartoon when I am faced with real, living human beings who suffer.

                    • Stankovich/Anonymous,

                      I have no earthly idea how any of that relates to any word that I wrote above other than perhaps reinforcing to some extent my remarks on the proper relationship of males and females, as opposed to males and males.

                      Of course, that is the tack I would expect you to take . . .

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      No, no, no, Mishinka! You know exactly why I wrote what I did, though “expecting” my tact is an entirely different “why it matters.” Good lord, man, you are the living, breathing example of the desperation for attention, affection, and support. What are you doing by carrying on with this “Anonymous/ Stankovich – Stankovich/Anonymous” business? Mocking me? Hardly. You are drawing attention to you!” Anonymous /Stankovich” is the new “Syosset’s Disgrace” and you are the new enfant terrible re-incarnation of Michael Warren, Russian poseur, Google scholar, lawyer/researcher (sic), manic poster, and a self-anointed “authority” on every damn topic under the sun. And brother, Santayana may be trite, but he’s doing alright on this site… Don’t respond to this, Mishinka. Don’t do it. Don’t bite, Mishinka. You won’t melt. Despite not appreciating your comment, “I don’t care about your feelings,” I return the blessings.

                    • Once again you amuse me, Anonymous M. Stankovich. I knew there was some reason I enjoy having you around!

          • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

            Don’t forget, Misha, that ISIL, AlQaeda, Hezbollah, and the Taliban, are a DROP IN THE BUCKET of world Islam, which lives mostly at peace as much as world Christianity does. And when repeating passages from the Qor’an in English, remember that “God” is the English word for Arabic “Allah,” just as it the English word for Russian “Bog,” Latin “Deus,” and Iranian “Khoda!” NOT translating “Allah” is cheating! There is nothing wrong with the Islamic statement: “There is no God but God!”

            • Vladyka,

              But I take seriously those who say that some of what Muhammad wrote was inspired by demons, thus not by “God”, thus I will stick with “Allah” whomever he is. I do grant that when Syrian Christians, for instance, say, “Allah” that they mean the Christian God. But that is a different story.

            • Gregory Manning says

              Those “drop(s) in the bucket” are the purveyors of death–lots of it. Your view of Islam as a glass that is half-full as opposed to one that is half-empty witnesses to your desire that our view of Islam should be tempered by facts, as well it should. But to give the impression, likely unintended, that the murderers are just a few bad apples who by virtue of their relatively small numbers (when compared to the Muslim population world wide) should nevertheless not be used to broadly paint Muslims at large seems a difficult position to hold when that same extensive population of likely “good men” remain disturbingly silent and “allow evil to spread”. When you factor in the vast numbers of Muslims who themselves are victims of the slaughter, the silence is bewildering. In the conspicuous absence of broad, world-wide protests by Muslims themselves, it isn’t surprising that many take that silence to betoken consent to the slaughter.

              • Chris Banescu says

                “Drop in the bucket”? Wow! The delusion runs deep my friends.

                Never mind the actual history of the centuries-long terror, torture, murder, and mayhem campaign by Islamists not only against people of other faiths, but their own people. Why bother with the facts, when you can peddle nonsense.

                Islam is one of the deadliest dangers for fellow Muslims! “Some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or 0.3 percent, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.”


                A brief review of the http://www.thereligionofpeace.com website provides a sobering insight in to the endless streams of terror, murder, and mayhem perpetrated by the “drop in the bucket” Islamists. These “drop in the bucket” folks have carried out only 28,702 terror attacks in the name of Islam since 9/11.

                Here’s some stats on the List of Islamic Terror in Just the Last 30 Days alone:

                During this time period, there were 208 Islamic attacks in 29 countries, in which 2,086 people were killed and 1,683 injured.

              • Carl Kraeff says

                Excellent! A small percentage of the global Muslim population is still a huge number of fanatics.

                I would only add this: I believe the vast majority of Muslims, who are indeed peaceful, do not dare condemn the actions of the fanatics simply because they comport with their faith’s holy books. In other words, the fanatics can justifiably describe themselves as good Muslims. In contrast, when one looks at Christians who have killed and maimed in the name of the faith, we immediately see that their actions are opposed to the Christian holy books, with the caveat that the Old Testament must be viewed through the lens of the Cross. There is no way that the same can be said of the Muslims.

              • Peter A. Papoutsis says

                I would liken the silence of the majority of Muslims to that of inner city blacks that do not help the police after a gang shooting. The vast majority of inner city blacks are good church going and believing people, and hate what the gangs have done to their neighborhood. But they also know what the police have done to them so even though the gangs with their drive by shootings and drug dealing is hated by the black community they see the police as a worse evil so they say nothing to them even if it means helping themselves.

                One, if they help the police they are targeted by the gangs. Two, why should they help the police when the police AND the gangs kill them both. They stay silent to protect themselves and sticking it to the man. Again, not bad people, but people who have been hardened into this position by past events.

                Same thing with the majority of Muslims around the wotld. Good people, but they are not going to help the West that has been bombing and invading their countries. They basically have to decide between the lesser of two evils. Guess which one they pick?


            • Chris Banescu says

              “Drop in the bucket”? Talk about a classic example of Orwellian newspeak!

              Never mind the actual history of the centuries-long terror, torture, rape, murder, and mayhem campaign by Islamists not only against people of other faiths, but against their own people. Why bother with the facts, when you can peddle nonsense.

              Islam is one of the deadliest dangers for fellow Muslims! “Some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or 0.3 percent, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.”


              A brief review of the http://www.thereligionofpeace.com website provides a sobering insight into the endless streams of terror, murder, and mayhem perpetrated by the “drop in the bucket” Islamists. These “drop in the bucket” folks have carried out only 28,702 terror attacks in the name of Islam since 9/11.

              Here’s some stats on the List of Islamic Terror in Just the Last 30 Days alone:

              During this time period, there were 208 Islamic attacks in 29 countries, in which 2,086 people were killed and 1,683 injured.

            • Peter A. Papoutsis says

              Allah is NOT our God! Never has been and never will be. Being tolerant and civilized towards one another and other religions is one thing, and to commended, to be heretical is another thing all together. Please stick with the Gospel my good bishop, and ignore the propaganda of the left.


              • Fr. Harry Linsinbigler says

                Peter, “Allah” was the Christian term for God long before Islam came about. It is the term that Orthodox Christians who speak Arabic in the patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria use to refer to the Holy Trinity. While the Bishop may be a political southpaw, the most conservative Orthodox Christians in these Patriarchates pronounce “Qudusan Allah” during the Trisagion hymn. Why do you give the name of our God over to those who would twist it? And after you do a little research, I expect you to admit that you are wrong, that you have given over to others that which the Orthodox faithful who are Arabic speaking hold dear to themselves. I expect it.

                • The problem is what the speaker means by “Allah”. Does he mean the God of Christianity or does he mean the being who “revealed” the Quran. Therein lies the rub.

                  Muslims would suggest that they are the same being. This is a lie. The reason it is a lie is because we know Christ to be very God of very God, crucified and resurrected. The Quran emphatically denies this. Thus it is false prophecy. Thus its origin is a false diety or false prophet – a demon, a charlatan, or someone operating above his spiritual paygrade. I suggest that Muhammad was probably well meaning yet led astray by demons to deny Christian truths and to embrace an eschatology diametrically opposed to true eschatology. Unfortunately, Muslims, if they follow their own eschatology and Islam, will be aligned with the Antichrist in the last days.

                • Peter A. Papoutsis says

                  Fr. Linsinbigler,

                  If you look at my post carefully I did not engage in a philological study of the word “Allah.” What I said was, and please let me very clear about this again: “Allah is NOT our God!” This statement was made in the context of the given discussion of Islam. Last time I checked the Islamic concept of God and the Orthodox Christian concept of God are NOT the same.

                  As far as Arab Orthodox Christians using the general name of “Allah” in their local Churches and Communities I will defer to them, and to you even because I have no knowledge of this. I was talking about concepts NOT philology. Islam denies the incarnation Orthodoxy does not. That’s why Islam’s god is NOT our God.


  7. Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

    Sorry too, George, but, contrary to what you now write, Mateen DID shoot his fellow Americans, and he WAS as STUPID about Islam as the Freboro Baptists are about Christianity. He’s more representative of American group shooters than he is of anything foreign! And hey! The American melting pot is no more intellectually respectable a social concept than the Canadian “Mosaic!” Do we ridicule Greek Americans for referring to Greece as “my country?” Russians who refer to Russia as “my country?”
    Mateen committed a most evil deed, an atrocity. Why try to grab reflexively on to his act as support for this or that personal ideology?

    • Peter A. Papoutsis says

      The shooting in Orlando has less to do with Facts and more to do with manipulation. I would be weary my good bishop in making any rash judgments or conclusions about this matter.

  8. Anonymous says

    The FBI director must resign.

    The gun dealer contacted the FBI directly with concerns over Mateen’s desire to purchase military grade armor (this was so he could kill some cops or anyone with a weapon to fire back at him). He was told they wouldn’t get him armor.

    The FBI had numerous interviews with Mateen that would have established a level of fair concern.

    The FBI controls the NICS database and knew of the gun purchases.

    All of this is simple data collection and alarm bells sound and some agent drinking coffee sees a report the next morning and says – shit, this guy is up to something.

    Then they might have seen the van rental. Or the non-arm’s length property transfer, etc.

    America got crickets.

    Regardless of your political leanings, it was the government’s duty to protect the citizens and for these and other reasons which delve into politics, it failed. We all must ask for the resignation of Comey.

    This is the polar opposite of the blogpost. I’m crediting Comey and the bureau.

    • Peter Millman says

      Greetings Anonymous, I would have to say that if the FBI fails to recommend indicting Hillary Clinton, then, and only then, should he resign. The most important thing is removing this corrupt, harridan, hypocritical thief from the presidential election process, and confining her to prison where she belongs. That’s the most important thing, my friend: ending Hillary’s corrupt campaign. Thank you kindly.

      • Tim R. Mortiss says

        If you can’t beat ’em at the polls, put ’em in prison.

        Whatever I might think of the FBI’s decisions, or of Hillary Clinton, I don’t want the police deciding who should be President of the United States.

        • Peter A. Papoutsis says

          I wanted them to decide who was a criminal. The FBI failed to do that with Hillary and failed misrably.

          I have heard that the FBI director made the speech so as to get all the damning facts out first because he knew Lynch &Co would not do it, and because he knew lynch would not prosecute. So he wanted to get his dig in and save as much of his reputation as he could after that improper meeting Bill Clinton had with Lynch.

          That is the ONLY good spin you can put on this big pile of stinking crap called American justice.

          Hillary’s motto: “Silly people, laws are for poor people to follow not us rich and powerful.”

          If Hillary becomes president what little we have left of our Republic will disappear instantly. America you have been warned.


        • Tim, toward the end of big basketball games, the officials will have a tendency to let the game be “decided on the court” by the players — which mostly means that the bar for having a foul called is raised higher and that there is more contact tolerated. Everyone knows this is going to happen, and everyone adjusts their game — offensive and defensive — accordingly.

          But the officials don’t walk off the court. The rules still apply, albeit modified according to unwritten understandings that both sides know ahead of time will be in play. Hard and clear-cut fouls get called, and if someone steps on an out-of-bounds line or stays in the lane longer than 3 seconds or goal-tends, the whistle still blows.

          What you are proposing with regard to Hillary is akin to having the officials (law enforcement) walking off the court, lest they decide the outcome of the game — I mean, the election.

          Had the FBI indicted Hillary — just as they indicted someone just within the last year (eventually convicted) for mishandling classified information with no malicious intent whatsoever (the FBI’s sole stated reason for not recommending indictment of Hillary) — they wouldn’t be responsible for “deciding” the election any more than an official who blows the whistle when a basketball player steps out of bounds while dribbling is responsible for “deciding” the game.

          No one made the guy step out of bounds, and no one made Hillary set up an illegal private email server with the obvious intent of evading the Freedom of Information Act and other meddlesome laws that the Clintons find inconvenient.

          She should really get religion, and fall down on her knees every morning and thank God that she is running against someone like Trump, who clearly has no clue of how to run a competent, let alone winning, general election campaign.

          • Tim R. Mortiss says

            I certainly agree with that last paragraph!

            • There’s a certain perverse kind of betting or calculation going on in many quarters, I assume. Let’s take the FBI as an example:

              One of these may very well be president. The FBI would then answer to that president – careers being made and broken. Yet also, the FBI has power. If they were to indict her and really lay this on, they would influence the election and maybe get Trump elected. Or, if she beat the rap, they would have her as an enemy. Heads would roll. Trump has already said that “she has to go to jail”. So they know what he wants.

              What’s a poor FBI director to do? Well, the present reality is that I like my job and Obama’s president. He’s a democrat who has endorsed Hilary. If Hillary goes down, no one on that side is going to be happy and I may lose my job sooner rather than later.

              However, if she’s meant to stay in the race, or beat the rap, I win if I exonerate her now. Saves a whole lotta paperwork and everybody is happy, except Trump. He may not be a problem if she beats him.

              As to Trump, he can’t really hold me responsible for this given the duress I was under – two big dragons on my tail – Obama and Hillary. If he wins, once he’s in, I’ll prosecute her to the fullest extent of the law if that is what he wants to do.

              Yeah, that’s the ticket.

              So . . . she’d better win, or it may be a lonely retirement.

  9. Patriarch Kirill liked having historical event meeting with Pope in Havana .. now lets
    keep it all in the sunshine have MP and EP meet in Vegas at the MGM. They can hammer
    some of their territorial disputes out at the high end poker table. Another draft of ill repute signed. What are they up to?

  10. Anonymous says

    This is a message to Stankovich since the thread is full up.

    Not an imbecile of a human being. In fact, what you did is you took a criticism I made that homosexuals are not net love seekers in that homosexuals can adopt and show love to a child and twisted it to a viewpoint of pedophilia. I was challenging the assertion that homosexuals do not give affection. That assertion was made by Manning I believe. And I was speaking to Manning.

    I believe the notion homosexuals can love someone and not sexually is what makes Misha nervous. Of course, this is the Arida message and you are terrified to be associated with it. But you need to stand up pal.

    You continue, Michael, to believe that everyone posting here is a gay hater.

    Not so.

    Leering-maybe, but I was contributing positively to the discussion until you twisted it up. Of course, given the fact you get beat up everytime you speak on the issue by gay haters might go to mindset and why you keep interjecting yourself into OPG (other people’s garbage), and looking at the darkest possible meanings from written word.

    And the reason for tardiness responding is I have been very busy.

    • M. Stankovich says


      Several comments, my brother/sister/elliptical sphere, as the case may be. Please clarify this with Mr. Michalopulos, but you are posting to a “forum,” not a protected “vacuity” upholding private conversations between you and others, despite your designated comment to Gregory Manning. Within that specific context, it seems to me that you necessarily relinquish control over whether you are perceived as “contributing positively.” When the “like/dislike” system was operative on this site, I requested prayers for a priest who was a former schoolmate of mine who suffered & died from cancer. I received 3 “likes” and 8 “dislikes.” Go figure. Change you diaper, son, and move on. If I misinterpreted your comment, and you are not bailing post-fact, accept my sincere apology.

      Secondly, as if it was somehow not obvious, I was most certainly agreeing, supporting, and defending Gregory Manning’s stated comments as reflective of the anthropology of the Orthodox Church “as it was in the beginning.” We were conceived and created with both the capacity, the need, and the desire to love God and our fellow human beings. Even in our fallen and corrupted humanity and world, nothing can remove that capacity and desire from us. As to how this relates to Priest Robert Arida, let me be very clear & specific with you: come September, I will have know Priest Robert Arida for 43 years, and continue to love him as my own brother. Further, I would state to you emphatically that in nearly ever case, I am in complete agreement with everything I have read from. Nevertheless, I am absolutely clear as to where we differ; I have been open & vocal as to my call for him to clarify his position on the created humanity, our Orthodox anthropology, homosexuality, and Christian Marriage or remove himself from the altar; and if his beliefs and opinions are contrary to those of the Scripture, the The Holy Fathers, and our Holy Tradition, that he repent. Immediately. I will always be the defender of Priest Robert Arida – unhesitatingly – when he is correct, and your comment that I am “terrified” of associating with him when he is correct is epic foolishness on your part. And read this again: epic foolishness.

      Finally, believing everyone is a “gay hater,” & getting “beat up everytime [I] speak on the issue by gay haters” is your observation & opinion. It is also an opinion for which I am especially disinterested. I’ll leave it that.

  11. Gregory Manning says

    “I was challenging the assertion that homosexuals do not give affection. That assertion was made by Manning I believe.”
    Not me. My whole point was that there is a widely held assumption that homosexuals are, for all intent and purposes, driven by lust. Not so. They too experience the powerful yearning to love and be loved–and I’m talking about intimate love here. It’s just that those efforts come up short time and again–hence the apparent promiscuity.
    As I recall, you cited child adoption on the part of homosexuals as evidence of their ability to give “love”. Again, I don’t doubt the truth that this shows that they are capable of desiring to love another human being in a powerfully meaningful way. But my personal belief (and it’s well on its way to becoming a conviction) is that SS adoptions are not a plan for a “successful” outcome. The best opportunity for successful child rearing is only found within heterosexual marriages. SS adoptions may have scattered successes but nothing beats having a loving mom and dad.

    • Anonymous says

      It wasn’t a citation as much as a discussion point/challenge to your assertion. You don’t really make your point about why SS adoptions are not as good as heterosexual. I mean I really struggle that they can be, so I’m playing the gulp-devil’s advocate for the sake of getting your insights mainly.

      • Gregory Manning says

        Look again. I said that I did not make the assertion that SSA people don’t “give” love. Quite the opposite.
        Also, (and I’ll change the italicized word to bold) the best opportunity for successful child rearing is present with a mother and a father. Two mothers or two fathers may produce a well adjusted child but that one-off success is not a sound basis for concluding that SS parents are just as likely to raise a well adjusted child as opposite sex parents. If two fathers claim they can do just as effective a job in rearing a child as some mother and father combination then they are asserting that mothers are not essential to that childs upbringing. If there’s a mother–fine; but a child doesn’t need a female mother. By the same token if two women make their version of the same claim they are then saying that a child doesn’t necessarily need a father. No matter what combination is employed the results will essentially be the same. WRONG.
        I along with many gay men and women, as well as the Church abhor the willful, intentional deprivation of a child of a mother and/or a father, especially when it’s done as an act of defiance of the Church’s (and society’s) anthropology. Human sinfulness and bad–even terrible–judgement calls in traditional parenting are no justification for making matters worse by altering the formula, especially when it’s done to thumb one’s nose at the Church and society at large. Humanity doesn’t need more broken children. The Church’s ancient wisdom in this matter must be adhered to!

        • Anonymous says

          I really like your response. The classic, “well, some kids grow up with moms and dads and get beat by both of them” didn’t show up in it.


  12. Anonymous says

    Apology accepted and your welcome.

    Why don’t you go to a Dale Carnegie class or something? You always have to be so damn nasty when people respond to anything you say.

    “Change your diaper”.

    Come on Michael.

    As for you always stepping in the doo doo, it would be fine if you did it with a quotient of grace, but you get mean.

    Let me reflect on the offensive remarks I made to you. I said you always look on the dark side and don’t have the guts to stand up to the gay haters and I gave you a little something to reflect on above. Sorry.

    Let me be clear about something Michael. You are important to me.

  13. M. Stankovich says

    Seriously, dude, the whole “where-do-I-get-me-one-of-them-mind-reading-certificates” offends me to no end. I’m not “cagey,” nor do I avoid any direct question save from jackasses, and even you clearly know to whom I refer. These are extraordinarily complex issues that confront us, and as near as I can tell, there seem to be three predictable paths to destroying any reasonable discussion: unqualified Google scholars who who attempt to impose their self-anointed “expertise,” (generally pulled directly from their derrière); self-righteous creeps engaged in ego-protective “reaction formation” to their unengaged conflict; and those who are simply maladjusted, emotionally fragile males (I refuse to use the word “phobic” because it lends a legitimate “disorder”) who are a product of cultural development (and I would analogize this with the ever-denied, endemic, Russian bias against Jews). I have not stood up to the gay haters? Are you serious? You might look around this site and the AOI site, beginning in 2011; but I don’t recommend it. The responses ranged from suggesting I might be a child sexual predator myself, perverted in any number of ways, homosexual, a shill/agent/bucket carrier for Syosset (and too stupid to even know it), a heretic, a “smooth-talking” narcotizer, a purveyor of “gay iconography” (it was Coptic!), a “Richard Simmons” look-alike, and so on. In fact, there is more known about me personally – despite my complaint that “doxing” me was a fast-track for felons in CA state prisons to locate me – than most anyone posting here. [And as an aside, whomever continues to send me “doxed” information about people posting on this site, eventually I will track you down like a dog – you will not type for months…].

    What is my point? You have a question about my “terror” of agreeing with Priest Robert Arida, or something [ridiculously] similar? Inquire. Better I answer you frankly than we offend one another. This is colloquially referred to as “communication.” And frankly, unless you are in the Witness Protection Program, it’s a little hard to feel special…

    • Anonymous says

      Only on the doxed stuff. They are not good at it. Just thought you should know since I have great respect for you generally. And it isn’t me, fyi.

      Sometimes, playing devil’s advocate serves its own function Michael.