Month: September 2011

Pastoral Message of Archbishop Demetrios (GOA) on September 11, 2001

Russia Adds Discipline to World Orthodoxy

4 Comments

Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations, arrived in Istanbul on August 20th, where he met with His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople.

Source: Orthodox News | by Theodore Kalmoukos

BOSTON- The Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow issued a “warning” to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and of the Primates of the ancient Orthodox Patriarchates who met as a Synaxis in Constantinople September 1-3 and which included the Archbishop of Cyprus. The hierarchs addressed issues facing Orthodox Christians in the Middle East, as well as the preparations of the long-awaited Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church.

The fact that Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew did not also invite the Patriarchs and Primates of the other Patriarchates and Autocephalous Churches of the Orthodox World bothered the Russian Patriarchate as well as the Patriarchate of Romania and others. The Patriarchate of Moscow sent its head of the External Affairs Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk to alert Patriarchs Ignatios of Antioch, Theofilos of Jerusalem, Daniel of Romania, and even the Ecumenical Patriarch that it was wrong that only the four ancient Patriarchates and the Church of Cyprus were invited to the Synaxis and the rest of Orthodoxy was excluded.

In an exclusive interview with The National Herald Metropolitan Hilarion warned Patriarch Bartholomew and the four other Prelates “not to take any decisions that will threaten the unity of Orthodoxy.” The Orthodox Church of Russia numbers 150 million faithful in and out of Russia. Within the State of Russia there are 100 million communicants, 222 hierarchs, 150 Metropolises, 30,000 parishes, 30,000 priests and 800 Monasteries.

In the Synaxis at the Phanar Patriarchs Theodoros of Alexandria, Theofilos of Jerusalem, and Archbishop Chrysostomos of Cyprus participated in person while Patriarch Ignatios of Antioch was represented by Bishop Isaac of Apameia. Patriarch Ignatios of Antioch canceled his participation in person at the last minute after he received a visit from Metropolitan Hilarion.

The interview with Metropolitan Hilarion follows:

TNH: What are the thoughts and the positions of the Patriarchate of Moscow concerning the Synaxis?

Hilarion: I was told by His All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch that this was to be a Synaxis dedicated to assess the Middle East where the situation for Christians is becoming increasingly difficult.

TNH: It was also announced that they will be discussing preparations of the future Great and Sacred Council of Orthodoxy. Do you have any comment?

Hilarion: Any formal decisions concerning the upcoming Great and Holy Council will be taken by all Orthodox Churches, not by a particular group of Churches.

TNH: Is the Patriarchate of Moscow disturbed because Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew invited only the Primates of the ancient Patriarchates and not all of the Patriarchates?

Hilarion: We regard this as a local meeting. There were other meetings recently. For example, the Patriarch of Jerusalem invited the Patriarch of Antioch and Archbishop of Cyprus and the representative of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, they met in Jordan and they discussed various issues.

TNH: But what about the issues of Ecclesiology and Canonicity? How do the other Patriarchs you have spoken to feel about it?

Hilarion: As I said, any form of decision which relates to the Orthodox Church in general can only be taken by the all the Orthodox churches together. Any kind of informal discussion, however, is possible among two or three or more churches.

TNH: Let us be clear: Assuming that this Synaxis arrives at certain conclusions about ecclesiology – the canonicity of Diaspora churches, the Diptychs, etc. – will the Patriarchate of Moscow recognize those discussions or not?

Hilarion: There is no mechanism for the recognition of the decisions of a particular group of churches by some other church, so, I believe that if they come to certain decisions they will bring them in front of all the other churches and if they are adopted by all the churches then it will become a reality for the Orthodox Church.

TNH: What did you tell the Patriarchs of Antioch and Romania?

Hilarion: I do not think that I should disclose the content of my bilateral conversations with the Patriarch of Antioch or with the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Certainly we discussed first and foremost the bilateral relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and their churches. Also matters of inter-Orthodox concern were discussed and we shared our opinions about them.

TNH: Do you think that the new Patriarchates of Moscow, Romania, Bulgaria and others will organize an anti-Synaxis?

Hilarion: I believe that first of all we should wait for the decisions. After that we will see what type of strategy we will adopt. But I would like to respect what I was told by the Ecumenical Patriarch that they would discuss the situation of the Middle East, which I expect was the main topic of discussion.

TNH: Why do you think Patriarch Ignatios of Antioch did not go in person to the Synaxis?

Hilarion: That I do not know.

TNH: What is your best wish for the Synaxis?

Hilarion: We are coming closer to the Great and Hlly Council of the Orthodox Church and I very much hope that all the churches will do what unites us rather than what may potentially divide us.

TNH: How are the relations between the Patriarchate of Moscow and the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

Hilarion: I think the relations are very good both on the personal level between the two Patriarchs and also on the official level.

TNH: What is the position of the Patriarchate of Moscow on the issue of the Orthodox Diaspora?

Hilarion: In the Russian Orthodox Church we believe that in the Diaspora it is possible to establish Canonical Orthodox Churches if there is agreement in the Orthodox populations of the particular countries. On this basis we granted autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in America in 1970. But now the Orthodox churches are coming closer together and we are commonly decided that the granting of autocephaly should be a matter of Panorthodox concern and that Tomes of Autocephaly should be signed by all the Primates of All the Orthodox Churches. In fact we agreed on a different model from that which existed before. We also agreed to establish Episcopal Assemblies in the Diaspora to facilitate cooperation among the different jurisdictions.

TNH: With this new decision are you saying that the Ecumenical Patriarchate no longer has the historical and canonical privilege of being the only one to grant Autocephaly?

Hilarion: This seems to be the consensus of all the representatives of all the Orthodox churches, that autocephaly should be granted with the agreement of all the Orthodox Churches. It can be proclaimed by the Ecumenical Patriarch, but the Tome will be signed by all the Primates.

TNH: A final word about the Synaxis?

Hilarion: Let us see what the results will be and I very much hope that there will be nothing that may create disunity between the Churches.

Chris Banescu, Bp. Savas and the Dust Up

24 Comments

When ideas clash, they often clash hard. When Chris Banescu took Bp. Savas to task for a mistake he made in reporting the salary of an American CEO, his intention was not only to call Bp. Savas on the error, but to call attention to Bp. Savas’ economic assumptions.

The error was minor and we all make them. It was easily corrected. The assumptions rest deeper. Since Bp. Savas has entered the public square and unabashedly promotes the assumptions, challenging them is fair game. That is why I decided to publish Banescu’s piece.

Bp. Savas evaluates and prescribes economic policy exclusively through a Progressive political framework. His thinking differs little, if at all, from Jim Wallis, arguably the leader of what we can call “Christian-Progressivism.” Wallis has been a Progressive for as long back as anyone can remember, at least from the 1960s when he first became a political activist.

Progressivism has a storied history in American that we won’t enter into it here. In the last four decades however, it has grown increasingly statist. That means Progressives see the state as the source and enforcer of the policies that they think conform to the Christian moral imperative to love the neighbor.

In many ways the shift from early to contemporary Progressive ideology parallels the history of feminism (which today also falls under the Progressive umbrella). Early feminists were pro-life, modern feminists are the loudest voices for aborting the unborn. Clearly something changed from then to now.

Progressive ideology employs the language of the Christian moral vocabulary to justify its policy goals especially about helping the poor. This causes a considerable amount of confusion among the uninformed. It sounds like the Progressive policy goals and the Christian moral imperatives are one and the same.

The reality is entirely different. Progressive ideas have done more to harm the poor than help them. This first became apparent in Charles Murry’s ground-breaking work Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950–1980 back in 1984 (read more here).

Murray’s book was a game-changer. His research showed that instead of helping the poor, the Progressive policies contributed to the break-down of poor families and created a cycle of dependency that institutionalized poverty. These policies were first formulated under the Johnson administration’s “Great Society” programs and were for all purposes well-intentioned. Their results however have been catastrophic.

For example, in Harlem (the first focus of the Great Society administrators), 70% of all children lived in intact two parent families and the trend was increasing. Thirty percent lived in a single parent household. Ten years after the onset of the Great Society, the numbers were reversed.

Further, the breakdown of the family has left many boys bereft of father figures leading to the increase of gangs as their primary unit of socialization. It is also the reason why young black men are over-represented in our prisons. In fact, single-motherhood has become the single most reliable determinate of poverty.

Murray’s initial research has been confirmed time and again, enough so that even the Democrats who first championed the Great Society ideals had to admit its failures. President Bill Clinton, to his credit, was the fist to roll back the reach of the Progressive welfare state when he ended “welfare as we know it.” You can find the research justifying the change and examining the results by searching the indexes of the Manhattan Institute and the Heritage Foundation.

Thankfully there are other Orthodox Christians who recognize the harm that the Progressive ideas have fostered. The Fellowship of Christians United to Serve (FOCUS, an Orthodox organization) has launched a program to teach men how to become men and reverse the soul-denying patronization that they’ve suffered:

The Man Class

The Progressive economic assumptions have risen into view because the debt crisis threatens their dismantling. This was the reason why Jim Wallis organized the public signing of the document “The Circle of Protection” at the White House several months ago and why President Obama received them. (Full disclosure: I had a part in organizing CASE – Christians for a Sustainable Economy in response to Wallis’ efforts.)

These assumptions ride on the back of the Progressive social agenda. I mentioned above that Progressives borrow the Christian moral lexicon to justify their policy goals. This borrowing confuses many people because they assume Progressive ideas are the way that we fulfill our Christian obligation to care for the poor. It sounds like Progressive ideas and the Christian obligation are one and the same.

Ideas have consequences, and Progressive ideas have been catastrophic. Yet to many the catastrophe remains hidden because when Progressive ideas are challenged, they are met with more moral exhortations. These kind of responses never add any clarity to the discussion. They are meant to impugn the motives of the questioner and close discussion.

Our job is to think clearly. That means we should not take the Progressive borrowing of the Christian moral lexicon at face value. Just because a policy or idea sounds Christian does not mean that it is. Nor does it mean that when the Progressive impugns the critic’s motives in his response, that the response is authoritative. Most often it is not. Instead, call the response what it is: a deliberate misapplication of the Christian moral lexicon to avoid answering the criticism in any meaningful way.

Chris Banescu: Predators with Ph.D.s

8 Comments

If this doesn’t send chills up your arm, nothing will. Note too the language and logic the academics are using to normalize pedophilia. Sound familiar? All aberrant behavior is being softened. The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s telling prophecy that cultural elites are “defining deviancy down” is being fulfilled before our eyes. This must be resisted.

Source: American Thinker | By Chris Banescu | Read this article on Voice in the Wilderness blog

See also: Tiberius Redux

The latest offensive against morality, decency, and sanity in America has been launched by a pro-pedophilia group and several academics who openly advocate for the normalization and legalization of pedophilia. Referring to Judeo-Christian moral principles and values as “cultural baggage of wrongfulness” and an adult’s desire to sexually molest a child as “normative,” these predators with Ph.D.s are hell-bent on destroying key moral boundaries and critical societal norms that protect innocent children from pathological and dangerous adults.

On August 17 of this year, the pro-pedophilia group B4U-ACT sponsored an event in Baltimore attended by researchers, professors, mental health professionals, and “minor-attracted persons” (MAP, a euphemism for “adults who crave sex with children”). These individuals endorse the adult molestation of children, consider this sexual perversion as normal, and advocate for the declassification of pedophilia as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association (APA).

The academic panelists who presented at this “pedophilia-friendly” scientific symposium came from such distinguished institutions as Johns Hopkins University, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, and the London School of Economics and Political Science.

According to a press release issued by Matt Barber, vice president of Liberty Counsel Action, and Dr. Judith Reisman, visiting law professor at Liberty University School of Law, who attended the event, several admitted pedophiles were in attendance, in addition to many academics and university professors. The keynote address was given by Dr. Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins University, who proclaimed that he wants to “completely support the goal of B4U-ACT.”

Key highlights from the conference include these disturbing assertions (more disturbing excerpts available at the end of this article):

Pedophiles are “unfairly stigmatized and demonized” by society.
“The majority of pedophiles are gentle and rational.”
There was concern about “vice-laden diagnostic criteria” and “cultural baggage of wrongfulness.”
“We are not required to interfere with or inhibit our child’s sexuality.”
“Children are not inherently unable to consent” to sex with an adult.
An adult’s desire to have sex with children is “normative.”
Our society should “maximize individual liberty. … We have a highly moralistic society that is not consistent with liberty.”
“In Western culture sex is taken too seriously.”
“Anglo-American standard on age of consent is new [and ‘Puritanical’]. In Europe it was always set at 10 or 12. Ages of consent beyond that are relatively new and very strange, especially for boys. They’ve always been able to have sex at any age.”
“Assuming children are unable to consent lends itself to criminalization and stigmatization.”
A consensus belief by both speakers and pedophiles in attendance was that, because it vilifies MAPs, pedophilia should be removed as a mental disorder from the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), in the same manner homosexuality was removed in 1973.

There is no greater moral imperative than the protection of the innocent, and especially defenseless children. These timeless and universal truths are embedded in the Judeo-Christian principles and moral precepts upon which American society and legal system are based. Any adult — especially a university professor or medical doctor — who cannot grasp such elementary morality has no business teaching, counseling, or treating anyone, especially dangerous predators with an appetite for children.

What these academics are doing — i.e., providing comfort and support for child-rapists and molesters — is unconscionable and unethical. Instead of helping to suppress these abusers’ sick desires, correct their delusional attractions, and moderate (or hopefully cure) their mental illness, these professionals sympathize with these monsters and minimize the evil they perpetrate. Rather than work to suppress the abomination in these pedophiles’ minds and souls, these academics stoke these warped passions with the fuel of justification, rationalization, and normalization.

And their treachery doesn’t stop there. Academics like Fred Berlin, M.D., Ph.D.; Nancy Nyquist Potter, Ph.D.; and others are also attempting to destroy societal protections of children by pushing to declassify this dangerous perversion as a mental illness and decriminalize the behavior. In essence, they advocate the elimination of statutory rape and sexual offender registration laws designed to protect minors from being sexually exploited by adults, thus removing the ability of the state to punish and incarcerate these monsters. How many other potential predators — who previously suppressed their lusts for fear of incarceration, societal rebuke, and sexual predator registration laws — will now be encouraged to succumb to their perverse impulses, cheered on and defended by credentialed academics and fully protected by a neutered legal system?

What do the leadership of John Hopkins University, Harvard Medical School, and the University of Louisville have to say about their professors attending a pro-pedophile conference and advocating for the “normalization” of adults having sex with children? What about the donors, supporters, and alumni who support these institutions? Are they aware that their donations pay for these professors’ salaries and help promote these kinds of “academic” activities? Is this an indication of the level of “scholarship” and “intellectual discourse” we expect to see in the future from these acclaimed institutions? What’s next? A conference on how to de-stigmatize and normalize producers, distributors, and users of child porn?

Chris Banescu is an attorney, entrepreneur, and university professor. He regularly blogs at www.chrisbanescu.com and www.orthodoxnet.com/blog.

Chris Banescu: Bishop Savas is Wrong on Taxes on the Poor and the Rich

42 Comments

Chris Banescu corrects some bad math and sloppy assertions.

Source: A Voice in the Wilderness | Chris Banescu

Bishop Savas (Zembillas), GOA’s Director of the Office of Church and Society, has launched into yet another missive against conservatives whom he frequently condemns of hating the poor and only protecting the rich. On his facebook page, the main venue where one can find the bishop’s real views and interests, he recently posted a blame Republicans editorial from The New York Times titled “The New Resentment of the Poor.” Apparently forgetting that envy is a sin and truth-telling a virtue, Bishop Savas highlights his class-warfare passions in several false claims he posted in the discussions related to the NYT article.

This is not the first time Bishop Savas has posted such biased hit pieces on his Facebook wall. He has a long history of supporting pro-Democrat and anti-Republican views via his many postings of overwhelmingly liberal and leftist-leaning commentary from NPR and The New York Times, his favorite sources of “balanced and objective” news and views. However, this latest editorial further showcases his superficial and misinformed thinking on taxation via several outlandish statements that distort the truth and advance a leftist/progressive agenda.

Falsehood #1 – Employee Social Security and Medicare Tax Rates
In the comments section below The New York Times editorial link, Bishop Savas makes this claim (emphasis mine):

“even those who don’t pay federal income tax pay 16% of their total income on taxes. A person making $30,000 pays around $5,000.”

What he calls “total income on taxes” are the combined Social Security and Medicare taxes that individuals must pay to the federal government (in addition to federal and state income taxes). These are taxes that are automatically deducted by employers from their employees’ payroll checks. Based on the numbers he cited, employed individuals would pay a 16.7% ($5,000 divided by $30,000) combined Social Security and Medicare tax rate on income. Unfortunately, the bishop’s assertion is wildly inaccurate. He’s not just wrong by a few percentage points, but off by more than 100%.

According to federal government guidelines, by law employees are required to pay a 6.2% Social Security tax and a 1.45% Medicare tax on their earnings. This means that employed individuals must pay a combined SS/Medicare tax of 7.65% on their income. The employer must also match those taxes and pay an additional 7.65% of the employee’s salary directly to the federal government. Those additional taxes are paid by the employer only and are not deducted from the employee’s earnings.

Relying on some simple web research and basic math, we arrive at $2,295 per year of Social Security and Medicare taxes that employees earning $30,000 per year actually pay (nowhere near the $5,000 alleged). The matching $2,295 in SS/Medicare taxes are paid solely by an employer from his own earnings, not the employee’s pocket. This means that Bishop Savas’ erroneous example exaggerates these taxes by nearly 218%, asserting a fictional 16.7% vs. an actual 7.65% tax rate; a percentage two times bigger than reality.

Falsehood #2 – Viacom CEO Salary for 2010
The second falsehood from Bishop Savas, in the same facebook section, focuses on the 2010 salary of Viacom’s CEO (emphasis mine):

“The CEO of Viacom made $754,000,000 last year – around $2,000,000 a day, give or take. What percentage do you think he owes in taxes?

Such an enormous salary, nearly 3/4 of a billion dollars, for just one year’s worth of work is indeed shocking. The problem is that it’s not true. The assertion is meant to scandalize the reader and justify resentment of the other. It’s an audacious condemnation in support of the same liberal/leftist bias seen in the NYT article posted on his facebook wall. Bishop Savas is shamelessly distorting the facts.

A quick search on Google reveals the truth regarding the actual compensation that Mr. Phillippe Dauman, the CEO of Viacom, was awarded last year. As reported by the Los Angeles Times:

“Viacom Inc. Chief Executive Philippe Dauman was awarded salary, stock and other benefits totaling $84.5 million during the nine months of 2010 that were covered in Viacom’s fiscal year.

That amount included one-time stock award worth $31.65 million — money that was not paid to Dauman in 2010 but will vest over the next five years if the company achieves certain performance goals. The grant was bestowed on Dauman as a signing bonus in April after he extended his employment contract six and a half years.”

Notice immediately that the 2010 “awarded salary, stock and other benefits” is orders of magnitude smaller than the bishop’s imaginary amount. It is only $84.5 million vs. $754 million. Notice also, that a large portion of that salary, $31.65 million in fact, is deemed as “one-time stock award”; it hasn’t been paid to Mr. Dauman yet. That amount will vest over the next five years if the company meets very specific performance guidelines. He will only receive that compensation in the future if he fulfills the goals identified in his 5-year contract with Viacom.

The money Mr. Dauman was actually paid in 2010 is probably closer to $52.85 million. That’s indeed a nice chunk of change. But, it’s a whopping 1,427% smaller than what Bishops Savas said it was. That’s quite a discrepancy! Yes, we’re still talking about large amounts of money, but why the need for such ludicrous embellishment?

Even assuming a very superficial reading of the LA Times piece and using the $84.5 million compensation number, still leaves us with a 892% exaggeration of the facts. Is the desire to justify a viewpoint and promote an agenda so powerful that accuracy and truth no longer matter?

Falsehood #3 – Total Income Tax Rates on the Rich
Bishop Savas also erroneously assumes that someone earning $754 million per year would only pay $250 million in taxes:

“The CEO of Viacom made $754,000,000 last year – around $2,000,000 a day, give or take. What percentage do you think he owes in taxes? Say, for the sake of argument, he pays back $250,000,000. That would leave him with only a little more than half a billion dollars. Who would have made the greater sacrifice, him or the guy who paid $5,000 out of his $30k? Who is likely to have felt it more?”

Using his numbers gives the impression that a rich CEO pays only 33.1% in income taxes, allowing him to keep 66.9% of what he earned. This is also not true.

First of all, the marginal Federal Income Tax rate is currently 35% for anyone earning more than $379,150 per year (cut-off was $373,650 in 2010). Right away, the bishop’s math is off by almost 2%. [NOTE – the federal tax rates are less for the first $379,150 earned, but for practical purposes when dealing with millions in income the effective rate approaches 35%.]

Second of all, Bishop Savas conveniently leaves out an additional 1.45% Medicare tax that the federal government imposes on all income earned. This raises the federal tax to 36.45%. And we’re not done yet. State incomes taxes must also be paid.

Assuming that Mr. Phillippe Dauman is a resident of New York (a fair assumption since the corporate headquarters of Viacom Inc. are in New York City), he must also pay state and local income taxes due each year. A brief overview of New York’s state tax laws by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation reveals a tax rate of 8.97% on all income over $500K per year. We’ll round that out to 8.9% for simplicity and to account for the slightly smaller tax rates bellow the half million dollar mark.

Adding the 8.9% NY state tax rate to the 36.45% Federal tax rate brings the Total Tax Rate to 45.35%, roughly 37% larger than Bishop Savas asserts. Had Mr. Dauman actually earned $754 million for 2010, the IRS and New York State authorities would have appropriated about $342 million of that money (almost half), not $250 million (only a third) as claimed.

The reality is that New York taxpayers in the highest income brackets keep just 54.65% of what they actually earn each year. This is significantly less than the fictional 66.9% asserted by Bishop Savas. Nearly half of what the rich earn is confiscated and redistributed by the government. What’s wrong with sticking with the facts?

Better Silence Than Foolishness
As Abraham Lincoln once observed, it is often “better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.” A little moderation would be wise before stepping into the public arena and proclaiming such whoppers. This is especially egregious given that the truth is just a few keystrokes away, discoverable via a few Google searches and some basic math.

It’s been said that economists should not do religion. Maybe religious figures should not do economics.

Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to undefined function nuthemes_content_nav() in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/prose/archive.php:58 Stack trace: #0 /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-includes/template-loader.php(106): include() #1 /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-blog-header.php(19): require_once('/home/aoiusa/pu...') #2 /home/aoiusa/public_html/index.php(17): require('/home/aoiusa/pu...') #3 {main} thrown in /home/aoiusa/public_html/wp-content/themes/prose/archive.php on line 58