A Clarification to our Australian Readers about Misleading Information in Your Local Media


“Archbishop Demetrios Stands For Trump,” blared the headline in Neos Kosmos, your local Australian newspaper today after Archbishop Demetrios of America offered the closing prayer at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday night in Cleveland, Ohio.

Some clarification to our Aussie cousins who may not know how things go on in the United States.

First of all– the headline is highly misleading. The Archbishop didn’t “stand for Trump” neither literally on the stage (if that’s what you meant), nor figuratively in political support terms (which is what your misleading headline probably insinuated).

Neither Archbishop Demetrios, nor the previous Archbishops before him are strangers to political stages. It’s what we do here in the good ole USA and as politics and religion are inexorably linked in America, generations of Greek Americans have worked hard to carve our niche on the American mainstream, rather than remain on the fringes as an ethnic ghetto society.

With regards to political conventions, the Greek Orthodox Archbishop has been present at ALL conventions over the past 40 years– both republican and democrat.

And in keeping with tradition, Archbishop Demetrios will also be at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia next week… “Standing with Hillary.” (A reference to Neos Kosmos headline and not our comment)

The subsequent Facebook post by Neos Kosmos has generated some pretty vile and nasty comments from Australian readers who obviously misunderstood the participation of Archbishop Demetrios at the Republican convention.

So, dear colleagues at Neos Kosmos– I encourage you to retract your headline and issue a clarification. Archbishop Demetrios did NOT “stand with Trump” on Wednesday night. He was merely doing his duty as an American– and joining Catholics, Jews, Protestants and other mainstream American religious groups on one of two of the most prominent political stages in our country.

We don’t need more misinformation or misleading information between Greek Americans and Greek Australians… It’s bad enough we are so many time zones away and it’s hard to keep in touch properly.



  1. Thomas Georgiades on

    What if he did? So what? The Democratic party has been so pulled to the left, that it is no longer in line with the values of Greek Orthodox Americans. The Republicans and the Greek Orthodox share many of the same values, including family values, religious values and moral values.

    • Well said- the Liberal Bullies- do as we say or else has to stop. Trump is not my ideal candidate by any stretch, but I would NEVER EVER VOTE for HIllary. She is the epitome of everything that is wrong with Washington and what we are sick of. Is he the messiah- of course not- but she will not be out for anyone but herself and her family. The lady and family are evil to its core- and if you simply google her entire career and still want to vote for her then bless your soul,

      She is for woman’s rights?
      So take %405-60 million from some of the most oppressed societies for women in the middle east.
      Do you have any idea what she has done to those women that came out against her husband and his sexual deviance?
      Not to mention his flights on the pedophile express-

    • You are completely wrong. The family, religious and moral values that the Republicans espouse are totally against Christianity. Jesus would NOT have been elitist, if he was here now. He would not have stood for the proliferation of guns. He told Peter to put the knife away after all, when he was being arrested. Jesus would not have fought tooth and nail to deny health coverage for poor people, as the republicans are doing. Jesus would not have approved of not supporting the poor, because the rich didn’t want to part with any of their income. After all, he said that its easier to have a “camel go through a needle” than a rich man go to heaven. Jesus would not have approved of the hypocrisy of the Republicans when it came to immigration and shutting our doors to any and all. Jesus taught that we should be charitable to the less fortunate. Think of the parable of the “i was naked and you didn’t clothe me, I was hungry and you did not feed me, I knocked on your door and you didn’t let me in I was in prison and you didn’t visit me, The republican’s values are totally non-christian. You are mislead. If you follow the republican teachings, you’re not following Christ’s

  2. Pete Demestihas on

    If any nonprofit religious organisation makes an endorsement for a candidate, they can loose thier tax exempt status.

  3. This is a spell of faux piety cast by liberalism. Jesus had no teaching about the proliferation of weaponry, but rather he who “take up the sword by the sword shall perish”, goes to those who would kill to enforce their will. He told the discipline who drew his sword not interfere with the divine passion; for He could “summon 12 legions of angels” [armed with swords] to his defense if need be. The question of “how many swords there should be”, or should double-edged ones be allowed, etc. is not the message of the Messiah. Regarding the provision of goods by the government does not win a ~person~ the kingdom of heaven. It is of no benefit to give away someone else’s money. It is whether YOU give aid to those in need. Cf. The good Samaritan. How much and by what means you want government to impose requirements is a policy question (of which the sustainability and quality of care are questions), but the Marxist policy of the erasure of the individual for this purpose (i.e., the responsibility that Jesus requires of each of us) has shown itself to undermine compassion, not promote it. Regarding “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”, Jesus Himself answers, “but with God all things are possible.” Money is ~not~ the root of all evil, but “money-loving” (φιλ-αργυρια / phil-argyria) is. Also, it is not helpful to distort reality to say that Republicans favor zero (0) immigration. Zero illegal immigration, yes. But your assertion suggests that Jesus also was against laws (here immigration laws); Jesus did not come to abolish law among men. The anarchy advocated here is contrary, for “God is not the author of disorder but of peace.” (1 Cor. 14:33). In addition, your quotes regarding the hungry, poor, naked, should all have YOU in capitals. The Democratic party path leads to atheistic Marxism, the consequence for Christianity we have already witnessed, at least once up to now.

    • You are aware that many Greeks came to the US illegally at first, so what separates them from other illegal immigrants. Also the Republican party has for years dropped the traditional vaues of conservatism, which specifically states wanting the good of the whole. It has instead adopyed neo-liberalist values, espoused by political ideologists to help further stance and grip large companies and richer individuals have on American society. This is what has led most Greeks to support the so called conservatives, because they keep out of their hair. I’m not saying let them all in, as checks do need to happen. On guns, I highly doubt it is acceptable for us to hear about mass shootings and be as unphased as we are, you set a precedent for creating a lawless society

    • Paul your quote” “The democratic party path leads to atheistsic Marxism” How much more ignorant can that quote get? My reply is not much. You’ve reached the limit. So, what you’re suggesting is that if you’re not republican, you’re on your way to Godlessness and Marxism. No wonder the modern republican party is in such trouble. It sprouted Trump after all. Someone who’s totally against any family values that the Republicans advocate. We all know his history of three marriages, infidelity, lying and so much more. As for your other quotes and bible interpretations are all influenced by American Evangelicalism. Not Orthodoxy. Jesus’s command for Peter to put his knife away, after he had cut the ear of the soldier and His ability to call down legions of angels (“with swords” is your add-on) has to do with submitting to the will of God. He was determined to fulfill the will of God. Which is a far cry from being enabled of purchasing AR15s and shooting up innocents. This is the legalistic interpretation of the NRA, to sooth the conscience of all gun advocates, for the mayhem that they enable. The Pope and our Patriarch have condemned the “gun proliferation” in our society. To Evangelicals, of course, if it wasn’t endorsed by the TV preachers, its not for them.
      Also, the Pope and our Patriarch have endorsed government sponsored, one payer health care, which is the humane way of taking care of our fellow man. Of course Jesus didn’t recommend that the government should not provide this. This was not possible then, when any doctoring was done by Rabbis exorcising. Not the millions of dollars that can cost you for an operation today. There is no way that private charity could cover today’s medical needs. There will always be poor among us. An organized society should look after its weakest members. As for Jesus not advocating lawlessness, his meaning was Mose’s law. He came to add to it, He did not have human laws in his mind, As for “with God all things are possible” even for a rich man to go to heaven, is only if “you give up all your worldly goods and follow me” as he said to the young man questioning him how to insure a place in heaven.

      • Mr. Karp, you seem like a reasonable man, and so I find it worthwhile to invest the effort in this reply.

        The Orthodox Church cannot be equated with either Democratic or Republican parties. To do so is to make the Church a human institution. Excellent essays on the divine institution of the Church is “Christianity or the Church” by Metr. Hilarion (Troitsky) 1912, and Alexander Khomiakov, “The Church is One”, 1895. It is just that Democratic Party direction leans towards socialism, which again, leans towards Leninism/Marxism, i.e., secular materialism.

        I would usually settle for whomever supports religious liberty. (Though, for example, in the choice between the horrific militarism of George H.W. Bush and Al Gore, my support would be for the latter). The critical point: we cannot say that either or any political party is the party of Christ’s teaching. His kingdom is not of this world.

        I had to chortle a bit on being called out for American Evangelicalism; typically the charge is for Ultra-Orthodoxy!

        You are correct when you say that the Lord Jesus at his arrest commanded: “sheathe thy sword!” so that the “will of God” may be fulfilled; for indeed, each of the apostles had gone out from the Supper to the site of the arrest toting weapons at arms, But our Lord’s words that He could send an legion of angels was not just some rhetorical flourish, for He earlier had done just that, sending but one angel to slay 185,000 soldiers (2 Kings 19:35), how overwhelming then would be “12 legions of angels against a 1000 men”? (so St. John Chrysostom)

        You are correct that Mr. Trump has had three marriages (which, within Orthodoxy is permitted, as a condescension to human sinfulness). But, on this account, were Mr. Trump an Orthodox Christian his 3rd marriage would be within the spectrum of oeconmia; and he would be in communial standing. If an adulterer, though, then he would be excommunicated.

        You are also correct that Mr. Trump is a sinner, and as you enumerate, his passions of the flesh. The extent to which he repents of these, God knows. But, what the Democratic adherents put forward is what St. Paul calls “παρα φυσιν”, paranatural (I am surprised that this word has never entered the English language), and stands in greater condemnation. In this sense, the Democratic political philosophy there could be a transgendered President, who lives with a 16-year girl (or in some States, and age of consent of 14) without the benefit of marriage in the White House. This would comport within their paradigm. St. Paul, to put it mildly, would “have an issue with it.”

        The Pope or our Patriarch certainly are entitled to their personal policy opinions, but as a policy analyst, the health policy is extraordinarily complex, and their opinions offer nothing—either theological or professional—which evinces these as anything but personal opinions. Candidly, that the Pope and our Patriarch endorse a “single payer system” would be funny were it not offered in seriousness.

        I agree with you that a society should look to care of the “least among us.” But what precisely what all does “care” include? How it is optimally provided? Need it be through socialized medicine? This is not a matter of faith. Again, you are correct, “Jesus didn’t recommend that the government should not provide this.”

        And as for “with God all things are possible” even for a rich man to go to heaven, you write: only if “you give up all your worldly goods and follow me.” No, that is for you to be perfect. Cf. “On Poverty and Wealth”, where virtue is personal, not governmental.

        Where Democratic Party is headed is evident in the socialistic-atheistic European nations such as Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, U.K., Germany, and France (cf. the Reign of Terror 1793-94, the 2004 religious affiliation ban), etc. Such are the exemplars for which the Democratic Party so earnestly pines.

        • Paul
          Thank you for agreeing that I was correct in all of my rebuttals to your arguments. As for your stance that a church should not advocate for one party or the other, that’s a statement that I agree with. However, it does NOT mean that church leaders should not speak out when they see injustice. If their disagreement or agreement with a certain policy goes against the grain of any party, or with it, so be it. It does not mean they espouse that party alone. And it does not mean that they oppose the other party. The church is opposed to Marxism-Leninism, due to its atheistic teachings. But, its a long stretch and you are misguided to confuse government sponsored healthcare with a slide towards Marxism.
          That’s the argument that the republicans espouse and it makes no sense.
          The same argument that was standing in the way of social security, back in the 30’s when Roosevelt had as much hard time making it a law, as Obama had with Obamacare. As for Jesus’s nonviolence stand, such as “turn the other cheek” you are not mentioning anything. The 2 Kings:1935 about the angel smiting 185,00 Assyrians, is part of the old testament. Not Jesus’s doing. Inserting that in our argument about Jesus’s teachings is wrong, because He did not do that. nor did he advocate violence. As for Trump having three marriages and Orthodoxy permitting that, is not license for dumping your wife for a younger one, or for cheating on your wife, while married, as he did with Marla Maples. You are wrong here as well. As for your flourish that eventually, we could have a Transgender president, living with a sixteen year old in the White House, makes as much sense as, advocating health care for all, will lead us to Marxism.
          Your argument that the Pope and the Patriarch are entitled to their opinions, as long as they don’t make it church policy is also wrong. Their opinion is based on Christ’s teachings. Popes have been known not to make their policy known, as during the Nazi era, when the Pope chose not to oppose Nazism. While the Orthodox Archbishop Damaskinos of Athens, wrote a letter to the Nazi Representative in Athens opposing the round up of the Jews, urging priests to perform sham baptisms of Jews and saved the life of many of Athenian Jews. Who would you say did the right thing?
          You are also wrong when you say that charity should be personal, not governmental. Sure private charity is just as important. However, a nation is judged by how it cares for its weakest citizens.
          Your final argument that as long as we don’t provide to our citizens what the countries of Northern Europe provide, because then, the citizens will become Atheists, is like saying not to wear seat belts, because you would drive recklessly. Yes, once people are freed from the everyday worry of survival, might not be as religious. But, that;s their private choice. It’s not an argument to let people die due to lack of health care.
          Finally, I have to commend you on your use of language, but, evading the truth, or embellishing it, as you have repeatedly done (and I have pointed out to you, where) is not the way to support your views

          • Mr. Karp,
            Please do not mistake my agreement with your premises as agreement with your conclusions. Each of my agreements was followed with a “but…” One cannot take, for example, “The Lord God is merciful and forgiving” (Dan. 9:9); which is true, to mean then that one never need repent. It is a sly temptation, to draw conclusions of bountiful blessing without any need for contrition…
            While you aver no slippery slope from the increasing hegemony of liberalism, I never thought that in my lifetime I would see that one can be imprisoned for not taking out a health policy; that we can force public (for now, later private) interest to shame little girls into the privy with transgendered males; that abortion has become liberalism’s fanatical battle cry. Did you hear Hillary and how agog she is over it? My Lord, at least she could have the decency of fainting some hint of remorse. And, concerning your dearest, she goes on as the champion of abortion, promising that: “…religious beliefs…have to be changed!”
            Regarding nonviolence—until there is money or power to be made from it, I don’t see it from either party. At least the Republican nominee believes it has a poor ROI; whatever the reason, I support ending this senseless violence that has ended 100s of 1000s of innocent lives. Hillary has shown herself wholly indulgent in the mass killing of innocence abroad.
            With regard to differentiating the Lord of the Old Testament from the New, please cf. Marcionism.
            On your skepticism of liberalism’s prospects of tendering a transgender president, living with a sixteen year old in the White House—that it would be disallowed by the liberal conscience—well, legally, it’s permissible now.
            Your statement regarding the variant opinions of Pope Pius XII and Archbishop Damaskinos of Athens underscores that even those in the highest church offices do not hold infallible opinions.
            Charity cannot be governmental, it is an entitlement, enforced with levied taxes and the police power of the state. Not what can be called “a cheerful giver”.
            The danger of adopting Europe’s liberalism, which is fundamentally philosophical, not economic, is buying into that “… ye shall be a gods, knowing good and evil.”

  4. Whether he sends prayers to both political parties or not, a church should try it’s hardest to stay out of politics because it is this type of religious activity that leaves a stigma on American politics. Furthermore, the statement made in your article about separating ourselves from ethnic ghetto, points at other ethnicities living in the US as lower class. This I’m sure can’t be true, as many Greek immigrants lived in poor areas of the US on arrival and many Greeks are still working class citizens. I don’t think people that love comfortably among their own ethnicity have a problem, as it makes it easier for them to adjust being so far from their homeland (i.e large number of Greek areas in different cities across the US). Also, regardless of the fact that people in the US tend to move to ethnically homogeneous areas, I would find it unfair to say that someone living in one of those areas doesn’t have a just and qualifiable opinion

Leave A Reply