Only film constitutes "proper" art or "real" photography; digital is suspect because images are easier to manipulate; you can't archive digital images: all these are spurious statements.
When you distil photography so only its core essence remains, all that matters is the final image - the viewer looking at a photograph hung in a gallery doesn't care, or know, how it was created: they either like it or don't. It could be an unmanipulated film or a heavily Photoshopped digital print - but as no one can tell, so what? Stanley Greene's photographic morality? Utterly meaningless to our viewer since it can't be seen.
Photographers have always twisted the truth just as much as writers - the difference today is that people are now just as sceptical of a photographic "record shot" as they are of a piece or writing. Which is as it should be: no one should accept any image or text as unvarnished truth. No one takes a painting at face value, so why should we believe what we see in a photograph?
As for manipulation, people have been doing it since photography was invented, as we all know, and as this photo-montage from the First World War illustrates:
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/firstworldwar/025005-2200.011-e.html. And you can deceive just as effectively by selective framing and cropping as you can in Photoshop. What technology you use to take a photograph has no bearing whatsoever on the "truthfullness" of the resulting image.
You can take photographs in exactly the same way whether you use a digital or a film camera: the approach is entirely the individual's choice. The technology imposes no constraints - some cameras offer more options in ways to work than others (you may choose to use a an old manual 1930s Leica, a 1970s semi-automated Olympus OM-2 or the latest do-everything Canon 5D-II) - but there's nothing to stop you using, say, a Canon 5D-II in the same, slow "considered" way as an old film Leica, if that's your preference. One of my cameras has face recognition - but that doesn't mean I have to use it simply because it's there!
How Stanley Greene - and anyone else - approaches his own photography is of concern only to him, and he's wrong (and irritating) to apply his definition of "integrity" or "photography" more broadly. Instead of saying "you" or "we" need to do this or that, he should stick to using "I".
If you like to use film fine - but don't impose your idea of what constitutes photography onto others.
My thoughts about film? Utterly disinterested. I really don't get this *nostalgia* for dead technology, nor understand the attempted justifications for doing so...
I'm of that new breed of photographer who's only ever used digital - never used film in my life, never will. I can't see a single advantage to film - it's expensive, slow, inconvenient and smelly. To me, using film would be like using, say, old wax cylinders to listen to music!
All I'm interested in is turning what I see into a photograph as fast possible; the end point is what matters to me in photography, and digital allows me to get their faster. However, "as fast as possible" has nothing to do with conceiving or seeing a photo: digital has no impact whatsoever on the photographer's "eye" - you still have to develop a rapport with your subject (whether animate or inanimate) and decide how best to capture what you want to communicate.
Lastly: the old chestnut that you can't properly archive digital images. What rot! Current archival gold DVDs have an estimated life-span of 300 years, which is about the same as film stored carefully but under normal conditions. Obsolete technology doesn't just disappear, especially if it's as ubiquitous and universal as the DVD - there will be facilities with access to DVD readers long into the future (assuming that you don't copy your files onto some new archival medium in the meantime - which will of course be even more long-lived).