Orthodox have a dual view of God, in that they separate the Father from the Son in this regard. It's lukewarm on the divinity of Christ, which makes sense because the original Aryans were all byzantine greeks.
As somebody who's done a lot of research on Orthodoxy for the last few months, I feel comfortable calling this accusation
completely absurd. The Orthodox are obsessed with the divinity of Christ and constantly emphasize it. You don't have to agree with their interpretation of the filioque but this is a total mischaracterization of what they believe.
Reading those verses on their own, I doubt I'd arrive at the filioque. (In fact, as a Protestant outsider, when I started researching Orthodoxy I found this whole thing pretty surprising because I'd always though the Spirit proceeded from the Father alone, albeit I'd never given this subject a great deal of attention.) It sounds like Jesus is describing the means by which believers receive the Holy Spirit: if the Creed said "proceeds from the Father
through the son" I don't think anybody would object to it. (And apparently, some attempting to reconcile the Roman Catholic and Orthodox positions have taken this approach.)
Jesus doesn't appear to be teaching the inner relations of the Trinity, he's teaching
how normal people can receive the Spirit. It is through Jesus' death and resurrection (and our faith in him) that we receive the Spirit; compare with the Old Testament, where most people with faith in God did not receive the Spirit and it was a rare, usually temporary anointing.
If the Spirit proceeds through both, why can't Jesus simply say, "Here, I will dispense you the Holy Spirit right now, myself"? Or "whom I will send you from the Father
and from myself"? Jesus unquestionably plays a role (in that if not for him, the Spirit doesn't come down) but his language seems to suggest the limits of His Person and His subordination to the Father; similarly to how he says that he knows "neither the day nor the hour" of the Judgement. So Jesus plays a role in us receiving the Spirit, but he doesn't appear to be the ontological source.
The last verse, 31 (from Hebrews?) seems to introduce a problem with the filioque that I haven't seen discussed before: if the Spirit proceeds from the Son, then why (and how) does Jesus receive the Spirit from the Father, anyway? The Spirit
already would proceed from the Son as part of his very person as the Son, rendering the whole idea of being anointed by the Spirit redundant and incoherent.
I don't think the filioque is a completely insane idea or necessarily a heresy, and I can see how somebody would arrive at it. I don't think the Roman Catholic position is unreasonable. If it was in the Creed in the first place I doubt I'd have great reason to gripe about it. But I do think the Orthodox understanding makes more sense, and I'd be inclined to stick with the original phrasing of the Creed rather than a change introduced hundreds of years later.