Gregory Lee's Comments
Feb 5, 2006 | rating: 2 | comments: 4
Gregory Lee Feb 6, 2006, 8:55pm EST
Oh, by the way -- I don't "want to be gay," nor do I want to be heterosexual. As it happens, I am the way my Power made me.

Heterosexual.
Feb 5, 2006 | rating: 2 | comments: 4
Gregory Lee Feb 6, 2006, 8:45pm EST
The Bible is NOT the law of the land, nor is the Koran, the Tao te Ching, or the Hindu Vedas. Take your Biblical view for yourself; do not insist that anyone else live by it. If you want a country ruled by religion, I suggest Iran. Make sure your wife is happy to be properly veiled, though.

Your right to religious freedom ends where my right begins. Our Constitution allows enforcement of rules of societal ethics that deal only with necessity. You do not have to "support" a Catholic marrying an Islamic, a Hindu, a or a Druid -- or one of your own fold doing so -- but you may not OBSTRUCT it by law.

By the way, "good Christians" of many denominations once argued that Caucasians should not marry certain non-Caucasians. They made their "morality" the law. Even you might call those people, "Racist Jerks." I certainly would.

Wake up, Mr. Moklestad ... yes, in my opinion, you also support and encourage he who wields the hatchet.
Jan 11, 2006 | rating: 3 | comments: 6
Gregory Lee Jan 12, 2006, 11:29am EST
Well, I think I responded to that question -- I am no more and no less a "hick from the sticks" as anyone else who reads and writes on -anything-. I both know and admit this. You can only decide whether I understand the the Path/Way/Road if you read my writing. And even then, it's more a question of whether my writing "reaches" you.

Which, once again, can be done by going to www.lulu.com, a self-publishing website. Paper or electronic versions are available for download. Visit often, as new content becomes available from time to time.
Jan 11, 2006 | rating: 3 | comments: 6
Gregory Lee Jan 12, 2006, 11:04am EST
Oh -- and whether or not I am a Taoist scholar has nothing to do with the main point of the original post, which is a discussion of the ethics and obligations of those who would quote coyrighted work. The self-serving advertisement is just that -- a self-serving advertisement.
Jan 11, 2006 | rating: 3 | comments: 6
Gregory Lee Jan 12, 2006, 10:59am EST
I claim no special knowledge of Taoism, nor any advanced study. My revision of the Legge is mine, after discussion with others, some additional reading, and struggle with concepts that obviously translate with difficulty from a whole-word-symbol based language and a different culture. Its value to any reader is determined by that reader.

No pattern of ethical/moral/spiritual teaching is "static." All run through the interpretation of individuals. Reading is an effort of translation in all cases -- one must translate the thoughts, words, and feelings of a writer to a reader every time. This is true whether one reads a modern novel or Shakespeare's plays in the original Elizabethan script.
Dec 19, 2005 | rating: 9 | comments: 7
Gregory Lee Dec 19, 2005, 11:09pm EST
Bear in mind that Dick Cheney gets the Oval Office if Dubya dies, becomes disabled -- or is impeached. So far, that's the only valid argument I've had for leaving Dubya in the Oval Office.

God help us -- DIck Cheney as Impeachment Insurance.
Dec 19, 2005 | rating: 9 | comments: 7
Gregory Lee Dec 19, 2005, 10:12pm EST
Now, Ken, I said "sounding out words." And Zane -was- the greatest cowboy writer ever. It's possible -- science fiction, not mere fantasy.
Dec 19, 2005 | rating: 9 | comments: 7
Gregory Lee Dec 19, 2005, 4:22pm EST
Now Caroline, that would be awfully Old-Testament, wouldn't it? Besides, I like the idea of a God Who might just play with Dubya's heads (big -and- little).
Sep 29, 2005 | rating: 7.4 | comments: 7
Gregory Lee Oct 4, 2005, 2:27pm EDT
I haven't forgotten that fact at all. IN fact, I accept it as a premise. A less flowery way to put my point is, "Don't lie to us about the fact that you are exercising your prerogative to silence dissent within your organization." It is the lying that I find distasteful, especially in this Archbishop.
Sep 29, 2005 | rating: 7.4 | comments: 7
Gregory Lee Oct 1, 2005, 5:47pm EDT
Biblical basis? I don't wish to offend you personally, but there is no "Biblical basis" for most of what is done in -any- "Christian" gathering, perhaps most especially those who claim to be "Bible based." The Christian Bible is a series of often conflicting stories gathered together by multiple stenographers and editors. The alleged events have long been taken out of their cultural contexts. Much of the reporting of the "Christian" era is based upon oral tradition passed down for 30 years or more before being committed to writing. Some written material was rejected by the early Christian hierarchy because it did not fit in with what the editors wanted to believe. Thus, large parts of both "Testaments" must be considered ambiguous or outright inaccurate.

One may just as accurately ask whether the Archbishop's right to his hierarchical position and authority is founded in the Vedic scriptures of the Hindu religion. ItÂ’s not.

I do not assume for a moment that any religion must be based on any one book, prophetic statement, racial membership, or hair color. Religions grow and evolve, as does human understanding of what is essential to good conduct. I believe quite firmly that a religion may teach whatever it pleases, regardless of the basis, so long as it does not try to force its view of the "law of God" on me, and so long as its actions do not violate the minimal ethical rules deemed by society to be necessary to protect individuals. No human sacrifices, no child molestation, no pointless harm to living creatures. Cannibalism is fine, though, so long as itÂ’s the sort that occurs in a Catholic Mass (i.e., representational).

This does not mean that I reject the most basic ethics of Christianity, but these are also found in other quite reasonable religions, such as Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, and so on. Summed up, these ethics are often called "The Golden Rule."
Sep 30, 2005 | rating: 8.5 | comments: 5
Gregory Lee Oct 1, 2005, 8:35am EDT
I'm not giving up my premise. No matter how natural and normal a reaction is, the parent decides if it gets on the news. I stand behind my original point.
Sep 30, 2005 | rating: 8.5 | comments: 5
Gregory Lee Sep 30, 2005, 9:40pm EDT
Use of children as "couriers" by or for adults is use of children by adults, regardless of what message is carried. The message may or may not be moral, in my eyes or yours. The message may or may not be shared by the child, as you suggest. And a child in the Cathtolic faith might as genuinely and poignantly say, "Why do you hate the rules of our loving God?" I don't have to love the message to feel sympathy for the child.

My point was and is simple: don't call the kettle black when you're the pot and sitting on the same fire. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, regardless of what your underlying position is.
 
Gregory Lee
North Attleborough, MA
Gather | Friends | Groups | Share
About Gather | Engagement Marketing | Make New Friends | Gather Points | Advertise on Gather | Gather Press | Privacy | Terms of Service | Community Guidelines
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Version 16811, "Oz"; Copyright © 2009 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.