Hi Alex,

I read your post several times and it still appears to be full of unverifiable
assertions and gossip, which is hardly helpful to resolving the situation, which
I assume is your desire.

And since presumably you would like to convince with your arguments, it is you 
who should provide links and references and not arrogantly tell people to run 
away and Google.

Re my own email, calling John Searle a 'slick operator' (I presume that's what 
you took exception to) was by way of a compliment-his performance on my show 
was a very polished PR performance which completely sidestepped the issues. 
He had the politicians knack of answering the questions he wished to be asked, 
rather than the ones he was actually asked. You can listen to the podcast on 
the Joy website, if you like (I'll let you hunt that down yourself, shall I?).

It appeared to me-and your gossip appears to confirm it-that his principal 
aim was to avoid discussing Jewish gay issues in public, and his principal 
objection to dealing with Michael was that Michael prefers to confront the issue 
in public.

He made a big thing of the fact that some of the anti-gay vilification that had 
been published was only in a very obscure place that very few would even have 
been aware of if Michael hadn't dragged it into the light.

As a good friend of mine is wont to say, 'sunlight is a great antiseptic'-when
 people want something kept quiet it is generally for selfish motives, i.e., 
because exposure would reflect badly on them. And evil left to fester in dark 
places is apt to grow.

Searles key point was that Orthodox Jewish teaching condemns homosexuality, and 
there's nothing he can do about that-which mirrors the Christian 
fundamentalist position.

And there is no getting round the fact that fundamentalist Christian teaching on
 homosexuality is virulently anti-gay. They are free to express that view in 
private and amongst themselves, but not in any public area (when it clearly 
becomes vilification), nor to attempt to impose that viewpoint or any sanctions 
that may flow from it on anyone other than their own membership.

Just because a point of view is based on a religious teaching many thousands of 
years old does not make it right, or immune to criticism, or unamenable to 
challenge and change. And indeed if it is mandated by God (whoever She may be), 
then challenge and criticism is nothing to fear-indeed, it may expose error.

Michaels underlying point is, if I understand him correctly, that not all Jews 
are Orthodox, not all Orthodox Jews agree with this teaching, that other 
branches of Judaism are accepting of homosexuals to a greater or lesser degree, 
and therefore a body like the JCCV ought to represent all these strands of 
thought and not just grant the Orthodox a blanket veto on something they 
disagree with. They are only ONE voice, not THE voice, of Judaism, however much 
they might like to think otherwise.

There seems to be an unconscious assumption operating here that Orthodox Jews 
are somehow better than other Jews, and therefore their views ought to carry 
more weight. But even if that were true-you can argue that one amongst 
yourselves-within Orthodox ranks it appears to me, as an outsider, that 
opinions differ.

For example, when I was in the US some years ago, I saw a fascinating TV program 
about an observant Orthodox Jewish gay man who travelled to Israel and sought 
out senior Orthodox rabbis there for guidance on his situation.

He was told in no uncertain terms that anal sex between men was forbidden, but 
if he wanted to put another mans penis in his mouth, then although they found 
the idea amusing and could not understand why he would want to do it, that was 
not an issue. Others would doubtless disagree.

One last point-yes, I do know some Orthodox Jews-in my time I have also 
known Reform Jews, Progressive Jews, Catholics, Exclusive Brethren, Methodists, 
Born Again Evangelicals, atheists, agnostics, there may even be a closet 
Buddhist or two in there, there's a Theosophist, too, now I think of it (which I
 don't, much), some Wiccans, Communists (who are after all a de-Godded Christian 
schism-the Schism of Mark, as one wit once put it). . . . . . .