Flesh and Myself (July, 1963). The fact that there might be some slight truth in some of the reviewer's view does not, to my mind, justify his brief and callous dismissal of the book.

Michael Davidson revealed himself in his own pages as brash, improvident and lacking in tenacity. Nonetheless he is a character of considerable interest and the frankness of his book-not about sex alone-is at once commendable.

How any person interested in recent history could fail to find his accounts of life in Germany during the rise of Hitler and in war-torn Malaya interesting I do not know, and I am sure many will have taken more than casual note of what he had to say about the Cyprus troubles and the role played there by his newspaper.

Let us by all means be acid about the failings of a writer as we see them; but to omit mention of the good points in his work does not make for a balanced review. Mr. G.

Gentlemen:

Durban, South Africe

I have just finished reading "Case History" (November, 1963). Let's have more, more, more like it! I also go along with the idea that Mr. B.. gives in his letter to the Editor that you might have a section in the Magazine entitled "Helpful Hints for Those Who Don't Know."

Dear Don Slater:

Mr. L.

Bellflower, California

Your Magazine has always been interesting and helpful but I do have one suggestion: If we are to help the Cause we should not use the first two words on page 23 (October, 1963). After all, God is Creator and we should show God respect. If we do not show God respect how can others show us respect?

our

I do know that in the future you will be more careful.

Dear ONE:

Mr. J.

New York, N. Y.

On VD: socialists and religious groups are using health as a pretext. People too cheap to hire doctors are willing to go to the health clinics and become tools and stool-pigeons, giving up their hard-won rights and everybody else's.

Too, among homosexuals, properly socalled and otherwise, we may have too great a proportion of irresponsibles; and if we took a stand in favor of self-reliance we may do something toward weeding out the men who give homosexuals a bad name. We need to consider our followers, taking them man by man. Each ought to be made

to measure up to some standard or other.

If you were recruiting an army you'd give each man an examination. To have a strong organization you have to select your members and keep some control over them. Each man in the ONE army should be told what is expected of him. Until he has definitely enlisted he should not be permitted to feel that he shares our fellowship. Maybe there is a correct criterion in dealing with those coming to ONE. What do we really know about them? What are their ideals? What duties do they feel obligated to discharge? Taking too many things for granted is probably not very safe.

ON RELIGION

Dear Editor:

Mr.B.

Los Angeles, California

I want to comment on the letter by Mr. G. of New Orleans (September, 1963) because it represents what I believe to be two rather widespread errors in regard to the proper approach one should take toward the Holy Bible. This letter expresses the sentiments of an earnest but earnest but badly-informed group of individuals who attempt to solve all of their sexual problems on the basis of what they can read about the subject in the Bible.

The Bible is not a manual of sex instruction. It treats the subject only occasionally, superficially, and not even with any consistency. Nor is homosexuality the only form of sex treated with inconsistentcy in the Bible.

Nevertheless, there are individuals who form certain ideas or attitudes about sex and then use the Bible to back up these attitudes. Mr. G. is by no means the only one to do this. Again, I want to repeat, the Bible is not a manual of sex instruction! To attempt to make it so is to court disaster. The Bible is merely a collection of writings which represent man's attempt to reach out and find the infinite. It is not a letter-perfect record of dictation from God taken down by man. There are passages in the Bible that would suggest that the world is flat. Am I to believe them?

In the New Testament Paul observes, rather presumptuously, that homosexuals are by their very nature an offense to God. St. Paul felt that the power of the Holy Spirit gave him the authority to make such pronouncements. Similarly the Rev. Carroll E. Simcox, of New York City, author of an article published several years ago in an Episcopalian magazine, told me upon my inquiry that his office as a priest gave him the authority to make observations on the immorality of homosexuality.

Neither the power of the Holy Spirit, nor