Hi David,

The figures reported in the media were from the police - shooting the messenger and all that.

Whatever, I'm beginning to find the quasi-philosophy and wide-open rhetorical questions tiresome.

I've been watching the activities of the Caleb Foundation with interest for some time. And this is the first time I can remember when they haven't been in any corner of the press they can get into calling for the Pride event to be banned and speaking against gay people in the strongest, most offensive terms they can get published.

Is it that they decided it was more important to be quiet on a real equality issue so they could hint that they might exploit equality laws to get "alternative theories" on creation into the Ulster Museum?

Or can we expect them to leave the museum alone and start bashing gay people again in the near future, as David seems to be suggesting?

Can we expect that the Caleb Foundation might just "come out" and state what its agenda is plainly (some chance)?

That being that it wants Gay Pride banned, Darwinism banned, museums to reflect only the biblical account of creation, and that any and all other literature which doesn't align with the bible and whatever Caleb decides is sinful should be at serious risk of being censored, regardless of its cultural value.

The Giant's Causeway should provide information which concurs with the biblical account of creation. The teaching of biology - indeed all science - should be stopped, and the task taken up instead by an able pastor, who perhaps has had some training at Answers in Genesis, or CMI.

Queen's University should be closed down altogether. Its libraries should be burned.

Fun should be banned. People - regardless of their religion - should be forced to worship Jesus, for their own good, you see.

Is this ridiculous? Is it far fetched?

Yes, for now it is. But that is ONLY because their are checks and limits upon the things people and organisations like the Caleb Foundation are able to do. If they weren't there, this, in time, is what we would get.

And what exactly am I or anyone else supposed to find attractive about that?

Yours,

Lew



Let me break the 'silence' - in fact there was no silence on the day as some of us were there preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. No doubt Caleb will have some official comment in due course. The size of the event (though greatly exaggerated by the media, at least as far as participants goes, if not supporters) does not tell us anything as to its rectitude. Or is it the consensus, rather than Lew as an individual, who is the final authority? And if there is no yardstick outside of man himself - why should we assume that every change in opinion is progress. Does 'progress' have meaning without a measuring line given by the God of Biblical revelation?