Faith-based Educational Funding 'Segregates' Sources Say

Published: 2007-09-05
The history of faith-based education in Ontario has mainly dealt with Roman Catholic schools, but now with the upcoming provincial elections at hand, other faiths are stepping up and demanding funding to open and sustain schools with government assistance, which is causing much debate among the public and political leaders.

The Conservatives are for faith-based education funding, while the Liberals, NDP, and Green party want to opt out. When tax credits had been proposed in the past for "independent schools", such as with Ernie Eves in 2003, the public was not happy with their tax dollars going towards private funding.

Some see this as a public versus private issue and others as an attack on Canada's growing multicultural landscape. Faith-based groups have commented on the hypocrisy of Premier Dalton McGuinty's benefit from his own Catholic education and were outraged when he recently criticized the Conservative education plan saying that the funding would "segregate" students from other schools in the community.

This stance stems from McGuinty obeying the 1867 Constitution which protects the rights for denominational schools and maintains a publicly funded Roman Catholic system. With Canada's citizens becoming more culturally diverse each day there are no signs that this debate will end with the upcoming election.

Writer: Soul Shine Staff



Fatal error: Call to undefined function session_is_registered() in /home2/soulshi/public_html/news/newsarticle.php on line 513
Soul Shine would like to thank Calvin Smith of CMI for his response to letter sent to us by Gary McLaughlin regarding John Tory's proposal of Creationism in private schools:

Dear Sir,

G: It was with alarm and concern that I read about your endorsement of teaching creationism along side of evolution.

C: It is with alarm and concern that I read your uninformed letter.

G: Creationism is a mythÖ

C: The first statement here is a bald assertion with no supporting evidence. You begin with your own opinion; Christian creationists begin with an infallible, objective standard in the Scriptures, axioms which make rational sense. The question for any axiomatic system is whether it is self-consistent and is consistent with the real world, which the bible is. An assertion needs to be backed up with evidence, not opinion. The bible, its history and events, can be supported from a variety of disciplines. Myths like the idea that the earth is sitting on top of a giantís shoulders cannot.

G: Öderived from a book that written by multiple authorsÖ

C: The bible was certainly written by multiple authors who were all inspired by God through the Holy Spirit, according to the bible itself. It would certainly be hard to explain itís consistency of fulfilled prophecy otherwise.
From the Book of Genesis to the Book of Malachi, the Old Testament abounds with anticipations of the coming Messiah. Numerous predictions - fulfilled to the "crossing of the t" and the "dotting of the i" in the New Testament - relate to His birth, life, ministry, death, resurrection, and glory. These fulfilled prophecies constitute a powerful apologetic for the inspiration of Scripture.

The New Testament writers often pointed to how Christ was the specific fulfillment of a messianic prophecy in the Old Testament. Below is a sampling of these prophecies.
Seed of woman Genesis 3:15, Virgin Birth Isaiah 7:14, Birthplace: Bethlehem Micah 5:2, Forerunner: John Malachi 3:1, Ministry of miracles Isaiah 35:5-6, Sold for 30 shekels Zechariah 11:12, Hands and feet pierced Psalm 22:16, Crucified with thieves Isaiah 53:12, No bones broken Psalm 22:17, Suffered thirst on cross Psalm 69:21, Resurrection: Psalm 16:10; 22:22. It is only logical to conclude that if these prophecies were written many hundreds of years before they were fulfilled - and if they could never have been foreseen, and depended upon factors outside human control for their fulfillment - and if all of these prophecies were, in fact, precisely fulfilled - then clearly the Scriptures are divine in origin and not man-made.

G: Öwho thought the world was flat.

C: The authors of the various books of the bible never taught the flat earth concept, so the real issue here is what the bible teaches about the shape of the earth, not what some people in the church may or may not have thought.

The implication of a round earth is seen in the book of Luke, where Jesus described his return, Luke 17:31. Jesus said, "In that day," then in verse 34, "In that night." This is an allusion to light on one side of the globe and darkness on the other simultaneously.

In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in spaceóthe obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. By 150 B.C., the Greek astronomer Eratosthenes had already measured the 25,000-mile circumference of the earth. The round shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by observing eclipse shadows, and we can assume that such information was well known to New Testament writers.

Earth's spherical shape was, of course, also understood by Christopher Columbus. Some people may have thought the earth was flat, but certainly not the great explorers. Some Bible critics have claimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the "four corners" of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving.

Bible writers used the "language of appearance," just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly. When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate.

G: The theory of evolution is firmly based in science. Creationism is the furthest one can get from science.

C: One needs to clarify what kind of ëscienceí one is speaking of here. The scientific method is based on repeatable, observable experiments and testing of hypothesis. Historical science deals with the past, which cannot be observed or repeated. Both evolution and creation are therefore two beliefs held by faith, both having the same ëfactsí (evidence from biology, geology, anthropology, astronomy etc.) in the present to be used in support their positions (hypothesis).

G: It could however be taught in a mythology class. Teaching creationism along with evolution would be like teaching astrology along with astronomy.

C: This type of condescending assertion is typical of evolutionists unfortunately. What does the study of astronomy (the scientific study of matter in outer space, especially the positions, dimensions, distribution, motion, composition, energy of celestial bodies and phenomena etc) have to do with astrology (the occult belief that celestial bodies have an influence on the course of natural earthly occurrences and human affairs)?

Sometimes the word "theory" associated with evolution is misunderstood to mean that the concept is not well established. Oddly, that burden is not shared by the Theory of Relativity.

The reason that the Theory of Relativity does not carry the same burden of proof that the theory of evolution does is that Einsteinís theory contains supporting evidence derived from the scientific method. (I.e. Gravity has been observed and anyone can test it and get the same results under the same conditions). Contrast this with evolution and you find that the theory of evolution has no such supporting evidence. Fanatical Darwinist and atheist Richard Dawkins (arguably the biggest proponent of the theory of evolution and a prolific writer on the subject) himself could say it no better than when he was on Bill Moyers TV show NOW!...

-MOYERS: Is evolution a theory, not a fact?
-DAWKINS: Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.

Transcript at:

Thatís the equivalent of saying you are a super-hero that can only turn invisible if no one is looking!

Dawkins is not talking about recombination of genetic information through natural selection (like dog breeding) but full scale macro evolution defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ëthe theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.í

G: Einstein apparently hired a better publicist than Darwin, if not a better barber. Evolution is a fact, an undeniable, proven fact, as certain as the existence of atoms.

C: For those that claim creationism is unscientific and that ëevolution is a factí, a cursory review of what science can and cannot do is advisable. Science cannot ëproveí anything because we do not have all knowledge. However, most people hold things to be ëfactí (the common vernacular) when they can use the scientific method to support their assumption (I.e. gravity has been ëprovení). Evolution does not have this support so it is ludicrous to call it a fact.

If evolution is a ëfactí, and for example the sedimentary layers with fossils ëproveí it, why did National Geographic reveal the following in its Nov 2004 issue titled ëWas Darwin Wrong?í

ìIlluminating but spotty, the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 out of 1,000 frames have been lost.î

Iíd hate to prove my case in a court of law with only .01% of the evidence availableÖ

G: Only some of the details of the mechanisms of evolution remain to be elucidated.

C: Some of the details? Letís start with a-biogenesis, the theory that life comes from non-life, supposedly millions of years ago. This actually contradicts a known law of science which says life has only ever been seen to come from life. As a matter of fact, the Gene Emergence Project, (a secular group of scientists in the US) is offering a million dollars to anyone who can ëexplain how genetic code arose spontaneouslyí! So to believe this ëmust have happenedí certainly comes from blind faith, not science because it hasnít been observed either!

G: Cancer is a fact, though not all the mechanisms leading to malignancy are understood.

C: Cancer is indeed a fact, caused by mutation of the genetic code. Mutation, the ëdarlingí of Neo-Darwinistic evolutionary mechanisms has never been shown even once to increase usable genetic information, yet to accomplish grand scale evolution (ex. lizard to bird) would require millions of information gaining mutations! Causing fruit flies to lose their wings and cancer to occur in mice are observable examples of genetic mutation, but are no help to the theory of evolution. Genetecist Lee Spetner says it clearly in his book Not By Chance Ö

All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.

1997, The Judaica Press, Inc., Brooklyn, New York. P.138.

G: Theory does not imply uncertainty; instead, a grand idea, such as General Relativity or Evolution, can be well-established but remain under the rubric of a theory because the ideas encompass and explain a broad range of phenomena.

C: Theory does not imply uncertainty, but lack of evidence to back up your theory certainly does!

G: Mr. Tory what you propose is nothing short of bringing education back to the dark ages.

C:Christian creationists do not dispute the importance of education. Indeed, we often point out that Christianity has provided the foundation for modern science, and the basis for political and economic freedom and the rule of law which is essential for civilized society. The founders of modern science (Isaac Newton, Johann Kepler, Carolus Linnaeus, Michael Faraday etc) were committed Christians and creationists.
However one must question such education that teaches ëfairy talesí unsupported by genuine evidence like Haeckelís forged embryos, numerous ape-man frauds and the gluing of dead moths to trees to support their a-priori belief system.
Moreover, education, while important, is not all that is needed. One needs a fundamental belief that motivates people to do what is good. Atheism cannot provide such a belief because it has no philosophical grounding for even defining what good and evil are, let alone a motivation to carry out what is good. However, the Scriptures provide such a foundation through an all-powerful Creator who sets the rules.

Yours truly

Gary McLaughlin

With respect and blessings in Christ,

Calvin Smith
Creation Ministries International (CMI)
Posted by: Anonymous on September 05, 2007
The Liberals and NDP cannot hide behind the Constitution. Both Quebec (83% Catholic) and Newfoundland (37% Catholic) had similar constitutional "obligations" to fund denominational schools and both amended the Constitution to remove that obligation through simple bilateral agreements with Ottawa alone. All it takes is political will. Ontario (34% Catholic) could remove it's "obligation" to provide superior education rights (and related job opportunities) for Roman Catholics just as easily -- through a bilateral agreement with Ottawa alone. Obviously, for McGuinty, non-fundamental denominational rights for members of his own denomination are more important than the fundamental equality rights of all Ontarians. Remember Sharia and religious arbitration: "One law for all Ontarians"? Yeah right.
Posted by: Anonymous on September 06, 2007
Please login / register to post a personalized comment, or you may simply post as an Anonymous user.
SPEAK OUT! Post your comments about this article here.