Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Citizen, 1996-10-23, Page 4Photo by Bonnie Gropp Letters r THE EDITOR, I would like to respond to letters that have appeared in both the Clinton News Record and the Goderich Signal Star. To Ms Scherle, who professes to have "no sympathy" for the Christian School, I would like to point out that my letter didn't ask for sympathy. The supporters of the Christian School are asking for justice. She tends to be ambiguous about how to deal with a request for justice. In her second paragraph she seems to excuse the lack of justice extended to Christian School supporters stating this great country accommodates a lot of injustice being done to Christian School supporters, because they have made a "choice" to begin their own educational institution. This is obviously a no-win situation. There seem to be a number of factors common to all the letters in reaction to my initial call for justice to independent and Christian School supporters. Ms Scherle says, "...we should be exposing our children to all the various religions so that they have a better understanding and tolerance for other people". D. M. Jackson says, "Religion should be taught in the home, and church (place of worship). There is no room for it in the schools." C. Elliot, says that, "an understanding of many religions as opposed to selection and segregation might help to alleviate the problems of discrimination and ignorance." C. Elliot goes on to say that though she does not agree with the system, she does not presume that it should agree with her. All the respondents seems to agree on one thing. If your faith is different than the one promoted by the state (province) through its public schools, then back off. The only religion that will be allowed in Ontario schools is the one that is promoted now in its schools. Let me explain! We have (in Ontario) many people with different visions and different starting points in their thinking. Teachers in our public schools and often in Sunday schools have taught the best way to achieve co-operation is through toleration. It has become undemocratic, to speak of absolute rights or wrongs. Many have uncritically accepted a new way of thinking (post-modern thinking) which does not tolerate absolutes. For many there is no longer anything akin to absolute authority or absolute truth. Both have become relative. Because absolutes are no longer "in", it has become politically more correct to accept everyone's version of the truth and of right and wrong. The key word has become tolerance. That word was used several tittles in Ms Scherle's letter. That word is being used to justify discrimination against those who ' find that the Public School system is an intolerable environment for their children. I would argue that Christians, Jews and Muslims and other religious groups that call for schools that reflect the faith of parents, have a much better appreciation of tolerance than do those who say that all children must be placed in the same school and exposed to (taught) the "religion" of the state. There are two main differences that set Christians and some other faiths diametrically apart from post-modern thinkers. One is that most Christians accept the truths of the Bible as absolute. The other that their faith relates to all areas of life. They expect Christian School teachers to be able to relate their faith to all areas of the curriculum. To ask that their children be subjected to any other kind of education is tantamount to placing children in a hostile environment. It is like placing a seedling too early outside of the greenhouse, or like taking a fish out of its fish tank. Christians take seriously the Biblical injunction, "Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it." They believe that their children should learn in a concerted effort, Continued on page 11 PAGE 4. THE CITIZEN, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1996 O aJ C itizen A The North Huron cn P.O. Box 429, BLYTH, Ont. NOM 1H0 Phone 523-4792 FAX 523-9140 P.O. Box 152, BRUSSELS, Ont. NOG 1H0 Phone 887-9114 FAX 887-9021 Publisher, Keith Roulston Editor, Bonnie Gropp Advertising Manager, Jeannette McNeil VMMREO CIRCULATION PAID The Citizen is published weekly in Brussels, Ontario by North Huron Publishing Company Inc. Subscriptions are payable In advance at a rale of $27.00/year ($25.24 + $1.76 G.S.T.) in Canada; $62.00/year In U.S.A. and $75.00/year in other foreign countries. Advertising is accepted on the condition that in the event of a typographical error, only that portion of the advertisement will be credited. Advertising Deadlines: Monday, 2 p.m. - Brussels; Monday, 4 p.m. - Blyth. We are not responsible for unsolicited newscripts or photographs. Contents of The Citizen are © Copyright. Publications Mail Registration No. 6968 Hey Mike let us do it Here's a revolutionary idea for Mike Harris in his attempt to get government closer to the people: instead of taking over school boards and turning control of hospitals over to a faceless commission, how about just handing over some of the money that is taken out or the region in cigarette and gasoline and income taxes and let us decide our own priorities? That call should have a familiar ring to provincial officials — after all that's just what the provinces have been telling the federal government for years now. But the province, meanwhile, has been concentrating more and more power to itself. The government has given itself the power to dissolve municipal boundaries, and to close hospitals. It will decide which roads it will continue to maintain as part of the provincial highway system, and hand the others over to counties and regions whether they want them or not. It is discussing abolishing school boards altogether. It will tell municipalities and hospital boards and school boards that they simply must manage their money better, yet balance its own books by taking money from a region and not give it back. In an article on rural health care appearing in the November issue of The Rural Voice, a Bruce County critic of the committee that proposed radical changes to hospitals in Grey-Bruce, says the government should leave rural hospitals alone. They belong to the communities that built them, he says. The problem, of course, is that although local funding built the hospital, provincial (and federal) money provides the service. But the money for that service really comes from our own pockets: from the millions of dollars the two governments take out of the local economy in the form of taxes on income, on gasoline and on cigarettes and the two senior governments then grudgingly give back (with strings attached) to the people from whom they took it. The same critic points out that the provincial government is saying people are all right as long as they are within 45 minutes of a hospital, but at the same time the government is cutting funds for road maintenance so that getting to the hospital is more difficult. Again, gasoline taxes intended for road maintenance aren't being spent on roads. It would be interesting indeed, to see how far local communities could stretch dollars if they were given control' of both the local institutions and the funding that's taken out of the community. If the government really believes that small government is better than big government, then the logical move would be to give us control of our Own community. -- KR Contrasting ideals On the same day last week that Preston Manning was in London delivering an anti-tax message, Jane Stewart, minister of revenue, was in Mitchell delivering a contrasting message that taxes "ain't all bad". The contrast went further than just money. Manning delivered a message that has become familiar in the past few years. He promised a tax cut, but this time he promised no cuts to health care or education. Instead, he said, he would manage to cut taxes by not giving in to "special interest groups" such as welfare recipients. He would further cut funds to the provinces for welfare, he said. It was a message for the frustrated middle class: you could have more if not for those lazy people on welfare. The underlying message to the people with jobs was "Sure, you have been falling behind during the recession, but you could have more if not for all the taxes you pay to support people who are living off your hard work". By contrast, Stewart's message was the kind you seldom hear anymore. She called for understanding between people. She made an emotional appeal for people to reach out to Quebec. She said that taxes were a way to harness the resources of society, to make the country greater than the sum of its parts. Stewart's message may be a tougher sell than Manning's. The promise of more money in your pocket from a tax cut is hard to resist. The tax cut will come, however, by setting one part of society against another. Can a country really prosper if it is torn apart because one group of people resents another group? Stewart is either hopelessly out of date or ahead of her time with the message. Let's hope that, if not today, then messages of reconciliation and understanding will soon be welcome again. — KR E ditorial