healthcare is a provincial issue the feds can get their noses out of it.

thought they can foot the bill :)

Scientific creationism is NOT about ‘religion’; it’s about facts. Arguments for and against Creationism and Evolutionism should be objectively explored if education is to be true education, and not just indoctrination in what is politically correct. What have the evolutionists to fear from an objective exploration of the facts? For starters, they should be asked to explain, “Why is there something instead of nothing?”

Ratel, you have my position about right — but you disallow it for those who don’t agree with you: Creation scientists DO want an open debate: to contrast and compare, and consider which view is more logical. That’s simply good science. Your position commits the logical fallacy of creating a false dichotomy: you call science according to the ‘standard model’ FACT, and you call Creation science RELIGION. That’s simply not true, as the scientists at the Discovery Institute have tried to make clear.
Almost 30 years ago, as a working journalist, I transcribed the tapes of a “creation/evolution” debate staged at Simon Fraser University, with the intention of comparing the arguments side-by-side. It wasn’t possible, because the creation scientist, Kelly Seagrave from the Institute for Creation Research, presented reams of factual argument; the evolutionist — a professor from Queens’ University — literally adduced only one fact: he said, “Duane Gish disagrees with me, therefore I must be right.” The rest of his “argument” consisted entirely of calling Seagrave’s facts “religion”. But not one of Seagrave’s assertions depended on the acceptance of Scripture. True, his factual assertions would logically incline a hearer to seriously consider the possibility that the Scriptural account might be accurate. But that’s not the same as religion.

As Francis Bacon, often called the Father of Modern Science, wrote: “A little learning inclineth a man to atheism; but depth in knowledge inclineth a man to religion.”

Canada does not have a state religion, nor should it have. Religious freedom and freedom to have none is a Canadaian freedom.

Our Charter of Rights & Freedoms does “recognize the supremacy of God” and our head of state, the Queen, is technically also head of the Church of England, so there is some conflation. There is also constitutional protection of Catholic school divisions in several provinces.

I don’t support any of this and agree we should have a secular state, but that doesn’t change the facts.

Then we should really end duel citizenship. This way Canada is not forced to come to the aid of someone with a duel citizenship when they get in trouble with their other country of citizenship