The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Pollies in a spin over chaplaincy challenge > Comments

Pollies in a spin over chaplaincy challenge : Comments

By Chrys Stevenson, published 2/3/2011

The High Court challenge on school chaplaincy is about funding, not whether the program can survive, despite what politicians tell us

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
A perceptive observation. Providing scapegoats for unpopular decisions is an important function of the Federal system. Get rid of the Senate and the States and most of the blame game would be over.

As for the chaplains, let those that want them have as many as they like, as long as I don't have to pay for them. In fact the same goes for private education too.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 6:15:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spin - that is all that religion and it's adherents have.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 6:52:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The most inappropriate feature of the Howard government 's establishment of the school chaplaincy program is that chaplains [ though appointed from one religious denomination or another ] are not supposed to be at the schools in order to teach religion , but to mentor students and listen to concerns expressed by students . Chaplains are no more qualified than any other occupation to perform such functions . If there is a need for any persons to perform such functions , surely they should be properly qualified psychologists or social workers . However , whether the wrong - headed program breaches the Constitution depends on whether it requires a religious test ,in that chaplains must belong to a religious denomination . As it does not establish any religion , it does not beach the Constitution in that respect . It is true that funds for any government expenditure must be provided from a suitable Budget appropriation .
Posted by jaylex, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 8:28:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Slightly off topic but my limited research tells me the "opt out" system is the key driver of all the angst about school chaplaincy. If you want your child identified as different from their peers (and who wouldn't like to do that for their kids?) just opt out, otherwise subject them to the jaundiced world view of Pastor This and Sister That. "Opt in" would make all the parental angst go away but unfortunately expose the chaplaincy service for what it is. Ethics classes make so much more sense. Save the silly stuff for Sundays.
Posted by bitey, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 9:04:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An insightful look at the devious workings of law and politics.
I imagine the Federal government will be delighted to be "obliged" to cut NSCP funding. Once Labor's version of Howard (Rudd) was dumped, NSCP could only be an embarrassment to Gillard---as well as a political liability.
It's just a shame the case has to be contested on a constitutional technicality. Being myself a parent forced to tolerate proselytising in my children's State School, via the Chaplaincy trojan horse, I'm only sorry its illegitimacy is not the subject of resounding community outrage. I think it would be if so many parents were not just plain indifferent. The zealots get at their kids enough at home. State Schools should be sanctuaries.
I call the NSCP a trojan horse because it makes way for the raft of other christianising programmes that file in behind it: Shine, Strength, Christian clubs, camps etc. etc.
Of course all these also profess to being faith-neutral, but that is a blatent lie! Whatever their ostensible motives, all these Christian missions in state schools are grooming kids in the hope of securing the next generation of dupes.
I wish Mr Williams well. And once we rid our schools of this promiscuous state-sanctioned ideology, the next case has to be changing tax laws so that religious organisations can be starved, weakened, and eventually prised away from what should be secular government.
No more tax dollars or exemptions for these mealy-mouthed parasites!
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 10:14:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the things that needs to happen is an inquiry by a Senate Committee and a House of Representatives Committee on the Chaplaincy program, its staffing, the qualifications of chaplains who are clearly – and commonsense would tell you that they would do so – in counselling children and doing so in a religious context: that is why they are there in the first place. The Parliament must bring the program to account as they do in every other field.

The very definition of a chaplain is one who is “a member of the clergy, officiating in the private chapel of a household or institution, on board ship, or for a regiment, school, etc.” [Shorter Oxford English Dictionary]. Chaplains are in schools to convert children.

The form of “officiating” is surreptitious, often one-on-one, without scrutiny, and in the case of the Women of Worth ministry, plainly deceptive. Now, I’m not arguing that chaplains might be good people. At heart most probably are. But they have no business infiltrating secular, government schools. That there is bi-partisan support for funding this flawed program indicates that our secular leaders are prepared to preside over the growth of sectarianism that will undermine secular democracy.
Posted by Seamus, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 11:00:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The school chaplaincy program (rightfully referred to as a Trojan horse by an earlier poster) is a clear abuse of political leverage and should be attacked any which way at all - especially through the Achilles heel of finance. We have reached a state in this country where the majority of taxpayers have little religious 'faith' yet are forced via the taxation system to support the mostly nonsensucal views of the remaining minority, and forced also to watch helplessly whilst our children - the hope of the future - are indoctrinated with medieval superstition and pseudo-scientific drivel at universal expense. Go to it Ron Williams et al - if the rednecks of Queensland insist on allowing these various dog-collars into their schools, at least let them pay for it themselves.
Posted by GYM-FISH, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 12:55:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I questioned Ian Sutherland, the mayor of Moreton Bay Shire, about the implications of the chaplaincy program. He got angry and yelled, "I am a Christian." Sutherland is active in fundraising efforts for the chaplaincy.

Ron Williams spoke about his law suit last Sunday at a meeting of the Queensland Humanist Society. They meet from 1-3 pm last Sunday of the month at Brisbane Central Library. All are welcome. He mentioned:

1. It was Kevin Rudd who originated the school chaplaincy program while he was working under Wayne Goss when Goss was Queensland premier. Howard followed Rudd's lead & made it a national program.

2. When the program was activated Scripture Union showed up in the schools with applications filled out needing only the principal's signature.

3. In general principals signed as they wanted to do what the government wanted.

4. Parents or parents' organisations were rarely if ever consulted as to whether they wanted the program.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 1:45:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f
You have hit on a typical response from those supporting the program. "I am a Christian" is not a good enough reason to support a program that does not represent all Australians nor is it in keeping with secular principles of separation of State and Church.

It is duplicating counselling services already in place at most schools and is a waste of public funds at a time when there are many more sectors desperately in need of financial assistance.
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 3 March 2011 9:18:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Two goverment ministers wish to defend the government's commitment to school chaplaincy in the wake of a constitutional challenge to the program.

So Chrys, if not now, when should the ministers come to it's defense?

If it is out of place now for these two men to defend the merits of the program, then is it not equally out of place for the several commentators above to criticise the program?

If these ministers' spirited defence is irrelevant to the writ in question, then should not all the posts above which denounce the chaplaicy program be deemed similarly irrelevant also? 

Yet their denunciation comes in chorus, falsettoed by Gym-fish, "The school chaplaincy program is a clear abuse of political leverage and should be attacked any which way at all - especially through the Achilles heel of finance." 

Have all of these people too missed the point? 
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 3 March 2011 10:26:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 3 March 2011 10:26:48 PM

Way to miss the point entirely, Dan.

Read the first two sentences of the 7th paragraph.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 4 March 2011 5:59:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal, 
Is this what you're referring to? -

'Ron Williams' High Court challenge relates only to the matter of federal government funding for the NSCP. It says nothing about state funding or about the legality of chaplains working in state schools.'
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 4 March 2011 6:24:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is no doubt in my mind that Wilson and Dick are not only using spin in regard to the High Court Challenge, they are being deliberately deceitful. Politicians and political commentators sometimes bemoan the fact that most Australians are apathetic about politics. Why wouldn't any sensible person be apathetic about politics in this country? On almost every issue the two major parties manage to take opposing positions, and mount seemingly convincing arguments supporting their positions. Often people don't have the information to judge who is right, but they are smart enough to know that they can't both be right and that both sides are applying large doses of spin. Usually the issues involve considerable uncertainty or they are matters requiring subjective judgement, so when politicians take dogmatic positions people know they are not being honest. Sensible people simply stop listening, or at least stop believing anything politicians say.

The granting of monopolies to faith-based organizations to provide chaplains to state schools and the requirement that only people who belong to a faith-based organization can fulfill this role is both morally and legally wrong. It is morally wrong because it discriminates against people who do not belong to a faith-based organization. It is legally wrong because it contravenes Section 116 of the Australian Constitution. By stating that the Australian government should not pass laws establishing any religion and should not impose any religious test for holding public office, Section 116 makes it quite clear that the writers of the Constitution intended that religions should not hold any position of privilege in Australian society. However because of the somewhat imprecise wording of Section 116 governments have always felt that they could safely ignore it. Nevertheless, the chaplaincy program as it now stands, the teaching of religious instructions in state schools, the funding of faith-based schools and tax breaks for religious organizations all contravene the Australian Constitution.
Posted by Neil of Ipswich, Friday, 4 March 2011 12:06:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a tendency to see any comments about Chaplaincy as anti-religion. Surely Christians and others must see the perils in a too close relationship between State and Church.

The government should not be about dictating personal beliefs into the wider school system IMO. Religion is not something that should be pushed overtly or implied through these programs.

As a parent I would not want to see any sort of religious representative in public schools whether it be Imams or tarot card readers, even if many might make good counsellors in their own right without representing any particular group. That is not the same as implying people are not free to choose these lifestyles for themselves. It is not an attack on Christianity - please keep some perspective.

It is hypocritical when some from Christian lobby groups then argue against secular ethics classes or like the following:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/nonreligious-chaplains-idea-angers-christians-20110212-1ardz.html

Why are we even having this discussion in an enlightened age? Keep religion out of schools. Many professional counsellors may have religious leanings themselves but they are employed for counselling purposes without the pressure or implications of representing their creed. The role of cousellors should not be proselytism.

Bottom line is there have always been school counsellors, what was the impetus establishing a Chaplaincy Program, why not just fund more quaified counsellors.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 4 March 2011 12:53:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unfortunately a lot of state schools are religious environments even without chaplains and the other Christian programmes. My kids have been at schools where well over half the teaching staff are aggressive Christians. Neither is this an accident; staff are often hired based on this tacit credential if the principal is so minded. This is not gossip, but from the horses mouth, that is from a very experienced deputy principle and teaching staff I'm friendly with.
RI is also commonly foisted on kids whether they've signed up to it or not, based on the spurious protocol that they must opt-out.
If kids were trotted off to RI based on their explicit request, the whole nonsense would quickly become an elective due to lack of interest.
But RI is often maintained via such unethical means. Classroom time is turned over to these doctors of spin and the little heathens are sent to twiddle their thumbs in a corner, even in the same room! Told to close their ears perhaps.
Such travesties have gone on long enough. No more institutional religious opportunism in schools and teachers, to the best of their abilities, should leave their ideologies at the gate.
Learning should be facilitated in places of education, not manipulated.
These ought to be ethical truisms, and not federal or state political stakes.
Posted by Squeers, Friday, 4 March 2011 1:46:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's my view (not necessarily focussing on QLD as I live in Vic.):

Parents should have a big say in their kids education. If a particular program enjoys popular support in a local community then why stop it? 

What percentage constitutes popular support. 51%, 75%, 98%? I'm not sure. But I don't see why a minority should stop a popular program. I don't think democracy is the tail wagging the dog. 
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 5 March 2011 9:08:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan,

Programs whether popular or not must conform to the law of the land. The suit is to determine whether such funding is consistent with the law of the land as embodied in s. 116 of the constitution.

The rights of all must be protected. The public schools are for all children not just for Christians or those whose parents approve of the chaplaincy.

Justice is not served by adopting a popular course. It is served by observing just laws and protecting the rights of all.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 5 March 2011 9:28:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would add to that, David, that such popular determinism shows zero regard for the child. We have to get over the mindset that we have a right to manipulate a child's intelligence. We ought to regard children as our equals in all bar experience. That single inequality that exists between us is thus hardly an ethical target for manipulation.
Whatever its age, that constitutes a person's life in the world, with no guarantee there's more to come, and should be uniquely respected.
Religion should be "opt-in" in life in general, and especially when it comes to children!
It's nothing less than disgraceful to impose our nonsense on childish innocence as if it was our right. Not even parents have the right to brainwash their kids, rather they should point out dangers and help them to adapt to their environment thoughtfully, creatively and for themselves.
If we brought kids up that way, I very much doubt the world would be in the shocking state it's in.
Those who patronise and pervert children, with their perverted dogmas, should hang their heads in shame!
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 5 March 2011 9:50:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,
So are you saying along with Chrys Stevenson that the program is valid, or at least not being contested, and only its funding source is legally questionable?

'Let's be clear here, Cameron Dick's claim that Williams is contesting 'the constitutional validity of Queensland's school chaplaincy services' is just plain wrong.' 
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 5 March 2011 6:40:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan,

Whether the program is valid or not is not at issue. What is at issue is whether it violates the Australian Constitution. If so it should not receive any Commonwealth funding. The state government may still fund the program as the state government is not obliged to follow the Commonwealth Constitution. Whether the state government is willing to supply all the funding is another matter.

The Queensland government was obliged to provide secular education in its school under the Education Act. In 1910 the word, secular, was removed from the Education Act so the chaplaincy program is almost certainly legal in Queensland even though the Commonwealth government cannot legally fund it. There is a movement to restore the word, secular, to the Queensland Education Act, but so far it has not been successful.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 5 March 2011 8:38:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,
I'm trying to get my head around how something could be valid but unconstitutional. 

I'm guessing that all of the states are equally obliged to follow the Australian constitution. 

I don't think that whether the word secular appears in the education act is the telling difference. In Victoria, education is said to be secular but the federal government chaplaincy program is still applicable I believe. At least, I somehow doubt that the federal government is going to institute a program that only has relevance for Queensland. 
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 10 March 2011 11:19:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan wrote: I'm trying to get my head around how something could be valid but unconstitutional.

One meaning of valid is soundly reasoned. An action may be soundly reasoned but not conform to law as specified in the constitution.

Dan wrote: I'm guessing that all of the states are equally obliged to follow the Australian constitution.

You guess wrong. The Australian constitution does not allow an established religion like the Chirch of England is established in England. However, a state could establish a religion. In the US a state law has to follow the US constitution. In Australia only commonwealth laws have to follow the Australian constitution.

Dan wrote: I don't think that whether the word secular appears in the education act is the telling difference. In Victoria, education is said to be secular but the federal government chaplaincy program is still applicable I believe. At least, I somehow doubt that the federal government is going to institute a program that only has relevance for Queensland.

Education may be said to be secular in Victoria but what does the law say? I don't know what it says in Victoria. However, until a successful action is brought to stop a violation or the court determines that there is a violation laws will be violated. Regarding the chaplaincy program even if commonwealth funding is found to violate the commonwealth Constitution states can still fund the program.
Posted by david f, Friday, 11 March 2011 12:54:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting point, Dan S de Merengue, one that hadn't occurred to me.

>>I'm guessing that all of the states are equally obliged to follow the Australian constitution.<<

david f's reply explains why the State Governors report to the Queen, and not to the Governor General.

We really need to sort this mess out some time. It makes less and less sense as the years roll by.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 11 March 2011 7:47:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks David. I didn't realise that a state was within it's power to establish it's preferred religion.

As for whether the federal gevernment is being complicit in this, we'll have to wait for the High Court's ruling. Do you know when that might be?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 12 March 2011 4:39:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan,

http://www.highcourtchallenge.com/ is the url containing news of the case.

Last time I looked it contained:

"The matter of Williams v. Commonwealth of Australia & Ors was listed for directions before His Honour Mr Justice Gummow today. The following directions were made: (1) The Defendants file and serve their defences and any demurrers on or before 25 February 2011; (2) The Plaintiff file and serve any reply to the defences on or before 11 March 2011; (3) The First, Second and Third Defendants file and serve any draft special case on or before 23 March 2011; (4) Stood over to 25 March 2011 for further directions at 9.30 a.m. at the Sydney Registry; (5) Costs of today are costs in the cause.

May 10, 11 and 12 2011 have been tentatively set-aside for the case to be heard by the full bench in Canberra. This may be confirmed during the March 25 hearing."

Check after March 25 to see if May dates are confirmed.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 12 March 2011 5:05:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy