Would not the logical extension to the authors point on this matter be that tax concesions to churches be withdrawm? Would that be a good thing or a bad thing? They have massive wealth yet pay no tax (while often simultaneously urging governments to increase tax on others).

To those who want their children to be taught creationism as per the literal interpretation of Genesis, I've just done a bit of Googling and it appears likely that only a small minority of Christian chaplains would be prepared to teach this.

To those who don't want sexuality taught to their children in a sensible manner, together with the availability of condoms, then their children are more likely to have unwanted pregnancies and abortions.
http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07/uk/apprend2.htm

To those Christians who don't accept the reality of global warming and the need to take appropriate steps, then don't you care about the condition of our planet which you [presumably] believe that God has entrusted us with?

Whilst I was writing this post, I answered the door to find a pleasant Jehovah's Witness lady on my doorstep. We had a nice chat, I don't accept their literature, but neither do I give them a hard time. I told her about John Howard's school chaplaincy plan and she was visibly horrified. Perhaps because she realised that her faith would be unlikely to be represented. But it's a legally recognised religion in Australia, so why not?

And maybe this illustrates the Achilles Heel of this ill-considered proposal. If I had a particular legally recognised faith and my faith was not considered for publicly funded chaplaincy, then I would be looking to complain through the appropriate channels, with as much publicity as possible.

Runner, what's wrong with 'handing out condoms in schools or promoted godless values espoused by the green religion or pseudo science groups that teach we evolved from apes"?

How do you propose we explain safe sex without contraception or why the Barrier Reef is dying or why John Howard resembles a bespectacled aging chimp

On the surface it would appear that the Federal Government is wanting to nurture young people; clearly, something we should all applaud. However, it can also be seen as a dumbing down process. Religion is a very individual process; whereas, many of the issues young people need to contend with are structural.

We are living in a time when individual rights are being whittled down; in the workplace, in what we can promote politically, and in the community generally. In the workplace through the miserable IR legistion. The issue in relation to IR is not mass sackings but the loss of conditions. Some religious leaders have spoken out about the IR legislation; obviously the Federal Government is wanting to silence these critics. Providing financial resources to Churches is a good mechanism to silence religious critics.
The media is another area where there has been dumbing down. Even the ABC is feeling the pinch with the cutting of The Glass House. In the view of the Government media bias is fine as long as it is supportive.

As a consequence, we are being catapulted to a repressed society where we will have to raise our base ball caps to the toffs. Chaplains in schools being a new element in this process.

It seems that some of the central issues facing kids in schools are

- Stress
- Being overweight
- Poor self image

Some are of the view that putting a lot of christain chaplains in the schools will help address these issues. Apparently the christain faith makes some people feel better about themselves.

I've come up with a remarkable non-religious alternative.

Whilst not being a smoker myself I know that many smokers are strongly of the view that sucking on a cancer stick
- helps relieve stress
- helps them keep their weight down
- makes them look "cool"

Instead of chaplains we need cigarette machines (at student prices) in our schools.

No breach of the constitutional restraints concerning government and religion, no need for other faiths to feel left out.

There is that small issue of respiratory problems, cancer etc but they are most likely to be issues for future governments rather than existing ones and all the governments in between will have the benefit of a larger tax base. What a win-win idea.

Or we could possibly put that extra money into trained professionals to work with our kids on the issues which face them. Forget that no-one will go for that kind of approach.

R0bert

RObert

I think they are already doing it. Its called ritalin.