Quite correct. Section 116 of the Australian Constitution certainly suggests that religious organisations should not receive funding for religious purposes.

Interesting, section 116 of the Constitution comes Tasmanian Attorney-General, Andrew Inglis Clark, who apparently introduced it *because* of his Unitarian religious convictions (who are very strong on the separation of Church and State as a means to protect religious freedom).

Once again s116 is bandied about as a salve for religion-haters to remove religion from society. It does not suggest that religious groups shouldn't get funding. It does not suggest that the Federal Government should not assist Chaplains in schools. It prevents 4 things: a state religion, compulsory religious observance, restrictions on religious freedom and religous tests to qualify for employment.

The very wording of the Preamble of the Constitution mentions the "blessing of Almighty God" which suggests that the Founding Fathers of our nation were religious and not afraid to express it.

I understand your point of view about Australian taxpayers paying for something they don't agree with. But that is just life. The Government is always going to spend the country's funds (to which you contribute) in a broad way that will not always make you happy. I disagree with abortion on demand and am left to regret that my tax contibutes to funding for abortion.

I guess we are on different sides of a few arguments, but both represented by the same Parliament. A Parliament, I might add, that was founded by people who were religious and still has many Members today who are religious.

I agree completely, as a Catholic I see no need for this service to be lumbered onto the taxpayer. I thought the Liberal Party was about choice. I choose to be a Catholic, I don't chose for anyone else to be.

This is a matter of personal choice, nothing at all to do with Government, in fact to me it breaches the separation of powers.

Dear Stop&Think,

I suggest you apply your own username.

Section 116 of the Constitution states: "116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."

Now if the Commonwealth is funding religious instruction and its finance is achieved through compulsory taxation that constitutes an imposition for religious observence.

Regards,

A regular church-going citizen.

Religious people pay taxes....so why shouldn't their taxes be used for chaplaincies as is the case with chaplains in the defence forces, the police services etc? Why should I have to fund abortions, secular hopelessness in government schools, the war in Iraq etc etc? What next, banning government funding of St Vincent de Paul, religious hospitals, police and defence force chalians etc?

I think it would be more appropriate to teach ethics and philosophy at schools. Religious
teaching should be taught outside the curriculum unless it is comparative religion.

Religion is better taught within the community to which a person belongs. There is also the risk that some teaching, such as creationism, would be at conflict with the educational environment.

If parents want their children to receive religious teaching, there are also religious schools, who receive tax funding, to which they can send their children.

Yes, the constitution is in breach.

It is wrong to for Government to fund religion and religion to dominate over Government, it is possibly illegal.

In principle, modern constitutions tend to include this for ethical reasons. They always has been and always will. That is why it is in the constitution.

Funding religious schools is a strain on taxpayers, particularly to those who are not religious. For some, the tax dollar raised is spent on those who preach to hate you. You have every right to be annoyed that those who make your life a living misery are funded by your taxes. Especially if you are Islamic, gay or lesbian, or staunchly atheist. All these subsidize belief systems that inflame and perpetuate persecution from religious zealots, you pay in taxes, are hell bent on kicking the Christ out of your dignity.

Governments should not subsidize church schools for this reason. They insist on having the right to persecute or expel lesbian or gay identified students and the disabled.

As churches, however, anyone who wishes to donate to these institutions have their donations tax deducted. So if we have private schools, surely it would not be so difficult to privatize their funding. All you need is enough donations from like minded people digging deep: a few weeks before tax day, and it all comes back in your tax return anyway. You can chose to pay where their tax goes. End of problem.

"I guess we are on different sides of a few arguments, but both represented by the same Parliament. A Parliament, I might add, that was founded by people who were religious and still has many Members today who are religious."

I read somewhere that 30% of Federal parliamentarians are active church-going Christians, whereas only 9% of the the general population are such. This could mean, that with respect to religion, Federal pollies are "unrepresentative swill".

Danielle,
You have hit the nail on the head these are my thoughts exactly. The federal government spends the money of religious people on supporting religious schools, This is as I said an area of personal choice, if we wish to take our children to Church on Sunday it is up to us. My daughter attends a public school, and I read lately Melbourne's elite are doing likewise in increasing numbers.

Schools are there to educate people not give sermons or mass, they should have a "human relationships" subject instead of chaplins, or perhaps a social worker. In my mind as a religious person there is no room in schools for such a service.

whilst we are at it, we could start by abolishing all govt support to that second most insidious of religions - enviromentalism
this cult receives zillions of tax dollars in addition to it being preached ad nauseam in our schools.

THe lies of evolution are taught openly in schools so it makes a lot more sense to teach about the truth of creation. The religion of humanism (man believeing he is god) has proven a complete failure. No wonder many of the 'believers' in humanism send their kids to schools where they don't have to put up with the fruit of its flawed beliefs.

Shonga and Danielle, very well put.

I've posted my opinion on this subject before. My youngest daughter had some extraordinarily frightful 'Christian' education in public primary school.

Teaching of comparative religion and other philosophies would be a wonderful adjunct to our children's education. Wish there could be funding for that instead.

Sorry Runner, not even most Christians follow your line of thinking on evolution and take the creation story literally. Are they then Godless amoral people as well?

What an excellent article; I totally agree with the author. The idea of chaplains in schools is totally outrageous.
Why spend taxes on deceiving (non-Christian) school kids?
Taxes could be much more effectively spend on other ways to improve education; e.g. to improve on already existing counseling programs.

I could say that every child except children of Christians will be automatically disadvantaged by this silly chaplains program. Or I could go as far as saying that the children of Christian parents will be disadvantaged as well; is there any place in their little world where these kids will NOT be indoctrinated?

It looks like money buys access to politicians in our country.
The worst example of the government funding schools I know of are the Exclusive Brethren schools, who I believe abuse children; they strictly sensor what the children are learning, such as science facts, fiction and are strong homophobes.
They also forbid tertiary education, limiting their children’s aspirations and restricting personal development. Howard would condemn this if an Islamic group would do the same; but he funds it because they’re ‘good Christians’.

Humans should have rights over and above religions.
Why does the Australian government follow the example of the USA and not of the EU?

Schools need to concentrate on educating children, teaching them skills and prepare them for life in society.

I like Saintfletchers comment about discrimination in religious schools; they are exempt from some discrimination laws and therefore able to discriminate against sex and sexual orientation. Religion or religious schools should not be exempt from rules that apply to other schools.
Will that exempt now extend to Public Schools? What advice will chaplains give children- it will place him in compromised situations, such as dealing with teenage pregnancies, or children who discovered they're homosexual and are not sure how to bring it to their parents?

I find it ridiculous that this much money is being wasted on religious counseling.

I'm sure the public school system could use the money in far more appropriate ways.

What will happen when a teenager approaches 1 of these Chaplains about homosexuality? Unless they're lucky enough to talk to a tolerant (dare I say enlightened) chaplain, more harm than good could come from the conversation. Growing up in a small town I know from bitter experience the effects of narrow mindedness over sexuality.

I wont say I'm a religious person, but I am a Christian, and believe the teaching of Christ allow us to live good and happy lives.

It's interesting to note that the majority of Catholic schools have not accepted this funding as well.

Francis,

It is true that religious people pay taxes, as do non-religious. You may disagree with how those taxes are spent in terms of education, wars, health, welfare etc. but the thing you must realise is that rightly or wrongly, these monies are spent on secular issues. They do not fund speculative claims of eternal truths; because none of us can honestly say they know what these are. They are articles of *faith* alone.

Regards,

I would share some of Simon Wright’s unease if the National School Chaplaincy Program were an initiative of the Commonwealth Government. It might suit the Government to make it sound as though chaplaincy was its own idea, but the NSCP is designed to support the already existing program around the country, but especially in Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia.
The Government is offering only $20,000 to each school: a decent chaplaincy service employing a full-time chaplain and the associated costs is closer to $50,000 per year. The existing chaplaincy program, mainly funded by the churches has been around for some years: since the early 1950s in Victoria and for more than a decade in other States. Simon will probably find that the take-up of the money has been mainly in schools that already have a chaplain.
These programs are, and continue to be, a service offered by the churches to the schools. There is no compulsion for a school to take them up. The fact that there were 500-600 chaplains around the country before the NSCP shows the extent to which schools exercised their choice. In addition, the Principal and the school community must be happy with the particular person nominated as chaplain.
The Commonwealth is doing no more than it does when it funds successful programs, say, of the Salvation Army.

fullbore,
Are you aware that half your gunpowder is missing?

CHAPLAINS CAN BE DENOMNATIONALLY NEUTRAL.

Guidelines are laid down such that Chaplains are not able to propogate their particular denominational flavor to students.

CHAPLAINS ARE AVAILABLE...NOT COMPULSORY.
No one is 'forced' to see chaplain..they may if they wish.

CHAPLAINS ARE VITAL... in some peoples views. But my own thoughts are that the preferred option would be for revved up, lively, switched on and relevant local churches, ministering to the families of a community, such that all chaplaincy kind of work is done within or from the caring environment of a local Church (of any denomination)

CHAPLAINS ARE A REACTION. Given the current climate in the world.. religious and political, and with the emergence of Islamic radicalism, (please all read Irfs article on "The Islamist") I get the impression that the Government is trying to plug a spiritual vacuum in the community.

CHAPLAINS ARE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Whenever we come across any encouragement for spiritual growth from the government, the "experts" on the Constitution pop their heads up and whine "nooooo".

PERSPECTIVE. The word 'Religion' as used in the constitution should be translated 'denomination' because historically, the issue at stake was the promotion or prevention of Catholic vs Protestant(Mostly Anglican) .... I highly doubt that the founding fathers had anything else in mind. Given this, then the constitution is just saying:

"Don't enact anything which would promote Catholicism or Anglicanism, nor prevent them ...on the denominational level. But as for religion in general...I think they would accept that it should not be totally separated from government.
But lets NOT have any Theocratic tendencies....

David,
I think you are right. The chaplaincy program is not a novelty: it has proved its usefulness for all the reasons you state.
The clause in the Constitution about establishing religion has a particular legal sense. It does not prevent the Commonwealth Government from funding programs sponsored by religious bodies. It has one technical meaning only: that the Government cannot declare one religious group to be the official religion of the country. The writers of both the Australian and the US Constitutions did not want to follow the British model, where the Head of State (the Monarch) is the Head of the official religion. The British Prime Minister appoints bishops, and the Church appoints bishops to sit in the House of Lords. That is what the Constitution seeks energetically and definitely to avoid.
The organisation for the Defence of Government Schools (DOGS) tried to take the Commonwealth to the High Court in 1981 because the Government was funding church schools, and therefore, DOGS claimed, was ‘establishing religion’. The case did not even reach the High Court because every constitutional lawyer knew that the Commonwealth was not breaching Section 116. They were not making one religion the State religion.
The Government is confident it can rely on this ruling in the case of putting funds towards chaplains as well. It is doing no more than helping a community agency offer a non-discriminatory service to the community.

World Systems of Religion juxtaposed with World Systems of Healing as an approach in education would I believe do more strategically to help increase greater cross-cultural understanding in Australia and contribute to deeper disscusions on themes of human conflict and peace.

"Wellbeing" ought to be a key focus underlying all basic studies through education on human society.

Similarily, as Simon Wright article highlights, it is that the Government ought to be announcing broader policies and funding that benefit wider human understanding in Australian schools, and not just focus on the Prime Minister’s own ideological commitment to religious culture.

http://www.miacat.com/
.

David,

I find the claim of neutral chaplains to be interesting. If they are so, then they failing at their job as the chaplains by definition.

Whilst the State-sponsored chaplains are available, the funding of them is compulsory.

They are not vital. If they are a reaction, they're the *wrong* reaction.

They are *arguably* unconstitutional under section 116, insofar that public funding does constitute complulsion.

As for perspective, there is little doubt in my mind what Andrew Inglis Clark, who is responsible for the clause, wanted for it is the same as other members of his religion; a complete and utter separation of Church and State.

Regards,

Hi Lev

not at all mate.. (them failing).. there is much that a chaplain can do for children without promoting the denominational brand.

We have one in our fellowship, and she ends up being a caring ear than a 'forked tongue' if you get my drift. The level of decay we are experiencing in our supposedly civilized society is beyond tragic, left unchecked, I believe it is terminal.

I chaplain can provide 'generalized hope' just by being there.. by listening. Can you imagine a child who has been abused, who has no one to turn to... alone... tossed from this pillar to that post.. man..

The State can offer 'zero' on that level. You cannot give a child 'hope' by having a paid employee spend time with them, it takes more.. it takes a heart.

I suggest chaplains who's hearts are connected to the Almighty, are more equipped to convey something meaningful than a normal 'paid employee' such as a social worker, who's solutions might come from a sociology or psychology text book.

David,

As a person who was raised in a religious orphanage and experienced abuse from a religious figures (as so many are), I can assure you it is much preferable for a psychologist or social worker to engage in services of counsel rather than somebody who really has no qualifications.

It is also a display of some ignorance to suggest that such people do not have a heart; why do you think they were motivated to join such a profession in the first place?

People who *think* they know the will of the Almighty are invariably the most dangerous and wicked individuals of all. To actually give such people money expropriated from taxpayers is a heinous crime.

Individuals are thoroughly entitled to engage in whatever metaphysical speculations they so desire and have the right to do so. Organisations likewise have the right to fund such individuals as they desire from their own monies.

However, to have such speculations funded by the state however is an affront to those who have *different* speculations and to those who have *no* speculations. It is morally wrong for the State to endorse even a non-denominational version of chaplians.

Regards,

All child sexual abuse is appalling especially by religous people. You are however a lot more vulnerable to it when you adopt the policies of the secular humanist. The aboriginal communities are prime examples of this. Secular humanist deny the inherent depravity of man (especially among their own ranks) and think they can feed on pornography and not be affected. Many people have been sexually abused by teachers, doctors, scientist, pianno teachers, ballet dancers, humanists and religous instructors. Religous instructors receive far more press because the tremendous god haters among our press especially our national broadcasters ( who themselves have had their share of child sex abusers). What this has to do we chaplaincy I have no idea except to allow the usual god haters to vent their spleen.

Why do people continue to operate under the misapprehension that you can have a neutral position in religion (or morality for that matter). Oh...I know...it is when they define their religion as 'neutral'.

This is the trick that secular humanists have been pulling for a long time in order that theirs is the only religion that state schools teach. Such hypocrisy...

I agree that the separation of church and state is crucial, for both church and state. When the church can offer a monetary reward in addition to virtue, its appeals to virtue are confused. Similarly, where people can get jobs or other benefits from the state on the basis of their apparent religiosity, merit and need ceases to be the basis of the state's activities.

Mr Howard's funding for chaplaincy would look more innocent if he didn't tend to borrow so much from US President Bush, who has initiated 'faith-based charity', 'faith-based education', and 'faith-based science', to name a few. As Garry Wills points out in his book "Bush's Fringe Government", Mr Bush has ruled by seeking out extremist views, rather than by governing by consensus. Mr Howard does the same trick - divide and conquer - in relation to asylum seekers, indigenous health care (ignore Oxfam's call for $460million, and then come storming in with the military), and also religion in schools.

If Mr Howard really wanted to promote religion in schools perhaps he might instead emphasize honesty in his government, rather than being rightly known as 'Honest John', the used-government salesman.

Grey, we have had this discussion on many occasions in the past, and still you try the same old sleight of hand, pretending that secularism and religion are one and the same.

>>Why do people continue to operate under the misapprehension that you can have a neutral position in religion... This is the trick that secular humanists have been pulling for a long time in order that theirs is the only religion that state schools teach. Such hypocrisy<<

You suggest by this that secular humanism is in fact a religion, and can therefore be taught. The reality, as you well know, but would rather ignore, is that the label secular humanism implies the complete absence of religion.

And since you cannot perforce teach an absence of anything, your fallacy is immediately exposed, and your argument falls as flat as a wombat on the Hume Highway.

That "such hypocrisy" bit is a nice rhetorical touch, though.

Nice, but fundamentally dishonest.

Australia and the US have drifted so far to the right in their politics that Bob Brown can be painted as an extremist. This unfortunate state of affairs follows years of the Howard / Bush treatment whereby logical centrist arguments are fobbed off as extreme by stoking the much tilled ground of fear mongering. Carmen Lawerence’s ‘Fear and Politics’ is a concise summary of this recent history.

The drift to the right in our corrupt democracies has been supported by open declarations of religiosity in a cynical appeal to religious organisations that provide an easily manipulated and highly organised voting block. Granted Mr Bush is apparently a believer in the Rapture fairy tale (a truly terrifying background to US policy in the Middle East), but in the case of Honest John it is difficult to believe his new found faith is any more genuine than my cat’s interest in warming laps.

In this environment the NSCP is a neo-conservative strategy to creating fear of the unknown, encourage the mainstream to look to the familiar, and then to deliver a conservative solution.

‘Fear of Terror’, whatever that means, has been personified as an unfamiliar sadistic Moslem. In these supposedly terror filled times people are encouraged look to the spiritual as a comfort in the face of the inexplicable. That the NSCP is open to religious instructors of all persuasions is a thin facade. Howard knows that the vast majority of schools who take up the option with select Christian counsellors which serves firstly to bolster support with large powerful church bodies who will receive the funding, and second, in the longer term, spawns a generation of believers to engage in the politics of fear.

Even if it was this program was open to atheist counsellors it clearly crosses the line – it is an example of society’s cultural regression

Grey,

A little comprehension is in order. 'Secularlism' is not a religion. It an approach, necessary for religious freedom, that distinguishes between "secular" (temporal, earthly) affairs and "eternal" (atemporal, divine) affairs. Hence you can have secular Christians, secular pagans, secular atheists.

Further 'humanism' is not a religion either; it rejects deference to supernatural speculation but not necessarily the beliefs themselves. It is generally compatible with atheism and agnosticism but doesn't *require* either. Again, there is no contradiction in claim Christian humanism, Pagan humanism etc.

Runner,

Not for the first time I note that you offer opinions that come with no empirical backing. Your claim that abuse is more likely under the policies of secular humanists is most certainly without foundation, indeed I suggest that the reverse is the case (i.e., it is more likely under theological dictates). Whilst your claim that secular humanists "deny the inherent depravity of man" is true, that is not a bad thing. Secular humanists consider behaviour to be result of environmental conditions. As for the suggestion that one "can feed on pornography and not be affected", again I refer you the empirical and scholarly studies that I posted last week. Our best knowledge to date suggests that where pornography is in plentiful supply, rape goes down. Your choice runner; sexual censorship and rape, or sexual expression and no rape. Pick one. What does this have to do with chaplians in schools? Surely you can work that out.

Regards,

There is one damning fact that confirms the thrust of this article, and sweeps away the other arguments as meaningless.

This program supplies chaplains only - not counsellors or the chaplain equivalent in other faiths.

Were it non-religion specific, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. As it stands, it is very clearly a religious intrusion into what should remain secular.

Even the most committeed christians, I would hope, would realise not all christians wish for their beliefs to be imposed on others.

By denying equal funding to schools who do not wish for this religious element, the funding is doing precisely that.

BD: Fine - then why call them chaplains at all? Why can't there just be counsellors? If it's really about delivering non-religious services, why court the controversy instead of just delivering the means?

runner: if you're going to spout foolishness about humanism, get your facts straight. You're completely wrong about it. How can you promote man as god, if you don't have need of any god at all? Just because your perception of the world requires a god to base it on, that doesn't mean humanists do. 'No god' / 'uncertainty of god' does not = man as god.

Francis, Stop&think: secularism is a void of religion - it isn't a religion. It's the closest thing we have to neutral.
Those who wish to promote religion over other systems always try to attack secularism as another faith. This isn't the case.
Abortions are a health issue, not religion. In linking them, you betray your religious motivations for arguing on the topic of abortion, and you'll find most would rather listen to reasoned arguments than religious rhetoric.

Religious education should always be available to those who want it, but it should never be foisted upon people, and by funding religious programs, the government is doing so in an indirect manner.

The statement "There is no proof that there is a “spiritual” realm or such a thing as “spiritual wellbeing” in Simon's article, if presented as an arument to high students, is either another act of faith or a philospophical position, the interpretation and explanation of which is far beyond of what a high school student could possibly comprehend.

Grey, "...it is when they define their religion as 'neutral'". I agree completely, however I think to avoid misunderstandings one should distiguish between the metaphysical and psychological functions of religion. In the first case the "non-religious" is indeed the odd-man-out, but not in the second case. And when talking about chaplains/counsellors, it is the psychological function of religion that is relevant here.

A counsellor who does not recognise that there is a spiritual dimension, (in whatever sense, e.g. Buddhist), to human perception of the world and self is, in my opinion, comparable to a biology teacher who does not accept evolution, in any form.

However, I sort of agree with Michelle Gratan's statement, quoted on Simon's website, that "there are good reasons why — in principle and practice — the Government's chaplain initiative is a bad idea. It would be one thing if this was a wider counsellor program, within which people who were ministers, imams, or whatever would be eligible for the funding." However, I cannot see how this could be implemented fairly for all parties.

TurnRightThenLeft, "Abortions are a health issue, not religion.“

Nuclear energy, CO2 emissions etc. are physics/technology etc. issues not ethics or politics. Nevertheless, it is legitimate to argue about their need, usefulness or dangers from a political or moral position.

Public schools don't need chaplains. They need more teachers and trained counsellors. If parents want their kids to be exposed to chaplains, they should send them to religious schools. The government should butt out of religious matters.

It's quite simple, really.

I don't agree with the identified program, however, I don't agree that it breaches Sect 116 either. Could the money be better spent on counsellors? Probably. Would I like a pro-abortion humanist as a counsellor? Probably not.

George is correct: "Abortions are a health issue, not religion.“

Abortions are very bad for babies health prospects, regardless of their 'religion' or lack thereof. Governments should prevent such bad health outcomes, and doctors are ethically obliged to do the same, but, ethics went out the door with Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, in revised Hippocratic oaths.

I wonder if part of the Constitution is breached in this activity and its funding?

C J Morgan,
I agree completely with you, if you look at the schools section of the federal education budget, you will find that the 67% of students who attend a public school in this country attract 35% of the federal government's funding. We in the 67% bracket need much more funding for public schools to educate our young.

Spiritual needs are a private affair, if the federal government genuinely want to help public schools provide more funding and a social worker, or another allied health professional to help students with emotional problems.

Choice is fundamental you can choose the system that is provided from your tax, or if that does not suit YOU pay for any alternative, at our school we have had someone switch to private, only to be back 6 months later.

One thing that is not considered in this very interesting article and thread, is that the $20,000 is a quick way of giving extra funding to a school that already has a chaplain. Certainly, in my state - NSW, that means private religious - mostly protestant - schools. The vast majority of NSW public schools have let the $20,000 lie . There are many reasons for this, not least that public school parents (and I am one) have actively chosen non-religious schooling for their children. Another is that as public schools now educate the vast majority of our most expensive to educate kids (on far less money than most private schools receive by combining public funding and unregulated up front fees), many have school communities made up of a large number of different ethnic and religious backgrounds. One Sydney high school has 700 kids from 54 different backgrounds. You can imagine the hornets nest that would occur while they argued what religious background their chaplain should be from. The Principal, understandably, has shuddered in horror at the very thought. I wonder how she would have reacted if she'd been offered the money to fund another couple of days a week for a counsellor or ESL teacher or even asked what might help her school community most?
And by expensive to educate kids I mean public schools enrol 90% of indigenous kids, 80% of disabled, 85 % of the most disadvantaged, most rural and remote children and, of course, the newly arrived. Even, as Cardinal Pell recently admitted, 69% of the poorest Catholics. Funny, isn't it, how the supposedly godless, politically correct, values-neutral public schools are the only ones who take on the responsibility for our neediest and most disadvantaged children. Something about practicing what you preach being rather more valuable than merely preaching it, perhaps?

"Funny, isn't it, how the supposedly godless, politically correct, values-neutral public schools are the only ones who take on the responsibility for our neediest and most disadvantaged children."

ena, not only that, but this godless etc. State takes responsibility also for Medicare, pensions, unemployment benefits, defence etc. Or would you prefer an Australia run by an Ayatollah or some other theocracy, who then indeed could be expected to take responsibility for all these things, including "our neediest and most disadvantaged children"?

Let me repeat, one thing is to disagree with the idea of a Government funded chaplaincy (like I do) and another thing are the emotionally loaded arguments against it raised by people who do not have problems only with the idea, but with religion as such, especially its Christian version.

Well put ena. It is interesting that Christian schools do not see it as relevant to their role in our society to teach Christian morals and values to disadvantaged kids whose parents could never afford private Christian education.

It is very ironic that very many, if not the majority of private schools are chosen by parents because of academic standing, not religious viewpoint.

$20 000 could be spent much more effectively by employing a trained counselor. Somebody who is not going to promote their personal anti or pro abortion opinions, but that of the child and her family. How did abortion get into this thread? Are these Christian counselors there to prevent teenage girls from having abortions? Is that what's behind this?

"It is interesting that "Christian schools do not see it as relevant ... to teach Christian ... disadvantaged kids whose parents could never afford private Christian education."

Yvonne, things must have changed since my daughter (now 34 years) went to school in Melbourne! At that time one could not imagine a Catholic child being refused admission to a Catholic parish school (or college) just because its parents were poor. What one could object to were low academic standards, partly also because of low funds.

I believe there exist highly qualified psychologists, Christian or not, who could provide counseling to children without exposing the bias of their faith and/or personal opinion about religion. However, I doubt there are enough of them to be widely available to schools.

If your child goes to a public school you do not have to pay any extra for it to learn mathematics, but you will have to pay privately if you want him/her learn to play some musical instrument or speak some foreign language. The same with religion, because at least politically, the question whether religion should be a private matter, has already been settled in most Western countries.

What the Churches have to face, (if they want Christianity to survive also as an intellectually viable world-view), is the need to find/train enough educators and chaplains (employed outside the public school system) sufficiently qualified and open minded to complement the religiously sterile secular humanist education at public schools, and sometimes even counterbalance its anti-religious bias. To replace the old style RE instructors who could only parrot what they themselves had been taught. (ctd)

(ctd) I speak here from my own experience: having grown up in a Stalinist country I never had RE at school (though a lot of anti-religious education, albeit more primitive than what is on offer now) and I was grateful to my father for him being able to correct this bias, because, as I saw him, he was more educated and knowledgeable than our marx-leninist teachers. That was an extreme situation, but I think Christians in the West must prepare themselves for something similar. Unfortunately, the churches are (yet?) ill-prepared for that.

The big question is no more who is in possession of the TRUTH (at least not as much as it used to be in the past), but who is more OBJECTIVE i.e. who has more "evidence" to support his/her world outlook while having an understanding of (and for) the alternatives. I think this paradigm shift must be reflected also in education.

George, the vast majority of the private schools are Christian schools. Catholic private schools are a bit different again. I’ve had experience with both and will not go into the pro’s and con’s of either here. Simply put, I’ve had excellent experiences with both Catholic and non denomination Christian schooling. All private schools cost, many of them a lot and are only available to parents who are able to pay.

If you send your child to a private Christian school you are fully aware and informed as to the type of Christian philosophy the school espouses. So you know beforehand how the school’s spiritual philosophy ties in with your own.

This is not so in public state schools. As Simon Wright points out in his article, children and their parents are ambushed by an association, the Scriptures Union, whose aim is not to teach values or even to speak of Christian morals, but to encourage conversions to their brand of Christianity. They clearly proclaim their ‘missionary’ vision and the aim of ‘transforming lives’.

The Christian philosophy my children have been taught in is Catholic. I can tell you the SU makes statements to children and actively teaches children with their school programmes that my husband and I regard as contrary to what is widely taught within the Catholic faith.

It is outrageous that children are interfered with in such a private matter as religious and spiritual beliefs without the express permission of their parents. It is quite unbelievable that tax payers fund this.

Turn Right Then Left & Lev: Secularism CAN be classified as a religion. In fact, Prof Niall Ferguson (Prof of History at Harvard Uni) in his article in Foreign Affairs (Sept/Oct 06) The Next War of the World quotes the Marxist hsitorian, Eric Hobsbawm: "the most militant and bloodthirsty religions (between 1914 & 1991) were secular ideologies"!

CJMorgan: public (state) schools are the responsibility of the States and devour the lion's share of State funding.

Lev: you state that child abuse is more likely under theological dictates (whatever that means!). Anyone know anything about the German government's Ministry of Family Affairs which has just withdrawn a booklet aimed at parents of toddlers and young children which encouraged father's to massage their daughters genitals (including, I presume, the clitoris). After all, "the child touches all parts of their father's body, sometimes arousing him. The father should do the same". Where's the theological dictate for that bit of secularist paedophilia?

Francis,

Eric Hobshawm's comments were a condemnation of secular governments behaving with a religious-like mentality, that is they had given up earthly considerations in favour of meta-historical ones (whether race, nation or class).

You will find the direct quote in "The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914-1991". The same frustration can also be found in Hannah Arendt's 'On Totalitarism'.

I am uncertain why you do not know what theological dictates means. It is quite simple; the person with authority derives that authority through a specialist caste of interpreters of divine revelation.

Perhaps you may also note that the book you refer to was withdrawn. If it was a 'sacred text' I doubt whether this would be the case.

Not that I expect you to learn from any of this.

Regards,

Lev

Ahh yes Francis. The ole' Nazi chestnut. Forgive me, but I tend to find this more than a little specious.

Effectively you're saying - this guy treated secularism as a bad religion, therefore, secularism is a bad religion.

And yet, Christians refuse the same logic when applied to say, the Crusades. Christianity is really a shining beacon of light is it not?

I put it to you that neither is the case, and that any system can be abused, comments from one particular academic in a sea of philosophical debate not withstanding.

The problem here is Francis, your stance indicates a complete rejection of any attempt at neutrality of religion in government - if you concede secularism isn't neutrality, you therefore must conclude that there can be no void of religion, therefore government cannot operate independently of any religious persuasion.

Fine logic. I'm sure extremists pushing for a caliphate would concur.

Lev,

However you try to explain it the fact is SECULARISM, having a variety of meanings, CAN be, and IS, classified as a religion (another word that has a wide variety of meanings)....refer Keith Ward's "Is Religion Dangerous". And this is part of the problem: the terms can be elastic. Hobsbawm is surely correct.

Re "theologiocal dictates"....your definition is self-serving and, I would suggest, your own invention to self-satisfy.

Your final two lines are just plain stupid. Obviously, you're out of your depth.

Turn Right Turn Left......who mentioned the Nazi's specifically?....I would have thought there were a few other monstrous secularist regimes as well that littered the 20th century with suffering or does that not bother you?....are you aware of any? or are you upset that the Nazis get such bad press? Are you defending them?

Secularism is not neutrality and history proves it isn't. Why should Christians, Jews, Hindus etc not try and influence governemnt whereas so-called neutral secularists (whatever that means) may? If secularists are neutral then they won't try to influence governemnts either especially since they are an irrelevant minority.

Francis,

Secularism is cannot be classified as a religion, for it makes no statement about supertemporal matters. The "variety" of meanings of which refer to is consistent. Try looking up a dictionary. Here's several to help you.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secular

Your continuing assertion that secularism is not neutrality is merely just that. The matter at hand is the ontological source of epistemological claims. Secular knowledge takes no regard to divine revelation. Or, to put it in terms you might understand: "Just because it says 'x' in the [insert "holy book"] doesn't mean it is true. Show us worldy proof'.

The definition of theological dictates is quite accepted in history and sociology (and even, less so, in anthropology). For many hundreds
of years the ruling class were the religious class.

I suspect that it may be you who is out of their depth here, but your expressions seem to suggest you lack the cognitive maturity to admit it.

Regards,

Lev

Ah Francis. I see you're in favour of the 'straw man' style of argument, and shifting the goalpasts by distorting arguments to suit your tone.

Where did I defend Nazism?

Is your only mode of argument to take things out of context, then rephrase them to suit?

Now - when you tied the debate to extremist policy and the German government, I assumed you were referring to nazism - not being familiar with the Ministry of Family Affairs of which you speak.

I don't know how accurate your comment is, but if it is indeed the case, then are you criticisng them for withdrawing it?
The fact that they have shows they feel it inappropriate, now its clearly gone under their noses for some time, but whose to say they supported it?
I can't speak definitively on the subject, though its likely they were unaware of the book, just as I'm sure there are plenty of books in Australia that government departments are unaware of.

Single example or multiple, the efficacy of the argument put forward in my previous post remains intact. That is - you have taken an example of one aspect of secularism, and conflated that to mean secularism is a flawed concept, akin to religion.

My point that religion has as many examples of flawed history can't be denied.

None of your points as yet have made a logical reasoning as to why flaws with secularism equate it to being a religion.

Put simply - because bad things happen in an absence of religion, why does than mean an absence of religion is in fact a religion?

Bad things happen in religion too. And you have yet to address my final commentary - if, indeed, secularism is merely a religion, then logically, you can't keep religion out of government, as an absence of religion doesn't exist.

Therefore, you can't even attempt to have a non-religious government, which is something all successful western governments have believed in for centuries. Do you honestly believe this is coincidence?

You can argue for ever about whether secularism is a religion or not. You have to first define religion, and then agree on the grounds for deciding on that particular definition. The original point about secularism in schools was the actual behaviour of some secularists who insist that everything in the school must be able to be proved by reason. That elevates reason to be the arbiter of everything, i.e. to the level of ideology. This is hardly secular neutrality. This is a claim that public schools should be neutral on everything except reason... and you just have to take elevating reason above every other criterion on faith!!

For the life of me I cannot understand the relevance of some of the carry on from some posters. Secularism is about the separation of Church and state. The separation of religion and religious beliefs from Government. It is an ideology. An ideology does NOT only cover religious philosophies. It also covers life style philosophies or political philosophies, like democracy, communism etc. It is NOT a religion.

A rose is a flower, but not all flowers are roses. Get it?

Is there anybody out there at all who thinks it is A OK for adults in a teaching role to be promoting any particular religious belief to your children without your express permission?

Any of you Christians who sneer and tut tut at secularists and whether this is a religion or not would be apoplectic if the government decided to fund teaching your children to wear condoms when having sex outside of wedlock without your prior knowledge and permission. Or that there is no God it is all misguided belief. Or if a fundamentalist muslim started teaching your children about their view of God without your knowledge, without your permission, paid for with your tax dollars.

This debate is not about Christianity bad, atheism good. It is about our government promoting ONE particular brand of Christianity without consent, paid for with tax dollars. I'm positive if some Catholics or Anglicans for instance, saw some of the 'work' the children do in some schools they be appalled.

Make the chaplains Catholic and RE in schools Catholic and you won't hear a peep from me. At least they'd learn that the book of Genesis is not to be taken literally, that the world was NOT created 4000 years ago, creationism is a childish belief and that all sins will be forgiven after reconciliation. But there might be some other Christians out there who would be very unhappy with that. Your child might just join the One True Church and recognize the error of other so-called Christian beliefs and come back into the fold.

yvonne, I have to admit that I paid so much attention to the anti-religious prejudices displayed by some contributors here (and also partly by Simon) that I lost sight of the facts the article states. Now I have checked the website of the Scripture Union Australia, and I can only share your outrage that such a lobbying group should not only be permitted to have access to children without their parents’ permission but that it even be financially supported by the Government.

Even at a university level self-serving lobbying groups should not be Government financed, though, of course, they cannot be denied access to adult students. The question of lobbying groups at high schools is more complicated, and is not restricted to only religious matters. Not only religious zealots (theist or atheist) want to influence children, and not all causes are as universally accepted as beneficial to them as e.g. that of an anti-smoking lobby.

I also agree with you (and Ted) that one has to agree on the definitions of terms used before arguing about them. For instance, one of seven definitions of religion in my Merriam Webster is “a cause, principle, system of tenets held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness, and faith : a value held to be of supreme importance” which does not require the belief in a god or spirit, and which I referred to as the psychological function of religion.

I can see that you are suggesting ideology for what my continental taste would call a world view (Weltanschauung), keeping to the pejorative meaning of ideology. Roughly speaking, fundamentalism is Christianity degenerated to ideology, islamism is islam degenerated to ideology and atheism a la Dawkins would be secular humanism degenerated to ideology. I think, what you call secularism (and the French laicité) is a political principle of the separation of church and State.

Francis, in case you can read German, here is the website of the publisher of the brochure “Body, Love, Playing Doctor” you mention: http://www.bzga.de/botmed_13660200.html, and here a confirmation of what you wrote: http://onleben.t-online.de/c/11/96/00/76/11960076.html.

The booklet was distributed (650 000 pieces of it) during the last seven years to all sorts of places, including kindergartens, and until end of July was freely available for downloading from the above site. The distribution was stopped by Ursula Gertrud von der Leyen, the Minister for Family Affairs (herself a mother of seven children) when her attention was called to the problematic advice (the booklet was initiated during the reign of the previous, “red-green”, Coalition).

It looks as though some folks here are intent on giving religion a bad name, by insisting that secularism be re-classified as a religion.

It is noticeable though that the most strident proponents appear to be Christians.

No-one so far, who is not professedly non-religious, seems to think that it is a good idea for secularism to be redefined as a religion.

So it gives rise to the question, why?

Why is it so important for religious people to think of secularists as being members of "just another religion"?

I suspect that there might be two possible explanations.

One is that they are themselves so steeped in the dogma and trappings of religious life, that they simply cannot imagine anyone questioning their beliefs. "It's so obvious", they must say to themselves "that everybody has to have a religion of some kind".

Or perhaps it is simply a defence mechanism.

"I find it difficult to defend my belief in a God against someone who doesn't believe in God, so I have to turn their negative belief in God into a positive belief in something else. They are then standing on the same ground as me - a belief in something that I can generalize about"

From this generalization - everyone who doesn't believe in God must believe in the same things as Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin etc. - a convenient straw man has been created.

If Christians choose to think of secularism as a religion, that is fine. But the warm feeling they get from doing so can also be attributed to incontinence. The fact remains, after all the verbiage and protestations, that the absence of religion is what defines secularism.

And the absence of religion cannot in itself be transmuted into the automatic assumption of a particular non-religious mindset à la Pol Pot etc.

As it happens I am myself not against introducing religion into the classroom - as history, part of the evolution process of man's search for meaning etc.

I am against one or the other religion claiming to have the only answer, though. That's just arrogant.

What I don't want is some lunatic cult such as the Assembly of God as a Chaplin. As I have stated religion is a "private" thing. If The federal government want to help children students, provide the school with a health professional.

Minister Abbott and his foul mouth and the swearing priest the other day has enforced my opinion on this, parents have the responsibility for their child's spiritual education, not the state.

Ted,

Secular reason makes *no* determination, non arbitration on eternal matters.

Propositions like "God exists" or "When We Die We Go To Heaven", are neither answered in the positive or negative by secular reason. The answer is "We don't know". What you believe on these matters is *entirely* your own affair.

Regards,

Lev

Pericles, thank you for expanding on my maxim that “one has to agree on the definitions of terms used before arguing about them”. This is the reason why my Merriam Webster has seven (or ten, depending how you count them) definitions of “religion” but only one of “Australia”.

If “Christians choosing to think of secularism as a religion” is fine for you, so must it be fine for Christians if you choose to think of them as “steeped in the dogma and trappings of religious life” or something similar from you previous postings. But the warm feeling you get from doing so prevents you from understanding what Christianity in the 21st century is all about. You can get a warm feeling not only from incontinence but also from thinking of a particular foreign language, that you cannot understand, as just an arbitrary collection of sounds that does not make sense, but you cannot expect a person who can speak that language to agree with you. However, he/she can accept if you say you do not understand.

“I am against one or the other religion claiming to have the only answer, though. That's just arrogant.” I completely agree except that it should be extended to any world view, including empiricism, or secularism, or what you call it.

Lev, that is the classical agnostic world view in a nutshell, philosophers can expand on it and Christians have mostly learned to live with it. However, I wonder - although I am not a pedagogue - if the natural reaction of a child or an adolescent would not be “Teacher, and what do YOU think (believe)?”

Gee, George, I must be losing my touch.

>>Pericles, thank you for expanding on my maxim that “one has to agree on the definitions of terms used before arguing about them”<<

I'm not sure how you understood that I expanded on your maxim (maxim? are you sure? Best check Merriam Webster), when in fact I totally disagree with it.

My suggestion was that whatever definition you choose for either religion or secularism is just fine by me, in the sense that I have absolutely no objection to you equating the two. I was simply observing that it is only people who profess to be religious that make this particular connection, and wondering out loud why this is the case.

You do not find atheists saying "atheism is a religion, just like Christianity or Islam", nor do you find people who prefer to be counted as secular, considering that their secularism is "just like religion, really."

So, whatever definition you choose for either word makes absolutely no difference to anything, as it can so clearly be categorized as a personal choice.

I can also accept that you don't understand a word of what I am saying, because it comes through as "an arbitrary collection of sounds that does not make sense", to use your words, and of course I "cannot expect a person who can speak that language to agree with [me]"

But you are right, my statement that "I am against one or the other religion claiming to have the only answer, though. That's just arrogant" is missing the bit that says "of all religions".

This of course does not get me off the hook with you, because you think that not being religious (i.e. secular) is exactly the same as being religious.

Only, somehow, different.

Perhaps if we focused on what you see as the difference between a secular outlook and a religious one, we might make progress.

But somehow, I doubt it.

Gee, Pericles, here we go again.
I cannot see how anybody can disagree with my maxim (=axiom; a general truth, fundamental principle) that “one has to agree on the definitions of terms used before arguing about them”. Perhaps I should have said “agree upon which of the definitions commonly accepted (as e.g. listed in an authoritative dictionary) are being used” because there is no point arguing with somebody who e.g. calls ”cat” what everybody else calls “dog”. That indeed would be a silly personal choice in distinction to a choice from among accepted definitions. My point was not about being happy but about being able to communicate and argue.

The second point I was making was that you can hardly lead a fruitful discussion with somebody whose world view you define (or describe) in derogative terms. It can make you feel happy or “warm”, but you will not be able to communicate.

As to your observation “that it is only people who profess to be religious that make this particular connection”, I think it is valid. Only after I learned the grammar of my original language, could I find similar features (e.g. the difference between nouns and verbs) in other languages. You have to know something about, say, the psychological features of your own world view to observe similarities in others. A fundamentalist, theist or atheist, will see only where his world view differs from that of others, and will often be scared to look for similarities.

I never said that “not being religious (i.e. secular) is exactly the same as being religious”. Having similar (psychological) features does not mean “being the same”.

“if we focused on what you see as the difference between a secular outlook and a religious one, we might make progress.” I agree, except I do not know if readers would want to follow, since it is not a question one can answer in 350 words. And, of course, provided by “progress” you do not mean that one of us would abandon his position and be “converted” to the other.

This is an excellent and timely essay. It should be on the front page of every newspaper. Governmant funding of religious activity be it charitable works, schools, hospitals, pizza parlours, child care facilities... must cease. The more influence religion -- any religion -- has in law making, the more persecution. This is inevitable because of the nature of religion and is apparent in every state based on religion. It is such a pity Australians are so apathetic... I'm glad I'll be dead before President Pell oversees the stoning to death of women caught in sin, gays and adulterers.

Thanks George.

Some of these discussions can be frustrating when the debate turns into religion vs non-religion. Good vs bad, depending which viewpoint you have. Although they can be interesting too, it clouds what is at issue here.

We are talking about whom the government is paying to speak to our children without our knowledge and express permission. THAT is the point. You may well agree wholeheartedly with an organisation like Scriptures Union, but shouldn't you be the one to decide this for your child?

There wouldn't be a parent on these threads who would tolerate a person of any spiritual flavour whatsoever speaking to/counseling your child on 'issues' without you knowing exactly what that spiritual flavour is.

Scriptures Union is about converting kids to their kind of Christianity. It is NOT about teaching morals and values.

Adults in a position of trust and respect may well be teaching totally contrary spiritual beliefs to yours to your child. How invasive in the private realm is that? It is absolutely contrary to what a secular nation, separating Church and state, stands for. No different than Communist USSR was or Iran is now.

If you, as a parent, want a person of a particular religion counseling your child then you have the choice to go to an appropriate religious school or to your church/mosque/synagogue whatever. It is not appropriate for a government to decide this on your behalf in a public state school in Australia.

Yvonne, your comment ("We are talking about whom the government is paying to speak to our children without our knowledge and express permission") overstates the case.
1. The Government is not paying: essentially the NSCP is supporting an existing program primarily paid for by the churches; and
2. parents do have considerable say in whether or not their child's school will have a chaplain - the political processes within the school from lobbying to Parents and Citizens Associations are open to parents and well used by them. As well they usually have a representative on the selection panel.
I fear that the Government is doing damage to a well-accepted voluntary program by claiming so much credit for a community program that is already happening and has already proved its sensitivity in a secular environment.