The federal government has no responsibility for education. Read the constitution. It is not listed there, because it didn't exist in the late 1800s.

They grab responsibilities via tied grants to states, which can be done, but should not really provide any money at all.

NSW is riddled with NSCP funded 'chaplains' but maybe not in the schools you impose religion in.

It is interesting that you'd support a Buddhist's 'right' to impose their beliefs, but you are silent on the 'rights' of non-SRI/SRE students to do what they want during this wasteful period of time they have to endure while you are in their school.

The outcome of this 'wisdom' is that students who have no need for Mumbo are discriminated against, hardly a 'loving Xtian' outcome is it?

What's this?... "If the Federal government is paying $48 million a year for school Chaplains..." ...'if'? IF?... of course they are, where have you been hiding?

$500m of ATO monies wasted on maddog evangelists, instead of worthwhile staff, or even, Heavens above, some reorganisation of schools to create environments that are conducive to learning... that treats students as 'humans', and that provides some genuine PD for the teaching staff, to say nothing of producing some real managers within the ranks of the rather dodgy school principals we all suffer from.... or at least here in Qld.

The church has no 'responsibilities' in a secular society, only a few hand-me-down 'rights' granted to it. Those 'responsibilities' it does have, as we all do, to operate safely and intelligently, it squanders, or worse, ignores altogether.

Too right Blue Cross, agree completely.

""I have been a Scripture teacher for a few years now and have not met Federally funded Chaplains... but plenty of High School "Chaplains" who are funded by local church coalitions.""
Posted by Eclipse Now, Thursday, 19 August 2010 8:18:14 AM

Bet those local church coalitions chaplains are really fudned by the Govt.

Think about this: The NSW Scripture legislation was passed decades ago because ... the Govt of the time was so keen on standardising education as it expanded it beyond locales that had church schools, and the only way it could get agreement to do this was agree to the scripture slot i.e the govt was blackmailed by the churches.

Trav, Churches primarily exist as social businesses where the head-honchos and clergy get to beat their chests and stroke their egos.

McReal.... "Trav, Churches primarily exist as social businesses where the head-honchos and clergy get to beat their chests and stroke their egos"... I'd slightly adjust that to include the word 'anti' just prior to your word 'social', on the basis that religion particularly but also the institution of 'church', rely on division and fear to keep going, and generate their false 'credibility' amongst the fearful and forelock tugging masses.

Squeers; my feeling is that alienation can be partly overcome even within what we recognise as capitalism.

By this I refer to the decline of the most alienating: monotonous and back-breaking kinds of work.

I also think a reduction of the working week; and the opening up of possibilies for cultural expression: music, sport, literature - can assist in this regard also. With growing emphasis, here, people could feel greater connection and ownership with the products of their labours.

And importantly, I think societies recognised as Communist (though I would contest this) did not necessarily break from alienation either. For instance, the experience of work in China and the former Soviet Union; and the pressures of competing in the context of the arms race.

Of course capitalists have an interest in growth; and will fight attempts to create a more balanced economy; and ameleriorate alienation. But conceivably the battle here could be won: but we would still have markets and private economic ownership.

My own preference is for a democratic mixed economy.

Dear Tristan Ewins,
your response is disappointing.
According to Marx's theory, alienation is just as much a product of capitalism as any commodity is---a product just as compromised in itself. And of course the capitalist himself is just as alienated from himself as those doing "monotonous and back-breaking kinds of work". These latter are very few, in any case, "within" our culture, but are off-shore and beyond the palliative-care of shorter working weeks, or the "cultural expressions" you nominate (which are themselves necessarily impaired). Such "welfare-fixes" fix nothing and are elitist since they're a luxury only available to wealthy nations like ours. Despite this elitist "growing emphasis" you urge, how could people "feel greater connection and ownership with the products of their labours" when these products continue you to be coerced, as well as conflicted with the same "use" and "exchange" values?
The next is especially disappointing since you appear to know something of Marx's thought, yet you fall into the same cliched thinking as his antagonists, who cite these parodies of Marxism against Marx. Communism has only ever existed in name and never been realised.
Capitalists not only "have an interest in growth", growth is fundamental to capitalism and cannot be gainsaid; it will simply continue to grow, adapt and fracture (recurrent crises) until it precipitates a general collapse (economic, environmental, biological etc). If I thought there was any hope of making the present system sustainable, conscionable or salubrious, I'd jump aboard. As it is, my "unchristian" ethics forbid me from siding with a patently evil and irredeemable system.
My own preference (and Marx's, which few realise) is also for democracy---but economics is a "false idol".