I wonder how many would feel if the minister was not from the Christian community. How would they feel if an atheist took one of the positions.

What if they came from the Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or other religions. Especially if this occurred in schools that high numbers of the faith attending.

I can imagine the outcry.

It is time for some research on how the system is working.

How do children of other faiths or no faith benefit.

It is time to research what types of schools are taking up the options.

I would also like to know what the views are of the staff, participially the principal's belief of why they support the programme.

Is it because they see it as a way of getting extra staff, regardless of their skills or because they believe Christian religion should play a part in public schools.

If you check out this chaps website - A Splinter in the Mind - you will find all of the usual right-wing true-believers nonsense and so-called apologetics.

But what is most striking is the in your face obvious is the sado-masochistic image which heads the page. This dreadful image is supposedly what inspires his religion.

My advice would be to flee with all of ones strength from any "religion" that uses such a dreadful image and simultaneously talks about "good news". I would not let him anywhere near any child that I know.

Even the title of the blog - A Splinter in the Mind - is an exercise of sado-masochicism.

Truth is entirely a matter of the feeling-heart.

The happening of Truth is not through the mind - it is at the heart. Truth is self-evident, because the heart authenticates it in the moment of reception.

Truth is an embrace, just as love is. You do not get argued into love (using splinters). It is self-evidently right.

One responds to Truth as one does to love, simply through recognizing it. It has nothing to do with splintered mind arguments.

True Religion is about Beauty. God IS Beauty.
Anything less than that is an abomination.

"The quantitative and qualitative study, commissioned by the National School Chaplaincy Association (NSCA) involved feedback from school principals, chaplains, teaching staff, parents and students."

Nickojs. Note who requested the report.

Franc Hoggle speaks forcefully, but I can assure you there is evidence for everything he alleges and it is mounting by the day.

Nicholas says: "[The state should not privilege the convictions of any particular religious tradition, even a majority tradition, over the convictions of those who dissent from it, including nonbelievers.]

Why not?"

Because, Nicholas it is prohibited by Section 116 of the Australian Constitution. It is, not to put too fine a point on it, against the law. That is just *one* of the reasons why the Federal Government and Scripture Union Queensland will be fronting up at the High Court in August having to answer to serious claims about the method in which the ill-conceived National School Chaplaincy Program has been financed. Worse, S.116 seems not to be the only section of the Constitution that may have been breached.

But, instead of the good Christians at SUQ saying, "If we have broken the law, or the Commonwealth Government has broken the law in providing us with millions of dollars in taxpayers' money, *of course* that needs to be established and we welcome the issue being decided by the full bench of the High Court." But no. They have cried bloody murder. Never have I heard such wailing and gnashing of teeth!

Fortunately, the High Court only considers matters on their merit, not on the amount of whinging undertaken by a defendant. On that basis it has decided Mr Williams' case has sufficient merit to be heard - a process which has taken several directions hearings and which suggests strongly that Williams case is seen as credible and by no means vexatious by the High Court. As Franc Hoggle explains in his inimitable style - if fundamentalist Christians would display a little more respect for the ethics, values and laws that ordinary Australians live by, your claims to be the guardians of Australian values would, perhaps, not ring quite so hollow.

Trav,

When the state privileges some religious traditions over those who dissent, anti-egalitarian outcomes of discrimination, corruption & conflict occur. The state, having surrendered its neutrality, is party to this. You consider this the best and fairest approach?

You seem to think that competitive religious democracy is the best decider. I think that the state not being embrangled in private belief is a better way because it better aims for impartiality of the state with regard to religion. Governments have no business privileging nor persecuting religion - which is about personal belief, not public enterprise, collective need, a sporting hobby, or an alternative legal system. Religion is not like other "interest groups". Comparing privileging of sporting codes to religion is wrong. Sport is not a set of supernatural truth claims held by individual belief. I don't get your point about the state endorsing particular ethical concerns either, as this means establishing common law for the common good, not public funding for the promotion of private beliefs.

You asked for alternative principles to yours. I gave you some ideas. I never said everyone must agree with every cent of government spending. What I did say is that religion should be self sufficient for the promotion of its own beliefs. It should not occupy a default privileged position in public institutions - which it does - at expense of taxpayers or infringement of state religious neutrality. I'm not singling out religion for discrimination; I'm defending religious neutrality - the state not directly or indirectly picking winners & losers - which protects everyone's beliefs from infringement by the state or pushy majority religious traditions over others. In contrast, the federal government's National School Chaplaincy program guidelines REQUIRE chaplains to be affiliated with religion, which is blatant discrimination in employment on the basis of religion. Rejecting unreasonable demands and bad public policy is not discrimination.

Geeeez.... who let the angry christians out?

After reading your very long and boring article this one sentence stuck in my mind:

"Fourthly, are there not more pressing needs to protect our children from?"

The answer to this question my dear angry christian is NO! There are no more pressing needs to protect our children from than the OVERWHELMING BRAINWASHING that is going on in schools. How dare you advocate that in the year 2011 we pay teachers to teach our kids superstitions?!

Does turning around 3 times, clapping your hands and spitting over your shoulder ward off demons? I'd really like to know so I can warn my (future) kids.

Why wasn't atheism in my school curriculum? That would have really sped up the process of my enlightenment to atheism - it took me a while to shake off the well-developed brainwashing techniques employed by you angry angry christians.

As Pink Floyd very wisely sang:
"We don't need no education,
we don't need no thought control.......
Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone!"

Peace