The wife of a Baptist preacher who lived several miles from us was very interested in having our children play with her children. She was very friendly and would pick up our kids to bring them over to her house.

Since I am Jewish, there was absolutely no attempt to push her religion and there were plenty of children in the church I asked her why our children were such desirable playmates for hers that she went out of her way to see that they could be together. I think she was honest about her reason. My children are all blue-eyed blonds, and her husband's congregation was all black.

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution says:

"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."

Since the chaplains are funded by the government and required to subscribe to certain religious beliefs there is a religious test for public office and therefore a violation of the Australian Constitution.

I think the whole chaplaincy thing should be rejected as it's just the governmnet doing stuff on the cheap. Surely our kids are worth some properly paid qualified counsellors?

How else will kids be trained in feminist doctrine if not via trained female consellors, schooled in man hating via a previous relationship or parental trauma, drawn to the conselling profession to heal themselves by proxy?

I think it's every kids right to have someone so personally damaged and with an axe to grind attending their psychological needs, not some wise 70yo guy who has held together a stable marriage for 50 years, has some weird belief system involving symbols of fish on the back of his car, and now thinks he can save kids with kindness and a few fairy stories.

I don't really know why they have to dress like Charlie Chaplin, but I don't think it really matters that much.

I am sympathic to Jane as she writes

'Chaplaincy organisations have never concealed their agenda to fulfil Jesus’s Great Commission of ‘making disciples of all men'

At the end of the day many fundie secularist conceal their agenda of seeing young kids sexualised, led into promiscurity and become earth worshppers rather than worshipping the One who made the earth. The fruit of the fundie secularist in many ways has created the need for Chaplains in the school and most Principals (even many grudingtly) now admit to this. I to would prefer Chaplaincy Services to not be ashamed of the the only hope for mankind (the gospel). The Greens are certainly up front with their faith despite the obvious destruction of families attached to their dogmas.

runner
That is an appallingly ignorant comment. While I don't think for one minute you truly belief that secularism is about hiding an agenda for sexualisation of children, you betray a dishonesty not worthy of someone who constantly claims the moral high ground. What makes you think you are better than anyone else. That is self-righteous in the extreme.

Using the same reasoning, does that mean the Catholic and other Churches were formed purely on a hidden agenda to provide an authoritative legitimacy to enable child sexual abuse. Actions speak louder than words. Many US CEOs involved in sexualised marketing to children are Chrisitan or Jewish.

There are many atheists and non-Christians for example who support people like Melinda Tankard Reist on issues around sexualising children. It is not a religious issue but a social one.

What is wrong with protecting the earth? If we could talk to Jesus do you think he would be calling for continual environmental rape of the earth's forests, soils etc. There are no earth worshippers, that is in your mind to diminish the aims of environmental protection. If you feel the need to make dishonest statements to support your view don't you think you should revisit these issues from a more rational perpective.

Why do you continually make environmental protection out to be a bad thing which is odd given according to you God created the earth. Surely we should respect and honour that earth and protect it from being constantly brutalised and placed as second priority on almost every business case for environmental vandalism.

I don't hold out much hope for any rational discourse with you on the topic of sexualisation or environment.

Nick, I wish you could step outside yourself and see how patronising your comment appears. Your commentsimply adds strength to Jane's argument.

You assume because of Jane's background she can't look at religion clearly. In fact, Jane's 'inside knowledge' gives her a far clearer and insightful perspective than most.

Your patronising tone continues in relation to Jim Wallace's tweet. It was, indeed, racist and revealed the true 'us and them' mentality of zealots like Wallace.

Your advice that Jane should be more careful when judging others is the height of hypocrisy! You appear to belong to the class of Christians who judge incessantly. They judge gays, unmarried women, women who seek abortions, sex workers, people who enjoy pornography, people who seek the right to die with dignity, Muslims, Jews, atheists - in fact anyone who doesn't buy in to their own narrow world view.

Then, putting *your* words into Jane's mouth, you suggest (wrongly) that she calls chaplains stupid. Chaplains, unlike teachers, are chosen specifically *because* they have a particular religious conviction. Their role is not religiously neutral and they aren't trained for years to keep their personal beliefs separate from their professional life. It is clear that Access and SUQ see their role in schools as evangelistic. It would be 'stupid' to believe otherwise.

You condescending tone continues as you hope Jane will find what she is 'really searching for' - as if *you* know, and she doesn't! I know Jane only slightly but I think she has found what she's looking for. Jane has found confidence in her own considerable intellect, and the freedom that comes from making life decisions based on reason rather than dogma. She has distanced herself from men, like you, who presume to know, not only what she *really* thinks, but what she *should* think. Instead, she has gained the support and admiration of people who value her talent and don't assume that, because of her past, her view of the present is clouded.

It is you, Nick, not Jane, who needs to remove the plank from thine own eye.