Ammonite thanks.

Another cached document which appears to be where the previously referenced aims of SU Qld were sourced from

http://www.godless.biz/wp-content/uploads/AimsBeliefWorkingPrinciples.pdf

"Aims, Beliefs and Working Principles of Scripture Union
Adopted by the International Council 1992
Aims of Scripture Union
Working with the churches, Scripture Union aims:
a) to make God's Good News known to children, young people and families and
b) to encourage people of all ages to meet God daily through the Bible and prayer
so that they may
~ come to personal faith in our Lord Jesus Christ
~ grow in Christian maturity and
~ become both committed church members and servants of a world in need
Scripture Union pursues these aims through a variety of specialist ministries around the
world in obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ and in reliance on the Holy Spirit."

So is Tim rejecting the aim's and goals of SU or has the removal of the material from the Qld website a less than subtle attempt to hid their real mission in the face of loosing access to funding?

Robert

All it achieves is discriminating against non-Christians, whether we be religious or not. Reading articles like Mander's one could be forgiven for thinking that Australia was a theocracy.

The goals of the Christian Church also appear very Orwellian - permitting only certain types of thought, not questioning and demanding acceptance of Christianity and no other religion or philosophy.

And we pay for this through our taxes.

Well said shellity, Dug, Seamus and others. :-)

I pity the chaplains. They must be Christian to get the job and then they must deny this to perform it. Chaplains are human and they’ll naturally proselytize, even if they don’t mean to.

All the roles performed by a chaplain can be performed (better) by a secular counsellor.

“Spirituality is not something to be denied or feared.” I agree, and religions do not have a monopoly on spirituality, which need not involve supernatural beings – indeed, it is richer when it doesn’t.

“This ‘one-or-the-other’ approach” is highly relevant because often there isn’t enough money for both a chaplain and another caring professional, making it critical that what money there is, is spent in the way that best meets students’ needs.

The “responding principals” in the 2009 survey were a tiny fraction of those who were surveyed, so the 98% is statistically meaningless.

The chaplains "must be Christian to get the job and then they must deny this to perform it."

Louella, 1:55pm

Good point, as is the point about 'one-or-the-other' in terms of funding.

Apart from the fact that chaplains most certainly are there to proselytise--the fact that Mander denies this adds insult (and sin?) to injury--there is something profoundly wrong about such a programme being instituted by allegedly by-partisan and secular governments. Neither side is anything of the kind, of course. But the incongruity extends to the very notion of an ancient mysticism being foisted on innocents in a modern educational setting. Let's not forget we still have RI too, that is Religious "Instruction", and all the other extras programmes the chaplains bring in via chaplaincy, a Trojan horse.
And then kids have to deal with a large cohort of the teaching profession affected, who also miss no opportunity to impress their antediluvian superstitions on their credulous charges. And this is after the poor little buggers are often already trapped in a mentally stifling home-lives in which their parents inform them vociferously of all manner of ignorance and fire and brimstone.
Our secular state schools ought to be childens' sanctuaries from the ignorant to eccentric to lunatic ravings of affected adults.
Religion has nothing whatever to do with education--indeed it is antithetical to it--except perhaps, in high school and beyond as a specialised curiosity for anthropologists, or as an enduring and cautionary monument to the heights of human folly.

Tim, if you came out and honestly admitted that the primary aim of the Scripture Union and ACCESS in the School was to proselytise, then at least we would give you credit for being honest. Of course, if you did this, then you wouldn't get your foot in the door, so you are really between a rock and a hard place. That doesn't excuse your dishonesty though.

It doesn't look like you are getting much support from the rest of the OLO community either. I rest my case.

David