The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The High Court's decision on school chaplains > Comments

The High Court's decision on school chaplains : Comments

By William Isdale, published 25/6/2012

The court's decision was not based on a separation of church and state, but on the power of the executive as against the parliament and the states.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Squeers,

Sorry, your first sentence lost me. You speak so authoritatively. I wonder how you can be so definite.
Posted by Francis, Wednesday, 27 June 2012 1:17:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers is as close as you can get to being a god Francis, that's how He knows.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Wednesday, 27 June 2012 1:28:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TBC,
thanks for those facts re chaplaincy (and for my deification); it really is indefensible!
...but hopefully not indefeasible, Francis.
However, nothing is certain, except that nothing is certain.
Posted by Squeers, Wednesday, 27 June 2012 2:55:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear The Blue Cross,
My heart bleeds for you. Seriously. Can you please inform me where you received your information from.
It is quite fustrating when people like yourself make comments that are unfounded and uninformed.
Interestingly you used the word SCAM when it comes to Chaplains. Your obvious dislike for Christians could be most probably understandable. People are not perfect.
Fair call...."If Jesus and being a Prayer Warrior is not the main job, then there is absolutely no need for it to be done by an overtly religious person."
Unfortunately I don't see too many mainstream people raising their hand to do the job or even volunteering their time to spend time in schools to help the less fortunate.
It's not about the money they are being paid (by the way your information about their income is so left field) again I remind you it's about developing relationships.
The Blue Cross, would you like to come along to a Trivia Night to support these so called "religious nuts". I am sure you will have a great night.
Posted by timtamtoo, Wednesday, 27 June 2012 10:41:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Timtamtoo, I have no desire to mingle with evangelisers of any creed thanks.

Let's get some honesty here though shall we?

DEEWR pays $20k for 400 hours of listening ears in a school per year.

My calculator says '50', that's $50, that's $50 an hour.

Do put some new batteries in your old slide rule.

Check with Fairwork Australia for the minimum wage to be paid to them, about $15 plus any pay rise that might have come through since last year when I asked Fairwork the question.

Are you trying to tell OLO readers that schools do not allow gold coin donation, sausage sizzles, fund raising, plundering the P&C coffers, or distribute tithing forms to students and parents?

Are you saying chaplains do not distribute Bibles, organise religious instruction, say prayers on assembly and work as unqualified teacher aides thereby making it far from a voluntary service for students who suffer them in their class?

I can assure you I have no prejudice against Christian chaplains, no religious chaplains should be in any state schools, from any faith cult at all.

It is you who is calling them 'religious nuts' not me, I must point out. I would never be so rude.

But yes, 'scam' is the phrase I use, but maybe you prefer 'stunt'?

Developing relationships, eh?

What on Earth does that mean?

And what is a 'mainstream person' when they are at home?

When you say 'it's not about the money' you are actually pulling our collective leg, are you not?

Of course it is 'all about the money', just look at the whinge they made about the Williams case.

In fact, it's only about the money.

The 'deserving poor' or 'less fortunate' as you label them, are just gristf'mill, a useful tool to justify the illegal plundering of tax monies for the undeserving churches.
Posted by The Blue Cross, Thursday, 28 June 2012 12:42:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pyrrhic victory anyone?
Posted by rational-debate, Thursday, 28 June 2012 12:47:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy