"schools do not have to choose a Christian chaplain. A local committee decides what religious affiliation they want for their school chaplain and they then approach the appropriate representative body to recruit one. Schools can choose a Christian, Muslim, or even secular chaplain if they so wish. Critics of the school chaplaincy program have consistently misunderstood the process behind the appointment of chaplains."

'their school chaplain' - yes, schools get to choose one. Despite the diversity of beliefs in most schools.

Many suburban public schools in Australia's capital cities probably have students from belief-backgrounds along the lines of the 2011 census:

* 61% Christian [~25% (of total) Catholic; ~ 17% Anglican; Uniting 5%; etc]
* 22% No Religion
* ~9% not-stated (probably mostly no-relgion, too)
* ~7% Buddhism, Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish, etc

Religious Affiliation here - http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/2071.0main+features902012-2013

Critics of the school chaplaincy program understand the appointment of chaplains much better than you give them credit for.
It comes down to argumentum ad numerum.

and yet all secular chaplains have offer to kids on big questions is that we come from slime, are not moral creatures and will be eaten by grubs after we die. What an idiotic world view and yet in order to appease their seared consciences they adopt such rubbish usually with a master degree.

In this day and age runner, with all our technology and knowledge it is you godbotherers and your belief in your magical sky fairy that is idiotic.
To actually believe that there is some superman in the sky who can do magical tricks and heal the sick etc has got to be the most ridiculous delusion and not even worthy of children. Even kids know the difference between make believe and real life.
Do you believe in batman too? How about scooby and shaggy?
Thats about the level of intelligence you fools show.

How convenient.

"So trying to divide their work into the charitable and the religious is impossible as the two are inextricably linked in the faith-communities themselves."

Not impossible at all. Merely inexpedient.

Surely the only difficulty would be the tenacity required to combat the efforts of the organizations concerned to muddy the waters. Any accountant worth his or her salt would quickly get to the nub of the issue, which is not the separation of "the charitable and the religious", of course, but of the charitable and the commercial.

And I did have a little chuckle over the idea that the churches are poor...

"First, the operating assumption of the ASP is that churches are literally stashed with cash and there is some kind of gold mine here waiting to be excavated and put into the public purse."

Yeah, right, Mr Bird.

"Father Hodgens said the Domus Australia guest house in Rome - a beautifully refurbished old religious house with 33 rooms for paying visitors, a richly restored grand chapel and organ and a 150-seat auditorium opened by Pope Benedict XVI last month - cost between $30 million and $85 million, according to different estimates."

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/pell-under-attack-from-within-over-bishops-grand-house-in-rome-20111130-1o76m.html

Jesus said that we should render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. Churches should pay taxes, the same as any other organisation. Church-owned businesses should pay business taxes. Church charities should get the same tax exemption as any other charity. There should be no difference.

As to separation of church and state, I’m all for it, but that does not mean that people in public office are not entitled to be religious, or to allow religious convictions to shape their views on moral and policy questions.

As a first step, let the church-based agencies be required to provide financial reports, but Tony wants to abolish what little monitoring there is.

Rhian, you may have religious beliefs but you are wrong, very wrong; that an elected politician should be allowed to make policy according to their religious beliefs.
You are lowering yourself to "Runners" antisocial comment, and as an immigrant from the UK, your posting borders on the UK immigrants who supported Pauline Hanson.

I think you are misreading the nuance in Rhian's position, Kipp... "or to allow religious convictions to shape their views on moral and policy questions."

Just as your assertion that it is "wrong, very wrong; that an elected politician should be allowed to make policy according to their religious beliefs." presumably isn't meant to require politicians to only make policy that is inconsistent with their religious beliefs... since that closes the door on all "care for the needy" and "good works" legislation.

But, you are worried unnecessarily as there seems little evidence of politicians ever letting purported religious beliefs get in the way of their personal benefit and political expediency.

"It strikes me as a little strange"

Religion strikes me as A LOT strange.

"that out of all the problems besetting our country, amidst all of the turmoil that we've had in the last few years, that the Australian Sex Party has focused its political campaigning on the threat purportedly posed by some invisible gaggle of cashed-up bishops who are secretly pulling the strings of our political leaders

Bravo to the ASP and that's one of the reasons why they get my vote for the Senate.

I would go further and ban religious organisations.

Numpties like Cardinal Pell denying the science of climate change, helping condemn Billions and lets not mention the ACL shall we ?

Having children deliberately exposed to religious nonsense is nothing short of child abuse. We tell them to stop believing in Santa and the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy we just stop there, we need to go one more and and tell them to stop believing in other mythical figures, like Zeus, Thor, Odin, Jehovah, Allah etc

The sooner the DSM includes the delusion over religious beliefs as a physiological disorder, the better.

Kipp

A person who takes their faith seriously can’t leave it at the door when they go to work.

This doesn’t mean using some facile “what would Jesus do” mantra when making decisions, nor simply following the church’s official position on issues like abortion or same sex marriage (neither of which, in conscience, I support). A politician, for example, has wider responsibilities and accountabilities that would make either of these approaches improper.

But, all people need to think through the moral dimensions of some issues, and Christians will do this through an ethical framework shaped by their faith. They may reach opposite conclusions on the same issue – same sex marriage is an obvious example – but only a small minority of fundamentalists believe there is only one “right” Christian perspective on these questions.

I've got no problem with religion being taught at schools, but as a general subject and one that includes all religions and discussing origins, differences and similarities.

Education is the purpose of schools - indoctrination is not, and I for one don't like to see my taxes going to subsidise specific self-interested ideologies.