Dear Alan Matheson, thanks very much for this article. I find it really interesting. There should be much more media attention on this issue. Hope your article helps.

I wonder if the proposed chaplaincy program is a form of surrogate parenting. Was it wise to make parents impuissant? Once again we are forced to correct the mistakes of the enlightened period where high school students were informed that CentreLink was cashed up and ready to help out any adolescent who didn’t like the 10pm curfew.

Yes, I find it extremely scary to see that our governments from both sides of the fence are pandering to their personal viewpoints at the expense of the majority of Australians.

With the intention of bringing into State Schools, Chaplains of a Christian faith.

Baha,Buddhism,Branches of Christianity which includes Roman Catholicism, Easterb Orthodoxy, Anglican, Baptist, Christian Science, Church of God, Congregational, Lutheran, Methodist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Quaker, Seventh Day Adventist and Uniting Church to name a few. Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism and Zoroastrianism, also create differing standards of faith.

What of the divisions created in the homes of all of the above named religions where parents hold differing viewpoints to those preached to their children at in school?.

As an extremely cancelled Catholic educated in all things religious but unable to spell or multiply by the time I left school. I say keep religion out of schools.

Oh I almost forgot to name my own belief system, that of Humanist!

Mary Walsh
www.yourchoiceindying.com

Hmm,

Yes. Let's be cautious about the motivation of the government. Just why are they so interested in promoting Chaplains in schools, but let's not lose sight of the issue here.

Schools are dramatically under-resourced. Some years ago I was considering applying to work for country Secondary school as a chaplain. This particular school had seen five suicides over a period of twelve months. This school had a welfare team, and teachers who cared about their students, and a local church community who wanted to see things improve at the school. Were these students unworthy of pastoral care?

The arguments of the dissenters are rather patronizing as they don't afford the students a level of reason which would allow them to make a discerning judgement of what services they choose to use, and to whose words they will listen.

I was a Christian in a state school, which had a Christian lunchtime group. I didn't value their contribution so I didn't attend their program. Likewise, when I was at university, I found the Christian groups to be high on judgemental and conservative rhetoric, so i boycotted these groups, nay even vandalized their chalk ads.

Of the thousands of young people I have met over the years in my work as a youth worker, not too many are unable to activate their bulls**t detectors.

So bring it on. Put a microphone in front of an idiot and he will make an idiot of himself.

These chaplains will have to win the support of the school communities and the students, or they will be dismissed out of hand. If they are successful, perhaps their presence might even do some good if they are able to work as part of the system.

Let's question our rampant secularism for a minute. Who is presuming to be superior, the Christians or the atheists or the Jedi proponents. Rather we are all on a path, so let's try to make sense of this thing together.

The religous right have taken over the Liberal party and the liberal party is the poorer for it.

Alan Matheson,

Thank you for fleshing out the detail and extent of the implications of this program. Did I read you correctly to say that a (government endorsed) Reference Group will ultimately get to decide who becomes a (publicly funded) chaplain, and who does not? The end-game of such a situation is that the state in conjunction with the dominant denominational entity will effectively in the end get to decide the composition of the totality of the clergy of the nation. In the circumstance of, for example, the Roman Catholic faith claiming the largest proportion of adherents (be some of them ever so nominal) one could expect to see, ultimately, the complete fusion of the Roman Catholic Church and the Commonwealth government, indistinguishably determining what constitutes all Christian teaching and belief throughout Australia.

There has already been some discussion on the topic "Does John Howard's $90M for School Chaplaincy amount to Establishment of Religion?" started two days ago in the General Discussion area of the forum. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=199

There may be an obstacle to this National Schools Chaplaincy Program. The Constitution.

Section 116 of the Constitution states, amongst other things, that "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, .....". One of the characteristics of a religion being 'established' is that it is financially supported with the aid of the power of taxation. There can be no more direct form of financial support for a religion than funding its clergy. It would appear that at some stage the National Schools Chaplaincy Program would have to be the subject of a law appropriating funds from the general revenues of the Commonwealth, and thus run foul of the Constitutional prohibition.

And of course the prospect of public funds going to support radical Islamic clerics in Islamic schools has not even been considered, has it?

Hi Alan, can't disagree with any of your analysis really, but for many non Christian schools that are cash strapped - employing someone to talk to their kids about enviromentalism, socialism, the dispossession of Aboriginal people and the need for a treaty, the hypocricies of democracy, belief in the common good and how evil the Howard (and possible Beazley government) - is and would be - is fine by me.

This is an important issue and one the media will ignore as much as they can because there is no emotional scare factor since nobody is being burnt alive, nor are there any irrational Muslim Clerics in the story.

It is my belief that it is the role of the child's parent/carer to firstly decide if they will be religously or spiritually raised. Should they decide to, then it is their role to teach, it is not the role of government to teach people which faith they should have.

I remember when Michal Jefferies become the Governor General. He said that Christian teachings should be compulsory in all schools. Well, I'm not Christian so why should my children have Christianity forced down their throats.

The world is full of victims of the Christian faith and I for one, will not take moral lessons from a moral bankrupt church and it's lap dog Prime Minister.

I gather there is a little troll in you who would like to see Imams get the Gig Alan?
We are aware of our heritage here, minus post modern sickness- inculcations and falsehoods.
Intellectual fraud is a crime you know.
You ought to do more research, but thanks for a good laugh .Although I am young, I had to hook up to a colostomy bag: the article, it was so funny; and its content and text provides a good aid for identifying Ideological depravity and all of its projections, this article has a very high rating ; opposed to ranting. Well both actually.

So what's the problem here Alan? You don't like the government giving money to Christian Churches to provide guidance for school kids, and then you don't like the Churches accepting that money?

Is it that you don't like religion? Is it that you don't like governments supporting religion? What is it?

If Howard spent the money to send in some Green Priests to preach about global warming what would your reaction to that be? Somewhat different I suspect.

"For the Howard Government, there is no separation between church and state."

Where's your evidence for this stupid statement?

It's only been in the last 40 odd years that the role of Christianity as a moral guide in this country has been eroded to the point of virtual non-existence. Tell me what the problem is with children in schools being given the option of spiritual guidance from Christian Chaplains?

Rainier doesn't mind if we spend money on some of his particular pet idiocies but gets all indignant when the Christian religion is mentioned. But that's a totalitarian for you.

Well written, Alan Matheson!
Australia is becoming a theocracy, and that means persecution. In Russia, in return for silence on human rights abuses, Christianity has regained almost all its pre-communist power.
Our educational institutions have been infiltrated by Fundamentalists.
Religions are not democracies, they are dictatorships of unreasoning faith.
The claims of religions must be examined. They insist they are struggling financially to provide for the poor, needy and weak, but their tax-free profit-turning enterprises, along with billions of dollars of public money for which they are unaccountable, allowed the Catholic Church to make an untaxed profit of 16.2 billion dollars last year. Uniting and Anglicans made over 2 billion dollars each, and the others are catching up fast according to BRW chief business commentator, Adele Ferguson, reported by Geraldine Mitchell – Sunday Mail Adelaide 2nd July 2006.
They claim to be the protectors of marriage, yet fundamentalist Christians have a higher divorce rate than atheists!
They equate homosexuality with paedophilia, yet statistics indicate that heterosexuals are more prone to that perversion than queers.
They reckon they are caring and worship a loving god, but they chose to do nothing about the new labour laws or the misery of the people of Palm Island.
They reckon they love children, but the expansion of religious indoctrination in all schools has been accompanied by a rise in juvenile depression, and an increase in pupil and teacher harassment of same-sex-oriented students so that gays account for about half of all youth suicides because religion-inspired homophobia permeates society, undermining joy and hope for susceptible children.
But no one points the finger. There’s a conspiracy of silence regarding the abuses of religion.
The High Court in 1981 declared that there is no separation of church and state in Australia. This is not a secular democracy – it is barely a democracy!
Religious ideologies can never be part of the solution to our woes, because they are the problem!
Healthy, just and fair societies are not based on religious dogma, but on universal humanist principles of freedom, justice, honesty and compassion.

Bozzie

You are pretty spot on. THe Government would be applauded by Alan if they funded the handing out of condoms in schools or promoted godless values epoused by the green religion or pseudo science groups that teach we evolved from apes.

Would not the logical extension to the authors point on this matter be that tax concesions to churches be withdrawm? Would that be a good thing or a bad thing? They have massive wealth yet pay no tax (while often simultaneously urging governments to increase tax on others).

To those who want their children to be taught creationism as per the literal interpretation of Genesis, I've just done a bit of Googling and it appears likely that only a small minority of Christian chaplains would be prepared to teach this.

To those who don't want sexuality taught to their children in a sensible manner, together with the availability of condoms, then their children are more likely to have unwanted pregnancies and abortions.
http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07/uk/apprend2.htm

To those Christians who don't accept the reality of global warming and the need to take appropriate steps, then don't you care about the condition of our planet which you [presumably] believe that God has entrusted us with?

Whilst I was writing this post, I answered the door to find a pleasant Jehovah's Witness lady on my doorstep. We had a nice chat, I don't accept their literature, but neither do I give them a hard time. I told her about John Howard's school chaplaincy plan and she was visibly horrified. Perhaps because she realised that her faith would be unlikely to be represented. But it's a legally recognised religion in Australia, so why not?

And maybe this illustrates the Achilles Heel of this ill-considered proposal. If I had a particular legally recognised faith and my faith was not considered for publicly funded chaplaincy, then I would be looking to complain through the appropriate channels, with as much publicity as possible.

Runner, what's wrong with 'handing out condoms in schools or promoted godless values espoused by the green religion or pseudo science groups that teach we evolved from apes"?

How do you propose we explain safe sex without contraception or why the Barrier Reef is dying or why John Howard resembles a bespectacled aging chimp

On the surface it would appear that the Federal Government is wanting to nurture young people; clearly, something we should all applaud. However, it can also be seen as a dumbing down process. Religion is a very individual process; whereas, many of the issues young people need to contend with are structural.

We are living in a time when individual rights are being whittled down; in the workplace, in what we can promote politically, and in the community generally. In the workplace through the miserable IR legistion. The issue in relation to IR is not mass sackings but the loss of conditions. Some religious leaders have spoken out about the IR legislation; obviously the Federal Government is wanting to silence these critics. Providing financial resources to Churches is a good mechanism to silence religious critics.
The media is another area where there has been dumbing down. Even the ABC is feeling the pinch with the cutting of The Glass House. In the view of the Government media bias is fine as long as it is supportive.

As a consequence, we are being catapulted to a repressed society where we will have to raise our base ball caps to the toffs. Chaplains in schools being a new element in this process.

It seems that some of the central issues facing kids in schools are

- Stress
- Being overweight
- Poor self image

Some are of the view that putting a lot of christain chaplains in the schools will help address these issues. Apparently the christain faith makes some people feel better about themselves.

I've come up with a remarkable non-religious alternative.

Whilst not being a smoker myself I know that many smokers are strongly of the view that sucking on a cancer stick
- helps relieve stress
- helps them keep their weight down
- makes them look "cool"

Instead of chaplains we need cigarette machines (at student prices) in our schools.

No breach of the constitutional restraints concerning government and religion, no need for other faiths to feel left out.

There is that small issue of respiratory problems, cancer etc but they are most likely to be issues for future governments rather than existing ones and all the governments in between will have the benefit of a larger tax base. What a win-win idea.

Or we could possibly put that extra money into trained professionals to work with our kids on the issues which face them. Forget that no-one will go for that kind of approach.

R0bert

RObert

I think they are already doing it. Its called ritalin.

I am a non church going person of Catholic/christian background and I have some serious concerns with regard to the hostility and violence between some religions (since the time of day).

I do not believe there can ever be peace until each Country choses a religion to be the main administrator and agrees on some basics.

There has to be a religion that leads in each Country otherwise things run-amok and there are continous power struggles. Different religions have always struggled to get on. Everybody should know where they stand!

I think that Chaplains are a good idea provided the schools are already funded and resourced to a level that doesn't create emotional and psychological problems in children.

We have to be very careful with this struggle for power as when the anti-discrimiation laws protect Muslims and not Catholics from discrimination it doesn't take a genius to work out who in the end will win.

Looking back 25 years and more, most public schools had a Catholic religion class and the involvement of the local priest.

In High school, it was done through the Catholic Schools and after hours for public students.

Most babies and children who are christened Catholic is normally followed by Holy Communion and First confirmation, for them to achieve this they must be tutored in passing.

It was attended by the student with parent consent.

Our current situations with teenage suicide rates and crime says that all the other methods are not working.

It is a small sum of money to aide Australians who are at a delicate age of development in world that is radically globalising that people are losing a base that has served the western culture well.

The cost is meagre for organising an intiative that was a part of the education system in the them good old days.

It can only assist the Australian parents of today.

There appears to be people that believe that making children by Catholic or some other christian faith will make people good and strong. These people should look at the people who have gone public about being abused by these churches who to this day, cover up their offending clergy.

I grew up in Catholics school run by Nuns and Christian Brothers. What I witnessed and experienced, was Christian Brothers telling students to hit others. Once while crutches, a handful of kids tried to lift me over the stairwell so I would fall over. I turned around to see Christian Brothers laughing at this act. Another student was hit repeatedly because the Brother did not like him. This was in the 1980's, not the 1950's.

I can not support this. This will only pit religions against one another which Howard wants as part of his theocratic fuedalist regime.

Mr Matheson sounds a timely alarm. PM Howard's actions are also unconstitutional (remember the Constitution?)- section 116 to be exact. But what else would you expect from the Howard who is dismantling our Constitution and sovereignty as commanded by his globalisation masters. His mate Bush has created a police state - are we next?

Spider

We are talking about school students, who will have the choice and access upon parental consent to attend religious classes within and open curriculumn.

I understand your mistrust as there are bad apples in every organisation.

Why did that Christian Brother dislike you?

I am pleased to see so many people writing in are actually focusing on the point here. Governments were not created to supervise our spiritual well being, but rather to create the necessities for our physical ones. Transport, Hospitals & Education....

It is not the business of Government to instruct us on which version of spirtuality works for the individual's "soul". Children have parents for guidance.

Regardless of which path a person chooses in life, only one thing really makes the difference. Treat others the way you like to be treated.
Religions throughout history have an appalling history of intolerance to any one else's views but their own. This is the major reason for keeping religion out of schools, because each faith believes theirs to be the one true faith, starting with the three major ones here in Australia, Christian, Judaism and Islam.
If anyone wants to see Christianity in all its ugliness, go and see Andrew Denton's God of My Side. The method of "pitching" (their words) religion is even spelt out in a workshop and one is encouraged to "get the kids young" with cartoons bible stories and Noah's lollies.

If I was young enough to have to worry about my child's religious instruction at school, I would not choose Christianity as a first choice. Lead by example is my principle in life. People of all faiths contribute with their taxes, why should any be forced to underwrite a system of belief which is totally alien to them personally.

Mary Walsh
www.yourchoiceindying.com

"or pseudo science groups that teach we evolved from apes."

Umm Runner, not pseudo science groups, but science groups.

Fact is, like it or not, you share around 99% of your dna
with chimps and bonobos. So you are more closely related
to them, then mice are to rats.

Name me a part of your brain that you have, which they don't have.

The haemoglobin in your veins, is virtually identical,
your bone structure is not far off.

Bonobos even have sex in the missionary position, so
thats perhaps where the missionaries learnt all about it :)

When you die, the worms will chew up your carcass, just like
theirs.

You are scientifically classed as a primate, just like them!

Do you want me to continue ? lol

Subedootwo,
Religion, especially Roman Catholicism and the fundamentalists are the major cause of suicide, by undermining young people's self confidence and telling them they are worthless if they do not follow dogma.
Spider: Choice, you say? In Queensland where chaplains have been pushing their fundamentalist barrows in state schools for some years now, every child is forced to attend in school time unless they can persuade their parents to either write a letter explaining why they don't want their child to attend, or come in and face an angry principal. Children who opt out are frequently targeted for abuse by teachers and pupils, and instead of being given useful school work to do are made to waste time doing nothing or chores.
There is no choice! This is religion, we're talking about here, not something nice and kind and caring!

Yabby

With the number of assunptions you make to believe in evolution you seem to have more faith than many do in Christ. You are right that when I die the worms will eat my flesh but my soul/spirit will go to my Maker.

Most negative posters here need to get a grip I think......

As far as I understand it, the presense of chaplains is not so they be inserted to insert Christian dogma into Students heads in a formal educational manner.

I believe they are their to OFFER spiritual guidance should it be DESIRED.....

The issues of demoninational affiliation are really quite simple, as most kids have either a Catholic or Protestant background of some kind.

There are maybe small numbers who come from the 'wild and wonderful' pagan religions, and they are WELCOME to tell their children "Don't go near the mean and nasty chaplain who will fill your head with all manner of detestable stuff and most likely MOLEST you as well"... if they want to.

But the fact remains.. many children DO repeat DO wish to avail themselves of help to sort out the abysmal mental, social, and spiritual confusion heaped on them by an atheistic education system... which reminds me.... its WE fundy Bible bashers who are usually claiming the Ed system has been infiltrated with marxists and socialists.. my my..what a turn around.. 'fundies' in Education ...shock horror...

Gee they might even say vile things like:

"Jesus taught that the most important thing in life is to Love God with all our hearts, and to love our neighbours as ourselves".

I mean..can you actually fathom the depths of depravity we would sink to if we started loving our neighbours ? I don't think we would last 5 minutes if our anti Chaplain mob here represented the real picture.

People of all faiths are "neigbours" yet politicans of christian persuasion consistently do not demonstrate love for their fellow man! particularly when is they are of the Islamic faith. Even though he may live next door to you and be of good character and a model example to society.
We do not need religious people "persuading" our children to a christian way of thinking at the expense of any other faith. Nor do we need the additional expense of religious education, in terms of limited time periods in an already crowded curriculum.

Mary Walsh
www.yourchoiceindying.co

As I said in another thread on the same topic, this just nonsense. Sure, stick some money into proper professional counselling, but why on earth would a government want to instigate a religiously oriented alternative to professional counselling? Except of course if such a government were engaged in an ideological campaign to reassert the primacy of Christianity in Australian moral culture.

Further - as we're often painfully aware in this forum - a VOCAL minority thinks this is a VERY GOOD THING.

Fortunately, there has been more good sense than nonsense posted in this thread thus far. I hope that everybody remembers this ill-considered (and hopefully ill-fated) initiative next year, and add it to the burgeoning list of reasons why the Howard government should be be voted out.

For those wondering just how "love your neighbour" works in practice please see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=156#3008 .

Does anybody out there apart from the supporters of this plan think that there is any possibility that many christain chaplains won't be trying to create opportunities to talk to kids about their need for Jesus?

Will there be a ban on inducements?

My son was invited to a christain kids club at his school last week (and he got free lollies when he attended). Bribing kids to come and listen to the soft version of christainity, so sad.

R0bert

I'll preface this by saying I am not anti-religous, and I believe that people should be able to follow whatever faith they choose.

However, the Sydney western suburbs, co-ed public high school I attended (what seems a long time ago now) did not have enough money to maintain science labs of sufficient quality. The equiptment was circa 1970. Our library was under resourced, our sport equiptment decaying and we had a single school counseller (for 750 student) 3 days a week.

While the states of our schools suffer, the Howard government decides to throw 90 Million dollars in a chaplaincy program. This is riduculus. I couldn't even perform all of my HSC physics lab experiments using our outdated equiptment (instead reading about them from textbooks), and THIS is how they choose to spend my tax dollars?

If the government wanted to offer more pastoral support, that would be fine. If they chose to end their pathetic bickering with the states to work out a better educational funding scheme, or re-distribution of the GST, I would be in full support. But providing chaplaincy for students "should it be DESIRED", with a single denominational focus. Surely this spiritual support can be found in a church, mosque or ashram?

These priorities are way out of whack.

How about funding a little extra science, maths or reading programs for struggling kids?

And DB, I think you may be surprised to learn that many of us, who subscribe to no religon in particular, manage to live side by side with our neightbours quite happily. And this without the threat of eternal damnation hanging over our heads. Perhaps before insulting us atheists, you should remember Luke 6:31

Runner, the only evidence we have about souls, is that they were a great invention
by ancient philosophers, to make people feel better about themselves
and assist with their fear of dying. Clearly they had a point, it
still works it seems. But if ghosts floating out of bodies makes
you less scared of death, ok, whatever gets you through the night :)

BD, you still don't get it lol. As much as you don't want your
children influenced by Muslim preachers, I don't want my kids
influenced by Xtian preachers. Fairy tales are fairy tales, tell
your kids about those, when they get home from school. Meantime
a good counciler or psychologist could help kids with their problems,
no need to bring religion into it. Methinks that the godsquad
sees this as yet another opportunity to win over a few converts.
After all, brainwashing little children has been the expertise
of religions for eons, thats how they picked up most of their
followers after all.

Why did the Christian Brothers(et al.) hate me? I was seen as evil because my parents were divorced.

For professional counselling, children should see a Professional Counsellor, not clergy. Imagine if a student falls pregnant? What if a Pagan has to seek such counselling and told that they are evil for being Pagan. My eldest daughter has had both Christian and non-religious childcare and primary schooling. In both cases, she became withdrawn in the Christian sects yet was confident in the non-religious.

Christian violence today? Why not check the site; www.paganawareness.net.au and keep up to date on pagans abused/assaulted by Christians. Such as a Victorian witch who was beat up on two occasions to 'drive the devil out of her'. While church leaders such as Cardinal George Pell publicly ridicules non Catholics, rubbishes spirituality, visits USA and demonises Muslims, then such is that hateful stance of the 'church'.

Why must people see their faith as superior, better than others? I certainly don't. My spirituality is right for me. I don't begrudge people of other faiths their right to have theirs. I don't try to inhibit theirs. Mine is for me, yours is for you.

I would like to quote a Native American;

"The Creator gave each culture a path to God. To the Indian people, he revealed that the Creator is in everything. Everything is alive with the Spirit of God. The water is alive. The trees are alive. The woods are alive. The mountains are alive. The wind is alive. The Great Spirit's breath is in everything and that's why it's alive. All of nature is our church, we eat with our families in church, we go to sleep in church.

"My Creator, let us leave people to worship You in the way You have taught them." www.whitebison. org

Wise words.

It's all about votes. Christians have been taught to believe and have faith, not to reason and think, therefore they block vote as their leaders instruct, therefore they hold the balance of power in all marginal electorates, therefore all politicians will do anything to gain that block vote -- it is that simple, and demonstrates the archilles heel of the bizzare political system we endure in Australia that is erroneously called democracy.

ybgirp,

It is all about votes, but just not quite in the simplistic way you suggest. This proposed funding of the clergy by the taxpayer has very little to do with the exercise of Christian influence or the promotion of Christian values. It has a lot to do with consolidating the power and influence of one particular denomination of organized religion, the one with nominally the largest number of 'adherents', the Roman Catholic Church. Its is an influence over both major political parties already gained with votes, but not necessarily the votes of nominal Christians, and most certainly not intendedly the votes of a majority of committed Christians. There are (as there have been throughout all history) relatively few of the latter.

Yes, the Catholic Church as a worldly organized religious power structure would like very much to believe that it can instruct its adherents to vote as it 'suggests', as a 'block vote'. And undoubtedly it has its lay zealots who are prepared to resort to every trick in the political book to advance this cause. But dispose of a 'block vote' of all its nominal adherents voting in accordance with law it does not! Maybe amongst the most recently migrated it does, but the longer catholics live in a British society, the more personally independent they generally tend to become. They, in a secular sense, (notwithstanding the nonsenses that have gone on in Ireland) become 'Protestantised'. Look at the statements of disaffection of many posters in this and other discussion threads, if you doubt this claim. From the opposite direction, look at the size (or lack of it), and composition, of catholic church congregations.

The great skill of this organized religious power structure (one not all that different to that of Islam) has been in its ability to persuade OTHERS that it can and does dispose of a block vote, and thereby get its way in matters political by a form of standover tactic. If you doubt that, just look at the conduct of the Federal government in this present matter, and the silence of the 'opposition'.

The Australian Pastafarian community welcomes the government's announcement that it is helping fund religious instruction in our schools.

To those who are unsure just what these chaplains will be doing, I point you to the Prime Minister's words when he announced the program. He said the program would involve funding chaplains to undertake work including "assisting students in exploring their spirituality; (and) providing guidance on religious, values and ethical matters".

We Pastafarians believe the world was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. In the past year we have seen enormous growth in the number of Australians professing our faith, and greater interest yet in our beliefs and Holy writings. But there is still a serious gap in awareness about our faith among the general community.

Even while increasing numbers of school students are being taught about the Christian God in their science classrooms, we note they have yet to be taught about the other main explanation for the creation of the universe: the intervention of the FSM, and the beneficent nudges of His Noodly Appendages.

We have written to Minister Bishop, whose department is administering the program, to welcome the announcement and humbly offer the services of Pastafarian chaplains to serve in Australian schools. We have also expressed our hope that, in the event that a school community applies for funding for appointment of an FSM chaplain, the government’s new Reference Group will not attempt to prevent the appointment. See: http://noodlynation.blogspot.com/2006/10/congratulations-chaplains-in-schools.html.

When it comes to our schools, and indeed the Australian community as a whole, we humbly pledge to put the 'pasta' back into 'pastoral care'.

And might I recommend the marinara?

Pastor Len Guini
FSM Australia - Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Pastor Len

Your explanation of creation actually makes nearly as many assumptions as evolution.

Runner, I grant you that understanding 3 billion plus years of
evolution, the evidence for which is all around us, is far too
complex for some and goes clean over their heads.

Much easier to just focus on the snap*crackle*pop*god did it*
story, as simple to understand as what is written on a packet
of rice bubbles.

Just like the Santa or the tooth fairy stories, it keeps some
people content with the world and their understanding of it.

As nobody can prove a negative, just like you cannot prove
that Santa or the tooth fairy don't exist, you are safe
with your god story. If thats what keeps you happy, fair
enough, I have no problem with that. Just don't teach it
to my kids, thats all.

Rainier,
“… employing someone to talk to their kids about enviromentalism, ... is and would be - is fine by me.”

They did say that the chaplains won’t necessarily be clerics but if they used the average Catholic priest it would be fine with you.

Spider,

If your teachers hated you because your parents were divorced they needed medication. Why do you think that was the reason?

Ybgirp,

Your generally misinformed comments raise some issues. For example Christians do need to do some housekeeping to expect credibility in the face of a generally anti-Christian media who likes to exagerate any faults. Spider gave an example of declining standards in the Catholic school context.

You suggest that “the expansion of religious indoctrination in all schools” is causing increased depression and suicide. What expansion? Go back a few decades and kids in public schools were singing Christian hymns every morning and religious education was weekly. Introducing the chaplaincy won’t make schools as Christian as they used to be. If the suicide rate is going up it doesn’t support your pet theory. Maybe reducing suicide is the motive. Religion gives people hope and normally scares them off suicide. Suebdootwo got it right.

‘In 1921–1925 suicides accounted for approximately 1% of all deaths, however by 1996–1998 this proportion had increased to 2%. For males in 1921–1925 suicides accounted for 1.7% of all deaths, and for females 0.5%. By 1996–1998 more than 3% of all male deaths were due to suicide, and for females the proportion increased to 1% (see
tables 2 and 4).’

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/B677BAE5E1AC97E5CA2568BD0012ECBC/$File/33090_1921%20to%201998.pdf

Don’t forget that the freedom, justice, honesty and compassion that you advocate are core values of Christianity.

C J Morgan
“Further - as we're often painfully aware in this forum - a VOCAL minority thinks this is a VERY GOOD THING.”
Value us. It will help give you a taste of the outside world where we aren’t a minority (in numbers).

Robert,

What will you do if your boy becomes a fundy?

Pastor Len,

Scarily, given conversions to scientology and atheism, people might start believing that.

Yabby

I suspect your kids will be smart enough to see design whan they see it. Many have had to put up with being taught the many different and changing evolution theories over the years. I admire thier faith. I take it you don't mind your kids or other kids being taught this pseudo science.

Pastor Len,
Your faith is far too rational for me. I prefer something far more pie in the sky, such as an invisible supernatural creature who watches us go to the toilet, knows every last thought we have and judges us on them. I need to believe in a creature that made every last particle that swirls in the universe, that created endomorphism and raindrops and bacteriophages, and depression and murder and rape and constipation… I want to have faith in a creator that plays with his creation like a demented dog with a lizard, tormenting things till they break. Then, after setting all sorts of impossible tests, this monster will choose some to fly up to an invisible place in the ether where they’ll play harps and sing praises to it for ever and ever... while the others go down to another invisible place and be plunged into boiling oil or something like that for ever and ever…. Now that’s something worth believing in.
Do you see how your spaghetti monster is far too simplistic to ever dispossess a vengeful superman/woman/beast such as the nameless thing Christians kneel before and abase themselves to?
Mjpb -- as for Christianity espousing the values of compassion etc. get real... how do you think humans lived for the 150,000 years before your nameless super hero was invented? Morality has nothing whatever to do with any religion. Religions are always the handmaidens of power hungry, despotic rulers. They always have been and always will be

mjpb,

It was not only the Brother's and some teachers with this view. I did have it hard by fellow students who, due to what their parents told them, I was from an evil family because of divorce. A divorce which the late. Pope John Paul II recognised due to the circumstances.

When my eldest child spent one year in a Catholic Primary School(PreSchool), the staff were fantastic. The Principal asked me to attend a meeting with him which some parents called. At this meetings, a good sized group of these Catholic mums demanded that only children from homes where both parents live together and married be allowed into the school because broken families are evil. The year being, 2002.

ybgirp...

"Christians are not taught to think"....?
clearly you know little about Christian philosophical apologetics.

TurnRightTurnLeft (from the other thread)

Chaplains would not be their to teach creationism per se, but they would surely be able to provide answers to children who enquire about what the Christian teaching on 'origns' is ? Fair question.. fair answer. They don't have to ram it down their throats for goodness sake.

But there is an alternative to paid chaplains, and its already happening. 'MENTORING'. Many caring Christians are offering 1 hour a week to disadvantaged children (fractured families etc) at schools, to give them quality one on one "TIME". Its just for the child, and its aimed at helping their self esteem and confidence. How is this going? Well if you can imagine a child suddenly morphing into a cruise missile aimed directly at the Mentor when they arrive, flashing across the playground, and latching onto the mentor like an infant 'Alien' (as per the movie),...that gives you an idea. They do activities and sport, and its always on school grounds. Each Mentor has a police check and are vetted prior to acceptance into the program.
We have a lady from our fellowship already working as a Chaplain at the local primary school, and we fund it partly ourselves. The school is wrapped... and the kids love it. (oops..did I say LADY?)

The government idea is agreeable to me in principle. But like any government sponsored idea, or any 'organized' religious effort, it can be prone to corruption and abuse such as Spider intimated from his own life experience.

I got abused by a teacher also, he used to grab my cheek and shakeeeeeeee my whole head when I got maths wrong :) Then there was 'QuickDrawMcGraw' who could whip his strap out and whack me in one movement.

If it goes ahead, I think the best we can say is it will have a mixed outcome. Some wins and some losses.

Spider. Wow that is just unbelieveable. Question I would have to ask is what happened, did you say anything, was the majority against it?

Jolanda,

This school Principal knew my spiritual beliefs as did a number of the parents at the school after my wife was in the local paper after she was refused entry into a Brisbane City Council bus because she was wearing a Pentacle. This Principal was a good bloke and level headed.

This meeting which he asked me to accompany him to was a whole group demanding this. I sat there thinking...this rubbish is still happening...this Principal sat there quietly listening the whole way. When he spoke, he advised them that one third to half of the students at the school is from a broken family, and that one doing what they wanted, he asked these mums where they were going to get the new students from or half of the school staff would have to be retrenched.

I don't think these mum's heard anything past the figure of how many of the children came from broken homes. He had refused many demands from mums and became unpopular with him but he ran the ship and kept it that way.

I don’t care what religionists do in the PRIVICY of their own homes. Obviously to me its wierd and unnatural (im a normal Aussie), but hey, we live in a free world, and if they want to do their DEVIATE BELIEF THING behind clozed doors, thats their business. Theres a religionist bloke at work he's got a fish on his car that says DARWIN. I treat him the same like all teh other blokes.

But its a diffrent matter when they do it in public. These people want to PARADE THEIR BELIEVS on the street! They expect me to be happy that their lifestyle gets political representation, SPECIAL RIGHTS and government subsidies. Well, I’m not. ANd it isnt.

And the lastest is they want the government to pay for them to spread their lifestyle choises to our children. In our PUBLIC SCOOLS! With MY tax dollars! Now that, friends, is going too far.

I propose we all send a message to the government that our tax dollars are not to be used for the promotion of MINORITY LIFESTYLE CHOICES. We have to withhold 10% of our taxes, until the government comes to its census and stops subsidising lifestyles which we don’t endorse to.

Act against this THREAT to our way of life. Fight teh promotion of RELIGIONIST lifestyle. Time is runing out. Start NOW.

Jolanda,

I have been itching to respond to your post made on 4 November at 5:45:52 as it relates to this topic. Spider's experience is exactly the sort of thing many people fear may be facilitated with taxpayers' funds being used to support clergy or para-clerical workers in a chaplaincy role in schools. Spider's experience provides an example of just how close to the surface what we would all like to think were attitudes of years gone by can be. They are, sadly, features of an authoritarian religious power structure.

The reality is that the Roman Catholic Church is seen by many as such an authoritarian religious power structure, and due to its size (if measured in terms of its nominal adherents, some 29 percent of the population) the reality is that it stands to be the greatest beneficiary by far of this unconstitutional largess. Few would dispute the rights of catholic parents to send their children to catholic schools if that is what those parents want, and that equally goes for parents of other denominational or religious persuasions. The thing is, where there is found to be a culture of abuse, it is so much more a minefield to move in in any attempt to rectify the problem, than in a secular educational environment within an institutionally British culture. Sadly, so much of the source of abuse is seen to be close to the clergy, even if only to the extent of its turning of a blind eye to it.

The Constitution, in Section 116, makes it explicitly clear that no one denomination within the Christian religion shall be established under law in Australia. The identity of Australia as a fundamentally Christian society is and always has been established in law, as the Preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act makes clear with the Commonwealth being established under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. So what you say we need, we have always had. We simply need our representatives to act consistently with this, and our Constitution.

Spider,

Thank you for the reply. I have nothing to add to what people have already said.

w,

You typical Aussie battler you. You forgot to spell gummint correctly. Instead you put it as government. What happened?

What if it isn't a lifestyle choice and they are born that way (a Christian family)?

Forrest

Don't worry I'm sure the Constitutional issue will be raised and I doubt the High Court will do anything to promote conservatism so Howard's planned will be scuttled if he does anything unlawful.

Interesting discussion and article.
One point Alan made has been missed, though, that this will put $20,000 more straight into religious schools that already have chaplains.
Many public schools won't avail themselves of this service, I suspect, because - particularly in schools that have kids from 54 different ethnic and religious backgrounds ( one Sydney school I know well), the possibility of the school community tearing itself to pieces over which religious tradition will be represented by the chaplain, is just too horrible to contemplate.
As one letter writer to a newspaper said, they have a school counsellor funded for 4 days a week and $20,000 would fund the 5th day. I reckon they should just designate the counsellor their humanist chaplain. Wonder if the Feds would veto that?

Ena,

Thank you for making the point about the 'double dipping' to the tune of $20,000 per school for all religious schools already having a chaplain, or rights of deciding the denomination of any chaplain yet to be appointed. It puts ever so much more clearly the point that I was trying to make as to the principal destination of these funds, and their being primarily a funding of clergy, not a funding of schools.

Your point as to many non-denominational schools opting right out from the start if only to avoid contention arising is also very logical. It only emphasises the effective narrowing of the field to a likely handful of beneficiaries, which to my mind in turn only emphasises the fact of this proposal being of the nature of the establishment of a religion by the Commonwealth.

As someone suggested... tell the PM where to shove his support for religion.. do it now. here: http://www.pm.gov.au/email.cfm

Blood oath, mjpb. Someones gotta stick up for REAL AUSSIE VALUES.

I reckon your maybe trying to have a go at me, asking the born-that-way question. You been reading that Dawkins bloke, that reckons religion is passed from parents to children? Not the same as being born that way.

Fact is, it dont matter if you get religion or your born with it. Being religious isnt the problem, its RELIGIOUS BEHAVIOUR. People cant help the way they are, but they can do something about what BEHAVIOUR they CHOOSE. Some people they start out religious and get over it, and I reckon thats pretty good. Its tough, but people with religionist tendencies have to LEARN TO CONTROLE them. Main thing is we dont want our children exposed to that DEVIATE BEHAVIOUR in scool.

Hiding you’re religionist tendencies is good for everyone. Good for the religious person, cos they wont get beaten up if no-one nos there religion. good for kids cos they dont get exposed to WIERD STUFF good for society cos we all have to INTEGRATE and be the same or the diffrent people cause trouble.

Praying and stuff, I reckon its real wierd, but im a tolerant sorta bloke, so if they do it in there own home thats alright with me. But we gotta draw a line to PROTECT whats NORMAL.

NOT IN PUBLIC SCOOLS. Thats the line.

If religionists want that stuff for there kids, they have to pay for PRIVATE SCOOLS. Fair enough I reckon. Just protext the innocent normal kids. Next they’ll be saying its OK to have RELIGIONIST TEACHERS and you know what that leads to. POINTING THE BONE and totem polls and sticking pins in babies. Gotta draw a line specially with my TAXES.

Thank you for the spelling correction, mjpb. Im trying to get better all the time. Dont no a real lot about these things, but I no whats RIGHT and I no whats real AUstralian. The majority nos too and they send they’re kids to PUBLIC SCOOLS.

I take your point boaz, about it being more of a mentoring service, but in response to that, I can't help but feel a social worker or something similar would be more suitable.

As a secular student, I would have had doubts about visiting a chaplain. It just isn't something I would do and I suspect most students, especially those already with a chip on their shoulder and a desire to avoid institutions such as the church, would be more comfortable visiting a social worker.

Would visiting a social worker instead of a chaplain be an unpleasant prospect for a christian? Surely this kind of mentoring can be accessed through the church any way?

BD inhabits a very small but steep-sided hill. Every way he looks there's a slippery slope.

It's a pale, distant hope, but maybe one day he will learn that the way to defend his hill is to get along with all the people around, rather than hurling down excrement upon them.

If parents want their children to be under the influence of the church at school, send them to a Christian school. Simple as that.

There is a lot bad behaviour by many Christian zealots. Something that should not be brought into the classroom. Read this; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2436968,00.html

Spider was lucky the brothers hated him - some of those who taught me took to "loving" my class mates - I was lucky they just beat the crap out of me - but that is old news.

We would do just as well putting more teachers in the schools than "chaplain" - I have nothing against them or their roles in schools that are of a religious bent -

However as a disicpline they are surplus to requirments - they cant help - even with the best of intentions - to counsell or support kids outside of their religious framework; What if an essentially atheistic kid needed counselling when she fell (thump!) pregnant/ or wanted advice about when to have sex or any other moral laden activity - highly likely the counsellor would not be sought out or if they were who knows what value laden guilt they would lay on the kid -

Silly idea by silly politicians trying to counter the impact of their own socially divisive policies

Yabby,

"... nobody can prove a negative, just like you cannot prove that Santa or the tooth fairy don't exist..."

Such a statement is "common wisdom", I know. Always accepted as a statement of "truth" without further question being asked.

I do suspect this may be correct.

But still a doubt lingers in my mind... Is such a statement logically true?

What if I say it is possible to prove that tooth fairy does not exist in my lolly jar?

Does this not prove that the above statement is logically false? Have I erred in logic?

This is purely an academic exercise. I thought my mind needs some clarity on this.

GZ, its common wisdom, but less common knowledge then you think.

Plenty of religionists will put forward the argument that one
should prove that God isn't true.

Regarding the tooth fairy in your lolly jar, the one you
have there is actually invisible without the magic formula,
so no wonder you can't see her :)

My contention is "nobody can prove a negative" is in fact mostly FALSE. Because there are endless examples where a negative can be proven.

In the case of my "tooth fairy in my lolly jar" analogy, let me first make two assumptions:
(1) we know exactly what a tooth fairy looks like;
(2) we have all the magic to force a tooth fairy to manifest herself.

Then we put the two together. If we still do not sense (see) her in my lolly jar, is sufficient proof that she does not exist in that jar.

Hence "Nobody can prove a negative" is false in this case.

Certainly my argument is only correct if both assumptions (1) and (2) are true (which is obviously not the case, as you well know).

But even so, to have refuted "Nobody can prove a negative" as false is still logically acceptable, within a boundary (my loyy jar).

In any case I could easily replace "tooth fairy" with something tangible (eg. a piece of lolly). Then the same logic applies, proving that "nobody can prove a negative" is in fact false.

Therefore I think "Nobody can prove a negative" is not truth in itself, but depends on how a "boundary" is defined.

Given "common wisdom" that God is infinite and boundless, the boundary must also be infinite (in order to contain God within it). It is only in such a context that the negative statement "Nobody can prove God does not exist" is logically true.

In other words, it is entirely possible (in theory) to prove that a FINITE OBJECT does not exist.

If my argument is correct, then in fact "Nobody can prove a negative" is, well... mostly FALSE. In fact I should say, it is FALSE.

I'd be interested if anyone can comment on my mental exercise in futility.

(1) we know exactly what a tooth fairy looks like;
(2) we have all the magic to force a tooth fairy to manifest herself.

Ahh, but there is your mistake! My toothfairy in your lollyjar,
is the one you havent seen before! Only I know the magic formula.

So prove me wrong

Yabby,

You detract from what I was on about.
Your's not the same thing.

But, never mind ...

Thanks anyway

GZTan,
One doesn’t prove, or test things by first making assumptions that will guarantee the success of your ‘proof’ – that is unethical and unscientific.
In arguing about your lolly, for example, it’s just as logical to make two other assumptions:
1. we do not know what your lolly looks like.
2. we do not know how to make the lolly appear or manifest itself.
When the lolly doesn’t appear, that doesn’t prove the negative, because, as in the case of gods, according to the religiously deluded they can say, “Huh! You’ve proved nothing; to ‘see’ the lolly, or god, you have to have faith…”
When dealing with delusions, it is pointless to argue. As someone wrote a few posts ago, it is up to those proclaiming the existence of supernatural things to either prove their assertions, or shut up and accept they're probably figments of the imagination.

Ybgirp,

"we do not know what your lolly looks like" is the detraction.

Your argument is same as Yabby, I think.

I want to find out whether "nobody can prove a negative" is TRUE or FALSE, not how we MAY NOT be able to prove that statement is FALSE. I think they are subtly but significantly different.

Whilst an assumption may not be ethical, making assumptions is an entirely scientific approach.

My reasoning leads me to believe "nobody can prove a negative" is FALSE because it is unqualified, non-specific. It is simply too generic to be a logical TRUE.

Whereas "Nobody can prove God does not exist" is a qualified one. We know this is a logical TRUE, because we make assumptions God is infinite, "unknowable" and outside the bound of science.

If instead we assume God is a finite being and within scientific boundary, then my argument is "Nobody can prove God does not exist" would be FALSE. Because logically speaking, we can do everything imaginable under scientific boundary to detect presence of God. If we exhausted all science but fail to detect God (assuming this is NOT due to incompetence of science), then conclusion must be that God does not exist (within that defined boundary). Then it is in fact the onus of believers of God to prove that God exists "within that boundary".

Of course, there is still a problem in what I just said - How do we tell we have exhausted all scientific effort? Perhaps either it is time to refine the boundary, or simply accept that my analysis does not stand in logic terms. I am not sure which at this point.

As it stands, central to my argument are: (1) Specific target subject (2) Valid assumptions (3) Boundary /context.

GZ, yup you can make certain claims and set boundaries to the negative, but I can claim a near infinite new set of boundaries that
you have not considered, which do not interfere with your claims.
If you set new boundaries to my claims, I will simply come up
with some more, etc. etc.

Thats why we humans have come to the conclusion that you cannot
prove a negative, best if people make claims, they show us the
evidence for their claims. The larger the claims, the more
evidence they need to produce, for anyone to believe them,
apart from the gullible of course.

yup, I gladly accept "Nobody can prove a negative" is a statement of truth.

Yep, you'll only find the churches where the money is, and lots of money to boot!

Can you imagine getting them to spend their own money on something?

Couldn't believe it when I read in the bringing them home inquiry that a particular church would only cede control over a segregated black grave yard, in the middle of bloody whoop whoop, if the State would compensate the church $3,00,0000 for making such a grandiose gesture to reconciliation.

Sacrilegious thoughts, sacrilegious thoughts!
Lord stone me now, for I have strayed- I think men in frocks are clearly the scum of the earth!

Don't get me started on their orphanages. Did you know that that particular scumbag that said he didn't know anything about child abuse was actually in charge of most of the child welfare services in QLD for over a decade?-
FMD!
John

And as a comment to all the talk about church schools in the above comments, I must ask,- did anyone else find it strange the sheer resurgence and massive growth in church school attendance that occurred immediately following the Wood Royal Commission, and its revelations surrounding nasty paedophile priests rooting school children?

Is that like Munchausen’s by proxy by proxy?