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.