David,
I think you are right. The chaplaincy program is not a novelty: it has proved its usefulness for all the reasons you state.
The clause in the Constitution about establishing religion has a particular legal sense. It does not prevent the Commonwealth Government from funding programs sponsored by religious bodies. It has one technical meaning only: that the Government cannot declare one religious group to be the official religion of the country. The writers of both the Australian and the US Constitutions did not want to follow the British model, where the Head of State (the Monarch) is the Head of the official religion. The British Prime Minister appoints bishops, and the Church appoints bishops to sit in the House of Lords. That is what the Constitution seeks energetically and definitely to avoid.
The organisation for the Defence of Government Schools (DOGS) tried to take the Commonwealth to the High Court in 1981 because the Government was funding church schools, and therefore, DOGS claimed, was ‘establishing religion’. The case did not even reach the High Court because every constitutional lawyer knew that the Commonwealth was not breaching Section 116. They were not making one religion the State religion.
The Government is confident it can rely on this ruling in the case of putting funds towards chaplains as well. It is doing no more than helping a community agency offer a non-discriminatory service to the community.

World Systems of Religion juxtaposed with World Systems of Healing as an approach in education would I believe do more strategically to help increase greater cross-cultural understanding in Australia and contribute to deeper disscusions on themes of human conflict and peace.

"Wellbeing" ought to be a key focus underlying all basic studies through education on human society.

Similarily, as Simon Wright article highlights, it is that the Government ought to be announcing broader policies and funding that benefit wider human understanding in Australian schools, and not just focus on the Prime Minister’s own ideological commitment to religious culture.

http://www.miacat.com/
.

David,

I find the claim of neutral chaplains to be interesting. If they are so, then they failing at their job as the chaplains by definition.

Whilst the State-sponsored chaplains are available, the funding of them is compulsory.

They are not vital. If they are a reaction, they're the *wrong* reaction.

They are *arguably* unconstitutional under section 116, insofar that public funding does constitute complulsion.

As for perspective, there is little doubt in my mind what Andrew Inglis Clark, who is responsible for the clause, wanted for it is the same as other members of his religion; a complete and utter separation of Church and State.

Regards,

Hi Lev

not at all mate.. (them failing).. there is much that a chaplain can do for children without promoting the denominational brand.

We have one in our fellowship, and she ends up being a caring ear than a 'forked tongue' if you get my drift. The level of decay we are experiencing in our supposedly civilized society is beyond tragic, left unchecked, I believe it is terminal.

I chaplain can provide 'generalized hope' just by being there.. by listening. Can you imagine a child who has been abused, who has no one to turn to... alone... tossed from this pillar to that post.. man..

The State can offer 'zero' on that level. You cannot give a child 'hope' by having a paid employee spend time with them, it takes more.. it takes a heart.

I suggest chaplains who's hearts are connected to the Almighty, are more equipped to convey something meaningful than a normal 'paid employee' such as a social worker, who's solutions might come from a sociology or psychology text book.

David,

As a person who was raised in a religious orphanage and experienced abuse from a religious figures (as so many are), I can assure you it is much preferable for a psychologist or social worker to engage in services of counsel rather than somebody who really has no qualifications.

It is also a display of some ignorance to suggest that such people do not have a heart; why do you think they were motivated to join such a profession in the first place?

People who *think* they know the will of the Almighty are invariably the most dangerous and wicked individuals of all. To actually give such people money expropriated from taxpayers is a heinous crime.

Individuals are thoroughly entitled to engage in whatever metaphysical speculations they so desire and have the right to do so. Organisations likewise have the right to fund such individuals as they desire from their own monies.

However, to have such speculations funded by the state however is an affront to those who have *different* speculations and to those who have *no* speculations. It is morally wrong for the State to endorse even a non-denominational version of chaplians.

Regards,

All child sexual abuse is appalling especially by religous people. You are however a lot more vulnerable to it when you adopt the policies of the secular humanist. The aboriginal communities are prime examples of this. Secular humanist deny the inherent depravity of man (especially among their own ranks) and think they can feed on pornography and not be affected. Many people have been sexually abused by teachers, doctors, scientist, pianno teachers, ballet dancers, humanists and religous instructors. Religous instructors receive far more press because the tremendous god haters among our press especially our national broadcasters ( who themselves have had their share of child sex abusers). What this has to do we chaplaincy I have no idea except to allow the usual god haters to vent their spleen.