Does John Howard's $90M for School Chaplaincy Amount to Establishment of Religion?

Section 116 of the Constitution states, amongst other things, that "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, .....". Section 116 was the subject of a proposed alteration as recently as the 1988 referenda. That proposal was rejected, along with others, with a record low 'Yes' vote. The content of Section 116 has thus been relatively recently the subject of community focus and effective re-affirmation.

One of the characteristics of a religion being 'established' is that it is financially supported with the aid of the power of taxation. On the assumption that the proposed $90M is to come from public funds and not some 'slush' fund, it would appear that it would at some stage 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. If the Constitution is ignored in this respect, can the Australian community expect to see, for example, radical Islamic clerics being supported with taxpayers funds via this mechanism? Equally, could the community expect to see that part of the Catholic flock that has opted out of the Catholic education system being pursued by publicly funded ecclesiastical police in the public school system? Has this been thought through in the Parliament? Yea, and verily, hath it even been the subject of Parliamentary debate?

It is worth noting the use of the word 'chaplaincy' in the reporting of the proposal. One can only assume that its use is intended to imply some sort of similarity to chaplaincy in the armed forces. It is appropriate to note that those serving in that capacity serve as members of the forces, subject to command and military discipline and having sworn the oath. You know, the one specified and effectively re-affirmed in 1999 that all the parliamentarians are required to swear, that [they] "will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Her heirs and successors according to law." You know, the real oath.

It seems the non religous people have more dogmatic beliefs than many religous people. Maybe we should stop their funding also! JOhn HOward is smart enough to know that values without God is valueless.

The figures just don't stack up. There are 9623 schools in Australia. So less than half will get the $20,000 "grant" for a chaplain. If all schools put in for the grant it would cost $192,460,000.

Another loopy scheme where the funds will never be spent, but the target audience will feel good, I think it is called politics.

The minimum wage is over $26,000 so these "chaplains" would be part time enthusiastic amateurs.

What is the federal education minister doing playing with pet projects instead of providing funds where they are really needed.

This is not a matter of who holds a religious belief and who doesn't. I'm sure that many religious people would feel concerned if they found that their child was being counselled by a person with different religious beliefs to their own.

I realise that many people can act in a responsible manner and give spiritually neutral advice, regardless of their own religious beliefs. But many would find it virtually impossible to avoid putting their own slant on things. And many would feel that it was their duty to preach their own beliefs and see the chance to do so as literally a God given opportunity.

My children are all adult, so this situation is hypothetical for me. But I would hate to think that my children were being taught [in the guise of being counselled]:
That homosexuality was an optional choice and inherently sinful.
That abortion was murder.
That contraception was sinful.
That the Bible had to be taken literally and the earth was only a few thousand years old.
That women were instruments of the devil and were at fault if they were sexually assaulted.

And of course many other opinions which are, to me, either unproven, harmful, discriminatory or downright ridiculous. Other people may have different ideas of what they would be horrified at their children being taught, but the same principle applies.

We supposedly have freedom of religion in Australia and probably dozens of legally recognised religious organisations. In fairness to all [and possibly to avoid legal action by those organisations whose adherents are not chosen as counsellors] we would have to give equal opportunity to [for example]:

Muslims.
Hindus.
Jehovah's Witnesses.
Scientologists.
Christian Scientists.
Wiccans.
Mormons.
Spiritualists.
Hillsong.
Exclusive Brethren.

OK, I realise that the Exclusive Brethren are not likely to want to avail themselves of such an opportunity, but they could, couldn't they?

As official lick-spittle to the U.S.A., it is Australia’s duty to bring religion to the forefront of life, then we too can have the highest crime rate, the most drug addicts, the highest murder rate, vast corruption and all the other delights enjoyed by highly religious societies. We will also then be able to persecute minorities, stone adulterers and homos to death and…. Oh I don’t know but it will all be very moral and fine because the bible and the koran say it is and they are the words of god and he is all good and speaking through his chaplains, who will be the first person a pregnant teenage girl will go to for compassionate and sensible advice, or a bullied gay boy on the point of suicide – don’t you reckon?
And of course it will be like in Queensland where the kid's parents have to write a letter saying why they don’t want their child to take an hour out of school to be indoctrinated – but most parents are too busy, and usually the few kids who dare to opt out get punished and ostracised by the teachers so it’s not fun and nothing is learned.
I only hope that there will be such a rush for posts by different religions, that they will begin warring – as is their wont, and they’ll all murder each other.
I note Howard didn’t suggest Atheists or Humanists be invited – they are the font of all human morality, not irrational people who reckon there’s a superman in the sky who knows all sees all hears all and stuffs us up all the time.

It seems like without this injection of funding many parents are deserting the pagan religion of humanism that teaches we can have sex without boundaries(as long as u shove a condom on), we somehow evolved from apes (or have they stopped teaching this nonsense yet?) and that we are gods and can make up our own morality.

If people were not concerned about the godless values taught over the last 20 years that have resulted in increases in teen pregnancy, abortion and suicide then this issue would not be a vote winner

To answer the question raised.....'yes/ and no'.

"Religion"... is certainly supported by this funding. "A" religion is not.

In the hisorical context of the Constitution, it is quite clear that the 'meaning' of 'religion' was in fact 'denomination' as in.. Christian this or that, but not "Christianity or Buddhism or Islam".

Due to the large numbers of Catholic Irish and Anglican/Protestant English, clearly to promote one over the other would be a time bomb.

But what we have here, is a promotion of religion in general, and it is not limited to just Christian traditions, it is also for Muslims.

Lets keep in mind, a school chaplain does not 'instruct' children to follow this or that belief as much as discuss and provide counselling, and perhaps even (shock horror) suggest that life actually does have meaning..and that God does care about them.
Such help should also inform children that God is not our servant to run at our beck and call. He is not the Tooth Fairy.

No matter what humanists or atheists feel about this... it will all come out in the wash at the next ELECTION and they, along with the religiously inclined can vote according to their reaction to this issue if they like. Its called 'Democracy' :) and I'm liking it more each day at the moment.

Steve Madden,

You mean there's a cut-out level below which certain schools will not be used as channels for funding clergy and para-clerical 'counsellors'? What's the formula and who stands to benefit most/least? Or have you simply worked in the light of your knowledge of the total number of schools (9623) and the size of the 'grant' ($20,000) to assess that $90M will only go so far? I must admit I was not aware of these qualifications, and simply raised the issue because of the principle involved and the prospect that Constitutional provisions appear to stand in prospect of being ignored. Now that you mention it, there would have to be some way of effectively coralling the bulk of the funds for the main players, wouldn't there? It always seems to work out this way.

As I ponder your post, I ask myself, what about the existing religious schools: do any of them get to effectively double-dip with this proposal? Or is it intended that the scheme will be quietly extended to them later, out of 'fairness', thereby keeping public indignation down with respect to the amount of funds appearing to be committed, but all the time knowing that the eventual committment will be significantly greater?

I am also becoming uneasy about something I read recently in another context that, at least in NSW, there was intended to be introduced compulsory counselling for school children in certain circumstances. If true, combined this would be an extremely worrying development. All the more reason this funding should not occur.

Noted your posts on the euthanasia thread; I can see why you weren't excited about rowing! Best wishes, mate. And it looks from their website that Laucke add nothing to their breadmixes as a matter of long established principle, much like German beer.

@runner
"If people were not concerned about the godless values taught over the last 20 years that have resulted in increases in teen pregnancy, abortion and suicide then this issue would not be a vote winner"

Holland has an extremely low rate of teenage pregnancy and abortion compared with the puritanically Christian US and the theoretically secular Australia.

http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07/uk/apprend2.htm

"With the lowest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe (8.4 per 1,000 girls between 15 and 19), any initiative in the Netherlands deserves attention.

To some critics who argue that 'talking about sex gives children the wrong idea,' Jos Poelman of the Foundation for STD control has one answer. 'Face the facts. We have the lowest number of teenage mothers [in Europe], and Dutch students do not start having sex at a younger age than their foreign counterparts.'"

In Holland, accurate sex education is given to young people, together with availabilty of contraception and the message that they need to use responsibility. This education is given without falling back on religious morality and this approach works. I suggest that we don't have this approach in Australia because of unwarranted religious interference in education and we pay the price with too many unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

Regarding teen suicides:

http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/hans35.nsf/451a59fb51257dd248256c85002bc738/6d5df7e9483e211f482565fd0013113a?OpenDocument

"by the age of 13 years most homosexual youth are aware of their attraction to same sex partners;
by the age of 14 years, most lesbians are aware of their attraction to same sex partners;
25 to 40 per cent of young gays and lesbians attempt to commit suicide;
65 to 85 per cent of young gays and lesbians feel suicidal;"

So do they also need counsellors who may be telling them that they are sinners in the eyes of God?

In regard to evolution, I went to a very Christian school, with a full-time ordained religious subject teacher and I wasn't taught this stuff:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp

And whatever brand of [presumably] Christian you are, would you want your kids counselled by someone with very different Christian or other religious beliefs? Because that's what you may very well get.

I think that part of the constitution has already been well and truly breached with the funding of private religious shools which have stated aims of bringing children to particular faiths.

What is possibly a bigger concern is the quality of counselling provided by enthusiastic amateurs. Will they have the skills and impartiality to respond appropriately when and if a child shares serious issues with them which should be dealt with by a skilled professional but which in their church are dealt with by prayer and seeking god?

Will they know and respect their own limitations?

When I seek medical treatement for myself or my son I seek out a properly qualified professional, I don't allow my child to pick a doctor himself and just use them. How can I prevent some person who has done a weekend counselling course through their church having access to my son in the school environment?

How liable for their mistakes will they be?

R0bert

What rot. The money would be better spent on extending existing counselling services, rather than chasing the religious vote so obviously.

With respect to democracy, this is issue exemplifies perfectly why it is that we need proportional representation in the House of Representatives. That would have the dual positive effect of being more representative and also harder for the dog whistlers to get any traction electorally.

More counselling services CJMorgan? I don't think the Dept of Education will have enough light bulbs for them contemplate change.The State is a poor substitute for a caring family.

Arjay says "The State is a poor substitute for a caring family."

My opinion is that it’s no substitute at all. But there are many teachers, in both secular and faith-oriented schools who do the job of parent substitutes. This may or may not involve the overt transfer of spiritual values.

Most teachers in Australian states are highly qualified, registered professionals who are answerable for their actions, both to their employer and to their board of registration. I wonder about the individuals who will be chosen as chaplains. What is the federal government asking for, in terms of requirements? A certain level of education? A good character check? A track record in "social services"? This is in addition to the spiritual qualities of a pastoral carer recognised as a chaplain.

I’d be delighted if the School Chaplaincy grants program were abandoned as "unconstitutional". What I see happening is the Federal Gov't throwing money at the needy, to promote the migration of students from secular schools to private schools

All schools can use more staff, more responsible, caring adults. If the program is strongly subscribed, I predict that there will be clear patterns in its adoption. For faith-based schools, which cater to parents who accept that a particular religious ethos is going to be inculcated in their children at the school of their choice, the case seems pretty straightforward. The school can say "We are agents of a particular faith, therefore it is reasonable that we have a chaplain of this particular faith." And if the parents don’t approve, they can exercise their privelege of choice in a free market economy, and take their children elsewhere.

But the state schools must cater for all. They cater for the two thirds of the country's students who range from the insightfully devout, of many faiths, to the blissfully lumpen who have never given their spirituality half a breath. These state schools will have a much harder time finding the right chaplains to meet their needs, and the money to fund them adequately. Especially if matching funds are involved.

rex

if abortion is not murder what is it. it a featus is a living human that has not fully developed much the same as an autistic child is not fully developed should we start disposing of them also.

All that it amounts to is attempted vote buying and a complete waste of funds that could be better spent elsewhere.

Who chooses the Chaplain? Can a religious principal get a religious mate? (Stacking Public schools with the ultra relgious people often happens in America)

Some of the Sydney schools are up to 50-60% made of migrant kids, what relevancy will a Christian Chaplain have?

How do you choose between different denominations?

What will be the deal with homosexual students?

What a joke. At a time when real spending in Education has fallen over the last decade.

Schools should be for teaching kids enough to enable them to get jobs. Anything else is the responsibility of the parents - not John Howard or Big Brother,or the Nanny State.

Money should be put into allowing at least one parent to stay at home with their children until they go to school. That way, values can be taught - including religious beliefs is desired.

I agree with what most of you are saying against the idea of chaplains in schools.

If the idea wasn't so tragic, I'd laugh.

Good questions asked- I wonder how Howard would answer these.
Can't he see that this might create a lot of friction between different religions?
He will have to wriggle himself out this situation when (not 'if') it turns into a mess.

I really think that the money could be much more wisely be spend on other ways to improve ecucation, or as mentioned already, to improve on already existing school counselling programs.

If the minister is willing to spend 90 million on school chaplains, but just 20 million on improving childrens’ reading skills and an indigenous tutorial scheme, a lousy 5 million on kids with disabilities, then it is clear to me where his priorities lie.

The more people who mess with childrens' heads, the more worried I am.

Good point that RObert made is also: How qualified are these chaplains?
Howard seems to think that every Tom, Dick and Harry under the umbrella of 'chaplains' can do the job.

If people want their children to be taught and adviced by chaplains they should attend a church of their choice.

Schools need to concentrate on educating children, teaching them skills.

Religion needs to stay as much out of public education as it has to stay out of politics.

What will he think of next?

The largest bloc of convicted pedophiles has come from the religious sector in our community. Why does Howard want to put the foxes in charge of the chicken coop when non sectarian councillors are available?

Aspro, another good question.

Perhaps I'm too suspicious and wrong about this, but I wonder how much the government was influenced in making this decision by the Religious Right that seem to swarm around the liberals.

I've just been discussing the huge donations that the government receive from certain religious groups in another thread.

I wonder how anyone would go complaining to the appropriate govt dept [maybe anti-discrimination] that, although they were not a card carrying member, they shared the religious/philosophical beliefs of the [name your favourite bunch of nut-cases] organisation. And they were suffering discrimination because no chaplains had been appointed from this particular organisation.

Before anyone says that this approach would be ignored or fobbed off, some years ago I managed to get a WA govt dept to ask the WA Crown Law dept for a legal opinion on something, because I had presented them with a situation which put them in a difficult position and I refused to back off. And on this occasion, the Crown Law dept reluctantly agreed that I seemed to be right.

Sometimes you just have to be persistent and you can bet that this scheme has not been thoroughly thought out.

Sir Vivor,

I had not even considered the leveraging prospects of a "matched funds" condition attaching to the grants. You call to mind my wife's vivid-to-this-day recollections of being made to stand, as a primary school child, week by week in front of the class to explain why her parents had been unable to pay the school 'voluntary' fees for that week to the school at which there was clerical pressure exercised for her attendance. This not in a school run by some obscure cult claiming the status of a 'religion', but by a very nominally large so-called christian denomination. From the age of thirteen she has never darkened their door once, other than to honour family obligations. Heaven forbid! If what you foresee with respect to a "matched funds" condition was to apply, public funds could be perverted to possibly remotivate such emotional blackmail. Public funding to help co-erce the flock! Surely no government would be so stupid?

I am not seeking to decry the potentially constructive role privately funded chaplains may fulfil in school situations, nor especially to suggest that in a school run under the auspices of any particular religion that chaplains of that pursuasion should be expected to have no role in such schools. It is simply that public money, channeled through the parents, that has been provided for educational purposes is one thing. Public money, provided to the schools for chaplaincy services, is quite another. It amounts to funding the clergy, not empowering the parents with choice as to where their 'share' of education funding shall be deployed, which latter, if I remember correctly, was the basis upon which government funding for 'private' schools was originally, although perhaps questionably, justified.

My goodness, it doesn't take long to become clear how farsighted those were who formulated the provisions of our Constitution! Pity our elected representatives didn't take it as a guide to the limits of their own power and wisdom, rather than regarding it as something to circumvent.

Personally, I'm delighted with this new $90m program to reduce unemployment amongst religious clerics.

I understand that one Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali is likely to be looking for a new job once he gets back from holidays.

"Personally, I'm delighted with this new $90m program to reduce unemployment amongst religious clerics.

I understand that one Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali is likely to be looking for a new job once he gets back from holidays. "

HAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHA
HAHA
HA
HAHA
HAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHA

This is too funny- thanks, Snout, I really needed a good laugh right now!

BOAZ_David,

I take your point as to the original meaning intended by the drafters of the Constitution having been as to 'denomination' within the Christian religion, rather than 'religions' in general. I am pleased to see that you observe that these days, with the attempted sidelining of the Constitution and the fundamentally British identity of Australian culture under the imposed 'multicultural' regime, the otherwise clear meaning of the Constitution will be most likely taken to mean that anything that chooses to define itself as a religion would qualify for a taxpayer-funded chaplaincy grant.

I cannot agree with you as to the proposal not specifically establishing 'A religion'. I think it does. It will effectively establish that religion with the largest number of both schools and nominal adherents in the population at large, while at the same time empowering the clergy (at taxpayers expense) of such other religions as are most overbearing and demagogic (mind controlling?) in relation to their nominal adherents. This is a recipe for religious strife, community division, and bitterness at its worst.

There seems to me to be a certain similarity between this attempt at establishing a religion, and the move in recent years to publicly fund political parties' election campaigns. In each case the taxpayer is being bled to support that entity or power structure to which membership can no longer be attracted, and which people at large will no longer voluntarily support in Australia: in the case of religion, its clergy; in the case of politics, membership and party funds.

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia provides the framework and guidance within which all of this division and bitterness can be avoided. It would be nice to see all who are sworn in under its concluding words uphold it.

Forrest! Forrest, you come here this minute! You've been saying unspeakable things again! You get back in here and wash that mouth out with soap again.

Sssh! Its my alter-egotist again! But if I'm quiet and keep a low profile for a bit I might be able to dodge the mouthwash. So I can't really add much to the discussion at this point. But there is something I've noticed while I've been lying doggo here. Have you noticed there are no ads on this thread! Isn't that odd? Does that mean the topic is too hot to touch? Too much of a hot potato to risk advertising on? Whatever happened to the Dick Smith principle of advertising, that "all publicity is good publicity, even bad publicity"?

Anyway, so what if there are no ads? Well, the discussion text runs off the screen, it becomes hard to follow the argument, some attention grabbing bad words can be lost to the quick view, and the thread of the discussion can quickly be lost. Now experienced computer users all know that you can scroll the display to correct this little problem, but what about the dinosaurs amongst us? What about the speed readers of the Heresy Commission, how will they get to see the full wickedness of the guilty sayers of Bad Words if some of those words are off the page? Think of Others, thats my motto! Besides, it could even look like a form of subtle political censorship or bias against certain topics. What to do?

Well, you could put up some blank ads on the side to force the real interesting incriminating text onto the page where it can be easily read. You know, something like "This is a Non-Ad" inside an ad box. And down at the bottom "This Non-Ad appears as a matter of record only. You don't need to have bought anything to have been affected."

Forrest! My patience is wearing very thin. You come here right now!

Ssssh! Wonder where that sociologist academic is? Sssh!

It took my breath away when I heard John Howard propose this. Talk about a man who thinks his personal views should be imposed on everyone else for their own good irrespective of what they think about it. It was not enough that he got a ‘bunch of mates’ to look after wages and a 'bunch of mates' to control the media, he also wants a ‘bunch of mates’ to look after history teaching and now a ‘bunch of mates’ to look after kids emotional needs.

I have to wonder if we are simply witnessing a man drunk with power and divorced from reality or if it is an actual decline into madness ala Caligula. Howard should be more careful – he is not very big – it wouldn’t take much more for him to entirely disappear up his own fundament.

It was an interesting math done above that shows that there is unfortunately 'only enough money for Christian Schools' but they are, of course, free to employ an Imam if they want to.

what a stupid & criminal waste of our taxes. religion has no place in schools, politics or in public whatsoever. if you're inclined to be religious then be so in the privacy of your home. to expect others to fork out money to support bible bashers & other dubious hangeroners is the height of hypocricy and totally against what the most basic and yet most prezice set of rules we should abide by tells us. the ten commandments (& equivalent in Islam etc) provide all the guidance anyone needs to go through life. what more does one need for god's sake. we have so many underpriviledged kids who would highly appreciate a better education. those $90 mill would be far more sensibly spent on providing guidance in practical matters such as apprenticeships or training which helps young people to develop pride & selfrespect & puts them on track to be decent citizens.