School chaplaincy program declared invalid by High Court

[waterboy 2.0]

Some may not care....but I'll admit I am very adverse to religion going into schools by stealth....

and the cutting of funding for non-religious counselors pissed me off.

The manoeuvrings will be ongoing..... I love the fact that the "Finance Minister Mathias Cormann has granted a waiver to chaplaincy providers that “totally extinguishes” their debt to repay funding awarded under the scheme..."

Instead of me quoting, link below for those interested:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/school-chaplaincy-program-declared-invalid-by-high-court/story-fn59nlz9-122695967091

[DiscoStu]

my objection isn't so much that there's chaplains in schools (i assume parents would take such an interest in their kids lives that they can teach them the folly of popular religion if they so choose), but that tax payer money is being spent on it. at a time when shelters for victims of domestic violence are being closed due to funding cuts, indigenous legal aid is cut, foreign aid cuts, raises in payments for lower income and everything else. all these programs which presumably the church would support (ignoring the fact that the institution is just a way to funnel money to a religious elite), and here we are getting a funding boost for proselytising in public schools*, all without proper training. it's just assumed that religion can solve teenagers problems.

*yes i am aware that there is to be no preaching, but does anyone seriously believe that?

anyway it'll be back, remember the program was ramped up under rudd, lnp/alp is there a difference**?

**the answer to that is of course no.

[Sallubrious]

You can opt out of the god squad classes for your kids, I did after I found out they were preaching to my kids at their public school. My eldest son came home one day and told me that "Some god bloke lives in the sky and watches everything you do".

I wasn't happy to say the least, my attitude is to teach them verifiable facts and then they can choose their own spiritual path when they are old enough to understand.

After I pulled them out of the bible brainwashing program there was a noticeable change of attitude towards me from some of the religiously inclined teachers, but my kids are academic stars that raise the grade point averages for their respective classes and the principal knows I'll take them somewhere else if they try to force their point in any way. Given the choice between having a few heathens displaying signs of academic excellence or a group of relgious morons the school will "tolerate" my heathen kids for their own selfish motives any day. I've often wondered how their attitudes (the school staff) would be if my kids weren't topping their classes.

The point WB raised about lack of access to non religious counselors is cause for concern, surely there should be some balance and choice.

Wearing a god badge shouldn't make anyone immune from the normal financial responsibilities the rest of us face, to me that's outright discrimination.

[ThunderIdeal]

this ron williams bloke is a bloody legend in my eyes.

[tarenna]

Great judgement. Fuck Abbott et al.- I hope they can be permanently prevented from polluting the minds of our future..

[-YT-]

Yeah i agree Mr Williams is a legend to pursue this. i am of the opinion religion and religious affiliates such as chaplains have no place in educational institutions at all. If parents or young adults want to explore such in their own time go for it. I honestly don't see how they are better equipped to counsel young people, most barely have the qualifications and i would think some issues one just wouldn't want to approach them about due to the religious connotations of judgement, morality etc

This program since the Howard years has always been government funded by the tax payers, it seems like they will probably rush a law to make it all legal as it affects the funding for a lot of other government programs/schemes etc. Wonder if its about votes or more ideology? Our god is the one true god and all men must serve him! (evil laugh)

Sally that's sad in this day and age you have to deal with such attitudes. And scary that teachers would treat children/parents untoward because they aren't willing to let them be indoctrinated.

[ThunderIdeal]

in the case of labor (rudd/gillard), votes.

in the case of abbott? his churchy ways seem to be genuine. i'd prefer if they were just for show eg rudd.

Edited June 21, 2014 by ThunderIdeal

[-YT-]

Heard a story that abbots grandfather immigrated here during WW2 and prayed that if he was delivered to safety he would visit Rome and thank the pope or something along those lines, his family makes it here safe and sound and years later he takes his young son on a pilgrimage to the vatican. Abbots old man sent him to private catholic school and no doubt had a hand in his attempt in the seminary. Certainly seem like staunch believers

[ThunderIdeal]

part of me thinks that democracy must have worked better when people didn't live so damn long. didn't a vote originally go to whichever group could make the loudest rabble? eg instead of ballots they counted decibels, in which case the old and enfeebled wouldn't make much difference.

in some ways it feels wrong and disrespectful to hold this opinion, but there is a point with most old people where they are too old to hold useful opinions, and since they're on their way out i question how much of a say they should have in the future (when is somebodies opinion outdated? depends on the person, and the issue, i'd say that many 80 year olds are no longer with the program). they're of course welcome to contribute to public discourse if they still have the mind for it, but why should they have a say in government when their contribution to the economy is dwindling or less than zero, the effect it will have on them is dwindling/negligible, and frankly in many cases their opinions are just ghosts of the past. if i collected a group of people from the past, and a group of people from the future (or present), which of those groups is better equipped to decide who leads us? which of those groups will the decision have more effect on? which of those groups will be directly involved and included in the ramifications?

truly i don't believe that the australian masses have much time for things which seem to occupy government agenda and campaigning so much, to name a few, godlessness, immigration, and those damned greenies. could i instead blame those who are glued to the tv, the australian equivelant of bill o'reilleys audiencein the US? i could, but i'd still be blaming the same group, because IME nobody swallows propaganda with so much enthusiasm as the old. by the time their mental growth and adaptation had already tapered off to a trickle, they were being targeted by a much more primitive media. they lack cynicism for the mainstream and a FUNDAMENTAL distrust in society as it is painted to be, lapping up its offerings of reality tv while rejecting ideas from the margin.

that is my best explanation for why a country that leads the world in some ways, lags so far behind in others, with political scandals to rival any similar nations and literally at times, clowns running the joint.