I would like to know how this whole thing came about and still have my suspicions about some of it. Given the influence that religion has on politics in America, I can’t help but be a bit cycical and feel we are moving in the same direction…like many other areas of Australian life.

Careless or antagonistic? I doubt it is either. There’s a political motive somewhere in there. Discrimnatory? I’m still not convinced though. Has the government offered funding in the past that has been limited to only a certian section of the community - I don’t know of any off the top of my head, but feel sure there must have been. I think because ‘religion’ is involved this time that we’re seeing so much opposition (again, to something that is meant to be for the good of students!)

“I don’t see how $90mil for the welfare of all students is discrimination. ” The issue of discrimination isn’t in regards to dividing the student population, it’s related to barring from employment those that are not recognised by the sponsoring religious organisation (these people could be either atheists or those of a different faith or denomination). For a real-world example of this discrimination, see in the case of Tarnya above.

Secondly, there is clearly public discord created by the program requiring religious affiliation. This creates divisions and hostility within the community. You said that you feel that many arguments are based on personal predjudice, but such discrimination by the government fosters and justifies these feelings of inequality and bias.

Discord would not be present if the Government’s policy was more sensitive to these issues and clearly non-discriminatory. For example, say that the Government pledged $90m to a National Personal and Social Wellbeing in Schools Program (NPSWSP) and clearly stipulated that persons who fill the supported positions must simply be accepted by the school and parents association.

Under such as scheme, I would imagine that a vast majority of funding would still go to support Chaplains (as they fulfil this role in a large number of communities). However, it would not overtly discriminate against those that are suitably qualified, but not affiliated with a religious organisation (even if these cases are few and far between). There would be no reason for animosity.

My question is, given the option of the divisive NSCP or an inclusive NPSPWSP, why would the government propose the former? Is it because they are careless (at best) or antagonistic (at worse)?

I was more thinking of some of the things that I have read that have been dripping with negative attitudes and uninformed viewpoints on what chaplains do. I still think they’ve been overlooked in the whole debate - if they were there to ‘convert’ students then even I would have an issue with that. If they are there for the welfare of all students, regardless of faith or religious belief, then that’s a good thing.

Well trained chaplains (and whether we get well trained ones or not is another argument) are well versed in all forms of spirituality and are able to care for the whole person regardless of what they believe. On the whole, student welfare teachers haven’t had this sort of spirituality training and struggle when some of the ‘big’ questions about life come up.

Two respones to some of the other stuff you said:

* Yes, religious institutions get tax breaks. This will stay because the government knows that the welfare system is stuffed if they make it impossible for the churches to do their work. The government simply couldn’t cope - so the tax breaks, I guess, replace funding. Signposts has some good discussion on this.

* I don’t know the figures, but my local and State government have lots of money available for community groups to apply for to run all sorts of different things. All of the come with the tag “not for religious purposes”, automatically cutting churches out regardless of what the project is. It’s just the way it is and I’ve never heard any church group make a fuss about it. (They probably have at some point though)

I agree that discrimination should be spoken out agianst at every point. But I don’t see how $90mil for the welfare of all students is discrimination. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I find the assertion that his is based on personal predjudice offensive. This is clearly a discriminatory policy, in theory and in practise. It is also unfairly biased towards the private school system (which is predominantly religious and more likely to be able to pay the rest of the funding required when compared to the public school system).

Identifying discrimination and speaking out against it is important whether you are getting the long or short end of the stick. I find it disturbing that many people are happy to let this discrimination slide because it benefits a group they associate with. Now that’s personal predjudice.

Again, having worked in the school system with chaplains for ten years or so, I still reckon the arguments against this development are hot air and based on personal prejudice. Chaplains do good work - surely that is what we should focus on.

“I’ve never done this blog thing before but here goes . . . I completely agree with what you have written. I am a Social Worker and have completed a masters paper in spirituality in state schools. I have worked as a school counsellor for more than five years, yet under John Howard’s scheme I am ineligible to apply for the recently announced positions of chaplain as I do not have a Christian affiliation which is deemed suitable by Scripture Union (the employing body). If this is not discrimination I don’t know what is!!!!!”

She doesn’t state if she is religious or not; she could be a Christian, but associated with a church that is not recognised by the Scripture Union. I think this clearly demonstrates the problem with the National School Chaplaincy Program.

And note I said chaplaincy COURSE! One of the comments in the opinion section of the newspaper suggested that the funding go towards trained counsellors (emphasis on trained) rather than religious dudes. Which makes me laugh in a funny kind of way, because there is an awful lot of training that goes into making a chaplain.

Funny this is coming up again- new developments.

I am not making any sort of attack on Christianity; the government has stated that this funding will also be made available to Rabbis and Imams. However, funding is strictly not available to those with no religious affiliation. This communicates that the government sanctions discrimination based on a religious basis, and sends the wrong message to the community and our children.

Try to see this from the viewpoint of a secular professional: Imagine if you were ineligible for employment (in an area that you are trained for) simply because of your beliefs? That is what makes this programme divisive, and that is why this funding should be distributed in a non-biased way.

neway i think that well they should just give it a go. see how it works and if STUDENTS arent happy, not teachers not parents, STUDENTS. then they should reconsider.

thats my thought neway! =) agree disagree its just my opinion! =)