More Debate About School Chaplains
Published by Matt Glover June 25th, 2006 in Questions of FaithFollowing on from this post.
Another article in the paper about the Government’s proposal to introduce chaplains into shools across Australia. I put the word ‘chaplain’ in italics becasue that’s what we’re supposed to be talking about…
The article in question, by Professor Judith Bessant, seems motivated by another agenda and disregards the welfare of students entirely. Some of what she says is just simply wrong.
A quote:
Employing Christian chaplains in state schools “to improve” values and provide guidance for students is a provocative and divisive act. It is disrespectful of the religious and secular beliefs of the many Australians who are non-religious or non-Christian. It also denies parents the right to teach children their own religious and cultural beliefs. Indeed it is as offensive and confrontational to non-Christians as it would be for Christians to have religious teachers or spiritual leaders committed to Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam in schools teaching their children about their religious values.
Here’s a few areas in which I think she’s wrong:
Chaplains as clergy - ‘clergy’ is the term used to refer to (usually) ordained ministers in a church. While they will sometimes help out in local school communities or other community groups, ministers work primarily with the church. Chaplains do not need to be, and rarely are, clergy. It is a different field of study and takes a different type of person altogether.
Perhaps this reveals where Prof Bessant’s real issues lie…
Chaplains as fundamentalist Christians - I have never, repeat NEVER, encountered a chaplain who would fall into this category. If anything, the chaplains I know would be considered liberal as they allow room for truth and value to be encountered in all faiths. And as for promoting hatred of Muslims and Asians…come on!
An offensive and divisive act - If chaplains were placed in schools to teach faith, then I would agree. But they’re not. they are the to serve the school community, regardless of religion, politcis, economic situation and so on. Again, one Christian chaplain I know was instrumental in establishing a Muslim support group in her school. Tell me, how can this be divisive?
Denies parents the right to teach their own faith - Visiting a chaplain is voluntary and talking about faith never happens unless the student wants to. What ever the student wants to talk about and deal with is the focus of the chaplains efforts. It might be tension at home, diffculties with school work, bullying issues, sexuality, loneliness - the list is endless. Show me a parent that feels threatened by that….
Prof Bessant does ask “Why Christian chaplains?” when there are numerous secular alternatives. In the end, I think it comes down to money. Churches are committed to serving their communities and thus will support a chaplain to the tune of 1/3 of their salary. Another 1/3 is raised by a chaplaincy committee and the remainder pais by the school. Compare this with having to pay 100% for a secular chaplain and a school is left with little option if they want a chaplain.
Obviously, this is a soap box of mine. Not so much the chaplaincy issue, but uniformed opinions, such as Prof Bessant’s, being pushed on others as the truth. Christianity has been the target of this type of campaign for centuries and it looks as if not much has changed. While I’m happy to let the arguments rage and to offer my input when I can, when the argument starts to impinge on the welfare of others, it’s time to refocus why we’re arguing. I’m happy to disagree with Prof Bessant about the contribution of Christianity (real Christianity) to our communities, but not at the expense of young people. I’d rather work with her to see that our young people can be the best they can be and then argue over coffee later. (I’ll shout if she ever reads this!)
To finish, Prof Bessant encourages those who are making the decisions about the placement of chaplains in public schools to read some of the secular literature on values and morals. I’d encourage Prof Bessant to actually speak to a chaplain before writing her next article, find out what they do ad how they do it.
I think she’ll find that all of the things she has based her arguments on are unfounded.
See also this post over at Signposts.
10 Responses to “More Debate About School Chaplains”
- 1 Pingback on Nov 22nd, 2006 at 5:38 pm
hey matt, i agree with you! i mean seriously they wouldnt be in the skool standing on a table screaming JESUS LUVS YOU!! lol i think it would b quite the opposite. they’d sit in there office quitely and wait for a sudent in need to come along! and like you said they arent gonna force nething on the kid, they’ll talk about wat the kid wants to talk about! i
think this lady has problems and is comepletely against christians! [*sigh* quite sad really!] she is thinking of wot she wants not wot the kids want!
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! =)
Judith Bessant may not be right in all of her assertions, but there is a fundamental problem with the National School Chaplaincy Programme: it is overtly discriminatory because it limits such funding to those with religious faith.
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.
I’m not sure, but I don’t think that many atheists/agnostics/’secularists’ go in for chaplaincy courses. If they did, then they would be qualified for the position.
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.
This is a response by “Tarnya” to a post I made on my blog concerning the discrimination inherit in this policy:
“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.
ON the other hand, it balances the numerous funds churches can’t apply for because they are deemed ‘religious’. here are numerous bodies that do great work because their faith prompts them to do so, yet that same faith renders them ineligible for funding because the Govt is too scared to be seen helping a church/mosque/temple.
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.
“This is alright because I feel that Christians are hard done by and we are getting our own back?” And eye for an eye? Well, that’s a fairly divisive point of view. I not even convinced that it holds up. For one, religious organisations are tax-exempt in Australia. Also, could you identify $90 million in funding that organisations aren’t eligible for because they are religious?
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.
Sorry nick - didn’t mean to imply that you were prejudice in any way. Badly worded on my part and no offence intended. I actually think your words articulate the counter argument better than most, so don’t let my clumsy talk upset you!
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 don’t want to string out a argument that goes nowhere, but I am interested in your views on the following.
“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 think I like your proposal better!
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!)