Chaplains in public schools
In today’s paper, Judith Bessant argues against the proposal that Christian chaplains should be employed by public schools:
Employing Christian clergy in state schools also reflects a double standard in the way it contradicts the officially stated commitment by the same people who have been promoting the teaching of “Australian values”. Those values include “freedom” from unnecessary interference and control, “respect” - which includes having regard for “another person’s point of view” and presumably their religious views, and “understanding tolerance and inclusion”.
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.
There was a chaplain at one of the public schools that I attended. But from what I could see, the chaplain was about as far from the “values based education” as one could imagine. Rather, she did the sort of things that you would expect a chaplain to do - she was the one who broke bad news if it was necessary, she was the one that followed up with people who had been bereaved, she was the one who students spoke to if they were having difficulties or issues. It was all non-compulsory and involved very little explicit religious content.
Perhaps this episode in the culture wars might accomplish something for the good of school students, totally separate from what is suggested by the rhetoric.
June 25th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
I agree Dan, this debate is complete bollocks. There was a chaplain at the school I attended, and my parents have been actively involved in getting chaplains into the schools they’re at and have been at. Sure, my folks are Christians so there’s some agenda there, but their primary driving force is their belief that Chaplains do actually provide some really valuable, supportive services to kids. I had elective “life skills” classes with a somewhat conservative Christian chaplain, and in a country town his very basic but unbiased teaching on Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism were vital in broadening the minds of kids who would otherwise have known nothing about these faiths. The chaplains I’ve been exposed to have provided a really valuable counselling service that the already-stretched budgets of state schools couldn’t provide otherwise. HALF (I think it’s 1/2) the salary of chaplains is paid for by private fundraising, not by schools.
If people want Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims in schools then I have no problem with that, provided they cough up the dough to cover it. While I am suspicious of the agenda of people like Howard et al, I am equally suspicious of the agenda of writers like Bessant. If she wants people of faiths other than Christians in these roles, then she and those who share her opinions will have to cough up for it - otherwise they’re denying schools who are already stretched to the limit a vital staff member.
June 25th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
“It also denies parents the right to teach children their own religious and cultural beliefs.”
Umm … no it doesn’t.
In fact if kids were taught at school to be more literate in issues of philosphy, religion, faith, ritual etc and they might be better equipped to understand their parents’ religious and cultural beliefs, and communicate their own.
June 26th, 2006 at 8:06 am
I think its pretty amazing that you guys are even having the debate. Here in the States, the topic isn’t even on the table.
But Youth Pastors and youth workers vollunteer “incognito”. That’s works great. No rules apply. The worst that can happen is that you can be kicked out of the school. That hasn’t happened in years as far as I know here in our part of Florida.
June 26th, 2006 at 9:28 am
everybody loves some good fear mongering
I’d have loved my school to have chaplains of every denomination.
June 26th, 2006 at 9:32 am
s/denomination/religon
June 26th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Do we forget that, like it or not, Christianity was actually a fairy solid part of the foundation of the country? Look, I love ‘tolerance’ (as bad a word as that is) and stuff, but this idea that just because we have 1 we need the others - like Bec said! BOLLOCKS!! (good work Bec - I’ll make it my word for the day!)
Also, in the current social climate, don’t you imagine that Chaplains going around running their own agenda driven crusades aren’t likely to last long? Esp in public system!! We’ve got a great chaplaincy program in SW of WA, and it happens largely because - the churches support it ($$) and the schools see benefit in it. If it weren’t so, it wouldn’t happen!!
Also, the ‘agenda’ of the churches is not that kids learn to reach out to God so we can achieve world domination, but because we think it’s the best way for them to live - they’re likely to do better in their life endeavours!!
Say it to all you meet people; “BOLLOCKS!!”
June 26th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Here in SA - the chaplins are supported by the churches in the area - and are employed and cared for by those churches. The chaplinacy stuff taken care of by SMG (Schools Ministry Group) which is run by the Council of Churches in SA.
The schools (students, parents and teachers) of these chaplins.
They aren’t your parent or a teacher - they are there to help the students and at times the teachers.
Why does everything have to be done by the school and or rather the government??
I agree with Toddy and Bec - Bollocks! Why even bother to listen to these people? Pfft!
June 26th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
“Do we forget that, like it or not, Christianity was actually a fairy solid part of the foundation of the country?”
Now THAT is bollocks. What is Christian about transporting and hanging and whipping people for stealing tuppence? What is Christian about killing off Aboriginal people and committing cultural genocide? What is Christian about William Bligh, Lachlan MacQuarie or any of the other early bosses and regimes?
To say that there was anything Christian about the foundation of this country is to be bloody selective about history, not to mention that it betrays an odd view of what it means to be Christian.
If schools and churches want chaplains - they can pay for them. No government money should be invovled at all.
Youth workers? Fine. Religious workers? No.
June 26th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Toddy,
I agree with some of your conclussions (yes it is great that the church in SA is untied in supporting an effective Christian chaplaincy program) but not your reasons.
As discussed under the “The Great South Land of the Holy Spirit” thread, the country is God’s - as all of the earth is. This country was here for thousands of years before any Christians existed let alone got their hands on it.
As for the nation that we are forming, yes many, even most of those who lay the foundations of our Commonwealth of Australia were Christian and we have been blessed to have many Godly principles reflected - if, sadly, all too dimly at times - in our nation’s law and order.
However, that doesn’t mean “us” Christians have an automatic right to exercise chaplaincy that “those other” people who were not descendant from Anglican convict boat people do not have.
Whenever I hear Christians talk about being the founders of a nation and therefore having special rights I hear echoing in my mind Jesus’ flipant joke to those relgious people in his day who claimed just because they were descendants of the founder they had the right to this or that … “Stop being precious, you are not THAT special. God could make Sons of Abraham out of these stones, if that is all God cared about!” (my paraphrase)
Let us not try and divide the country by saying we reserve for ourselves priveldges that we would not tollerate others excercising since they are not as truely, fundamentally Australian as we are. Lets focus on the love we can show (in this case any kid in a State school) for there is no law against that.
June 26th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Howdy Luke.. howya goin
agree with your view re history of Aust (and every other “Christian” country for that matter) in NSW we have permanent church funded scripture teachers who take lessons everyday but only on an opt in basis for the kids and their parents are notified.. i really don’t have a problem with that
June 26th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Back up a little folks and do some digging:
Where did this idea first emerge?
A Howard govt proposal, with $70,000 tossed into to help teach “values”.
Why at this time?
Anything to with wedge politics! School not a bad place to continue the culture wars. Was it just a coincidence that Campus Crusade flooded schools with the latest creationism DVD?Not on your nellie;Bill Bright’s name has been associated with every significant right wing religious and political organisation in the States for decades.
What happens when the state begins funding the church?
Well take alook at the church welfare,aged care and employment programs funded by govts.First comes the contracts which prohibits any criticism of the govt - no room for prophets in govt funded programs,then comes the regulation etc.The denomination to which I belong has a multimillion dollar program of aged care with minimal comnnection with the denomination and never says a word about the scandal of aged care in the community and certainly wont be making any comment on the govt while it continues to draw in big bucks. And the sad thing is that as the market moves very few of the current church aged care programs will survive as the Amercan care conglomerates move in.
Is it not a cop out by the churches,why should govt’s fund the churches and not the Muslims,atheists and hawthorn footy club - now theres a religion with values.
Why does the Govt want the church hooked into the values debate? Why arent they satisfied with their multimillion dollar values program already up and running?Why does this govt continue to denigrate public education and pump millions into the private schools?
Anyway there are more significant faith questions arent there?Wasnt the text for last week about the 70 going off into the world;well how come the Christians of today head of into private church schools,Christian schools or home parenting.Why arent they in the the thick of the public schools - sending their kids,sitting on school committees,driving their politicians up the wall,standing in soldarity with teacher unions.
If you’re a betting man or woman then you can be sure that if govts begin to raise the issue of values and chaplains,then the issue is far more than the meek and lowly chaplain offering counselling and solidarity!
June 26th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
I thought employing Christian Chaplains would be a good thing -
… until I thought that Hillsong might find a way to rort the system and place volunteer interns from thir Bible college placed on rotaional secondment in schools and have their wages paid by direct credit straight into LMI Inc.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:17 am
“well how come the Christians of today head of into private church schools,Christian schools or home parenting.Why arent they in the the thick of the public schools - sending their kids,sitting on school committees,driving their politicians up the wall,standing in soldarity with teacher unions.”
because our kids don’t have the maturity or knowledge to cope with arguing with teachers that are educated and highly antagonistic towards our beliefs and can easily out argue them… why.. because their parents are uneducated and can’t give them the answers they need….
soooo they are left with 2 choices … educate themselves adequately and their children or take them out of that environment…
personally im inclined to educate them myself… my kids are the most precious things in my life that i am responsible for… why let them be educated by someone who i don’t know, into their worldview when a worldview is so important
June 29th, 2006 at 11:18 am
LF - that actually sounds plausable
June 29th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Gee, Christian schools….teaching the values of Jesus, like exclusivity, wealth and intolerance.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Plausable but its not the gospel position
June 29th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
yep luke .. they can be some of the worst
alan. i know its not the gospel position as LF was saying something that would be dishonest in the extreme if it were true…. i just wouldn’t put it past Illsong to try a stunt like that…
June 29th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Luke, your argument is old, and it missed what I was endeavouring to suggest (I’ll take responsibility for that much). I’m not suggesting that all founding Australians were Christians, or that all founding Christians acted ‘Christ like’, simply that the basis of our laws was (originally) biblically based. Not muslim, buddhist, hindi or orange people based, but bible - you know, 10 commandments, grace, accountability, etc…
THEREFORE!! I’ll get good and proper snotty when people try and tell me that it’s unaustralian to be Christian, or shows a lack of tolerance (that damned word again) or whatever.
YES!! Some Christians (even today, it will surprise many readers here!) are prats and act in pratty ways. That is a problem with them, not the bible, or with God! God has always been surrounded by prats - it’s His greatest act of mercy not to lightning bolt Christian prats as a matter of course!!
When I read the article, I just got a bit incensed that when people advocate for no ‘religious tripe’, they actually mean they want either no tripe, or secular/humanist tripe - GUESS WHAT (yes I’m shouting, but I’m being nice about it) SECULAR AND HUMANIST ARE ORGANISED SYSTEMS OF THOUGHT/BELIEF AS WELL - THEY’RE GODDAM RELIGIONS!!
Should Christians try and take over Aus? Including political parties and the like? No - that would be the ultimate act of prattishness. However, I believe that Christian chaplains (not RE teachers, not priests in govvy schools etc) are going to offer a pretty fair foundation of help and assistance for kids. Will they always get it perfect? No. BUT they are likely to remain connected with positive networks that will keep them accountable and supported.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Fair enough Toddy - but Australia was also founded with no ‘established’ religion….so why should the Government pay for it? Chaplains by all means, but let the churches find the cash.
Interestingly enough, I think you may find that an Aboriginal person would take issue with youre definition of when Australia was ‘founded’….how about some Government cash to put an Aboriginal elder in every school?
June 29th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
A good call, and one that I would support re local elders.
Gov paying for it? Well, down this way (SW of WA) it’s mostly church/community funded. Don’t know about other regions.
I like seeing Gov pay some tho, because if it’s not funding through chaplains, it will be funding through other govt based welfare schemes. Might as well put the $$ into proactive measures, rather than reactive.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
No churches already get tax breaks as charitable institutions. Lets not blur the line for both churches and governments - no government money for chaplains.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
I don’t agree. Chaplains are helping teachers in enough forms to warrant being supported by the same body that supports teachers (Ed Dept)
Churches and chaplains are not the same thing. To assume they must be treated the same, or be viewed through the same lens derides both.
Yes government money for chaplains.
June 29th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Chaplains are religious people. They should be supported by religious bodies - bodies that are already given tax-exempt status by the government to help them with their activities.
Non-religious counsellors? Heck yes, I’m all for that. But why should a non-religiously-partisan government pay for religious chaplains?
June 29th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Because they are not simply helping other ‘religious’ people. They are there to help everyone! So, being there to help the public, the public purse should be opened (even just a bit!) They are providing a service that the PUBLIC deems to be useful, which is why each school in question has them in their system, which is why the PUBLIC (via taxes) should help a little bit…
Oh - everyone is religious. The ones who say they aren’t just don’t know it!!
You know I’m right - stop kidding yourself!
June 29th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
I’m with you luke.
There are 2 very clear issues:first who,how and why is the Howard govt pumping up the issue at this time,the answer to that it may or may not have anything to do with chaplains - I suspect it has nothing to do with chaplains as such, but a positioning by a govt getting itself ready for an election; and secondly whether or not the state should be subsidising the church to do religion,preach christ,proclaim the kingdom,judge the evil etc
June 29th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
“Because they are not simply helping other ‘religious’ people. They are there to help everyone!”
Yes, they are there to help everyone - in a RELIGIOUS way! Goodness me, if you followed that logic, you’d subsidise Jehovah’s Witness missionaries because they preach to EVERYONE.
June 29th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
They preach to everyone, but they don’t help everyone. Most non-JW’s don’t want their help. Different with chaplains.
Hey - we’ve had chaplains doing great stuff over here (WA) in primary and secondary schools for years… (at least 15 that I can recall). Jonny H may be jumping onto the bandwagon, but he hasn’t started anything…
Look, over here, chaplains get used to help with memorial services for student deaths and earth shattering disasters, they help with leadership groups, they help parents with parenting skills ie courses as well as 1-1 help, they offer a place of refuge (usually their highly decorative offices) for suicidal students, they link same with external services and provide a mediative link between various interest groups, they run camps for kids who struggle to fit in - in fact, what they don’t do MUCH of, is pray and preach. What the hell are chaplains doing over where YOU live?
(you said ‘goodness me’ like you’re exasperated… have I exasperated you?)
June 30th, 2006 at 11:52 am
I don’t see why schools (read government) shouldn’t pay for appropriately qualified chaplains. If the position of a chaplain is a valuable one within a school (and I mean that as distinct from a counsellor, social worker etc) then why shouldn’t they pay for it? Just because there is no state religion shouldn’t preclude government funding of anything which is religious. That would have the effect that the government actively discourages religion by treating them less favourably than non-religous services.
Let’s be clear, I don’t suggest that chaplains should always be Christian - at some schools it would be more appropriate for the school population to employ a muslim chaplain or an aboriginal elder. So long as the position was a chaplain to all of the school, and not just to a particular group. The (christian) chaplain that was at one of my high schools was a chaplain to everyone and was not overtly religious unless it was raised by the student or otherwise warranted.
I don’t understand why a school/government should not fund a position which is effective and for the benefit of students just because it might be filled by a religous person.
June 30th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Dan,
- who decides what religion the chaplain should be at any particular school? Can you really see JWH and his crew funding Muslim chaplains in schools?
- the point is not that someone filling the position might be religious. There are religious teachers, support staff, counsellours…..etc etc. The point is that it is a religious position.
Toddy,
- if a chaplains job is simply what you described, why not fund a school counsellor instead?
June 30th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Why not indeed. However, we have chaplains doing the role, supported by churches ($ & emotionally & volunteers) and they do a great job.
Get off their case!
Why not fund a counsellor? Because the govt would have t support the WHOLE lot, rather than the % it currently has to.
Luke - sorry mate, but you’re simply making argument for argument sake now. You’re lacking your normal pragmatism.
(say ’sorry’ and I’ll forgive you - cheeky smile attached. I’m more playful than grumpy today…)