Keep it loopy Olaf. It came about from a canny and clever politician seeing the potential in using a willing section of society to meet the growing welfare need of students for the most cost effective way possible. I'm sure Little Johnny had no trouble dealing with the flack that followed for the anti-religious, and anti-student wellbeing lobby groups.

Even assuming they provided this need, surely it makes more sense to put in people who are qualified to counsel them?

Well said

So if the chaplain cannot provide counseling due to a lack of training. And they also cannot provide any psychological or other health services. On top of that, they emphatically state that they do not use the opportunity to proselytise, then what exactly are they doing? What service do they provide, that a a qualified counselor cannot offer?

They run breakfast clubs, they facilitate self-esteem\emotional intelligence\resilience\anger management etc programs with groups of students, they are a first point of call for kids in crisis and they refer them to appropriate agencies, they actively promote the welfare of vulnerable children in the school, they meet families, they help school refusing kids get to school by visiting their homes, they assist in the transition of kids from Primary to Secondary School, they run mentoring programs, they support staff, they assist in class rooms, they take angry kids for a walk to cool off, they clean up puke, they run lunch time activities for kids for whom the yard is a dangerous and hostile place, they keep an eye on kids that are at risk of disconnecting, they play games, they provide food for kids that have none, they provide a safe place for kids that are struggling and more and more and more, they work in a team of professionals consisting of counsellors and social workers, they make caring and compassion a core value of their work. They also eat little children for breakfast and they tell kids they will burn in hell if they don't obey their every command. Cue whinging, whining Peter "But so can secular people". Of course they can! They can even do it with the same NSCP funding (shock, horror, GASP) and work as a welfare officer as an atheist secularist humanist. There are even vacancies right now so you, Peter, could quit whatever worthwhile job you do and put your money where your mouth is!

Well thank you Sammy for this rather comprehensive list of very worthwhile activities. I'm also glad that you essentially answered your own point at the end as well, saving me the trouble to do it myself. As to your last sentence, if you're really suggesting that I am only allowed an opinion on the matter, if I quit my job and work as a chaplain/counselor myself, then I have to wonder if you have really thought that through to it's conclusion?

Peter I have enjoyed the interaction. I am not suggesting your opinion is not worthwhile unless you quit your job and become a Welfare Officer. I am highlighting that too much of the criticism of the program is based on intellectually vacuous arguments that seek only to create a straw man that secularists can burn. It is clear that the vast majority of people who oppose it have no idea what Chaplains do (or as suggested, the need to protect secularism as an ideal trumps their need to care for young people) and how important a function it can be. I don't disagree that there is something inconsistent about a Commonwealth entity using Commonwealth funds to fund a religious group. But the need of young people is great, the whingers are many and the workers are few. With the appropriate checks and balances and with the appropriate consequences for those that breach trust there should be no reason why everybody shouldn't be happy that somebody is doing something about the welfare of young Australians in schools. I don't really understand what you mean when I say I answered my own point however.

Sammy, as this discussion winds down, maybe it is worthwhile to reiterate what it is actually about. The point of this question was not to suggest that young people do not require the services provided by the chaplaincy program. The point is rather that these services should be provided by a secular organisation that has not particular dogma its trying the disseminate (as in the stated goals of organisations like ACCESS). The fact that there currently is no secular organisation that could take on this task is not a sign of a lack of interest but rather a lack of opportunity. If you look at an organisation like Primary Ethics in NSW, which is responsible for the delivery of Ethics classes in NSW primary schools, you will see that secular people are just as able and w i l l i n g to volunteer their time as any religious person, once the required framework exists. So I like to see young people to continue to receive the assistance they currently have and probably even more. But I like this to be delivered rather by people that are well trained, than by people that are well meaning.

Fair enough. So if Chaplains were better trained you would be supportive of the program then? Which presumably means you know what the government currently requires as a minimum expectation and what someone like ACCESS requires as a minimum expectation. I would suggest you look at what Primary Ethics requires of its teachers and look at what is required of a Chaplain by the Federal Government (which is actually less than what is required to be endorsed by ACCESS) and tell me who is better qualified? You are making a case for an argument that has already been resolved. Which means that underlying all this is my most common assertion that this is not about anything else but a prejudice against religion. Lets call a spade a spade.

I mentioned Primary Ethics only as an example for a secular organisation, almost exclusively run by (unpaid) volunteers. The services provided by Primary Ethics are entirely different to that of the Chaplaincy service and so are the requirements. Your comparison is misleading, so let’s compare apples to apples please. You are welcome to compare the requirements of a Primary Ethics volunteer to the requirements of an SRE teacher in NSW. You will see that Primary Ethics places far greater requirements on its volunteers than any of the religious groups. As to the chaplains, yes if they were better trained, not working for an organisation that is openly trying to increase “discipleship” and provide counselling rather than ‘pastoral care’, then I’d be happy for them to provide services to the school. I don’t care what religious beliefs a school counsellor holds personally, as long as it does not influence how he performance his work. But I guess at that point we would just call them counsellors and no longer chaplains.

Well all the best Peter. I guess it is wasting my time to keep trying to tell you what Chaplains are not when you continue to keep telling me what you wish they were. As a former Chaplain I have a good insight into the issue and I dislike the misinformation that is peddled. But that is what happens when faith is thrown into the public realm, it provokes a response, which in my opinion only highlights how relevant it is to society. Be well.

I don't think that I have been trying to tell you what chaplains should be. I'm trying to tell you what I think the service to the school kids should entail and that this is not really covered by a chaplain. As I mentioned in my last post, a 'chaplain' providing the services I think should be provided, would be called a counsellor. It is somewhat sad to see that you are still unable to see what this discussion has been about. No one here has been able to make a compelling case for the continuation of the chaplaincy program, apart from that it is cheaper than hiring professionals. Unless you have an argument why these services should continue to be provided by religious organisations specifically, I suggest that the discussion should turn to the question how we can provide funding to hire professional counsellors, rather then to the question of whether or not to continue to have chaplains at schools.

Against my better judgement I will bite but how obtuse can you be? A debate is started specifically about Chaplains during the course of which I provide (at your request) a comprehensive and incomplete list of services provided. So because you can't refute that they are valuable services you'd rather shift the discussion on to the fact they should all just be counsellors (because in the modern mind everything can be solved by a Counsellor which only further highlights your ignorance of how to help kids) and the services I highlighted are not really the services kids need and all along this has not been about what Chaplains are its about what kids need. What do you know about what kids need? What do you know about what effectively helps struggling kids? You continue to ignore the fact that the services provided don't have to be delivered exclusively by religious organisations and that in fact many schools have independently hired Wellbeing Officers with the same NSCP funding. You are either a troll (and I am a fool) or you are just incapable of self-reflecting on your own prejudice against religion. You are not arguing from anything remotely like an informed point of view you are arguing from ideology which makes you just as dangerous as what you hate.

A debate was started on chaplains and their purpose in a government school, yes. Not necessarily the services they (officially) provide. I acknowledged the list of services you mentioned as a list of worthwhile activities. Then you stated, in answer to the question (which had not yet been phrased): Couldn’t a secular counsellor provide the same service?: “Of course they can! They can even do it with the same NSCP funding (shock, horror, GASP) and work as a welfare officer as an atheist secularist humanist.”. Now the argument has always been that I don’t want a chaplain to provide any services at a government school. I have never argued against the delivery of the services themselves. I have been trying to understand why people were so determined in keeping the chaplaincy service alive, if the same service could be provided without the religious component (look up the term chaplain if you fail to see the point here). Apart from the cost, no other argument was provided in favour of chaplains over a secular alternative. So I fail to see why this question now makes me ignorant and dangerous. In any case, you will have no argument from me on the point that you are a fool.

Rockman, have you considered the other religions wont do it? I dont believe it is closed to any group. Why doesnt the Athiest Foundation drum up some of their own, give up higher paid career opportunities, take on some training, and take on these positions in the schools. Then everyone will be happy. Wont happen because the Athiest Foundation is just a group of complainers, not a group of doers.

What you are proposing is ridiculous David. People don't want the Atheist Foundation involved in the school system, in much the same way that they don't want Christians infiltrating state schools.

Because there is no legislation or government funding which supports this. That's why.

David, the Atheist Foundation, as anyone with a minimum knowledge of what counselling involves, has stated that school counsellors should be professionals specifically qualified for this task. The AF, nor any organisation, should be providing this service; only professional psychologists.

Why would they? There are plenty of trained professionals about that could take these roles. The difference in pay can be covered by removing the tax benefits from religious groups. Problem solved.

@ Peter P. You are a fool if you think your solution is clever and workable. You clearly have absolutely no idea (or you simply don't care) what the tax benefits enable religious organisations to achieve for the poor, sick, destitute, homeless, disabled, trodden upon and forgotten people of this nation. You have frequently and smugly spouted this nonsense on this debate and prove only to show your contempt for those less fortunate than you and your contribution here should be treated with the equal amount of contempt it deserves.

Ahh, so if these tax benefits would be the hands of a secular organisation then they would clearly not help '[...]poor, sick, destitute, homeless, disabled, trodden upon and forgotten people of this nation [...]. Because we are all egomaniacs, that would care at all for our fellow men. It is only the religious. meek and mild, that would be able to perform these good deeds?

[...] that wouldn't care [...]

It's not an intellectual exercise Peter. That is the point. It is historically measured in every part of the world that those often (not always so don't start hyper ventilating) willing to work, willing to move, willing to sacrifice career, family, house, home and fellowship are religious. Don't rewrite history by playing the poor wounded secularist who loves people to. Refute my point.

Name me a single secular organisation that even scratches the shiny veneer on the surface of the scope of work Christians and other religious groups have done for society. Just one? Lucky for us all governments don't listen to extremist points of view such as yourself and sacrifice the good of others for hurt ideological feelings.

@ Jesse Langer. What a pathetic cop out. The reason Chaplains get money is because for centuries Christians have done it for nothing. What have the Atheist Foundation ever done for nothing? The worst form of hypocrites - believe in nothing so you stand for nothing so you produce....nothing.

Wow, I would think that the last thing someone backing the religious position would want to do is try and back up his poor and unsubstantiated claim with the historical behaviour of the devout...

Your kidding, right? Are you really that ignorant? OK, here we go : Amnesty International, Doctors without Borders, Engineering without Borders, Oxfam, Kiva, Rotary International, bloody UNICEF!!! To just name a few (let alone the one you requested).

Peter.P in the fine list the Athiest Foundation didn't get a mention. What have they done for people in Australia? Nothing.

The question was to name a single secular charity, not to list the achievements of the AFA. Moving the goal post are we?

You think that stacks up? Oxfam was started jointly with Quakers. Ever been to a Rotary meeting? Enjoy the grace before the meal? So two are shot already in not being the beacons of secular humanitarianism you wish them to be. You will never escape the superior compassionate contribution of those that are religious. @ Michael Curry. That is the most tired and lame argument that atheists like to throw out. Our recent history should be proof enough that a world without religion proves no better in its outcomes.

Well, I guess now it is my turn to call Bull Sh!t! This is how Oxfam Australia describes itself:"We are an independent development organisation and carry out our work free from party-political or religious agendas. We have no membership or affiliation to any political party or religion." -- Well, I guess that clearly sounds like a religious group, doesn't it. Rotary international also tries to stay as far away from religion as they possibly can, because they state on their page "In matters of faith and religion, prescriptive morality should be avoided, as it often is the root cause of hostility and divisiveness." -- Again, does that sound like a religious group? Are you being purposely dishonest, or are you just incapable of using google?

It's not hard Peter. My point is the foundation and motivation for beginning these organisations is from religious world views. You are not an unintelligent man, don't try to ignore the point because it does not suit your agenda. I have been to many Rotary meetings. I have spoken at Rotary meetings and it is formality to pray at their beginning. Its inescapable Peter. Don't fight it, embrace what religion has to offer because its absence will not be the utopia you hope it will be. Besides, its a mute point anyway because it will never be absent.

Oh, now it is the foundation on motivation of the charity, not what their current goals and motivations are. A few comments up you made the following challenge : "Name me a single secular organisation that even scratches the shiny veneer on the surface of the scope of work Christians and other religious groups have done for society. Just one?". I have met your challenge and now you are changing the rules. Why am I not surprised. Religion offers n o t h i n g, that could not be equally (or even better) offered by a secular organization, that enjoyed the same privileges and funding. That is the simple truth of the matter.

@Sammy. I believe the challenge was to list 1 secular aid organisation. Regardless of your opinion, I believe that challenge has been more than adequately met. As for my "argument", religious organisations are argued to be the pinnacle of (divinely controlled) moral guidance in our society. Religious organisations supposedly have a higher power guiding their hand - it shouldn't matter when in history we judge their behaviour. By which standard do we tell a moral religious group from an amoral one? Which parts of recent history that prove secular organisations are no better, exactly, are you referring to?

It was to list one secular aid. But you came up with a list that did not include the Athiest Foundation. Its actually been an education. Looking through the posts I would never have believed a group of such hate and fear existed today. Well not Australia. I am not religous, and I have children in government schools, but I have no fear of the chaplains. We have a number of teachers in jail for sex crimes against students, I am not aware of a single Chaplain in jail. Regardless of what a SU website says, the chaplians are rather contained in the school enviroment. Not much can happen in terms of indoctrination without the word getting out. But it could also be a teacher indoctrinating, but of course most likely it will be another student. The bottom line is there is not the money for the market based alternatives. Remember the federal government has been borrowing and spending like a drunken sailor.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what this means: "It was to list one secular aid. But you came up with a list that did not include the Athiest Foundation." Why would a list of secular aid organisations have included the AFA? I don't speak for the AFA (I'm not even a member), but I would classify them as a common interest group, similar to many others in Australia. I have listed several secular aid organisations, which provide their services without any religious motives. So I don't get what you argument is about. The rest of your post is only barely coherent. Where you see fear and hate, I see strong opinions and good arguments. And to suggest that teachers might be the bigger danger, because there have been arrests for sex-crimes, pretty much scrapes the bottom of the barrel of cheap argumentation.

And suggesting that Chaplains only motivation is to convert and push beliefs is not cheap argumentation?

No it isn't. Do you have any evidence that would suggest that one of the goals of the teachers federation is to make sex with children more wide spread? That would be absurd. Organisations like ACCESS ministries have a stated goal of using their position to make disciples.

One? Medecins Sans Frontieres.

you are projecting an awful lot there. You know not every kid wants/needs to be councilled. It's not really an either or thing as you say. Really you are being quite belittling as well " band-aid of evangelisers" .

Band-aid evangelisers are just that - they are not trained in youth work, social work, psychology or counselling. How are they expected to deal with issues of violence and abuse, rape and sexual assault, self-harm and suicide, bullying and harassment? It's not fair on the chaplains, and it definitely isn't fair on the kids.

Not EVERY kid wants/needs to be counselled, but the ones that do are very vulnerable and need a trained professional versed and practiced in dealing with the issue at hand, THEY DONT NEED a person, who, frankly, suffers from a mild psychosis (don't agree? Try discussing any issue with associated religious dogma with a church goer, round and around in circles we go, any evidence to the contrary is god testing them, an elaborate conspiracy led by the devil/satanist/athiests etc) taking advantage of their vulnerability to fill their head with nonsensical drivel.

Psychosis??? You are plain offensive. Is there something you want to share?