There is plenty of other material out there that demonstrates that you might be the one who is out of touch. With respect, your personal experience accounts for next to nothing when discussing the wider Australian community. Try to see the message being put forward to the Chaplians by the CEO of one of the leading ministries involved doesn't conflict with your own awareness of the 'other agenda' in this video (might have to copy and paste the link into a new browser if they don't remove the link). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgo1PdhTx-8

Nowhere has anyone here said that they want religion eradicated. What we want to see is the end of public funding to supporting evangelising. This is apparently a bad thing in your books.

I find it interesting that you can twist your understanding of your religion in your head until you think you are doing "good" by forcing children to interact with people suffering what, (as a non-religious person) I can only assume to be some form of mild psychosis, how would you like it if I told you from now on patients from the nearby mental hospital would have free, unsupervised access to your kids? Do you think your kids are going to walk away from that unscathed? How do you sit a primary school child down and explain to them that some adults aren't quite with it and need to cling to a bunch of incoherent and contradictory myths dreamed up by a bunch of inbred nomads in the desert thousands of years ago to explain a whole bunch of phenomena that we can explain quite easily today (of course, those particular myths were never meant to be taken literally). Pretty sure the Christ portrayed in the bible would not act this way.

I find it interesting that you can twist your understanding of your religion in your head until you think you are doing "good" by forcing children to interact with people suffering what, (as a non-religious person) I can only assume to be some form of mild psychosis, how would you like it if I told you from now on patients from the nearby mental hospital would have free, unsupervised access to your kids? Do you think your kids are going to walk away from that unscathed? How do you sit a primary school child down and explain to them that some adults aren't quite with it and need to cling to a bunch of incoherent and contradictory myths dreamed up by a bunch of inbred nomads in the desert thousands of years ago to explain a whole bunch of phenomena that we can explain quite easily today (of course, those particular myths were never meant to be taken literally). Pretty sure the Christ portrayed in the bible would not act this way.

David, I'm appalled at the contempt you continually show for the Australian people. This question is relevant to a lot more Australian than you might think. What if a chaplain leads a child to suicide because they are not properly trained. We should not be taking the cheaper option. Christianity is more based on fear than any other ideology in the world!

Also I'm not a member or supporter of the Atheist foundation. I'm a concerned citizen!

Wrong. Research before you speak, it's not hard. This years Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne which attracted over 4000 people from around the world raised quite a lot of money for Medicines sans Frontiers.

So for medical research. Something you could potentially be a beneficiary of. How about for the homeless, the depressed, the suicidal, the mentally ill, the marginalized?

Doctors Without Borders provide medical assistance in countries stricken by poverty, disease and plauge. They even provide medial services to those living under dictatorships. How much more marginalised would you like the people that they help to be?

Sorry, *plague* and *medical*.

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/

So none of the athiest foundation donations went to anything in Australia? Yet those you complain about and want stopped do lots in Australia

It doesn't help to only do lot's, it also has to be the right thing that you are doing. Quality over Quantity. I believe MSF was only mentioned as an example that many secular people identify with, since it has no religious affiliation at all. Many other organization have an unfortunate habit of wasting a lot of donations on proselytizing. In general I would guess that there are many other organisations that are also supported by secular australians.

Yes. Because not wanting someone else's religion imposed on my children is extremist.

Yes. Because not wanting someone else's religion imposed on my children is extremist.

Yes. Because not wanting someone else's religion imposed on my children is extremist.

An argument like yours is refered to as a "Non Sequitur" -- look it up.

Yes, because not wanting someone else's religion imposed on my children is extremist, right?

Perhaps a good idea would have been to read about them prior to commenting. You'd probably sound more intelligent that way.

Well, the same could be said for any organised religion couldn't it??

Such an argument is refered to as a "Non Sequitur"

You talk like its compulsory. And if religion is so stupid as you say it is, then have confidence that your children will see it that way. Such fear. It's unbelievable.

My children are free to choose their belief system, once they are old enough to make such a decision. But why would I agree to use my hard earned tax dollars for a program like this, when much better options are available? You stop praying in our schools and I promise not to think in your churches.

So Peter you obviously educate your children on religion also, its basis, its benefits, the arguments for the existence of God? Surely as a good parent you want it to be a real choice between two alternatives? I would hate to think that your children only hear Daddy poo pooing all those stupid people that believe in fairies and supernatural beings. That's not really a choice then is it?

My children are well aware of the various religions and some of the concepts they subscribe to. They have visited a Buddhist Temple, Christian church as well as a Muslim Mosque. Do I have a bias towards scularism? I'm sure I do, but that doesn't mean that I require the school system to indoctrinate my kids with my particular viewpoint. In all the comments pro the chaplaincy program on this page, the only argument in favour of the program so far has been that it is cheaper then hiring properly trained professionals. If this is really the only benefit, then I can only repeat the suggestion I posted yesterday. Scrap the program and hire professionals. The difference in cost can be covered by stopping all tax benefits for religious organisations. There is probably even going to be money left over.

Maybe be try a bit harder Peter. Things such as Process Theology have many intellectual and scientific reasoning's for the quantum mysteries of the Universe's molecular connectedness. You can find a wealth of very intellectual and scientific minds doing a lot deep thought on the nature of the universe at a sub-atomic level and how this relates to our conceptions of God and human inter-connectedness. It is way too easy to build a straw man from 12th-20th century religious representation and right off anything to do with it like a Richard Dawkins does. If you really care for intellectual thought and reasoning look a bit harder and don't be afraid of what your kids and you might find. Or not. Its your choice as always and forever it will be.

Check out things like the Veritas Forum that regularly debate the issues of science and religion and deep and intellectual scientific thinking on religion that even takes into account that the universe is more than 6000 years old! Surely that's a point in their favour?

I'm sorry, but I don't get your point. I need to try harder? At what? I was raised in a Cchristian family and dismissed the entire concept only as an adult. In my opinion, Religion provides no benefits to a society but is the cause of much (not all) conflict. However, that is far larger discussion then what this question is raising. Again, I would like for anybody to explain to me why I should favour a chaplaincy program over one that is run by properly trained professionals. Is there any argument for this program, other then the cost?

Your kids don't have to have anything to do with the chaplain. As only 18% of Australians identify as atheists, and a much lower percentage with your views, have you considered setting up your own schools to insulate yourselves from these evils?

I'm sorry, but I don't get your point. I need to try harder? At what? I was raised in a Cchristian family and dismissed the entire concept only as an adult. In my opinion, Religion provides no benefits to a society but is the cause of much (not all) conflict. However, that is far larger discussion then what this question is raising. Again, I would like for anybody to explain to me why I should favour a chaplaincy program over one that is run by properly trained professionals. Is there any argument for this program, other then the cost?

@David Oh, that is rich. So the school system is now de-facto christian and I need to setup my own private school if I prefer secular education? Maybe you like to run this idea past those parents that subscribe to other religions. I guess they will also have to setup their own schools, if they object to christian indoctrination.

That's the plan - unfortunately.

So you've read about the Foundation then? Visited their wesbite maybe or the wikipedia page about them? Or did you just decide to air your own ignorant biases? The AFA promotes secularism which is merely the removal of religious bias from the political arena. Secularism ensures the freedom of all peope to practice their own religion whilst not imposing it on others, this is beneficial for all, religious or not. The only reason a religious person would be opposed to secularism is hypocrisy. The desire to exert their own influence over government while of course preventing all the other "false" religions from having the same privilege.

All from the AFA website. "We can understand why primitive cultures believed that invisible beings controlled what we now call the elements and natural phenomena. With access to factual knowledge, there is now no excuse for believing in gods, fairies or any supernatural concept. We live in a natural universe with known natural laws. Religion, based on belief in the existence of the supernatural, is dependent on the indoctrination of infants generation after generation, by parents brainwashed in religious cultures. The confrontations and fighting today provide ample evidence of the unstable nature of societies, which endorse religious beliefs.It is recognised that the non-religious segment in society is on a steep increase but only through such organisations as the Foundation will it be recognised as a movement worthy of notice by administrative bodies.To offer reliable information in place of superstition and to offer the methodology of reason in place of faith so as to enable people to take responsibility for the full development of their potential as human beings. To promote atheism." Need anymore evidence Ryan?

Evidence for what? Where does it say that the AFA wants to outlaw religion?

Where does it say it promotes and welcomes the choice of people to be educated and informed on all possible alternatives, religion included? You only have to continually deride something to show your contempt and desire to eradicate it.

I'm sorry, but you have it ass-backwards. The aim is to remove religion from the political discourse and order to prevent a single viewpoint drowning out all others. That's all. What people seem to miss is that atheism is not a belief in itself, it just describes the lack of a belief. Atheism is a religion in the same way that not-stamp collecting is a hobby.

http://forum.tfbw.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=620 A clever essay on the fallacy of your stamp making (borrowed) analogy. I've heard that one before :)

Thanks for the link, but I'm not sure that I would call the 'assay' all that clever. It is a fairly laboured (even if fairly skilled) exercise in trying to make a point based on the amalgamation of various dictionary defintions. You could argue the opposite point, using a different set of dictionaries.

An 'assay' just means analysis Peter. It seems your deeply held belief's cannot be shaken...

Thanks Jerry, I know what the term means. The quotation marks were more of an indication of my opinion on the quality of this particular analysis. My beliefs are mostly based on observable evidence and so can easily be shaken. Just provide new evidence, that is contrary to my beliefs and I will change.

http://cyberterra.net/5wc/process-theology.pdf Here is an interesting place to start!

That assay fails in the first paragraph, by asserting that atheism is a religion. and that naturalism is a theology. Its nothing more than an exercise in wordplay and discombobulation.

The assertion that atheism is a religion is the whole point of the exercise Mark. I do hope you took the time read more than a paragraph. In fact the link was provided because of the 'wordplay and discombobulation' of Peter's stamp collecting analogy. But anyway, there is no point arguing with religious fanatics...

I do not accept the premise that atheism is a religion, no more than I would accept someones assertion that an amoral person has morals. The point in the stamp collecting analogy is to signify that we don't normal label ourselves according to things we don't believe in. We do though to distinguish ourselves from those that are theists. Or do you go around calling yourself an AZeusist, aFairyist or Asantaist? Because the world is so full of people that do believe in Fairies and Santa, that we need to distance ourselves from their beliefs(!)