$245 million for Chaplains

While I do applaud the honesty in not hiding behind a pseudonym, it is nonetheless rather apparent that there is an agenda in this post and even anonymity would not have masked that.

As I said before, behaving in a respectful impartial way is part of personal professionalism and a person’s personal beliefs are irrelevant in determining their capability in this regard. There are those who try to push their agenda against religion just as there are those who push their religion on others. If one is being employed on the understanding that they are not to be pushy or not understanding in this way, then that can be expected as part of their performance in the workplace.

It may have been the case back in your day at a Catholic School and being an alter boy, that the way religion was dealt with was more overt and in that specific environment, quite pushy. That seems to have cause some resentment in you, as evidenced by your statement demonstrating a lack of respect for religion by saying that they should “keep their imaginary friends to themselves”. If we have chaplains who are more capable than you in demonstrating respect for other’s beliefs, then it won’t be a problem.

I find it somewhat offensive that you’re on the one hand being somewhat disrespectful and on the other claiming that 100% of chaplains are incapable of being respectful of other beliefs. There seems to be a degree of hypocrisy there. Even the pope has now said that he believes atheists can go to heaven. Things are becoming more modern, accepting and inclusive than back in your day.

justin heywood said :

rhino said :

magiccar9 said :

I really disagree to this post. At present this site is being used by the Labor party to slag-off their opposition (see recent posts from Barr and Rattenbury re: budget).

This post in particular is basically just Hargreaves spouting his Abbott-hating, non-religious beliefs in the attempt that he hopes someone agrees with him to feel all warm and fuzzy. Honestly John, you should really think carefully about your next post here.

FWIW – I have no religious or political following. I’m neutral on the topic of Chaplains in schools, and believe that if someone wants to utilise the service they will. Those who don’t want it, simply don’t use it.

Very strong points here. If no schools want chaplains, this money goes unspent. Where is the “forcing” there?

And on what information is this statement made that they are unqualified bible bashers? Anything to back that up or is that basically just slander against the numerous fully qualified and reasonable people in that occupation? Everyone has a bias on religious issues. Being an atheist is equally a position that someone could try to push on others. Handling your own bias in a professional manner is something that is an individual professionalism thing. A counselor could do this badly potentially. Just because you can imagine some bible bashing scenario doesn’t mean that that is reality.

+1 to that, and FWIW I’m no christian either.

Hargreaves is presenting himself and commenting here as a public figure, usually referring to his political background in his posts. Therefore I think that his record and background is entirely relevant to the discussion. But if my experience is any guide, many posts critical of him are failing moderation.

To all the Johno bashers out there, nice to hear from you. Incidentally, I put my former employ on my name so that no-one can accuse me of hiding anywhere. I am what I am and don’t hide behind pseudonyms, which is of course your right. But don’t bag me because I am honest about my previous employ.

This thread has been great because it has shared a variety of views on chaplaincy in schools and the way in which the Government is forcing, through the public purse, a religiosity on schools which was canned some time ago.

It is sad to hear that a non religious counsellor is getting the sack because the school funding is only for chaplaincy services.

Remember well… chaplains do provide counselling services but their main raison d’etre is to represent their particular faith. That’s why they are chaplains and not counsellors. They are the interface between the poor soul and the chaplain’s God. For much of my school years I was a Catholic school student, an altar boy and at one time thought about holy orders. But now, I respect people’s rights to refuse indoctrination and would ask that people keep their imaginary friends to themselves.

rhino said :

magiccar9 said :

I really disagree to this post. At present this site is being used by the Labor party to slag-off their opposition (see recent posts from Barr and Rattenbury re: budget).

This post in particular is basically just Hargreaves spouting his Abbott-hating, non-religious beliefs in the attempt that he hopes someone agrees with him to feel all warm and fuzzy. Honestly John, you should really think carefully about your next post here.

FWIW – I have no religious or political following. I’m neutral on the topic of Chaplains in schools, and believe that if someone wants to utilise the service they will. Those who don’t want it, simply don’t use it.

Very strong points here. If no schools want chaplains, this money goes unspent. Where is the “forcing” there?

And on what information is this statement made that they are unqualified bible bashers? Anything to back that up or is that basically just slander against the numerous fully qualified and reasonable people in that occupation? Everyone has a bias on religious issues. Being an atheist is equally a position that someone could try to push on others. Handling your own bias in a professional manner is something that is an individual professionalism thing. A counselor could do this badly potentially. Just because you can imagine some bible bashing scenario doesn’t mean that that is reality.

+1 to that, and FWIW I’m no christian either.

Hargreaves is presenting himself and commenting here as a public figure, usually referring to his political background in his posts. Therefore I think that his record and background is entirely relevant to the discussion. But if my experience is any guide, many posts critical of him are failing moderation.

Yeah and the schools, already under funded are likely to hire an extra staff member? When they could get one from the allocated federal funding and not have to pay anything?

I think it’s a terrible idea. It makes the chaplains unapproachable. Our focus should be on the children and if the people most at risk feel uncomfortable seeking help then what good is it?

If you think this is not about religion then you really need to look again.

Maya123 said :

rhino said :

Maya123 said :

magiccar9 said :

I really disagree to this post. At present this site is being used by the Labor party to slag-off their opposition (see recent posts from Barr and Rattenbury re: budget).

This post in particular is basically just Hargreaves spouting his Abbott-hating, non-religious beliefs in the attempt that he hopes someone agrees with him to feel all warm and fuzzy. Honestly John, you should really think carefully about your next post here.

FWIW – I have no religious or political following. I’m neutral on the topic of Chaplains in schools, and believe that if someone wants to utilise the service they will. Those who don’t want it, simply don’t use it.

The topic of chaplains in schools is not neutral though, because if a school wants councillors for the students it now has to be a chaplain; it can’t be a religious neutral person. And we are all paying for this biased service. Also the present non-religious councillors are going to be sacked, and then out of work. All this for the Abbot government to press their definitely not neutral agenda.

Where are you getting this? You’re clearly allowed to retain your current counsellors or employ new ones at your own desire. This is an additional pool of money made available for people who request a Chaplain for their school. Nobody is forcing the schools to take chaplains.

This is not what I read. The article I read (I didn’t keep it, so can’t provide a reference) featured a councillor who would be losing their job as the funding would no longer fund them; only chaplains. This has been backed up from government comments saying only chaplains would be funded. If this article was wrong it would be great. What reference can you supply that this is the case? A Liberal politician on Q&A was asked by a non-religious councillor who was going to lose their job under the new legislation, why non-religious councillors were to be excluded. The politician replied that it was appropriate because Australia was a Christian country. The $250,000,000 is only for religious chaplains.

Yes this money from the federal government in this one program is only for chaplains. This isn’t the only money schools receive however. The schools are funded by the states. This is additional funding on top of whatever the school’s normal budget is. They can use their normal budget to hire as many counselors as they wish. They aren’t being forced to take on a chaplain for free with the federal government footing the bill. They have to ask for one. If no school asks for this grant from the federal government to hire a chaplain, the money will not be spent at all.

rhino said :

Maya123 said :

magiccar9 said :

I really disagree to this post. At present this site is being used by the Labor party to slag-off their opposition (see recent posts from Barr and Rattenbury re: budget).

This post in particular is basically just Hargreaves spouting his Abbott-hating, non-religious beliefs in the attempt that he hopes someone agrees with him to feel all warm and fuzzy. Honestly John, you should really think carefully about your next post here.

FWIW – I have no religious or political following. I’m neutral on the topic of Chaplains in schools, and believe that if someone wants to utilise the service they will. Those who don’t want it, simply don’t use it.

The topic of chaplains in schools is not neutral though, because if a school wants councillors for the students it now has to be a chaplain; it can’t be a religious neutral person. And we are all paying for this biased service. Also the present non-religious councillors are going to be sacked, and then out of work. All this for the Abbot government to press their definitely not neutral agenda.

Where are you getting this? You’re clearly allowed to retain your current counsellors or employ new ones at your own desire. This is an additional pool of money made available for people who request a Chaplain for their school. Nobody is forcing the schools to take chaplains.

This is not what I read. The article I read (I didn’t keep it, so can’t provide a reference) featured a councillor who would be losing their job as the funding would no longer fund them; only chaplains. This has been backed up from government comments saying only chaplains would be funded. If this article was wrong it would be great. What reference can you supply that this is the case? A Liberal politician on Q&A was asked by a non-religious councillor who was going to lose their job under the new legislation, why non-religious councillors were to be excluded. The politician replied that it was appropriate because Australia was a Christian country. The $250,000,000 is only for religious chaplains.

magiccar9 said :

I really disagree to this post. At present this site is being used by the Labor party to slag-off their opposition (see recent posts from Barr and Rattenbury re: budget).

This post in particular is basically just Hargreaves spouting his Abbott-hating, non-religious beliefs in the attempt that he hopes someone agrees with him to feel all warm and fuzzy. Honestly John, you should really think carefully about your next post here.

FWIW – I have no religious or political following. I’m neutral on the topic of Chaplains in schools, and believe that if someone wants to utilise the service they will. Those who don’t want it, simply don’t use it.

Very strong points here. If no schools want chaplains, this money goes unspent. Where is the “forcing” there?

And on what information is this statement made that they are unqualified bible bashers? Anything to back that up or is that basically just slander against the numerous fully qualified and reasonable people in that occupation? Everyone has a bias on religious issues. Being an atheist is equally a position that someone could try to push on others. Handling your own bias in a professional manner is something that is an individual professionalism thing. A counselor could do this badly potentially. Just because you can imagine some bible bashing scenario doesn’t mean that that is reality.

Maya123 said :

magiccar9 said :

I really disagree to this post. At present this site is being used by the Labor party to slag-off their opposition (see recent posts from Barr and Rattenbury re: budget).

This post in particular is basically just Hargreaves spouting his Abbott-hating, non-religious beliefs in the attempt that he hopes someone agrees with him to feel all warm and fuzzy. Honestly John, you should really think carefully about your next post here.

FWIW – I have no religious or political following. I’m neutral on the topic of Chaplains in schools, and believe that if someone wants to utilise the service they will. Those who don’t want it, simply don’t use it.

The topic of chaplains in schools is not neutral though, because if a school wants councillors for the students it now has to be a chaplain; it can’t be a religious neutral person. And we are all paying for this biased service. Also the present non-religious councillors are going to be sacked, and then out of work. All this for the Abbot government to press their definitely not neutral agenda.

Where are you getting this? You’re clearly allowed to retain your current counselors or employ new ones at your own desire. This is an additional pool of money made available for people who request a Chaplain for their school. Nobody is forcing the schools to take chaplains.

Not trained? Merely find all answers to all problems by reference to the bible?

I’m not so sure that that is accurate. If it was, it’d certainly be a strong point.

What if they are also trained counselors and are modern in terms of not being a bible bashers and respectful of other views, as would be expected of anyone in that position in our society today? And if they accept far less pay to provide this equally qualified service? Therefore more student welfare issues are resolved on the whole for the spend.

I’d accept the point that letting the schools choose between one or the other is probably preferable, but the idea that these chaplains would be a net negative rather than a positive is something I don’t accept. That and that they are untrained…that doesn’t seem to be the case from my experience.

$245 million is a lot of money for a system no one asked for and most people reject

same thing could be said about Canberra light rail but not a word spoken by Mr John Hargreaves
Former ACT Minister and MLA .
$600 million + is a lot of money for a system no one asked for and most people reject

milkman said :

A lot of assumptions in this thread. It will probably offend people, but most chaplains are actually there to provide counselling and guidance, and not to ram religion down anyone’s throat.

So what qualifications do they need? A councillor is trained in counselling and guidance, a religious chaplains are trained in brainwashing. So we’re getting chaplains to do replace councillors to not teach religion but teach something they aren’t trained in?

I hope the high court challenge for this gets up and saves us some $$$$. Otherwise next thing you know all the school holidays will be based on Christian faith.

A lot of assumptions in this thread. It will probably offend people, but most chaplains are actually there to provide counselling and guidance, and not to ram religion down anyone’s throat.

Whether they should be paid for by tax dollars is, of course, another matter.

An absolute disgrace. The purpose of schools is education, not brainwashing.

magiccar9 said :

I really disagree to this post. At present this site is being used by the Labor party to slag-off their opposition (see recent posts from Barr and Rattenbury re: budget).

This post in particular is basically just Hargreaves spouting his Abbott-hating, non-religious beliefs in the attempt that he hopes someone agrees with him to feel all warm and fuzzy. Honestly John, you should really think carefully about your next post here.

FWIW – I have no religious or political following. I’m neutral on the topic of Chaplains in schools, and believe that if someone wants to utilise the service they will. Those who don’t want it, simply don’t use it.

The topic of chaplains in schools is not neutral though, because if a school wants councillors for the students it now has to be a chaplain; it can’t be a religious neutral person. And we are all paying for this biased service. Also the present non-religious councillors are going to be sacked, and then out of work. All this for the Abbot government to press their definitely not neutral agenda.

I really disagree to this post. At present this site is being used by the Labor party to slag-off their opposition (see recent posts from Barr and Rattenbury re: budget).

This post in particular is basically just Hargreaves spouting his Abbott-hating, non-religious beliefs in the attempt that he hopes someone agrees with him to feel all warm and fuzzy. Honestly John, you should really think carefully about your next post here.

FWIW – I have no religious or political following. I’m neutral on the topic of Chaplains in schools, and believe that if someone wants to utilise the service they will. Those who don’t want it, simply don’t use it.

Will a student be refused support if they state they are an atheist? (Gooterz)

Many schools that are private take in people who do not have faith in God nor believe in anything (ie Children from families that are atheist) are accepted into private schools – the majority of Catholic schools both primary and secondary are educating Children of non-faith/belief in God.

For the record another poster made a comment in relation to Catholics kicking up about the situation of a Chaplain being Muslim. There are Counsellors and Chaplains already in place whom are of all denominations and beliefs counselling and chaplaining our Australian school Children.

By the way, there are many Teachers of non-faith teaching and whom have taught in Catholic and other private Schools throughout Australia.

Catholic school Children are taught about other religions within the school curriculum Faith based subject of religion which includes Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam and religious studies of other cultures.

A girlfriend of mine recently placed her 13 year old Daughter in a Catholic Secondary School; she is an atheist.

All the best on your ‘soul’ journeys.

Affirmative Action Man said :

You can see why most people have contempt for politicians. Johno how about you answer the question that has been put by several posters as to why the Rudd & Gillard Governments continued the scheme ?

Didn’t Labour give schools the option of having a non faith based person fulfilling the role of a chaplain. Which in my books is perfectly ok. Apparently though Liberal are cutting the non faith based option out.

So either have all or none. I bet there would be outrage if they hired a few people of islamic or other faith rather than catholic faith….

Will an untrained Chaplain spot problems that councillors are trained to spot?
Who will a Chaplain refer a student to for support? God or a trained councillor?

If a student is being abused by others will the Chaplain provide means of support and refer to the relevant government department or just ask the kid to pray for their safety?

Will a student be refused support if they state they are an atheist?

None of these issues occur with properly trained and accredited councillors.

Do chaplains have the same privacy as a councillor?

scorpio63 said :

A Chaplain represents Jesus Christ our Saviour/God/The Holy Spirit – God is not a ‘religion’ firstly John, contrary to what anti-religious zealots and crusaders choose to believe.

The Salvation Army whom provide Chaplains and a Chaplaincy service throughout Australia and of course the A.C.T. are nothing short of brilliant in providing wonderful support to Families, Schools, Prisons and people living in desperate need of assistance within our Communities.

…all through God.

The Salvos Chaplains are not out to push religion onto people during Counselling.

You need to address your religious fears and heal your heart John from any religious related Childhood or Adult negative experiences in order for yourself to move forward – and hopefully for your own soul good towards Jesus/God.

By dwelling on religion and thinking of Religion in relation to your Grandchildren – the opposite of your own wishes will come about.

ie your Fears will manifest into reality and your Children will be a part of a religious group or denomination. Just pray that when this occurs it is Christianity John before Jesus does indeed appear here on Earth soon. Reference: Jesus’ Holy Messages and our Lady Mary Mother of God’s Holy Messages speaking to my Heart as of 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.

If I want religion in my grandkids heads, I will rely on their parents, not an Abbott, a Bishop nor a Pope.

It’s like astroturfing your own straw-man. (Promise I didn’t.)

Prosecution rests.

A Chaplain represents Jesus Christ our Saviour/God/The Holy Spirit – God is not a ‘religion’ firstly John, contrary to what anti-religious zealots and crusaders choose to believe.

The Salvation Army whom provide Chaplains and a Chaplaincy service throughout Australia and of course the A.C.T. are nothing short of brilliant in providing wonderful support to Families, Schools, Prisons and people living in desperate need of assistance within our Communities.

…all through God.

The Salvos Chaplains are not out to push religion onto people during Counselling.

You need to address your religious fears and heal your heart John from any religious related Childhood or Adult negative experiences in order for yourself to move forward – and hopefully for your own soul good towards Jesus/God.

By dwelling on religion and thinking of Religion in relation to your Grandchildren – the opposite of your own wishes will come about.

ie your Fears will manifest into reality and your Children will be a part of a religious group or denomination. Just pray that when this occurs it is Christianity John before Jesus does indeed appear here on Earth soon. Reference: Jesus’ Holy Messages and our Lady Mary Mother of God’s Holy Messages speaking to my Heart as of 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.

If I want religion in my grandkids heads, I will rely on their parents, not an Abbott, a Bishop nor a Pope.

justin heywood said :

Johno said :

…and thanks to the Liberal apologists for outing themselves.

Gee John, I didn’t know you could be ‘outed’ as a Liberal. Perhaps in your narrow world being a liberal equates to being gay or having some terrible disease, but I think you’ll find that there’s more than a few around.*

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

And I’m sick of hearing that cos Labor did it, it is ok for the Libs to do it. Rubbish. People voted for the Libs for whatever reason they had not because they would do what Labor proposed. they must own their own mistakes and untruths.

If I want religion in my grandkids heads, I will rely on their parents, not an Abbott, a Bishop nor a Pope.

You may be sick of hearing about it John, but it’s a fair question. Where were you when it was Labor policy? The whole post smacks of confected anger and cynical populism. Abbott is on the nose at the moment, and up you pop out of nowhere, suddenly the champion of the separation of powers. I don’t buy it.

*FWIW, I am an extremely lapsed Catholic and dedicated non-believer. I’m no fan of Abbott, but view the alternatives as even worse.

In answer to where was I when it was Labor policy, I was an MLA speaking publicly against it. I have been a vocal supporter of the separation of church and state for 40 years. I have also been a supporter of the doctrine of the separation of the powers (something entirely different) between the Executive, the Parliament and the Judiciary.

Call me old fashioned if you like but I like to dream that the churches will keep their influences out of politics.

The choice of a kid to avoid a course of instruction is a bit like the choices of low paid workers in WorkChoices…

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

If I want religion in my grandkids heads, I will rely on their parents, not an Abbott, a Bishop nor a Pope.

It isn’t compulsory for children to attend the chaplaincy program, is it?

Johno said :

…and thanks to the Liberal apologists for outing themselves.

Gee John, I didn’t know you could be ‘outed’ as a Liberal. Perhaps in your narrow world being a liberal equates to being gay or having some terrible disease, but I think you’ll find that there’s more than a few around.*

John Hargreaves Ex MLA said :

And I’m sick of hearing that cos Labor did it, it is ok for the Libs to do it. Rubbish. People voted for the Libs for whatever reason they had not because they would do what Labor proposed. they must own their own mistakes and untruths.

If I want religion in my grandkids heads, I will rely on their parents, not an Abbott, a Bishop nor a Pope.

You may be sick of hearing about it John, but it’s a fair question. Where were you when it was Labor policy? The whole post smacks of confected anger and cynical populism. Abbott is on the nose at the moment, and up you pop out of nowhere, suddenly the champion of the separation of powers. I don’t buy it.

*FWIW, I am an extremely lapsed Catholic and dedicated non-believer. I’m no fan of Abbott, but view the alternatives as even worse.

Affirmative Action Man said :

You can see why most people have contempt for politicians. Johno how about you answer the question that has been put by several posters as to why the Rudd & Gillard Governments continued the scheme ?

Firstly let me apologise for using my personal login “Johno” earlier. I am new to this technology. But to answer your question, let me say that it was dopey then and it is dopey now. The public saw how dopey it was then and said so. I just hope they do so again. And I’m sick of hearing that cos Labor did it, it is ok for the Libs to do it. Rubbish. People voted for the Libs for whatever reason they had not because they would do what Labor proposed. they must own their own mistakes and untruths.

If I want religion in my grandkids heads, I will rely on their parents, not an Abbott, a Bishop nor a Pope.

You can see why most people have contempt for politicians. Johno how about you answer the question that has been put by several posters as to why the Rudd & Gillard Governments continued the scheme ?

Thanks for the support for the notion of separation of church and state, something Mr Abbott doesn’t support. And thanks to the Liberal apologists for outing themselves.

I have served on two public school boards,was educated in the main by the Marist Brothers. I reckon I am a bit more qualified to seek a reversal of this propaganda from that right wing Catholic zealot who wants to take away our choice for education for our kids.

This is the first real indication that he has an agenda for schooling. I wondered why he wanted to emasculate public schooling by killing Gonski. Now I know.

I probably should also list http://highcourtchallenge.com, anybody who cares about this should donate to the challenge, even after it’s over. It shows support for the cause, and besides, even though the first court case was in 2010, Ron still hasn’t been paid costs yet.

What John Hargreaves was alluding to but failed to mention was that under Labor, the schools chaplaincy also included secular chaplains (humanists etc). This provision has been removed by Abbott. I’m not sure John was even aware of this program before this government, I’m not sure many have.

It should also be noted that this program has already been found unconstitutional by the high court, and was recently taken to the high court again. This is the federal government thumbing their noses at the high court.

For more information, I suggest you checkout http://thatsmyphilosophy.wordpress.com/, she’s blogged in detail the changes to the Schools Chaplaincy Program, as well as the high court challenges.

Can a question on this please be raised on Q&A tonight? Why is our government sanctioning religious influence in public schools.

Not that long ago the fundamentalists were up in arms as this same program was used by Imams to talk about Islam in schools. It’s either secular, correctly training counsellors or not at all.

Hey John, perhaps you could enlighten us on how much the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd governments spent on chaplains during their six years at the top? You’re trying to make this sound like Tony Abbott is doing something new here. He’s not. Chaplaincy programs have been government funded for a LONG time. This isn’t a new program, and it’s not a Liberal initiative. Stop being deceptive.

Secondly, “$245 million is a lot of money for a system no one asked for”. I categorically refute this. There are a lot of public schools that have requested and made very good use of chaplains. Generally speaking, the chaplains are there to offer guidance, basic counseling, dispute resolution, and other similar services. Their services are sought out by teachers/students, and not forced on anybody in the way the rioters above me are trying to insinuate. This is not an issue of the government funding religions. It’s about the government funding schools to pay for a service they utilise and need. Churches are often the only ones willing and able to provide the service, or even have an interest in doing so. And, quite frankly, the remuneration is not great.

Perhaps you ought to familiarise yourself with how the chaplaincy program works before screaming “religion religion!”.

Chaplains are DANGEROUS.

Letting skydad worshipers advise kids in trouble is a recipe for disaster.

Very dishonest and disingenuous post. “New” attempt to “force” religion into our schools? Hardly. Labor kept on and on funding the chaplain program. Why ? Purely because there’s a strong Christian lobby, and both sides of parliament are somewhat beholden to it. So, Hargreaves, if it’s a loony idea it’s Labor’s loony idea too.

I have to agree with the comments so far. Chaplains don’t have a place in government schools. The money should be spent on qualified councillors.

I seriously have a problem with paying organized religion to provide chaplains. I’m sure the tax rebates they receive as non profits would amount to we’ll more than $245 million.

I agree that $245m is a waste of my/our hard earned taxpayer money. I protested strongly to the Catholic Church…err sorry Prime Minister and cohorts about spending our money on superstitious nonsense. I don’t expect a reply…in the meantime let’s make it harder for older Australians, indigenous people and our veterans by promoting waffle and waste with a $245m price tag. Religion is a private matter and not the realm of the secular (?) state. But then again, what do you expect from a former Catholic priest and his religious twerps now running the country? Not a whole lot in this case.

I have generally disliked John Hargreaves as he comes across as a bully boy & seems wedded to the quasi Marxist dogma which went out of date in the 60’s however I have to agree with him on this – the whole chaplain exercise was a ridiculous waste of $$. If they want to hand it out let schools (through the parents) decide if they want a counsellor, part time psychologist or chaplain.