Hi,
Let me begin by saying that I am an atheist. As such I do have a slight issue with chaplains at school, but it really is nothing to do with brainwashing.
My first objection to this policy stems from the original intent behind it. The policy was instituted by the Howard government. Howard was an elitist, white christian conservative monarchist, if I have ever seen one. His govt. eroded public education over the decade it was in power, so the theory that this policy was intended for the betterment of the public education system and its stakeholders is inconsistent with their overall governance over the system. While it does sound like a conspiracy theory and while I do not have hard proof, I strongly suspect it was
designed to promote that government's ideology and pander to the christian lobby. After all, why not Rabbis? buddhist monks? gurus? Has anyone noticed how many kids from Chinese, Indians and other Asian ethnicities are out there? Can you imagine what the public reaction would have been if muslim muftis were allowed?
My second objection is based on a principle. We have separation of state and religion. There is currently a case pending before the high court
My third objection is why not counsellors? What makes a chaplain unique? maybe they are a low cost option, but are they the best option? what is the ROI? what qualifies them? who decides whether an individual is suitable? what is the required credentials and experience for the job? who do they report and answer to? who ensures their ongoing education and professional training? what is the
performance evaluation like? Child counselling is a profession. You study for it, there is a ton of research in the subject. When you apply for a job you get interviewed, you need to prove you possess the training and experience needed. You keep up with developments in the area, the dept. of Ed provides facilities for ongoing education, etc. Do these exist for chaplains?. The answer is no. The good news is that our friendly minister PG is making changed to the program - http://www.deewr.gov.au/Ministers/Garrett/Media/Releases/Pages/Article_110907_102159.aspx and http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/NationalSchoolChaplaincyProgram/Pages/ProgramExtensionExpansion.aspx
My fourth objection is the suitability of the solution to the problem. They should not just be a "shoulder to cry on". They need to be able to offer solutions too. What knowledge, views and background do they have to be able to address the
vast array of potential problems and solutions? I would rather have someone who can draw on a multitude of options, from child/youth psychology , through teaching and education, to evidence based social study research. someone whose entire world is shaped by faith, and a narrow view of faith at that, is less than ideal.
and lastly, what stops anyone from going to a priest? there are churches on every street corner.
Miron
How could people get so unkind?
