Victory for Secularism

[beso]

The High Court of Australia has upheld a complaint that the Chaplaincy Program introduced into Australian public (government) schools was outside of the government's constitutional powers to provide funding.

The program was introduced in 2007 and provided up to $20,000 per year to schools to employ chaplains, supposedly support to the emotional needs of children.

The scheme was devised by the government of the day which was led by the same devout Baptist Prime Minister who took Australia into the illegal invasion of Iraq, John Winston Howard. It was clearly an attempt to increase religious influence and fund religiously based institutions with public money.

Even though its was supposed to avoid any form of evangelism I always saw it as an opportunity for religious values to be thrust upon the vulnerable. It would be ridiculous to presume that the flavour of the chaplains' own beliefs would not be imparted on any advice they offered.

Government and Opposition have both vowed to continue the program which sounds like contempt of court to me.

What do you think?

[Buenchico]

Religion in schools is child abuse.

[RATTER15]

I agree, it is abuse, being taught about religion as though it is fact when it clearly isn't, that's basically lying to kids.

[BAKERS DOZEN]

I'll second that.

[RATTER15]

Different Religions being discussed in school is educational however.

[wildwood]

I think that religions should be kept out of schools. A level headed caring person would do the job just as well, or better.

Anyone can choose their own preference of religion when they want to, not when it is fed to them.

[FredPuli43]

British law provided (Education Act 1944) for religious education and morning assemblies, broadly Christian in character, in state schools, though, in practice, this requirement has been watered down over the years, schools adjusting to changing times and changing intake.

There should be no teaching of one religion above others in any state school.If parents wish to teach their children that one religion is true, it is not the job of a state school to further that teaching.

[woofgang]

As I don't live in Oz, <shrug>

[jomifl]

If children need emotional support then a trained child psychiatrist would be in order. What fragile minds do not need is an untrained evangelist f*cking with their heads.

[RATTER15]

As I have previously mentioned, discussion about various religions is a good thing, it must however be unbiased and religion should not be a subject on the school curriculum, There are far more important and useful subjects to be taught.

[missnemesis]

^^^ Agreed.

Educate about ALL religions not indoctrinate about one.

[beso]

I have long believed that education about religion is a good thing. But this should be an objective study of the actual material used by the religion to justify their belief.

So a study of the Bible would discuss things like the genocides committed by the Hebrews, the persecution of minorities, the violent retribution by God against innocent children, the punishment of four generations of descendants for the crimes of a person, the blame loaded onto Eve and the eternal punishment upon all women for it and the moral implications of following this rubbish.

You can imagine the outcry from the believers who prefer to ignore what the Bible actually says in favour of the highly sanitised, sugar-coated myth they pretend the book is promoting.

[LazyGun]

I would agree that the chaplaincy programme introduced into Australia sounds like an effort to give religion greater prominence within childrens lives.
For believers, many of whom are sincere in their belief that values derived from their religion are of great value to impressionable young minds, the defence of such a programme would be seen as a good thing.
For secularists, humanists, atheists etc, the money would be better spent on a non-denominational councillor, rather than a religious figure.

Any of you out there read PZ Myers blog, Pharyngula? He posted an interesting link the other day to an analysis of what churches and religions spend their money on - money derived from the faithful, and not subject to tax, since religions are all given charitable status.
Supporters of churches and religions often talk about the good works that their faith does, offering money, help, support, programmes to the needy and disadvantaged.Those of us with a more cynical nature would often point to the fact that such help comes with strings attached for the recipient, often in the form of offering prayer, or attending sermons and the like - but regardless of that, faiths often justify their existence to society and their flock by proclaiming their commitment to good and charitable works.
Only, that seems not to be the case, and one could question whether religions should be tax exempt at all.......

http://freethoughtblo.../the-church-business/

[beso]

Occasionally their commitment to the religion is exposed as exceeding the commitment to charitable work.

A recent problem emerged where a fistula clinic set up in Africa many years ago has been stripped of its funding. The board of the centre in Africa made a decision to only allow staff to be drawn from people of Christian faith. The founder stated they would not tolerate religion becoming involved in the operation of the centre and replaced the board.

The Christian body in Australia that did most of the fund raising for the charity promptly ceased all fundraising activity.

This clearly shows where their true motives lay. I suspect evangelism underlies much of the so called charitable activities of the religious.

[jomifl]

Beso, why is it I'm not surprised?

[beso]

Because you have a good grasp on reality?

[jomifl]

^ Can I have that without divine guidance?

[naomi24]

Religion messes with minds and it has no place in the classroom.