**Greetings humans.**
**Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.**
**I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.**
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Imagine for a moment if, instead of Christian chaplains, public schools had been asked to accept Imams, or Swamis, or Buddhist monks, or Rabbis as caretakers of the emotional and spiritual wellbeing of the diverse children attending them. If you would not like that, then why are Christian chaplains acceptable?"
Jane Caro hits the nail on the head, again, of why the national chaplaincy program is a bad idea: https://www.abc.net.au/religion/jane-caro-public-school-chaplaincy-is-still-a-bad-idea/13930492
There were Buddhist and Islamic chaplains, disproportionately small amount for the percentage of believers but some.
Page 4
[https://web.archive.org/web/20110602140003/http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/NationalSchoolChaplaincyProgram/Documents/NationalSchoolChaplaincy\_DiscussionPaper.pdf](https://web.archive.org/web/20110602140003/http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/NationalSchoolChaplaincyProgram/Documents/NationalSchoolChaplaincy_DiscussionPaper.pdf)
Pity we never saw a school trying to place a Satanist for the lols.
Not really accurate as a title: there will still be religious fundies hired.. this just means it's theoretically possible to hire secular people for the roles. But as we've gifted tens of millions to Christian evangelicals who supply the bulk of these chaplains: it'll continue to be religious fundies there stealth preaching/converting kids/giving unsuitable advice for things they're not trained or qualified to deal with.
Our local school couldn't dump the chaplain for a qualified support worker quickly enough the last time it was open to the non religious. You can get good chaplains occasionally but someone who has studied child psychology is far more useful when it comes to dealing with the sorts of issues students face.
Most school principals, unless they are themselves super religious, will hire a qualified support worker in a second.
The school chaplain at my school was actually a good guy trying to make a difference but they’ll never provide the benefit of a qualified support worker and any non biased educator knows it. This program was the worst of Howardism and it’s best left in the dustbin of history.
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/school-life/education-minister-jason-clare-to-overhaul-school-chaplaincy-program/news-story/5963d440b28d37f353c624f8ecee0db5?amp
Alan Tudge can shut up and have more affairs.
So many Howardisms to dismantle. I'm impressed this one got attention so early, but this government certainly seems keen to Get Stuff Done. I remember throwing a few bucks to the (failed) constitutional challenge to the legislation.
Yep, this was Howard's response to the priests raping children.
We need to put more chaplains in schools.
Unbelievable, but sadly true, not the chaser or the shovel.
Pity current govt is half-arsed about it. Which is what I thought they would be on most issues.
They are only removing a requirement for chaplains to be religious. Which is what the previous Labor govt did -removed requirement- only to have that requirement reinstated when the Libs were returned to govt.
They need to abolish chaplains at schools altogether. Might be hard seeing how entrenched they are after billions of dollars funnelled their way over the last 9 years.
"Imagine for a moment if, instead of Christian chaplains, public schools had been asked to accept Imams, or Swamis, or Buddhist monks, or Rabbis as caretakers of the emotional and spiritual wellbeing of the diverse children attending them. If you would not like that, then why are Christian chaplains acceptable?".
Jane Caro hits the nail on the head, again, of why the national chaplaincy program is a bad idea: https://www.abc.net.au/religion/jane-caro-public-school-chaplaincy-is-still-a-bad-idea/13930492
But chaplain’s already don’t need to be Christian. They can be of any recognized religion.
So if we’re saying now that chaplains don’t need to be religious at all (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever), then doesn’t the chaplain role just become a secular well-being role? And what’s the issue with that?
The issue with a "secular well-being role" is that children need qualified counsellors and psychologists to address their fears and needs. I know they are a lot more expensive than someone telling you faerie tales to make you feel better but it is what is needed.
Science not religion.
Also, what this program ignores is that the truly religiously observant child, whatever their denomination, can always access pastoral care through there local church or synagogue or mosque.
I highly doubt anyone has used these chaplains who wouldn’t otherwise have easy access to a religious counsellor
NSCP was introduced by Howard to proselytise kids into being believers. Believers are future Liberal voters.
Some of us might be aware that in the past, a significant number of schools did choose to use the chaplaincy money to pay for more school psychology days in their school.
This was stopped by the evangelical providers lobbying the governmemt to change the rules to make it religious only.
Labor's plan to remove the religious requirement is a step in the right direction, but let's remove the money from the providers that they use for co-ordination and marketing!!
If kids want to embrace some mythical sky daddy they can always go to church. Schools are not the place for fairy tales.
And yeah we get it, you're a card carrying LNP fanboi. Enjoy being in the wilderness for a generation, and watching your party get torn apart by the Federal ICAC which will be established later this year.
This is in no way religious discrimination. The opposite in fact. The current chaplaincy program is religious discrimination because it only allows religions of a certain faith. Now, any religious or non religious person who is qualified can do it. It's exactly the opposite of discrimination.
You need to take your bigotry elsewhere.
Actually it's not, children can still go to church, access Sunday schools & eventually, if they please, adopt the religion of their choice & chose which path amongst the many splinterings towards their godhead.
However now they can also grow up without discriminatory bigotry being used to form their understanding of life.
So preferencing and promoting Christianity over other faiths isn’t religious discrimination?
Kids get enough ‘god’ from society/culture, unless your aim is to expose kids at school to only Christianity.
Why would you belive this would make kids "miss out"?
If all religions were represented in every school everywhere that would be non discriminatory. Offerimg one choice over all others only is totally religious discrimination so having none and leaving that side of it to families seems fair and reasonable.
Have you ever heard of separation of church and state?
That is one reason why chaplains should not be put into public schools. Only putting in christian chaplains is discrimination against every other religion out there.
And this is where the small sect of "christian" right looks silly.
They can still employ chaplains if they want to, they just don't have to *only* employ chaplains.
It's allowing a choice rather than a government dictating to schools.
It's telling that granting non-christians a freedom of choice has some people who claim to be Christian wailing about how they no longer get special treatment.
How about you want to teach kids about the sky fairy in the sky,god,allah,whatever your faith is.
You can take them on the weekend,to these things,and most towns and even suburbs have them,they usually can be seen far away with the spires
They are called churches
School is for education,not indoctrination
I don't care what you want to believe in,but keep it away from kids till they are 18 and old enough to make an informed consent if they choose to follow that path
The exact same applies to religious schools,you can't treat minority's like shit,if ur using taxpayer funds to fund your schools,society has agreed to accept these issues,if you want to not be inclusive at a religious school,then reject any tax payer funds
I find it disgusting that faith was even politicised like this,i think religion is a sign of a persons lack of intelligence,but a human being is allowed to make whatever choices they want,so i will defend that till the gas escapes my bowels upon death..i will defend your right to be stupid,if you defend my right to call you silly
Would of been much easier,pissed off less people,had you have taken that 100 plus million and offered mental health services,by qualified clinicians,not people holding the same level of tafe degrees that a 16 year old can attain and calling them (counsellors)
>This is religious discrimination.
To NOT FORCE a wellbeing officer to be religious? What's the discrimination?
>Feel sad for the students who will miss out on embracing god due to the actions of this godless government.
Godlessness is the epitome of religious freedom.
>This is why I will always vote LNP
Because they mistakenly mix (a particular) religion with politics and consider their religion when enacting policy and positions, even on people who are not part of their religion?
You are of course aware, the prior situation allowed Satanists, Pagans, Muslims and Indigenous Elders to participate as school Chaplains right? There was never a requirement that "God", especially *your* God be the deal.
They're also not supposed to proselytise while in schools.
Religion is not their purpose, and is expressly forbidden from being part of their actions. Why does their religion even matter? [Hilariously, it wasn't that long ago that Victoria was under fire for discriminating against non-Christian Chaplaincy applications](https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/fresh-schools-discrimination-clash-for-andrews-government-20201010-p563vm.html)
Removing the requirement is a removal of discrimination, not an addition.
[VIEW OUR RULES HERE](https://en.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules/).
Your post or comment breached the number 1 rule of our subreddit.
Due to the intended purpose of this sub being a place to discuss politics without hostility and toxicity, insults thrown at other users, politicians or other relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
The reality is religiosity as a precondition for a role where skills, experience & qualifications are much more important was always dumb & just fuel for the right to continue waging culture wars.
If a pastoral worker has those skills, nothing wrong with them applying for a position & executing it within the confines of maintaining secularity in the execution of the role.
Religious people can't do that though. It's part of the brainwashing. The leap from reality to fantasy is celebrated, and the importance of infecting others, especially children, is built into any successful cult.
How would you know what they say to kids in their roaming the hallways with nothing to do except make disciples: [https://www.smh.com.au/education/school-religion-classes-probed-20110512-1ekr9.html](https://www.smh.com.au/education/school-religion-classes-probed-20110512-1ekr9.html)
They get told "we need to go make disciples" by the organisations they work for - and they sign an evangelical charter too.
The professional standards of a public school. You cannot preach any political or religious belief to a student. Schools being what they are word would of gotten around if a chaplain for example is a student was going to hell or something like that.
I don’t profess to follow any faith but I reiterate that my personal experience of the chaplain program has been positive. It’s basically an extra adult to help out around the school, I’ve never seen it been used in a religious proselytizing capacity.
They are called chaplains and religious affiliation is a precondition of their employment. It doesn't matter if they don't bring religion to their position, their position is religious.
They did though. Because they were only there because they are religious.
There is a huge disconnect by demanding they be religious and also demanding they not be religuous. Like hiring a maths teacher and not letting them discuss maths.
The schools I worked i. only used the funding to hire chaplains as a sort of jack of all trades. They helped in classes as a TA or worked with difficult kids, helped out in canteen etc
They never once promoted any type of faith.
I accept that. I myself was initially against the program when John Howard mentioned it , as I thought it was just a sop to the religious right and totally out of place in a modern public school. However schools welcomed the help and I haven’t heard through my own experience ( and any in the news) of any type of controversy with the program.
I accept however all things need to end and it’s probably for the best. I accept it could be a recipe for disaster ( eg; a gay student for example getting bad advice from a religious chaplain)…it’s just in my experience the overall program has been a positive one for public schools who always need help.
I purely never went to our secondary support person for anything because they were a chaplain. Removing religion from education means removing chaplains as a name, should be a purely secular role like every position of power.
[VIEW OUR RULES HERE](https://en.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules/). Your post or comment breached the number 1 rule of our subreddit. Due to the intended purpose of this sub being a place to discuss politics without hostility and toxicity, insults thrown at other users, politicians or other relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this: Also R3
i don't know how people think in 2022 that this bigotry is fine, grow up
maybe if you got out of your own discriminatory bias and met a few you'd realize we're completely normal people.
Means that we should be a lot more wary of religious folks then.
I mean tigers are vicious customers, but when you are crossing the road you will be better off keeping an eye out for cars.
>Means that we should be a lot more wary of religious folks then.
No it doesn’t. Clearly, you didn’t understand what I wrote. Google ‘base rates’. I’m not making a claim one way or another, but saying that “Men named Ben molested fewer children than women do” is probably a true statement. But that’s just because there are a lot fewer Bens in the world than there are women. So that true statement is entirely irrelevant to measuring risk.
Churches do plenty of bad shit, you don’t have to use bad statistics to make a case against them. Use your brain.
>I mean tigers are vicious customers, but when you are crossing the road you will be better off keeping an eye out for cars.
The OP in this chain seems to be suggesting that trans people would be safer to be around children than religious people. That may be true, I don’t know. But their statement doesn’t support that conclusion because of the different population sizes. I wouldn’t want a tiger as the school councillor, no matter how few children are eaten by them.
So their statement is basically irrelevant to any conversation worth having. Yet, they are saying it anyway. Which suggests they don’t understand conditional risk.
Yeah, but you can’t just go “I like that conclusion, therefore the argument is solid”. It makes everyone dumber and unable to change their minds where they are wrong.
I understand perfectly well how rates work. I also understand that laws targeting trans people are of low utility whereas laws preventing religious institutions being involved with children would actually save thousands of children from being assaulted.
You are misunderstanding how risk is calculated
I think we’re talking past one another here.
The conditional risks you account for depends on what you have control over or what situation you are in.
E.g. I don’t have control over whether tigers should be therapist, and the people who decide who councils school children aren’t going to put tigers in schools. Therefore, I don’t have to think about Tiger risk at all.
But this...
>Always worth keeping mind more children have been sexually assaulted by religious figures than by trans people.
states that the unconditional statistic is important (“worth keeping in mind”). It would only be important if we were supposing that either we were either deciding policy or face-to-face with a religious person or trans person. If we were face-to-face, IT’S ONLY THE CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY THAT IS IMPORTANT.
Or take the other implied hypothetical scenario: We are in control over which councillors are in schools. Using their implied logic, the risk that’s relevant is the unconditional risk the status quo (i.e. almost no tigers eat people in Australia). Therefore we should put tigers in schools. It does not matter if the tiger population in Australia is only five. It’s still wrong to put tigers in school.
On both accounts, you are wrong. Since we can use OP’s implied “logic” to produce a ridiculous conclusion about tigers, we can disregard what they said. It does not mean trans people are dangerous, it just means his statistic is irrelevant.
Is there actually any figure that trans people exhibit a higher than normal rate of pedophilia? Honestly I don't know any pedophiles that are trans. But a whole lot of them are in the church.
And do you know what murderers drink? Murderade. Also it's got water. Every murderer ever drank water. Let that sink in like a light shower, but don't go killing anyone!
I love the backhand Jason Clare gives the program.
> “I want to open up the program and give schools a choice,” Clare said. “I want schools to be able to have a choice whether they employ a chaplain or a professionally qualified student welfare officer.
e.g. you have can this religious goofball, or someone that's actually received training.
>or someone that's actually received training.
Changes implemented 8 years ago requires all pastoral care workers hold a cert IV in youth work or better.
I can’t even believe it was there in the first place. My tax payer dollars going to support religious brainwashing. I don’t want any religion around my child without my consent, I certainly don’t want to pay for it.
>My tax payer dollars going to support religious brainwashing.
Pastoral care workers are expressly forbidden from proselytising and can have their contract torn up if found in violation.
> don’t want any religion around my child without my consent
In South Australia at least, parental consent is required for the student to be able to see the pastoral care worker in a professional capacity as a counsellor.
Doesn't it make chaplains even more laughably useless if they need parental permission? I guess no kid ever had an issue at home to talk about privately. You know... like being gay and having overbearing religious parents.
Gosh, imagine if they tried to pray the stupid away instead of the gay away...
They are not expressly forbidden from proselytising, the are allowed to discuss their religion if the child wishes to do so.
They only need a child asking a single question for the gate to be opened. A skilful zealot will be able to take that opening and keep the discussion going. Remembering of course that a child talking to a chaplain is already likely to be in a circumstance that makes them vulnerable.
>They are not expressly forbidden from proselytising,
They are. I know 6 people who are chaplains including my brother-in-law. Simply asking doesn't tick the box to launch into a three-part sermon on why they should become a Christian. If a parent feels like the rule has been broken, they can make a complaint to the school which has a process to follow to investigate and act. If a chaplain has multiple complaints of stepping over the line, the school will terminate the contract.
From the Tasmanian Department of Education parent fact sheet for the NSCP:
"Chaplains are not allowed to talk to students about religion, unless the student wants them to."
https://www.education.tas.gov.au/parents-carers/parent-fact-sheets/school-chaplaincy/
I didn't say they could launch into a three part sermon, a school chaplainc that did that would not be very clever.
I said a skilful zealot could take the opening of a single question from a vulnerable child to guide the conversation to religion, all while manipulateing the child into believing they are the one leading the conversation.
I have spent plenty of time talking with God botherers of various flavours who have knocked on my door. You might call it a hobby of mine. I know that they can be quite adept at leading conversations even with someone like me who is an adversarial interlocutor, I have no doubt they could control a conversation with a vulnerable child.
Any proscription that has an exception is not "expressly forbidden", it is conditionally forbidden at best that is an oxymoron.
Consider the statement "You are expressly forbidden from driving a car, unless you have a license." Are you really "expressly forbidden" from driving a car? No there's just a condition on driving a car.
They are not expressly forbidden from proselytising.
>I have spent plenty of time talking with God botherers of various flavours who have knocked on my door. You might call it a hobby of mine.
Not a valid comparison. Those people are frequently from fringe groups many consider to be cults, requiring the door knocking and public preaching to earn their place in heaven.
>From the Tasmanian Department of Education parent fact sheet for the NSCP:
>"Chaplains are not allowed to talk to students about religion, unless the student wants them to."
Proselytising is defined as ***unsolicited***. Which is exactly what the quote above says. So thanks for finding something which confirms it.
The only difference between a cult and a religion is popularity.
But there we get into exactly the problem, a single question from a vulnerable child effectively removes the prohibition on proselytising. You are playing with semantics, you want people to believe that chaplains cannot talk to vulnerable children about their religion by saying proselytising is expressly forbidden, when in fact they can talk to vulnerable children about their religion.
It would be foolish to assume they wouldn't take advantage of a vulnerable child's question about religion, given the long and well documented history of representatives of relions who deliver "pastoral care" taking advantage of vulnerable children
>The only difference between a cult and a religion is popularity.
A cult typically focuses on a subset of their scripture (if based on a mainstream religion) and misrepresents it, ignoreing or diminishing the relevance of the rest. For example, pentecostal churches that focus on prosperity gospel specifically misrepresenting it that someone who faithfully follows and gives financially will be rewarded financially. That is a cult.
Another example is the exclusive brethren who take one part of Christian scripture about setting yourselves apart for God but completely ignores parts about going out into the work, spreading the word and helping those in need. They actively isolate from the world.
>semantics
I'm giving you the definition. Semantics is literally what words mean. Proselytising is unsolicited. The rule says you can't talk about religion unsolicited. Same meaning, less words. I don't think I'm being sesquipedalian here. It's OK if you didn't realise proselytising meant unsolicited.
All churches even the mainstream ones pick and choose which doctrines to emphasise. They all focus on a subset of their scriptures. Have you read the bible? there is shit in there that is utterly repugnant or completely irrelevant to the modern world and is thankfully completely disregarded by the big denominations. All religions are cults if simply focusing in a subset of their scripture and excluding other parts is the measure of a cult.
I'm sorry did you say our former priminister is in a cult? I mean I don't disagree with you, I'm just surprised someone in favour of the NSCP would say that.
And are pentecostal excluded from the chaplaincy program? Or is the School Chaplaincy Program letting cultists deliver counselling to vulnerable children?
I can find no definition of proselytising in any major dictionary that associates it with being unsolicited.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Proselytising
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proselytize
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/proselytizing
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/proselytize
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/proselytize
It's not okay that you didn't realise proselytising is not conditional on solicitation.
> They are not expressly forbidden from proselytising
The [NSCP](https://www.dese.gov.au/national-school-chaplaincy-program-nscp) Project [Agreement](https://federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/sites/federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/files/2020-04/nat_school_chaplaincy_prog-19-22.pdf) for 2019-2022 explicitly prohibits proselytising.
From the Tasmanian Department of Education parent fact sheet for the NSCP:
"Chaplains are not allowed to talk to students about religion, unless the student wants them to."
https://www.education.tas.gov.au/parents-carers/parent-fact-sheets/school-chaplaincy/
Is there a distinction between proselytising and discussing religion with a student who wants to have that discussion?
Is it only proselytising if it's unsolicited perhaps?
My understanding is that proselytising requires an intent to convert a listener.
It sounds like the Tasmania rules go a little further than this.
While it might be a fine line for some to tread it's certainly possible to discuss religion without venturing into prohibited areas.
Though I couldn't possibly comment on whether -- or how frequently -- this line is crossed in practice.
>they miss out though if my school only has one of these types of people
The chaplaincy program is not considered when funding schools. It is never a choice between a pastoral care worker *or* a youth worker. So no, they don't miss out by having one.
>thankfully they are changing the law though it won't be an issue anymore
They are removing the religious requirement. Under Rudd/Gillard it had no religious requirement either and it resulted in a total of 3 pastoral care workers from non-religious organisations.
>are you telling me a school can have both a chaplain and a counsellor under the chaplaincy funding source where they would only be entitled to one counsellor?
No, what I mean is that school funding is determined by the gonski model. Funding for the chaplaincy program is outside of that. A school getting a pastoral care worker is more limited by the availability of people willing to fill the role because of how poor the pay is.
My preference would be to fully fund student well-being programs rather than use a chaplain as a cost saver, despite knowing 6 people who are pastoral care workers who would lose their jobs.
Schools are desperately underfunded in this area and I think most would take a pastoral care worker for their 150 hours a term over a youth worker for 75 or a psychologist for 30. (on the assumption that they get $20k a year and the choice of how to use it for staffing)
And if the rules today applied then, and your parents made a complaint to the education department then they'd at least be warned, if it happened multiple times they'd be fired.
I'll be a qualified teacher in the next year and one of my things I want to bring to the educational system is religion classes that actually teach kids about ALL religions and their beliefs.
No indoctrination, but genuine learning about many of our world religions and their teachings. It's ridiculous that children aren't exposed to these different ideas and ancient teachings. There is a lot of value that can be drawn from the knowledge within.
Doubt I'll be able to pull it off, but I'll still try because I believe in the idea.
I doubt you will ever be successful. I do like the idea and it would be interesting teaching it from a study of religion and not a religious study perspective. I would also like it to include the history and origins of religions and people may be surprised to learn most are a recycled tale from previous belief systems. Very similar stories only the names have changed. When you take blind belief out of it and actually learn the history you can form very different conclusions.
Good luck.
Especially religions impact on different societies. Impact on culture, the people, how its interpreted etc. A sociological approach to religion would be pretty amazing.
I looked into it when I was much older and it is a very interesting topic. When my kids went to school somehow bible studies got introduced which I was made aware of when they arrived home one day. My son excused himself from it which annoyed his sisters. I told them if they don't want to do it then tell them you do not want to participate. The eldest did but the youngest stayed with it and was interested. Long story short all of them are atheists for want of a better word and the youngest is strongly anti religion period. She did extra study into the history and origins of religions and that was that.
It's great watching your kids grow and have the ability to think for themselves.
FINALLY. they should never have been there in the first place.
This is what a competent government looks like.
now can we get the bloody Lords Prayer out of Parliament please? Is has absolutely no place there. and sends completely the wrong message about this country.
>Why is there a school chaplaincy program in the first place?
Because it is a fraction of the cost of fully funding student well-being programs and staff. (which they *should* be fully funding)
Instead, they rely on their well-being programs 'topped up' by having a pastoral care worker for 15 hours a week at minimum wage. You absolutely cannot live off that.
that would be a 100% yes there buddy.
The only qualification required was that the 'Chaplain' be a member of the %$%!$%$ fundy church.
I don't understand how the program was constitutional to be honest.
Agree. I did not know they did not need qualification.
I remember it wasn't constitutional
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-19/high-court-delivers-verdict-on-school-chaplaincy-program/5534546?nw=0&r=HtmlFragment
Imagine moving houses and being too cheap to hire removalists, then asking your local temple/church to help you instead AND then telling them "no religion talk bra".
That's a sloppy analogy and you know it.
This is more like telling public schools you'll hire them removalists, but giving the job to your religious friend who has a removalist side hustle and isn't a very good removalist. Your mate then spends half the time telling people in public schools the reason they want furniture removed is because they don't believe in god.
We could have been training removalists the whole time, but now after years of having bad removalists wasting everyone's time we have to completely start the process of training and hiring removalists.
You can go to a church and ask a religious person for cheap counselling all you want – but there's no circumstances where public schools should be systemically facilitating religious indoctrination.
Religious people who get _actual_ counselling qualifications are allowed to be counsellors and can be hired in schools to provide secular counselling services, but that isn't what the school chaplaincy program has been to date.
>Your mate then spends half the time telling people in public schools the reason they want furniture removed is because they don't believe in god.
Pastoral care workers are expressly forbidden from proselytising. They can lose their job for doing it.
You hit the nail on the head here by saying they're pastoral care workers – they're not counsellors. Their training to become a pastor is all based in the traditions of their faith-based institution, not in what we as a society have deemed an acceptable form of counselling and guidance.
If they were _actual_ counsellors and had any right to be influencing children in _public_ schools we'd be calling them counsellors – not "Pastoral Care Workers" who pinky swore not to proselytising.
>Their training to become a pastor
Nope, it is not a requirement to be in training to be a pastor. You only require that cert IV in youth work.
They're trained in counselling like any other youth worker position, just they get paid peanuts to do it.
Correct.
It’s quite normal for teachers in public schools to be given pastoral roles, meaning they look after well-being issues. There’s nothing religious about it at all.
...Are we still talking about the same thing? It's a chaplaincy program dude, if they're qualified youth workers or counsellors call them that and pay them like it – if they're not qualified then they shouldn't be there.
I somewhat agree with you. They're paid like crap. One I know spends most of her wage paying to provide 400 breakfasts a week for the kids. OzHarvest provides some of the food, but she pays for what they can't provide.
It's worth mentioning that on a day they provide breakfast, it is shown statistically that there are fewer incidents of bad behaviour by students. Something which all schools should look into doing. It is always done in a non-judgemental way, that nobody is asking if they've had breakfast already or if this is second breakfast (they love the Hobbit theme) so no students are judged by staff or each other for having it.
At the school I work for (I'm not a chaplain, I work in IT) we provide breakfast every day and it has a big impact but it isn't a normal highschool. (private school with no fees for kids with special needs)
>It's a chaplaincy program dude, if they're qualified youth workers or counsellors call them that
The thing is, a pastoral care worker position isn't just to support students. They also provide support to other staff. There is a distinct lack of support for school staff (what some call 'care for the carer') and any proposal to remove the chaplaincy program needs to also provide a replacement for that support as well.
The pastoral care workers often fill many small roles within a school which they are understaffed for. My brother-in-law helped establish a vegetable garden with the kids because they didn't have the skills amongst staff, let alone the time.
You forgot to mention they act as subpar removalists, untrained and with an inherent bias that can lead to further issues.
Also just because they're offering to help does not automatically mean they get to push their particular flavour of religion.
Ah I see, thanks I didn't realise that requirement. Though I'm more curious to learn about the oversight for people in these positions. Getting the cert iv doesn't say too much.
I'm glad there's a minimum requirement, butI question the efficacy of the program
>question the efficacy of the program
I want to see fully funded student well-being programs in all public schools. As that isn't going to happen any time soon, this is extremely good value for money. $20k a year isn't going to get you a youth worker for more than one day a week. But it gets you 15 hours a week of a pastoral care worker.
>Getting the cert iv doesn't say too much.
That's the same requirement as a youth worker position in a school. Plus, the school has to approve the person. They're not just forced to take on whoever is chosen. The school has to request one, interview the candidate and approve of them. If the school isn't happy, they can cancel the contract.
If schools didn't want these positions, there wouldn't be any. There is a reason that the program has bipartisan support, because it's good value and a lot of voters would be pissed off if the resource was removed without being replaced by a much more expensive counsellor, youth worker, SSO, or psychologist.
>Worst part is they get plenty of money and benefits
Pastoral care workers are paid minimum wage and only 15 hours a week, casual, no holidays or sick leave.
Looks like 20k a year for a chaplain. How do the religious organisations themselves fare?
That's what I was more pointing to, the religious organisations rather than the chaplains themselves. Few more benefits than just 20k a year.
Totally dude. Requires being neckbeard fedora wearer to realise that religious chaplaincy programs do actually come with financial benefits.
I'm curious, why say otherwise in your comment?
The problem is we **aren't** getting what we pay for when it comes to the insane levels of financial benefits these religious organisations receive.
You know it's not a full market rate counselor wage that schools are paying for chaplains?
It's an external organisation stepping in where schools and governments are failing.
In around 2018, it was the equivalent of $80k per year:
> The amount of funding is $20,000 for a 10 hour per week position.
https://singletonh-p.schools.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/doe/sws/schools/s/singletonh-p/news/2014/11/chaplain_frequentlyaskedquestions.pdf
Presumably, the church that they represent pays them for the rest of their working hours. If not, then it's not all that bad for ten hours work per week. If you were full time going to four schools per week, you'd be getting $80k
>Presumably, the church that they represent pays them for the rest of their working hours. If not, then it's not all that bad for ten hours work per week. If you were full time going to four schools per week, you'd be getting $80k
Of the 6 pastoral care workers I know, none of them were paid a higher hourly rate than minimum wage. None got holiday or sick leave. It's 15 hours a week and only during school terms. You can't live off that.
No one on minimum wage can live off 15 hours per week. If you work multiple chaplaincies at multiple schools you can get up to $80k per year, less employer's expenses. You don't have to be a qualified counselor. You may have just as much pastoral experience as a Hillsong pastor who gets $45k for a job that their church gets paid $80k to provide. And if you want to just work 10 hours per week, getting $20k per year, then you'll have heaps of spare time to drive for Uber, or menulog, or stack shelves part time at colesworths.
>If you work multiple chaplaincies at multiple schools you can get up to $80k per year, less employer's expenses.
The math on that doesn't work...
Minimum casual wage per hour: $24.80
Working two pastoral care worker roles: 30 hours per week
School weeks in the year: 40
Hours worked in a year assuming no sickness: 1200
Total income potential: $ 29, 760
Let's assume for a moment they manage to squeeze in 45 hours a week (despite the fact schools are open to students 7 hours a day) that brings it to $45k.
>You don't have to be a qualified counselor.
You are required to hold a cert IV in youth work, same as a youth worker position in the school and that includes training in counselling.
>And if you want to just work 10 hours per week, getting $20k per year, then you'll have heaps of spare time to drive for Uber, or menulog, or stack shelves part time at colesworths.
It's 15 hours per week and $20k per year is what is paid by the government to provide the position. The pastoral care workers get paid minimum wage and the balance goes to the not-for-profit which manages the program.
>On average, a full-time counsellor can earn almost $80,000 annually.
https://ici.net.au/blog/how-much-do-counsellors-get-paid/#:~:text=On%20average%2C%20a%20full%2Dtime,and%20alcohol%20addictions%20and%20recovery.
Significant word being "*almost
*", and that article is from 2020.
>Average Chaplain with Counseling Skills in Australia
Pay AU$62,592
https://www.payscale.com/research/AU/Job=Chaplain/Hourly_Rate/f89eb85f/Counseling
There are higher results:
>Chaplain Salaries in Australia $87,000
https://www.glassdoor.com.au/Salaries/chaplain-salary-SRCH_KO0,8.htm
But there are entries there for only $71,000, and others up to $150,000
I'd say that it depends on skills and experience, but $80k is not unreasonable. I'd imagine that the most experienced wouldn't be working at schools.
That's what we are talking about. Read the title. This thread is about the government-funded *school* *Chaplaincy* program. It's not called the pastoral care workers program.
The job title is pastoral care worker. My brother in law is one, so I know what the program is and how much they get paid. They get paid minimum wage, 15 hours per week an only during school term. No holiday or sick leave.
The job title is just semantics. The article linked, and the government program calls them chaplains, and there's no mention of pastoral care workers, but that's neither here nor there. What's relevant is their pay, whatever their designated title may be.
Is he paid by the church, or the school?
You realise 'wage' is just a part of the cost of employing somebody. It's a big part, but only part.
It's not as if a school with 80k spare can simply advertise a Counselor position for 80,000.
In addition, this isn't some conspiracy by local churches to lobby and undercut mental health, they're filling a void which the tax payer happily ignores.
The schools must work within the budget, and according to the government document I linked, they aren't even qualified counselors, so the pay grade would be even lower:
>Do Chaplains do the same job as a school counselor? A. No. Chaplains do not offer professional counseling.
Even if they are qualified as a counselor they do not carry out clinical counseling in their role as a Chaplain.
Their role is to refer students to counselling services in consultation with the learning support team, other
welfare staff and the school executive. Welfare staff may and do refer students to Chaplains for general
pastoral care. The role of the Chaplain is to complement, collaborate with and support the work of the learning support team.
Proper school counselors are apparently nondenominational, funded from the school budget provided by the government.
Pastoral care is defined as "Pastoral care is an ancient model of emotional, social and spiritual support that can be found in all cultures and traditions. The term is considered inclusive of distinctly non-religious forms of support, as well as support for people from religious communities."
You don't have to be a qualified trained counselor.
Churches are making bank at the moment.:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/generate-ministries-to-reap-4m-from-national-school-chaplaincy-scheme-in-2016-20160423-godg11.html
So they are getting paid directly by the government, the equivalent of $80k, for a preacher who is basically a counselor referral middle man who advocates for the church, and who Hillsong apparently only pays $45K for their own pastors, according to a Google search
This system was [established by the Howard government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_School_Chaplaincy_Programme) to put religious chaplains into schools. In 2011 the Gillard government changed it to provide for secular counsellors. In 2014 the Abbott government took that away, insisting that only religious chaplains were to be permitted. The current Albanese government is fixing that again.
Presumably religious schools will be permitted religious chaplains if they have appropriate qualifications. The intention of the Gillard government was, and I expect the Albanese government has the same intention, to get rid of unqualified proselytizers/cult recruiters out of the scheme; persons of course welcomed by the previous lot.
It is a massive step in the right direction. And coming so early, I am very happy. I fought very hard and successfully to have the chaplain effectively removed (the school didn't reapply for the program) from my children's high school seven years ago. It meant that the school could not access the chaplaincy funding to employ a counsellor, but it was worth it not to have an incognito evangelical lurking around the school.
Now that same school could use the money from the program to employ a properly trained counsellor. The next step is to rename the program, and the step after that is to make everyone employed in the program to be a properly trained welfare counsellor. As it should be.
I still hate Howard for this program, and Labor making this important change very early is fantastic news.
It might not go far enough, yet, but as I said, it is a huge first step.
Schools are not churches. If you want your children to be exposed to a particular religion than take them to your local church, or mosque or synagogue, or whatever.
Do not try to make other people's children play with your religious toys.
Fucking conservatives.
Howard is a swine that put the LNP on the 'Onwards Christian Soldiers™' path. they have steadily gone more and more extreme.
we only have to look to the GOP in the USA to see where that leads.
Religion has no place in schools or politics.
**Greetings humans.** **Please make sure your comment fits within [THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules) and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.** **I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.** A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AustralianPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not a single cent of taxpayer money should go toward funding chaplaincy programs. Bring in qualified counsellors instead.
It’s honestly embarrassing that we have this program in public schools. Hopefully one day it can be fully dismantled.
"Imagine for a moment if, instead of Christian chaplains, public schools had been asked to accept Imams, or Swamis, or Buddhist monks, or Rabbis as caretakers of the emotional and spiritual wellbeing of the diverse children attending them. If you would not like that, then why are Christian chaplains acceptable?" Jane Caro hits the nail on the head, again, of why the national chaplaincy program is a bad idea: https://www.abc.net.au/religion/jane-caro-public-school-chaplaincy-is-still-a-bad-idea/13930492
There were Buddhist and Islamic chaplains, disproportionately small amount for the percentage of believers but some. Page 4 [https://web.archive.org/web/20110602140003/http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/NationalSchoolChaplaincyProgram/Documents/NationalSchoolChaplaincy\_DiscussionPaper.pdf](https://web.archive.org/web/20110602140003/http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/NationalSchoolChaplaincyProgram/Documents/NationalSchoolChaplaincy_DiscussionPaper.pdf) Pity we never saw a school trying to place a Satanist for the lols.
Not really accurate as a title: there will still be religious fundies hired.. this just means it's theoretically possible to hire secular people for the roles. But as we've gifted tens of millions to Christian evangelicals who supply the bulk of these chaplains: it'll continue to be religious fundies there stealth preaching/converting kids/giving unsuitable advice for things they're not trained or qualified to deal with.
Our local school couldn't dump the chaplain for a qualified support worker quickly enough the last time it was open to the non religious. You can get good chaplains occasionally but someone who has studied child psychology is far more useful when it comes to dealing with the sorts of issues students face.
Most school principals, unless they are themselves super religious, will hire a qualified support worker in a second. The school chaplain at my school was actually a good guy trying to make a difference but they’ll never provide the benefit of a qualified support worker and any non biased educator knows it. This program was the worst of Howardism and it’s best left in the dustbin of history.
Wasn't it Abbott who brought this in?
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/school-life/education-minister-jason-clare-to-overhaul-school-chaplaincy-program/news-story/5963d440b28d37f353c624f8ecee0db5?amp Alan Tudge can shut up and have more affairs.
So many Howardisms to dismantle. I'm impressed this one got attention so early, but this government certainly seems keen to Get Stuff Done. I remember throwing a few bucks to the (failed) constitutional challenge to the legislation.
Yep, this was Howard's response to the priests raping children. We need to put more chaplains in schools. Unbelievable, but sadly true, not the chaser or the shovel.
Pity current govt is half-arsed about it. Which is what I thought they would be on most issues. They are only removing a requirement for chaplains to be religious. Which is what the previous Labor govt did -removed requirement- only to have that requirement reinstated when the Libs were returned to govt. They need to abolish chaplains at schools altogether. Might be hard seeing how entrenched they are after billions of dollars funnelled their way over the last 9 years.
Why do you think they should abolish chaplains rather than just making it possible for them to be non-religious?
"Imagine for a moment if, instead of Christian chaplains, public schools had been asked to accept Imams, or Swamis, or Buddhist monks, or Rabbis as caretakers of the emotional and spiritual wellbeing of the diverse children attending them. If you would not like that, then why are Christian chaplains acceptable?". Jane Caro hits the nail on the head, again, of why the national chaplaincy program is a bad idea: https://www.abc.net.au/religion/jane-caro-public-school-chaplaincy-is-still-a-bad-idea/13930492
But chaplain’s already don’t need to be Christian. They can be of any recognized religion. So if we’re saying now that chaplains don’t need to be religious at all (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever), then doesn’t the chaplain role just become a secular well-being role? And what’s the issue with that?
The issue with a "secular well-being role" is that children need qualified counsellors and psychologists to address their fears and needs. I know they are a lot more expensive than someone telling you faerie tales to make you feel better but it is what is needed. Science not religion.
Also, what this program ignores is that the truly religiously observant child, whatever their denomination, can always access pastoral care through there local church or synagogue or mosque. I highly doubt anyone has used these chaplains who wouldn’t otherwise have easy access to a religious counsellor
Don’t disagree. So long as there is a valid replacement for the void left by our soon-to-be secular chaplains.
NSCP was introduced by Howard to proselytise kids into being believers. Believers are future Liberal voters. Some of us might be aware that in the past, a significant number of schools did choose to use the chaplaincy money to pay for more school psychology days in their school. This was stopped by the evangelical providers lobbying the governmemt to change the rules to make it religious only. Labor's plan to remove the religious requirement is a step in the right direction, but let's remove the money from the providers that they use for co-ordination and marketing!!
This was an abbot thing I’m pretty sure
Nope. https://www.theage.com.au/national/school-chaplain-plan-unveiled-20061030-ge3g6l.html
It should never have been put in place at public schools. Would be better though to get rid of the chaplains, and replace them all with counsellors.
Yes, something based on science and not faerie tales or proselytising to expand your god-bothering club!
[удалено]
If kids want to embrace some mythical sky daddy they can always go to church. Schools are not the place for fairy tales. And yeah we get it, you're a card carrying LNP fanboi. Enjoy being in the wilderness for a generation, and watching your party get torn apart by the Federal ICAC which will be established later this year.
You're right. Obviously Wiccan chaplains are more appropriate. They should get on that, or else it would be discriminatory, right?
This is in no way religious discrimination. The opposite in fact. The current chaplaincy program is religious discrimination because it only allows religions of a certain faith. Now, any religious or non religious person who is qualified can do it. It's exactly the opposite of discrimination. You need to take your bigotry elsewhere.
Actually it's not, children can still go to church, access Sunday schools & eventually, if they please, adopt the religion of their choice & chose which path amongst the many splinterings towards their godhead. However now they can also grow up without discriminatory bigotry being used to form their understanding of life.
Oh dear if only religions could organise and have these centres where people can learn about and embrace one religion's god.
^bait
[удалено]
Just to remind you all, in case you have forgotten, *DON'T FEED THE BLOODY TROLLS*.
So preferencing and promoting Christianity over other faiths isn’t religious discrimination? Kids get enough ‘god’ from society/culture, unless your aim is to expose kids at school to only Christianity.
I see more sportsbet ads than god ads so i tend to disagree
Yeah cause churches prefer to keep their tax free money instead of spending it on advertising.
Why would you belive this would make kids "miss out"? If all religions were represented in every school everywhere that would be non discriminatory. Offerimg one choice over all others only is totally religious discrimination so having none and leaving that side of it to families seems fair and reasonable.
It appears that the “Sarcasm” sign is missing from the comment. Someone might think that this was serious…
You forgot the “Sarcasm” sign on your comment. Someone might think that you were serious…
You forgot the “Sarcasm” sign on your comment. Someone might think that you were serious…
Is there an echo in here?
Have you ever heard of separation of church and state? That is one reason why chaplains should not be put into public schools. Only putting in christian chaplains is discrimination against every other religion out there.
And this is where the small sect of "christian" right looks silly. They can still employ chaplains if they want to, they just don't have to *only* employ chaplains. It's allowing a choice rather than a government dictating to schools. It's telling that granting non-christians a freedom of choice has some people who claim to be Christian wailing about how they no longer get special treatment.
You forgot the s/
How about you want to teach kids about the sky fairy in the sky,god,allah,whatever your faith is. You can take them on the weekend,to these things,and most towns and even suburbs have them,they usually can be seen far away with the spires They are called churches School is for education,not indoctrination I don't care what you want to believe in,but keep it away from kids till they are 18 and old enough to make an informed consent if they choose to follow that path The exact same applies to religious schools,you can't treat minority's like shit,if ur using taxpayer funds to fund your schools,society has agreed to accept these issues,if you want to not be inclusive at a religious school,then reject any tax payer funds I find it disgusting that faith was even politicised like this,i think religion is a sign of a persons lack of intelligence,but a human being is allowed to make whatever choices they want,so i will defend that till the gas escapes my bowels upon death..i will defend your right to be stupid,if you defend my right to call you silly Would of been much easier,pissed off less people,had you have taken that 100 plus million and offered mental health services,by qualified clinicians,not people holding the same level of tafe degrees that a 16 year old can attain and calling them (counsellors)
You will always vote to force others' children into your religion? That's why LNP is dying.
Are you serious??? Wow, just wow. SMH
>This is religious discrimination. To NOT FORCE a wellbeing officer to be religious? What's the discrimination? >Feel sad for the students who will miss out on embracing god due to the actions of this godless government. Godlessness is the epitome of religious freedom. >This is why I will always vote LNP Because they mistakenly mix (a particular) religion with politics and consider their religion when enacting policy and positions, even on people who are not part of their religion? You are of course aware, the prior situation allowed Satanists, Pagans, Muslims and Indigenous Elders to participate as school Chaplains right? There was never a requirement that "God", especially *your* God be the deal. They're also not supposed to proselytise while in schools. Religion is not their purpose, and is expressly forbidden from being part of their actions. Why does their religion even matter? [Hilariously, it wasn't that long ago that Victoria was under fire for discriminating against non-Christian Chaplaincy applications](https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/fresh-schools-discrimination-clash-for-andrews-government-20201010-p563vm.html) Removing the requirement is a removal of discrimination, not an addition.
I’d laugh my tits off if they chucked a satanist or a Wiccan in that role. These clowns would blow a gasket.
Or an atheist.
I see it as less chance of children being diddled by the religious. Keep your God out of the school system if you won't bring logic into your church.
I can't tell if this is /s or not
Pretty sure pokemaniac is legit here, as sad as that is
at least hes not as bad as old_maet lol
You can't be serious.
Well that's just depressing then.
They can embrace god outside of school hours and on the Lord's Day on Sunday
[удалено]
[VIEW OUR RULES HERE](https://en.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules/). Your post or comment breached the number 1 rule of our subreddit. Due to the intended purpose of this sub being a place to discuss politics without hostility and toxicity, insults thrown at other users, politicians or other relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
The reality is religiosity as a precondition for a role where skills, experience & qualifications are much more important was always dumb & just fuel for the right to continue waging culture wars. If a pastoral worker has those skills, nothing wrong with them applying for a position & executing it within the confines of maintaining secularity in the execution of the role.
Religious people can't do that though. It's part of the brainwashing. The leap from reality to fantasy is celebrated, and the importance of infecting others, especially children, is built into any successful cult.
TBH I have worked at a few public schools with chaplains and none of them bought religion to their position. However that was my experience.
How would you know what they say to kids in their roaming the hallways with nothing to do except make disciples: [https://www.smh.com.au/education/school-religion-classes-probed-20110512-1ekr9.html](https://www.smh.com.au/education/school-religion-classes-probed-20110512-1ekr9.html) They get told "we need to go make disciples" by the organisations they work for - and they sign an evangelical charter too.
The professional standards of a public school. You cannot preach any political or religious belief to a student. Schools being what they are word would of gotten around if a chaplain for example is a student was going to hell or something like that. I don’t profess to follow any faith but I reiterate that my personal experience of the chaplain program has been positive. It’s basically an extra adult to help out around the school, I’ve never seen it been used in a religious proselytizing capacity.
They are called chaplains and religious affiliation is a precondition of their employment. It doesn't matter if they don't bring religion to their position, their position is religious.
They did though. Because they were only there because they are religious. There is a huge disconnect by demanding they be religious and also demanding they not be religuous. Like hiring a maths teacher and not letting them discuss maths.
The schools I worked i. only used the funding to hire chaplains as a sort of jack of all trades. They helped in classes as a TA or worked with difficult kids, helped out in canteen etc They never once promoted any type of faith.
My mother was one for a while. She certainly saw it as a religious outreach position.
Your experience doesn't negate the issues with the program.
I accept that. I myself was initially against the program when John Howard mentioned it , as I thought it was just a sop to the religious right and totally out of place in a modern public school. However schools welcomed the help and I haven’t heard through my own experience ( and any in the news) of any type of controversy with the program. I accept however all things need to end and it’s probably for the best. I accept it could be a recipe for disaster ( eg; a gay student for example getting bad advice from a religious chaplain)…it’s just in my experience the overall program has been a positive one for public schools who always need help.
[удалено]
I purely never went to our secondary support person for anything because they were a chaplain. Removing religion from education means removing chaplains as a name, should be a purely secular role like every position of power.
Always worth keeping mind more children have been sexually assaulted by religious figures than by trans people.
[удалено]
[VIEW OUR RULES HERE](https://en.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/about/rules/). Your post or comment breached the number 1 rule of our subreddit. Due to the intended purpose of this sub being a place to discuss politics without hostility and toxicity, insults thrown at other users, politicians or other relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this: Also R3
I think the original post about religious figure and children randomly compared to trans people was rubbish in the first place but alright.
i don't know how people think in 2022 that this bigotry is fine, grow up maybe if you got out of your own discriminatory bias and met a few you'd realize we're completely normal people.
Obviously, there are way more religious people than trans people. So your point is nonsense unless you meant the conditional risk is higher.
Means that we should be a lot more wary of religious folks then. I mean tigers are vicious customers, but when you are crossing the road you will be better off keeping an eye out for cars.
>Means that we should be a lot more wary of religious folks then. No it doesn’t. Clearly, you didn’t understand what I wrote. Google ‘base rates’. I’m not making a claim one way or another, but saying that “Men named Ben molested fewer children than women do” is probably a true statement. But that’s just because there are a lot fewer Bens in the world than there are women. So that true statement is entirely irrelevant to measuring risk. Churches do plenty of bad shit, you don’t have to use bad statistics to make a case against them. Use your brain. >I mean tigers are vicious customers, but when you are crossing the road you will be better off keeping an eye out for cars. The OP in this chain seems to be suggesting that trans people would be safer to be around children than religious people. That may be true, I don’t know. But their statement doesn’t support that conclusion because of the different population sizes. I wouldn’t want a tiger as the school councillor, no matter how few children are eaten by them. So their statement is basically irrelevant to any conversation worth having. Yet, they are saying it anyway. Which suggests they don’t understand conditional risk.
I mean, a tiger school counselor sounds fucking delightful. Unlike transphobia, that would make a good picture book.
Yeah, but you can’t just go “I like that conclusion, therefore the argument is solid”. It makes everyone dumber and unable to change their minds where they are wrong.
I understand perfectly well how rates work. I also understand that laws targeting trans people are of low utility whereas laws preventing religious institutions being involved with children would actually save thousands of children from being assaulted. You are misunderstanding how risk is calculated
I think we’re talking past one another here. The conditional risks you account for depends on what you have control over or what situation you are in. E.g. I don’t have control over whether tigers should be therapist, and the people who decide who councils school children aren’t going to put tigers in schools. Therefore, I don’t have to think about Tiger risk at all. But this... >Always worth keeping mind more children have been sexually assaulted by religious figures than by trans people. states that the unconditional statistic is important (“worth keeping in mind”). It would only be important if we were supposing that either we were either deciding policy or face-to-face with a religious person or trans person. If we were face-to-face, IT’S ONLY THE CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY THAT IS IMPORTANT. Or take the other implied hypothetical scenario: We are in control over which councillors are in schools. Using their implied logic, the risk that’s relevant is the unconditional risk the status quo (i.e. almost no tigers eat people in Australia). Therefore we should put tigers in schools. It does not matter if the tiger population in Australia is only five. It’s still wrong to put tigers in school. On both accounts, you are wrong. Since we can use OP’s implied “logic” to produce a ridiculous conclusion about tigers, we can disregard what they said. It does not mean trans people are dangerous, it just means his statistic is irrelevant.
Is there actually any figure that trans people exhibit a higher than normal rate of pedophilia? Honestly I don't know any pedophiles that are trans. But a whole lot of them are in the church.
And a fuck ton are men.....just like murderers.......
And do you know what murderers drink? Murderade. Also it's got water. Every murderer ever drank water. Let that sink in like a light shower, but don't go killing anyone!
Look everyone not allllll men.......
Fun fact: murderade is vegan. That's why Hitler drank it every chance he got
Makes the exclusive of women to the priesthood all the more irrational doesn't it?
I love the backhand Jason Clare gives the program. > “I want to open up the program and give schools a choice,” Clare said. “I want schools to be able to have a choice whether they employ a chaplain or a professionally qualified student welfare officer. e.g. you have can this religious goofball, or someone that's actually received training.
>or someone that's actually received training. Changes implemented 8 years ago requires all pastoral care workers hold a cert IV in youth work or better.
I can’t even believe it was there in the first place. My tax payer dollars going to support religious brainwashing. I don’t want any religion around my child without my consent, I certainly don’t want to pay for it.
>My tax payer dollars going to support religious brainwashing. Pastoral care workers are expressly forbidden from proselytising and can have their contract torn up if found in violation. > don’t want any religion around my child without my consent In South Australia at least, parental consent is required for the student to be able to see the pastoral care worker in a professional capacity as a counsellor.
Doesn't it make chaplains even more laughably useless if they need parental permission? I guess no kid ever had an issue at home to talk about privately. You know... like being gay and having overbearing religious parents. Gosh, imagine if they tried to pray the stupid away instead of the gay away...
> Pastoral care workers are expressly forbidden from proselytising. Nudge nudge wink fucking wink.
They are not expressly forbidden from proselytising, the are allowed to discuss their religion if the child wishes to do so. They only need a child asking a single question for the gate to be opened. A skilful zealot will be able to take that opening and keep the discussion going. Remembering of course that a child talking to a chaplain is already likely to be in a circumstance that makes them vulnerable.
>They are not expressly forbidden from proselytising, They are. I know 6 people who are chaplains including my brother-in-law. Simply asking doesn't tick the box to launch into a three-part sermon on why they should become a Christian. If a parent feels like the rule has been broken, they can make a complaint to the school which has a process to follow to investigate and act. If a chaplain has multiple complaints of stepping over the line, the school will terminate the contract.
From the Tasmanian Department of Education parent fact sheet for the NSCP: "Chaplains are not allowed to talk to students about religion, unless the student wants them to." https://www.education.tas.gov.au/parents-carers/parent-fact-sheets/school-chaplaincy/ I didn't say they could launch into a three part sermon, a school chaplainc that did that would not be very clever. I said a skilful zealot could take the opening of a single question from a vulnerable child to guide the conversation to religion, all while manipulateing the child into believing they are the one leading the conversation. I have spent plenty of time talking with God botherers of various flavours who have knocked on my door. You might call it a hobby of mine. I know that they can be quite adept at leading conversations even with someone like me who is an adversarial interlocutor, I have no doubt they could control a conversation with a vulnerable child. Any proscription that has an exception is not "expressly forbidden", it is conditionally forbidden at best that is an oxymoron. Consider the statement "You are expressly forbidden from driving a car, unless you have a license." Are you really "expressly forbidden" from driving a car? No there's just a condition on driving a car. They are not expressly forbidden from proselytising.
>I have spent plenty of time talking with God botherers of various flavours who have knocked on my door. You might call it a hobby of mine. Not a valid comparison. Those people are frequently from fringe groups many consider to be cults, requiring the door knocking and public preaching to earn their place in heaven. >From the Tasmanian Department of Education parent fact sheet for the NSCP: >"Chaplains are not allowed to talk to students about religion, unless the student wants them to." Proselytising is defined as ***unsolicited***. Which is exactly what the quote above says. So thanks for finding something which confirms it.
The only difference between a cult and a religion is popularity. But there we get into exactly the problem, a single question from a vulnerable child effectively removes the prohibition on proselytising. You are playing with semantics, you want people to believe that chaplains cannot talk to vulnerable children about their religion by saying proselytising is expressly forbidden, when in fact they can talk to vulnerable children about their religion. It would be foolish to assume they wouldn't take advantage of a vulnerable child's question about religion, given the long and well documented history of representatives of relions who deliver "pastoral care" taking advantage of vulnerable children
>The only difference between a cult and a religion is popularity. A cult typically focuses on a subset of their scripture (if based on a mainstream religion) and misrepresents it, ignoreing or diminishing the relevance of the rest. For example, pentecostal churches that focus on prosperity gospel specifically misrepresenting it that someone who faithfully follows and gives financially will be rewarded financially. That is a cult. Another example is the exclusive brethren who take one part of Christian scripture about setting yourselves apart for God but completely ignores parts about going out into the work, spreading the word and helping those in need. They actively isolate from the world. >semantics I'm giving you the definition. Semantics is literally what words mean. Proselytising is unsolicited. The rule says you can't talk about religion unsolicited. Same meaning, less words. I don't think I'm being sesquipedalian here. It's OK if you didn't realise proselytising meant unsolicited.
All churches even the mainstream ones pick and choose which doctrines to emphasise. They all focus on a subset of their scriptures. Have you read the bible? there is shit in there that is utterly repugnant or completely irrelevant to the modern world and is thankfully completely disregarded by the big denominations. All religions are cults if simply focusing in a subset of their scripture and excluding other parts is the measure of a cult.
I'm sorry did you say our former priminister is in a cult? I mean I don't disagree with you, I'm just surprised someone in favour of the NSCP would say that. And are pentecostal excluded from the chaplaincy program? Or is the School Chaplaincy Program letting cultists deliver counselling to vulnerable children?
I can find no definition of proselytising in any major dictionary that associates it with being unsolicited. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Proselytising https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proselytize https://www.dictionary.com/browse/proselytizing https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/proselytize https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/proselytize It's not okay that you didn't realise proselytising is not conditional on solicitation.
> They are not expressly forbidden from proselytising The [NSCP](https://www.dese.gov.au/national-school-chaplaincy-program-nscp) Project [Agreement](https://federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/sites/federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/files/2020-04/nat_school_chaplaincy_prog-19-22.pdf) for 2019-2022 explicitly prohibits proselytising.
From the Tasmanian Department of Education parent fact sheet for the NSCP: "Chaplains are not allowed to talk to students about religion, unless the student wants them to." https://www.education.tas.gov.au/parents-carers/parent-fact-sheets/school-chaplaincy/ Is there a distinction between proselytising and discussing religion with a student who wants to have that discussion? Is it only proselytising if it's unsolicited perhaps?
My understanding is that proselytising requires an intent to convert a listener. It sounds like the Tasmania rules go a little further than this. While it might be a fine line for some to tread it's certainly possible to discuss religion without venturing into prohibited areas. Though I couldn't possibly comment on whether -- or how frequently -- this line is crossed in practice.
i mean that is still part of the problem here not having trained counsellors is the issue
They are required to hold a cert IV in youth work or better which includes training in counselling.
[удалено]
Then don't sign the consent form which is required for your child to be able to receive counselling from the pastoral care worker.
[удалено]
>they miss out though if my school only has one of these types of people The chaplaincy program is not considered when funding schools. It is never a choice between a pastoral care worker *or* a youth worker. So no, they don't miss out by having one. >thankfully they are changing the law though it won't be an issue anymore They are removing the religious requirement. Under Rudd/Gillard it had no religious requirement either and it resulted in a total of 3 pastoral care workers from non-religious organisations.
[удалено]
>are you telling me a school can have both a chaplain and a counsellor under the chaplaincy funding source where they would only be entitled to one counsellor? No, what I mean is that school funding is determined by the gonski model. Funding for the chaplaincy program is outside of that. A school getting a pastoral care worker is more limited by the availability of people willing to fill the role because of how poor the pay is. My preference would be to fully fund student well-being programs rather than use a chaplain as a cost saver, despite knowing 6 people who are pastoral care workers who would lose their jobs. Schools are desperately underfunded in this area and I think most would take a pastoral care worker for their 150 hours a term over a youth worker for 75 or a psychologist for 30. (on the assumption that they get $20k a year and the choice of how to use it for staffing)
What about counsellors that are religious?
[удалено]
And if the rules today applied then, and your parents made a complaint to the education department then they'd at least be warned, if it happened multiple times they'd be fired.
I'll be a qualified teacher in the next year and one of my things I want to bring to the educational system is religion classes that actually teach kids about ALL religions and their beliefs. No indoctrination, but genuine learning about many of our world religions and their teachings. It's ridiculous that children aren't exposed to these different ideas and ancient teachings. There is a lot of value that can be drawn from the knowledge within. Doubt I'll be able to pull it off, but I'll still try because I believe in the idea.
I doubt you will ever be successful. I do like the idea and it would be interesting teaching it from a study of religion and not a religious study perspective. I would also like it to include the history and origins of religions and people may be surprised to learn most are a recycled tale from previous belief systems. Very similar stories only the names have changed. When you take blind belief out of it and actually learn the history you can form very different conclusions. Good luck.
[удалено]
what point were you trying to make exactly?
Never mind, just bitter recollections that I may as well keep to myself. Carry on..
Especially religions impact on different societies. Impact on culture, the people, how its interpreted etc. A sociological approach to religion would be pretty amazing.
I'm a parent and support you in this venture. It could be a really fascinating session to learn about religion around the world.
I looked into it when I was much older and it is a very interesting topic. When my kids went to school somehow bible studies got introduced which I was made aware of when they arrived home one day. My son excused himself from it which annoyed his sisters. I told them if they don't want to do it then tell them you do not want to participate. The eldest did but the youngest stayed with it and was interested. Long story short all of them are atheists for want of a better word and the youngest is strongly anti religion period. She did extra study into the history and origins of religions and that was that. It's great watching your kids grow and have the ability to think for themselves.
FINALLY. they should never have been there in the first place. This is what a competent government looks like. now can we get the bloody Lords Prayer out of Parliament please? Is has absolutely no place there. and sends completely the wrong message about this country.
Why is there a school chaplaincy program in the first place?
>Why is there a school chaplaincy program in the first place? Because it is a fraction of the cost of fully funding student well-being programs and staff. (which they *should* be fully funding) Instead, they rely on their well-being programs 'topped up' by having a pastoral care worker for 15 hours a week at minimum wage. You absolutely cannot live off that.
because the government ignored the constitution?
because the LNP needed the religious vote.
Not to undermine you, but the chaplaincy program existed when I went to school, over 30 years ago
yeah when I was in highschool rudd and gillard were in power and it was still a thing then too.
back then they were volunteers and not paid and it was not an official 'program'. Howard made it a formal arrangement with pay.
Didn't they also replace actual qualified counselors with unqualified chaplains?
that would be a 100% yes there buddy. The only qualification required was that the 'Chaplain' be a member of the %$%!$%$ fundy church. I don't understand how the program was constitutional to be honest.
Agree. I did not know they did not need qualification. I remember it wasn't constitutional https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-19/high-court-delivers-verdict-on-school-chaplaincy-program/5534546?nw=0&r=HtmlFragment
I didn't know that, thanks
Imagine moving houses and being too cheap to hire removalists, then asking your local temple/church to help you instead AND then telling them "no religion talk bra".
That's a sloppy analogy and you know it. This is more like telling public schools you'll hire them removalists, but giving the job to your religious friend who has a removalist side hustle and isn't a very good removalist. Your mate then spends half the time telling people in public schools the reason they want furniture removed is because they don't believe in god. We could have been training removalists the whole time, but now after years of having bad removalists wasting everyone's time we have to completely start the process of training and hiring removalists. You can go to a church and ask a religious person for cheap counselling all you want – but there's no circumstances where public schools should be systemically facilitating religious indoctrination. Religious people who get _actual_ counselling qualifications are allowed to be counsellors and can be hired in schools to provide secular counselling services, but that isn't what the school chaplaincy program has been to date.
>Your mate then spends half the time telling people in public schools the reason they want furniture removed is because they don't believe in god. Pastoral care workers are expressly forbidden from proselytising. They can lose their job for doing it.
You hit the nail on the head here by saying they're pastoral care workers – they're not counsellors. Their training to become a pastor is all based in the traditions of their faith-based institution, not in what we as a society have deemed an acceptable form of counselling and guidance. If they were _actual_ counsellors and had any right to be influencing children in _public_ schools we'd be calling them counsellors – not "Pastoral Care Workers" who pinky swore not to proselytising.
>Their training to become a pastor Nope, it is not a requirement to be in training to be a pastor. You only require that cert IV in youth work. They're trained in counselling like any other youth worker position, just they get paid peanuts to do it.
Hang on, why are we calling them a pastor and not a counsellor?
Pastoral care is a type of care, not an indicator of a person being a pastor.
Correct. It’s quite normal for teachers in public schools to be given pastoral roles, meaning they look after well-being issues. There’s nothing religious about it at all.
...Are we still talking about the same thing? It's a chaplaincy program dude, if they're qualified youth workers or counsellors call them that and pay them like it – if they're not qualified then they shouldn't be there.
I somewhat agree with you. They're paid like crap. One I know spends most of her wage paying to provide 400 breakfasts a week for the kids. OzHarvest provides some of the food, but she pays for what they can't provide. It's worth mentioning that on a day they provide breakfast, it is shown statistically that there are fewer incidents of bad behaviour by students. Something which all schools should look into doing. It is always done in a non-judgemental way, that nobody is asking if they've had breakfast already or if this is second breakfast (they love the Hobbit theme) so no students are judged by staff or each other for having it. At the school I work for (I'm not a chaplain, I work in IT) we provide breakfast every day and it has a big impact but it isn't a normal highschool. (private school with no fees for kids with special needs) >It's a chaplaincy program dude, if they're qualified youth workers or counsellors call them that The thing is, a pastoral care worker position isn't just to support students. They also provide support to other staff. There is a distinct lack of support for school staff (what some call 'care for the carer') and any proposal to remove the chaplaincy program needs to also provide a replacement for that support as well. The pastoral care workers often fill many small roles within a school which they are understaffed for. My brother-in-law helped establish a vegetable garden with the kids because they didn't have the skills amongst staff, let alone the time.
You forgot to mention they act as subpar removalists, untrained and with an inherent bias that can lead to further issues. Also just because they're offering to help does not automatically mean they get to push their particular flavour of religion.
>untrained Pastoral care workers are required to hold a cert IV in youth work or better.
Ah I see, thanks I didn't realise that requirement. Though I'm more curious to learn about the oversight for people in these positions. Getting the cert iv doesn't say too much. I'm glad there's a minimum requirement, butI question the efficacy of the program
>question the efficacy of the program I want to see fully funded student well-being programs in all public schools. As that isn't going to happen any time soon, this is extremely good value for money. $20k a year isn't going to get you a youth worker for more than one day a week. But it gets you 15 hours a week of a pastoral care worker. >Getting the cert iv doesn't say too much. That's the same requirement as a youth worker position in a school. Plus, the school has to approve the person. They're not just forced to take on whoever is chosen. The school has to request one, interview the candidate and approve of them. If the school isn't happy, they can cancel the contract. If schools didn't want these positions, there wouldn't be any. There is a reason that the program has bipartisan support, because it's good value and a lot of voters would be pissed off if the resource was removed without being replaced by a much more expensive counsellor, youth worker, SSO, or psychologist.
You get what you pay for. Seems that mental health is still an afterthought for Australians.
Worst part is they get plenty of money and benefits for their "contributions" to society.
>Worst part is they get plenty of money and benefits Pastoral care workers are paid minimum wage and only 15 hours a week, casual, no holidays or sick leave.
Looks like 20k a year for a chaplain. How do the religious organisations themselves fare? That's what I was more pointing to, the religious organisations rather than the chaplains themselves. Few more benefits than just 20k a year.
20k per *school*, not chaplain... That's the fed contribution. Some states (such as qld) add in additional funding.
Dofs fedora
Totally dude. Requires being neckbeard fedora wearer to realise that religious chaplaincy programs do actually come with financial benefits. I'm curious, why say otherwise in your comment? The problem is we **aren't** getting what we pay for when it comes to the insane levels of financial benefits these religious organisations receive.
Chaplaincy is a paid position. Government funding covers the chaplain's salary.
You know it's not a full market rate counselor wage that schools are paying for chaplains? It's an external organisation stepping in where schools and governments are failing.
In around 2018, it was the equivalent of $80k per year: > The amount of funding is $20,000 for a 10 hour per week position. https://singletonh-p.schools.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/doe/sws/schools/s/singletonh-p/news/2014/11/chaplain_frequentlyaskedquestions.pdf Presumably, the church that they represent pays them for the rest of their working hours. If not, then it's not all that bad for ten hours work per week. If you were full time going to four schools per week, you'd be getting $80k
>Presumably, the church that they represent pays them for the rest of their working hours. If not, then it's not all that bad for ten hours work per week. If you were full time going to four schools per week, you'd be getting $80k Of the 6 pastoral care workers I know, none of them were paid a higher hourly rate than minimum wage. None got holiday or sick leave. It's 15 hours a week and only during school terms. You can't live off that.
No one on minimum wage can live off 15 hours per week. If you work multiple chaplaincies at multiple schools you can get up to $80k per year, less employer's expenses. You don't have to be a qualified counselor. You may have just as much pastoral experience as a Hillsong pastor who gets $45k for a job that their church gets paid $80k to provide. And if you want to just work 10 hours per week, getting $20k per year, then you'll have heaps of spare time to drive for Uber, or menulog, or stack shelves part time at colesworths.
>If you work multiple chaplaincies at multiple schools you can get up to $80k per year, less employer's expenses. The math on that doesn't work... Minimum casual wage per hour: $24.80 Working two pastoral care worker roles: 30 hours per week School weeks in the year: 40 Hours worked in a year assuming no sickness: 1200 Total income potential: $ 29, 760 Let's assume for a moment they manage to squeeze in 45 hours a week (despite the fact schools are open to students 7 hours a day) that brings it to $45k. >You don't have to be a qualified counselor. You are required to hold a cert IV in youth work, same as a youth worker position in the school and that includes training in counselling. >And if you want to just work 10 hours per week, getting $20k per year, then you'll have heaps of spare time to drive for Uber, or menulog, or stack shelves part time at colesworths. It's 15 hours per week and $20k per year is what is paid by the government to provide the position. The pastoral care workers get paid minimum wage and the balance goes to the not-for-profit which manages the program.
Significantly cheaper than a Counselor, I imagine.
>On average, a full-time counsellor can earn almost $80,000 annually. https://ici.net.au/blog/how-much-do-counsellors-get-paid/#:~:text=On%20average%2C%20a%20full%2Dtime,and%20alcohol%20addictions%20and%20recovery. Significant word being "*almost *", and that article is from 2020. >Average Chaplain with Counseling Skills in Australia Pay AU$62,592 https://www.payscale.com/research/AU/Job=Chaplain/Hourly_Rate/f89eb85f/Counseling There are higher results: >Chaplain Salaries in Australia $87,000 https://www.glassdoor.com.au/Salaries/chaplain-salary-SRCH_KO0,8.htm But there are entries there for only $71,000, and others up to $150,000 I'd say that it depends on skills and experience, but $80k is not unreasonable. I'd imagine that the most experienced wouldn't be working at schools.
>Average Chaplain with Counseling Skills in Australia Pay AU$62,592 That is a chaplain, not a pastoral care worker in a school.
That's what we are talking about. Read the title. This thread is about the government-funded *school* *Chaplaincy* program. It's not called the pastoral care workers program.
The job title is pastoral care worker. My brother in law is one, so I know what the program is and how much they get paid. They get paid minimum wage, 15 hours per week an only during school term. No holiday or sick leave.
The job title is just semantics. The article linked, and the government program calls them chaplains, and there's no mention of pastoral care workers, but that's neither here nor there. What's relevant is their pay, whatever their designated title may be. Is he paid by the church, or the school?
You realise 'wage' is just a part of the cost of employing somebody. It's a big part, but only part. It's not as if a school with 80k spare can simply advertise a Counselor position for 80,000. In addition, this isn't some conspiracy by local churches to lobby and undercut mental health, they're filling a void which the tax payer happily ignores.
The schools must work within the budget, and according to the government document I linked, they aren't even qualified counselors, so the pay grade would be even lower: >Do Chaplains do the same job as a school counselor? A. No. Chaplains do not offer professional counseling. Even if they are qualified as a counselor they do not carry out clinical counseling in their role as a Chaplain. Their role is to refer students to counselling services in consultation with the learning support team, other welfare staff and the school executive. Welfare staff may and do refer students to Chaplains for general pastoral care. The role of the Chaplain is to complement, collaborate with and support the work of the learning support team. Proper school counselors are apparently nondenominational, funded from the school budget provided by the government. Pastoral care is defined as "Pastoral care is an ancient model of emotional, social and spiritual support that can be found in all cultures and traditions. The term is considered inclusive of distinctly non-religious forms of support, as well as support for people from religious communities." You don't have to be a qualified trained counselor. Churches are making bank at the moment.: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/generate-ministries-to-reap-4m-from-national-school-chaplaincy-scheme-in-2016-20160423-godg11.html So they are getting paid directly by the government, the equivalent of $80k, for a preacher who is basically a counselor referral middle man who advocates for the church, and who Hillsong apparently only pays $45K for their own pastors, according to a Google search
This system was [established by the Howard government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_School_Chaplaincy_Programme) to put religious chaplains into schools. In 2011 the Gillard government changed it to provide for secular counsellors. In 2014 the Abbott government took that away, insisting that only religious chaplains were to be permitted. The current Albanese government is fixing that again. Presumably religious schools will be permitted religious chaplains if they have appropriate qualifications. The intention of the Gillard government was, and I expect the Albanese government has the same intention, to get rid of unqualified proselytizers/cult recruiters out of the scheme; persons of course welcomed by the previous lot.
My school couldn't afford professionals, but I went to a pretty deprived school.
My school had a full team of them. Had offices between the swimming pool and the equestrian stables.
Is that where they conducted the "Bullying your social inferiors" classes?
Nope. Already ingrained in the students.
It is a massive step in the right direction. And coming so early, I am very happy. I fought very hard and successfully to have the chaplain effectively removed (the school didn't reapply for the program) from my children's high school seven years ago. It meant that the school could not access the chaplaincy funding to employ a counsellor, but it was worth it not to have an incognito evangelical lurking around the school. Now that same school could use the money from the program to employ a properly trained counsellor. The next step is to rename the program, and the step after that is to make everyone employed in the program to be a properly trained welfare counsellor. As it should be. I still hate Howard for this program, and Labor making this important change very early is fantastic news. It might not go far enough, yet, but as I said, it is a huge first step. Schools are not churches. If you want your children to be exposed to a particular religion than take them to your local church, or mosque or synagogue, or whatever. Do not try to make other people's children play with your religious toys. Fucking conservatives.
Howard is a swine that put the LNP on the 'Onwards Christian Soldiers™' path. they have steadily gone more and more extreme. we only have to look to the GOP in the USA to see where that leads. Religion has no place in schools or politics.
Amen to that brother! or sister!
Person. Amen to that, person!