[Bounce]

It just seems like it's the easy, public target to me.

The government employs the Church of England chaplaincy for Parliament, and the COE is the official church of the government(or more accurately, Parliament)..... Yet for them to put similar services in public schools seems to piss people off?

Why? It's stupid.

Even the Collingwood Football Club employs a regular chaplain and is connected to chaplaincy services.... Why public schools should be exempt from receiving funding for Chaplaincy is beyond me, when it is common in most other public and private corporations/companies/educators.

It is irrelevant if they are in private enterprises. That's completely their choice. No religious denomination should be let near any public institution. There should be no government funding for religious institutions. No tax breaks, no funding to their schools.

[redcarpet]

It is irrelevant if they are in private enterprises. That's completely their choice. No religious denomination should be let near any public institution. There should be no government funding for religious institutions. No tax breaks, no funding to their schools.

This! Even if it means those schools will shut down.

[Igor Antunov]

Another point of interest. Private schools (i.e usually religious schools) receive more public education funding than public schools, despite public schools being 100% dependent on public funds!

Also, can't believe I neglected to mention this until now; Chaplains unaffiliated with church organisations will be fired alongside secular public sector school counselors. Only church affiliated chaplains will be covered by this program.

[colliric]

This! Even if it means those schools will shut down.

Some of those schools have been educating in their respective local communities for over 100 years or more even.

Somehow I don't think the government would be stupid enough to take that position, you'd get an awful lot of angry bitter voters.... As you usually do with high levels of school closures.

No that's not an option, we live in a society here... Not an autocracy.

If you took his position, the Army Chaplaincy program (a program with a long rich history) would be disbanded, Public Hospitals would not be allowed to administer last rites to dying patients in emergency, Police chapels would cease to exist.... This list goes on and on and on.

It's just not viable, and downright idiotic to suggest that.

[Bounce]

I went to one of those schools and many of them have it easily within their means to be self sufficient.


Again, you're making out that these things matter to me. We live in a secular society and shouldn't have government supporting religions. The concept that we must retain some of these practices because tradition demands it questions why we should move away from any practice. Where would you draw the line?

The only decent example you've provided is with regards to the Hospital Chaplaincy program, the rest can easily be done away with. Even the last rites can usually be done by someone independent of the hospital. Why should Christianity be preferred over other religions? Why should money be spent on appeasing the religious over atheists? What happens when Christianity becomes a minority religion? Will funding continue to be valid? Or is it because John Howard (and others) wanted to see the extension and revitalisation of religious values?

[colliric]

All of those are "What ifs?" and hypotheticals, so addressing them would be superfluous at this stage.

Except perhaps the last one. Well duh, he's a Christian and is interested in supporting Christian values, including arresting falling Church attendance figures.

Politicians should be expected to uphold their beliefs and values in Parliament.

[redcarpet]

It would be viable if a large number of new state schools were produced in such areas to compensate, etc.

[Bounce]

All of those are "What ifs?" and hypotheticals, so addressing them would be superfluous at this stage.

Except perhaps the last one. Well duh, he's a Christian and is interested in supporting Christian values, including arresting falling Church attendance figures.

Politicians should be expected to uphold their beliefs and values in Parliament.

They're there because you can't answer them. Australia doesn't need your religion.

[colliric]

They're there because you can't answer them.

Yes, you cannot give any answers to hypotheticals like that.

The first one is gramattically rhetorical.

The third one doesn't make any sense, because Atheism is traditionally a religious viewpoint and it's only in the modern era that Athiests have sought to redefine "Religion" to exclude them as a group(much like how the word "gay" was redefined). "Religion" actually means "A way of life" and has nothing to do weather or not a person believes in a deity or attends a church/temple/mosque. Atheists live their lives with the belief that there is no god, and this common belief defines them as an organised group. It is literally their Religion.

The ancient Greeks considered Sport and Politics to be Religions(and let's face it, THEY ARE!).