Government brushes holey molars for holy rollers

Little Joe says:

08:10am | 02/12/11

@ Carz ...... thank you, thank you, thank you!!!

Schools are not obliged to use a religious person in this role!!!

I find it incredible that this unfactual ignorant story gets published when fully researched and referenced counter-punch stories are found less worthy.

Maybe it would be wise for Jo Thornly to ask the question “Why has Wayne Swan ripped $6,800M out of budgeted Natural Disaster Relief??” If a Natural Disaster occurs, what happens then Wayne .... more levies and taxes!!!! Incredibly this is equivalent to the budgeted surplus from 2012-13 to 2014-15.

wonk_arama says:

09:37am | 02/12/11

There is a conflagration the issues around a chaplaincy program and the teaching of religious education.  This may occur because groups that provide people for one program also do it for the other or indeed that the chaplain might deliver both. Clearly it is easy to see how a blurring of the lines between the two can occur, or appear to do so. 

Religious organizations, in particular christian groups, do provide a large number of chaplains, largely due to being set up to do so.  Additionally the low level of funding for the program means schools struggle to attract the sort of qualified professionals needed for this work. This then leads the schools to choose from those willing and able, meaning that people whose qualifications may not be everything that is required and who may struggle when presented with situations that challenge their objectivity. The pregnant teen seeking advice would be a difficult case for the chaplain from a religious organization. 

Counselling offered by someone specifically trained to do so is a valuable resource and it should be funded to ensure that the best qualified people participate. 

John Smythe says:

09:40am | 02/12/11

That’s a little harsh LJ. Compared to the usual crap here, this piece isn’t that bad. I found it amusing actually.

She does raise a good point though, why should religious education be allocated so much of the budget? Especially, if as Carz indicates, it is neither compulsory for schools, nor are “experts” required.

Dental health would be one area that could certainly benefit from boosted funding.

Do they still put dental clinics in primary schools? There was one in mine many a year ago….pretty sure we had regular checks (as in more than once a year).

Both Carz and the author argue the same thing, just give different examples of where better spending could be.

Given that churches obtain regular donations and the like, I don’t see why a portion of tax dollars should be allocated them. ALL funding from the government should stop for religious entities.

Al says:

05:35pm | 02/12/11

This program is about spreading Christian conservatism throughout our state school system. If you want your children to have an education based on primitive superstition, them to one of the religious based private schools which currently abound and are taking funding away from the supposedly secular state schools. What a joke!

skepdad says:

06:19pm | 02/12/11

Actually, currently schools may not hire a non-religious chaplain unless they have exhausted all attempts to hire a religious one.  This was the subject of a High Court challenge on the basis of the unconstitutionality of forcing a religious test for a government official.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s116.html

http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-s307/2010

As of next year, the religious test is being removed. However, I doubt that the schools will be forced to re-advertise the positions!  All of the qualified counsellors who lost out to a totally unqualified chaplain by virtue of not believing in a magic sky man will still not have that job.

The NSCP is, and always has been, an excuse to get religious indoctrination into public schools.

Mik says:

06:00am | 02/12/11

Preventive dentistry can decrease other costs http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/739665

patsy says:

10:08am | 02/12/11

If you are eliginble for the Medicare Dental Scheme you only have until 31/12/2011 to get your doctor to approve you or go without.

nossy says:

06:25am | 02/12/11

@Against the Man   I know where we can make a cut ATM - Dr NO can set an example for Australia ( a first time for everything) and decline his whopping $71,000 pay increase!  Ohhh yeah - and not a peep out of Abbott about this pay increase - not a murmur! Dr NO how low can you go!  hahahahah

Super D says:

06:59am | 02/12/11

@nossy - you seem to have a real chip on your shoulder about Tony Abbott’s payrise.  As far as I can tell the Liberal/national party members are vastly underpaid while ALP members are vastly overpaid.  The independent Peter Slipper was already grossly overpaid but will now be obscenely overpaid.

acotrel says:

07:22am | 02/12/11

@SuperD
Tony Abbott should get a performance penalty.

Borderer says:

08:29am | 02/12/11

Why would Tony object to the payrise? Right now he only has to say nothing and let the government do all the talking, they dig their political graves that bit deeper with every statement.  If he tries to block it he would be saving the Julia and Co from yet another poorly handled debacle. You have to remember the fact that his job is not to legislate, he’s not in government, he’s in opposition, his job is to debate and criticise. Right now he doesn’t have to criticise, it’s gobsmackingly obvious. A pay rise being approved by the government can’t be the fault of the opposition, that’s like saying getting caught speeding is the speed camera’s fault…..

Little Joe says:

09:32am | 02/12/11

@ acotrel ...... what about Wayne Swan??

From the Budget to MYEFO (approx 6-mths) :

- National Debt will now peak at $135.7 not $106.6B.
- National Financial Worth will decrease to -$232.2 not -$200.6B.

(Source : Table 3.15: Australian Government general government sector net financial worth, net debt, net interest payments and net worth, MID-YEAR ECONOMIC AND FISCAL OUTLOOK 2011?12)

- Labor will increase spending by $11.7B from 2011-12 to 2014-15 .... there are no $11.5B spending cuts.
- Labor will, through an act of economic vandalism, slash budgeted 2012-13 to 2014-15 Natural Disaster Relief from $7.021B to $0.214B.
- Labor has budgeted the Contingency Reserve to make a profit, or a net gain of almost $2.0B since the budget.

(Source : Table 3.21: Estimates of Australian Government general government sector expenses by function and sub-function, MID-YEAR ECONOMIC AND FISCAL OUTLOOK 2011?12)

So you keep whinging about the Liberal Party while Labor wrecks the nation.

Chris L says:

10:27am | 02/12/11

“The independent Peter Slipper was already grossly overpaid” - You mean, way back when he was a Liberal representative?

Against the Man says:

06:48pm | 02/12/11

I noticed none of the ALP losers have addressed Roxon’s f@#k ups. Guess they have come to terms with the f@#k ups. Good. At least they know when they have been beat.

Tom says:

01:29pm | 02/12/11

No Liz, millions of pensioners have rotting teeth because of Labor’s vacuous 2020 beautiful people’s gabfest and so we could all get plasma TVs back in the heady days when Labor played Santa Claus.

wonk_arama says:

08:42am | 02/12/11

Umm thatmosis you’ve not really done a good job of ignoring Nossy here. Just saying.

Chris L says:

10:30am | 02/12/11

C’mon Thatmosis. If we swapped the names of Abbott (which you spelled correctly) and Julia (which you seem to have a problem with) your description would apply just as aptly to yourself.

marley says:

07:56am | 02/12/11

@the apologist - the theory of evolution is science, nothing more, nothing less. It is not a religion and it is not “atheistic” - it takes no stance on the existence or otherwise of god.  It simply explains the development of species over the course of millions of years.  It may be inconsistent with a literal interpretation of the bible, but not with a metaphorical one. 

Darwin himself was a Christian, and so are many scientists who nonetheless believe in the theory of evolution.

the apologist says:

09:24am | 02/12/11

Thanks Marley.

Evolution is not science. It is theory and is based on a number of assumptions that are not scientifically established. Science is that which can be tested and verified by scientific process presently. Evolution is a theory of what may have happened historically by interpreting the data we see today in light of that theory.

It is a philosophical framework from which actual science is conducted. It is atheistic in that it is man’s attempt to explain the universe without God; it requires a religious commitment to the assumption that there is no God.

Christians who believe it (and as you say, there are some) are kidding themselves by undermining the very foundation of their belief - the Bible. Genesis presents itself as history, and to go against the literary structure and design of the text by trying to force a metaphorical interpretation does violence to the text and the faith. A metaphorical interpretation is inconcsistent with that text and other texts in the Bible. Some genres (e.g. the psalms, prophecy) lend themselves to more of a metaphorical slant, but the historical accounts do not.

imapriestbutitsnotareligionthing says:

10:06am | 02/12/11

“It’s foolish to suppose that sending out chaplaincy will be equivalent of sending out religion.”

I think youre forgetting what a chaplain is…

Really enjoyed this article btw, great stuff!

Kassandra says:

10:43am | 02/12/11

@ the apologist:

Marley is correct and you could not be more wrong. Evolution is not a theory. You misunderstand not only evolution but science as well. Scientific theories are attempts at explaining phenomena observed in the natural world. They are not merely ideas or conjectures. They are inductive, logical explanations of empirical data based on generally accepted principles or scientific laws.Theories are useful if they can be tested by making predictions that can be verified by further observations or if they can be tested under controlled experimental conditions. You are confusing theory with the phenomena the theory attempts to explain.

Evolution is the name given to a process occurring in the natural world and our knowledge about evolution is based on observations not assumptions.  It is a fundamental part of our understanding of biology, a principal discipline in modern science. There is more than one theory attempting to explain how evolution occurs, one of these is the theory of natural selection first proposed by Charles Darwin. Presumably that is what you mean by “Darwinism”.

the earth is not flat! says:

10:56am | 02/12/11

Oh dear, we have an evolution-denier here. This is a non-argument. Evolution is a scientifically established fact (the scientific word for this is ‘theory’ - maybe you should research the difference between the word theory as used amongst the general population and amongst scientists). Many high ranking religious officials, including the Catholic Church, acknowledge that evolution is real, as to dispute this would be akin to disputing the earth is flat. It is not science vs religion, as many scientists are religious and still acknowledge the fact of evolution. There are plenty of books written which detail the evidence for evolution, but in short: it has been observed actually happening, not to mention the fossils, analysis of genetic codes and geographical observations.

Also, atheism is no more a religion than sitting on the couch doing nothing is a sport, or not eating is a type of meal. Religion is defined as ‘the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods’. Atheism, quite obviouslly, is the absence of religion.

Science is independent of any religious beliefs. If overwhelming scientific evidence for the existence of a god presented itself, then there would be a scientific fact called ‘the Theory of God’, or something.

Chris L says:

11:07am | 02/12/11

“It is atheistic in that it is man’s attempt to explain the universe without God” - That would mean all science and knowledge disciplines that do not fall under theology would be described by you as atheistic. After all, there a no mathematical principals that say “some god did it”. Penicillin is understood by medical science to have a toxic effect on bacteria that is not explained as “this god moves in and kills the microbes near this penicillin. Sounds to me your objections to evolution could be applied to all learning.

Wynston Cruso says:

11:13am | 02/12/11

“Evolution is not science. It is theory and is based on a number of assumptions that are not scientifically established.” - WTF?

Have you even studied what you’re preaching against? So tired of this kind of ignorance. As has already been stated, Evolution is fact, proven fact. It is no more a ‘theory’ than the theory of gravity. It’s not a religious idea, you can’t ‘believe’ in it, and it’s not debatable. The only thing that is debatable is the extent to which it has occured in some areas. To say it’s an athiest idea is equally retarded as saying it’s just a ‘theory’ and hasn’t been proven. I don’t bash religious ideas and beliefs because I admit my knowledge is limited, I suggest you do the same for Evolution apologist becuase it’s clear you know next to nothing about it. People need to stop just making stuff up to suit their morose opinions.

the apologist says:

12:42pm | 02/12/11

@imapriest: true enough, what many chaplains do is probably not religion for the most part anyway. sad to have to admit that but there you go.

@Kassandra: good call on a theory – but the game changes when we are theorising about what might have happened in the past – which is basically what evolution is directed at. You said that evolution is the name given to a process occurring in the natural world – thing is that what’s happening doesn’t lineup with evolution. Genetic variation? Sure. Evolution? I haven’t seen anything that suggests that new characteristics and changes come in a species due to the addition of information in a gene pool.

@the earth is not flat!: well, not much of a case for evolution in your comments. What has been observed as happening is variation in gene pools (thus the e.g. of a particular species changing and specialising in a given environment), but there’s no observation of a given species demonstrating anything like the ‘species-hoping’ that evolution suggests. As for fossils – where is all the evidence? Where are the fossils suggesting that one species can turn into another completely different one?
You haven’t got much of a definition of religion. Atheism has religious commitments to the nature of existence (i.e. beliefs that cannot be substantiated by empirical process) like any religion. We are religious creatures. Atheism is just another form.
Science is conducted in light of our unfounded assumptions about the universe (thus plenty of recognised scientists have had completely different worldviews). You are kidding yourself if you think it’s ‘objective’.

@Chris L: correct – sort of. Theology used to be called ‘the Queen of Sciences’ for that reason. All other disciplines were a sub discipline of that in Universities. Needless to say this has changed. Science, however, is not now somehow ‘atheistic’ – it’s just that the basis for science in mainstream practice has switched from a Christian one to a naturalist/atheist one. Practitioners of both persuasions conduct it. It’s intrinsically religious either way. But yes, my objections to evolution could well be applied to all knowledge/learning. Knowledge itself (and thus all disciplines) is based upon religious commitment to a given worldview; the whole gammit stands or falls in each instance on what that worldview is.

@Wynston: Fact?? Where is the fossil evidence that records the historical transition of species?? (there’s no record even of the monkey to man transition for goodness sake). Where is the evidence to suggest that new genetic information can and does enter into a given species gene pool? (that’s the cornerstone of evolutionary development). For e.g. for a given species to develop a new trait, it needs different/additional genetic information in its DNA. The evidence suggests that while species loose information (thus the changes in the famous peppered moth example), these changes amount to a loss in information (e.g. all the moths with black wings died out due to a change in the environment, while moths with the existing genetic quality of white wings survived and multiplied because that the advantage of camouflage). Genetic variation is a reality, but evolution is lacking as an explanation for life.
The reason it is religious is because it commits to a naturalistic conception of the universe a priori. There are non-scientific commitments (i.e. religious commitments) underlying everyone’s thought processes, you’re just too blind to see it it seems.

Mr GG says:

12:54pm | 02/12/11

@the apologist
Not theory but Theory if you don’t know the difference you should not even be commenting as you are uneducated.
How does immunisation work? How did we make that vaccine…..
Through the principles of Evolution… where for God has repeatedly failed to answer prayers for cures, Science has Prevailed.
And Australia would NEVER have been discovered if we relied on Christians opinions it was Scientist that said the world wasn’t flat and sought to explore it.

Al says:

12:59pm | 02/12/11

the apologist:
Sorry, did I just read you claim that Genisis is History?
WTF, how is it history?
Based on the Genesis account Earth is just over 5000 years old, so where did ALL the archaology and civilisations that were present MORE than 5000 years ago come from?
(Something along the lines of ‘God put them there just to decieve the logical and rational thinkers so they would all go to hell’, right?”
The fact that many of the events presented in the bible as history have been proven as either complete fabrication (The exodus for one) or are simply not possible (Noahs flood, even if ALL the water in the world was liquid, it wouldn’t be enough to generate a global flood).
BTW: Evolution describes how life DEVELOPED.
It has NOTHING to say on how life was created or began. As such evolution is not contradicted by a Creator God, (it is contradicted by the idea that God created everything the way it is now and nothing has ever changed since then, but some people like to stick with their old fairy tales even once they grow up).
(Yes it IS that simple).

Wynston Cruso says:

01:02pm | 02/12/11

Not even worth arguing this with you apologist because you clearly have no idea. Your line: “Genetic variation is a reality, but evolution is lacking as an explanation for life” sums up your lack of knowledge on the subject perfectly. Evolution doesn’t attempt to explain life, or the origin of it. It’s ok to admit that you don’t understand something, but get off wikipedia and actually learn about it if you’re going to argue against it. Any peer reviewed scientific report will suffice in explaining to you that evolution is fact without reasonable doubt. I think you’re confusing evolution and natural selection by the sounds of it. Classic mistake for anyone who has never studied either one.

the apologist says:

01:41pm | 02/12/11

@Wynston:

I wasn’t talking about life’s origins (but that in itself is another problem for evolutionary theory which logically requires naturalistic causation for life - you can’t answer that one), I was talking about life as we observe it generally. Sorry that my comment wasn’t clear.

Seems like you’re pretty blinkered to the issues yourself. Let me try and phrase what I’m saying another way.

Evolution is the theory that all life originated from a single common ancestor. Presumably said ancestor had DNA – the genetic blueprint for what it was. For it to become something else, which evolution requires, it needed new information in its gene pool – it’s genetic properties need to include fresh information to develop new properties in the life form itself. Variations and mutations, it is theorised, provided the genetic change required for development into the diversity of life we see today. There are a few problems with this theory.

An interesting quote from Mr Gould for your consideration:
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our text books have data only at the tips and notes of their branches – the rest is inference. However, reasonable, not the evidence of fossils”

Transitional forms – necessary for evolution – are lacking in the fossil record, and they are lacking in terms of empirically observed evidence today. Just give me one observable example of a life form somewhere that has been scientifically observed to demonstrate this transition. Evolution requires them to stand as a theory.

In addition to this, it is all built on the assumption that we live in a materialistic universe. This is a faith based commitment – thus my initial comment on the religious nature of evolutionary theory.

Romans 1 says that man has become darkened in his understanding – rejecting God. That’s the real reason why evolution stands in such high esteem in society today – because people hate God and the thought of Him and will do whatever it takes to banish Him from their lives.
A Harvard Professor (Lewonton) said it quite starkly:
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Tim the Toolman says:

02:27pm | 02/12/11

the apologist:

You’re making so many false assumptions on what evolution is, it’s no surprise you’re coming up with false conclusions.  Don’t take this the wrong way, but go and read the texts, really read them and you’ll fill in a lot of the gaps that are leading you to believe scientists are saying 1+1=3.

the apologist says:

03:29pm | 02/12/11

@Tim:

Thanks, I take your comment for an honest assessment.

That said, I might be using layman’s terms, but i’m pretty sure the generally accepted view of what evolution is basically what i’ve been discussing - that:
1. single life-form formed/started on a cellular level
2. single life form developed into life as we know it/different species over large span of time due to genetic variation/mutation.

If i’m missing something with that, please tell me (of course it is incredibly simplistic, but accurate enough for the present purpose). And if you could point out the more obvious of the flaws in my argument, perhaps you could also be so kind as to comment on them.

Thanks.

skepdad says:

08:09pm | 02/12/11

@apologist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Any more brain busters? 

Not that it will make the slightest difference to your hardwired worldview.  It’s not really your fault, you were probably subjected to religious indoctrination as a child right?  You learned that Santa wasn’t real, but nobody ever told you as a child that God isn’t either; and by the time they did, you were too set in your ways to believe them.  It’s very sad.

Tim the Toolman says:

09:22am | 02/12/11

” then becomes just another bigoted atheist whinge.”

Yeah, how dare people question why we’re spending quadruple the amount on utter bollocks than on dental care.  I suppose you could always pray to god for new teeth after yours go to heaven.  We all know the figures on how many limbs have regrown through the power of prayer.

AdamC says:

12:17pm | 02/12/11

Um, maybe you could pray for an insight into the concept of spurious comparisons?

(Hint: the only connection between the two programmes - chaplaincy and dental health - is in the author’s own mind.)

Mr GG says:

12:57pm | 02/12/11

@adam
doesn’t change the fact we’re spending $222million to teach kids fairy tales

Tim the Toolman says:

02:43pm | 02/12/11

“Um, maybe you could pray for an insight into the concept of spurious comparisons?”

I looked it up, and right below it was “Spurious wastes of money” which I think applies well to Covert Religious Programming (i.e, Chaplaincy Program).

kyzz says:

11:23am | 02/12/11

He giveth me colgate in the face of mine cavaties

TrueOz says:

08:35am | 02/12/11

@Aaron
Jo is only mocking something which is truly deserving of mockery.

Tim the Toolman says:

09:25am | 02/12/11

“a system that does have merits, but needs better safeguards”

Safeguard recommendation 1.  Remove all chaplains.  Replace with qualified people. 

Oh look.  That fixes the issue.

Aaron says:

10:18am | 02/12/11

@Tim the Toolman, many chaplains are qualified. Remove all unqualified chaplains would be better.

@TrueOz, I do respect your opinion on this, but I believe that it is a system worth having. I for one always found the school chaplain much more approachable than the school counselor (not that I ever really needed either), and to have a qualified person in that role could certainly be a positive for the students.

If the issue is over money rather than qualifications then I’d put forward that there should be a certain fund devoted to chaplain type roles, but supporting all chaplains, not just the religious ones (is that what’s bothering people)?

TrueOz says:

11:01am | 02/12/11

@Aaron
So, they have non-religious chaplains - what sort of chapels do they come from then?

Tim the Toolman says:

11:58am | 02/12/11

“Remove all unqualified chaplains would be better.”

Then they should be fired and rehired in a non-religious capacity that they’re suited to.  There’s no reason to risk kids being anywhere near religious people, ESPECIALLY kids who are emotionally vulnerable.  Nothing like being told you’re going to hell etc…if you’re worried that you might be gay.

Aaron says:

01:47pm | 02/12/11

I’m talking about a role similar to the chaplain but isn’t from a religious institution.

I find it odd that you’re both so resistant to a qualified person taking up this role because they’re from a religious background.

Tim the Toolman says:

02:29pm | 02/12/11

“I find it odd that you’re both so resistant to a qualified person taking up this role because they’re from a religious background.”

Putting a person from a religious background in an environment like that is like putting a monkey in with a pile of bananas and telling him not to eat them.  The second you turn your back there’ll be banana everywhere.

Religion _lives_ for impressionable minds.

Aaron says:

04:54pm | 02/12/11

“Religion lives for impressionable minds.”

So you’re saying that someone who follows a religion/believes in a God(s) then they’re incapable of independent thought? That they’re only goal is convert every last person, that’s all they’re capable of thinking?

These are people, not robots. Why do you dis-respect other people so much?

shinydonkey says:

02:22pm | 02/12/11

Nice.  If they put billboards on the ceiling they could be Seventh-Day Ad-Dentists

Jo Thornely says:

09:05am | 02/12/11

Hi, Jimbo!
Research was from the official government budget overview, and the key words in the paragraph you mention are ‘improve’ and ‘expand’. The figures I mentioned are not the total amount, nor intended to be read as such.
Thank you for reading.
Jo.

Jimbo75 says:

09:17am | 02/12/11

Hi Jo,

The key words are ” In a (perhaps simplistic) summation, in financial terms the government is around four times more likely to give you access to divinity than dentistry.”

If you are going to measure by “financial terms” then you should conduct your analysis on total spending (ie. the whole iceberg) not just the amounts announced as new spending decisions (ie. the tip).

You have admitted that the analysis is simplistic I think it perhaps time you admitted it is also wrong.

Jimbo

4 says:

10:36am | 02/12/11

I find that there always seems to be more to be learnt from some knowledge commentators, then from the articles themselves.

Chris L says:

11:56am | 02/12/11

It wasn’t Julia that removed dentistry from medicare. Care to guess who did?

skinny1 says:

09:40am | 02/12/11

This Socialist mob give a good impression of richness to me with their huge pay increases, but then Gillard may be getting hers as a pay off to get rid of her in the next few months!

Tim the Toolman says:

09:51am | 02/12/11

You’re dead right michael.  I can’t think of any atheists who would object to a comparative religion and ethics class.  I’m about as vocal an atheist as you can find, but I agree with my religious friends on this matter.

Al says:

01:05pm | 02/12/11

Tim, But they ALREADY have comparative religion classes, it used to be called Religous Studies (it probably changed names since then to some PC version of this). Ethics they don’t realy but they are trying to introuduce it, which seems to be opposed by the religous who tend to claim only ethics based in THEIR religion are valid.

Tim the Toolman says:

02:39pm | 02/12/11

“Tim, But they ALREADY have comparative religion classes, it used to be called Religous Studies”

Hi Al,  well, that’s good to know.  I wasn’t aware that it had been altered to be comparative religion.

Tim the Toolman says:

11:48am | 02/12/11

Chaplain

1. an ecclesiastic attached to the chapel of a royal court, college, etc., or to a military unit.
2. a person who says the prayer, invocation, etc., for an organization or at an assembly.

Yeah. doesn’t sound religious at all. 

I’m a vegetarian!  Now pass me that steak!

Mitch says:

12:29pm | 02/12/11

@Tim: Did I say the Chaplain wasn’t religious? No, I said his/her role was related to welfare, not religious education.

Maybe you should actually read people’s comments before you go off half-cocked.

Tim the Toolman says:

02:36pm | 02/12/11

“@Tim: Did I say the Chaplain wasn’t religious? No, I said his/her role was related to welfare, not religious education.”

Oh please.  You don’t stick a religious person, with a religious title, through which the vast majority (>95%) are from a religious organisation who has stated its role is to teach kids religion in state schools into a role and then claim it has nothing to do with religion.

Mr GG says:

01:06pm | 02/12/11

you must be really bad with money, and why on earth do you have insurance that doesn’t cover what you need? Surely the issue is more your poor product selection and/or the poor value of health insurance.

as a Blacktowbn Boy that has worked my way out, I can tell you for a fact. You are never richer being Poor. I wish rich people that cry that crap could actullay live on the dole in housing commision for just a month(if you even last that long).

Jade says:

02:03pm | 02/12/11

I have the highest level of cover. I need a lot of work done and there is also a waiting period of a year before I can claim major dental. 

Don’t give me the “oh you don’t know what its like to be poor” spiel. When I was little up until I was about 15 I was raised with a drug addict in the house, all money went to feed his habit.  We regularly received care hampers from Vinnies, would eat cereal for dinner and the only time we really got anything new was when what we had wore out or at Christmas and Easter time.

Chris L says:

04:25pm | 02/12/11

... and you’d like to go back to that Jade?

Leah says:

12:22pm | 02/12/11

RE is purely volunteer-run and whether it exists in a school is up to the principal in charge of that school.

marley says:

07:14am | 03/12/11

@Leah:  in NSW, and I quote:  “Schools are required to provide religious education of two distinct types: General Religious Education (GRE) and Special Religious Education (SRE). “

Sorry, but I completely disagree with religion being taught in the schools as anything other than part of the history of civilisation. There are much higher priorities that need to be addressed - literacy and numeracy - before precious school hours are frittered away on religious education.

Leah says:

12:23pm | 02/12/11

If you think schools aren’t teaching kids what to think (and I’m not talking about religious stuff here), you’re fooling yourself.

subotic says:

01:29pm | 02/12/11

@Leah, I regularly have to “de-program” my 2 daughters from the diatribe that gets forced down their throats thru state school curriculum. But that’s a good parent’s job, right?

My daughters most definitely have been well educated into making their own choices based upon multiple options, and are never force fed anything. Whilst their mother and I do our best to teach them how to think though, I do agree that school and society make it harder to make choices not based on preconceived ideas.

It’s a damn jungle out there….

Leah says:

12:28pm | 02/12/11

Teachers get perfectly appropriate pay. What *isn’t* appropriate is the conditions they have to work with (abusive parents, bad achievement guages, lack of support like teachers aides, etc.) The reason they can’t teach kids “important things” is because of the idiot bureaucrats who set the curriculum dictating what teachers teach.

Mr GG says:

01:12pm | 02/12/11

@Leah
no they dont, I couldn’t even finsih a Dip Ed with out getting offered Technical roles that paid almost twice as much as teaching.

if you do the training but cant do the job you teach the training. (a common slightly joking comment) because anyone that can do the job is earning too much to be bothered doing the teaching (the real reason why it seems that way)

I agree with all the other stuff you mention too?

Tim the Toolman says:

02:31pm | 02/12/11

Something tells me you don’t know religion.  It hasn’t managed to infect so many minds by minding its own business.

Dr Robert says:

06:24pm | 02/12/11

Chaplains are deluded.  In psychological terms they have an idee fixe,  That is they are blind to reality,  The persistance of a belief in the face of overwhelming logic science and reason is a delusion

Tim the Toolman says:

02:44pm | 02/12/11

That’s like saying they have an anti-puppy beating agenda.  There’re some evils that should be called out.

Andrew says:

03:28pm | 02/12/11

Religion is evil?

Tim the Toolman says:

05:33pm | 02/12/11

For the most part, yes.  The nice parts are, in my opinion, window dressing behind which a dominating, self-serving and paranoid evil sits.  The world would, unequivocally, be better without religion.  It contributes nothing positive that couldn’t be done without religion and everything negative that wouldn’t be done without it.

Dr Robert says:

06:28pm | 02/12/11

Andrew,  Religion is not evil, it is a psychiatric illness called delusion and is very difficult to treat as it is an “idee Fixe”