There has been a lot of discussion in the media recently about the separation of church and state, particularly in relation to the proposal by the federal government to spend AUD90M on funding chaplains in schools . This is a bold move on the government’s part because it flies in the face of so many cultural beliefs of our post modernist/humanist society. Most recently I listened to a debate between the two Chris’s via podcast from ABC local radio in Adelaide . Former Labor senator Chris Schacht , an avowed atheist, was livid that the Labor party was allowing this to be supported and was giving full reign to his outrage. Christopher Pyne , Federal Liberal member for Sturt was trying to defend the government’s position and, I thought, not doing a very good job of it. Here then are some of my thoughts on the arguments being advanced in this debate.
The Government Shouldn’t be Choosing who is and is not a Suitable Person to Be a Chaplain.
This is ludicrous. The government chooses now who is and isn’t a suitable person to be employed in a school. This is to protect the children from either incompetence or malicious intent. If a school decided to employ someone who was a paedophile, advocating violent Jihad or promoting animal sacrifices I would hope that the government would have something to say about it. These standards apply to all people employed in schools and I don’t see this program as any different. As for the suggestion that the government will be vetting people’s religious beliefs and only allowing those who agree with the government’s particular ideology, that is simply scaremongering.
Look at all the Problems the Church has had with Paedophiles, We Don’t Want People Like that Looking After our Kids.
Indeed we don’t. The fallacy here is associating the church necessarily with paedophilia. Yes there have been examples of paedophiles in the church but is the incidence really greater than that in the rest of society? Is it just that the media rightly holds the church to a higher standard that cases of paedophilia receive more prominence? Is it just that the church is such a big prominent organization that it presents an easier target? Because of that prominence it is easy to hold up the examples and characterise all churches that way but is that fair? Haven’t all churches taken steps to ensure that a higher standard of child protection is in place? I know the measures taken by my church and they have been so successful that our program is being used across the country as an example of how to do child protection. With these standards in place can people really say that to employ someone from a church is to employ a paedophile?
My real argument here is that the government has to assess school workers now and do background checks and that this process be no different with those appointed as school chaplains - there really should be no difference.
Won’t the Chaplains be Brainwashing our Kids?
I have two arguments with this. Firstly, from a Christian perspective, becoming a Christian is entirely a person’s choice. You can’t be brainwashed into it because the relationship is between God and you directly. This can happen because Jesus died on the cross so that you can be holy enough to have a direct relationship with God. No brainwashing can get around the requirement of your own choice.
Secondly, what is everyone so afraid of in Christianity? What are the churches teaching that is so objectionable? Aren’t our laws based on the ten commandments anyway? Are the virtues of grace and love so hard to swallow? Quite apart from the fact that Christianity isn’t primarily about the requirements to live a good life aren’t the churches teaching things that our society values anyway?
Wouldn’t Secular Counsellors be Better?
I believe that we are both physical and spiritual beings. Any solution that ignores the spiritual component of our makeup is going to miss dealing with an essential part of our nature. Secular counsellors are not going to deal with that part of us so that, whilst what they do can be very helpful, they are not going to address the spiritual root causes of some of the problems attacking our youth.
Conclusion
In this debate we have to be mindful that a lot of the arguments are being advanced by people who are themselves religious but in different ways. Chris Schacht is an avowed atheist which is a religion in and of itself. To put atheism on a higher level than other religion whilst espousing a post modernist relativistic philosophy is the height of hypocrisy.
