A cactus wearing a hat, and Jesus swordfighting

Comments (7)

1. Now that IS funny , and you don’t need cocaine.

   Despite my giggles I can’t help feeling sorry for the wretched school chaplain, having to endure such unexpected insolence, as well as having to deal with school kids.

   I wonder has anyone raised the question of whether these “chaplains” are constitutional, even under Australia’s weak non-establishment provisions – section 116, I think.

   1. There’s been plenty of criticism since the Howard government instituted funding for it, but no legal challenges so far as I can tell. And the establishment provision in the Constitution is hardly weak, I think; it’s just that we have practised religious (and in particular Christian, and even more particularly, Catholic) exceptionalism since federation. We fund religious schools with state money even though they teach religious views. At least back when I was a kid, RE instructors were unfunded and involvement was voluntary for child or parent.

      Here’s section 116 of the Constitution:

      “116 Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”

      The phrase “imposing any religious observance” seems to me pretty strong.

2. Interesting, thanks.

   I was probably conflating the ” establishment” issue with the separation of church and state, to the extent they are different concepts. IANAL, but as I read this clause, it seems to prohibit establishing any one religion, but perhaps not necessarily separating religion from government (or from government funding).

   Given what’s in Section 116, it would nevertheless surely be arguable that the presence of chaplains in government schools helps to establish “a” religion; I’ll bet they are overwhelmingly Christian.

   Do they escape this by saying that their presence does not impose religion on anyone, as the parents are free to have their kids not use the chaplains’ services?

   One might still say that a constitutional clause is pretty weak if it can be avoided or ignored so easily.

   Bearing in mind Rudd’s religious views , I imagine this is one Howard policy where we can’t expect any change.

3. Well, it started out with David looking like the paranoid idiot of the exchange, but credit to him, he does eventually (after several lengthy and tedious emails) succeed in coaxing some tidbits of craziness out of the chaplain, too. e.g.

   “…life without religion is a life without beauty.”

   Righto.

   And yet, Darryl did offer perhaps the only sane piece of advice out of the whole sorry tete-a-tete.

   Just tick the fucking box for ‘no’, already. It would a saved a lot of time and energy.

4. It’s funny, I suppose, in a low brow way, but ultimately I don’t see much point in mocking someone over their beliefs. Going after this chaplain hardly solves the problem, and ultimately it just makes me feel sorry for the man.

   1. What’s being mocked is religious exceptionalism in Australian education. I’m pretty sure that the parent would not have sought out the chaplain if the former had not first sought out his child.

5. I grant he is a very naughty boy. Just look at the others things he has on that website. Excuse me… I have to go back to doing just that.

Comments are closed.