Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Secular Chappies

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by TRA, Sep 19, 2011.

  1.  Top
  2. Check my avatar, I also have the cufflinks.

    Sadly the emblem was too big for the ducktail of the bike (and would be covered by the ventura rack anyway) so I slapped it on the boot of my car.
  3. I am going to cut some out of vinyl for my car and bikes in the near future. Would work well in your situation.
  4. Religion is like a penis: if you have one, I don't care. I don't want to know about it, and I definitely don't want it shoved down my throat.
  5. Quote of the day
  6. Its sort of petty, but I would be more comfortable with it if they had "chaplain" and "secular support worker" the other way 'round (that is, "the services of a secular support worker or a school chaplain" instead of "the services of a school chaplain or secular support worker"). May be a minor change, but it currently implies that the secular option is the fallback, and chaplains are the primary choice.

    I'm pretty sure most chaplains don't get too religious with people who aren't interested in religion (or have a different one), but I would much prefer a psychologist for a student welfare role (probably too expensive for the majority of schools, but I'd still prefer it :p).
  7. my, SO likes my religion down her throat. ;)
  8. Why do you have a problem with school chaplains? they are only there to help students, and don't force anything onto anyone. School psychologists are another thing completely, a school should have both a chaplain and a psychologist because they perform different functions. As well as a school nurse who also helps students.
    Is it the fact that the government has given grants to help them? The grants certainly do not assist any kind of religious indoctrination, and chaplains would still perform their role with or without the government support. As they are donation supported roles, and the staff are normally volunteers.
  9. For me, yeah that.

    But it's also that it gives the impression of legitimacy to religion when IMO it has none.
  10. More like the other way around. Look at how many threads have been created in this forum mocking or deriding religion and religious beliefs……………………..if you don’t believe in religion then fine, keep it to yourself.

    True there’s been abuses in religious institutions but many people who are not religious have also committed these crimes. The individual should be judged. There are many religious people who do good in society and even orders whose sole purpose is to help others……………In terms of helping the community and the downtrodden, I would even say that people with a religious persuasion actually do and contribute more.
  11. Yeah, but how many multimillion dollar tax free organisations have covered up those crimes? The organisations who cover up the lies, should also be judged.
  12. [​IMG]
    Your talking to a brick wall with these guys unfortunately. They normally don’t know anything about religion of what religious people do. These people just hate it and will bag it any chance they get……………………they probably think that the only thing priests do it preach, that all religious people all do door knocks, and all priests **** little boys…………………pretty much the only thing they see in popularist TV.
  13. see section below from our constitution:

    116. 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 chaplaincy program had a religious test applied to it. Hence it is unconstitutional.
  14. Pot calling the kettle black don't you think? Heard a better one today... Arsehole calling the armpit hairy?
  15. Yeah they should be judged, victims should all just go to the police straight away and let the courts handle everything.

    There shouldn’t be any handouts or compensations, the perpetrator should suffer the consequence…………………………theres many though that do claim abuse just for the payout…………………..although this is pretty rampant in todays litigious society where even fast food restaurants are getting sued for not having a big enough furniture.

    Its not a law, its a choice:
    What it does show though it the government trying to interfere with religious workers and religious institutions, that is if this applies to all private schools. If they did want a separate state and religion then the state should get its grubby hand away.

    Glad you admit it. Unlike you though………………..im not one to start up threads and trying to force it down everyone’s throats.
  16. From my reading, the original legislation (John Howard origin) required the chaplains to be a member of a religious organisation. Hence the current high court challenge on this.


  17. Is that just your opinion, or is it factual. I am sure that if people are caught lying in a court of law they will also be dealt with by law.

    And yes, there should be handouts and compensations. Speaking from experience, it does adversely affect your life. I claimed nothing, but those who do certainly deserve it.

    No, the constitution is a legal document. If you want a religious education, you have the right to attend a private school, that's your choice.

    What it does show, is the federal government trying pathetically to preempt the high court decision on a constitutional matter. However by giving the school the choice, they are failing yet again. The religious organisations are free to do what they wish under the constitution, but the government cannot apply a religious test on a role for any office under the constitution.

    My tax dollars are being used illegally to fund the NSC scheme, how is that not having religion shoved down my throat?
  18. As I indicated, I fully understand that chaplains can (and often do) fulfil their roles without involving religion.

    However, this project did not require explicit mention of chaplains. It could have done exactly the same thing with just "support worker". That would avoid any religious connection on the government's side of things, while still leaving it 100% possible for a school to have a chaplain being their support worker. As long as he/she meets the requirements (and there is nothing deliberately excluding them) what would stop that from happening?

    I do associate with a religion, and I have little against religion in principal. But I believe it should always be kept away (as far as is possible) from government and government schemes/actions/works/etc. I also believe it should not be a standard part of educations (outside of, perhaps, an anthropological kind of perspective), and that it should not dictate the entirety of the coursework in schools where it is present.
  19. Spot on old (young?) chap.
  20. So any murders, ******s who aren’t religious should be clumped together. Should everyone then start suing the government for their actions, seeing as the government is the temple of those who doesn’t believe in religion………………………

    In some cases where the institution doesn’t promote a safe environment then yes by all means……………….but if the institution do or try to promote a safe environment but those in it still doesn’t abide then I would say no, in this case they should sue the individual.
    What religious tests are you on about? It more like the government trying to impose its non religious views on religious schools, yet again……………

    So why is my taxes and clearly the taxes of the majority of people who do hold a religious belief being wasted to schools that doesn’t want religion taught?
    Is the government also implementing this project to private religious schools? Its clear that you don’t have to be a religious to get this job……………Theres nothing excluding no religious.

    If theres a true separation of religion then the government shouldn’t be able to tell them what to do. It seems to me that secularist views are being shoved down our throats.