College Chaplain

Mark Hamill

johnfás wrote: »

You choose whether or not you are a member of Cuman na Gaeilge, but not whether or not you fund the Irish language officer.

I dont support the irish language officer either.

johnfás wrote: »

Chaplains have either an undergraduate degree with a pastoral component, and most have a masters degree or postgraduate diploma in pastoral studies. Such degrees are accredited by universities including the National University of Ireland and most major universities around the world.

Really? They offer degrees in that crap? I thought that the religious infection in the irish education system petered out at second level. What a joke. When doing these degrees, do they actually declare them to be a fundamental part of the health care system, on the par of doctors and psychiatrists?

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its your own fault. You keep trying to twist what I say and you continuously conflate two issues. The issues of atheists/agnostics wanting the same the same sense of community that that lost lonely theist you described a few pages pack would want, and the issue of what a chaplain actually provides and wether the college should be directly funding it.
All students want a sense of community in college, all students want groups of likeminded people that they can discuss and act out their hobbies with. And so, colleges fund these based on the numbers who join each one. These are the societies and sports clubs you get.
The directly funded services supplied by the college, things like clinics, counsellors, the administration etc, are funded because these are essential for keeping the students healthy and for keeping them in class.
The chaplaincy however is not covered by either of these. As you said ,it is not just a counsellor with a religious slant, its worth is purely in terms of the religious ceremonies it covers.
However why should a college cover that?
The sense of community it supposedly gives is well covered by the other societies in college (both religious and non religious). As for the objective mental benefit? Its no more effective than homeopathy, a placebo which people will cheering support the efficacy of while dying of treatable disease. It doesn't offer anything that either: cant be gotten elsewhere, that can be objectively shown to work and that a secular institution should directly supprot and fund.

Well after 21 pages I don't think there's a whole lot more to say about this, so I'm leave it at 'agree to disagree'.

What I will say is this: If university student services were being designed now, by me, and from scratch, I would not put a chaplaincy in there. It would be anachronistic, and yes, non-secular.

But as they are already there, and people find them helpful and supportive, I would need a stronger argument than 'it's not secular' to argue for their removal, as I think it's hard enough to be a student (for some) without removing a support structure that is already there. If they were not being utilised, then I would shout louder than anyone to get rid of them.

Truley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

All third level welfare and college should be nonreligious. Its called secularism.

No a college, government, any institution can still donate money towards religious services so long as the ethos of the institution itself remains non religious. Educate Together schools are by their ethos secular schools but they still use school money and resources to fund extra-curricular religious classes. You may not agree with it but that doesn't change the meaning of what secuarlism is.

So chaplains are guidance counsellors? Are you sure? Because they weren't a page or two ago.

I would consider them guidance counsellors yes.

possible education, should not be providing the untested placebo that is religious guidance (no more than they should provide homeopathy)

Out of interest has anyone 'tested' the effectiveness of the counselling service? Surely the only way of telling is by asking the service users themselves. But then how do you know the clients haven't just deluded themselves into thinking the service works like you seem to think chaplaincy users have? Who's job is it to decide?

You choose wether or not to be part of Cuman na Gaelige, wether or not to pay the membership fee and fund their activities. You dont in the case of a university employed chaplain.

I would wager more college funding goes into the Irish society than any of the religious services. In fact in UCD Irish speakers are given preferance for student accommodation. I can never be a part of the Cuman na Gaelige but at the same time I don't feel isolated or discriminated against by it's existance. It is its a particular branch of student service that doesn't affect those who aren't members.

You can choose whether or not to be part of the college chaplaincy.

The chaplains are not specialised branches of the health services. You cant get a credited degree in chaplaincy, any one can offer their services, the label is legally protected. Where do you get this nonsense from? Its utter BS.

I'm sure the univerities don't just hire anyone. Chaplains are expected to have professional training in counselling or similar.

johnfás

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Really? They offer degrees in that crap? I thought that the religious infection in the irish education system petered out at second level. What a joke. When doing these degrees, do they actually declare them to be a fundamental part of the health care system, on the par of doctors and psychiatrists?

I haven't seen anybody here compare chaplains directly to doctors. You are the only one who keeps doing so because it is a suitable strawman for your arguments. What posters, both theistic and atheistic, have said is that a variety of service providers may have a role in ensuring the wellbeing of a particular person. Depending on that person the suitable service provider can be drawn from an array of services including medical, dental, psychiatric, psychological, religious, pastoral and counselling. That doesn't mean that a chaplain replaces a doctor, no more than the STI clinic replaces the careers advisor. What is suitable really depends on the person and the problem. This seems quite obvious.

Mark Hamill

Truley wrote: »

No a college, government, any institution can still donate money towards religious services so long as the ethos of the institution itself remains non religious.

Kinda like being a pacifist while donating money to an african warlord?

Truley wrote: »

Educate Together schools are by their ethos secular schools but they still use school money and resources to fund extra-curricular religious classes. You may not agree with it but that doesn't change the meaning of what secuarlism is.

No, educate together schools allow their resources to be used by extra curricular classes, but they dont fund them themselves, they are run voluntary by outside groups:

our school boards facilitate the organisation of voluntary faith formation classes outside school hours

Its like how colleges facilitate societies (with sports centres and meeting rooms) but dont directly fund them. This is how the chaplaincy should be (facilitated like any other group, but funded by the religious society it represents).

Truley wrote: »

I would consider them guidance counsellors yes.

I think you are fairly unique in this regard, a large part of this thread was people explaining how they werent just guidance counsellors, but something else entirely.

Truley wrote: »

Out of interest has anyone 'tested' the effectiveness of the counselling service? Surely the only way of telling is by asking the service users themselves. But then how do you know the clients haven't just deluded themselves into thinking the service works like you seem to think chaplaincy users have? Who's job is it to decide?

Anobjective observer, I would imagine. It would be similar in how it works with mental health institutions (that is, if chaplains are really guidance counsellors), with people checking that the problem students aren't the ones who more likely than not, went to the chaplaincy.

Truley wrote: »

I would wager more college funding goes into the Irish society than any of the religious services. In fact in UCD Irish speakers are given preferance for student accommodation. I can never be a part of the Cuman na Gaelige but at the same time I don't feel isolated or discriminated against by it's existance. It is its a particular branch of student service that doesn't affect those who aren't members.

The fact that you dont recognise the discrimination doesn't mean its not there.

Truley wrote: »

You can choose whether or not to be part of the college chaplaincy.

Since when? How? Can I choose not to fund it?

Truley wrote: »

I'm sure the univerities don't just hire anyone. Chaplains are expected to have professional training in counselling or similar.

"Pastoral care", apparently. Also known as spiritual care.

Mark Hamill

johnfás wrote: »

I haven't seen anybody here compare chaplains directly to doctors. You are the only one who keeps doing so because it is a suitable strawman for your arguments.

Open your eyes then:

Truely wrote:

Doctors, Nurses, Psycharitists, Counsellors, Chaplains, Psychologists are all specialised branches of the Mental Health service.

johnfás wrote: »

What posters, both theistic and atheistic, have said is that a variety of service providers may have a role in ensuring the wellbeing of a particular person. Depending on that person the suitable service provider can be drawn from an array of services including medical, dental, psychiatric, psychological, religious, pastoral and counselling.

And that, as I said, is a joke. Tell me, how do we determine that these spiritual carers, the chaplains and pastors, actually have any scientific benefit? Can we measure the spirit now, are there peer reviewed studies, by reputable journals, that show how spiritual advise and treatment actually give long term real world help? Religious care is no more needed than homeopathis care. Its a palcebo, its not real, and if our education system had any damn self respect it would have laughed off the currciculum years ago.

johnfás wrote: »

That doesn't mean that a chaplain replaces a doctor, no more than the STI clinic replaces the careers advisor

Who said that?

johnfás wrote: »

What is suitable really depends on the person and the problem. This seems quite obvious.

What is suitable depends on what what the real world physical problem is, not this pandering bs. It should not be a part of the irish medical practise, and I have to say I'm ashamed it is.

johnfás

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Tell me, how do we determine that these spiritual carers, the chaplains and pastors, actually have any scientific benefit? Can we measure the spirit now, are there peer reviewed studies, by reputable journals, that show how spiritual advise and treatment actually give long term real world help?

You are the one arguing for its removal, perhaps you should be demonstrating to us, from an academic article, the harm which is caused by chaplaincy services in a university environment. You might then proceed to cite an academic article which demonstrates that counselling in a university context has a scientific benefit.

We can go down the route of me telling you to look up pages 32 - 40 of the 114th volume of the Journal of Affective Disorders (2009) to read a research study utilising a nationally representative sample which demonstrates that suicide is less pravelent amongst those people who practice religious observance. I can then proceed to say that this is a basis for college chaplaincy. You can then come back to me with an article from another reputable journal using different methodology from a different point of view which brings us a different result.

However, I would rather spend my time ensuring that students are looked after by providing as many services as is possible to help them with their wellbeing. As someone who attends a university, I know a great many people who are, have and will go through a great many issues. Some of my friends have been helped by some of the student services provided, others have been helped by others. What is important to me, and most people I know in my university, is that they get help suitable to their circumstances, rather than being a pawn in your philosophical crusade seeking to determine what they get access to.

Truley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, educate together schools allow their resources to be used by extra curricular classes, but they dont fund them themselves, they are run voluntary by outside groups:

The religious teachers in some ET schools are voluntary, in my one they were subsidised by the school. Either way the school provides the room with all the costs it incurrs such as heating, lighting, they also facilitate religious ceremonies, communion parties etc. Nobody had a problem with this as it didn't invade on the secular ethos of the school itself.

Its like how colleges facilitate societies (with sports centres and meeting rooms) but dont directly fund them. This is how the chaplaincy should be (facilitated like any other group, but funded by the religious society it represents).

College clubs and societies are directly funded by the university. That was made clear ages ago, the kayak club doesn't pay for it's boathouse and kayaking equipment from its membership fees, it comes from college funding. Same with Cuman na Gaeilge, same with Games Soc etc etc

Anobjective observer, I would imagine. It would be similar in how it works with mental health institutions (that is, if chaplains are really guidance counsellors), with people checking that the problem students aren't the ones who more likely than not, went to the chaplaincy.

You sure as heck aren't an objective observer. Mental health services such as counselling are not the same as physical medicine because it is all based on a theory of how the human mind works and how it should be treated. You cannot measure its effectiveness scientifically as it is completely subjective, a good counsellor will be the first to tell you that. The aim is to make people happier, if something achieves this then it is effective. This is coming from someone who studied psychology in Uni by the way.

Kinda like being a pacifist while donating money to an african warlord?

*sigh* yes Mark. That's it. That's exactly what it's like.

I think I'm done with this thread as it's only going round in circles at this stage. I've said all I need to say.

Mark Hamill

johnfás wrote: »

You are the one arguing for its removal, perhaps you should be demonstrating to us, from an academic article, the harm which is caused by chaplaincy services in a university environment. You might then proceed to cite an academic article which demonstrates that counselling in a university context has a scientific benefit.

Thats not how science works. We start from the null hypothesis and proceed from there. That means you need to prove that something works, before I need to prove that it doesn't.

johnfás wrote: »

We can go down the route of me telling you to look up pages 32 - 40 of the 114th volume of the Journal of Affective Disorders (2009) to read a research study utilising a nationally representative sample which demonstrates that suicide is less pravelent amongst those people who practice religious observance. I can then proceed to say that this is a basis for college chaplaincy. You can then come back to me with an article from another reputable journal using different methodology from a different point of view which brings us a different result.

"I dont understand the scientific method, ergo it doesn't apply to me":rolleyes:.

Why do you think I need to find another study in order to point out your misinterpretation of this one? Looking at the first page of the study shows your first major problem:

Limitations

This was a cross-sectional survey and causality of relationships cannot be inferred.

The study admits that it cannot infor a causality between these relationships.

Your second mistake is that the study by no means shows that the non religious supports where financed and available on a par with religious supports. For most people, any support is better than none. (particularly important here, because this study is on people with mental disorders, who may not want to go a vast majority of non religious supports. Also the study didn't differentiate between different religions).

Next the study by no means shows that these people are getting anything better than a placebo. There is no control group of people who were given a support group with a made up religion, so no conlcusion can be made over wether or not its religion itself, or just the act of inclusion that is beneficiary.

There are also other correlations that are not explored. People who go have religious support (measured in the paper interms of how often they go to mass) are more likely to have families (that bring them to mass).

Then there is the problem that being spiritual, while being shown in teh paper coincided witha decrease in suicide attempts, it did not coincide with a decrease in suicide ideation. Its possible that spiritual people are not comminting suicide simply because they are scared not to, because of how most religions see suicide (in christianity, you go to hell as its a cardinal sin). The spirituality doesn't help these suicidal people deal with the issues that makes them suicidal, it just makes them not do the act, while leaving the mental pressures there. It would be akin to, when dealing with a kid who thinks a monster is under their bed, you throw in a hand grenade. Sure they won believe the monster is still there, but they will still believe in monsters.

johnfás wrote: »

However, I would rather spend my time ensuring that students are looked after by providing as many services as is possible to help them with their wellbeing. As someone who attends a university, I know a great many people who are, have and will go through a great many issues. Some of my friends have been helped by some of the student services provided, others have been helped by others. What is important to me, and most people I know in my university, is that they get help suitable to their circumstances, rather than being a pawn in your philosophical crusade seeking to determine what they get access to.

Whats important to me is that people get help to solve their issues, not pandered to because it makes them happy.

Mark Hamill

Truley wrote: »

The religious teachers in some ET schools are voluntary, in my one they were subsidised by the school. Either way the school provides the room with all the costs it incurrs such as heating, lighting, they also facilitate religious ceremonies, communion parties etc. Nobody had a problem with this as it didn't invade on the secular ethos of the school itself.

The website itself says they dont.

Truley wrote: »

College clubs and societies are directly funded by the university. That was made clear ages ago, the kayak club doesn't pay for it's boathouse and kayaking equipment from its membership fees, it comes from college funding. Same with Cuman na Gaeilge, same with Games Soc etc etc

The clubs get money according to membership and buy their equipment and pay coaches from that (its bolstered up with membership fees). If the numbers arent there, the college does not step in and start paying coaches directly.

Truley wrote: »

You sure as heck aren't an objective observer. Mental health services such as counselling are not the same as physical medicine because it is all based on a theory of how the human mind works and how it should be treated. You cannot measure its effectiveness scientifically as it is completely subjective, a good counsellor will be the first to tell you that. The aim is to make people happier, if something achieves this then it is effective. This is coming from someone who studied psychology in Uni by the way.

You just said so much bs.
1) Mental health is physical science.
2) All science is theory- gravity, bacteria, evolution-all theory, all objectively studied and tested.
3)The aim of therapy is to make people better. In the long run that should make them happy, but with psychiatric problems (like bipolar disorder), people go from being happy one minute to hating themsleves the next.

Truley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The website itself says they dont.

I went to an ET school and both my parents were heavily involved in the founding ET 'movement' and I'm saying that alot of them do.

The clubs get money according to membership and buy their equipment and pay coaches from that (its bolstered up with membership fees). If the numbers arent there, the college does not step in and start paying coaches directly.

No they don't. Funding is partly based on membership numbers and largely based on running costs. Hence kayaking club will get quite substantial funding due to it's high running costs even if the lacrosse club has more members. 15e per person in yearly membership fees would nowhere near cover the cost of kayaking equipment, it's paid for by the college not from membership fees.

You just said so much bs.
1) Mental health is physical science.
2) All science is theory- gravity, bacteria, evolution-all theory, all objectively studied and tested.
3)The aim of therapy is to make people better. In the long run that should make them happy, but with psychiatric problems (like bipolar disorder), people go from being happy one minute to hating themsleves the next.

How do you objectively study and scientifically prove the effectiveness of a counselling service? Can you scientifically disprove the effectiveness of a chaplaincy counselling session?

johnfás

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Thats not how science works. We start from the null hypothesis and proceed from there. That means you need to prove that something works, before I need to prove that it doesn't.

Prove to me the scientific value of a the Drama Department at Trinity College Dublin. Failing this, I expect it to be removed immediately. Likewise the scientific value of maintaining the Book of Kells. Sure its just an old book, it would be of more practical use as a door stop. We could digitise its pages into pdf and off we go.

axer

johnfás wrote: »

Prove to me the scientific value of a the Drama Department at Trinity College Dublin. Failing this, I expect it to be removed immediately.

Trinity provide drama courses thus they have a drama department. What is there to prove?

johnfás wrote: »

Likewise the scientific value of maintaining the Book of Kells. Sure its just an old book, it would be of more practical use as a door stop. We could digitise its pages into pdf and off we go.

I believe Trinity charge €9 to view the book of kells. Maybe that is the scientific value to them.

I think the point here is that funding a chaplain is treating a specific belief set better than other beliefs or lack of beliefs. Every belief cannot be catered for and since we should be striving for a secular country (for equality reasons) then we should not be funding any particular beliefs.

I have already shown that all a chaplain does over a counsellor is provide religious services. That is the only thing a chaplain does that a counsellor does not or cannot do. Thus the question is would it not be better to have maybe another cousellor rather than a chaplain since providing religious services are not something that a secular college should have any involvement in funding wise? EDIT: a better question is - does a college have any place funding religious services? I would think not since they are no longer a secular college as a result as they are not treating everyone equally.

Truley

axer wrote: »

I think the point here is that funding a chaplain is treating a specific belief set better than other beliefs or lack of beliefs. Every belief cannot be catered for and since we should be striving for a secular country (for equality reasons) then we should not be funding any particular beliefs.

I don't see how having a religous chaplain as alongside other non-religious services is treating the religion better than other religions or lack of them. Unless you believe that the very existance of a chaplain service is making a political/ideological point on the college's part. It seems to me that most people, including Athiests like myself, don't see it that way. The same way I wouldn't consider the existance of the Irish society as the college's way of saying that Irish is a superior language to say, Latvian. It's just a specialised service there for those who need it, inoffensive to those who don't.

I have already shown that all a chaplain does over a counsellor is provide religious services. That is the only thing a chaplain does that a counsellor does not or cannot do.

Yes and the relgious services are what makes it a chaplaincy not a counselling service, it's the religious service that people want. I went to a chaplain, not a counsellor because I wasn't suffering mental illness and didn't need a therapist. I needed a chaplain. A counsellor can't and shouldn't replace the religious services a chaplain provides, hence it'e own specialised service.

Thus the question is would it not be better to have maybe another cousellor rather than a chaplain since providing religious services are not something that a secular college should have any involvement in funding wise? EDIT: a better question is - does a college have any place funding religious services? I would think not since they are no longer a secular college as a result as they are not treating everyone equally.

Well as far as student liberties go the college does treat everyone equally. If you argue that the provision of a chaplaincy service means discrimination for anyone who doesn't use it then you are going down the route that everything the college funds is doing this. Women's officer, Irish Society, STI Clinic, Sports Hall, Student Union Bar, Ents Society etc etc

johnfás

axer wrote: »

I believe Trinity charge €9 to view the book of kells. Maybe that is the scientific value to them.

A few pages ago we had a poster stating that the chaplaincy which they had been involved with was able to ensure that certain students had remained at the university who would not otherwise have done so and that this resulted in a financial as well as social gain to the university. This poster was criticised by those who lobby for the removal of chaplaincy provision on the basis that these matters should not be about the bottom line. Here we have a poster saying that it is simply about the bottom line because you can make money from something. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Other than as a money spinner, the Book of Kells is simply a book of subjective religious, historical and artistic merit. Apart from a financial benefit (which hivizman was criticised for raising in respect of chaplaincy) its usefulness entirely depends on one's interest in the subject matter.

In reality what we have here is not a debate about finances or science. Rather, we have a philosophical debate about choice or theocracy. Thankfully the majority of posters on the thread, both theistic and atheistic, value choice, as do most people in society.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kooli wrote: »

Actually I think this point is important. My take on it (and I'd love to hear from a religious person if I'm totally off the mark here) is that if a religious person has religious issues, they would be more comfortable talking to a chaplain from any religion than to a secular counsellor.

Then let them talk to such a person, there is loads of them. This in NO WAY justifies maintaining one ourselves on site.

Your "take" is alas nothing more than your impression. It holds no weight. You have no data to back up this idea? I doubt it as I am not aware of much in the way of studies being done on it. Just because you think Student X would rather talk to any old chaplain regardless of their difference in faiths, rather than a secular counsellor.... does NOT make it so. In fact the entire wealth of history of the problems making people of different faiths (even within the 33000+ different forms of Christianity, let alone other religions) talk to each other seems to throw a lot of suspicion on your "take" here.

Again however I have to point out that merely wanting to talk to someone about X, or wanting to talk to one type of person more than another about X, does not mean that this is automatically something we need to pander to.

Unless A) some real benefit can be found to maintaining such a person to talk to on that subject and some real benefit to maintaining such a person on site rather than for outside referral… is actually shown, then all you are advocating here is pandering to one particular whim of a minority of students over the whims of all the others.

This is simply not good enough when you are discussing the allocation of resources which are then not available for other use (be it money, property or human resources) within the college. We can not just go around spending money on every random whim the students have can we?

Kooli wrote: »

Student life can be really tough for some people, so I would never be one to advocate the removal of a student service unless I saw real evidence of harm.

Then your thinking is exactly the wrong way around. If such a service is actually of no demonstrated benefit then it is superfluous. If it is superfluous then it is a resource drain. A resource drain IS harm.

We can not go around financing anything that we can say “Ah sure its harmless isn’t it?” That is NOT a way to allocate real resources from a very limited pool. If you were the manager of a resource pool, your main aim should be to realise that the onus would be ON YOU to allocate those resources wisely to things that actually have a demonstrated real benefit in the context of the intentions of the college and the vested interest we have in our investment in these students.

I even was nice enough to suggest a study method to find if there IS any such benefit. I doubt you are interested though, since you have not even attempted to answer the question of what benefit on an site chaplain has that can not also be achieved by an external referral from someone trained to diagnose the students requirements and match them to external sources of help.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kooli wrote: »

What I will say is this: If university student services were being designed now, by me, and from scratch, I would not put a chaplaincy in there. It would be anachronistic, and yes, non-secular.

But as they are already there, and people find them helpful and supportive, I would need a stronger argument than 'it's not secular' to argue for their removal, as I think it's hard enough to be a student (for some) without removing a support structure that is already there. If they were not being utilised, then I would shout louder than anyone to get rid of them.

I am afraid I find this whole way of thinking abhorrent. To translate the above specific thing into what you GENERALLY sound like you are saying, it comes out like…

If we started tomorrow I know how to do it right… but since we did it wrong, why fix it?

I see this attitude in many areas… as if people really think that they know the right way to do things, but since it has been done wrong for so long it is wrong to attempt to change it.

If we all went around thinking or talking in this fashion… nothing would be done ever and nothing would get improved anywhere.

I have heard of "I fit aint broke dont fix it" but never "If its broke already, dont bother with it“.

Kooli

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then let them talk to such a person, there is loads of them. This in NO WAY justifies maintaining one ourselves on site.

Your "take" is alas nothing more than your impression. It holds no weight. You have no data to back up this idea? I doubt it as I am not aware of much in the way of studies being done on it. Just because you think Student X would rather talk to any old chaplain regardless of their difference in faiths, rather than a secular counsellor.... does NOT make it so. In fact the entire wealth of history of the problems making people of different faiths (even within the 33000+ different forms of Christianity, let alone other religions) talk to each other seems to throw a lot of suspicion on your "take" here.

Again however I have to point out that merely wanting to talk to someone about X, or wanting to talk to one type of person more than another about X, does not mean that this is automatically something we need to pander to.

Unless A) some real benefit can be found to maintaining such a person to talk to on that subject and some real benefit to maintaining such a person on site rather than for outside referral… is actually shown, then all you are advocating here is pandering to one particular whim of a minority of students over the whims of all the others.

This is simply not good enough when you are discussing the allocation of resources which are then not available for other use (be it money, property or human resources) within the college. We can not just go around spending money on every random whim the students have can we?



Then your thinking is exactly the wrong way around. If such a service is actually of no demonstrated benefit then it is superfluous. If it is superfluous then it is a resource drain. A resource drain IS harm.

We can not go around financing anything that we can say “Ah sure its harmless isn’t it?” That is NOT a way to allocate real resources from a very limited pool. If you were the manager of a resource pool, your main aim should be to realise that the onus would be ON YOU to allocate those resources wisely to things that actually have a demonstrated real benefit in the context of the intentions of the college and the vested interest we have in our investment in these students.

I even was nice enough to suggest a study method to find if there IS any such benefit. I doubt you are interested though, since you have not even attempted to answer the question of what benefit on an site chaplain has that can not also be achieved by an external referral from someone trained to diagnose the students requirements and match them to external sources of help.

I've addressed all these arguments already. Maybe in response to other posters, so maybe you didn't read them. I'm not repeating myself any more so I'll say it again - 'agree to disagree'!! Everyone is just repeating themselves at this point, not just me!

nozzferrahhtoo

I have read every post made on this thread and I reject the inference that I have not. No I do not see my points being addresses, let alone specifically by you.

At the very most I see my points being bypassed with the presentation of an entirely unverifiable anecdote or two, coupled with your declaring what your “take” on things is without once providing a shred of support for that “take” other than the facts it is what it is.

Kooli

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have read every post made on this thread and I reject the inference that I have not. No I do not see my points being addresses, let alone specifically by you.

At the very most I see my points being bypassed with the presentation of an entirely unverifiable anecdote or two, coupled with your declaring what your “take” on things is without once providing a shred of support for that “take” other than the facts it is what it is.

OK. No problem.
I see this as a difference of opinion. You see this as one of us being objectively right and one of us being objectively wrong.

So again - 'agree to disagree'!

nozzferrahhtoo

I see nothing to agree or disagree on. I see points which are either backed up with hard facts or not… or weakly backed up with anecdotes or not.

If you have nothing more to say on the subject, that is fine, there is nothing wrong with that. However I am not about to pander to you pretending that such an exit is due to you having “addressed” everything I have said when this in fact has not occurred. Especially if that means you pretending that you "addressed" them in posts to other people that were not me and suggesting I missed them when in fact I have read every post made on this thread to date.

Truley

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I see nothing to agree or disagree on. I see points which are either backed up with hard facts or not… or weakly backed up with anecdotes or not.

If you have nothing more to say on the subject, that is fine, there is nothing wrong with that. However I am not about to pander to you pretending that such an exit is due to you having “addressed” everything I have said when this in fact has not occurred. Especially if that means you pretending that you "addressed" them in posts to other people that were not me and suggesting I missed them when in fact I have read every post made on this thread to date.

Kooli never claimed to be backing up the chaplaincy with scientific facts, every opinion made on this thread has been based on either direct experience or personal opinion. Even most of the anti-chaplain posters have admitted that their problem is more an ideological one than an actual real, practical issue. Since:

1) Nobody here has been able to provide 'hard facts' as to how much a chaplaincy costs or whether it even costs a university at all.

2) Nobody here has had a negative experience with a chaplain and most have admitted that the service is desired and helpful to the students who use it.

So yes I don't necessarily suscribe to the belief system that it is based on but since it doesn't have a 'real' negative impact on myself or other students any issue I could have with a chaplaincy would be purely ideological, and I am loathe to force my own ideologies on other people.

Kooli is right though I think this thread has run its course. If you have a genuine problem with the existance of College Chaplains I suggest you start a group and campaign to your local Third Level Institute. Why would you expect them to change things if nobody has complained about it.

hivizman

Truley wrote: »

Nobody here has been able to provide 'hard facts' as to how much a chaplaincy costs or whether it even costs a university at all.

I've been carrying out some research at the college where I currently work. This is a university-level institution in the South of England with about 8,000 students and 1,000 academic and support staff. There is a chaplaincy service with a full-time Anglican chaplain and a part-time RC chaplain, together with an administrative assistant who works two days a week. The total salary costs for 2008-09, the last year for which information is available, were about £50,000. In addition, the chaplaincy service uses a room and incurs office costs - these are not separately itemised, but would probably be a further £10,000 to £15,000.

There is a college chapel, which is used for a range of activities in addition to services. The college graduation ceremonies, which are entirely non-religious events, are held there, thus saving the college the cost of hiring external premises, as many universities in the UK have to do. There are also regular concerts. The college employs a director of music for the chapel, who also teaches in the music department, and there is an active choir. However, the choir is sponsored by an international bank, and I don't think that the choir represents a net cost to the college.

The chapel is regularly used for weddings (about 30 times in 2008-09), and the hire cost, plus the profit on catering, works out at about £1,500 per wedding on average.

The college also recognises other faiths, through an Inter-Faith Council. In most cases, this just provides links with local provision, but there is a Muslim prayer room on campus, and the college makes a large room available at no cost each Friday in term-time for the Friday Prayer.

So the cost of the chaplaincy service is salaries £50,000 plus overheads £15,000, plus say £5,000 for the Muslim prayer-room, less rents and other profits generated directly and indirectly from the chapel of about £45,000, making a net cost of around £25,000, or roughly £3 per student. This does not take into account any saving of rent through using the chapel rather than an outside hall for graduations, while on the other hand it does not allow for the costs of maintenance, heating and lighting, security, and so on, relating to the chapel itself (most of these costs would have to be incurred anyway given the historical and architectural status of the chapel).

The college has a formal faith policy, which I set out below:

1. The College is a secular institution committed to the pursuit of learning. It does not ally itself with any particular faith. It does however commit itself to an active support for the study and celebration of mainstream religious faiths within its community, recognizing that such celebration is a source of individual strength, communal resource and intellectual and artistic excellence. The College will however actively discourage the activities of groups that could reasonably be judged to be harmful either to individual members or to the aims of the College as a whole.

2. Our active support includes:
• Support for students and staff seeking to observe any recognised mainstream faith.
• Recognition and support for ministers of these faiths, in agreement with the College's approach to faith matters to serve their congregation and answer enquires from others within the College.
• Support for academic, artistic and other endeavours to increase our understanding of faith, refine the practice of faith and to promote dialogue between faiths.
• A request that those who undertake the support of a faith within the College Community commit themselves to the active support of those following different faiths and to offer, where appropriate, caring ministry to all students, irrespective of their faith.
• A commitment to oppose within College negative expressions of faith, including disrespect for the life and faith choices of others, harassment of individuals, recruitment of individuals to causes that might reasonably be expected to be harmful to them and others, and attempts to stifle free academic study and debate.

I hope that this information represents sufficiently "hard" facts to contribute to a debate that I agree has pretty much run its course.

Mark Hamill

Truley wrote: »

How do you objectively study and scientifically prove the effectiveness of a counselling service?

Same as anything else. Both Nature and the Journal of the American Medical Association peer review psychiatric papers.

Truley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Same as anything else. Both Nature and the Journal of the American Medical Association peer review psychiatric papers.

Psychiatry and conselling are not the same things. What is 'Nature'?

hivizman

Truley wrote: »

What is 'Nature'?

One of the world's leading academic journals in the field of science. For more information, see the Nature website.

Among the many famous papers published in Nature was Watson and Crick's "Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid", the paper that revealed the structure of DNA.

nozzferrahhtoo

Truley wrote: »

Kooli never claimed to be backing up the chaplaincy with scientific facts

I am a little confused why you addressed this to me? When did I say he WAS claiming to back something up with “scientific” facts? When did I even use the word “scientific”. And if I didn't then what has this to do with me at all?

All I am pointing out is that he decided to put out some opinions backed up with nothing but a personal anecdote or two. I put forward my arguments against them and was told that my arguments had already been “addressed”. This has not occurred.

Truley wrote: »

Even most of the anti-chaplain posters have admitted that their problem is more an ideological one than an actual real, practical issue.

What has it got to do with me what “most of the anti-chaplain posters” have said? If you have a problem with what “most of the anti-chaplain posters” have said then take it up with them, not me.

If you want to take up with me something that I have actually said, I am here for you and more than happy to give you my time. I really am.

Truley wrote: »

1) Nobody here has been able to provide 'hard facts' as to how much a chaplaincy costs or whether it even costs a university at all.

Totally Irrelevant. It is enough to know that a) every college has a limited pool of resources and b) that maintaining a chaplain, even one working volunteer work, costs resources.

That is all we need to know to force us to ask the question “Is the allocation of ANY resources justified?” and the onus is on the management of those resources to answer that. Why? Because the allocation of ANY resource means that resource is taken out of the pool and therefore away from other allocations that ARE justified.

Thus far I have heard no arguments justifying even a single euro of our limited resources to this. The actual real value quantity that you point out we do not know is ENTIRELY irrelevant to anything I just said.

Truley wrote: »

2) Nobody here has had a negative experience with a chaplain

Again entirely irrelevant. Again fort he same reason. We have to allocated resources from our limited pool to actual deserving justifiable uses. Simply allocating resources willy nilly with the argument “Well at least it is not HARMFUL” is just not… good…. enough.

There are a million things we could allocate resources to on a whim that would not cause negative effects to anyone directly. We do not however, because those resources are needed elsewhere.

As I pointed out however, every allocation of a resource negatively affects those things from which the resources are diverted. So despite the fact that your claim is irrelevant (that no one has had a negative experience) it is also wrong. Every single time someone applies for a resource in the college and is told there is no resource to be allocated, they are affected negatively.

Contrary to what you say therefore, it does have a "'real' negative impact"

I repeat therefore that nothing I have said here at all has anything to do with "idealogical differences" which you think "most of the anti-chaplain posters" here have.

Truley wrote: »

Kooli is right though I think this thread has run its course.

Thankfully not your choice to make, but I openly recommend you petition the moderator, whose choice it actually is, to judge and lock the thread should he or she see fit.

hivizman

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is enough to know that a) every college has a limited pool of resources and b) that maintaining a chaplain, even one working volunteer work, costs resources.

That is all we need to know to force us to ask the question “Is the allocation of ANY resources justified?” and the onus is on the management of those resources to answer that. Why? Because the allocation of ANY resource means that resource is taken out of the pool and therefore away from other allocations that ARE justified.

Accountants refer to this approach as "zero-based budgeting" - organisations require every activity to establish that it contributes towards the goals of the organisation. These goals are often purely financial, but educational organisations, particularly at tertiary level, are usually not-for-profit organisations, and thus they may ask whether particular activities serve other goals, rather than just financial ones.

I find it significant that universities and colleges, even avowedly secular institutions, find no contradiction to their goals in providing financial support for chaplaincy services. The implication is that the persons on whom the onus of the management of resources fall (who will be much better informed than we are about the benefits and costs, both financial and non-financial, of a chaplaincy service) have answered the question "is the allocation of resources to chaplaincy services justified?" with a "yes".

Mark Hamill

Truley wrote: »

Psychiatry and conselling are not the same things.

If its not psychiatric counselling, then what is it?
Even if it is not psychiatric counselling, what exactly is stopping us from scientifically evaluating like we do psychiatric counselling?

Truley

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am a little confused why you addressed this to me? When did I say he WAS claiming to back something up with “scientific” facts? When did I even use the word “scientific”. And if I didn't then what has this to do with me at all?

You complained that she could only base her reasons on personal anecdote and criticised her argument because of this. I merely pointed out that the poster never claimed to be basing their argument on anything other than personal experience, albeit good personal experience given her profession.

All I am pointing out is that he decided to put out some opinions backed up with nothing but a personal anecdote or two. I put forward my arguments against them and was told that my arguments had already been “addressed”. This has not occurred.

Your argument that was "addressed" was the statement that chaplains can be easily replaced with counsellors. This idea has been addressed numerous times. If a qualified and practicing counsellor comes out and says that they can't replace a chaplain, then I don't know how much more of an answer you need.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If its not psychiatric counselling, then what is it?
Even if it is not psychiatric counselling, what exactly is stopping us from scientifically evaluating like we do psychiatric counselling?

Well if 1000s of students every year claim that seeing a chaplain has improved their happiness and wellbeing, then I don't know how an impartial scientific study can come out and prove that their feelings are wrong. Even if it was possible, then what?