College Chaplain

prinz

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The religious students in school, who absolutely have to have a religious counsellor and not a secular one..

Aren't you demanding a removal of chaplains because you are not religious? What's the difference. BTW I don't think anyone has said the religious students "have to have" a religious counsellor. We are discussing a service which is already being provided. It's up to the people who want that service discontinued to prove their case tbh.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Got a point to make?

At this stage I'm running out. I don't plan on descending to the farcical tbh, so it's better not to comment.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No. If we have secular counsellors who dont come with a religious bias, then we have someone with one less bias than the religious chaplain. Less bias is better, no?

....and yet again we come to the question of how do we know a secular counsellor is not biased? On religion, or anything else for that matter? It also raises the point that you haven't backed up any of the claims that chaplains of whatever religious persuasion act on a partisan basis.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ah, thats nice, a two fingered salute to those who arent the same religion. Good to see your true colours come out-" I dont give a **** about others as long as I'm happy".

Lmao, the irony. Btw you asked what about people who don't want to see a chaplain. The simple answer is this, no one is forcing people to see anyone they don't want to. :roll eyes: Oh yes that's a two fingered salute alright. Hilarious.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm the one demanding choice. By having a particular religion represented by the chaplain, you have taken away the choice for everyone else..

No, you are demanding a removal of a choice which is already present... you are forgetting that the choice for "everyone else" is still there. Ignoring the blatantly obvious fact that a chaplain of a particular religion is not restricted to pastoral care of adherents to that particular religion.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

By having a secular counsellor, everyone has teh choice to go him, and everyone can be helped or refered on.

Yes, once again, this isn't an either/or scenario. I don't know why it is being continually presented as such. Oh wait I do..... building up windmills. :rolleyes:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Campuses are not supposed to be reflective of society in general, they are supposed to educate and support students..

Actually most campuses strive to create a community 'on campus' which reflects society at large. Shops, pubs, banks, pharmacies, sports clubs, societies, political parties etc etc. Interesting that you should mention support though.... unless of course it means support of a faith kind.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If the churhc is charged rent the same as the pups and the shops on campus, then I have no problem, I doubt that is the case.

What about a campus that does not have a church?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This is a secularism issue.

Actually it's not. Even in a secular society religions and the religious still exist. They still have a role to play.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

A secular counsellor will refer the student onto an appropiate spiritual advisor, while the RC chaplain will only be able to talk in terms of his/her own beliefs. Which do you think will be better for the student?

And a "RC chaplain", (again assuming a chaplain to be RC - I wonder why), will be able to refer the student on to the college counsellor if needs be. Complementary services. If a student wishes to see a chaplain to talk in terms of their own beliefs then I believe having that service available is best for that student. If a student wishes to see a secular counsellor then I believe that having that service is best for that student. No need for mutual exclusivity.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And what do you espect nonreligious and differently religious to do if the college doesn't have a chaplain of agreeable religious beliefs?

Once again are you claiming that all chaplains act in an impartial manner to students? Any back up to this? Any records of chaplains turning people away based on religion? Once again having a chaplain does not preclude providing other counselling services no matter how much you try to convince yourself that that is the case to suit your own agenda.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

..but your own religious bias prevent you from seeing this

Back into the farcical zone. I wonder what bias are the atheists who have no issue with chaplains blinded by?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What about people who want their counselling from a smoking hot nymphomaniac?

Well if enough of them get together off you go and lobby the university.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

College cannot cater to every individual desire, so its better to cater for the most general one - a secular counsellor.

It's not about catering for every individual desire. Colleges cannot cater for every individual sporting desire either. Or every individual language desire. Or every individual etc etc. Does that mean they take a one size fits all policy? Or does it mean that they try to accomodate as many as is reasonably possible?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its financially better for the college to have (for instance) two counsellors who can see everyone, rather than eight chaplains, each of a different religion, to cover the different religions the religious students adhere to.

Again it's not strictly about each chaplain representing their own religion. Of course one again above you have fallen into the parallel universe where it must be counsellors or chaplains.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Secularism is better than the religiously biased alternative.

In general I'd agree with you. In this instance your definition is flawed IMO.

Truley

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However remember, I am not just talking about money being used to pay their salaries. Setting up an office for anything, including a chaplain doing volunteer work, requires resources of many kinds. Office space. Desks. Computers. Power. Insurance while on the job. Resources dedicated to informing the students of the service. I could go on at length about the costs but suffice to say that if anyone thinks it is merely the “wages” we are talking about is being naïve.

Seems like you're coming from the After Hours school of economics, 'If we didn't pay for this asylum centre we would have a hospital by now'

On the subject of money, can anyone here have any knowelge of how much a Chaplain costs, or is it all speculation?

Mark Hamill

zoomtard wrote: »

What colleges pay chaplains?

TCD (who pay them themselves) and UCC (who take funds from student fees). I havent yet seen anything about the other colleges to indicate what they do.

Mark Hamill

Truley wrote: »

So your issue isn't about money or resources at all, it's your dislike of religon.

Its about both.

Truley wrote: »

Even though I've already expained how funding religous services doesn't compromise the secularism of an institution.

If that religious servise is treated and funded like any other service on campus, then no it doesn't compromise the secularism. But so far we have seen two of the biggest colleges in ireland (UCC and TCD) give government money or student taxes directly to a religious service that could be given to a more beneficial secualr alternative.

Truley wrote: »

Why don't you just accept it as that rather than making claims of misspent funding when you don't have a clue about what you are talking about. Nobody here has been able to provide facts, stats or reports of any kind to back up their claims that chaplains eat into college wealth.

We have seen in this thread that TCD fund their own chaplains and UCC take funding from student fees for them.

Mark Hamill

zoomtard wrote: »

Someone else has said that UCC's is funded by the college and I will check that up next time we all get together to plan ways to force our beliefs down the throats of unsuspecting students but I can say that for the very large part, across the island, chaplaincies do not draw (and need not draw!) from college funds.

Wait now, it is "forcing your beliefs down someones throat" when you dont want to force them to go to a specifically religious chaplain?

johnfás

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its about both.

So, in short, it is moreo about your personal bias than any "bias", which you have thus far been unable to define, on the part of a university.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If that religious servise is treated and funded like any other service on campus, then no it doesn't compromise the secularism. But so far we have seen two of the biggest colleges in ireland (UCC and TCD) give government money or student taxes directly to a religious service that could be given to a more beneficial secualr alternative.

The fact that UCC and TCD fund chaplaincy services (which has not been confirmed by either institution in any case) does not mean that it is not treated like any other service on campus. Quite clearly it is treated like any other service as I, having attended several academic institutions in the State, have not noticed any additional lavishness on the part of the chaplaincy department as compared to any other service on campus.

It seems that you equate the simple funding of such services as treating and funding a service differently to other services, which is patent nonsense. There is a demand for chaplaincy on campus, so it is funded, just like any other service funded on campus. Your equating this with provision for student societies simply demonstrates a misunderstanding of how a university works. We don't fund sporting infrastructure, medical support, disability support, extra language classes, access programmes, counselling, or any other service provided by a university on the basis of the number of students signing up for student societies either - so why would religious provision be funded on that basis? The reality is that you are not arguing for religious interests to be treated the same as any other interest (which would be a demonstration of secularism) but rather that it should be treated as second rate or superfluous, which is merely your own mini theocracy.

equivariant

I do think that the whole funding issue here is a bit of a red herring. I think that most colleges would probably fund non religious analogues of chaplains anyway. IMO, the real issue is the abdication of responsibility to religious figures when it comes to matters of emotional and psychological support. Universities and ITs (as supposedly bastions of free thinking and rationality) should be leading the way in demonstrating that these matters have no intrinsic connection to religion. There is of course nothing wrong with having a priest in the role of mentor/supporter/counsellor. However, he should not acquire or have special access to that role merely because of his ordination.
It is yet another example in Irish society of undue deference to religious authority in matters in which they can claim no special expertise.

johnfás

equivariant wrote: »

I do think that the whole funding issue here is a bit of a red herring. I think that most colleges would probably fund non religious analogues of chaplains anyway. IMO, the real issue is the abdication of responsibility to religious figures when it comes to matters of emotional and psychological support. Universities and ITs (as supposedly bastions of free thinking and rationality) should be leading the way in demonstrating that these matters have no intrinsic connection to religion. There is of course nothing wrong with having a priest in the role of mentor/supporter/counsellor. However, he should not acquire or have special access to that role merely because of his ordination.
It is yet another example in Irish society of undue deference to religious authority in matters in which they can claim no special expertise.

All universities provide other avenues of emotional support. Surely, as a bastion of free thinking, a university should simply provide the infrastructure to enable students to seek their own way, where it is reasonable to provide such infrastructure. The very fact that a chaplaincy service exists does not mean that one need partake in it and it does not exist as a replacement for any other form of support - it is quite apparent that universities provide an array of different supports from which students may pick and choose. There is absolutely no doubt, as Zoomtard outlined above, that for example, a humanist chaplain, would also be welcomed on campus to provide any support if such a demand were demonstrated to exist on behalf of students and a means of ensuring accountability and certification were put in place. The provision of such services is not inconsistent with the vision you outline for a university above.

Mark Hamill

prinz wrote: »

Aren't you demanding a removal of chaplains because you are not religious? What's the difference. BTW I don't think anyone has said the religious students "have to have" a religious counsellor. We are discussing a service which is already being provided. It's up to the people who want that service discontinued to prove their case tbh.

I am demanding a removal of chaplains because it isn't secular to have chaplains of a specific religion being paid by university funds. If a chaplain is volunteering his/her time for free, then I have no issue, but this is not the case in UCC and TCD (at least).

prinz wrote: »

....and yet again we come to the question of how do we know a secular counsellor is not biased? On religion, or anything else for that matter?

Because that is what secular means? You know what it means right? To be secular is to have a seperation of state and religion-to not have the state show favouritism to religion. A specifically secular counsellor will not show religious bias and therefore, assuming all else is equal between counsellors and chaplains (a big assumption) will have at least one less bias than a religious chaplain.

prinz wrote: »

It also raises the point that you haven't backed up any of the claims that chaplains of whatever religious persuasion act on a partisan basis.

Because they are religious, the nature of their responsibilities are religious and they have this job on the basis of their religion, therefore they dont need to. If religion wasn't a bif part of their job. then they wouldn't be labelled as roman catholic (for instance) chaplains, would they. they would just be chaplains, some of whom happen to roman catholic.

prinz wrote: »

Lmao, the irony. Btw you asked what about people who don't want to see a chaplain. The simple answer is this, no one is forcing people to see anyone they don't want to. :roll eyes: Oh yes that's a two fingered salute alright. Hilarious.

That is a two fingered salute. How come we cant just have a secular counsellor and tell the religious students that they dont have to see him/her if they dont want to? By having a secular counsellor, everyone can see him/her. Anyone wanting to to go a religious advisor can be refered onto one by the secular counsellor. But anyone who wants to see one is going to be more intimidated by a chaplain who declares his religion (hence why they might not want to). Seeing as chaplains give such important services to colleges, maybe we should make it easiest for the most people to see a counsellor when they might need to?

prinz wrote: »

No, you are demanding a removal of a choice which is already present... you are forgetting that the choice for "everyone else" is still there. Ignoring the blatantly obvious fact that a chaplain of a particular religion is not restricted to pastoral care of adherents to that particular religion.

No, by having a chaplain of a particular religion you have made the choice for the students. That chaplain may be not be restricted to pastoral care of a paticular religion, but that doesnt ean that members of other religions will even be happy to approach him, if they even consider approaching him in the first place.

prinz wrote: »

Yes, once again, this isn't an either/or scenario. I don't know why it is being continually presented as such. Oh wait I do..... building up windmills. :rolleyes:

When we have colleges using their severly limited funds, then yes it becomes an either/or issue.

prinz wrote: »

Actually most campuses strive to create a community 'on campus' which reflects society at large. Shops, pubs, banks, pharmacies, sports clubs, societies, political parties etc etc. Interesting that you should mention support though.... unless of course it means support of a faith kind.

And do campuses fund car mechanics for students who need automotive support? Representatives of specific political parties for students who want political support? Representatives of the vintners associate for students who want drinking support? If campuses treat religious advisors like any example you gave here - pups, shops, clubs- then I have no issue. The problem is when campuses give unfair benefits to religion. This is anti secular.

prinz wrote: »

What about a campus that does not have a church?

What about it?

prinz wrote: »

Actually it's not. Even in a secular society religions and the religious still exist. They still have a role to play.

Its asecular issue because in a secular society religions are not given special treatment over any other club. Paid chaplains are special treatment for religions.

prinz wrote: »

And a "RC chaplain", (again assuming a chaplain to be RC - I wonder why),

I gave an example of an RC chaplain not being much used to a jewish student. It was an example, not an assumption. Where you not paying attention?

prinz wrote: »

will be able to refer the student on to the college counsellor if needs be. Complementary services. If a student wishes to see a chaplain to talk in terms of their own beliefs then I believe having that service available is best for that student. If a student wishes to see a secular counsellor then I believe that having that service is best for that student. No need for mutual exclusivity.

There are two issue with this. Firstly, if the chaplain is volunteering then I have no problem, bus is not the case in at least two large universities. Secondly it is the issue of first choice. Secondly (in addition to the issue being ok) if both doors are open (counsellor and chaplain) and the student has the option to see whichever he likes first then this is ok, but if its a case that students as a matter of fact have to see the religious chaplain before they can be refered to the counsellor, then I would have a problem with that.

prinz wrote: »

Once again are you claiming that all chaplains act in an impartial manner to students? Any back up to this? Any records of chaplains turning people away based on religion? Once again having a chaplain does not preclude providing other counselling services no matter how much you try to convince yourself that that is the case to suit your own agenda.

Its not just wether the chaplains can control their own predjudices, its the precieved predjudices. A gay student will not be particularly inclined to go to a chaplain if he thinks the chaplain is going to be predjudiced against (regardless of wether the chaplain would be or not), ands that even if it occurs to the student they could go to the chaplain (it may just be a non choice to the student -they just can concieve of going). This is also possible for students of sufficiently different religous beliefs to the chaplain ("how could a muslim chaplain even understand my jewish issues").

prinz wrote: »

Back into the farcical zone. I wonder what bias are the atheists who have no issue with chaplains blinded by?

I have no idea.

prinz wrote: »

Well if enough of them get together off you go and lobby the university.

And they would be laughed at and told, matter of factly, "just because people want somethin, doesn't mean they get it". But look at the stink kicked up when we turn that concept on religion.

prinz wrote: »

It's not about catering for every individual desire. Colleges cannot cater for every individual sporting desire either. Or every individual language desire. Or every individual etc etc. Does that mean they take a one size fits all policy? Or does it mean that they try to accomodate as many as is reasonably possible?

Why is so hard for you to see that, in this case, one size fits all actually does accomodate as much as is reasonable possible, as this one size, can change to be whatever anyone needs it to be.

prinz wrote: »

In general I'd agree with you. In this instance your definition is flawed IMO.

Secularism = seperation of church and state. A college using government money (or student taxes, which is essentially the same thing) to biasly fund a religious initiative is not secular.

johnfás

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because that is what secular means? You know what it means right? To be secular is to have a seperation of state and religion-to not have the state show favouritism to religion.

In what sense is providing for a chaplaincy service showing favouritism to religion? This is where your argument for bias entirely fails. Simply providing a service, where a body of students benefit from that service, is not showing favouritism. No more than providing a sports centre is showing favouritism for those interested in sport. It is simply a response to the needs/desires/interests of the student body. Favouritism is a comparative concept - you need to (and have not) demonstrate what apparent favouritism to religion which arises on foot of providing a chaplaincy service arises against. It is quite clear that a secular alternative is provided, therefore, where is the favouritism?

Given that, for example, UCD has 13 student advisors and 4 chaplains, it is quite clear that the system favours the secular alternative in giving student support. That is natural, given that more people wish to avail of that facility than chaplaincy. Simply providing a religious alternative for those who wish to avail of it is favouring students, not religion, and it does not demonstrate favouritism of any type. You are throwing these words about but neither defining them nor applying them to the situation at hand.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, by having a chaplain of a particular religion you have made the choice for the students. That chaplain may be not be restricted to pastoral care of a paticular religion, but that doesnt ean that members of other religions will even be happy to approach him, if they even consider approaching him in the first place.

Again, this is a ridiculous statement which intentionally ignores the reality of the situation. There has been no choice made for a student - there are an array of services (some religious, some not) provided which a student may individually pick from depending on their own personal needs. In much the same way that stocking a mars bar does not make the choice for a consumer in a shop, in the context of there being a great many other chocolate bars available. As stated above, any other organisation is quite welcome to petition to bring an even greater array of support services to a university and where a demand can be demonstrated, and an accountability and certification mechanism ensured, then they would be welcomed.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And do campuses fund car mechanics for students who need automotive support? Representatives of specific political parties for students who want political support? Representatives of the vintners associate for students who want drinking support? If campuses treat religious advisors like any example you gave here - pups, shops, clubs- then I have no issue. The problem is when campuses give unfair benefits to religion. This is anti secular.

Many universities have on campus hair dressers, bicycle repair shops and STD clinics. Engaging in risky sexual activity is a choice and one which I do not engage in, yet I fund services for those that do. Presumably this is a favouritism towards those who engage in risky sexual activity? Where is my refund, why don't they take their diseases off campus and work it out themselves? That isn't how a community works, you see.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its asecular issue because in a secular society religions are not given special treatment over any other club. Paid chaplains are special treatment for religions.

Agains, how is funding, for instance a religious chaplain (where it has not actually been confirmed that any do other than hearsay on a message board) favouring a religion? It clearly isn't. It is favouring students who wish to partake in the service that it provides - in much the same way that paying the receptionist at the sports centre favours students who need access to the sports centre.

Truley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its about both.

I don't think so, I think you are using the funding argument to justify your ideological bias. In fact you have no idea about what a chaplain does, who uses the services, how he/she is funded, whether it costs a university at all. It's a very weak argument.

I am biased against anything this not secular religious

How does that sound? Whats the difference between the athiestic bias you hold and the religous bias a Chaplain holds? You want your to be imposed on everyone else. The chaplain doesn't.

If that religious servise is treated and funded like any other service on campus, then no it doesn't compromise the secularism. But so far we have seen two of the biggest colleges in ireland (UCC and TCD) give government money or student taxes directly to a religious service that could be given to a more beneficial secualr alternative.

And secular alternatives are provided. So that isn't really the issue is it. If the issue was money then why not get rid of the services students don't want or need first and foremost. Why is a chaplaincy and a counselling service mutually exclusive? What about the women's officer, poster budgets, SU karakoe machine, class rep weekends?

What are student taxes anyway?

We have seen in this thread that TCD fund their own chaplains and UCC take funding from student fees for them.

One poster made that claim, nobody has been able to confirm it. It's a pretty ambigious source to form such a strong opinion from.

Secondly (in addition to the issue being ok) if both doors are open (counsellor and chaplain) and the student has the option to see whichever he likes first then this is ok, but if its a case that students as a matter of fact have to see the religious chaplain before they can be refered to the counsellor, then I would have a problem with that.

That has nothing to do with the chaplaincy. If a student wants to avail of counselling services he/she must first be referred by either of the following; Doctor, Nurse, Student Advisor, Welfare Officer, College Chaplain. Or they can stop at either of these specific port of calls and be satisfied and never want/need to see a counsellor. As I said before, chaplaincy is not an alternative to the Mental Health service, it broadens and compliments it.

Mark Hamill

johnfás wrote: »

So, in short, it is moreo about your personal bias than any "bias", which you have thus far been unable to define, on the part of a university.

Woah man, dont reach so hard, you'll dislocate your shoulder. I just said the issue is both about funding and secularism.

johnfás wrote: »

The fact that UCC and TCD fund chaplaincy services (which has not been confirmed by either institution in any case) does not mean that it is not treated like any other service on campus.

Services come in two categories. College run services (sports clubs, college clinics etc) which are funded accoridng to usage and outside services (pups, shops) which would pay rent to the university. Religious chaplains are treated like neither of these services. Money is given without alternative, more efficient, possibilities examined.

johnfás wrote: »

Quite clearly it is treated like any other service as I, having attended several academic institutions in the State, have not noticed any additional lavishness on the part of the chaplaincy department as compared to any other service on campus.

What does your being in the states have anything to do with chaplaincies here?

johnfás wrote: »

It seems that you equate the simple funding of such services as treating and funding a service differently to other services, which is patent nonsense. There is a demand for chaplaincy on campus, so it is funded, just like any other service funded on campus.

But its not funded like any other service on campus. Any other service on campus would be cost benefit analysed . A college wouldn't have (lets say) one huge carpark on campus beside the main accomadation building, simply because that benefits a large number of students, not when having several smaller car parks around campus would benefit everyone.

johnfás wrote: »

Your equating this with provision for student societies simply demonstrates a misunderstanding of how a university works. We don't fund sporting infrastructure, medical support, disability support, extra language classes, access programmes, counselling, or any other service provided by a university on the basis of the number of students signing up for student societies either - so why would religious provision be funded on that basis?

Eh, yes we do. The money going to these services is dependent on the numbers using them (there would be a minimum to keep them open regardless, but the more people using things like medical support would result in more funds to help it cope).

johnfás wrote: »

The reality is that you are not arguing for religious interests to be treated the same as any other interest (which would be a demonstration of secularism) but rather that it should be treated as second rate or superfluous, which is merely your own mini theocracy.

Complete bs, man. Read my posts. I have no problem with chaplaincies of they are not being funded, or if they are being funded equal to their status (on the lines of a sports club), this is not happening in at least two universities in ireland.

prinz

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I am demanding a removal of chaplains because it isn't secular to have chaplains of a specific religion being paid by university funds. If a chaplain is volunteering his/her time for free, then I have no issue, but this is not the case in UCC and TCD (at least).

So you only support the removal of chaplains that are being recompensed then right? I mean if they are volunteering their time you don't have any issue with a university having a designated chaplain?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because that is what secular means? You know what it means right?

Yes I do.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because they are religious, the nature of their responsibilities are religious and they have this job on the basis of their religion, therefore they dont need to. If religion wasn't a bif part of their job. then they wouldn't be labelled as roman catholic (for instance) chaplains, would they. they would just be chaplains, some of whom happen to roman catholic.

A chaplain is a chaplain. Whatever their own religious denomination is largely irrelevant.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That is a two fingered salute. How come we cant just have a secular counsellor and tell the religious students that they dont have to see him/her if they dont want to?

How come we cant just have a secular counselling service and a chaplain available for religious students if needed that nobody else has to see if they don't want to?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

By having a secular counsellor, everyone can see him/her. Anyone wanting to to go a religious advisor can be refered onto one by the secular counsellor.

You keep reiterating how chaplaincy =/= counselling and yet you keep claiming that the services are interchangeable if you are religious. Why can't both services be provided?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But anyone who wants to see one is going to be more intimidated by a chaplain who declares his religion (hence why they might not want to).

Again......backup? Or just unsubstantiated blather?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Seeing as chaplains give such important services to colleges, maybe we should make it easiest for the most people to see a counsellor when they might need to?

My thoughts exactly. Which is why a chaplaincy service alongside adequate secular counselling services etc is preferable.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, by having a chaplain of a particular religion you have made the choice for the students. That chaplain may be not be restricted to pastoral care of a paticular religion, but that doesnt mean that members of other religions will even be happy to approach him, if they even consider approaching him in the first place.

(a) Simply rectified. The students lobby for a change of chaplain, and (b) nice of you to start speaking up for the religious students now :rolleyes:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

When we have colleges using their severly limited funds, then yes it becomes an either/or issue..

No, it doesn't. You are presenting a false choice in a desperate attempt to validate your position. Any examples where chaplaincy and secular counselling services have been in direct competition?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And do campuses fund car mechanics for students who need automotive support? Representatives of specific political parties for students who want political support? Representatives of the vintners associate for students who want drinking support?

The universities facilitate these yes. University clubs and societies, bars etc.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If campuses treat religious advisors like any example you gave here - pups, shops, clubs- then I have no issue. The problem is when campuses give unfair benefits to religion. This is anti secular.

Yet you still cannot actually give an example of an unfair benefit.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its asecular issue because in a secular society religions are not given special treatment over any other club. Paid chaplains are special treatment for religions.

Again we alledgedly have two instances of paid chaplains. Care to come up with a new argument on that one?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I gave an example of an RC chaplain not being much used to a jewish student. It was an example, not an assumption. Where you not paying attention?

But you failed to explain why not. Therefore I can only assume it is an assumption on your part.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There are two issue with this. Firstly, if the chaplain is volunteering then I have no problem, bus is not the case in at least two large universities. Secondly it is the issue of first choice. Secondly (in addition to the issue being ok) if both doors are open (counsellor and chaplain) and the student has the option to see whichever he likes first then this is ok, but if its a case that students as a matter of fact have to see the religious chaplain before they can be refered to the counsellor, then I would have a problem with that.

Seriously? Who has even hinted at the remotest possibility that a student must see a religious chaplain before being referred to a counsellor?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its not just wether the chaplains can control their own predjudices, its the precieved predjudices. A gay student will not be particularly inclined to go to a chaplain if he thinks the chaplain is going to be predjudiced against (regardless of wether the chaplain would be or not), ands that even if it occurs to the student they could go to the chaplain (it may just be a non choice to the student -they just can concieve of going). This is also possible for students of sufficiently different religous beliefs to the chaplain ("how could a muslim chaplain even understand my jewish issues")..

Is that reason enough to do away with the concept of chaplaincy?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And they would be laughed at and told, matter of factly, "just because people want somethin, doesn't mean they get it". But look at the stink kicked up when we turn that concept on religion..

Really, would they? Get enough people behind it and I wonder. Look at the stink kicked up when we turn that concept on atheists btw. Just because you don't want a chaplain, doesn't mean you get your way..

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why is so hard for you to see that, in this case, one size fits all actually does accomodate as much as is reasonable possible, as this one size, can change to be whatever anyone needs it to be...

It doesn't, and more often than not it cannot.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Secularism = seperation of church and state. A college using government money (or student taxes, which is essentially the same thing) to biasly fund a religious initiative is not secular.

Again what is the bias? If thge college has an atheist/humanist etc rep on an equal footing is it still bias?

johnfás

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But its not funded like any other service on campus. Any other service on campus would be cost benefit analysed . A college wouldn't have (lets say) one huge carpark on campus beside the main accomadation building, simply because that benefits a large number of students, not when having several smaller car parks around campus would benefit everyone.

Are we to assume that you work in university administration? If not, on what basis can you be so sure that the chaplaincy service is not analysed on the basis of cost benefit?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Complete bs, man. Read my posts. I have no problem with chaplaincies of they are not being funded, or if they are being funded equal to their status (on the lines of a sports club), this is not happening in at least two universities in ireland.

Again, you are simply conflating issues which are not synonymous. This seems to be your modus operandi when your arguments fail. Sports clubs and student societies are treated the same - they are funded on the basis of the number of students which sign up in Fresher's week with an additional grant specific to the activity in question (i.e. kayak club will be financially favoured despite small numbers because the costs of running such a club per member are greater than, for example, a debating society owing to equipment costs). This is quite different to the provision of student services by the university - which includes the funding of buildings and personnel. The two are simply not comparable.

Let us assume momentarily that they were the same. What you are suggesting is that the swimming pool should be filled in some years and then dug up again in other years depending on the number of people who sign up for the swimming club (which is a student club and entirely separate to the swimming pool which is a university provision). Equally, that a chaplain would be hired one year, depending on how many people tick a certain box, and then fired again the next year (including redundancy payments) depending on how many people tick another box. What you fail to realise of course is that students on entering university do tick such boxes and provision is made taking into account such boxes - which include whether one wishes, or indeed does not wish, to declare themselves a member of a religion.

prinz

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Complete bs, man. Read my posts. I have no problem with chaplaincies of they are not being funded, or if they are being funded equal to their status (on the lines of a sports club), this is not happening in at least two universities in ireland.

Just to clarify if the chaplain volunteers their service free of charge, and the university accepts them as official chaplain of the college etc that's ok with you?

Mark Hamill

johnfás wrote: »

In what sense is providing for a chaplaincy service showing favouritism to religion? This is where your argument for bias entirely fails. Simply providing a service, where a body of students benefit from that service, is not showing favouritism. No more than providing a sports centre is showing favouritism for those interested in sport. It is simply a response to the needs/desires/interests of the student body. Favouritism is a comparative concept - you need to (and have not) demonstrate what apparent favouritism to religion which arises on foot of providing a chaplaincy service arises against. It is quite clear that a secular alternative is provided, therefore, where is the favouritism?

When that service is funded unfairly compared to other services, or uneccessarily when alternative services are considered, then you have favouritism.

johnfás wrote: »

Again, this is a ridiculous statement which intentionally ignores the reality of the situation. There has been no choice made for a student - there are an array of services (some religious, some not) provided which a student may individually pick from depending on their own personal needs. In much the same way that stocking a mars bar does not make the choice for a consumer in a shop, in the context of there being a great many other chocolate bars available. As stated above, any other organisation is quite welcome to petition to bring an even greater array of support services to a university and where a demand can be demonstrated, and an accountability and certification mechanism ensured, then they would be welcomed.

Ok this hasn't addressed my point at all. Please try again.

johnfás wrote: »

Many universities have on campus hair dressers, bicycle repair shops and STD clinics. Engaging in risky sexual activity is a choice and one which I do not engage in, yet I fund services for those that do. Presumably this is a favouritism towards those who engage in risky sexual activity? Where is my refund, why don't they take their diseases off campus and work it out themselves? That isn't how a community works, you see.

Again this isn't addressing my points. I'm not dont support religious chaplains at all, I'm saying dont support them unfairly because its anti secular. Religious chaplains are a worse alternative to the secular alternative, even if you dont consider the dangers of pandering to peoples bs beliefs.

johnfás wrote: »

Agains, how is funding, for instance a religious chaplain (where it has not actually been confirmed that any do other than hearsay on a message board) favouring a religion? It clearly isn't. It is favouring students who wish to partake in the service that it provides - in much the same way that paying the receptionist at the sports centre favours students who need access to the sports centre.

Yet again, ignoring the examples which show how the funding is favouritism. If you aren't going to actually repsond to my points, I'm just going to have to ignore you, because you aren't responding to anything I've actually said.
This is the key issue you continuously ignore, :

Mark Hamill wrote:

Its not just wether the chaplains can control their own predjudices, its the precieved predjudices. A gay student will not be particularly inclined to go to a chaplain if he thinks the chaplain is going to be predjudiced against (regardless of wether the chaplain would be or not), ands that even if it occurs to the student they could go to the chaplain (it may just be a non choice to the student -they just can concieve of going). This is also possible for students of sufficiently different religous beliefs to the chaplain ("how could a muslim chaplain even understand my jewish issues").

This explains why secular alternatives are better to religious chaplains and shows how funding for them over the secular alternatives is favouritism.

prinz

Mark Hamill wrote: »

When that service is funded unfairly compared to other services, or uneccessarily when alternative services are considered, then you have favouritism.

Any proof of this? Or are you presenting it once again as a false choice?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Religious chaplains are a worse alternative to the secular alternative, even if you dont consider the dangers of pandering to peoples bs beliefs..

Brick wall time. There is no need to choose one alternative as opposed to the other. There is no either/or imperative.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This explains why secular alternatives are better to religious chaplains and shows how funding for them over the secular alternatives is favouritism.

It explains no such thing tbh.

Mark Hamill

Most of post boils down to these point, so I will respond to these part (for brevity)

prinz wrote: »

A chaplain is a chaplain. Whatever their own religious denomination is largely irrelevant.

And yet so much of their job is dependent on their religious affiliation. (look back at the list posted a while back of the ucd chaplains responsibilities, I dont think a muslim chaplain could do the christmas mass and the christian prayers)

prinz wrote: »

How come we cant just have a secular counselling service and a chaplain available for religious students if needed that nobody else has to see if they don't want to?

prinz wrote: »

You keep reiterating how chaplaincy =/= counselling and yet you keep claiming that the services are interchangeable if you are religious. Why can't both services be provided?

prinz wrote: »

No, it doesn't. You are presenting a false choice in a desperate attempt to validate your position. Any examples where chaplaincy and secular counselling services have been in direct competition?

Anywhere a chaplaincy gets funding, it is potentially in competition with counselling (tbh, its in competition with every service in a college). When funds are limited, it is better to pay for a counsellor who will be better for all the students. If a college has done has the funds and can dole them out properly (and has done that experiment nozferrathoo gave to show how chaplaincies can give useful support on the level of a counsellor,) then both can be used.

prinz wrote: »

Yet you still cannot actually give an example of an unfair benefit.

The funding itself is an unfair benefit.

prinz wrote: »

Seriously? Who has even hinted at the remotest possibility that a student must see a religious chaplain before being referred to a counsellor?

Just covering my bases.

prinz wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote:

Its not just wether the chaplains can control their own predjudices, its the precieved predjudices. A gay student will not be particularly inclined to go to a chaplain if he thinks the chaplain is going to be predjudiced against (regardless of wether the chaplain would be or not), ands that even if it occurs to the student they could go to the chaplain (it may just be a non choice to the student -they just can concieve of going). This is also possible for students of sufficiently different religous beliefs to the chaplain ("how could a muslim chaplain even understand my jewish issues")..

Is that reason enough to do away with the concept of chaplaincy?

So the secular alternative is better than the religious chaplain, but you cant say if that is reason to get rid of the chaplaincy

Mark Hamill

johnfás wrote: »

Are we to assume that you work in university administration? If not, on what basis can you be so sure that the chaplaincy service is not analysed on the basis of cost benefit?

I have explained repeatedly how the secular is better. Unless you can disprove my explanations, or unless you have the cost benefit analysis of a university showing how they decided the religious chaplain was better, then dont come back until you do.

johnfás wrote: »

Again, you are simply conflating issues which are not synonymous. This seems to be your modus operandi when your arguments fail. Sports clubs and student societies are treated the same - they are funded on the basis of the number of students which sign up in Fresher's week with an additional grant specific to the activity in question (i.e. kayak club will be financially favoured despite small numbers because the costs of running such a club per member are greater than, for example, a debating society owing to equipment costs). This is quite different to the provision of student services by the university - which includes the funding of buildings and personnel. The two are simply not comparable.

In what way are they actually different?

johnfás wrote: »

Let us assume momentarily that they were the same. What you are suggesting is that the swimming pool should be filled in some years and then dug up again in other years depending on the number of people who sign up for the swimming club (which is a student club and entirely separate to the swimming pool which is a university provision). Equally, that a chaplain would be hired one year, depending on how many people tick a certain box, and then fired again the next year (including redundancy payments) depending on how many people tick another box. What you fail to realise of course is that students on entering university do tick such boxes and provision is made taking into account such boxes - which include whether one wishes, or indeed does not wish, to declare themselves a member of a religion.

Yawn. Still not reading my posts.:

Mark HAmill wrote:

Eh, yes we do. The money going to these services is dependent on the numbers using them (there would be a minimum to keep them open regardless, but the more people using things like medical support would result in more funds to help it cope).

What I described is not at all what you are countering. Strawmanning seems to be your modus operandi when you have no argument.

Mark Hamill

prinz wrote: »

Any proof of this? Or are you presenting it once again as a false choice?


Brick wall time. There is no need to choose one alternative as opposed to the other. There is no either/or imperative.

Funding in universities is always limited, so in a way everything is in a state of either/or. You can have either a chaplain or more counsellors.

prinz wrote: »

It explains no such thing tbh.

And this is not even a rebuttal. Come back when you have something to say.

prinz

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And yet so much of their job is dependent on their religious affiliation. (look back at the list posted a while back of the ucd chaplains responsibilities, I dont think a muslim chaplain could do the christmas mass and the christian prayers)

I think you'll find that has more to do with the numbers involved, the social history of the country, the origins of the university itself. btw these types of prayers are in themselves largely non-denominational. See for example the recent commemoration event in the RHK. A number of representatives from the largest religious groups in the country gave a prayer/blessing. All were largely indistinguishable from each other. All has to do with the numbers involved tbh.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Anywhere a chaplaincy gets funding, it is potentially in competition with counselling (tbh, its in competition with every service in a college). When funds are limited, it is better to pay for a counsellor who will be better for all the students. If a college has done has the funds and can dole them out properly (and has done that experiment nozferrathoo gave to show how chaplaincies can give useful support on the level of a counsellor,) then both can be used.

But you already said the funding itself is an unfair benefit and that it is against the spirit if secularism. Now you are saying if enough funds are there the university can pay a chaplain?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The funding itself is an unfair benefit..

Still have failed to show why.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Just covering my bases...

By inventing ridiculously farcical hypotheticals? :rolleyes:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So the secular alternative is better than the religious chaplain, but you cant say if that is reason to get rid of the chaplaincy

I didn't say that. Once again you are confusing chaplaincy and counselling. Two different services. The fact that I never attending the uni health clinic in my time, was that reason enough for me to advocate getting rid of it?

prinz

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Funding in universities is always limited, so in a way everything is in a state of either/or. You can have either a chaplain or more counsellors..

Or you can have both and one less fancy fountain. Or you can switch paper suppliers and have more counsellors. Or you can reduce/reuse/recycle and cut costs, or you can blah blah blah You have not been able to back up this claim of direct compeititon in any way whatsoever.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And this is not even a rebuttal. Come back when you have something to say.

I don't rebutt nonsense. I wouldn't waste my time.

Mark Hamill

prinz wrote: »

I think you'll find that has more to do with the numbers involved, the social history of the country, the origins of the university itself. btw these types of prayers are in themselves largely non-denominational. See for example the recent commemoration event in the RHK. A number of representatives from the largest religious groups in the country gave a prayer/blessing. All were largely indistinguishable from each other. All has to do with the numbers involved tbh.

Here is the list of services offered by the NUIG chaplain (i earlier refered to it as ucd, apologies):

* The chaplains at NUI Galway offer the following services: * Daily Mass (lunchtime and evening, including Sunday) * Pastoral care * Personal counselling and advisory service to students and staff * Sacrament of Reconciliation (confession) * Weddings of students, staff and graduates * Christmas Carol services for staff and students * Service of Remembrance for those who donate their bodies to medical science * A week of guided prayer each spring * Meditation class each Wednesday at 12 noon * Monthly Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament * Reunion Mass each June * Galway Order of Malta Christmas and summer Mass * Adult Confirmation for the Diocese of Galway * Diocesan annual Celebration of Religious Life

These are not non denominational services, at least 8 are specifically christian.

prinz wrote: »

I didn't say that. Once again you are confusing chaplaincy and counselling. Two different services.

The differences are just the religious services offered by the religious chaplain (and the superior support offered by the counsellor). There is no more fundamnetal need for a university to give religious support to a student than there is for a university to give automotive support.

prinz wrote: »

The fact that I never attending the uni health clinic in my time, was that reason enough for me to advocate getting rid of it?

You are still trying to bring in an issue of "I dont use it, so I shouldn't pay for it" even though I have never made that point. Stop being so deceitful and keep to the points I make.

Mark Hamill

prinz wrote: »

Or you can have both and one less fancy fountain. Or you can switch paper suppliers and have more counsellors. Or you can reduce/reuse/recycle and cut costs, or you can blah blah blah You have not been able to back up this claim of direct compeititon in any way whatsoever.

I just showed it you, and your examples actually back it up. Everything in college is in direct competition with each other. More money spent on arts supplies is money that could spent on science materials or sports equipment, its all money from the same source. Universities seem to recognise the need for support for students, hence they fund counsellors and chaplains. If they recognise that the support is emotional or psychological in nature, then the money is better spent on counsellors who will do a better job than religious chaplains. If they think the this emotional and psychological support should go to religious advisors then I have major issue, as places of learning have no business support such nonsense.

prinz wrote: »

I don't rebutt nonsense. I wouldn't waste my time.

Here is what I wrote

Mark Hamill wrote:

Its not just wether the chaplains can control their own predjudices, its the precieved predjudices. A gay student will not be particularly inclined to go to a chaplain if he thinks the chaplain is going to be predjudiced against him/her(regardless of wether the chaplain would be or not), ands that even if it occurs to the student they could go to the chaplain (it may just be a non choice to the student -they just can concieve of going). This is also possible for students of sufficiently different religous beliefs to the chaplain ("how could a muslim chaplain even understand my jewish issues").

I will not respond to anything more you say until you respond to this. Soapboxing on this regard only serves to retard the discussion, if you cannot counter it, then keep silent.

prinz

Mark Hamill wrote: »

These are not non denominational services, at least 8 are specifically christian..

Ireland is a country in which various denominations of Christianity make up the vast majority of religiously minded folk. The horror. That one chaplain is RC or whatever does not preclude of course other chaplains of other denominations.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The differences are just the religious services offered by the religious chaplain (and the superior support offered by the counsellor). There is no more fundamnetal need for a university to give religious support to a student than there is for a university to give automotive support.

In your opinion. It's a service that is provided. That another service is not provided again does not negate the service that is.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You are still trying to bring in an issue of "I dont use it, so I shouldn't pay for it" even though I have never made that point. Stop being so deceitful and keep to the points I make

You have repeatedly made a point about funding.

prinz

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If they recognise that the support is emotional or psychological in nature, then the money is better spent on counsellors who will do a better job than religious chaplains..

Back up? Any evidence that people who use the services of chaplains would get a better service elsewhere? There are some issues I'd go to a chaplain with. There are other issues I'd go to a counsellor with. Do I think a counsellor would have done better with the issues I'd go to chaplain for help with? Er no, obviously not, or else I would have gone to a counsellor in the first place. Once again ideology is getting in the way of logic. Not to mention once again, confusing the two roles as synomous, which they aren't.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If they think the this emotional and psychological support should go to religious advisors then I have major issue, as places of learning have no business support such nonsense...

Do you think universities should provide religious studies classes if there is demand?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I will not respond to anything more you say until you respond to this....

It's a nonsensical argument against providing chaplaincy services. Basically you are saying some people wouldn't use it therefore it shouldn't be provided. Some people won't use STD clinics either, should they be abolished?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Soapboxing on this regard only serves to retard the discussion, if you cannot counter it, then keep silent.

You mean like "covering your bases" with hypothetical comical groundless arguments?

hivizman

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I have explained repeatedly how the secular is better. Unless you can disprove my explanations, or unless you have the cost benefit analysis of a university showing how they decided the religious chaplain was better, then dont come back until you do.

I've been following this debate with great interest. Several years ago, I was working for a university-level institution in the UK, when the issue of whether to replace the college chaplain, who had moved on to another post, came up. I was a member of the working group set up to discuss the issue, and we did a sort of cost-benefit analysis.

This college had been established in the 1890s as an explicitly secular institution, but there had been a salaried college chaplain almost from the beginning (as far as we could tell, this was largely because having a chaplain was simply one of the things that universities of the time had, but it is interesting that having a chaplain was not seen as inconsistent with the secular ethos of the college).

The college put a lot of effort into the pastoral care of students, many of whom came from outside the UK. Students were encouraged to go to their personal tutors, to senior tutors in each department, to the Dean of Undergraduate Studies or the Dean of Graduate Studies, to the health service, and to counsellors for personal support. In addition, the chaplaincy offered personal support and counselling on top of providing religious services for those who wanted them. The chaplaincy consisted of one salaried chaplain (who had in practice always been Church of England), as well as a Roman Catholic priest who served in a local parish and was provided with an additional payment by the Roman Catholic Church to act as RC Chaplain in the college, two non-conformist ministers who were paid by their own churches, a local rabbi and a local imam. In addition to the salary costs of the one paid chaplain (whose salary was tied to the lowest point on the lecturer salary scale), there were accommodation and other overhead costs, which came to about 40% of the salary costs.

We considered the expense of appointing an additional counsellor, but the salary costs alone of this would have been well in excess of the cost of the chaplain's salary, and there would have been no significant saving in overheads.

The chaplaincy was able to demonstrate several cases each year where individual students had specifically sought out support from one of the chaplains, rather than from academic staff or the health or counselling services, for various personal reasons, and it was clear that this support had been of great help to certain individuals, the value of which to the college (in allowing the college to continue to receive fees from students who might otherwise have dropped out), let alone the personal value to the students, was well in excess of the cost of recruiting and paying a new full-time chaplain. We decided that having a chaplain helped to provide a distinctive student support service of value to the students and the college.

Now, this is an English case rather than directly relating to Irish universities and colleges, but it may be of some help in considering the cost-benefit issue of having a chaplaincy service.

Mark Hamill

prinz wrote: »

Ireland is a country in which various denominations of Christianity make up the vast majority of religiously minded folk. The horror. That one chaplain is RC or whatever does not preclude of course other chaplains of other denominations.

And a secular society does not make special provisions for any one religion, regardless of wether it is a majority. Its kinda the opposite of secular.

prinz wrote: »

In your opinion. It's a service that is provided. That another service is not provided again does not negate the service that is.

It calls into question why one is seen as fundamental and the other is not.

prinz wrote: »

You have repeatedly made a point about funding.

From a secular point of view- that teh funding should be spent secularly. I have never needed a counsellor but I dont think I should be excempt from paying from one as the college needs one.

Mark Hamill

prinz wrote: »

Back up? Any evidence that people who use the services of chaplains would get a better service elsewhere? There are some issues I'd go to a chaplain with. There are other issues I'd go to a counsellor with. Do I think a counsellor would have done better with the issues I'd go to chaplain for help with? Er no, obviously not, or else I would have gone to a counsellor in the first place. Once again ideology is getting in the way of logic. Not to mention once again, confusing the two roles as synomous, which they aren't.

Logic dictates that the best service is the one that most benefits the user, nothing states that they have to accept that this is the case.

prinz wrote: »

Do you think universities should provide religious studies classes if there is demand?

No more than I think universties should give out homeopathy degrees, just because there is demand.

prinz wrote: »

It's a nonsensical argument against providing chaplaincy services. Basically you are saying some people wouldn't use it therefore it shouldn't be provided. Some people won't use STD clinics either, should they be abolished?

I am saying its very nature precludes some people, so secular alternatives are more preferable.

Mark Hamill

hivizman wrote: »

The chaplaincy was able to demonstrate several cases each year where individual students had specifically sought out support from one of the chaplains, rather than from academic staff or the health or counselling services, for various personal reasons, and it was clear that this support had been of great help to certain individuals, the value of which to the college (in allowing the college to continue to receive fees from students who might otherwise have dropped out), let alone the personal value to the students, was well in excess of the cost of recruiting and paying a new full-time chaplain.

Firstly thanks for this information.
Now, there are one or two issues with this reasoning.
Firstly that several students specifically sought out the chaplaincy over other services and they felt helped after it all does not necessarily mean that the students where helped in any meaningful way. Thousands of people every week specifically seek out homeopthic treatments, and at the end will feel better, doesn't mean they gotten anything more than an empty sugar pill. You cannot say that the students wouldn't have gotten a better class of help from a real counsellor instead of the emotional placebo the chaplain provides.
Secondly, its always nice to see colleges cost/benefit analysing services in terms of how much money they can make from the students continuing their study, as opposed to what is most efficient in terms of the students best interests.

hivizman wrote: »

We decided that having a chaplain helped to provide a distinctive student support service of value to the students and the college.

I guarantee you would get a distinctive student support service if you replace all your chaplains with strippers. They could be payed from the tips from the students, and what with the massive influx of students you would get, think of the money you could make!