College Chaplain

prinz

robindch wrote: »

Neither, to start with, is there anything "fundamentalist" about secularism -- basically, the idea that religion is something that the state should not fund or favour. A bit like atheism or pregnancy, it's a state that you're in or you're not.

Tbh it is a bit of a grey area. There are many religious people who also believe in a secular state etc. IMO it's not as simple as saying the State cannot fund anything connected to religion otherwise it's not secular, that to me is nonsense. The State does not fund religion, but it should distribute funds where appropriate. It should not fund or favour anything solely because of it's religious affiliations. IMO however there is nothing stopping it from funding a public service where it is the only/or the best option even if it has religious connections.

Take for example a rough neighbourhood in a secular state. There is only one youth group in the area which is organised by the local pastor and membership/facilites are free to any kid of any religion or of none from the area. Should the secular state refuse funding to this group? Should it wait until someone else (say a postman/lecturer...) sets up a similar youth group and then fund that while ignoring the first? Or should it say to both that funding will be supplied based on merits/numbers of kids etc/activities/benefits to the neighbourhood?

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

But first let me get this straight. You are saying that the chaplaincy should be abolished, and the students who were seeking help from the chaplaincy could use the secular counsellor instead, who would then use their professional training to CURE them of their religious belief? (that's a genuine question, I want to make sure I am clear on your position)

So religious people are all psychotic? Wow, that's quite a claim!!

johnfás wrote: »

Moderator intervention to set the terms of the debate - worrying. Mark Hamill, in the passage quoted by Kooli, implied that a university counsellor (the statement was pointed to Kooli who has already identified himself/herself as holding such a position) would seek to "cure" somebody of their religious convictions. Kooli is surely, in an open forum, quite entitled to query the full implications of such a statement without undue intervention by a moderator.

I didnt say that religious people where psychotic, I said that you should give them a real world cure to their issues. In the context of college, with students who have issues with grades and courses and lecturers, you are better off giving them a real world answer than pandering to their beliefs. An impartial advisor will give them the best answer to deal with reality, as opposed to a religiously biased chaplain who may over emphasis the importance of the beliefs in the context of reality.
In simpler terms, if you have a student who believes that his/her geology class is offensive to their realigious beliefs, you are better off having a secualr counsellor who will tell them that what are being taught is objective science and parta and parcel of all the other science they already accept, as opposed to a religious advisor who may pander to their sense of offense. Religious advisor do not offer real world advise, and in college, you need real world advise.

Kooli wrote: »

If you were a counsellor, and you had a client who believed in God, would you use your professional position and expertise to try and dissuade them or show them the 'truth'? (I would really like you to answer that question if you could). Because it seems you are suggesting that's what I should do with my religious clients (of whom I have many, but they are not coming to me for religious guidance, because they have the chaplaincy for that).

If that belief was obstructing their education, then yes I would. Tell me, if you had a client, whose belief in santa claus was giving them a hard time in college, would you try to dissuade them of that? What if they honest to god beleived that women had no place in higer education? Or foreign people? People are wrong in so many of their opinions and those wrong opinions can cause enough problems to require intervention. You shouldn't pander to them just because the opinion is religious.

Kooli wrote: »

But you are talking about fundamentalist atheism. Where any expression of religious belief, which has ZERO affect on non-believers, is not tolerated. Where your views are pushed onto others who are not interested in them, and not seeking them. It's a 'my way or the highway' approach, and is completely intolerant.

People can express their belief any way they want, but if it effects their college work, then unfortunately for them, they need to be told what comes first. Someone may not like being told that the earh is older than 600 years old, but you cant change the curriculum to keep them happy, and letting them give up is hardly going to improve them either.

Mark Hamill

hivizman wrote: »

Possibly "greater choice in student support" would have been better. We regarded the provision of religiously grounded student support through the chaplaincy as enhancing student choice and making it less likely that students in difficulty would "fall through the net" if they were unwilling to deal with the counselling service.

"Enhancing student choice" is meaningless in terms of efficacy though. Get some strippers and you enhance student choice. Bring in homeopaths to teh clinic and you enhance student choice. And you will get students who specifically use these services and, after using these services, will tell you how great they are and how much help they get. But they dont do anything for the students, not in th real world. They are witch doctors, who offer placebos and pander to peoples beliefs. It does not help these learn to deal with their issues in the real world.

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I didnt say that religious people where psychotic, I said that you should give them a real world cure to their issues. In the context of college, with students who have issues with grades and courses and lecturers, you are better off giving them a real world answer than pandering to their beliefs. An impartial advisor will give them the best answer to deal with reality, as opposed to a religiously biased chaplain who may over emphasis the importance of the beliefs in the context of reality.
In simpler terms, if you have a student who believes that his/her geology class is offensive to their realigious beliefs, you are better off having a secualr counsellor who will tell them that what are being taught is objective science and parta and parcel of all the other science they already accept, as opposed to a religious advisor who may pander to their sense of offense. Religious advisor do not offer real world advise, and in college, you need real world advise.


If that belief was obstructing their education, then yes I would. Tell me, if you had a client, whose belief in santa claus was giving them a hard time in college, would you try to dissuade them of that? What if they honest to god beleived that women had no place in higer education? Or foreign people? People are wrong in so many of their opinions and those wrong opinions can cause enough problems to require intervention. You shouldn't pander to them just because the opinion is religious.


People can express their belief any way they want, but if it effects their college work, then unfortunately for them, they need to be told what comes first. Someone may not like being told that the earh is older than 600 years old, but you cant change the curriculum to keep them happy, and letting them give up is hardly going to improve them either.

You didn't use the word psychotic, but you directly suggested I treat my religious clients like my other clients who 'hear voices' (in other words, the psychotic ones). So I'm not sure what you meant by that, if not to compare religious belief to psychosis - perhaps you can clarify the comparison?

The extreme examples you have given of religious beliefs getting in the way of education are just that - extreme - and they probably do require some sort of intervention, although I don't know what! But for the regular religious student, who sees their religion as a positive and supportive influence in their life, and who is looking for spiritual guidance and a sense of religious community, and these beliefs do not stop them from participating in education, do you still suggest they get sent to a counsellor for a 'cure'?

I find it more helpful to stay away from only using the most extreme examples to prove a point. I find it highly unlikely that the examples you have given come up very often. I can't see many students going to a chaplain with issues around specific beliefs being in conflict with what or how they are being taught.

Mark Hamill

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps you need to check the thread title again then. Why you would try to keep the issue of university chaplains out of a discussion revolving around, well university chaplains it beyond me.

I was trying to keep the discussion purely about supposedly secular colleges funding chaplains. I was trying to avoid discussing the genereal efficacy of religious advisors.

prinz wrote: »

So we're back to the hypothetical nonsense either/or's. I see. As above re the two provide different services.

Stop dodging and just answer the question.Which in your opinion is more important?

prinz wrote: »

On that basis people don't "need" secular counsellors either. People don't "need" on-campus anything except leture halls and lecturers.

People get issues and issues need to be dealt with, and they generally need help with those issues, so they need some sort of counselloing.

prinz wrote: »

Of course it can.

Its a contradiction. Instititions are the services they provide. If they dont provide secular services, then they are not secular.

prinz wrote: »

Again, personal opinion. I would be more than willing to see a chaplain of a different faith. Once again your comments only apply in a situation where students have no decision, no choice. This is a false scenario that you have not demonstrated to be based in reality.

Do you honestly think that a gay student willbe happy to see a religious student about a gay issue, if they think that the chaplains religion will make them biased? Dont be rididculous.

prinz wrote: »

Sorry, why would someone who has an issue with going to see a chaplain.... go to see a chaplain? This is still boggling my mind. Again the only way this applies is in an alternate universe where only chaplains are provided and no other secular counselling services, can you provide links for these universities in this country?

Thast my point. If they have an issue they wont go.

prinz wrote: »

Any chance we could get back to chaplains soon?

We are still on it, that was called an analogy.

prinz wrote: »

Wrong. Depends on the issue troubling the individual themselves.

Wrong. We dont let people out of mental institutes because they say they are better.

prinz wrote: »

You admitted yourself that if someone had a religious/faith issue the secular counsellor could refer them on to a member of whatever faith.... is that help better than going directly to a chaplain?

The exact same I would imagine.

prinz wrote: »

Why the need to refer people on if a secular counsellor can do a better job?

If the student isn't willing to look at his/her issues from a real world point of view, then the counsellor cant really do anything. If they insist, without discourse on real world practical solutions to their problems, that they need religious advise, then maybe, as a purely short term, and it could be applicable (they are more likely to improve if they stay in college and are forced to see new ideas, then if they leave and go home and stew in old ideas)

Mark Hamill

Truley wrote: »

Lots of mental health problems are based on fantasy. For example if a girl goes to a counsellor with self esteem issues due to poor body image. The girl's perceived weight issues may be all in her head, a fantasy. But her problem is still 'real' in the sense that is causing her real distress and having an adverse effect on her quality of life. At the same time a person can go to a chaplain with a 'real' and practical problem, such as I did with my mother dying, or my classmate's funeral arangements. You can't say that I didn't have a legitmate problem, or that the chaplain didn't deal with it effectively. It's not up to you to decide who's problems are real and whos aren't.

I never said people didn't have real problems, I said people need real solutions. You dont get a person an exorcist because they think they are possessed, even if they may claim they are cured afterwards. You use real world solutions to peoples problems, regardless of wether they like them or not, pandering to their whims wont give them real, long term rewards.

Truley wrote: »

Likewise it's not up to you to decide whos service is more effective. A counsellor deals with people based on a particular theory of how the mind works and how mental health issues should be dealt with. There is no way of quantifying the effectiveness of a counsellor or a chaplain, only the receiver of the service can decide that.

BS. If that were true, then the doctors in mental homes would be the ones who let everyone out, as they would be the ones getting most praise from their patients. But we dont listen to patients, as they have issues severe enough to require counelling.

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Stop dodging and just answer the question.Which in your opinion is more important?

*hand up in the air* I'll answer that one!

If I had to choose between the two, I think counselling is more important. So...I don't see how that changes anything.

If I had to choose between the counselling service and the health service, I think the health service is more important. I don't really see what the relevance is.

You're working on the assumption of an either/or situation that doesn't exist (except perhaps in the most abstract or hypothetical/theoretical sense, which is no way to run a college!)

prinz

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I was trying to keep the discussion purely about supposedly secular colleges funding chaplains. I was trying to avoid discussing the genereal efficacy of religious advisors.

So what was all that about chaplains not giving 'real help' etc if not discussing the general efficacy of... well chaplains?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Stop dodging and just answer the question.Which in your opinion is more important?

I haven't dodged. I've answered it plenty of times. It's a stupid hypothetical tbh. What's more important brain surgeons or spinal surgeons?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

People get issues and issues need to be dealt with, and they generally need help with those issues, so they need some sort of counselloing..

2+2=5. People also get issues on matters of faith etc.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its a contradiction. Instititions are the services they provide. If they dont provide secular services, then they are not secular.

But they do provide secular services.... any college/university you know of in this country that doesnt provide a secular counselling service?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you honestly think that a gay student willbe happy to see a religious student about a gay issue, if they think that the chaplains religion will make them biased? Dont be rididculous..

I'm not the one being ridiculous. Who is saying that a gay student has to see a chaplain about a gay issue? You're the only one dragging this along. If the gay student believes the chaplain would be biased go see the secular counsellor.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Thast my point. If they have an issue they wont go...

They could always avail of the other services. Just like a religious student may feel certain issues would be best dealt with by a secular counsellor.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

We are still on it, that was called an analogy....

An anaolgy that falls flat.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Wrong. We dont let people out of mental institutes because they say they are better.

Lauaghable it really is.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The exact same I would imagine.

Well no it isn't tbh. First you are arguing that secular counsellors are understaffed/under resourced/under pressure and now you think that on top of seeing students who need help they should provide a religious referral service to students who need not having taken any of their time to begin with?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If the student isn't willing to look at his/her issues from a real world point of view, then the counsellor cant really do anything. If they insist, without discourse on real world practical solutions to their problems, that they need religious advise, then maybe, as a purely short term, and it could be applicable (they are more likely to improve if they stay in college and are forced to see new ideas, then if they leave and go home and stew in old ideas)

Blah, blah, I'm a super enlightened atheist religious people are too stupid/backward etc they must be forcefully 're-educated'.

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

You didn't use the word psychotic, but you directly suggested I treat my religious clients like my other clients who 'hear voices' (in other words, the psychotic ones). So I'm not sure what you meant by that, if not to compare religious belief to psychosis - perhaps you can clarify the comparison?

I used the comparison to show that we should give every one real world solutions, not solutions that people like because they support their preconcieved beleifs.

Kooli wrote: »

The extreme examples you have given of religious beliefs getting in the way of education are just that - extreme - and they probably do require some sort of intervention, although I don't know what! But for the regular religious student, who sees their religion as a positive and supportive influence in their life, and who is looking for spiritual guidance and a sense of religious community, and these beliefs do not stop them from participating in education, do you still suggest they get sent to a counsellor for a 'cure'?
I find it more helpful to stay away from only using the most extreme examples to prove a point. I find it highly unlikely that the examples you have given come up very often. I can't see many students going to a chaplain with issues around specific beliefs being in conflict with what or how they are being taught.

Even outside of what they are taught, should a college, a place of learning, pander to this kind of thing? And this is not just a religious thing, if people were calling for college funded homeopaths, because some students want homeopathic consults, I would be still be here decrying it as nonsense that colleges shouldn't be supporting.

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

*hand up in the air* I'll answer that one!

If I had to choose between the two, I think counselling is more important. So...I don't see how that changes anything.

If I had to choose between the counselling service and the health service, I think the health service is more important. I don't really see what the relevance is.

You're working on the assumption of an either/or situation that doesn't exist (except perhaps in the most abstract or hypothetical/theoretical sense, which is no way to run a college!)

Thank you for answering that.
Now, as a counsellor, would you welcome the money the chaplaincy office gets, if it was given to your office/department instead?

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I used the comparison to show that we should give every one real world solutions, not solutions that people like because they support their preconcieved beleifs.


Even outside of what they are taught, should a college, a place of learning, pander to this kind of thing? And this is not just a religious thing, if people were calling for college funded homeopaths, because some students want homeopathic consults, I would be still be here decrying it as nonsense that colleges shouldn't be supporting.

I can only interpret that vague response about the psychosis things as backpedalling, but I'll drop it!!

As for homeopaths - they claim to provide cures to medical and physical problems. As far as I'm aware there is no science to back these claims. They do not do what they claim to do, and they are charlatans. So no college should back them.

Chaplains claim to provide religious and spiritual guidance, as well as a centre for religious community in the college. And that's what they do. Hurray! It's a service I would never need myself, and I fundamentally disagree with their beliefs, but that's fine, because there are plenty of other services out there for me! I don't ever have to cross their door! (but on the times I have done for professional reasons, I've enjoyed a cuppa and a nice chat).

So I see absolutely no relevance in the comparison.

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Thank you for answering that.
Now, as a counsellor, would you welcome the money the chaplaincy office gets, if it was given to your office/department instead?

Yes I would!! I'd love it!! Doesn't mean it would ever come to me!!

I'd also welcome the spare money that would be freed up if the disability office closed down. Does that mean I'm going to campaign to have it shut down? Nope!!

Mark Hamill

prinz wrote: »

So what was all that about chaplains not giving 'real help' etc if not discussing the general efficacy of... well chaplains?

What are you even talking about now? I started off trying to avoid talking about the uselessness of chaplains in general, engaging in this discussion purely from secularism angle, and then later brought in the part about chaplains not being effective, after everyones defense of chaplains being that they give good help. You questioned this as me flipflopping already, hence the part you respond to here. Are you not even paying attention to your own posts?

prinz wrote: »

I haven't dodged. I've answered it plenty of times. It's a stupid hypothetical tbh. What's more important brain surgeons or spinal surgeons?

This is a dodge. Instead of answering the question, you call it stupid, pose your own question or ignore it. That is dodging. Kooli post just after your own here was not dodging the question as he actually answered it.

prinz wrote: »

2+2=5. People also get issues on matters of faith etc.

And people sometimes get issues with ghosts, but the government doesn't fund ghostbusters.

prinz wrote: »

But they do provide secular services.... any college/university you know of in this country that doesnt provide a secular counselling service?

All it takes is for one service supplied for the institution itself not to be secular.

prinz wrote: »

I'm not the one being ridiculous. Who is saying that a gay student has to see a chaplain about a gay issue? You're the only one dragging this along. If the gay student believes the chaplain would be biased go see the secular counsellor.

You are the one who said the only person who wouldn't see a chaplain was the one trying to prove a point? Dont you remember, this was back before you backtracked and were claiming that chaplains offer counselling services on a par with secular counsellors.

prinz wrote: »

An anaolgy that falls flat.

In your opinion.

prinz wrote: »

Lauaghable it really is.

You think we should let mental patients out of institutes when they say are better? We should take the word of a person who has a serious enough issue that needs institutionalising.

prinz wrote: »

Well no it isn't tbh. First you are arguing that secular counsellors are understaffed/under resourced/under pressure and now you think that on top of seeing students who need help they should provide a religious referral service to students who need not having taken any of their time to begin with?

Its exactly the same as it is to a student whose religion isn't represented by the chaplains the university may have. Besides, all departments in a university are understaffed,under resourced and under pressure. Universoty money is always limited.

prinz wrote: »

Blah, blah, I'm a super enlightened atheist religious people are too stupid/backward etc they must be forcefully 're-educated'.

Ah, the victim mentality mixed with the "arrogance card". Like I said to Kool here, my stance on this is not atheistic, or antitheist, its anti stupidity. I am as much against homeopaths as I am religious chaplains, for much the same reasons.

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

Yes I would!! I'd love it!! Doesn't mean it would ever come to me!!

It would go to someone more useful and more in need than the chaplaincy.

Kooli wrote: »

I'd also welcome the spare money that would be freed up if the disability office closed down. Does that mean I'm going to campaign to have it shut down? Nope!!

People have an objective need for the disability office.

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

As for homeopaths - they claim to provide cures to medical and physical problems. As far as I'm aware there is no science to back these claims. They do not do what they claim to do, and they are charlatans. So no college should back them.

Chaplains claim to provide religious and spiritual guidance, as well as a centre for religious community in the college. And that's what they do. Hurray! It's a service I would never need myself, and I fundamentally disagree with their beliefs, but that's fine, because there are plenty of other services out there for me! I don't ever have to cross their door! (but on the times I have done for professional reasons, I've enjoyed a cuppa and a nice chat).

So I see absolutely no relevance in the comparison.

I see absolutely no difference between homeopaths and chaplains (or any other religious advisor or pseudoscience pedaller). They are both witch doctors, offering magic little sugar or spiritual pills which they claim will make everything ok. Both have legions of adoring follwers willing to testify as to efficacy. Both are completely full of sh*t and should not, in a million years, befunded by government or universities.

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Kooli post just after your own here was not dodging the question as he actually answered it.


All it takes is for one service supplied for the institution itself not to be secular.

Firstly, I is a lady.;)

Secondly, I think your other point above might be the crux of why we are disagreeing. I believe that a secular institution can still cater to the needs of religious people in the same way it caters to any group with sufficient numbers and sufficient need, as long as these religious beliefs are not favoured or pushed by the institution. To me that is still secular, because no religious instruction or practice is forced on any non-believer, and in fact they probably would never even know it's there.

You believe that a secular institution should not cater to their needs. Which means that the institution would be biased towards non-believers.

There are small ways in which I think some institutions ARE biased towards believers, and are not quite secular, and I would definitely argue against them. For example, when a student dies, the response is sometimes led by the chaplaincy (e.g. informing the classmates). I'm not into that, because no words from a religious person would be ANY comfort to a non-believer. So to me, that practice is anti-secular.

But I do not agree that the mere presence of a religious community on campus is any threat to the secularism of the college, even if they facilitate this service directly.

prinz

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What are you even talking about now? I started off trying to avoid talking about the uselessness of chaplains in general, engaging in this discussion purely from secularism angle, and then later brought in the part about chaplains not being effective, after everyones defense of chaplains being that they give good help. You questioned this as me flipflopping already, hence the part you respond to here. Are you not even paying attention to your own posts?

Yes, but obviously you aren't because you are going around in circles with your arguments.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This is a dodge. Instead of answering the question, you call it stupid, pose your own question or ignore it. That is dodging. Kooli post just after your own here was not dodging the question as he actually answered.

It's not dodging. It's a ridiculous either/or question that has no basis in the reality we live in. The answer, as I have already said, depends solely on the circumstances involved. Can you answer this one; which is more important the brain surgeon or the spinal surgeon?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And people sometimes get issues with ghosts, but the government doesn't fund ghostbusters..

If someone had an issue with ghosts they could approach both the chaplain or the secular counsellor.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

All it takes is for one service supplied for the institution itself not to be secular...

Not true.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You are the one who said the only person who wouldn't see a chaplain was the one trying to prove a point?

Still holds. Someone who doesn't want to see a chaplain doesn't have to. That they would still object to a service they are under no obligation to avail of is nothing more than trying to prove a point/attention seek. It would be similar to my saying I don't have an STD, the STD clinic can't help me, boooo at the STD clinic! How dare they exist if I choose not to avail of their services. Nobody is forced to use a service. That you object to a service being offered to others is nothing other than trying to prove a point.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You think we should let mental patients out of institutes when they say are better? We should take the word of a person who has a serious enough issue that needs institutionalising.

Wtf are you talking about at this stage?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its exactly the same as it is to a student whose religion isn't represented by the chaplains the university may have..

May have. Either way this line again has no basis in a realistic discussion. You try to accomodate as many as is reasonably possible.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ah, the victim mentality mixed with the "arrogance card". Like I said to Kool here, my stance on this is not atheistic, or antitheist, its anti stupidity. I am as much against homeopaths as I am religious chaplains, for much the same reasons.

Arrogance yeah. Bingo.

Dades

It's Friday folks - lets lighten up!

hivizman

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I was trying to keep the discussion purely about supposedly secular colleges funding chaplains. I was trying to avoid discussing the genereal efficacy of religious advisors.

A good point. Given their historical roots, is it fair to describe Trinity College Dublin and the four constituents of the National University of Ireland as "secular colleges"?

I've been exploring the Chaplaincy provision at the newer universities in Ireland, Limerick and Dublin City University. Limerick has a full-time RC chaplain, with a part-time RC assistant and a part-time Anglican chaplain. The RC chaplains are members of the Salesian order, which runs the Catholic church next to the UL campus. It's possible, therefore, that the salary costs of the RC chaplains are being borne by their order rather than by UL. There is no dedicated chapel on campus, but there is a "House of Welcome", operating as a drop-in social centre, and a Contemplative Space, in which some services are held, but which is mainly presented on the Chaplaincy webpage as sonewhere where students and staff can drop in for quiet reflection.

Based on the background to DCU's establishment and its self-image as an "unconventional" university, I was actually surprised to find that DCU has a Chaplaincy. The Chaplaincy is based in an Inter-Faith Centre, centrally located next to The Hub. There is an RC chaplain, who is on campus between 9AM and 5PM, an Anglican chaplain (possibly part-time), and two receptionists.

There is a complete listing of all chaplains at tertiary-level colleges and universities in Ireland here.

robindch

hivizman wrote: »

There is an RC chaplain, who is on campus between 9AM and 5PM, an Anglican chaplain (possibly part-time), and two receptionists.

Are you saying that UCD is two-faithed?

hivizman

robindch wrote: »

Are you saying that UCD is two-faithed?

DCU, not UCD - other side of town.

If they had a chaplain dedicated to the Roman god Janus, would they be three-faithed or four-faithed?

Truley

Oh my gawd maybe they're amalgamated to form one big super religon that will control us all! :eek:

ahhhh *run*

robindch

Truley wrote: »

maybe they're amalgamated to form one big super religon that will control us all!

"There are some who say that this has already happened".

nozzferrahhtoo

Kooli wrote: »

who would then use their professional training to CURE them of their religious belief?

This is not what is required at all, and is a horrific straw man of what is generally being said on this thread.

The idea of a secular Counsellor would not be to “cure” them of any such thing, but to refer them on to the relevant people who CAN help the student. They are not there to “cure” the students faith in the absence of a chaplain to nurture it.

Just like we do not maintain an Octologist in the college, but have GPs. The GP has enough training to recognise the needs of the student, and enough knowledge to make genuine referrals. The GP recognises the needs of the student and points them to a source of help.

The idea of a counsellor in college should be the same, and rather than maintain a chaplain for every poissble religion, the approach of allowing the counsellor to reconise that the needs of the student are “spiritual” in nature and referring that student on to the relevant external facilities would be desireable in this case.

So just like a doctor can recognise that a student requires an Optician or an Octologist… and will have good data on how to refer that student to one… the counsellor can recognise when the task at hands requires a Priest, an Imam or the local White Which in the case of wiccans.

Kooli wrote: »

I believe in secularism, but I don't have a problem with a college providing a service for its religious students that has no impact on its non-religious students.

But it does. Every single allocation of limited college resources has an imact on students, regardless of their religion or lack of it.

As will all allocation of resources the onus is on the managers of such things to ensure that the allocation is justifiable. I am yet to see a convincing argument that maintaining a Chaplain, and the resources required to do it, brings any benefit at all, let alone ones that could just as easily be achieved by a counselor with a good referral procedure and database.

Kooli wrote: »

I'd also welcome the spare money that would be freed up if the disability office closed down. Does that mean I'm going to campaign to have it shut down? Nope!!

Nor should you. There are genuine justifiable benefits of such offices that are actually required by the students and serve towards our vested interest in those students.

Maintaining the physical and mental health of the students serves our vested interests. I already suggested an experiment to you to test that theory if you wished.

What I have not seen is that a maintenance of the students spiritual whims gains us anything, and again if you want to claim it does in order to justify the allocation of resources to a chaplain… the experiment to support your position is very clear and I laid it out… and I imagine it is very easy to do.

Suffice to say as a reply to your above though, there is a BIG difference between shutting things down just because we welcome the money we would get by doing so... and unjustifiably throwing money away on useless expenses.

Kooli

Kooli wrote: »

I am one of these 'secular counsellors' you speak of. You are suggesting that someone who is looking for religious guidance, or a sense of community that ties in with their religious beliefs, or some spiritual counselling, should come to me?? Are you really suggesting that? What do you suggest I do with this person in our session??

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What would you do to someone who comes saying they are hearing voices? Would you not talk to them about their issues and try to give them a real world cure?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is not what is required at all, and is a horrific straw man of what is generally being said on this thread.

The idea of a secular Counsellor would not be to “cure” them of any such thing, but to refer them on to the relevant people who CAN help the student. They are not there to “cure” the students faith in the absence of a chaplain to nurture it.

I totally agree with what you're saying, as do most people on this thread I think. I was only responding to the exchange above, which to me seemed to be directly suggesting that I treat religious clients the same as others who are hearing voices, and offer them a 'real world cure'.

I really can't see that that is a straw man?

Mark Hamill explained what he meant by the 'real world cure' part, but not the 'hearing voices' part.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kooli wrote: »

To me that is still secular, because no religious instruction or practice is forced on any non-believer, and in fact they probably would never even know it's there.

But the practise IS being forced on them in the form of resources from the college THEY TO attend being diverted into funding such services.

It is not as simple as you want to make it sound… as if keeping this service behind closed doors and away from non-religious students automatically means they are protected from its influence and the college is therefore still “secular”.

More accurate is to think of the college as a body of students and a limited pool of resources designed to cater to those students. The very second any of those resources are directed into a Chaplaincy service is the very moment that the ENTIRE student community is “affected” as a whole.

So “they would never even know it’s there” simply does not cut it at all.

Instead, if the students have little whims such as Religious beliefs or the wish to play a sport… there is a procedure there to set up student societies and there is a procedure to apply for and receive grants to maintain your student society. I see no reason why the religious should be granted a free by-pass for this procedure.

If they want to start a “Christian” society, let them do so. If they want to apply for money from the pool like everyone else let them do so. If they want to spend that money on a Chaplain, then let them do so.

What is so unfair about this?

nozzferrahhtoo

Kooli wrote: »

I totally agree with what you're saying, as do most people on this thread I think. I was only responding to the exchange above, which to me seemed to be directly suggesting that I treat religious clients the same as others who are hearing voices, and offer them a 'real world cure'.

I really can't see that that is a straw man?

Yea I think it is a straw man because the person was suggesting you treat a real world problem with a real world cure.... not treat them for having "faith" which is how you interpreted it.

The hearing of voices if a very real problem and many people suffer from them.

This is ENTIRELY different to suggesting that you cure them of their religion which is the interpretation that you chose to take from the persons words.

Let me use an example to shed more light…

… if you were a GP and someone came in to you riddled with cancer and that person happened to be a very dedicated follower of Homeopathy… you would likely not use Homoepoathy to help him.

You would say “Look, try your homeopathy on your own time… but I am a doctor so this is what I think is wrong with you and this is how I intend to work on it….”

At NO POINT HERE do you try and “cure” him of his belief in homeopathy. It just does not figure once in your diagnosis or subsequent procedures. It would be to entirely miss the point to suggest you were. You are just using real cures to solve a real problem and simply ignoring his faith in homeopathy.

The same is true of “hearing voices” and the patient thinks it’s the voice of god or whatever. You say to them “Look, I am a doctor, here are the causes of hearing voices, and this is what we are going to do to deal with it…. If you want to explore in the mean time a spiritual side of this, take this card for Father Mickey… and talk to him… now can I get on with my job?”

This is NOT even _remotely_ similar to “curing them of faith”.

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

Mark Hamill explained what he meant by the 'real world cure' part, but not the 'hearing voices' part.

nozzferrahhtoo explained my point about "hearing voices" well. My example of someone "hearing voices" was in response to your questioning what you would do with a religious person with a religious issue in one of your sessions. My point (that I approached in a roundabout way) is that you dont approach this person in terms of what they believe to be true (a gp should not approach cancer treament in terms of homeopathy just because his patient believes in homeopathy, or a psychologist shouldn't approach helping someone who believes they see ghosts by hiring ghostbusters).
You have to approach everyones problems in terms of what is actually wrong with them and what real world solutions can you offer them that will actually help them.
A person who wants a sense of religious involvement may just be lonely. You can offer them a referal to a local religious group, or maybe suggest other social activities in the college to stop them being lonely.
A person who sees a conflict between their religious beliefs and their study may not be best helped by sending them to a religious group who is just going to support their conflict.

Kooli

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yea I think it is a straw man because the person was suggesting you treat a real world problem with a real world cure.... not treat them for having "faith" which is how you interpreted it.

The hearing of voices if a very real problem and many people suffer from them.

This is ENTIRELY different to suggesting that you cure them of their religion which is the interpretation that you chose to take from the persons words.

Let me use an example to shed more light…

… if you were a GP and someone came in to you riddled with cancer and that person happened to be a very dedicated follower of Homeopathy… you would likely not use Homoepoathy to help him.

You would say “Look, try your homeopathy on your own time… but I am a doctor so this is what I think is wrong with you and this is how I intend to work on it….”

At NO POINT HERE do you try and “cure” him of his belief in homeopathy. It just does not figure once in your diagnosis or subsequent procedures. It would be to entirely miss the point to suggest you were. You are just using real cures to solve a real problem and simply ignoring his faith in homeopathy.

The same is true of “hearing voices” and the patient thinks it’s the voice of god or whatever. You say to them “Look, I am a doctor, here are the causes of hearing voices, and this is what we are going to do to deal with it…. If you want to explore in the mean time a spiritual side of this, take this card for Father Mickey… and talk to him… now can I get on with my job?”

This is NOT even _remotely_ similar to “curing them of faith”.

But if you look again at the question I asked Mark Hamill, I wasn't talking about someone who is 'hearing voices' at all, I was talking about someone looking for spiritual guidance or religious community (which I think would be common reasons to go to a chaplain). He was suggesting they could come to a counsellor instead if the chaplaincy wasn't there, but I see no reason for them to come to a counsellor, they don't need counselling!! They don't have mental health issues! The issues they have are nothing to do with me or my work.

So I asked what I would do with this student in my session, and he suggested a 'real world cure', similar to others who 'hear voices'. You yourself say the same thing about treating a 'real world problem' with a 'real world cure'. But I'm unsure what 'Real world problem' you are talking about?

If there is a student who is hearing voices and believes it is God, then of course I would be assessing for psychosis.

But let's leave that aside, because it would be such a small minority of cases, and is not representative of the religious community who attend the chaplaincy.

So maybe I'm missing something, what is the 'real world problem' I am trying to deal with in these students who come to me looking for religious guidance in the hypothetical situation I was asking about? Is it 'hearing voices'? Or is it something else that hasn't been mentioned?

Again, the homeopathy analogy doesn't make sense to me. If someone was sick and wanted homeopathy they would go to a homeopath. If they went to a GP they would be going for traditional medicine. So of course the GP should not be talking about homeopathy or offering them homeopathy.
In the same way someone looking for spiritual or religious guidance would not come to a counsellor because the counsellor offers something different! They would go to a chaplain!
But a lot of people on this thread seem to be arguing that someone who is looking for religious guidance should go to a counsellor! In the homeopathy example that makes sense, of course they should go to a GP because homeopathy isn't going to cure them. BUT, the comparison doesn't hold because what the service a student would go to a chaplain for just simply cannot and is not provided by a counsellor!

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo explained my point about "hearing voices" well. My example of someone "hearing voices" was in response to your questioning what you would do with a religious person with a religious issue in one of your sessions. My point (that I approached in a roundabout way) is that you dont approach this person in terms of what they believe to be true (a gp should not approach cancer treament in terms of homeopathy just because his patient believes in homeopathy, or a psychologist shouldn't approach helping someone who believes they see ghosts by hiring ghostbusters).
You have to approach everyones problems in terms of what is actually wrong with them and what real world solutions can you offer them that will actually help them.
A person who wants a sense of religious involvement may just be lonely. You can offer them a referal to a local religious group, or maybe suggest other social activities in the college to stop them being lonely.
A person who sees a conflict between their religious beliefs and their study may not be best helped by sending them to a religious group who is just going to support their conflict.

Actually if you don't approach a counselling client from the point of view of what they believe to be true, you won't be seeing them for a second session.

I do see what you're saying to a point, but the fact is you are assuming they have some sort of 'real world problem' or a psychological issue. For some, that may be true and I could of course help them (but not by ignoring or bypassing their beliefs, as you seem to be suggesting). But there are other students who I couldn't help. Firstly, those who don't have any psychological issues at all, they just want spiritual guidance. Secondly, those who do have psychological issues but they see them from a spiritual point of view, and they would never set foot in a psychologist's office, so I would never have the opportunity to help them!

Both of those student groups would therefore not be helped by anyone if the chaplaincy were gone.