College Chaplain

Mark Hamill · 19-07-2010 04:23PM

Jakkass wrote: »

As for why I am against secular educational institutes, I'm not at all. I just think that faith should have a role in the public square, as every other viewpoint does.

What do you mean by "public square"?

Jakkass wrote: »

If you wanted a genuinely secular campus in the respect that beliefs should serve no role in public life, you would support shutting down faith societies as they also receive students funding / State funding.

Of course we would! That way we could be accused of being hypocrits or anti-theists or something equally emotive and you could discount our arguments easier.
I'm pretty sure people have already said that faith groups should be treated like any other societies in college, with funding doled out in accordance to how it is doled out to every other society. Heck, my proposal in my first post was based on this assumption.

Jakkass wrote: »

Your position effectively stops other people from finding the support they often need, just because you are intolerant of believers. That's unfortunate, but it doesn't mean that universities need to be equally intolerant.

If people want this support, they can still find it. You already mentioned the faith socities themselves, and its not like their aren't plenty of churches around either.

philologos · 19-07-2010 04:24PM

axer: Aren't you ignoring the posts from non-believers on this thread who have said that they have gone to the chaplain?

axer · 19-07-2010 04:25PM

Jakkass wrote: »

^^ Aren't you ignoring the posts from non-believers on this thread who have said that they have gone to the chaplain?

Had they the option to go to a counsellor that had as much time to give as the chaplain?

prinz · 19-07-2010 04:26PM

axer wrote: »

Because the chaplain is clearly biased since he/she obviously believes in his/her religion. Jakkass has already pointed out the many religious (usually christian) functions chaplains normally perform.

So do you have evidence of chaplains turning people away based on religious affiliation? If I needed to go see a counsellor do I automatically assume them to be biased? If I need to go to a counsellor to discuss say abortion.... should our counsellors make their own stance open and public? If not can I assume them to be biased in favour of one option or another? At least with chaplians it is immediately clear what their personal opinions more than likely are.

axer wrote: »

Why would I as an atheist go see a person whose job is to look after religious faiths about a personal issue?

....for help with that personal issue. For someone to talk to. For a shoulder to cry on. To discuss an issue with someone who has more often than not heard it all before.... This 'I'm an atheist, nobody of faith can help me' line is BS. Do you ask your counsellors what religious beliefs they hold?

axer wrote: »

Why can't we have counsellors instead?

I didn't realise this was an either/or proposition. What's the issue with both? I thought we wanted to cater for everybody?

axer wrote: »

..because the likes of a counsellor caters for everyone. The point is not why are they there - it is why are they being paid for using public money?

What if I want to discuss a faith issue? Does the counsellor cater for me then? What if I don't need a counsellor?

axer wrote: »

I think you are missing the point on purpose.

If by the point you mean going along with the anti-religion tide, 'just because' then yes I am missing it on purpose. Haven't seen a valid argument against chaplaincy services yet on the thread.

Mark Hamill · 19-07-2010 04:26PM

prinz wrote: »

What next? i.e. x as an engineering student should not contribute to the pool from which the French lecturer is paid. In four years of university I am sure there are a lot of things the university spent money on of which I got no use/had no need. Any chance of a tax rebate?

Thats the way universities work, in a general basis anyway. The more students attend a course, the more money that particular school can get.

Ickle Magoo · 19-07-2010 04:30PM

Jakkass wrote: »

This is the assumption that is causing the disagreement. I don't believe that the chaplaincy is any less important. Both should exist on a campus, because both serve an important role.

I'm not sure it's just the fact it's a chaplain that is causing the complaints so much as the lack of alternatives for other people whom don't find a christian chaplain relevant or useful. I also don't think the fact that a chaplain has always been there and carved out a specific niche for themselves as automatically translating into them being the only people capable of ever having such a role or, indeed, being relevant to the whole student body in a modern third level educational establishment.

It would be interesting to see if a chaplain was replaced with a more generic, secular alternative if there would be significant change in role or usefulness to students as a whole - bar the religious aspect which can be sought in any number of other places, of course.

prinz · 19-07-2010 04:32PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Thats the way universities work, in a general basis anyway. The more students attend a course, the more money that particular school can get.

Any ideas of the numbers of students who seek the help of the chaplain at any given university?

For some reason a certain opinion set here sees the numbers of students who want access to a college chaplain as irrelevant.

axer · 19-07-2010 04:35PM

prinz wrote: »

So do you have evidence of chaplains turning people away based on religious affiliation? If I needed to go see a counsellor do I automatically assume them to be biased?

A chaplain is not a counsellor.

prinz wrote: »

....for help with that personal issue. For someone to talk to. For a shoulder to cry on. To discuss an issue with someone who has more often than not heard it all before.... This 'I'm an atheist, nobody of faith can help me' line is BS. Do you ask your counsellors what religious beliefs they hold?

Can a counsellor not offer that service? A counsellor does not where his/her faith on their sleeve and are trained to offer an unbiased service. A religious chaplin will be trained to spread their religion.

prinz wrote: »

I didn't realise this was an either/or proposition. What's the issue with both? I thought we wanted to cater for everybody?

Because there are only so much funds. Why not just cater for everybody with a secular service?

prinz wrote: »

What if I want to discuss a faith issue? Does the counsellor cater for me then? What if I don't need a counsellor?

Discuss it with your priest/religious organisation. If you don't have to need a counsellor you may just want someone to talk to which is what a counsellor can provide.

prinz wrote: »

If by the point you mean going along with the anti-religion tide, 'just because' then yes I am missing it on purpose. Haven't seen a valid argument against chaplaincy services yet on the thread.

I am not going by an anti-religion tide. I have asked what does a chaplain offer that a counsellor cannot other than religious based services?

I have no problems with religious societies or chaplains working for free and I would even agree to a free office space for them to work in. I am against chaplains getting paid when they fundamentally only cater for the religious.

axer · 19-07-2010 04:37PM

prinz wrote: »

Any ideas of the numbers of students who seek the help of the chaplain at any given university?

For some reason a certain opinion set here sees the numbers of students who want access to a college chaplain as irrelevant.

because an alternative is not being given. Kooli says he/she works as a counsellor but only has time to deal with more serious issues thus we do not know if the people that went to see the chaplain would not have preferred a secular service.

Again, why do some chaplains need funding while others operate without getting paid? Why can't religious organisations cater for their flock without using up scarce public funding?

Ickle Magoo · 19-07-2010 04:38PM

Really, to get any realistic indication of actual popularity and usefulness, there would need to be a comparison between chaplain visitations and a counselling service that aren't up to their neck in work and the only other affordable option is a chaplain...otherwise the numbers are fairly irrelevant as the chaplain may well be offering a second choice/make-do service.

Mark Hamill · 19-07-2010 04:39PM

prinz wrote: »

Just because it may be a RC chaplain does not mean access or help would be restricted to RC students, or religious students etc etc. That's a nonsense. I don't see why someone who is non-religious could not go to a chaplain but for some sort of childish attempt at a 'fingers to the man' gesture.

Access and help would obviously not be restricted to particular students, it would simply be of lesser help to other students who do not share the chaplains religious biases. We can avoid these conflicts of faiths by having secular counsellors. I dont see why someone who is religious could not go to a secular counsellor and be refered to a theistic advisor if thats what they actually want or need, thats what is being offered to minority religious anyway.

prinz wrote: »

Also laughable is the notion that because something doesn't apply to everyone in the same way it is redundant.

It is redundant if there is something that applies to everything. Secular counsellors work for everyone. Religious chaplains work primarily for the religions they adhere to.

Mark Hamill · 19-07-2010 04:45PM

prinz wrote: »

Any ideas of the numbers of students who seek the help of the chaplain at any given university?

For some reason a certain opinion set here sees the numbers of students who want access to a college chaplain as irrelevant.

And there is a certain opinion set here who seem incapable of asking the simplest of questions:
Do these students actually want a chaplain with a religous bias, or is that all they have access to?
Would they (and the students who wont go because they aren't religiously represented by the chaplain) go to a secular counsellor instead?

prinz · 19-07-2010 04:56PM

axer wrote: »

A chaplain is not a counsellor..

Great point. Hmmm I'm confused why you pointed this out though.

axer wrote: »

Can a counsellor not offer that service? A counsellor does not where his/her faith on their sleeve and are trained to offer an unbiased service. A religious chaplin will be trained to spread their religion...

Chaplains are not missionaries. Nobody who has attested to visiting a chaplain on this thread has described a religion being spread unto them. Have they? Or is that some sort of insecurity on your part?

axer wrote: »

Because there are only so much funds. Why not just cater for everybody with a secular service?...

What happens when a secular service doesn't cater to everybody?

axer wrote: »

Discuss it with your priest/religious organisation..

..and if someone is away from home? Abroad? Have a query directly relating to the university?

axer wrote: »

If you don't have to need a counsellor you may just want someone to talk to which is what a counsellor can provide...

It's also exactly what a chaplain can provide.

axer wrote: »

I have no problems with religious societies or chaplains working for free and I would even agree to a free office space for them to work in. I am against chaplains getting paid when they fundamentally only cater for the religious.

Once again unsubstantiated nonsense. Willfully dismissing accounts from posters on this very thread because it doesn't agree with the preconceived notions you already hold it seems.

axer wrote: »

because an alternative is not being given. Kooli says he/she works as a counsellor but only has time to deal with more serious issues thus we do not know if the people that went to see the chaplain would not have preferred a secular service.

What happens when the chaplain has gotten the boot and everyone has to go to a 'secular' counsellor? Would we know then how many people who went to the counsellor would have preferred a chaplaincy service?

axer wrote: »

Again, why do some chaplains need funding while others operate without getting paid? Why can't religious organisations cater for their flock without using up scarce public funding?

Providing a public service. Perhaps those chaplains have sponsorship/are part time/ etc. Then it goes to the relevant church authorities and the educational facility to come to some terms. If it comes to a choice between no chaplain and a publicly funded chaplain I'd go publicly funded.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Access and help would obviously not be restricted to particular students, it would simply be of lesser help to other students who do not share the chaplains religious biases. We can avoid these conflicts of faiths by having secular counsellors. I dont see why someone who is religious could not go to a secular counsellor and be refered to a theistic advisor if thats what they actually want or need, thats what is being offered to minority religious anyway..

I don't see why some can't see a chaplian and be referred to a counsellor/mental health professional if needs be.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It is redundant if there is something that applies to everything. Secular counsellors work for everyone. Religious chaplains work primarily for the religions they adhere to.

...and STD clinics work primarily for the people who need their services. Should every student be taxed to finance these on campus? Again on what basis are 'secular counsellors' deemed to be free fom moral, ethical, faith, personal biases?

axer · 19-07-2010 05:30PM

prinz wrote: »

Great point. Hmmm I'm confused why you pointed this out though.

because of comments like this:

prinz wrote: »

It's also exactly what a chaplain can provide.

prinz wrote: »

Chaplains are not missionaries. Nobody who has attested to visiting a chaplain on this thread has described a religion being spread unto them. Have they? Or is that some sort of insecurity on your part?

So they are completely secular?

prinz wrote: »

What happens when a secular service doesn't cater to everybody?

You mean for people's religious needs? Then they can go see a minister of their faith. If there is a need their church could fund one to be located in the college.

prinz wrote: »

..and if someone is away from home? Abroad? Have a query directly relating to the university?

There are priests all over the world. I am not against a chaplain being in the university but I think they should be funded by their religious organisation or the faith society in the college.

prinz wrote: »

Once again unsubstantiated nonsense. Willfully dismissing accounts from posters on this very thread because it doesn't agree with the preconceived notions you already hold it seems.

So I guess they are completely secular then? eh?

prinz wrote: »

What happens when the chaplain has gotten the boot and everyone has to go to a 'secular' counsellor? Would we know then how many people who went to the counsellor would have preferred a chaplaincy service?

Why put the word secular in quotes? Everything should start with the basis of being secular and catering for all students.

prinz wrote: »

Providing a public service. Perhaps those chaplains have sponsorship/are part time/ etc. Then it goes to the relevant church authorities and the educational facility to come to some terms. If it comes to a choice between no chaplain and a publicly funded chaplain I'd go publicly funded.

I'd go with using the capable services of a counsellor instead.

prinz wrote: »

I don't see why some can't see a chaplian and be referred to a counsellor/mental health professional if needs be.

Why waste funds on a chaplain if they could be used for extra counsellors.

prinz wrote: »

...and STD clinics work primarily for the people who need their services. Should every student be taxed to finance these on campus? Again on what basis are 'secular counsellors' deemed to be free fom moral, ethical, faith, personal biases?

Physical and Mental health are universally important. While people's spiritual health is in their heads, so to speak, it is not a problem that is can be universal.

Maybe those seeking spiritual advice should be directed to the mental health services! Bo0om!

prinz · 19-07-2010 05:39PM

axer wrote: »

because of comments like this:

Are you saying a chaplain cannot be a person to talk to? To discuss issues with?

axer wrote: »

So they are completely secular?

Of course not. Are they masquerading themselves as secular?

axer wrote: »

You mean for people's religious needs? Then they can go see a minister of their faith. If there is a need their church could fund one to be located in the college.

What about health needs? Should the university employ nurses, doctors etc to cater for students?

axer wrote: »

Why put the word secular in quotes? Everything should start with the basis of being secular and catering for all students.

because secularity doesn't cater for all students. Perhaps a student wants someone to discuss a moral faith dilemma..

axer wrote: »

I'd go with using the capable services of a counsellor instead..

Again with the either/or option, when this is not a realistic outcome.

axer wrote: »

Because A. a chaplain is not a professional and B. why waste funds on a chaplain if they could be used for extra counsellors...

Who says the chaplain is not a professional? The chaplain could be a qualified counsellor/psychologist etc. Your question above could be applied to virtually everything.

axer wrote: »

Physical and Mental health are universally important. While people's spiritual health is in their heads, so to speak, it is not a problem that is can be universal. Maybe those seeking spiritual advice should be directed to the mental health services!

...and there we have it....sums it up really.

equivariant · 19-07-2010 05:40PM

Truley wrote: »

Well I can't speak for all colleges but I know in UCD while I was there the mental health service was an umbrella term that consisted of a liaison between a number of different bodies, the counsellors, college doctors, student advisors, welfare officers and chaplains. Before a student can avail of the college counselling services they must first be referred to it by one of the above. Alot of students, (particularly foreign or exchange students) feel more confortable liaising with a Chaplain as a first 'port of call.' Or sometimes a student doesn't need to see the college psychiatrist at all and talking to the Chaplain is enough.

On two seperate occasions a classmate of mine died and both times the Chaplaincy liaised with the students. This included the organisation of memorial services and booklets, liaising with the necessary religous leader and providing their room for hosting the afters of the funeral. As well as that they organised informal group and individual counselling sessions with the option of referral to the college psychologist if people felt they needed it.

When my own mother was dying the first thing I did was contact my chaplain, firstly because from previous contact I knew and liked the guy, secondly because I didn't need a psychologist, or an academic advisor, or a nurse, I needed an all encompassing supporter that would vouch for me in all these areas while I sorted my sh*t out, as well as provide emotional support and guidance. He knew I was an athiest and it wasn't an issue, they help all students who look for it. To this day I am incredibly thankful for the support I got from my college chaplaincy, and the support I know they gave my peers and classmates.

As well as that they offer alot of other practical services such as student specific volunteer programmes, religious work abroad programmes, student pilgrimmages, student societies etc. Since they are services aimed at and required by students it makes sense to have them as part of the university/college no? And yes maybe they can get alot of the services outside of the campus but you can say the same about most of the services provided by a University.

I think this post perfectly encapsulates the reasons that the role of 'chaplain' at a third level institute should not be in any way linked to a particular religion. Many people would be uncomfortable approaching a priest for support in the situations that you describe. I certainly would have when I was a student. It would be far superior to have some properly qualified person (irrespective of his/her religious beliefs) occupy the role of first contact for students in need of support. It should be clear that this support is available to students without any religious mumbo-jumbo attached to it. If there is any kind of link between student support and religion, it will inevitably result in some students not availing of it who otherwise might

Mark Hamill · 19-07-2010 05:43PM

prinz wrote: »

I don't see why some can't see a chaplian and be referred to a counsellor/mental health professional if needs be.

Religious conflict of faith. The non-religious and the non-represented-religious may not even go to a chaplain if they are of a particular religion, and so may not get to see a counsellor. Far better to cater for everyone from teh start, and offer more secualr counsellors who can refer people on to religious advisors if needs be.

prinz wrote: »

...and STD clinics work primarily for the people who need their services. Should every student be taxed to finance these on campus?

Yes, std clinics are the secular alternative to religious groups telling you not to have sex, so they should be funded.

prinz wrote: »

Again on what basis are 'secular counsellors' deemed to be free fom moral, ethical, faith, personal biases?

On the basis that that is part of their training. Sure they are still human and they will be unable to hold back all opinions, but they will at least try to be objective and give the best possible help for a student. A religious chaplain will not even have to try, as their religious affiliations is what got them the job in the first place.

Kooli · 19-07-2010 06:07PM

I can't imagine a situation where someone goes to a chaplain because a secular counsellor is unavailable. When I said we were overstretched as college counsellors, I should have added that no one who wants to see a counsellor is ever turned away, and I imagine that's the same for all colleges.

I believe that anyone who seeks support from the chaplain is going there because that is exactly the type of support they are looking for. So to paint it otherwise is frankly BS. Removing that type of support for those people who seek it isn't going to be any help to those who never looked for it in the first place. They are not in opposition to each other, it's not like there's a big fund for 'chaplains and counsellors' and more chaplains means fewer counsellors. It just doesn't work like that.

I don't think there would EVER be enough funding to allow counsellors to be available for chats and cups of tea for every student who is a bit lonely or isolated or confused. I don't see the problem with having another service there who can provide that service to anyone who wants it.

axer · 19-07-2010 06:17PM

prinz wrote: »

Are you saying a chaplain cannot be a person to talk to? To discuss issues with?

A chaplain is fundamentally biased.

prinz wrote: »

Of course not. Are they masquerading themselves as secular?

You and others are trying to paint the picture that they are for everyone.

prinz wrote: »

What about health needs? Should the university employ nurses, doctors etc to cater for students?

If there was a need. Many educational institutes do have nurses etc.

prinz wrote: »

because secularity doesn't cater for all students. Perhaps a student wants someone to discuss a moral faith dilemma..

Fundamentally secular services do cater for everyone.

prinz wrote: »

Again with the either/or option, when this is not a realistic outcome.

Maybe it would be if resources were not wasted on chaplains.

prinz wrote: »

Who says the chaplain is not a professional? The chaplain could be a qualified counsellor/psychologist etc. Your question above could be applied to virtually everything.

They may be but my understanding is it is not a prerequisite.

axer · 19-07-2010 06:20PM

Kooli wrote: »

I can't imagine a situation where someone goes to a chaplain because a secular counsellor is unavailable. When I said we were overstretched as college counsellors, I should have added that no one who wants to see a counsellor is ever turned away, and I imagine that's the same for all colleges.

I believe that anyone who seeks support from the chaplain is going there because that is exactly the type of support they are looking for. So to paint it otherwise is frankly BS. Removing that type of support for those people who seek it isn't going to be any help to those who never looked for it in the first place. They are not in opposition to each other, it's not like there's a big fund for 'chaplains and counsellors' and more chaplains means fewer counsellors. It just doesn't work like that.

But there is one budget for the institute and a chaplain takes some out of that where it could be used elsewhere for services such as counselling. I am merely pointing out an example of where it could be used.

Kooli wrote: »

I don't think there would EVER be enough funding to allow counsellors to be available for chats and cups of tea for every student who is a bit lonely or isolated or confused. I don't see the problem with having another service there who can provide that service to anyone who wants it.

but there is enough funding to not only allow chaplains to do that but also give them time to perform religious ceremonies and other religious acts. It shows the need for more counsellors I would think.

Plowman · 19-07-2010 06:31PM

This post has been deleted.

axer · 19-07-2010 06:52PM

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I never said that a chaplain can not provide counsel. My point is if you are going to pay for something then why not hire a counsellor instead? Nobody here seems to know how much a chaplain (and their secretary) costs educational institutions but it would be interesting to see if it would be a cost that could be better spent on the likes of counsellors.

A counsellor doesn't have to give a diagnosis - they are not psychologists or psychiatrists. They can provide the same support as a chaplain in a secular way and I and many others would be more comfortable in a secular environment.

Truley · 19-07-2010 09:30PM

axer wrote: »

I never said that a chaplain can not provide counsel. My point is if you are going to pay for something then why not hire a counsellor instead? Nobody here seems to know how much a chaplain (and their secretary) costs educational institutions but it would be interesting to see if it would be a cost that could be better spent on the likes of counsellors.

Again though Chaplains are not the same as counsellors. A person doesn't go to a chaplain for the same reasons they would go to a counsellor. It is its own unique service that encompasses counselling, counsultation, religious services, community gathering, religious student-specific travel programmes (similar to USIT or Volunteers Overseas.)

Yes a chaplain, while available to all students, does have a bias because of it's religious ethos. But so what? So does Cumann na Gaeilge. It's a service for a particular niche of people in the college who want and need it. It doesn't invade on other people. It's very existance doesn't take away from the rest of the student services. If penny pinching was the issue then I can think of a thousand and one different useless expenses before the chaplaincy that could be cut from the college budget.

However the issue really isn't about money is it? The problem most people have is the fact that it is religious. And the fact that it is given the sway it has, giving it a sort of permanency. So that poses the question of what you think should be done with it. Should chaplains be fired? Should the whole concept be abolished overnight? Should it be put to vote?

In my opinion, and this is speaking as an athiest.. the chaplaincy is there, it has been established for years now, it provides a good service, a service that people need and want. Whatever about people's opinion on chaplaincy, I think that the negatives of forcing its closure far outweigh the benefits. You would only be enforcing your personal beliefs on (a very large number) of people, on something that doesn't even negatively affect you. It's trying to make a point for the sake of making a point, rather then any genuine concern for the welfare of your fellow students.

zoomtard · 19-07-2010 09:41PM

panda100 wrote: »

I have always been very vocal about my opposition to the 'Please Talk' campaign in UCD which has now gone nationwide to all the uni's, with massive funding from the government. This fruitless campaign was set up by a chaplain in UCD. While Im sure his motives were sincere he is not a trained professional and isn't equipped to roll out campaigns that deals with serious depression and suicide problems in colleges throughout Ireland.

The Catholic chaplains in UCD are exceptionally well qualified. I have no idea what you mean by saying they are "not a trained professional", unless you simply mean you don't respect their training. There was once a day even the most aggressive anti-clerics would acknowledge that Jesuits, whatever their faith conviction and general impact on society, were well educated.

rainbow kirby wrote: »

+1

Mental health services are desperately underfunded (in all colleges, not just UCD), surely the money used to pay chaplains would be a lot better spent on proper mental health professionals.

The only chaplaincy service in Ireland paid for by the college is Trinity. (For really good reasons in Trinity's own historic identity)

Disclaimer: I actually am a (non-Catholic) college chaplain at a National University campus.

robindch · 19-07-2010 09:49PM

Hi zoomtard -- long time no see

zoomtard wrote: »

The only chaplaincy service in Ireland paid for by the college is Trinity.

Yes, but I gather that most or all of the other colleges in the country charge the students directly for the chaplain.

axer · 20-07-2010 09:02AM

Truley wrote: »

Again though Chaplains are not the same as counsellors. A person doesn't go to a chaplain for the same reasons they would go to a counsellor. It is its own unique service that encompasses counselling, counsultation, religious services, community gathering, religious student-specific travel programmes (similar to USIT or Volunteers Overseas.)

So the only two things really a counsellor wouldn't do from your list is religious are religious based.

Truley wrote: »

Yes a chaplain, while available to all students, does have a bias because of it's religious ethos. But so what? So does Cumann na Gaeilge. It's a service for a particular niche of people in the college who want and need it. It doesn't invade on other people. It's very existance doesn't take away from the rest of the student services. If penny pinching was the issue then I can think of a thousand and one different useless expenses before the chaplaincy that could be cut from the college budget.

The college should be catering for everyone first and using funds, if a chaplain costs the college, for more secular services.

Truley wrote: »

However the issue really isn't about money is it? The problem most people have is the fact that it is religious. And the fact that it is given the sway it has, giving it a sort of permanency. So that poses the question of what you think should be done with it. Should chaplains be fired? Should the whole concept be abolished overnight? Should it be put to vote?

It depends whether chaplains cost the college money. If they do then the funds should be removed and they can be funded directly by the students that want the service or through the faith societies etc or through religious institutions. This could be a phased change.

Truley wrote: »

In my opinion, and this is speaking as an athiest.. the chaplaincy is there, it has been established for years now, it provides a good service, a service that people need and want. Whatever about people's opinion on chaplaincy, I think that the negatives of forcing its closure far outweigh the benefits. You would only be enforcing your personal beliefs on (a very large number) of people, on something that doesn't even negatively affect you. It's trying to make a point for the sake of making a point, rather then any genuine concern for the welfare of your fellow students.

Nope, having a service like chaplaincy (if funded by the college) being biased to the religious is not fair on those that are not religious or those of other religions.

axer · 20-07-2010 09:03AM

zoomtard wrote: »

The only chaplaincy service in Ireland paid for by the college is Trinity. (For really good reasons in Trinity's own historic identity)

Disclaimer: I actually am a (non-Catholic) college chaplain at a National University campus.

So how does the funding from students work? Is it only from students that want the service/are religious? Can a student opt out of paying for the chaplain?

johnfás · 20-07-2010 09:29AM

axer wrote: »

So how does the funding from students work? Is it only from students that want the service/are religious? Can a student opt out of paying for the chaplain?

I'm a healthy person with plenty of money for my own private health provision if and when it is needed. However, I pay for the provision of a student health service for those who live away from home and cannot afford it. Perhaps I should be able to opt out from funding that as well? I'm also pretty able bodied and perhaps resent the notion of my money funding facilities for those who are not so able bodied - wheel chair ramps are a fairly expensive investment after all. The reality is we live in a society with lots of people with different needs. A university campus should be a safe place which facilitates people of different backgrounds in their own development.

axer wrote: »

Nope, having a service like chaplaincy (if funded by the college) being biased to the religious is not fair on those that are not religious or those of other religions.

Perhaps, if that were the only form of student support services provided by a university. In reality, universities provide a range of support services for students which seek to facilitate as large a number of the students as possible. It is of course open to anybody to suggest a further addition to these services and that is to be welcome. But it is simply regressive to say that something should be abandoned simply because it is not something which you yourself have an interest in. That is what we call living in a community with people of different needs. UCD for example, in addition to chaplains, provides lay student advisors, counsellors, psychologists, a psychiatrist, doctors and nurses. I may benefit from one or more of these and you may benefit from another. The fact that you benefit from different ones than I doesn't mean that they are not of equal value.

axer · 20-07-2010 09:31AM

johnfás wrote: »

I'm a healthy person with plenty of money for my own private health provision if and when it is needed. However, I pay for the provision of a student health service for those who live away from home and cannot afford it. Perhaps I should be able to opt out from funding that as well? I'm also pretty able bodied and perhaps resent the notion of my money funding facilities for those who are not so able bodied. The reality is we live in a society with lots of people with different needs. A university campus should be a safe place which facilitates people of different backgrounds in their own development.

You cannot compare health to religious stuff.

prinz · 20-07-2010 09:32AM

axer wrote: »

A chaplain is fundamentally biased..

...and a supposed secular counsellor may well be equally biased on some issues. At least with a chaplain you will know where you stand.

axer wrote: »

You and others are trying to paint the picture that they are for everyone...

I never said that. I said they should be there for the people who wish to avail of their services. Just like secular counsellors. You seem to be of the opinion that secular counsellors are there for everyone.... are they?

axer wrote: »

Fundamentally secular services do cater for everyone....

That really depends on what their services are required for tbh.

axer wrote: »

Maybe it would be if resources were not wasted on chaplains...

And maybe there'd be more money for counsellors if money was not wasted on landscaping and fountains, and maybe there'd be more money for counsellors if money was not wasted on x,y and z.

axer wrote: »

They may be but my understanding is it is not a prerequisite.

Would it still be a waste of resources if that was the case?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Religious conflict of faith. The non-religious and the non-represented-religious may not even go to a chaplain if they are of a particular religion, and so may not get to see a counsellor. Far better to cater for everyone from teh start, and offer more secualr counsellors who can refer people on to religious advisors if needs be..

Again it's not an either/or issue. Why it keeps being presented like this is beyond me. The faithful of all and any sorts may not go to a secular counsellor.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes, std clinics are the secular alternative to religious groups telling you not to have sex, so they should be funded...

But chaplaincy services shouldn't be? I never had use for the sexual health services in uni. Why should I have had to contribute to it? Could it be perhaps that I am mature enough to acknowledge that even if something doesn't benefit me personally there are others out there who it would benefit greatly?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

A religious chaplain will not even have to try....

Again, assuming that chaplains would not be adequately trained in a non-religious educational manner. Also assuming that chaplains would approach every issue from a fundamentally biased standpoint. A lot of assumptions going on. One could equally assume that a secular counsellor could also be so biased.

axer wrote: »

So how does the funding from students work? Is it only from students that want the service/are religious? Can a student opt out of paying for the chaplain?

Can a student opt out for paying for anything? I don't particularly want the university to pay for nurses and doctors tbh... I've got my own GP who I can go to if I need medical assistance. May I opt out?

College Chaplain

Comments