Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

College Chaplain

12357…12

Comments

  • #122
    axer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,518 ✭✭✭axer


    prinz wrote: »
    ...and a supposed secular counsellor may well be equally biased on some issues. At least with a chaplain you will know where you stand.
    So that makes it ok then.
    prinz wrote: »
    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?
    Fundamentally they are.
    prinz wrote: »
    That really depends on what their services are required for tbh.
    but they are there for everyone with bias.
    prinz wrote: »
    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.
    This is a clear case of educational institutes being biased with regards religious beliefs or lack thereof.
    prinz wrote: »
    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.
    Im not presenting it as that. I am giving an example of how funds could be better used if they are used for chaplaincy services.
    prinz wrote: »
    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?
    You cannot compare health services to religious services - they are in a different league of needs.
    prinz wrote: »
    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.
    Sure. Missing the point.
    prinz wrote: »
    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?
    See above.

    Just to be clear, I have no issues with chaplaincy being provided as long as it is funded by those that want it and not by the institutions themselves.


  • #123
    johnfás
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,345 ✭✭✭johnfás


    axer wrote: »
    You cannot compare health to religious stuff.

    You see this is where the whole conversation inevitably breaks down. There are many who respect the beliefs of others (whether theistic, atheistic or simply unknown) as relevant, worthy and intrinsic to the being of a person. For such people it is clear that providing these people with services is not an affront to anything. Then there are a very small minority who think that it is the equivalent of whether one prefers the colour red over blue. Obviously if you apply that thinking then you can construct the argument of how about we fund a counselling provision for people who wear red t-shirts. Thankfully that sort of thinking is a small minority and hopefully, for the sake of a cohesive and respectful society in which both atheists and theists can interact caringly, that will remain the case.
    axer wrote: »
    This is a clear case of educational institutes being biased with regards religious beliefs.

    You haven't really made a great argument for bias - how is it biased? Simply providing a service for one group of people is not biased. All universities provide a secular counselling service in tandem with a chaplaincy service. People are free to seek the services of either or both irrespective of their perspective.


  • #124
    axer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,518 ✭✭✭axer


    johnfás wrote: »
    You see this is where the whole conversation inevitably breaks down. There are many who respect the beliefs of others (whether theistic, atheistic or simply unknown) as relevant, worthy and intrinsic to the being of a person. For such people it is clear that providing these people with services is not an affront to anything. Then there are a very small minority who think that it is the equivalent of whether one prefers the colour red over blue. Obviously if you apply that thinking then you can construct the argument of how about we fund a counselling provision for people who wear red t-shirts. Thankfully that sort of thinking is a small minority and hopefully, for the sake of a cohesive and respectful society in which both atheists and theists can interact caringly, that will remain the case.
    Ok, so you think that spiritual "health" is as important as physical/mental health?
    johnfás wrote: »
    You haven't really made a great argument for bias - how is it biased? Simply providing a service for one group of people is not biased. All universities provide a secular counselling service in tandem with a chaplaincy service. People are free to seek the services of either or both irrespective of their perspective.
    You are now comparing chaplaincy to counselling services?


  • #125
    Kooli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    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?

    And if they were allowed to, could other students opt out of paying for the sports centre if they don't use it? Or the careers service? Or the counselling service? Why aren't you giving out about those services too? Probably only about 10% of the college population use them each year, but everyone is paying for them.

    I just think it's mad that you think the chaplaincy and counselling services provide the same service. They are totally different services! And the chaplaincy is doing no harm to anyone, only good! And this is coming from a very committed atheist! Truley gave a list of the variety of services provided by the chaplains, and only ONE of the (counselling) can be provided by the counselling service. Yet you insist that they all can apart from the religious guidance. Why not shut down the careers service and let counsellors do that too?

    This is what gives atheism a bad name IMO...


  • #126
    johnfás
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,345 ✭✭✭johnfás


    axer wrote: »
    Ok, so you think that spiritual "health" is as important as physical/mental health?

    That depends on the person in question. I am not so brash as to make a pronouncement on the necessary qualities of another person's wellbeing. That is why I think it is important to provide an array of services on a university campus. This is particularly the case given the average age of a student, the fact that many may be living away from home for the first time, or even in another country. Frankly I think their wellbeing, however that is formed, is a much more important concern of the university administration than is your hangup on winning a 'religious battle' that you are the only one who seems to want to fight.
    axer wrote: »
    You are now comparing chaplaincy to counselling services?

    No, I am not - you are attempting to stretch people's statements to your own ends, which does your argument no good. However, they are both services provided at a university with the intention of ensuring the wellbeing of students. As I said, UCD provides not only chaplaincy and counselling, but also a lay student advisory service, a team of psychologists, psychiatrists, doctors and nurses. It is up to individual students what they want services they wish to avail of unique to their own situation. Many students benefit from the chaplaincy service and it is to the benefit of the entire university community to have happy healthy students. The same is true of sports facilities, which we leave it up to students to decide whether or not they want to make use of.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    axer wrote: »
    So that makes it ok then..

    No, but it undermines your argument that a chaplain would be biased. A secular counsellor could be equally as biased. Why is that not an issue for you?
    axer wrote: »
    Fundamentally they are...

    Fundamentally they aren't. It all depends on the student seeking help, not the service.
    axer wrote: »
    but they are there for everyone with bias....

    Well see, that point is already groundless. You need a new line of attack. It has been demonstrated false on this thread by people working in that area.
    axer wrote: »
    This is a clear case of educational institutes being biased with regards religious beliefs or lack thereof. ....

    Eh, no it isn't. Again this isn't an either/or issue. You don't have a chaplain or a counsellor. People with religious beliefs may wish to discuss issues with a chaplain. People with a lack thereof can go discuss issues with a counsellor. Services for all.
    axer wrote: »
    Im not presenting it as that. I am giving an example of how funds could be better used if they are used for chaplaincy services.....

    Funds could always be better used.
    axer wrote: »
    You cannot compare health services to religious services - they are in a different league of needs......

    Again you are missing the point. Many (I'd hazard most) don't approach chaplains for strictly religious services.
    axer wrote: »
    Sure. Missing the point.

    As long as you persist with the line that chaplains are biased then no it's not missing the point at all. Bias held by a secular counsellor doesn't seem to be a problem for you it appears. Why the double standard?
    axer wrote: »
    Just to be clear, I have no issues with chaplaincy being provided as long as it is funded by those that want it and not by the institutions themselves.

    Do you agree that STD/STi clinics should be similarly funded? The secular counsellor likewise?


  • #128
    axer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,518 ✭✭✭axer


    Kooli wrote: »
    And if they were allowed to, could other students opt out of paying for the sports centre if they don't use it? Or the careers service? Or the counselling service? Why aren't you giving out about those services too? Probably only about 10% of the college population use them each year, but everyone is paying for them.
    There is a big difference between funding secular services and funding religious services.
    Kooli wrote: »
    I just think it's mad that you think the chaplaincy and counselling services provide the same service. They are totally different services! And the chaplaincy is doing no harm to anyone, only good! And this is coming from a very committed atheist! Truley gave a list of the variety of services provided by the chaplains, and only ONE of the (counselling) can be provided by the counselling service. Yet you insist that they all can apart from the religious guidance. Why not shut down the careers service and let counsellors do that too?
    I have never said that chaplaincy and counselling services provide the same service. Please show me where I did.

    Also, Im not sure what list you are referring to there. Can you link to it.
    Kooli wrote: »
    This is what gives atheism a bad name IMO...
    Because someone questions the needed for a religious based service over a secular based service? If that is the case then leave the constitution alone, leave the church running 95%+ of the primary schools etc etc - sure they are not doing any harm...:rolleyes:


  • #129
    axer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,518 ✭✭✭axer


    johnfás wrote: »
    That depends on the person in question. I am not so brash as to make a pronouncement on the necessary qualities of another person's wellbeing. That is why I think it is important to provide an array of services on a university campus. This is particularly the case given the average age of a student, the fact that many may be living away from home for the first time, or even in another country. Frankly I think their wellbeing, however that is formed, is a much more important concern of the university administration than is your hangup on winning a 'religious battle' that you are the only one who seems to want to fight.
    Ok.
    johnfás wrote: »
    No, I am not - you are attempting to stretch people's statements to your own ends, which does your argument no good. However, they are both services provided at a university with the intention of ensuring the wellbeing of students. As I said, UCD provides not only chaplaincy and counselling, but also a lay student advisory service, a team of psychologists, psychiatrists, doctors and nurses. It is up to individual students what they want services they wish to avail of unique to their own situation. Many students benefit from the chaplaincy service and it is to the benefit of the entire university community to have happy healthy students. The same is true of sports facilities, which we leave it up to students to decide whether or not they want to make use of.
    Sure.


  • #130
    johnfás
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,345 ✭✭✭johnfás


    axer wrote: »
    Because someone questions the needed for a religious based service over a secular based service? If that is the case then leave the constitution alone, leave the church running 95%+ of the primary schools etc etc - sure they are not doing any harm...:rolleyes:

    Again, you are twisting the reality of the situation in order to suit your argument. You have failed to outline the necessary characteristics of a "secular based service". For the sake of clarity, I will repeat the services which UCD provide for the wellbeing of students - Doctor, Nurse, Psychologist, Psychiatrist, Counsellor, Student Advisor, Career Guidance, Chaplain. So if we were to cut the chaplain out of that equation, what would you feel is missing in order to have a secular based service? The reality is that universities provide a full range of services on a secular basis and, in tandem, also provide a minor chaplaincy service for those students who also consider the ability to access such a service an important part of their wellbeing. This is not providing one service over another, it is simply providing both. The fact that one of these services doesn't benefit you directly does not result in the ocurrence of a bias.

    It is somewhat noticeable that throughout this conversation the focus has been very much on one philosophy winning through over another - when the reality is that a university has space for both to live and grow - and the noticeable absence of concern for the wellbeing of students. Universities provide services to promote a healthy and safe environment for their students, many of whom go through a great many difficulties during their time at university. I think the wellbeing of students, whoever they are, is more important than your philosophy beating mine, or mine beating yours.


  • #131
    axer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,518 ✭✭✭axer


    johnfás wrote: »
    Again, you are twisting the reality of the situation in order to suit your argument. You have failed to outline the necessary characteristics of a "secular based service". For the sake of clarity, I will repeat the services which UCD provide for the wellbeing of students - Doctor, Nurse, Psychologist, Psychiatrist, Counsellor, Student Advisor, Career Guidance, Chaplain. So if we were to cut the chaplain out of that equation, what would you feel is missing in order to have a secular based service? The reality is that universities provide a full range of services on a secular basis and, in tandem, also provide a minor chaplaincy service for those students who also consider the ability to access such a service an important part of their wellbeing. This is not providing one service over another, it is simply providing both.

    It is somewhat noticeable that throughout this conversation the focus has been very much on one philosophy winning through over another - when the reality is that a university has space for both to live and grow - and the noticeable absence of concern for the wellbeing of students. Universities provide services to promote a healthy and safe environment for their students, many of whom go through a great many difficulties during their time at university. I think the wellbeing of students, whoever they are, is more important than your philosophy beating mine, or mine beating yours.
    Give me a list of the services a chaplain provides. I have already answered one before.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Truley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,628 ✭✭✭Truley


    Kooli wrote: »
    This is what gives atheism a bad name IMO...

    So true it really goes to show that not believing in God doen't have any reflection on the level of tolerance or open-mindedness a person has, and that people are happy to (religiously heh) follow any belief so long as it conflicts with people's religion.

    I would be loath to call myself an Athiest if this kind of begrudgry was done in my name.


  • #133
    axer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,518 ✭✭✭axer


    Truley wrote: »
    So true it really goes to show that not believing in God doen't have any reflection on the level of tolerance or open-mindedness a person has, and that people are happy to (religiously heh) follow any belief so long as it conflicts with people's religion.

    I would be loath to call myself an Athiest if this kind of begrudgry was done in my name.
    Oh ffs. Whats wrong with religious people funding their own religious services? This has nothing to do with tolerance or open-mindedness, this is solely about a secular society.


  • #134
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    prinz wrote: »
    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.

    Why wouldn't they go? A secular counsellor is specifically trained to be onjective, to (try) not to bring in personal bias into helping the student. There is not reason a religious student couldn't go and get non biased help from a counsellor, and then be referred on to a religious group if they have religious issues. This would make everything fair for everyone.
    prinz wrote: »
    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?

    You are conflating two issues: the issue of paying for a college servise that you, as an individual may not use, and the issue of wether that service should be secular or not. I (and I dont think anyone else either) am not saying that mixed funds shouldn't be used for programmes that benefit only certain groups, I (and others here aswell, I think) am just saying those funds should always aim for secular version of those services, so as to benefit the most possible people equally.
    Std clinics are secular. Chaplaincies are not. Mixed student taxes should only pay for secular services, not biased ones.
    prinz wrote: »
    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.

    If a secular counsellor was biased, then they wouldn't be secular would they?


  • #135
    axer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,518 ✭✭✭axer


    axer wrote: »
    Give me a list of the services a chaplain provides. I have already answered one before.
    I guess i'll answer myself. From NUIG's chaplaincy website:
    http://www.nuigalway.ie/student-life/student-support/chaplaincy.html
    • 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
    So the only thing NUIG chaplaincy service does that is secular is (which is debatable considering natural bias due to known beliefs):
    Personal counselling and advisory service to students and staff

    Now I have absolutely no problem with such services as long as they are not funded by the education institute or by taxing all students. I would even say that the college could provide the working space free but thats as far as it should go. At the end of the day from what I can see the chaplains are there as representitives of their faiths. Thats fine but lets not pretend it is anything different.


  • #136
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    johnfás wrote: »
    That depends on the person in question. I am not so brash as to make a pronouncement on the necessary qualities of another person's wellbeing. That is why I think it is important to provide an array of services on a university campus. This is particularly the case given the average age of a student, the fact that many may be living away from home for the first time, or even in another country. Frankly I think their wellbeing, however that is formed, is a much more important concern of the university administration than is your hangup on winning a 'religious battle' that you are the only one who seems to want to fight.

    Seeing as there is severely limited funding in colleges, should the college not aim to fund services that benefit the most people? A secular counslelling service benefits more people than a religious chaplain. A secular counsellor can do everything non religious chaplain does (but better, as they are trained to be secular ie unbiased) and they can make referals for the religious stuff (you know, what the religious chaplains do when a student of different religion approaches them and they cant help). This way is financially better fo rthe college and quite clearly fairer for every student.
    johnfás wrote: »
    No, I am not - you are attempting to stretch people's statements to your own ends, which does your argument no good. However, they are both services provided at a university with the intention of ensuring the wellbeing of students. As I said, UCD provides not only chaplaincy and counselling, but also a lay student advisory service, a team of psychologists, psychiatrists, doctors and nurses. It is up to individual students what they want services they wish to avail of unique to their own situation. Many students benefit from the chaplaincy service and it is to the benefit of the entire university community to have happy healthy students. The same is true of sports facilities, which we leave it up to students to decide whether or not they want to make use of.

    It would be financially better for ucd to get rid of the chaplaincy. Then they could hire more counsellors (who would be better for teh reasons explained above) and the students with religious issues can go to the church that is on campus.


  • #137
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Kooli wrote: »
    And if they were allowed to, could other students opt out of paying for the sports centre if they don't use it? Or the careers service? Or the counselling service? Why aren't you giving out about those services too? Probably only about 10% of the college population use them each year, but everyone is paying for them.

    What you are proposing is the equivilent of allowing students to opt out of funding all counselling services altogether, which is something no-one is advocating (and you full well know it). What we are advocating is that the funding from all students goes to secular services, as secular services benefits every student, as opposed to religious services which only "benefit" the students who hold those religious beliefs.
    Its unsurprising that people here holding most strongly to the idea of religious chaplains arethose with the same religion
    Kooli wrote: »
    I just think it's mad that you think the chaplaincy and counselling services provide the same service. They are totally different services! And the chaplaincy is doing no harm to anyone, only good! And this is coming from a very committed atheist! Truley gave a list of the variety of services provided by the chaplains, and only ONE of the (counselling) can be provided by the counselling service. Yet you insist that they all can apart from the religious guidance. Why not shut down the careers service and let counsellors do that too?

    Why cant the counselling service give the other non religious services listed? What aspect of a chaplaincies non religious service requires the religious aspect of the chaplaincy?
    Kooli wrote: »
    This is what gives atheism a bad name IMO...

    Must be terrible for you when atheists dont genuflect in your presence in deference to your superior theistic beliefs. If calling hypocritical theists on their bs is what gives atheist a bad name, then I am proud to be called athiest.


  • #138
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    There is not reason a religious student couldn't go and get non biased help from a counsellor, and then be referred on to a religious group if they have religious issues. This would make everything fair for everyone.

    Except on somebody who wants to go to a chaplain first of course... but who cares about being fair to them, right? Frankly hilarious at this stage. What's next? The Dublin Airport Chaplain must really bother you at this stage. :rolleyes: Army chaplains........ hospital chaplains... Dublin Port chaplain...
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Mixed student taxes should only pay for secular services, not biased ones..

    Again with the bias claims. As has been pointed out apparently the only university in the State that pays it's own chaplain is TCD.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    If a secular counsellor was biased, then they wouldn't be secular would they?

    There is more to life than religion. A religiously secular counsellor may also be heavily biased in other areas.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Seeing as there is severely limited funding in colleges, should the college not aim to fund services that benefit the most people?

    You are right. Which is where the idea of chaplaincy comes in. Once again it is not, nor has anyone claimed it to be an either/or mutually exclusive scenario. One does not prohibit the other, both services and coexist.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    It would be financially better for ucd to get rid of the chaplaincy. Then they could hire more counsellors (who would be better for teh reasons explained above) and the students with religious issues can go to the church that is on campus.

    A church on campus? BIAS :eek:
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Its unsurprising that people here holding most strongly to the idea of religious chaplains arethose with the same religion.

    Really? Says who? Have we done a census? Asked for anyone's religion?
    Seems to me the ones holding most strongly to the idea of chaplaincy are in fact atheists.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Must be terrible for you when atheists dont genuflect in your presence in deference to your superior theistic beliefs. If calling hypocritical theists on their bs is what gives atheist a bad name, then I am proud to be called athiest.

    What is has been hypocritical on this issue?


  • #139
    Truley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,628 ✭✭✭Truley


    axer wrote: »
    Oh ffs. Whats wrong with religious people funding their own religious services? This has nothing to do with tolerance or open-mindedness, this is solely about a secular society.

    Yeah exactly! The idea of a 'secular society' at any cost, with no consideration for other people's needs and wants. Most people here haven't a clue what a Chaplain does, how they are funded or how much they cost. You don't care whether the service helps people. Yet you are happy to criticise and call for it's abolishment not because you think its effects are intrusive or negative, but because it doesn't fit in with your viewpoint. That is what I would called intolerance and narrow mindedness.

    And by the way you can have a secular society / institution where religious services are still allowed. Secular does not = no religion. Society, the economy, the education system are full of services that cater for different people. Most services you will find have an ethos or ideology tagged to it. The funding of a women's officer doesn't exactly contribute to a gender neutral society. The Ents society has a huge cutural bias in how it operates and is promoted. Even college psychologists have a level of exclusivity since you can't avail of the service without first being referred by someone elses interpretation of mental health.

    These services have little bearing on the secularism of a society.

    I don't judge things through a filter of my atheistic viewpoint. I look at the service; is it helpful to people - yes. Is it invading on other people's wellbeing - no. So any problem is an ideological rather than a real or practical one.


  • #140
    axer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,518 ✭✭✭axer


    Truley wrote: »
    Yeah exactly! The idea of a 'secular society' at any cost, with no consideration for other people's needs and wants. Most people here haven't a clue what a Chaplain does, how they are funded or how much they cost. You don't care whether the service helps people. Yet you are happy to criticise and call for it's abolishment not because you think its effects are intrusive or negative, but because it doesn't fit in with your viewpoint. That is what I would called intolerance and narrow mindedness.
    Ah, you see, there you go not reading my posts. Read and come back.
    Truley wrote: »
    And by the way you can have a secular society / institution where religious services are still allowed. Secular does not = no religion. Society, the economy, the education system are full of services that cater for different people. Most services you will find have an ethos or ideology tagged to it. The funding of a women's officer doesn't exactly contribute to a gender neutral society. The Ents society has a huge cutural bias in how it operates and is promoted. Even college psychologists have a level of exclusivity since you can't avail of the service without first being referred by someone elses interpretation of mental health.
    Secular is the Educational Institute being separate from Religion. If the education institute does not give or direct funds to the relgious services then I have no issue at all.
    Truley wrote: »
    These services have little bearing on the secularism of a society.

    I don't judge things through a filter of my atheistic viewpoint. I look at the service; is it helpful to people - yes. Is it invading on other people's wellbeing - no. So any problem is an ideological rather than a real or practical one.
    I judge things through fairness since that is the way all things should be judged. Funding religious activities by a educational institute (whether it be directly or by taxing students) in not being secular.

    Other than religious stuff chaplains seem to do nothing that a secular counsellor could not do - in fact they could probably offer more to more students - that is the point here. So basically it is religious activities that are being funded here. That is not secular.


  • #141
    equivariant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    johnfás wrote: »
    You see this is where the whole conversation inevitably breaks down. There are many who respect the beliefs of others (whether theistic, atheistic or simply unknown) as relevant, worthy and intrinsic to the being of a person. For such people it is clear that providing these people with services is not an affront to anything. Then there are a very small minority who think that it is the equivalent of whether one prefers the colour red over blue. Obviously if you apply that thinking then you can construct the argument of how about we fund a counselling provision for people who wear red t-shirts. Thankfully that sort of thinking is a small minority and hopefully, for the sake of a cohesive and respectful society in which both atheists and theists can interact caringly, that will remain the case.

    You say "Thankfully that sort of thinking is a small minority". I would say 'unfortunately'. This whole business of respecting beliefs as being "intrinsic to the being of a person". What does that mean? Do you mean 'well being'? Even if you do, how do you know that? It's one of those 'mean whatever you want it to' phrases that are beloved of religious apologists. Can you find any scientific studies to back up your assertions in this regard?

    There is a fundamental difference between religion/spirituality and medicine (there are many of course, but this one is relevant to the point at hand) and it is this. One is largely based on scientific fact and rational thought and has scientifically verifiable benefits. The other is/does not. That is why arguing that religious/spiritual support is just as worthy of funding as health (including mental health) support is wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    prinz wrote: »
    Except on somebody who wants to go to a chaplain first of course... but who cares about being fair to them, right?

    Its not exactly fair to give someone special treatment. In fact its the very opposite of fair.
    prinz wrote: »
    Frankly hilarious at this stage. What's next? The Dublin Airport Chaplain must really bother you at this stage. :rolleyes: Army chaplains........ hospital chaplains... Dublin Port chaplain...

    They are all the same thing-goverment money being used to pander to the religious, so yeah I have the same problem with them.
    prinz wrote: »
    Again with the bias claims. As has been pointed out apparently the only university in the State that pays it's own chaplain is TCD.

    And we know of at least one more (ucc) that has the chaplain payed directly by forced student contributions.
    prinz wrote: »
    There is more to life than religion. A religiously secular counsellor may also be heavily biased in other areas.

    No more heavily biased than these religious chaplains you claim can keep their religion out of the non reliigous aspect of their job.
    prinz wrote: »
    You are right. Which is where the idea of chaplaincy comes in. Once again it is not, nor has anyone claimed it to be an either/or mutually exclusive scenario. One does not prohibit the other, both services and coexist.

    By virtue of being a chaplaincy of a specific religion it is biased and it excludes those who dont want religion brought into the meeting. Seeing as religion is such a small part of what they do, and that they can apparently keep it aside when need be, then why not just have a secular counsellor instead. Oh yes, I forgot, religions only want fairness when they are ones who get first choice.
    prinz wrote: »
    A church on campus? BIAS :eek:

    It is ridiculous really.
    prinz wrote: »
    Really? Says who? Have we done a census? Asked for anyone's religion?
    Seems to me the ones holding most strongly to the idea of chaplaincy are in fact atheists.

    You're an atheist now?
    prinz wrote: »
    What is has been hypocritical on this issue?

    This claim that religious chaplains can be unbiased if needs be. If they can, then what difference does it make if they are secular counsellors instead, who refer people on to religious advisors if thats what they want? Its what a religious chaplain has to do with a student who isn't the same religion (a RC chaplain is not going to mush spiritual help to a jewish student). You have no problem letting the minorty religious and the non religious look elsewhere for unbiased help, but kick up a storm when you are asked to do the same.


  • #143
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Its not exactly fair to give someone special treatment. In fact its the very opposite of fair..

    Who's getting special treatment? :confused:
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    They are all the same thing-goverment money being used to pander to the religious, so yeah I have the same problem with them..

    :pac:
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    No more heavily biased than these religious chaplains you claim can keep their religion out of the non reliigous aspect of their job.

    Yes, indeed. Doesn't that present a problem then?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    By virtue of being a chaplaincy of a specific religion it is biased and it excludes those who dont want religion brought into the meeting..

    Then don't go to a chaplain. It really is that simple.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Oh yes, I forgot, religions only want fairness when they are ones who get first choice...

    You are the one demanding that choice be removed.... which is it?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    It is ridiculous really....

    Yes. How dare a campus actually be reflective of society in general! The cheek...:rolleyes:
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You're an atheist now?....

    No, I'm not, are you admitting that you are ignoring the contributions from two (at least) atheists on this thread then? Far easier to just paint it as an atheist v religious issue isn't it.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Its what a religious chaplain has to do with a student who isn't the same religion (a RC chaplain is not going to mush spiritual help to a jewish student).

    That's debateable. A RC chaplain would more likely than not be far more help to a Jewish student struggling with matters of faith, morality etc than someone with none/someone who is prohibited from discussing these issues.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You have no problem letting the minorty religious and the non religious look elsewhere for unbiased help, but kick up a storm when you are asked to do the same.

    Really? Where have a said that minority religions must look elsewhere? Where have I said non religious must look elsewhere for help? Where is it said that there must only be one chaplaincy of one religion? Where has it been said that if there is a chaplain there must be no non religious equivalent? Rabble rabble. Scraping the barrel now with invented arguments. By they way who's to say I am not a minority religion member myself? I don't recall discussing my theological position with you tbh.


  • #144
    Truley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,628 ✭✭✭Truley


    axer wrote: »
    Secular is the Educational Institute being separate from Religion. If the education institute does not give or direct funds to the relgious services then I have no issue at all.

    Since the ethos of the college isn't religous, it is a secular college. If it distributes funding to religous societies and organisations according to demand this doesn't effect the secularism of the institution itself. Unless you interperate the distribution of funding as making a political stance. In that case the college must be taking a feminist stance by funding a women's officer, a cultural stance with the Cuman na Gaeilge, and a very ambigious religious stance given the multitude of different religous societies and services it funds.
    I judge things through fairness since that is the way all things should be judged. Funding religious activities by a educational institute (whether it be directly or by taxing students) in not being secular.

    Come on now, since when was taxation fair? Even a University doesn't claim to have a fair funding distribution. How come the Kayak club in UCD gets its own boathouse and funding for equipment paid for by the university (not membership fees.) How is that fair for the 20,000 other students who don't kayak? And a kayak club is no more exclusive in that its membership is only open to people who like watersports, the same way Chaplains are only for people that 'like' religion.

    I don't see how a state or institution can't maintain a secular ethos while still providing funding for harmless, private religious endeavours as and when people want it. If it wasn't the case I would be very pissed off with the cultural homogeneity our state/education system/whatever is clearly promoting by funding gender and language biased societies.
    Other than religious stuff chaplains seem to do nothing that a secular counsellor could not do - in fact they could probably offer more to more students - that is the point here. So basically it is religious activities that are being funded here. That is not secular.

    I know it's been said a hundred times already on this thread, but chaplains are not there to provide the same service as a counsellor. It is the religious aspect that makes it unique, and it is the religous aspect that people who use the service want. It's a religous service, I know it is a religious service, I never tried to say otherwise.


  • #145
    axer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,518 ✭✭✭axer


    Truley wrote: »
    Since the ethos of the college isn't religous, it is a secular college. If it distributes funding to religous societies and organisations according to demand this doesn't effect the secularism of the institution itself. Unless you interperate the distribution of funding as making a political stance. In that case the college must be taking a feminist stance by funding a women's officer, a cultural stance with the Cuman na Gaeilge, and a very ambigious religious stance given the multitude of different religous societies and services it funds.
    It seems many colleges might claim to be secular (I'm not sure which do or which don't) but if you have a situation whereby funds are being directed to chaplains and/or have prayers said before, for example, at the inauguration of their new president (DCU) then they are not secular.
    Truley wrote: »
    Come on now, since when was taxation fair? Even a University doesn't claim to have a fair funding distribution. How come the Kayak club in UCD gets its own boathouse and funding for equipment paid for by the university (not membership fees.) How is that fair for the 20,000 other students who don't kayak? And a kayak club is no more exclusive in that its membership is only open to people who like watersports, the same way Chaplains are only for people that 'like' religion.
    I have previosuly said that I have no issue with a chaplain getting their own working space etc but I have an issue with them being funded by educational institutions redirecting funds to them when funds are already provided to faith socities/clubs etc. Also i'm sure that faith socities/clubs are given space to operate from too.
    Truley wrote: »
    If it wasn't the case I would be very pissed off with the cultural homogeneity our state/education system/whatever is clearly promoting by funding gender and language biased societies.
    as opposed to?
    Truley wrote: »
    I know it's been said a hundred times already on this thread, but chaplains are not there to provide the same service as a counsellor. It is the religious aspect that makes it unique, and it is the religous aspect that people who use the service want. It's a religous service, I know it is a religious service, I never tried to say otherwise.
    Exactly, finally, so education institutes are directly funding religious services either using their own funds or via taxation of students. That is not secular. There should be separation between the institution and religion. Funding faith socities/clubs is fine since it is like funding the infamous kayaking club.


  • #146
    Kooli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    What you are proposing is the equivilent of allowing students to opt out of funding all counselling services altogether, which is something no-one is advocating (and you full well know it). What we are advocating is that the funding from all students goes to secular services, as secular services benefits every student, as opposed to religious services which only "benefit" the students who hold those religious beliefs.
    Its unsurprising that people here holding most strongly to the idea of religious chaplains arethose with the same religion


    Why cant the counselling service give the other non religious services listed? What aspect of a chaplaincies non religious service requires the religious aspect of the chaplaincy?


    Must be terrible for you when atheists dont genuflect in your presence in deference to your superior theistic beliefs. If calling hypocritical theists on their bs is what gives atheist a bad name, then I am proud to be called athiest.

    You seem to have missed the numerous times where I said that I am an atheist!


  • #147
    Kooli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    axer wrote: »

    Because someone questions the needed for a religious based service over a secular based service? If that is the case then leave the constitution alone, leave the church running 95%+ of the primary schools etc etc - sure they are not doing any harm...:rolleyes:

    I was waiting for this comparison to arise!!

    State funded primary schools being run by the church is of course wrong, you'd be hard pressed to find an atheist who would disagree with you on that one.

    But the reasons it is so wrong do not apply to the argument about college chaplains.

    Does the provision of college chaplains mean that students with religious affiliation are given preference when college places are allocated? No.

    Does the provision of college chaplains mean that all students must be trained in the doctrine and ethos of a particular religion in order to access education? No.

    Will a student who is of no religion be seen as an 'outsider' in college due to the presence of college chaplains on campus? No.

    Will a student of no religion be affected in any way by the presence of college chaplains on campus? No.

    You seem to be of the opinion that if chaplains were done away with, the funding would go to psychological services. That is simply not true. So the practical implications of abolishing the chaplaincy would be only negative (in practical terms, leaving aside ideological terms).

    I look forward to a day when there are far fewer religious students on campus in the first place, so the chaplaincy becomes reduntant and obsolete, but until that day, I think the college should continue to provide this positive and well-valued student support.


  • #148
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    axer wrote: »
    Exactly...

    So after admitting that chaplains and counsellors do not provide the same service you still argue that chaplains should be done away with on the basis that a secular counsellor could fill the same void. :confused:


  • #149
    axer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,518 ✭✭✭axer


    prinz wrote: »
    So after admitting that chaplains and counsellors do not provide the same service you still argue that chaplains should be done away with on the basis that a secular counsellor could fill the same void. :confused:
    You missed the point. Chaplains provides religious services that includes a religious counselling service. A secular counsellor only provides a secular counselling service. The difference is that one is secular and the other is not and one provides extra religious services such as mass and confession and the other does not. It is not for public money of all student taxation to pay for the difference i.e. the religious aspect. I thought you had finally understood. Oh well, maybe you do now.


  • #150
    Truley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,628 ✭✭✭Truley


    axer wrote: »
    It seems many colleges might claim to be secular (I'm not sure which do or which don't) but if you have a situation whereby funds are being directed to chaplains and/or have prayers said before, for example, at the inauguration of their new president (DCU) then they are not secular.

    There is a difference between paying a Chaplain and having compulsary prayers at college events. The latter one is making an ideological stance and is invasive to other people, the former isn't. I would agree that what DCU did wasn't secular.
    I have previosuly said that I have no issue with a chaplain getting their own working space etc but I have an issue with them being funded by educational institutions redirecting funds to them when funds are already provided to faith socities/clubs etc. Also i'm sure that faith socities/clubs are given space to operate from too.

    I'm sure a certain amount of college funds go towards the chaplaincy but whether funds are being 'redirected' from somewhere else is debatable. I would wager that apart from the salary of the chapalin, most of its finances come from fundraising and donations. In fact how do you know the chaplaincy isn't a financially profitable entity for the university?
    as opposed to?

    ... not funding them :confused:
    Exactly, finally, so education institutes are directly funding religious services either using their own funds or via taxation of students. That is not secular. There should be separation between the institution and religion. Funding faith socities/clubs is fine since it is like funding the infamous kayaking club.

    Well a chaplaincy service is slightly different from a club or society because it needs a physical base (like the kayak club needs a boathouse) and a qualified chaplain. Otherwise it wouldn't really be a chaplaincy. And who says there isn't seperation between the institution and the religon? It allows the service to be available on its grounds, it may or may not donate funds towards it (nobody has been able to confirm this.) The college and the religion are still seperate entities. The same way the college and the kayak club are not alligned, though the kayak club is (definately) funded through direct funding and student taxation.

    You are confusing real problems with ideological ones.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Jakkass wrote: »
    People of faith are a significant demographic on campus, therefore their views will need to be represented in respect to how the university conducts itself.

    ^^^^ If this is true then drawing similarities between third level education and primary, in terms of singular religious demanding more than their fair share of influence based on nothing more than historic sentimentality, are relevant in fairness.


Advertisement