Well, now we know. School chaplains appointed under a new $30 million-a-year Federal Government program will “act as a reference point for students, staff and other members of the school community on religious, spiritual issues, values, human relationships and wellbeing issues”.
But they must not to try to convert any student to their faith – “proselytising by a school chaplain on behalf of any one group or denomination is not appropriate within a school environment,” says the code of conduct set for the new chaplains.
They must “respect, accept and be sensitive to other people's views, values and beliefs that may be different from his or her own.”
And, some reassurance for parents – chaplains must avoid physical contact with students unless it is strictly necessary, perhaps because a student is injured, and they must avoid being placed in compromising situations.
Readers may recall that in my previous post (just below) I queried the need for a Federal subsidy for chaplains, and I worried that it may chip away at the secular foundation of public schools in Australia. Now the government has released details of the scheme, under which any school can apply for $20,000 a year towards the cost of employing a chaplain (the “school community” must commit a similar amount).
We can expect most school chaplains to perform useful roles. But why chaplains? Any school counsellor should be able to fulfill the duties defined under the National School Chaplaincy Program, including impartial referrals to religious or spiritual support when appropriate. And is religious conviction really necessary before one can offer ethical guidance?
Cynics may argue that this is a method by which the Prime Minister can push more public funds into church schools. It's likely many government schools, particularly those serving ethnically diverse communities, will find it all too hard. Church-affiliated schools, on the other hand, will leap on the money.
John Howard wouldn't think like that, would he? Actually, I don't think he does – this time. It's more likely he's convinced that if we all had Christian values like his, we'd be better people. As I said before, that's a bit rich from him, and I'll stick to my values, thanks.
In my earlier post, I claimed that the secular foundation of public education had contributed greatly to Australia's tolerant society. I think secular is the right word, although in some commentary these days it's equated to atheism. We'd better clear any confusion.
Here's what Amanda Lohrey said in Quarterly Essay No 22 on Christianity and Politics in Australia:
Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of secularism: the militant version that is anti-religion per se, and the secularism that conceives of the state as a neutral referee between competing belief systems; the upholder of individual liberty and freedom of conscience (provided that freedom is not harmful to others). This latter is the secularism that most Australians endorse.
She goes on to say that Australia is the most secular liberal democracy in the world -- “But it doesn't mean that we are godless, and this conflation of secular and godless is too often and too glibly made.”
The historian John Hirst looked at these issues in an essay about multiculturalism, Australia's Absurd History, published in Overland magazine in February 1990, and republished last year in a collection of his articles, Sense and Nonsense in Australian History.
The Irish were present in large numbers from the beginning of European settlement in Australia. Hence Australian society as it was forming had to accommodate the antagonism of Catholic and Protestant which had torn Europe apart and still poisoned relations between England and Ireland. If the Church of England, established by law and funded by compulsory contributions from all, was transferred intact to Australia, the old battles would begin again.
So, in 1836, Governor Bourke – a Protestant Irishman – decided that if there were to be established churches, all three of the great divisions of Christianity within Britain should be established. He would allot public funds on the same terms to the Church of England, the Catholic Church and the Presbyterians. The system worked well and was expanded to include other faiths, lasting until 1862 in NSW and 1870 in Victoria.Those colonies then adopted South Australia's principle of complete separation of church and state.
Hirst notes there was also a strong desire to avoid old world antagonisms in the education system.
The liberal hope for education was that children of all religions could come together in schools run by the state. Religion would still be taught.
Either the regular teachers would teach a common Christianity – the essentials of the faith to be agreed on by all the churches – or clergymen of the different churches would be allowed to come to the schools to instruct their own children.
The opponents of these schemes were the churches, or more precisely the clergy. The laity in general supported them.
The only church finally which could sustain its opposition to these schemes was the one where clergy had the most power over the laity – the Catholic. Here old world antagonisms could not be kept at bay.
So, does the new chaplaincy scheme threaten the secular foundations of public education? In terms of the 19th century's “liberal hope for education”, where a common Christianity was assumed, probably not. Also, the code of conduct for the chaplains will make their role positively secular, in the more benign sense of the word.
Which takes us back – why chaplains? Why spend $90 million over three years on this scheme, when schools have so many more pressing needs?
