College Chaplain

axer

Jakkass wrote: »

Not all of them are unfunded, I'm fairly sure that the two main chaplains are paid, as well as the chaplaincy secretary at our university. In respect to other universities I don't know.

Then that is completely wrong. I would love to know how much is being paid to see how many counsellors you could get for the same money. How come the other chaplains can work for free but the two main ones can't?

philologos

Interesting take axer, just if I can ask you another question. If you are opposed to seeing state money being used in chaplaincies in universities, are you opposed to state money being used to fund faith societies at universities such as Christian Unions and Islamic societies?

axer

Jakkass wrote: »

Interesting take axer, just if I can ask you another question. If you are opposed to seeing state money being used in chaplaincies in universities, are you opposed to state money being used to fund faith societies at universities such as Christian Unions and Islamic societies?

I assume they are treated like the other societies/clubs? e.g. tennis club etc

May I ask you, How come the other chaplains can work for free but the two main ones can't?

philologos

axer wrote: »

I assume they are treated like the other societies/clubs? e.g. tennis club etc?

Yes, capitation is applied for in the same way, and is given dependant on how much they think is adequate. Irrespective of this, money from students / the State is used to set up faith societies on campuses.

axer

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, capitation is applied for in the same way, and is given dependant on how much they think is adequate. Irrespective of this, money from students / the State is used to set up faith societies on campuses.

I think when a secular service can be provided then it should be provided over a religious equivalent since a secular service can be of value to everyone in the educational institute. I think a faith society is different as that cannot be provided in a secular way due to its nature. Support groups and student support can be provided via a secular service using counsellors etc.

philologos

I think counsellors provide a very different service to chaplains rather than something the same.

axer

Jakkass wrote: »

I think counsellors provide a very different service to chaplains rather than something the same.

What services do chaplains provide?

Tordelback

Interesting discussion. As an atheist from a minority religious background, I nevertheless developed a great respect for the RC Chaplain in UCD in the early '90's. He came along on various society events and trips (presumably as a way of making himself known to the students), and was genuinely an interesting and entertaining guy to talk to to. I saw him help several of my (RC) friends with serious problems over the course of several years, and always in a supportive non-judgemental way, and found myself asking his advice myself on more than one occasion (although happily not about anything too awful). If asked 'why', I'd have to say it felt like he was outside of the administrative structure of the college, while still having knowledge of its workings and some influence over it. It also felt like he'd seen and heard it all before. As close as I've ever come to availing of religious services!

This doesn't add much to the discussion at hand, since it's just an anecdote about one guy, but I thought it worth noting.

philologos

axer wrote: »

What services do chaplains provide?

A notable example is, that if I was a new student to a university, I don't think I could go to the counsellor if I was looking for help as to how to be actively Christian on campus, or how to take an active part in a local faith community, or ask about different churches and the like. For a lot of people, this is an important concern when they are moving to a new place, especially if it is far from home.

In fact this was something I went to one of the chaplains about when I started university, even though I lived quite close by.

Counsellors won't have as much knowledge in this respect, whereas a chaplain will.

I understand as an atheist this has little or no value to you, but as a person of faith this is important.

nozzferrahhtoo

A notable example is, that if I was a new student to a university, I don't think I could go to the counsellor if I was looking for help as to how to invest in a new automobile, or how to take an active part in a local driving community, or ask about different car dealers and the like. For a lot of people, this is an important concern when they are moving to a new place, especially if it is far from home.

Counsellors won't have as much knowledge in this respect, whereas a representative of the automotive industry will.

I understand as a non driver this has little or no value to you, but as a driver this is important.



… we can not assign dedicated representatives to pander to every single whim a student might have for how to spend their extra curricular time or every single activitiy/community he or she might want to enter into.

… students set up special interest groups themselves for providing information and facilities that are not directly linked to any realm of study being offered by the college itself. If you want to get into football, start a football society. If you want to get into Warhammer, start a Warhammer society. If you want to get into religion, start a Christian/Muslim/Etc society.

Then apply for grants by the same procedures that everyone else who starts a society has to go through, and if you get one fair play to you.

That one “society” can automatically bypass the procedures everyone else has to go through and get by default a representative paid for by the college/state for use in that society… is a little unfair to say the least. It is essentially saying "Your football club has to go and apply by the usual channels for money.... and your warhammer club too.... but my Christian club, sorry, we get our funding by default, Thanks Taxpayers, we loves ya!"

axer

Jakkass wrote: »

A notable example is, that if I was a new student to a university, I don't think I could go to the counsellor if I was looking for help as to how to be actively Christian on campus or how to take an active part in a local faith community, or ask about different churches and the like.

Join the faith society to learn about those. They are not something that a publicly funded education institute should be funding a chaplain for.

Jakkass wrote: »

For a lot of people, this is an important concern when they are moving to a new place, especially if it is far from home.

I would like to see real evidence of that. I would assume living away from home, making new friends/integration into the college, substance abuse etc would be much more common concerns. If counsellors such as kooli who posted earlier are over stretched then maybe we should be redirecting funding that is going to the chaplin to the likes of counselling services etc since they are much more important.

In fact this was something I went to one of the chaplains about when I started university, even though I lived quite close by.

Jakkass wrote: »

Counsellors won't have as much knowledge in this respect, whereas a chaplain will.

Such information can be gotten from the faith societies etc but they are not a reason to pay for a chaplain.

Jakkass wrote: »

I understand as an atheist this has little or no value to you, but as a person of faith this is important.

Your religious organisation should be expected to help you out there - not a publicly funded educational institute. I have said I have no problem if chaplains are not paid and provided with a free office (and that is being generous) but they should not be funded other than that. Anything else can go through the societies and those that want the service can contribute as can their religious organisation.

Is there anything else that a chaplain offers that a counsellor or the likes can't? The only thing I can see is religious stuff.

Why can't religious organisations not provide their own self-funded chaplains? Surely they should be the ones funding them.

philologos

nozzferrahtoo: It seems your interest is to drive faith out of public life, so I'm not surprised at such a response. The reality is this, both people of faith and people of no faith exist on campus, both have different needs. Often they have very similar needs. It's only proper that the university recognises this.

philologos

axer wrote: »

Joing the faith society to learn about those.They are not something that a publicly funded education institute should be funding.

This is all well and good, but if people do not even have much knowledge of what the faith societies are like, in terms of dynamic, and belief one might want to ask the chaplains who would have had some level of interaction with them.

axer wrote: »

I would like to see real evidence of that. I would assume living away from home, making new friends/integration into the college, substance abuse etc would be much more common concerns.

It appears that you must keep different company than I do, but I've seen a lot of people come to university looking for a good church community that they can get involved with. The Christian Union can of course advise in this respect, but if one hasn't had much contact with them the chaplaincy seems the first port of call.

axer wrote: »

Such information can be gotten from the faith societies etc but they are not a reason to pay for a chaplain.

See what I have said above.

axer wrote: »

Your religious organisation should be expected to help you out there - not a publicly funded educational institute. I have said I have no problem if chaplains are not paid and provided with a free office (and that is being generous) but they should not be funded other than that. Anything else can go through the societies and those that want the service can contribute as can their religious organisation.

This is fantastic, but it ignores the fact that not all people have a single organisation that they are involved with, or that a lot of Christians are more concerned with the quality of the church, the teaching and the community rather than what specific denomination they happen to be. This attitude is quite common on the Christianity forum as well.

The same could equally be true of Muslims and people of other faiths who come to university.

nozzferrahhtoo

Another thing worth noting is the claim that “Counsellors won't have as much knowledge in this respect” manages to miss how many Counsellors operate. The statement seems to make this assumption that Counsellors are released on the world with a select and limited block of knowledge which is all that they can impart, and for everything else you go elsewhere.

This is far from the truth and would be like saying “There exists otologists and hence my GP can not possibly know anything about ears… only an otologist will do”.

In reality counsellors work with patients over many sessions and tailor their own learning to fit the patients they are working with.

If a student came in with concerns about religion, fitting in religiously, and where to go to become part of the local Christian Societies, then the counsellor in questions would likely either have contacts in that community already to refer the patient on to, or will make damn sure to have by the next session.

Similarly no one suggests having a full time doctor specialising in Brain Chemistry and the diagnosing of depression. Counsellors are training to recognise a need before a patient does and to ensure the patient in question is referred on to the proper people.

The suggestions being made here are that a representative from X is needed because that is not what the college counsellor specialises in. If you were to extrapolate that claim to a generalisation… colleges would literally have to provide by default a person who can cater to any thing and everything that a counsellor can not.

Unless of course, as I said in the post I just made above this one, you are of the type of person to say “My counsellor can not provide services A B C D… X Y and Z…. but only C is important because that’s the one I LIKE so please get on with pandering to mine and ditch the rest… ta”.

philologos

A chaplain would be instantly preferrable to a counsellor for discussing such issues. Indeed as another poster has already said, many counsellors simply don't have enough time to do this as they are dealing with students who have mental health issues. That's a serious enough issue to be dealt separately from faith based matters.

Again, faith based matters may matter little to an atheist, but it matters to enough students to warrant the existence of a chaplaincy who are there to help students in respect to faith, and indeed to help students with no faith as well if they are willing.

nozzferrahhtoo

Jakkass wrote: »

The reality is this, both people of faith and people of no faith exist on campus, both have different needs. Often they have very similar needs. It's only proper that the university recognises this.

(Deleted the part of your reply that was about the poster and not the post. I have no time to deal with ad hominem as well as the main reply)

The reality is this, both people with driving licenses and people without driving licenses exist on campus, both have different needs. Often they have very similar needs. It's only proper that the university recognises this.

Why? Why is it only proper? Universities are there to provide a specific service. Education. They offer courses in the subjects and faculties that they offer courses in.

If you want to learn about Christianity, then go to a school that teaches Christianity. Not a problem.

If a college does not provide education on subject X however, then why does it need to pander to people who want to learn about X? Let them learn X where X is actually taught.

If you demand that people should have to provide services that they set up never intending to provide, then I guess car dealers should be selling fresh vegetables and my local grocer should be supplying the pill.

However again my point is that all students have a PLETHORA of "different needs". A university can not recognise them all. The issue here is that one group of people with "needs" bypasses the same channels that all the other people with "needs" have and get their foundations established by default and on our tax payers bill.

As I said, the fairest way to do this is the way it IS done already. If a group of students of any size want to start a college society, then let them do it. For football, rock climbing, war hammer, medieval dress up and battle reenactment AND their religion. Then let them apply for society funding like.... everyone.... else.

axer

Jakkass wrote: »

This is all well and good, but if people do not even have much knowledge of what the faith societies are like, in terms of dynamic, and belief one might want to ask the chaplains who would have had some level of interaction with them.

Maybe then the faith societies need to do some pr work and get themselves known.

Jakkass wrote: »

It appears that you must keep different company than I do, but I've seen a lot of people come to university looking for a good church community that they can get involved with. The Christian Union can of course advise in this respect, but if one hasn't had much contact with them the chaplaincy seems the first port of call.

Considering you seem quite religious I can imagine you come across quite many religious people. You have mentioned two different places where a new student can find the info they need - do they need someone to hold their hand?

Jakkass wrote: »

This is fantastic, but it ignores the fact that not all people have a single organisation that they are involved with, or that a lot of Christians are more concerned with the quality of the church, the teaching and the community rather than what specific denomination they happen to be. This attitude is quite common on the Christianity forum as well.

The same could equally be true of Muslims and people of other faiths who come to university.

There are enough religious societies and organisations that are there to help and that receive public funding. I don't see why some faiths need more. It doesn't seem fair to fund some and not others and it doesn't seem feasible to fund them all. The only fair thing is no funding at all. They can setup clubs/societies and look for funding that way like all other clubs/societys. Then monies saved should be redirected to counselling services. This could lighten the load of counsellors and give them more time to help students that have not developed a serious problem yet so that they can get help early to avoid the problem getting worse.

nozzferrahhtoo

Jakkass wrote: »

A chaplain would be instantly preferrable to a counsellor for discussing such issues. Indeed many counsellors simply don't have enough time to do this as they are dealing with students who have mental health issues. That's a serious enough issue to be dealt separately from faith based matters.

And again I use your own words changed...

An otologist would be instantly preferable to a GP for discussing such issues. Indeed many GPs simply don't have enough time to do this as they are dealing with students who have viruses. That's a serious enough issue to be dealt separately from ear based matters.

.... we simply can not pander to every exception to the services that are offered. Instead you can only aim to provide a quality generalised service with the knowledge to refer students on accurately and efficiently to the services that actually CAN help them.

We well trained GP who can recognise when an otologist is required, is much more cost effective and useful to a college than maintaining a GP and an otologist of their own.

Similarly a counsellor who can refer students on to the relevant external societies and churches is much more cost efficient, and secular, than maintaining a christian chaplain, then a muslim one, then a wiccan one, and essentially one for every whim a student might have.

philologos

axer wrote: »

Maybe then the faith societies need to do some pr work and get themselves known.

I'm talking about pre-Clubs and Socs Day in particular. Of course the faith societies do PR work, but the chaplaincy goes slightly further than faith societies do in that in most cases they are theologically trained, whereas CU members, although hopefully quite well versed in the Bible are still laymen. The CU also doesn't operate as a church, and it also doesn't provide church services, the chaplaincy does do this in many cases. Likewise the CU doesn't perform communion, or anything else.

The CU can always point people to good churches, or tell people about their experiences if they are curious. However the chaplaincy still does provide a key function for students of faith, including non-Christians.

axer wrote: »

Considering you seem quite religious I can imagine you come across quite many religious people. You have mentioned two different places where a new student can find the info they need - do they need someone to hold their hand?

Well, most of my friends are still non-believers. It is true that I do have good contact with Christians so I probably know a little more about what Christians face when they are starting university. A lot of it comes from my own experience starting university.

axer wrote: »

There are enough religious societies and organisations that are there to help and that receive public funding. I don't see why some faiths need more. It doesn't seem fair to fund some and not others and it doesn't seem feasible to fund them all. The only fair thing is no funding at all. They can setup clubs/societies and look for funding that way like all other clubs/societys. Then monies saved should be redirected to counselling services. This could lighten the load of counsellors and give them more time to help students that have not developed a serious problem yet so that they can get help early to avoid the problem getting worse.

Although, both of the paid chaplains at our university are Roman Catholic, much of the funds do go to inter-denominational efforts including a student lunch that takes place every two weeks during the Semester. If the chaplaincy only served Roman Catholics, I would be a bit more reserved about supporting for it. The reality is that the chaplaincy is around for people who believe in any religion and none.

If there were a situation in which the chaplaincy would be removed entirely, I would think that having a faith representative on the SU would need to be considered.

nozzferrahhtoo

My two points so far have been simple:

1) If a group of students want to start a society to disseminate a particular type of past time, information source, or activity that is extra curricular then let them do so and apply for the money LIKE EVERYONE ELSE that is allocated to fund college societies. If they get it, yay. If not, better luck next time. This should be the same regardless of whether the society is a sporting one (football), a gaming one (warhammer et al), a political one (young greens) or a world view one (Christianity, Islam, Atheism).
2) Providing a single service trained to recognise the needs of students and refer them on to relevant services is a lot more effective and cost efficient than maintaining a single representative for every whim a student may have. Why, for example, provide a Christian Chaplain… what of the “needs” of a Wiccan or Muslim?

To this I would add a cynical third..

3) The services of a counsellor and GP in college faculties is not just limited to providing a service to the Students. It also benefits the College. The Health, physical and mental, of students is of a primary concern to the colleges. Should either of these things fail students fail… drop out… and in other ways cost the college in resources and money. Get 3 groups of students, one entirely physically ill, one entirely mentally ill, and one perfectly healthy and compare the results they get and we can test this proposition. The college has a vested interest in the health of its students Physically and Mentally and by proxy therefore so do the tax payers. There is good argument here for OUR money being used to benefit THEIR health. We want a return on our investments.

However I am perfectly unaware of ANY one suggesting that a student successfully finding god is of any even basic requirement for a healthy and successful college career. The college, and by proxy the tax payer, has NO VESTED INTEREST in maintaining the religion of the students that its money is being spent on. Get three groups of students again, one group Christian, one group Muslim, and one group entirely devoid of a personal god, and I warrant you will find little difference in their relative successes.

However I Promise here and now, if a comprehensive study does show that students successfully maintaining a religion is even half as important to the vested interests of the college and tax payer in terms of the success of the student... I will instantly turn about and start supporting a College chaplain for each of the main religions.

philologos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However I Promise here and now, if a comprehensive study does show that students successfully maintaining a religion is even half as important to the vested interests of the college and tax payer in terms of the success of the student.. I will instantly turn about and start supporting a College chaplain for each of the main religions.

I would suggest that the chaplaincy comes under the welfare bracket. For many students their faith in God is important, and having the opportunity to develop their relationship with God while at university is conducive to their well being. Therefore, I would consider a chaplaincy to be useful.

Treating all students as the same is unhelpful, and for as long as spiritual well being is still an important concern for students the chaplaincy should exist.

It is really as simple as this.

axer

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm talking about pre-Clubs and Socs Day in particular. Of course the faith societies do PR work, but the chaplaincy goes slightly further than faith societies do in that in most cases they are theologically trained, whereas CU members, although hopefully quite well versed in the Bible are still laymen.

What do I do when I get to college pre-clubs and soc day and I don't know where the best spots for kayaking are or where and when the football team train?

Jakkass wrote: »

The CU also doesn't operate as a church, and it also doesn't provide church services, the chaplaincy does do this in many cases. Likewise the CU doesn't perform communion, or anything else.

This is one of the reasons why it should not receive any funding. Maybe the church of satan should get funding too?

Jakkass wrote: »

The CU can always point people to good churches, or tell people about their experiences if they are curious. However the chaplaincy still does provide a key function for students of faith, including non-Christians.

A completely unnecessary function. What more do religious people need? Surely they are able to pray to their gods? Surely they can pray together in their faith club?

Jakkass wrote: »

Well, most of my friends are still non-believers. It is true that I do have good contact with Christians so I probably know a little more about what Christians face when they are starting university. A lot of it comes from my own experience starting university.

So you are saying that christians have it harder than other people starting college so should receive special treatment?

Jakkass wrote: »

Although, both of the paid chaplains at our university are Roman Catholic, much of the funds do go to inter-denominational efforts including a student lunch that takes place every two weeks during the Semester. If the chaplaincy only served Roman Catholics, I would be a bit more reserved about supporting for it. The reality is that the chaplaincy is around for people who believe in any religion and none.

If most of the funds go to inter-demoninational efforts then why not get rid of them and use the money for counsellors and the like. They could organise student lunches whereby they can highlight the importance of mental well-being and use such occaisons to show there is support for students through that secular service.

Jakkass wrote: »

If there were a situation in which the chaplaincy would be removed entirely, I would think that having a faith representative on the SU would need to be considered.

Why? They could be elected by other student union reps. If enough religious people vote for them then they will be there. If not, well then they won't. Relgion should not get any special treatment. It should be treated like any other club/society.

Why are you so against secular educational institutes?

nozzferrahhtoo

Jakkass wrote: »

I would suggest that the chaplaincy comes under the welfare bracket. For many students their faith in God is important, and having the opportunity to develop their relationship with God while at university is conducive to their well being. Therefore, I would consider a chaplaincy to be useful.

Yea and For many students their car is important, and having the opportunity to maintain their auto while at university is conducive to their well being. Therefore, I would consider an on site mechanic to be useful.

So where are our onsite Mechs?

I do not think your „suggestions“ equate even remotely to a comprehensive study. You can “suggest” all you like. I am interested in what is true, not in what you might “suggest” on a whim.

If you want to present, or engage yourself in, a study that shows that the vested interest of the tax payer in its investment in our students is contingent on them successfully finding and maintaining a faith in god… then I am all ears… I really am. I even suggested a first step in that study for you by comparing the results of Christian/Muslim/Atheist students and as an added layer of control comparing those results to a random group of Healthy, unhealthy, and mentally unhealthy students, before then comparing the RELATIVE differences in the differences between those two studies.

Come back to me if you find/perform such a study and then we can talk. Until then I see no argument to justify the spending of money on the whim of a group of students who were too lazy to start a society, and apply for funding in the SAME WAY that every other student has to do with their own societies at college level. What makes Christians so privileged over soccer players, Roleplayers, and young politicians when they go to college, aside from the fact they think they are?

axer

Jakkass wrote: »

I would suggest that the chaplaincy comes under the welfare bracket. For many some students their faith in God is important, and having the opportunity to develop their relationship with God while at university is conducive to their well being. Therefore, I would consider a chaplaincy to be useful.

Have you got hard evidence that there are so many students that need a chaplain for a service that could not be provided by a secular service provider or via support from one of the faith groups/cu?

Jakkass wrote: »

Treating all students as the same is unhelpful, and for as long as spiritual well being is still an important concern for students the chaplaincy should exist.

It is really as simple as this.

Treating religious/spiritual (more likely christian) students extra specially is unfair to other students. It is as simple as that.

robindch

Out of interest, do any universities fund political counsellors, ie a handful of people, each one owing allegiance to one of the main political parties, who are there to provide counseling to people of similar political hues, should they need any? I certainly don't recall any in UL.

I'm not trying to be smart here, but I don't really see much of a difference between the university funding appointees based upon religious allegiance as we have, and not funding them based upon some other arbitrary, self-selecting criterion like political allegiance.

nozzferrahhtoo

No there was none in the college I attended either. I wonder if this is ever done.

What does happen in colleges when students want information on such things, is they start a society for it and then apply for funding for that society.

Many colleges for example have “young Greens” and “Ógra Fianna Fáil” and so on. These were set up by students, for students, and applications for recognition and then funding were applied for through the student union and student body.

Sometimes these societies are set up from scratch, sometimes as chapters of a bigger external society with a Mother Office somewhere else.

And I would challenge the likes of Jakkass to suggest that such political aspirations and exploration is not just as important to a significant number of students personally as is religious concerns.

Which leads me yet again back to the question that has been ignored by such as he on this thread a few times. GIVEN that students have to follow these procedures… what makes this one group of people… the religious… so special (other than they think they are themselves) that they get to bypass such procedures that everyone else has to slog through? Is this the “equality” that we would be left with if the religious were in power. One rule for them and one for the rest of us?

Mark Hamill

OK, as far as I know, faith societies (christian/mulsim unions whatever), get their funding the same way as every other union, based on membership numbers (I'm in ucd, and this is the way for every other club, but if someone can correct me, it would be appreciated).

If this is the case, and if we can assume that its only the students who join these societies that are actually interested in having a religious aspect to their college life, then why not have these societies fund the chaplaincy (not that it will be too much, some will work for free, apparently)?

Stop the automatic taxing of every student and fund the chaplaincy either from the societies funding or from membership fees (like how other societies fund guest speakers or events throughout the year with their own finances). That way only the students who actually want a chaplaincy can pay for one, and different ones can be employed by the different religious groups (thus giving better representation).

Everyone is happen then.

magicbastarder

robindch wrote: »

I'm not trying to be smart here, but I don't really see much of a difference between the university funding appointees based upon religious allegiance as we have, and not funding them based upon some other arbitrary, self-selecting criterion like political allegiance.

do people turn to st. biffo in times of need?

axer

magicbastarder wrote: »

do people turn to st. biffo in times of need?

Well the banks did! :pac:

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If this is the case, and if we can assume that its only the students who join these societies that are actually interested in having a religious aspect to their college life, then why not have these societies fund the chaplaincy (not that it will be too much, some will work for free, apparently)?

If the SU would increase the capitation for faith societies, then I could see that working

If it hinders the actual running of the societies due to lack of funding, then that would be an issue.

Then again, this is under the assumption that every person who uses the chaplaincy will be in one of the faith societies. This isn't actually the case though, many people who choose not to join these societies, still avail of the services of the chaplaincy and vice versa.

axer wrote:

Have you got hard evidence that there are so many students that need a chaplain for a service that could not be provided by a secular service provider or via support from one of the faith groups/cu?

I have anecdotal evidence of this from dealing with people. You are also missing the point that some of the others have made on this thread, and that is that

axer wrote:

Why? They could be elected by other student union reps. If enough religious people vote for them then they will be there. If not, well then they won't. Relgion should not get any special treatment. It should be treated like any other club/society.

Why are you so against secular educational institutes?

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 there isn't a chaplaincy, I would suggest that such students need to be represented elsewhere.

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.

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.

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.

I do see the case for a humanist chaplain, but I don't see the case at all for removing the chaplaincy.

prinz

Storm in a teacup stuff, finding issues where there are none IMO. That a establishment includes a chaplain of one denomination is not the fault individual chaplain or the idea of chaplaincy themselves, that is something that the establishment needs to look at.

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.

The argument that there are services and parishes everywhere why are they needed in a IT or university? There are also counsellors, hospitals, sports clubs, pubs etc all over. Why does a university need them?

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

prinz

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Stop the automatic taxing of every student and fund the chaplaincy either from the societies funding or from membership fees (like how other societies fund guest speakers or events throughout the year with their own finances). That way only the students who actually want a chaplaincy can pay for one, and different ones can be employed by the different religious groups (thus giving better representation).
Everyone is happen then.

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?

Kooli

prinz wrote: »

Storm in a teacup stuff, finding issues where there are none IMO. That a establishment includes a chaplain of one denomination is not the fault individual chaplain or the idea of chaplaincy themselves, that is something that the establishment needs to look at.

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.

The argument that there are services and parishes everywhere why are they needed in a IT or university? There are also counsellors, hospitals, sports clubs, pubs etc all over. Why does a university need them?

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

Absolutely agree with you.

Chaplains provide pastoral care to any student who wants it. This is not what a society does, so a society isn't the alternative. Some students want to go to a staff member of the college, not another student.

A staunch atheist may not use the service, but that does not mean that other non-religious students wouldn't use it. I don't agree with Jakkass that everyone who goes there goes for religious or spiritual guidance. I think people go for all sorts of reasons, often just for company or to feel like there is someone in college they know who they can talk to about stuff.

I think it's great that there is somewhere students can go for a cup of tea and a chat with someone who will listen and not judge. Yes, a counsellor can do that, but if you don't have a mental health issue, I see no reason to go to a mental health professional. The stigma of seeing a psychologist is there whether we like it or not, and for the majority of people in college, they don't need a psychologist anyway, they just need someone to talk to.


This probably taps into a wider issue for me about what would replace religion in a purely secular society. And by 'religion' in this context I don't mean a belief in god, I mean a community space where anyone can go and get involved and get support and make links with people if they need it. The church has done this in the past, and has been a really positive place for people who are old, lonely, foreign, isolated, a bit 'strange', or anything that makes it hard for them to make connections in the regular channels. If it's gone, who is going to provide that service? Probably worthy of another thread, but it's something I've been wondering.

axer

Jakkass wrote: »

If the SU would increase the capitation for faith societies, then I could see that working

Then they would have to increase the capitation for all socities or are we back to people of faith are special?

Jakkass wrote: »

If it hinders the actual running of the societies due to lack of funding, then that would be an issue.

Then again, this is under the assumption that every person who uses the chaplaincy will be in one of the faith societies. This isn't actually the case though, many people who choose not to join these societies, still avail of the services of the chaplaincy and vice versa.

You are still missing the point. All societies want more money. They are given x amount, after that their members contribute. I'm sure the kayaking club would love a full time instructor - same goes for every club/society.

Jakkass wrote: »

I have anecdotal evidence of this from dealing with people. You are also missing the point that some of the others have made on this thread, and that is that

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 there isn't a chaplaincy, I would suggest that such students need to be represented elsewhere.

I'm sure the likes of the cu will represent them but who will stand for the kayakers or the gaelic footballers or any other society?

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.

but you want religious viewpoints to have extra special treatment.

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.

Nope as they can be treated like any other club/society. They are after all only societies just like the members of the science society love science or the kayaking society love kayaking, the faith societies love their god.

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.

Using funds on a chaplain means less funds available for more important things like funding mental health support services etc.

Jakkass wrote: »

I do see the case for a humanist chaplain, but I don't see the case at all for removing the chaplaincy.

Because you could probably get counsellors for the same cost and because if you get a humanist chaplaincy then what about other view points?

Again, why do some chaplains need funding while others operate without getting paid?

nozzferrahhtoo

Jakkass, I know I have often accused people, possibly even yourself, of putting words in my mouth before. Actually it is a pet peev of mine and something I always launch into when I catch people doing it.

However you have reached a new height (low?) in this, having quoted a whole passage with my name on it above that I never once typed in my life.

Maybe you can have the decency to edit? After that maybe you can at least try and follow the conversations you presume to take part in closely enough to actually follow who is saying what to whom and when.

axer

prinz wrote: »

Storm in a teacup stuff, finding issues where there are none IMO. That a establishment includes a chaplain of one denomination is not the fault individual chaplain or the idea of chaplaincy themselves, that is something that the establishment needs to look at.

I agree there but the problem is these institutions are stuck in the past like most of Ireland and are still influenced by religious organisations and tradition. This is changing as is more and more evident by professors etc speaking out against the non-secular environment that exists in many educational institutions that are publicly funded.

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.

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. Why would I as an atheist go see a person whose job is to look after religious faiths about a personal issue? Why can't we have counsellors instead?

prinz wrote: »

The argument that there are services and parishes everywhere why are they needed in a IT or university? There are also counsellors, hospitals, sports clubs, pubs etc all over. Why does a university need them?

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?

prinz wrote: »

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

I think you are missing the point on purpose.

philologos

Apologies nozzferrahtoo, it was a genuine mistake that can be very easily made.

axer

Kooli wrote: »

Absolutely agree with you.

Chaplains provide pastoral care to any student who wants it. This is not what a society does, so a society isn't the alternative. Some students want to go to a staff member of the college, not another student.

Are you telling me that a counsellor cannot do this? I know you are a counsellor but is it not the job of a counsellor to support people through issues no matter how large or small? I understand that you may not have the time but a counsellor should be able to be the person that a student can talk to etc.

Kooli wrote: »

A staunch atheist may not use the service, but that does not mean that other non-religious students wouldn't use it. I don't agree with Jakkass that everyone who goes there goes for religious or spiritual guidance. I think people go for all sorts of reasons, often just for company or to feel like there is someone in college they know who they can talk to about stuff.

They are there fundamentally for spiritual guidance. They may have opened up to talking/helping others but fundamentally they are there to help those of their faith.

Kooli wrote: »

I think it's great that there is somewhere students can go for a cup of tea and a chat with someone who will listen and not judge. Yes, a counsellor can do that, but if you don't have a mental health issue, I see no reason to go to a mental health professional. The stigma of seeing a psychologist is there whether we like it or not, and for the majority of people in college, they don't need a psychologist anyway, they just need someone to talk to.

A counsellor is not a psychologist as I understand it and my understanding is that counsellors deal with more than just mental health issues.

Kooli wrote: »

This probably taps into a wider issue for me about what would replace religion in a purely secular society. And by 'religion' in this context I don't mean a belief in god, I mean a community space where anyone can go and get involved and get support and make links with people if they need it. The church has done this in the past, and has been a really positive place for people who are old, lonely, foreign, isolated, a bit 'strange', or anything that makes it hard for them to make connections in the regular channels. If it's gone, who is going to provide that service? Probably worthy of another thread, but it's something I've been wondering.

Who will spread the hate of other beliefs and convince suicide bombers to blow themselves up? There are two sides to religion - the good and the bad - and they come with each other.

philologos

axer wrote: »

Using funds on a chaplain means less funds available for more important things like funding mental health support services etc.

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.

axer

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.

Conselling is secular and caters for everyone, chaplaincy is not secular and claims to cater for everyone but fundamentally caters for those that share their beliefs since why else would the chaplain be from a specific religion.

Other than religious ceremonies etc I still do not see what a chaplain provides that a counsellor could not.

Mark Hamill

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

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

axer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.