College Chaplain

axer

Kooli wrote: »

I was waiting for this comparison to arise!!

The comparison is that many people think "ah, sure there is no harm in it" like you do in this case. If much needed funds are provided for the chaplaincy service then it can be concluded that less funds are available in the budget for other services. I suppose you disagree with that?

axer

Truley wrote: »

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.

"but sure whats the harm, no one was hurt" :rolleyes:

Truley wrote: »

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?

I don't. I asked here and all I have been able to find out is that in some colleges they are paid by the institution and in other colleges students are forced to pay for it via a type of taxation. I have no issue with them if the college is not funding them and if students are not being forced to fund them.

Truley wrote: »

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.

Apparently TCD and UCC directly fund a chaplain. Yes, a chaplaincy is treated as special as a result one can conclude that religion is treated extra specially - why is that? Surely a secular college would not provide extra funding for religious services or treat religion as being extra special.

Truley wrote: »

You are confusing real problems with ideological ones.

A real problem would be that less funds are available for other services unless of course the budget doesn't have a set amount available but I think most budgets do.

prinz

axer wrote: »

You missed the point. Chaplains provides religious services that includes a religious counselling service. A secular counsellor only provides a secular counselling service..

So what again is the issue with providing both? Why must they be mutually exclusive?

axer wrote: »

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.

Again, the services provided may vary depending on the institution.

axer wrote: »

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.

The difference is would I have cared if money from my taxes went to nominally fund an atheist office or some such.... not in the slightest. Again no one has provided any definitive answer to what student taxes/university resources go to pay for chaplaincy services, other than a place to have an office/light and heat etc.

prinz

axer wrote: »

I have no issue with them if the college is not funding them and if students are not being forced to fund them..

Shouldn't students then get an opt-out of anything receiving college funds that they are ideologically opposed to?

axer

prinz wrote: »

So what again is the issue with providing both? Why must they be mutually exclusive?

because secular counsellors provide the counselling service that chaplains provide from a religious point of view so the only things that a chaplain offer other than that are (from NUIG's chaplaincy website:

Daily Mass (lunchtime and evening, including Sunday)
Pastoral care
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 college funds and/or student taxation is being used to fund daily mass, guided prayer etc. How is that secular?

prinz wrote: »

Again, the services provided may vary depending on the institution.

They very well may be but I have asked people for a list but checking one of the main universities in this country gave me a list for at least that university and it seems to be mostly religious functions the chaplains are performing.

prinz wrote: »

The difference is would I have cared if money from my taxes went to nominally fund an atheist office or some such.... not in the slightest. Again no one has provided any definitive answer to what student taxes/university resources go to pay for chaplaincy services, other than a place to have an office/light and heat etc.

Apparently at least TCD fund their chaplain and someone has said that UCC do too so we have a good idea that at least some are being funded.

prinz

axer wrote: »

because secular counsellors provide the counselling service that chaplains provide from a religious point of view so the only things that a chaplain offer other than that are (from NUIG's chaplaincy website:.

What about people who want counselling from a religious point of view?

axer

prinz wrote: »

Shouldn't students then get an opt-out of anything receiving college funds that they are ideologically opposed to?

A college cannot claim to be secular when it funds a chaplaincy service. Maybe you do not want to see a secular Ireland but I do.

prinz

axer wrote: »

A college cannot claim to be secular when it funds a chaplaincy service.

You didn't answer the question.

axer wrote: »

Maybe you do not want to see a secular Ireland but I do.

You seem to have issues with the concept of secularity on this issue. This has been pointed out to you before.

Kooli

axer wrote: »

The comparison is that many people think "ah, sure there is no harm in it" like you do in this case. If much needed funds are provided for the chaplaincy service then it can be concluded that less funds are available in the budget for other services. I suppose you disagree with that?

You didn't respond to the rest of my post where I explained why the comparison didn't stand?

As someone who works in a university, the idea that if the chaplaincy was abolished the money would come to us in counselling is laughable. So yes, I am of the opinion that it 'does no harm'. I have been very open about that, and that not only does it do no harm, it actually does good for the students who use it. If the chaplaincy wasn't there, those students wouldn't get the help else where, because what they are looking for is not counselling!! You seem to be OK with that, which is fine, but I think we need to get a bit beyond shouting 'because it's not secular' as a reason to abolish it. To be honest it's as bad as the theists who just keep repeating 'cos the bible says so' as a response to their barmy beliefs. It comes across as dogmatic and fundamentalist. We can all recognise when religious beliefs in society do damage. But we should be able to recognise the other occasions when they don't.

'Because it's not secular' is not good enough. You haven't demonstrated what damage it's doing to students, society, anyone!

nozzferrahhtoo

Kooli wrote: »

We can all recognise when religious beliefs in society do damage. But we should be able to recognise the other occasions when they don't.

But „not doing damage“ simply is not a good enough argument for allocating Instritute expenses to it. Investing money in high paid puppeteers to do a daily "Punch and Judy" show in the college main entrance hall would likely "Not do any damage" too, but clearly it is a wanton and useless waste of college funds.

You seem to be presenting it above in the light of “If we did not spend the money on a chaplain, then the counsellors would hardly get that money”.

Well for a start, they could. Money saved on hiring a chaplain COULD be spent on hiring an extra counsellor.

However this is not the issue. It is not a case of “X or Y, and sure Y may as well get the cash cause X won’t”.

There are a HOST of expenses that such institutes have, and this pool of cash is quite limited. Not spending money you do not need to spend on a chaplain means that money is available for many other options, not just the counselling services. Go around, for example, half the colleges of Ireland and test their standards of wheelchair access and return to me and tell me the waste of money on Chaplains is "not damaging".

There is an onus on the administrators of these funds to allocate them in the best way for ALL concerned, and throwing it away on a chaplain merely because “ah sure he is not doing any damage there is he?” is simply not a justifiable reason for any expenditure.

Maybe indeed some students find a chaplain “useful” but just being “useful” is not good enough. More than half the student faculty would find an on site car mechanic “useful” but we do not have one of those do we?

This is OUR money, that gets invested through our Tax and our entrance and registration fees and we want to see a return on our investment and wise use of our investment.

Because OUR money is going into this we need to see it being spent on things that support the vested interest we have in those institutions… namely the education of our young. Successful education of our young involves maintaining their physical and mental health and so using College money to subsidise the careers of an onsite GP/Counsellor is very justifiable.

However I have seen nothing, literally nothing, to suggest that maintaining the spiritual whims of the student body is in any way conducive or influencial on the results students come out with.

I suggested a study to another user above. A simple three step study.

Step 1: Get a group of kids with mental issues, one with physical issues, and one completely healthy. Compare their results. ( I warrant you will find that health is a positive predictor of improved results on average)

Step 2: Get a group of Christians, muslims and atheists. Compare their results. ( I warrant you will find results on average very closely distributed across the groups )

Step 3: Compare the relative differences between the groups in (1) relative to the relative differences of the groups in (2) ( I warrant you will find investing in the physical and mental well being of students a MUCH higher predictor of results improving compared to investing in their spiritual whims).

Kooli

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But „not doing damage“ simply is not a good enough argument for allocating Instritute expenses to it.

Maybe indeed some students find a chaplain “useful” but just being “useful” is not good enough. More than half the student faculty would find an on site car mechanic “useful” but we do not have one of those do we?

'Not doing damage' is of course not a good enough argument for allocating expenses to it - why do you ignore where I categorically said I think they do good? I never said 'not doing damage' is the reason to allocate resources, so I won't defend a position I don't hold.

As has been repeated before, why are you not arguing against the other services that are only available to a minority of students, like the International support office, the disability services, the college psychiatrist, the creche?

If someone sees their mental and emotional health in spiritual terms, then a chaplain will be more use to them than a counsellor. If someone sees it in psychological terms, they will get much more benefit from a counsellor.
What's important is what is in the best interests of the students. And I think there is a significant portion of the college population who would do a lot worse without the chaplaincy. Do you disagree with that, or do you just not care?

zoomtard

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is OUR money, that gets invested through our Tax and our entrance and registration fees and we want to see a return on our investment and wise use of our investment.

Because OUR money is going into this we need to see it being spent on things that support the vested interest we have in those institutions… namely the education of our young.

I must say this again lest this storm in a teacup consume more unnecessary ram on the Boards.ie servers: the vast majority of 3rd level chaplaincy work done on this island is funded exclusively by the faith traditions themselves. Your premise is flawed. We can all calm down. Chaplaincy will not save the world but it is a useful bow to have in a pluralistic environment and an example of holistic approaches to education, which is actually what universities are for.

Mark Hamill

prinz wrote: »

Who's getting special treatment?

The religious students in school, who absolutely have to have a religious counsellor and not a secular one.

prinz wrote: »

:pac:

Got a point to make?

prinz wrote: »

Yes, indeed. Doesn't that present a problem then?

No. If we have secular counsellors who dont come with a religious bias, then we have someone with one less bias than the religious chaplain. Less bias is better, no?

prinz wrote: »

Then don't go to a chaplain. It really is that simple.

Ah, thats nice, a two fingered salute to those who arent the same religion. Good to see your true colours come out-" I dont give a **** about others as long as I'm happy".

prinz wrote: »

You are the one demanding that choice be removed.... which is it?

I'm the one demanding choice. By having a particular religion represented by the chaplain, you have taken away the choice for everyone else. By having a secular counsellor, everyone has teh choice to go him, and everyone can be helped or refered on.

prinz wrote: »

Yes. How dare a campus actually be reflective of society in general! The cheek...:rolleyes:

Campuses are not supposed to be reflective of society in general, they are supposed to educate and support students. If the churhc is charged rent the same as the pups and the shops on campus, then I have no problem, I doubt that is the case.

prinz wrote: »

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.

This is a secularism issue.

prinz wrote: »

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.

A secular counsellor will refer the student onto an appropiate spiritual advisor, while the RC chaplain will only be able to talk in terms of his/her own beliefs. Which do you think will be better for the student?

prinz wrote: »

Really? Where have a said that minority religions must look elsewhere? Where have I said non religious must look elsewhere for help?

And what do you espect nonreligious and differently religious to do if the college doesn't have a chaplain of agreeable religious beliefs?

prinz wrote: »

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?

Where is the university supposed to get the money for these different chaplains? Where is the office space to come from? Its clearly so much more reasonable to have a secular counsellor who can cater for everyone (and refer on to outside sources those who need it), but your own religious bias prevent you from seeing this

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

'Not doing damage' is of course not a good enough argument for allocating expenses to it - why do you ignore where I categorically said I think they do good?

1)What good do they do that an equivilent number of counsellors cant do?
2)Why should a secular college supply this good to students?

Kooli wrote: »

As has been repeated before, why are you not arguing against the other services that are only available to a minority of students, like the International support office, the disability services, the college psychiatrist, the creche?

They are secular.

Kooli wrote: »

If someone sees their mental and emotional health in spiritual terms, then a chaplain will be more use to them than a counsellor. If someone sees it in psychological terms, they will get much more benefit from a counsellor.

A secular counsellor can just refer them onto an outside chaplain then, whats the problem?

Kooli wrote: »

And I think there is a significant portion of the college population who would do a lot worse without the chaplaincy. Do you disagree with that, or do you just not care?

I disagree.

johnfás

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Kooli wrote: »

As has been repeated before, why are you not arguing against the other services that are only available to a minority of students, like the International support office, the disability services, the college psychiatrist, the creche?

They are secular.

So, in short, your point is that universities should be permitted to fund whatever they like, for as small a subset of the university population as required, so long as it is not to religious people. This being presumably based on a personal prejudice of sorts. It seems rather illogical though as somebody else can equally set themselves up with a tirade against team sports - participation in which is also a personal choice - and demand that funding for these is cut as well. The only difference being that you (presumably) quite like sports, but (presumably) don't like religion. Surely, if truly secularist, you should simply view the provision of services such as chaplaincy, which people can avail of on an optional basis and do not supercede any other form of provision for the wellbeing of students, as merely an example of a university providing services for a broad range of personal interests and preferences - all based on choice - in much the same way that they provide a sports centre.

Mark Hamill

prinz wrote: »

What about people who want counselling from a religious point of view?

What about people who want their counselling from a smoking hot nymphomaniac?

College cannot cater to every individual desire, so its better to cater for the most general one - a secular counsellor. Its financially better for the college to have (for instance) two counsellors who can see everyone, rather than eight chaplains, each of a different religion, to cover the different religions the religious students adhere to.
Secularism is better than the religiously biased alternative.

Mark Hamill

johnfás wrote: »

So, in short, your point is that universities should be permitted to fund whatever they like, for as small a subset of the university population as required, so long as it is not to religious people.

So long as they are secular, yes.

johnfás wrote: »

This being presumably based on a personal prejudice of sorts.

I am biased against anything this not secular.

johnfás wrote: »

It seems rather illogical though as somebody else can simply set themselves up with a tirade against team sports - participation in which is also a personal choice - and demand that funding for these is cut as well. The only difference being that you (presumably) quite like sports, but (presumably) don't like religion.

Funding that goes to sport clubs is directly based on the numbers participating. The more members, the more money they get from the college. Its why big clubs can run free/cheap classes, while smaller clubs usually need to charge.
Funding that goes to chaplaincies are not based on direct student usage. Every student has to pay for the chaplaincy (directly, like in UCC and indirectly, like in TCD), therefore it cannot be taken in the same context as the sports clubs.

johnfás

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Funding that goes to sport clubs is directly based on the numbers participating. The more members, the more money they get from the college. Its why big clubs can run free/cheap classes, while smaller clubs usually need to charge.
Funding that goes to chaplaincies are not based on direct student usage. Every student has to pay for the chaplaincy (directly, like in UCC and indirectly, like in TCD), therefore it cannot be taken in the same context as the sports clubs.

It would help if your statements were accurate. You are confusing two sources of funding here. You are correct that student societies (for example religious societies or debating societies) and sports clubs (for example a badminton club) receive funding from the university based on the numbers participating. However, universities provide largescale and expensive sporting infrastructure which facilitates those who have an interest in sport in exercising their interests. For example, multimillion euro sports halls. The provision of such facilities is not directly related to the numbers participating at any one time, as you imply. A great many students have no such interests yet all the same pay for these facilities, the use of which is a personal choice of those who do use them. In much the same way universities provide an infrastructure for those who, by personal choice, enjoy a spiritual dimension to their lives, by either facilitating or funding a chaplaincy department. You confuse two sources of funding and thus confuse two issues. You treat things as synonymous, which are quite clearly not (eg, funding to societies versus service provision, whether that is buildings or people).

Mark Hamill

johnfás wrote: »

However, universities provide largescale and expensive sporting infrastructure which facilitates those who have an interest in sport in exercising their interests. For example, multimillion euro sports halls. The provision of such facilities is not directly related to the numbers participating at any one time, as you imply. A great many students have no such interests yet all the same pay for these facilities, the use of which is a personal choice of those who do use them.

Why would universities possibly spend millions of euros on a infastructure that "a great many students" wouldn't use? Even aside from that spurious claim, multimillion sports halls can be a source of income for the university - with outside clubs and gyms paying rent.

johnfás wrote: »

In much the same way universities provide an infrastructure for those who, by personal choice, enjoy a spiritual dimension to their lives, by either facilitating or funding a chaplaincy department.

Which is wrong. Its anti secular. It precludes those that do not share the beliefs of those it doesn't share. Sports halls do not prevent non sport enthusiasts from enjoying their own hobbies, but a religious chaplain is going to preclude the non religious and the differently religious by virtue of their religion. You can avoid this with secular counsellors, who can do the same job as the chaplains but without the issues.

Zillah

Does it make my position more reasonable if it absolutely disgusts me that millions get spent on, say, soccer and basketball in colleges? I want to spend my time on paint balling and luge. Why do these soccer jerks get priority?

Well I suppose I'm in the minority and they couldn't possibly accomodate all sports in existence in a single facility, so it would be unreasonable of me to condemn the favouritism.


Of course, on the flipside, a single person can provide emotional support for people of all religions. Nor has any sport ever dominated society to the point where we felt the need to etablish laws forbidding it be mixed with government either.

zoomtard

Lads, comparing sports and faith demonstrates a disappointing confluence of internet atheist stereotypes.

As nerds, ye don't like sports and you know nothing about them and are confused as to why anyone could get passionate about them.

As non-believers you despise religion but don't really get any of them and are befuddled by the insistence of otherwise sound and smart people to get enraptured amidst them.

If I had more time I'd do a little indexed style venn diagram but it should suffice to say that this train has jumped off the rails. Chaplaincy is not discriminatory in practice or in theory and it isn't taking precious capitation funds from important things like the paintball soc, the FAI reps on campus or indeed the buying of comfy chairs for post-doc students' desks!

mikhail

zoomtard wrote: »

Lads, comparing sports and faith demonstrates a disappointing confluence of internet atheist stereotypes.

As nerds, ye don't like sports and you know nothing about them and are confused as to why anyone could get passionate about them.

As a former chairman of a football supporters club, I'm rather amused by your gross generalisations. I like to draw parallels between the kind of people who believe in the current manager absolutely, even if he's just lost four on the trot, and the kind of people who believe in the pronouncements of the Pope absolutely, even if he's just sent a squad of bishops to restore people's unquestioning obedience to priests shortly after identifying said characteristic as one of the causes of the whole child molestation crisis.

As non-believers you despise religion but don't really get any of them and are befuddled by the insistence of otherwise sound and smart people to get enraptured amidst them.

I don't despise religion. I think it's a stupid, cruel and dangerous holdover from an evolutionary selection for a pseudo-hive mentality.

If I had more time I'd do a little indexed style venn diagram but it should suffice to say that this train has jumped off the rails. Chaplaincy is not discriminatory in practice or in theory and it isn't taking precious capitation funds from important things like the paintball soc, the FAI reps on campus or indeed the buying of comfy chairs for post-doc students' desks!

As a postdoc, I can assure you that my ass is currently uncomfortable.

I'm glad to see that the justification for the Chaplaincy amounts to "what's a little more money wasted?"

zoomtard

mikhail wrote: »

As a postdoc, I can assure you that my ass is currently uncomfortable.

I'm glad to see that the justification for the Chaplaincy amounts to "what's a little more money wasted?"

Gross generalisations are easier to spot than failed attempts at humour. I chose the chair illustration because I actually know that it is a real problem to get funding for good furniture for research students, which when you have to spend 1000s of hours sitting reading is a big deal.

I can justify chaplaincy, I think (although I am not without my suspicions) but I haven't been asked to. I don't know why I would have to in this forum seeing as the little resources that are dedicated to this part of my work is sourced entirely within one particular small Presbyterian church.

That is really relevant in fact to my point. A small group of people provide a small amount of money for me to spend a small amount of my time being available to quite a large number of people who can call on me should they ever need me. This is how chaplaincy actually functions in Ireland. It is not a bias or a threat, especially since I know for sure that humanist representatives, were they properly credentialled, would be warmly welcomed. The premise of funds being diverted to religious purposes is largely bogus and the premise of a general cultural bias is bogus.

That having been said, if anyone in either Maynooth campus ever wants a coffee, a chat and a surprise baptism as you walk away, feel free to send me an email.

Truley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So long as they are secular, yes.

I am biased against anything this not secular.

So your issue isn't about money or resources at all, it's your dislike of religon. Even though I've already expained how funding religous services doesn't compromise the secularism of an institution. Why don't you just accept it as that rather than making claims of misspent funding when you don't have a clue about what you are talking about. Nobody here has been able to provide facts, stats or reports of any kind to back up their claims that chaplains eat into college wealth.

Zillah

zoomtard wrote: »

Gross generalisations are easier to spot than failed attempts at humour. I chose the chair illustration because I actually know that it is a real problem to get funding for good furniture for research students, which when you have to spend 1000s of hours sitting reading is a big deal.

I can justify chaplaincy, I think (although I am not without my suspicions) but I haven't been asked to. I don't know why I would have to in this forum seeing as the little resources that are dedicated to this part of my work is sourced entirely within one particular small Presbyterian church.

That is really relevant in fact to my point. A small group of people provide a small amount of money for me to spend a small amount of my time being available to quite a large number of people who can call on me should they ever need me. This is how chaplaincy actually functions in Ireland. It is not a bias or a threat, especially since I know for sure that humanist representatives, were they properly credentialled, would be warmly welcomed. The premise of funds being diverted to religious purposes is largely bogus and the premise of a general cultural bias is bogus.

That having been said, if anyone in either Maynooth campus ever wants a coffee, a chat and a surprise baptism as you walk away, feel free to send me an email.

No one has a problem with a Chaplain volunteering his time. We're talking about using college funds. Which basically means what you've said has nothing to do with the conversation.

zoomtard

Zillah wrote: »

No one has a problem with a Chaplain volunteering his time. We're talking about using college funds. Which basically means what you've said has nothing to do with the conversation.

What colleges pay chaplains?

Zillah

zoomtard wrote: »

What colleges pay chaplains?

I had assumed some of them were being employed. If that is not the case then I couldn't give a flying fuck. Let the students have their Imams and joo-joo beads or whatever quackery they like as long as college resources aren't going on it.

zoomtard

Zillah wrote: »

Which basically means what you've said has nothing to do with the conversation.

Zoomtard at 21.41 yesterday wrote:

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

Someone else has said that UCC's is funded by the college and I will check that up next time we all get together to plan ways to force our beliefs down the throats of unsuspecting students but I can say that for the very large part, across the island, chaplaincies do not draw (and need not draw!) from college funds.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kooli wrote: »

why do you ignore where I categorically said I think they do good?

I ignore it because it is not backed up. I am not interested in WHAT you think but why you think it. Merely saying you think they do good, does not mean they magically are.

I see no “good” being done by them and what little “good” I can imagine they might be doing could just as easily be achieved by the standard counsellor having a good list of pamphlets, phone numbers and referral targets to refer kids on to people externally who can provide services.

In fact, better to have a counsellor who knows how to refer on Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Wiccans and more, than have a single chaplain, trained specifically in one particular religion.

We do not need a representative for every minority or random whim that every student might have when a single knowledgeable person who knows how to refer students on successfully to external sources for things that are NOTHING to do with college or study there. As I said, we do not have an on site car mechanic, or a representative from the automotive industry to advise children on their investment in used cars that they require during their studies.

What “good” are they doing that could not be just as easily, if not better (for the reasons I just listed amongst others) be achieved by a good central counselling point?

As has been repeated before, why are you not arguing against the other services that are only available to a minority of students, like the International support office, the disability services, the college psychiatrist, the creche?

Errr... because they are off the thread topic? Do you always assume that if someone is arguing about the topic at hand, that they are not therefore elsewhere arguing for or against anything else? Wow.

If someone sees their mental and emotional health in spiritual terms, then a chaplain will be more use to them than a counsellor.

It is not for us to cater to such whims. Maybe a large body of students “see” their “mental and emotional health” in terms of good access to alcohol or cars. In fact many do judging by how they act.

We do not automatically provide them with beer vouchers, subsidised bars, auto mechanics and representatives from the automotive industry because they have such whims.

In other words I do not CARE how they “see” it. I care what we can show to actually be true. And again I have suggested to you a study that can very well compare the return on our investments by comparing the results of students that have no issues, medical issues, mental issues and religious issues. If you find or perform such a study come back to me and we can examine it to see if spiritual guidance is in any way important to aid our vested interest in our education institutes and its students.

Until then, I have no interest in a student who “feels” they think they require something that there is no evidence at all that they do.

And I think there is a significant portion of the college population who would do a lot worse without the chaplaincy. Do you disagree with that, or do you just not care?

Again: says you. I care not what you "think" but why you think it and aside from saying it is what you think, you have offered no back up. What evidence at all is there that if all the chaplaincies were removed tomorrow and that money redirected to other things... that students would do "worse" let alone "a lot worse"? I see no reason whatsoever to think so and you have provided me none to work with.

And as I asked what possible benefit is there that you could list, that could not be equally achieved by a central counselling service that recognises the needs of students and can direct them to people who can help? Bearing in mind of course the Muslim student who has to choose between a college counselor and a Christian Chaplain. Do you provide such a chaplain for Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, and every religion that a student might need to “talk” about?

Or do you see no harm in a Muslim student needing help and realising that it is only the Christian religion that is catered for in his college? How must that feel to a person?

Of course not. You would do better to have a trained professional who recognises the needs of students and can then end a session with “What this sounds like is a job for Rabbi X, or the Muslim services on the Corner of X and Y… here are the numbers and addresses you need”.

nozzferrahhtoo

zoomtard wrote: »

I must say this again lest this storm in a teacup consume more unnecessary ram on the Boards.ie servers: the vast majority of 3rd level chaplaincy work done on this island is funded exclusively by the faith traditions themselves. Your premise is flawed. We can all calm down. Chaplaincy will not save the world but it is a useful bow to have in a pluralistic environment and an example of holistic approaches to education, which is actually what universities are for.

I address my words only to the cases where resources ARE siphoned into such things, or where people want resources to be in the future.

If however someone is providing such a service for free, then you are right, I have no issue with this and you can assume nothing I have been saying is directed towards this AT ALL.

However remember, I am not just talking about money being used to pay their salaries. Setting up an office for anything, including a chaplain doing volunteer work, requires resources of many kinds. Office space. Desks. Computers. Power. Insurance while on the job. Resources dedicated to informing the students of the service. I could go on at length about the costs but suffice to say that if anyone thinks it is merely the “wages” we are talking about is being naïve.

If however you can offer a 100% costless service that does not affect the limited pool of resources that our colleges and universities have to work with every day then you are 100% right, there is no issue here. I do not think this is the reality however.

prinz

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The religious students in school, who absolutely have to have a religious counsellor and not a secular one..

Aren't you demanding a removal of chaplains because you are not religious? What's the difference. BTW I don't think anyone has said the religious students "have to have" a religious counsellor. We are discussing a service which is already being provided. It's up to the people who want that service discontinued to prove their case tbh.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Got a point to make?

At this stage I'm running out. I don't plan on descending to the farcical tbh, so it's better not to comment.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No. If we have secular counsellors who dont come with a religious bias, then we have someone with one less bias than the religious chaplain. Less bias is better, no?

....and yet again we come to the question of how do we know a secular counsellor is not biased? On religion, or anything else for that matter? It also raises the point that you haven't backed up any of the claims that chaplains of whatever religious persuasion act on a partisan basis.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ah, thats nice, a two fingered salute to those who arent the same religion. Good to see your true colours come out-" I dont give a **** about others as long as I'm happy".

Lmao, the irony. Btw you asked what about people who don't want to see a chaplain. The simple answer is this, no one is forcing people to see anyone they don't want to. :roll eyes: Oh yes that's a two fingered salute alright. Hilarious.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm the one demanding choice. By having a particular religion represented by the chaplain, you have taken away the choice for everyone else..

No, you are demanding a removal of a choice which is already present... you are forgetting that the choice for "everyone else" is still there. Ignoring the blatantly obvious fact that a chaplain of a particular religion is not restricted to pastoral care of adherents to that particular religion.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

By having a secular counsellor, everyone has teh choice to go him, and everyone can be helped or refered on.

Yes, once again, this isn't an either/or scenario. I don't know why it is being continually presented as such. Oh wait I do..... building up windmills. :rolleyes:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Campuses are not supposed to be reflective of society in general, they are supposed to educate and support students..

Actually most campuses strive to create a community 'on campus' which reflects society at large. Shops, pubs, banks, pharmacies, sports clubs, societies, political parties etc etc. Interesting that you should mention support though.... unless of course it means support of a faith kind.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If the churhc is charged rent the same as the pups and the shops on campus, then I have no problem, I doubt that is the case.

What about a campus that does not have a church?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This is a secularism issue.

Actually it's not. Even in a secular society religions and the religious still exist. They still have a role to play.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

A secular counsellor will refer the student onto an appropiate spiritual advisor, while the RC chaplain will only be able to talk in terms of his/her own beliefs. Which do you think will be better for the student?

And a "RC chaplain", (again assuming a chaplain to be RC - I wonder why), will be able to refer the student on to the college counsellor if needs be. Complementary services. If a student wishes to see a chaplain to talk in terms of their own beliefs then I believe having that service available is best for that student. If a student wishes to see a secular counsellor then I believe that having that service is best for that student. No need for mutual exclusivity.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And what do you espect nonreligious and differently religious to do if the college doesn't have a chaplain of agreeable religious beliefs?

Once again are you claiming that all chaplains act in an impartial manner to students? Any back up to this? Any records of chaplains turning people away based on religion? Once again having a chaplain does not preclude providing other counselling services no matter how much you try to convince yourself that that is the case to suit your own agenda.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

..but your own religious bias prevent you from seeing this

Back into the farcical zone. I wonder what bias are the atheists who have no issue with chaplains blinded by?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What about people who want their counselling from a smoking hot nymphomaniac?

Well if enough of them get together off you go and lobby the university.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

College cannot cater to every individual desire, so its better to cater for the most general one - a secular counsellor.

It's not about catering for every individual desire. Colleges cannot cater for every individual sporting desire either. Or every individual language desire. Or every individual etc etc. Does that mean they take a one size fits all policy? Or does it mean that they try to accomodate as many as is reasonably possible?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its financially better for the college to have (for instance) two counsellors who can see everyone, rather than eight chaplains, each of a different religion, to cover the different religions the religious students adhere to.

Again it's not strictly about each chaplain representing their own religion. Of course one again above you have fallen into the parallel universe where it must be counsellors or chaplains.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Secularism is better than the religiously biased alternative.

In general I'd agree with you. In this instance your definition is flawed IMO.

Truley

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However remember, I am not just talking about money being used to pay their salaries. Setting up an office for anything, including a chaplain doing volunteer work, requires resources of many kinds. Office space. Desks. Computers. Power. Insurance while on the job. Resources dedicated to informing the students of the service. I could go on at length about the costs but suffice to say that if anyone thinks it is merely the “wages” we are talking about is being naïve.

Seems like you're coming from the After Hours school of economics, 'If we didn't pay for this asylum centre we would have a hospital by now'

On the subject of money, can anyone here have any knowelge of how much a Chaplain costs, or is it all speculation?

Mark Hamill

zoomtard wrote: »

What colleges pay chaplains?

TCD (who pay them themselves) and UCC (who take funds from student fees). I havent yet seen anything about the other colleges to indicate what they do.

Mark Hamill

Truley wrote: »

So your issue isn't about money or resources at all, it's your dislike of religon.

Its about both.

Truley wrote: »

Even though I've already expained how funding religous services doesn't compromise the secularism of an institution.

If that religious servise is treated and funded like any other service on campus, then no it doesn't compromise the secularism. But so far we have seen two of the biggest colleges in ireland (UCC and TCD) give government money or student taxes directly to a religious service that could be given to a more beneficial secualr alternative.

Truley wrote: »

Why don't you just accept it as that rather than making claims of misspent funding when you don't have a clue about what you are talking about. Nobody here has been able to provide facts, stats or reports of any kind to back up their claims that chaplains eat into college wealth.

We have seen in this thread that TCD fund their own chaplains and UCC take funding from student fees for them.

Mark Hamill

zoomtard wrote: »

Someone else has said that UCC's is funded by the college and I will check that up next time we all get together to plan ways to force our beliefs down the throats of unsuspecting students but I can say that for the very large part, across the island, chaplaincies do not draw (and need not draw!) from college funds.

Wait now, it is "forcing your beliefs down someones throat" when you dont want to force them to go to a specifically religious chaplain?

johnfás

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its about both.

So, in short, it is moreo about your personal bias than any "bias", which you have thus far been unable to define, on the part of a university.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If that religious servise is treated and funded like any other service on campus, then no it doesn't compromise the secularism. But so far we have seen two of the biggest colleges in ireland (UCC and TCD) give government money or student taxes directly to a religious service that could be given to a more beneficial secualr alternative.

The fact that UCC and TCD fund chaplaincy services (which has not been confirmed by either institution in any case) does not mean that it is not treated like any other service on campus. Quite clearly it is treated like any other service as I, having attended several academic institutions in the State, have not noticed any additional lavishness on the part of the chaplaincy department as compared to any other service on campus.

It seems that you equate the simple funding of such services as treating and funding a service differently to other services, which is patent nonsense. There is a demand for chaplaincy on campus, so it is funded, just like any other service funded on campus. Your equating this with provision for student societies simply demonstrates a misunderstanding of how a university works. We don't fund sporting infrastructure, medical support, disability support, extra language classes, access programmes, counselling, or any other service provided by a university on the basis of the number of students signing up for student societies either - so why would religious provision be funded on that basis? The reality is that you are not arguing for religious interests to be treated the same as any other interest (which would be a demonstration of secularism) but rather that it should be treated as second rate or superfluous, which is merely your own mini theocracy.

equivariant

I do think that the whole funding issue here is a bit of a red herring. I think that most colleges would probably fund non religious analogues of chaplains anyway. IMO, the real issue is the abdication of responsibility to religious figures when it comes to matters of emotional and psychological support. Universities and ITs (as supposedly bastions of free thinking and rationality) should be leading the way in demonstrating that these matters have no intrinsic connection to religion. There is of course nothing wrong with having a priest in the role of mentor/supporter/counsellor. However, he should not acquire or have special access to that role merely because of his ordination.
It is yet another example in Irish society of undue deference to religious authority in matters in which they can claim no special expertise.

johnfás

equivariant wrote: »

I do think that the whole funding issue here is a bit of a red herring. I think that most colleges would probably fund non religious analogues of chaplains anyway. IMO, the real issue is the abdication of responsibility to religious figures when it comes to matters of emotional and psychological support. Universities and ITs (as supposedly bastions of free thinking and rationality) should be leading the way in demonstrating that these matters have no intrinsic connection to religion. There is of course nothing wrong with having a priest in the role of mentor/supporter/counsellor. However, he should not acquire or have special access to that role merely because of his ordination.
It is yet another example in Irish society of undue deference to religious authority in matters in which they can claim no special expertise.

All universities provide other avenues of emotional support. Surely, as a bastion of free thinking, a university should simply provide the infrastructure to enable students to seek their own way, where it is reasonable to provide such infrastructure. The very fact that a chaplaincy service exists does not mean that one need partake in it and it does not exist as a replacement for any other form of support - it is quite apparent that universities provide an array of different supports from which students may pick and choose. There is absolutely no doubt, as Zoomtard outlined above, that for example, a humanist chaplain, would also be welcomed on campus to provide any support if such a demand were demonstrated to exist on behalf of students and a means of ensuring accountability and certification were put in place. The provision of such services is not inconsistent with the vision you outline for a university above.

Mark Hamill

prinz wrote: »

Aren't you demanding a removal of chaplains because you are not religious? What's the difference. BTW I don't think anyone has said the religious students "have to have" a religious counsellor. We are discussing a service which is already being provided. It's up to the people who want that service discontinued to prove their case tbh.

I am demanding a removal of chaplains because it isn't secular to have chaplains of a specific religion being paid by university funds. If a chaplain is volunteering his/her time for free, then I have no issue, but this is not the case in UCC and TCD (at least).

prinz wrote: »

....and yet again we come to the question of how do we know a secular counsellor is not biased? On religion, or anything else for that matter?

Because that is what secular means? You know what it means right? To be secular is to have a seperation of state and religion-to not have the state show favouritism to religion. A specifically secular counsellor will not show religious bias and therefore, assuming all else is equal between counsellors and chaplains (a big assumption) will have at least one less bias than a religious chaplain.

prinz wrote: »

It also raises the point that you haven't backed up any of the claims that chaplains of whatever religious persuasion act on a partisan basis.

Because they are religious, the nature of their responsibilities are religious and they have this job on the basis of their religion, therefore they dont need to. If religion wasn't a bif part of their job. then they wouldn't be labelled as roman catholic (for instance) chaplains, would they. they would just be chaplains, some of whom happen to roman catholic.

prinz wrote: »

Lmao, the irony. Btw you asked what about people who don't want to see a chaplain. The simple answer is this, no one is forcing people to see anyone they don't want to. :roll eyes: Oh yes that's a two fingered salute alright. Hilarious.

That is a two fingered salute. How come we cant just have a secular counsellor and tell the religious students that they dont have to see him/her if they dont want to? By having a secular counsellor, everyone can see him/her. Anyone wanting to to go a religious advisor can be refered onto one by the secular counsellor. But anyone who wants to see one is going to be more intimidated by a chaplain who declares his religion (hence why they might not want to). Seeing as chaplains give such important services to colleges, maybe we should make it easiest for the most people to see a counsellor when they might need to?

prinz wrote: »

No, you are demanding a removal of a choice which is already present... you are forgetting that the choice for "everyone else" is still there. Ignoring the blatantly obvious fact that a chaplain of a particular religion is not restricted to pastoral care of adherents to that particular religion.

No, by having a chaplain of a particular religion you have made the choice for the students. That chaplain may be not be restricted to pastoral care of a paticular religion, but that doesnt ean that members of other religions will even be happy to approach him, if they even consider approaching him in the first place.

prinz wrote: »

Yes, once again, this isn't an either/or scenario. I don't know why it is being continually presented as such. Oh wait I do..... building up windmills. :rolleyes:

When we have colleges using their severly limited funds, then yes it becomes an either/or issue.

prinz wrote: »

Actually most campuses strive to create a community 'on campus' which reflects society at large. Shops, pubs, banks, pharmacies, sports clubs, societies, political parties etc etc. Interesting that you should mention support though.... unless of course it means support of a faith kind.

And do campuses fund car mechanics for students who need automotive support? Representatives of specific political parties for students who want political support? Representatives of the vintners associate for students who want drinking support? If campuses treat religious advisors like any example you gave here - pups, shops, clubs- then I have no issue. The problem is when campuses give unfair benefits to religion. This is anti secular.

prinz wrote: »

What about a campus that does not have a church?

What about it?

prinz wrote: »

Actually it's not. Even in a secular society religions and the religious still exist. They still have a role to play.

Its asecular issue because in a secular society religions are not given special treatment over any other club. Paid chaplains are special treatment for religions.

prinz wrote: »

And a "RC chaplain", (again assuming a chaplain to be RC - I wonder why),

I gave an example of an RC chaplain not being much used to a jewish student. It was an example, not an assumption. Where you not paying attention?

prinz wrote: »

will be able to refer the student on to the college counsellor if needs be. Complementary services. If a student wishes to see a chaplain to talk in terms of their own beliefs then I believe having that service available is best for that student. If a student wishes to see a secular counsellor then I believe that having that service is best for that student. No need for mutual exclusivity.

There are two issue with this. Firstly, if the chaplain is volunteering then I have no problem, bus is not the case in at least two large universities. Secondly it is the issue of first choice. Secondly (in addition to the issue being ok) if both doors are open (counsellor and chaplain) and the student has the option to see whichever he likes first then this is ok, but if its a case that students as a matter of fact have to see the religious chaplain before they can be refered to the counsellor, then I would have a problem with that.

prinz wrote: »

Once again are you claiming that all chaplains act in an impartial manner to students? Any back up to this? Any records of chaplains turning people away based on religion? Once again having a chaplain does not preclude providing other counselling services no matter how much you try to convince yourself that that is the case to suit your own agenda.

Its not just wether the chaplains can control their own predjudices, its the precieved predjudices. A gay student will not be particularly inclined to go to a chaplain if he thinks the chaplain is going to be predjudiced against (regardless of wether the chaplain would be or not), ands that even if it occurs to the student they could go to the chaplain (it may just be a non choice to the student -they just can concieve of going). This is also possible for students of sufficiently different religous beliefs to the chaplain ("how could a muslim chaplain even understand my jewish issues").

prinz wrote: »

Back into the farcical zone. I wonder what bias are the atheists who have no issue with chaplains blinded by?

I have no idea.

prinz wrote: »

Well if enough of them get together off you go and lobby the university.

And they would be laughed at and told, matter of factly, "just because people want somethin, doesn't mean they get it". But look at the stink kicked up when we turn that concept on religion.

prinz wrote: »

It's not about catering for every individual desire. Colleges cannot cater for every individual sporting desire either. Or every individual language desire. Or every individual etc etc. Does that mean they take a one size fits all policy? Or does it mean that they try to accomodate as many as is reasonably possible?

Why is so hard for you to see that, in this case, one size fits all actually does accomodate as much as is reasonable possible, as this one size, can change to be whatever anyone needs it to be.

prinz wrote: »

In general I'd agree with you. In this instance your definition is flawed IMO.

Secularism = seperation of church and state. A college using government money (or student taxes, which is essentially the same thing) to biasly fund a religious initiative is not secular.

johnfás

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because that is what secular means? You know what it means right? To be secular is to have a seperation of state and religion-to not have the state show favouritism to religion.

In what sense is providing for a chaplaincy service showing favouritism to religion? This is where your argument for bias entirely fails. Simply providing a service, where a body of students benefit from that service, is not showing favouritism. No more than providing a sports centre is showing favouritism for those interested in sport. It is simply a response to the needs/desires/interests of the student body. Favouritism is a comparative concept - you need to (and have not) demonstrate what apparent favouritism to religion which arises on foot of providing a chaplaincy service arises against. It is quite clear that a secular alternative is provided, therefore, where is the favouritism?

Given that, for example, UCD has 13 student advisors and 4 chaplains, it is quite clear that the system favours the secular alternative in giving student support. That is natural, given that more people wish to avail of that facility than chaplaincy. Simply providing a religious alternative for those who wish to avail of it is favouring students, not religion, and it does not demonstrate favouritism of any type. You are throwing these words about but neither defining them nor applying them to the situation at hand.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, by having a chaplain of a particular religion you have made the choice for the students. That chaplain may be not be restricted to pastoral care of a paticular religion, but that doesnt ean that members of other religions will even be happy to approach him, if they even consider approaching him in the first place.

Again, this is a ridiculous statement which intentionally ignores the reality of the situation. There has been no choice made for a student - there are an array of services (some religious, some not) provided which a student may individually pick from depending on their own personal needs. In much the same way that stocking a mars bar does not make the choice for a consumer in a shop, in the context of there being a great many other chocolate bars available. As stated above, any other organisation is quite welcome to petition to bring an even greater array of support services to a university and where a demand can be demonstrated, and an accountability and certification mechanism ensured, then they would be welcomed.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And do campuses fund car mechanics for students who need automotive support? Representatives of specific political parties for students who want political support? Representatives of the vintners associate for students who want drinking support? If campuses treat religious advisors like any example you gave here - pups, shops, clubs- then I have no issue. The problem is when campuses give unfair benefits to religion. This is anti secular.

Many universities have on campus hair dressers, bicycle repair shops and STD clinics. Engaging in risky sexual activity is a choice and one which I do not engage in, yet I fund services for those that do. Presumably this is a favouritism towards those who engage in risky sexual activity? Where is my refund, why don't they take their diseases off campus and work it out themselves? That isn't how a community works, you see.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its asecular issue because in a secular society religions are not given special treatment over any other club. Paid chaplains are special treatment for religions.

Agains, how is funding, for instance a religious chaplain (where it has not actually been confirmed that any do other than hearsay on a message board) favouring a religion? It clearly isn't. It is favouring students who wish to partake in the service that it provides - in much the same way that paying the receptionist at the sports centre favours students who need access to the sports centre.

Truley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its about both.

I don't think so, I think you are using the funding argument to justify your ideological bias. In fact you have no idea about what a chaplain does, who uses the services, how he/she is funded, whether it costs a university at all. It's a very weak argument.

I am biased against anything this not secular religious

How does that sound? Whats the difference between the athiestic bias you hold and the religous bias a Chaplain holds? You want your to be imposed on everyone else. The chaplain doesn't.

If that religious servise is treated and funded like any other service on campus, then no it doesn't compromise the secularism. But so far we have seen two of the biggest colleges in ireland (UCC and TCD) give government money or student taxes directly to a religious service that could be given to a more beneficial secualr alternative.

And secular alternatives are provided. So that isn't really the issue is it. If the issue was money then why not get rid of the services students don't want or need first and foremost. Why is a chaplaincy and a counselling service mutually exclusive? What about the women's officer, poster budgets, SU karakoe machine, class rep weekends?

What are student taxes anyway?

We have seen in this thread that TCD fund their own chaplains and UCC take funding from student fees for them.

One poster made that claim, nobody has been able to confirm it. It's a pretty ambigious source to form such a strong opinion from.

Secondly (in addition to the issue being ok) if both doors are open (counsellor and chaplain) and the student has the option to see whichever he likes first then this is ok, but if its a case that students as a matter of fact have to see the religious chaplain before they can be refered to the counsellor, then I would have a problem with that.

That has nothing to do with the chaplaincy. If a student wants to avail of counselling services he/she must first be referred by either of the following; Doctor, Nurse, Student Advisor, Welfare Officer, College Chaplain. Or they can stop at either of these specific port of calls and be satisfied and never want/need to see a counsellor. As I said before, chaplaincy is not an alternative to the Mental Health service, it broadens and compliments it.

Mark Hamill

johnfás wrote: »

So, in short, it is moreo about your personal bias than any "bias", which you have thus far been unable to define, on the part of a university.

Woah man, dont reach so hard, you'll dislocate your shoulder. I just said the issue is both about funding and secularism.

johnfás wrote: »

The fact that UCC and TCD fund chaplaincy services (which has not been confirmed by either institution in any case) does not mean that it is not treated like any other service on campus.

Services come in two categories. College run services (sports clubs, college clinics etc) which are funded accoridng to usage and outside services (pups, shops) which would pay rent to the university. Religious chaplains are treated like neither of these services. Money is given without alternative, more efficient, possibilities examined.

johnfás wrote: »

Quite clearly it is treated like any other service as I, having attended several academic institutions in the State, have not noticed any additional lavishness on the part of the chaplaincy department as compared to any other service on campus.

What does your being in the states have anything to do with chaplaincies here?

johnfás wrote: »

It seems that you equate the simple funding of such services as treating and funding a service differently to other services, which is patent nonsense. There is a demand for chaplaincy on campus, so it is funded, just like any other service funded on campus.

But its not funded like any other service on campus. Any other service on campus would be cost benefit analysed . A college wouldn't have (lets say) one huge carpark on campus beside the main accomadation building, simply because that benefits a large number of students, not when having several smaller car parks around campus would benefit everyone.

johnfás wrote: »

Your equating this with provision for student societies simply demonstrates a misunderstanding of how a university works. We don't fund sporting infrastructure, medical support, disability support, extra language classes, access programmes, counselling, or any other service provided by a university on the basis of the number of students signing up for student societies either - so why would religious provision be funded on that basis?

Eh, yes we do. The money going to these services is dependent on the numbers using them (there would be a minimum to keep them open regardless, but the more people using things like medical support would result in more funds to help it cope).

johnfás wrote: »

The reality is that you are not arguing for religious interests to be treated the same as any other interest (which would be a demonstration of secularism) but rather that it should be treated as second rate or superfluous, which is merely your own mini theocracy.

Complete bs, man. Read my posts. I have no problem with chaplaincies of they are not being funded, or if they are being funded equal to their status (on the lines of a sports club), this is not happening in at least two universities in ireland.

prinz

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I am demanding a removal of chaplains because it isn't secular to have chaplains of a specific religion being paid by university funds. If a chaplain is volunteering his/her time for free, then I have no issue, but this is not the case in UCC and TCD (at least).

So you only support the removal of chaplains that are being recompensed then right? I mean if they are volunteering their time you don't have any issue with a university having a designated chaplain?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because that is what secular means? You know what it means right?

Yes I do.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Because they are religious, the nature of their responsibilities are religious and they have this job on the basis of their religion, therefore they dont need to. If religion wasn't a bif part of their job. then they wouldn't be labelled as roman catholic (for instance) chaplains, would they. they would just be chaplains, some of whom happen to roman catholic.

A chaplain is a chaplain. Whatever their own religious denomination is largely irrelevant.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That is a two fingered salute. How come we cant just have a secular counsellor and tell the religious students that they dont have to see him/her if they dont want to?

How come we cant just have a secular counselling service and a chaplain available for religious students if needed that nobody else has to see if they don't want to?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

By having a secular counsellor, everyone can see him/her. Anyone wanting to to go a religious advisor can be refered onto one by the secular counsellor.

You keep reiterating how chaplaincy =/= counselling and yet you keep claiming that the services are interchangeable if you are religious. Why can't both services be provided?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But anyone who wants to see one is going to be more intimidated by a chaplain who declares his religion (hence why they might not want to).

Again......backup? Or just unsubstantiated blather?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Seeing as chaplains give such important services to colleges, maybe we should make it easiest for the most people to see a counsellor when they might need to?

My thoughts exactly. Which is why a chaplaincy service alongside adequate secular counselling services etc is preferable.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, by having a chaplain of a particular religion you have made the choice for the students. That chaplain may be not be restricted to pastoral care of a paticular religion, but that doesnt mean that members of other religions will even be happy to approach him, if they even consider approaching him in the first place.

(a) Simply rectified. The students lobby for a change of chaplain, and (b) nice of you to start speaking up for the religious students now :rolleyes:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

When we have colleges using their severly limited funds, then yes it becomes an either/or issue..

No, it doesn't. You are presenting a false choice in a desperate attempt to validate your position. Any examples where chaplaincy and secular counselling services have been in direct competition?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And do campuses fund car mechanics for students who need automotive support? Representatives of specific political parties for students who want political support? Representatives of the vintners associate for students who want drinking support?

The universities facilitate these yes. University clubs and societies, bars etc.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If campuses treat religious advisors like any example you gave here - pups, shops, clubs- then I have no issue. The problem is when campuses give unfair benefits to religion. This is anti secular.

Yet you still cannot actually give an example of an unfair benefit.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its asecular issue because in a secular society religions are not given special treatment over any other club. Paid chaplains are special treatment for religions.

Again we alledgedly have two instances of paid chaplains. Care to come up with a new argument on that one?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I gave an example of an RC chaplain not being much used to a jewish student. It was an example, not an assumption. Where you not paying attention?

But you failed to explain why not. Therefore I can only assume it is an assumption on your part.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There are two issue with this. Firstly, if the chaplain is volunteering then I have no problem, bus is not the case in at least two large universities. Secondly it is the issue of first choice. Secondly (in addition to the issue being ok) if both doors are open (counsellor and chaplain) and the student has the option to see whichever he likes first then this is ok, but if its a case that students as a matter of fact have to see the religious chaplain before they can be refered to the counsellor, then I would have a problem with that.

Seriously? Who has even hinted at the remotest possibility that a student must see a religious chaplain before being referred to a counsellor?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its not just wether the chaplains can control their own predjudices, its the precieved predjudices. A gay student will not be particularly inclined to go to a chaplain if he thinks the chaplain is going to be predjudiced against (regardless of wether the chaplain would be or not), ands that even if it occurs to the student they could go to the chaplain (it may just be a non choice to the student -they just can concieve of going). This is also possible for students of sufficiently different religous beliefs to the chaplain ("how could a muslim chaplain even understand my jewish issues")..

Is that reason enough to do away with the concept of chaplaincy?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And they would be laughed at and told, matter of factly, "just because people want somethin, doesn't mean they get it". But look at the stink kicked up when we turn that concept on religion..

Really, would they? Get enough people behind it and I wonder. Look at the stink kicked up when we turn that concept on atheists btw. Just because you don't want a chaplain, doesn't mean you get your way..

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why is so hard for you to see that, in this case, one size fits all actually does accomodate as much as is reasonable possible, as this one size, can change to be whatever anyone needs it to be...

It doesn't, and more often than not it cannot.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Secularism = seperation of church and state. A college using government money (or student taxes, which is essentially the same thing) to biasly fund a religious initiative is not secular.

Again what is the bias? If thge college has an atheist/humanist etc rep on an equal footing is it still bias?

johnfás

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But its not funded like any other service on campus. Any other service on campus would be cost benefit analysed . A college wouldn't have (lets say) one huge carpark on campus beside the main accomadation building, simply because that benefits a large number of students, not when having several smaller car parks around campus would benefit everyone.

Are we to assume that you work in university administration? If not, on what basis can you be so sure that the chaplaincy service is not analysed on the basis of cost benefit?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Complete bs, man. Read my posts. I have no problem with chaplaincies of they are not being funded, or if they are being funded equal to their status (on the lines of a sports club), this is not happening in at least two universities in ireland.

Again, you are simply conflating issues which are not synonymous. This seems to be your modus operandi when your arguments fail. Sports clubs and student societies are treated the same - they are funded on the basis of the number of students which sign up in Fresher's week with an additional grant specific to the activity in question (i.e. kayak club will be financially favoured despite small numbers because the costs of running such a club per member are greater than, for example, a debating society owing to equipment costs). This is quite different to the provision of student services by the university - which includes the funding of buildings and personnel. The two are simply not comparable.

Let us assume momentarily that they were the same. What you are suggesting is that the swimming pool should be filled in some years and then dug up again in other years depending on the number of people who sign up for the swimming club (which is a student club and entirely separate to the swimming pool which is a university provision). Equally, that a chaplain would be hired one year, depending on how many people tick a certain box, and then fired again the next year (including redundancy payments) depending on how many people tick another box. What you fail to realise of course is that students on entering university do tick such boxes and provision is made taking into account such boxes - which include whether one wishes, or indeed does not wish, to declare themselves a member of a religion.

prinz

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Complete bs, man. Read my posts. I have no problem with chaplaincies of they are not being funded, or if they are being funded equal to their status (on the lines of a sports club), this is not happening in at least two universities in ireland.

Just to clarify if the chaplain volunteers their service free of charge, and the university accepts them as official chaplain of the college etc that's ok with you?

Mark Hamill

johnfás wrote: »

In what sense is providing for a chaplaincy service showing favouritism to religion? This is where your argument for bias entirely fails. Simply providing a service, where a body of students benefit from that service, is not showing favouritism. No more than providing a sports centre is showing favouritism for those interested in sport. It is simply a response to the needs/desires/interests of the student body. Favouritism is a comparative concept - you need to (and have not) demonstrate what apparent favouritism to religion which arises on foot of providing a chaplaincy service arises against. It is quite clear that a secular alternative is provided, therefore, where is the favouritism?

When that service is funded unfairly compared to other services, or uneccessarily when alternative services are considered, then you have favouritism.

johnfás wrote: »

Again, this is a ridiculous statement which intentionally ignores the reality of the situation. There has been no choice made for a student - there are an array of services (some religious, some not) provided which a student may individually pick from depending on their own personal needs. In much the same way that stocking a mars bar does not make the choice for a consumer in a shop, in the context of there being a great many other chocolate bars available. As stated above, any other organisation is quite welcome to petition to bring an even greater array of support services to a university and where a demand can be demonstrated, and an accountability and certification mechanism ensured, then they would be welcomed.

Ok this hasn't addressed my point at all. Please try again.

johnfás wrote: »

Many universities have on campus hair dressers, bicycle repair shops and STD clinics. Engaging in risky sexual activity is a choice and one which I do not engage in, yet I fund services for those that do. Presumably this is a favouritism towards those who engage in risky sexual activity? Where is my refund, why don't they take their diseases off campus and work it out themselves? That isn't how a community works, you see.

Again this isn't addressing my points. I'm not dont support religious chaplains at all, I'm saying dont support them unfairly because its anti secular. Religious chaplains are a worse alternative to the secular alternative, even if you dont consider the dangers of pandering to peoples bs beliefs.

johnfás wrote: »

Agains, how is funding, for instance a religious chaplain (where it has not actually been confirmed that any do other than hearsay on a message board) favouring a religion? It clearly isn't. It is favouring students who wish to partake in the service that it provides - in much the same way that paying the receptionist at the sports centre favours students who need access to the sports centre.

Yet again, ignoring the examples which show how the funding is favouritism. If you aren't going to actually repsond to my points, I'm just going to have to ignore you, because you aren't responding to anything I've actually said.
This is the key issue you continuously ignore, :

Mark Hamill wrote:

Its not just wether the chaplains can control their own predjudices, its the precieved predjudices. A gay student will not be particularly inclined to go to a chaplain if he thinks the chaplain is going to be predjudiced against (regardless of wether the chaplain would be or not), ands that even if it occurs to the student they could go to the chaplain (it may just be a non choice to the student -they just can concieve of going). This is also possible for students of sufficiently different religous beliefs to the chaplain ("how could a muslim chaplain even understand my jewish issues").

This explains why secular alternatives are better to religious chaplains and shows how funding for them over the secular alternatives is favouritism.

prinz

Mark Hamill wrote: »

When that service is funded unfairly compared to other services, or uneccessarily when alternative services are considered, then you have favouritism.

Any proof of this? Or are you presenting it once again as a false choice?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Religious chaplains are a worse alternative to the secular alternative, even if you dont consider the dangers of pandering to peoples bs beliefs..

Brick wall time. There is no need to choose one alternative as opposed to the other. There is no either/or imperative.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This explains why secular alternatives are better to religious chaplains and shows how funding for them over the secular alternatives is favouritism.

It explains no such thing tbh.

Mark Hamill

Most of post boils down to these point, so I will respond to these part (for brevity)

prinz wrote: »

A chaplain is a chaplain. Whatever their own religious denomination is largely irrelevant.

And yet so much of their job is dependent on their religious affiliation. (look back at the list posted a while back of the ucd chaplains responsibilities, I dont think a muslim chaplain could do the christmas mass and the christian prayers)

prinz wrote: »

How come we cant just have a secular counselling service and a chaplain available for religious students if needed that nobody else has to see if they don't want to?

prinz wrote: »

You keep reiterating how chaplaincy =/= counselling and yet you keep claiming that the services are interchangeable if you are religious. Why can't both services be provided?

prinz wrote: »

No, it doesn't. You are presenting a false choice in a desperate attempt to validate your position. Any examples where chaplaincy and secular counselling services have been in direct competition?

Anywhere a chaplaincy gets funding, it is potentially in competition with counselling (tbh, its in competition with every service in a college). When funds are limited, it is better to pay for a counsellor who will be better for all the students. If a college has done has the funds and can dole them out properly (and has done that experiment nozferrathoo gave to show how chaplaincies can give useful support on the level of a counsellor,) then both can be used.

prinz wrote: »

Yet you still cannot actually give an example of an unfair benefit.

The funding itself is an unfair benefit.

prinz wrote: »

Seriously? Who has even hinted at the remotest possibility that a student must see a religious chaplain before being referred to a counsellor?

Just covering my bases.

prinz wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote:

Its not just wether the chaplains can control their own predjudices, its the precieved predjudices. A gay student will not be particularly inclined to go to a chaplain if he thinks the chaplain is going to be predjudiced against (regardless of wether the chaplain would be or not), ands that even if it occurs to the student they could go to the chaplain (it may just be a non choice to the student -they just can concieve of going). This is also possible for students of sufficiently different religous beliefs to the chaplain ("how could a muslim chaplain even understand my jewish issues")..

Is that reason enough to do away with the concept of chaplaincy?

So the secular alternative is better than the religious chaplain, but you cant say if that is reason to get rid of the chaplaincy

Mark Hamill

johnfás wrote: »

Are we to assume that you work in university administration? If not, on what basis can you be so sure that the chaplaincy service is not analysed on the basis of cost benefit?

I have explained repeatedly how the secular is better. Unless you can disprove my explanations, or unless you have the cost benefit analysis of a university showing how they decided the religious chaplain was better, then dont come back until you do.

johnfás wrote: »

Again, you are simply conflating issues which are not synonymous. This seems to be your modus operandi when your arguments fail. Sports clubs and student societies are treated the same - they are funded on the basis of the number of students which sign up in Fresher's week with an additional grant specific to the activity in question (i.e. kayak club will be financially favoured despite small numbers because the costs of running such a club per member are greater than, for example, a debating society owing to equipment costs). This is quite different to the provision of student services by the university - which includes the funding of buildings and personnel. The two are simply not comparable.

In what way are they actually different?

johnfás wrote: »

Let us assume momentarily that they were the same. What you are suggesting is that the swimming pool should be filled in some years and then dug up again in other years depending on the number of people who sign up for the swimming club (which is a student club and entirely separate to the swimming pool which is a university provision). Equally, that a chaplain would be hired one year, depending on how many people tick a certain box, and then fired again the next year (including redundancy payments) depending on how many people tick another box. What you fail to realise of course is that students on entering university do tick such boxes and provision is made taking into account such boxes - which include whether one wishes, or indeed does not wish, to declare themselves a member of a religion.

Yawn. Still not reading my posts.:

Mark HAmill wrote:

Eh, yes we do. The money going to these services is dependent on the numbers using them (there would be a minimum to keep them open regardless, but the more people using things like medical support would result in more funds to help it cope).

What I described is not at all what you are countering. Strawmanning seems to be your modus operandi when you have no argument.

Mark Hamill

prinz wrote: »

Any proof of this? Or are you presenting it once again as a false choice?


Brick wall time. There is no need to choose one alternative as opposed to the other. There is no either/or imperative.

Funding in universities is always limited, so in a way everything is in a state of either/or. You can have either a chaplain or more counsellors.

prinz wrote: »

It explains no such thing tbh.

And this is not even a rebuttal. Come back when you have something to say.