College Chaplain

prinz

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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)

I think you'll find that has more to do with the numbers involved, the social history of the country, the origins of the university itself. btw these types of prayers are in themselves largely non-denominational. See for example the recent commemoration event in the RHK. A number of representatives from the largest religious groups in the country gave a prayer/blessing. All were largely indistinguishable from each other. All has to do with the numbers involved tbh.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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.

But you already said the funding itself is an unfair benefit and that it is against the spirit if secularism. Now you are saying if enough funds are there the university can pay a chaplain?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The funding itself is an unfair benefit..

Still have failed to show why.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Just covering my bases...

By inventing ridiculously farcical hypotheticals? :rolleyes:

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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

I didn't say that. Once again you are confusing chaplaincy and counselling. Two different services. The fact that I never attending the uni health clinic in my time, was that reason enough for me to advocate getting rid of it?

prinz

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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..

Or you can have both and one less fancy fountain. Or you can switch paper suppliers and have more counsellors. Or you can reduce/reuse/recycle and cut costs, or you can blah blah blah You have not been able to back up this claim of direct compeititon in any way whatsoever.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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

I don't rebutt nonsense. I wouldn't waste my time.

Mark Hamill

prinz wrote: »

I think you'll find that has more to do with the numbers involved, the social history of the country, the origins of the university itself. btw these types of prayers are in themselves largely non-denominational. See for example the recent commemoration event in the RHK. A number of representatives from the largest religious groups in the country gave a prayer/blessing. All were largely indistinguishable from each other. All has to do with the numbers involved tbh.

Here is the list of services offered by the NUIG chaplain (i earlier refered to it as ucd, apologies):

* The chaplains at NUI Galway offer the following services: * Daily Mass (lunchtime and evening, including Sunday) * Pastoral care * Personal counselling and advisory service to students and staff * Sacrament of Reconciliation (confession) * Weddings of students, staff and graduates * Christmas Carol services for staff and students * Service of Remembrance for those who donate their bodies to medical science * A week of guided prayer each spring * Meditation class each Wednesday at 12 noon * Monthly Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament * Reunion Mass each June * Galway Order of Malta Christmas and summer Mass * Adult Confirmation for the Diocese of Galway * Diocesan annual Celebration of Religious Life

These are not non denominational services, at least 8 are specifically christian.

prinz wrote: »

I didn't say that. Once again you are confusing chaplaincy and counselling. Two different services.

The differences are just the religious services offered by the religious chaplain (and the superior support offered by the counsellor). There is no more fundamnetal need for a university to give religious support to a student than there is for a university to give automotive support.

prinz wrote: »

The fact that I never attending the uni health clinic in my time, was that reason enough for me to advocate getting rid of it?

You are still trying to bring in an issue of "I dont use it, so I shouldn't pay for it" even though I have never made that point. Stop being so deceitful and keep to the points I make.

Mark Hamill

prinz wrote: »

Or you can have both and one less fancy fountain. Or you can switch paper suppliers and have more counsellors. Or you can reduce/reuse/recycle and cut costs, or you can blah blah blah You have not been able to back up this claim of direct compeititon in any way whatsoever.

I just showed it you, and your examples actually back it up. Everything in college is in direct competition with each other. More money spent on arts supplies is money that could spent on science materials or sports equipment, its all money from the same source. Universities seem to recognise the need for support for students, hence they fund counsellors and chaplains. If they recognise that the support is emotional or psychological in nature, then the money is better spent on counsellors who will do a better job than religious chaplains. If they think the this emotional and psychological support should go to religious advisors then I have major issue, as places of learning have no business support such nonsense.

prinz wrote: »

I don't rebutt nonsense. I wouldn't waste my time.

Here is what I 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 him/her(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").

I will not respond to anything more you say until you respond to this. Soapboxing on this regard only serves to retard the discussion, if you cannot counter it, then keep silent.

prinz

Mark Hamill wrote: »

These are not non denominational services, at least 8 are specifically christian..

Ireland is a country in which various denominations of Christianity make up the vast majority of religiously minded folk. The horror. That one chaplain is RC or whatever does not preclude of course other chaplains of other denominations.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The differences are just the religious services offered by the religious chaplain (and the superior support offered by the counsellor). There is no more fundamnetal need for a university to give religious support to a student than there is for a university to give automotive support.

In your opinion. It's a service that is provided. That another service is not provided again does not negate the service that is.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You are still trying to bring in an issue of "I dont use it, so I shouldn't pay for it" even though I have never made that point. Stop being so deceitful and keep to the points I make

You have repeatedly made a point about funding.

prinz

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If they recognise that the support is emotional or psychological in nature, then the money is better spent on counsellors who will do a better job than religious chaplains..

Back up? Any evidence that people who use the services of chaplains would get a better service elsewhere? There are some issues I'd go to a chaplain with. There are other issues I'd go to a counsellor with. Do I think a counsellor would have done better with the issues I'd go to chaplain for help with? Er no, obviously not, or else I would have gone to a counsellor in the first place. Once again ideology is getting in the way of logic. Not to mention once again, confusing the two roles as synomous, which they aren't.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If they think the this emotional and psychological support should go to religious advisors then I have major issue, as places of learning have no business support such nonsense...

Do you think universities should provide religious studies classes if there is demand?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I will not respond to anything more you say until you respond to this....

It's a nonsensical argument against providing chaplaincy services. Basically you are saying some people wouldn't use it therefore it shouldn't be provided. Some people won't use STD clinics either, should they be abolished?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Soapboxing on this regard only serves to retard the discussion, if you cannot counter it, then keep silent.

You mean like "covering your bases" with hypothetical comical groundless arguments?

hivizman

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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.

I've been following this debate with great interest. Several years ago, I was working for a university-level institution in the UK, when the issue of whether to replace the college chaplain, who had moved on to another post, came up. I was a member of the working group set up to discuss the issue, and we did a sort of cost-benefit analysis.

This college had been established in the 1890s as an explicitly secular institution, but there had been a salaried college chaplain almost from the beginning (as far as we could tell, this was largely because having a chaplain was simply one of the things that universities of the time had, but it is interesting that having a chaplain was not seen as inconsistent with the secular ethos of the college).

The college put a lot of effort into the pastoral care of students, many of whom came from outside the UK. Students were encouraged to go to their personal tutors, to senior tutors in each department, to the Dean of Undergraduate Studies or the Dean of Graduate Studies, to the health service, and to counsellors for personal support. In addition, the chaplaincy offered personal support and counselling on top of providing religious services for those who wanted them. The chaplaincy consisted of one salaried chaplain (who had in practice always been Church of England), as well as a Roman Catholic priest who served in a local parish and was provided with an additional payment by the Roman Catholic Church to act as RC Chaplain in the college, two non-conformist ministers who were paid by their own churches, a local rabbi and a local imam. In addition to the salary costs of the one paid chaplain (whose salary was tied to the lowest point on the lecturer salary scale), there were accommodation and other overhead costs, which came to about 40% of the salary costs.

We considered the expense of appointing an additional counsellor, but the salary costs alone of this would have been well in excess of the cost of the chaplain's salary, and there would have been no significant saving in overheads.

The chaplaincy was able to demonstrate several cases each year where individual students had specifically sought out support from one of the chaplains, rather than from academic staff or the health or counselling services, for various personal reasons, and it was clear that this support had been of great help to certain individuals, the value of which to the college (in allowing the college to continue to receive fees from students who might otherwise have dropped out), let alone the personal value to the students, was well in excess of the cost of recruiting and paying a new full-time chaplain. We decided that having a chaplain helped to provide a distinctive student support service of value to the students and the college.

Now, this is an English case rather than directly relating to Irish universities and colleges, but it may be of some help in considering the cost-benefit issue of having a chaplaincy service.

Mark Hamill

prinz wrote: »

Ireland is a country in which various denominations of Christianity make up the vast majority of religiously minded folk. The horror. That one chaplain is RC or whatever does not preclude of course other chaplains of other denominations.

And a secular society does not make special provisions for any one religion, regardless of wether it is a majority. Its kinda the opposite of secular.

prinz wrote: »

In your opinion. It's a service that is provided. That another service is not provided again does not negate the service that is.

It calls into question why one is seen as fundamental and the other is not.

prinz wrote: »

You have repeatedly made a point about funding.

From a secular point of view- that teh funding should be spent secularly. I have never needed a counsellor but I dont think I should be excempt from paying from one as the college needs one.

Mark Hamill

prinz wrote: »

Back up? Any evidence that people who use the services of chaplains would get a better service elsewhere? There are some issues I'd go to a chaplain with. There are other issues I'd go to a counsellor with. Do I think a counsellor would have done better with the issues I'd go to chaplain for help with? Er no, obviously not, or else I would have gone to a counsellor in the first place. Once again ideology is getting in the way of logic. Not to mention once again, confusing the two roles as synomous, which they aren't.

Logic dictates that the best service is the one that most benefits the user, nothing states that they have to accept that this is the case.

prinz wrote: »

Do you think universities should provide religious studies classes if there is demand?

No more than I think universties should give out homeopathy degrees, just because there is demand.

prinz wrote: »

It's a nonsensical argument against providing chaplaincy services. Basically you are saying some people wouldn't use it therefore it shouldn't be provided. Some people won't use STD clinics either, should they be abolished?

I am saying its very nature precludes some people, so secular alternatives are more preferable.

Mark Hamill

hivizman wrote: »

The chaplaincy was able to demonstrate several cases each year where individual students had specifically sought out support from one of the chaplains, rather than from academic staff or the health or counselling services, for various personal reasons, and it was clear that this support had been of great help to certain individuals, the value of which to the college (in allowing the college to continue to receive fees from students who might otherwise have dropped out), let alone the personal value to the students, was well in excess of the cost of recruiting and paying a new full-time chaplain.

Firstly thanks for this information.
Now, there are one or two issues with this reasoning.
Firstly that several students specifically sought out the chaplaincy over other services and they felt helped after it all does not necessarily mean that the students where helped in any meaningful way. Thousands of people every week specifically seek out homeopthic treatments, and at the end will feel better, doesn't mean they gotten anything more than an empty sugar pill. You cannot say that the students wouldn't have gotten a better class of help from a real counsellor instead of the emotional placebo the chaplain provides.
Secondly, its always nice to see colleges cost/benefit analysing services in terms of how much money they can make from the students continuing their study, as opposed to what is most efficient in terms of the students best interests.

hivizman wrote: »

We decided that having a chaplain helped to provide a distinctive student support service of value to the students and the college.

I guarantee you would get a distinctive student support service if you replace all your chaplains with strippers. They could be payed from the tips from the students, and what with the massive influx of students you would get, think of the money you could make!

prinz

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And a secular society does not make special provisions for any one religion, regardless of wether it is a majority. Its kinda the opposite of secular..

It's making services available to students. Just like a secular society does not close down churches, deport priests, ministers, rabbis etc.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It calls into question why one is seen as fundamental and the other is not...

Expand on this? Do you believe that chaplaincy is seen as a fundamental requirement and counsellors as superfluous? Again a nonsense argument if that's the case.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

From a secular point of view- that teh funding should be spent secularly. I have never needed a counsellor but I dont think I should be excempt from paying from one as the college needs one.

..but you should be exempt from contributing for a chaplain even if a substantial number of students do need the service?

prinz

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I am saying its very nature precludes some people, so secular alternatives are more preferable.

STD/STi clinics precludes some people. Secular counsellors precludes people looking for advice on faith related issues etc. The Erasmus students office precludes some people. The Post Grads room precludes some people. The Engineering lab precludes some people... and so on.....

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Firstly that several students specifically sought out the chaplaincy over other services and they felt helped after it all does not necessarily mean that the students where helped in any meaningful way.

So now you are going to decide how someone else is best helped. Going to a secular counsellor does not guarantee being helped in any meaningful way either tbh.

..and so it descends as I feared into the farcical.

Mickeroo

This STI clinic comparison is ridiculous. It's not like someone is going to go to the chaplain after coming down with a bad case of catholicism because they didn't take the necessary precautions.

prinz

Mickeroo wrote: »

This STI clinic comparison is ridiculous. It's not like someone is going to go to the chaplain after coming down with a bad case of catholicism because they didn't take the necessary precautions.

Is it? Why must all students contribute to providing a service which will be used by only some? The comparison only seems ridiculous in that the original claim that because not everyone will use a chaplain providing the service is not needed is ridiculous.

johnfás

Mickeroo wrote: »

This STI clinic comparison is ridiculous. It's not like someone is going to go to the chaplain after coming down with a bad case of catholicism because they didn't take the necessary precautions.

The necessity to use an STI clinic follows not from generally arising health concerns but because of specific, and optional, behaviour on the part of individuals. Not all individuals engage in risky sexual activity but yet it is provided by a university for those who do. Is this a bias towards those who engage in risky sexual behaviour? Of course not, it is a response by the university which seeks to take students as they present themselves and provide a holistic set of services for the wellbeing of said students. In the same way students of a religious persuasion also have needs which can and are catered for.

Mickeroo

These are embarassing occasionally life threatening infections you're talking about. Wanting to go to confession is hardly in the same league imho.

For the record, I'm not against having the chaplain, I just find this particular comparison a bit ,well, silly.

Mark Hamill

prinz wrote: »

It's making services available to students. Just like a secular society does not close down churches, deport priests, ministers, rabbis etc.

It also does not give funding to them, matter of fact.

prinz wrote: »

Expand on this? Do you believe that chaplaincy is seen as a fundamental requirement and counsellors as superfluous?

That certainly seems to be the case. You haven't said that, if boiled down the choice, that the chaplaincy should be given up to keep the counsellor.

prinz wrote: »

..but you should be exempt from contributing for a chaplain even if a substantial number of students do need the service?

Yes, because a) their need is questionable (its really a "want", what they need is not religion) and b) its not secular.

Mark Hamill

prinz wrote: »

STD/STi clinics precludes some people. Secular counsellors precludes people looking for advice on faith related issues etc. The Erasmus students office precludes some people. The Post Grads room precludes some people. The Engineering lab precludes some people... and so on......

STD clinics preclude people who dont have a need to use them (the only people not willing to go, are those without std issues). Secular counsellors dont preclude anyone, people with religious issues can be unbiasedly refered on to religious advisors. Erasmus office/postgrad rooms and engineering labs preclude those who cant be helped by them (erasmus office cant help a new undergrad very much). Your arguments are getting pathetic.

prinz wrote: »

So now you are going to decide how someone else is best helped.

Yes I am. Just like I will decide that someone sick in bed is not best helped by an exorcism, even if they want it.

prinz wrote: »

Going to a secular counsellor does not guarantee being helped in any meaningful way either tbh.

You have a much better chance than if go and have your religious ego massaged be a chaplain.

prinz

Mark Hamill wrote: »

It also does not give funding to them, matter of fact.

...and? You still haven't shown that most chaplains are paid by the universities. So really you only have an issue with those that are...or you have issues with chaplains in general. You seem to swing back and forth.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That certainly seems to be the case.

It only seems that way to you tbh, because you are seeing everything through a prism of your own admitted biases.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You haven't said that, if boiled down the choice, that the chaplaincy should be given up to keep the counsellor.

Why should I? Has it ever been presented as an either/or choice? Any examples of this, or are you going to persist with this pointless line of reasoning that one must be accomodated at the expense of the other?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes, because a) their need is questionable (its really a "want", what they need is not religion) and b) its not secular.

(a) their need is questionable..to you. It's not questionable to many others, and (b) of course the service is not secular, but you have yet to demonstrate how the facilitation of a chaplaincy service affects the secular spirit of an institution.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

STD clinics preclude people who dont have a need to use them (the only people not willing to go, are those without std issues).

So how exactly do chaplains preclude people who are willing to go/need their services?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Secular counsellors dont preclude anyone, people with religious issues can be unbiasedly refered on to religious advisors.

Religious advisors where? Off campus? Why can't people who want to play GAA be unbiasedly referred to the local non-campus GAA club? Or why can't people who are afraid of having an STD be referred to a GP off campus?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Erasmus office/postgrad rooms and engineering labs preclude those who cant be helped by them (erasmus office cant help a new undergrad very much). Your arguments are getting pathetic.

Are they? I have yet to resort to "covering my bases" by throwing out ridiculously unfounded claims, nor repeating claims that you have yet to actually back up.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You have a much better chance than if go and have your religious ego massaged be a chaplain.

Really, so without even knowing what issue someone is troubled by you know who is best in a position to help? Got a newsletter by any chance? Something pathetic about all this alright. :rolleyes:

Truley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Firstly that several students specifically sought out the chaplaincy over other services and they felt helped after it all does not necessarily mean that the students where helped in any meaningful way. Thousands of people every week specifically seek out homeopthic treatments, and at the end will feel better, doesn't mean they gotten anything more than an empty sugar pill. You cannot say that the students wouldn't have gotten a better class of help from a real counsellor instead of the emotional placebo the chaplain provides.

If a girl goes to the college counsellor with a series of problems and claims that speaking to the counsellor has helped her, how do we know if this is true or if she has just deluded herself into thinking she was helped? The only person who can say if someone was helped in a 'meaningful way' is the person themselves.

These are embarassing occasionally life threatening infections you're talking about. Wanting to go to confession is hardly in the same league imho.

For the record, I'm not against having the chaplain, I just find this particular comparison a bit ,well, silly.

They're similar in the sense that they are both specialised branches of the health service. You could argue that STI services could be lumped in with the regular GP service. By having a specialised STI service you are pandering to a specific group of people.

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

STD clinics preclude people who dont have a need to use them (the only people not willing to go, are those without std issues). Secular counsellors dont preclude anyone, people with religious issues can be unbiasedly refered on to religious advisors. Erasmus office/postgrad rooms and engineering labs preclude those who cant be helped by them (erasmus office cant help a new undergrad very much). Your arguments are getting pathetic.

I am one of these 'secular counsellors' you speak of. You are suggesting that someone who is looking for religious guidance, or a sense of community that ties in with their religious beliefs, or some spiritual counselling, should come to me?? Are you really suggesting that? What do you suggest I do with this person in our session??

You don't seem to be able to understand that these two services have very little in common. The reasons people would go to them are completely different. What people want to get out of them are completely different.

You need to accept the fact that if the chaplaincy was gone, there would be a group of students who would have benefited from that service who no longer have access to it. Don't kid yourself by thinking that they can choose a different service that does a different thing. At least have the honesty to admit that yes, they wouldn't have that service, but that you actually don't care, 'because it's not secular' (which, as I pointed out before, is becoming a meaningless mantra akin to 'because it's in the bible' because it shuts down discussion, allows no critical thinking, and makes no allowances for flexible ideas or shades of grey. It's fundamentalism. It's pushing your agenda onto other people, which is exactly what we atheists are fighting against in the other direction).

hivizman

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Firstly thanks for this information.
Now, there are one or two issues with this reasoning.
Firstly that several students specifically sought out the chaplaincy over other services and they felt helped after it all does not necessarily mean that the students where helped in any meaningful way. Thousands of people every week specifically seek out homeopthic treatments, and at the end will feel better, doesn't mean they gotten anything more than an empty sugar pill. You cannot say that the students wouldn't have gotten a better class of help from a real counsellor instead of the emotional placebo the chaplain provides.

Although the details of the various cases dealt with by the chaplaincy that were brought to our attention (in several cases, the source was the students themselves rather than the chaplains) were of course confidential, we were aware that the chaplains had counselled several students each year who were on the point of dropping out, but after receiving moral and emotional support from the chaplains decided to finish their degrees. There was one case where one of the chaplains provided support to a student who decided for good personal reasons that the course being followed wasn't what the student wanted to do, but who was afraid of a hostile reaction from the student's parents. This student was therefore supported in leaving the college. But normally universities want students to complete their degrees, and if students who were reluctant (for whatever reason) to use the student counsellors but were willing to see the chaplains were helped, then from the college's point of view that's a good outcome.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Secondly, its always nice to see colleges cost/benefit analysing services in terms of how much money they can make from the students continuing their study, as opposed to what is most efficient in terms of the students best interests.

University finance officers, especially in the current economic climate, are looking desperately for things to cut. Showing that the chaplaincy helped to reduce loss of fee income from students' dropping out and was, at the margin, cheaper than hiring an additional counsellor, was simply presenting things in the language that the finance officer understood.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I guarantee you would get a distinctive student support service if you replace all your chaplains with strippers. They could be payed from the tips from the students, and what with the massive influx of students you would get, think of the money you could make!

Curiously, the students we consulted didn't ask the college to replace the chaplains with strippers, though perhaps Irish students would be less inhibited.

nozzferrahhtoo

Truley wrote: »

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'

Certainly not, but my point is that it is naive to think that someone coming into a college and working voluteer without pay is still far from “free“ in any sense of the words. Facilitating such a person has resource drains of its own.

hivizman

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Certainly not, but my point is that it is naive to think that someone coming into a college and working voluteer without pay is still far from “free“ in any sense of the words. Facilitating such a person has resource drains of its own.

The main costs relate to buildings and accommodation. Some universities, like TCD and UCC, have dedicated churches or chapels (UCD at Belfield has both St Stephens and Our Lady Seat of Wisdom, as well as a Contemplation Room), and these have to be maintained. They can, of course, also be sources of revenue if they can be hired out (for example, for weddings and concerts), but they usually require ongoing maintenance and periodic repairs and redecoration. However, such chapels are often considered to be important architectural features of the university site, and hence would have to be maintained even if they were not used as chapels.

In addition, volunteer chaplains usually require office accommodation. Universities normally have a standard "space" charge (for notional rent, cleaning, services, energy costs, maintenance, security, etc.), which they use in costing research grants. If the annual space charge is €300 per square metre, then a 10 square metre office would be costed at €3,000 per year.

There will also be office costs such as telephone, computer services, printing and duplicating, publicity, and the cost of hosting social events, though some of these costs may be reduced through donations or sponsorship. Where all the chaplains are volunteers, it may be necessary to allow for the salary and other costs of an administrator or secretary, though I would not think that a full-timer would be needed (in practice, this role could be combined with the duties of one of the administrative staff in another student support service).

It's not possible to disaggregate the costs of the Chaplaincy service from the published financial statements of Irish universities, but to give some context, the most recent HEA Funding Statement for UCD that I have found on-line (for the year to 30 September 2008), shows total expenditure (excluding contract research costs) of €291 million. Of this, student services cost €6.7 million. In a note to the accounts, this is broken down into various sub-headings. The cost of the chaplaincy service is not shown separately, but the cost of health and counselling services is €1.2 million and the cost of sports facilities is €0.9 million.

nozzferrahhtoo

This post seems well researched and shows support for exactly what I have been saying. Chaplains ARE a drain on resources and an increase in expenditure.

The posts on this thread have talked about "volunteer" or "free" chaplains or even those partially subsidised by their respective churches, but it is clear that this is irrelevant because there still is a cost.

There are costs in used resources, there are costs in increased expenditure, and there are costs in lost earnings from possible other use of these allocated resources.

The question is, is this cost justifiable and I do not think it is as I see no evidence that such services benefit our vested interested in the students that our money is being invested in.

Mark Hamill

prinz wrote: »

...and? You still haven't shown that most chaplains are paid by the universities. So really you only have an issue with those that are...or you have issues with chaplains in general. You seem to swing back and forth.

I have an issue with both, although I had been trying to keep the issue of university chaplains in general out of this discussion.

prinz wrote: »

It only seems that way to you tbh, because you are seeing everything through a prism of your own admitted biases.

Everyone here seems to be so shocked at the idea of having chaplaincies and claim that removing them would be so damaging to the students, and yet none of you have admitted that given the choice, a counsellor would be better than a chaplain.

prinz wrote: »

Why should I? Has it ever been presented as an either/or choice? Any examples of this, or are you going to persist with this pointless line of reasoning that one must be accomodated at the expense of the other?

Lets try it now, hypothetically, if there had to be a choice (for whatever reason) between having a chaplain and a counslellor, which would you choose?

prinz wrote: »

(a) their need is questionable..to you. It's not questionable to many others

Their need is questionable because its a want not a need. People dont need religious chaplains any more than they need strippers, its an desire born of irrational thinking, and a university should be no more funding them that they should homeopaths.

prinz wrote: »

, and (b) of course the service is not secular, but you have yet to demonstrate how the facilitation of a chaplaincy service affects the secular spirit of an institution.

If the service is not secular, then the institution supplying it cannot be secular.

prinz wrote: »

So how exactly do chaplains preclude people who are willing to go/need their services?

Chaplains preclude people needing to be able to talk to someone about their personal issues (such as homosexuals). The only people willing to go to chaplains are people with religious issues that match the religion of the chaplain, or those that dont care about religious issues.

prinz wrote: »

Are they? I have yet to resort to "covering my bases" by throwing out ridiculously unfounded claims, nor repeating claims that you have yet to actually back up.

You continuously claim that no one would ever have an issue with going to a religious chaplain (bar those doing it out of spite), the most ridiculous thing claimed on this whole thread.

prinz wrote: »

Really, so without even knowing what issue someone is troubled by you know who is best in a position to help? Got a newsletter by any chance? Something pathetic about all this alright. :rolleyes:

Yes. This ties in with my "religon is a load of bs" view, but I dont have to now that someone who thinks they are possessed is better of seeing a psychologist than an exorcist.

Truley wrote: »

If a girl goes to the college counsellor with a series of problems and claims that speaking to the counsellor has helped her, how do we know if this is true or if she has just deluded herself into thinking she was helped? The only person who can say if someone was helped in a 'meaningful way' is the person themselves.

Not true, no-one can really say it a menaningful way. However, impartial observers can look on and see that the help from counsellors will be better than chaplains as counsellors deal with reality and chaplains deal with fantasy.

Truley wrote: »

They're similar in the sense that they are both specialised branches of the health service. You could argue that STI services could be lumped in with the regular GP service. By having a specialised STI service you are pandering to a specific group of people.

By having specialised sti clinics you are helping to cope with strain on that part of the system. We have clinics for stds, but for, lets say the common cold, because stds affect a relative large number of people, with far worse symptoms.

Kooli wrote: »

I am one of these 'secular counsellors' you speak of. You are suggesting that someone who is looking for religious guidance, or a sense of community that ties in with their religious beliefs, or some spiritual counselling, should come to me?? Are you really suggesting that? What do you suggest I do with this person in our session??

What would you do to someone who comes saying they are hearing voices? Would you not talk to them about their issues and try to give them a real world cure?

Kooli wrote: »

You don't seem to be able to understand that these two services have very little in common. The reasons people would go to them are completely different. What people want to get out of them are completely different.

And what people want to get out chaplains that they cannot get out counsellors is not the type of thing that a university should be directly funding. If it is a case, like has been claimed, that chaplains are usually not-paid/far cheaper than counsellors, then the religious societies should fund them with the money given by students who are actually interested in religion.

Kooli wrote: »

You need to accept the fact that if the chaplaincy was gone, there would be a group of students who would have benefited from that service who no longer have access to it. Don't kid yourself by thinking that they can choose a different service that does a different thing. At least have the honesty to admit that yes, they wouldn't have that service, but that you actually don't care, 'because it's not secular' (which, as I pointed out before, is becoming a meaningless mantra akin to 'because it's in the bible' because it shuts down discussion, allows no critical thinking, and makes no allowances for flexible ideas or shades of grey. It's fundamentalism. It's pushing your agenda onto other people, which is exactly what we atheists are fighting against in the other direction).

Do I need to explain why secular is better than the alternative? From which point of show shall I present it, that you cant have a society that panders to the major religion, or that societies should be actively working to improve their citizens and move them away from the pandering witch doctors you get in religion (and pseudoscience)?

hivizman wrote: »

Although the details of the various cases dealt with by the chaplaincy that were brought to our attention (in several cases, the source was the students themselves rather than the chaplains) were of course confidential, we were aware that the chaplains had counselled several students each year who were on the point of dropping out, but after receiving moral and emotional support from the chaplains decided to finish their degrees. There was one case where one of the chaplains provided support to a student who decided for good personal reasons that the course being followed wasn't what the student wanted to do, but who was afraid of a hostile reaction from the student's parents. This student was therefore supported in leaving the college. But normally universities want students to complete their degrees, and if students who were reluctant (for whatever reason) to use the student counsellors but were willing to see the chaplains were helped, then from the college's point of view that's a good outcome.

How did you decide which was the bigger number: the students who didnt want to see the religious chaplain or the students who didnt want to see the secular counsellor?

hivizman wrote: »

Curiously, the students we consulted didn't ask the college to replace the chaplains with strippers, though perhaps Irish students would be less inhibited.

My point, which you didn't seem to pick up on, is that "distinctive student support" is a largely meaningless term in this case (distinctive just means distinguishable from others) and that what the students value is not necessarily need.

hivizman

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How did you decide which was the bigger number: the students who didnt want to see the religious chaplain or the students who didnt want to see the secular counsellor?

I'm having to dredge down into the depths of my memory here, but given that the annual cost we were discussing (this was some years ago) was around £40,000, it would not have been economically efficient to spend resources on extensive surveying of student opinion. So we relied on information from college staff, student union officials, the chaplaincy and counselling services, and our own experiences of dealing with the pastoral support of students.

And we didn't pose the issue in the way you suggest. We asked: given that there are other support mechanisms, including academics, administrators, the student union, the student health service and the team of student counsellors, was there sufficient evidence that enough students would prefer to seek support from the chaplaincy, rather than from other sources within (or indeed outside) the college, to justify continued college financial support for the chaplaincy?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

My point, which you didn't seem to pick up on, is that "distinctive student support" is a largely meaningless term in this case (distinctive just means distinguishable from others) and that what the students value is not necessarily need.

Possibly "greater choice in student support" would have been better. We regarded the provision of religiously grounded student support through the chaplaincy as enhancing student choice and making it less likely that students in difficulty would "fall through the net" if they were unwilling to deal with the counselling service. Similarly, we made sure that there were both male and female counsellors, since we were aware that some female students did not want to be counselled by males and vice versa (while a small minority of female students wanted to be counselled only by males and vice versa).

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What would you do to someone who comes saying they are hearing voices? Would you not talk to them about their issues and try to give them a real world cure?

.

Wow. Just wow. At this point I'll probably have to bow out, because you have so little understanding of what a counsellor OR chaplain actually does for a student!

But first let me get this straight. You are saying that the chaplaincy should be abolished, and the students who were seeking help from the chaplaincy could use the secular counsellor instead, who would then use their professional training to CURE them of their religious belief? (that's a genuine question, I want to make sure I am clear on your position)

So religious people are all psychotic? Wow, that's quite a claim!!

If you were a counsellor, and you had a client who believed in God, would you use your professional position and expertise to try and dissuade them or show them the 'truth'? (I would really like you to answer that question if you could). Because it seems you are suggesting that's what I should do with my religious clients (of whom I have many, but they are not coming to me for religious guidance, because they have the chaplaincy for that).

Like others have said, you don't need to explain the benefits of secularism to me, because I believe in a secular state as much as any reasonable atheist! (And of course you don't have to be an atheist to believe in a secular state).

But you are talking about fundamentalist atheism. Where any expression of religious belief, which has ZERO affect on non-believers, is not tolerated. Where your views are pushed onto others who are not interested in them, and not seeking them. It's a 'my way or the highway' approach, and is completely intolerant.

robindch

Moderator note -

Kooli wrote: »

So religious people are all psychotic? Wow, that's quite a claim!! [...] But you are talking about fundamentalist atheism.

Mark Hamill did not claim that all religious people are psychotic and it was you who brought up the topic of fundamentalist atheism without prompting. Or indeed, any reason to.

Calm down a bit and try to reply to what the poster actually said.

thanks.

johnfás

robindch wrote: »

Moderator note -

Mark Hamill did not claim that all religious people are psychotic and it was you who brought up the topic of fundamentalist atheism without prompting. Or indeed, any reason to.

Calm down a bit and try to reply to what the poster actually said.

thanks.

Moderator intervention to set the terms of the debate - worrying. Mark Hamill, in the passage quoted by Kooli, implied that a university counsellor (the statement was pointed to Kooli who has already identified himself/herself as holding such a position) would seek to "cure" somebody of their religious convictions. Kooli is surely, in an open forum, quite entitled to query the full implications of such a statement without undue intervention by a moderator.

prinz

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I have an issue with both, although I had been trying to keep the issue of university chaplains in general out of this discussion..

Perhaps you need to check the thread title again then. Why you would try to keep the issue of university chaplains out of a discussion revolving around, well university chaplains it beyond me.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Everyone here seems to be so shocked at the idea of having chaplaincies and claim that removing them would be so damaging to the students, and yet none of you have admitted that given the choice, a counsellor would be better than a chaplain...

I don't recall being asked, but I do remember saying that I would see a chaplain with an issue that I believed a chaplain could help with and a counsellor with an issue I believe a counsellor would be better equipped to help with. Simples.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Lets try it now, hypothetically, if there had to be a choice (for whatever reason) between having a chaplain and a counslellor, which would you choose?

So we're back to the hypothetical nonsense either/or's. I see. As above re the two provide different services.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Their need is questionable because its a want not a need. People dont need religious chaplains any more than they need strippers, its an desire born of irrational thinking, and a university should be no more funding them that they should homeopaths.

On that basis people don't "need" secular counsellors either. People don't "need" on-campus anything except leture halls and lecturers.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If the service is not secular, then the institution supplying it cannot be secular..

Of course it can.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Chaplains preclude people needing to be able to talk to someone about their personal issues (such as homosexuals). The only people willing to go to chaplains are people with religious issues that match the religion of the chaplain, or those that dont care about religious issues...

Again, personal opinion. I would be more than willing to see a chaplain of a different faith. Once again your comments only apply in a situation where students have no decision, no choice. This is a false scenario that you have not demonstrated to be based in reality.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You continuously claim that no one would ever have an issue with going to a religious chaplain (bar those doing it out of spite), the most ridiculous thing claimed on this whole thread....

Sorry, why would someone who has an issue with going to see a chaplain.... go to see a chaplain? This is still boggling my mind. Again the only way this applies is in an alternate universe where only chaplains are provided and no other secular counselling services, can you provide links for these universities in this country?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes. This ties in with my "religon is a load of bs" view, but I dont have to now that someone who thinks they are possessed is better of seeing a psychologist than an exorcist.

Any chance we could get back to chaplains soon?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Not true, no-one can really say it a menaningful way. However, impartial observers can look on and see that the help from counsellors will be better than chaplains as counsellors deal with reality and chaplains deal with fantasy.

Wrong. Depends on the issue troubling the individual themselves. You admitted yourself that if someone had a religious/faith issue the secular counsellor could refer them on to a member of whatever faith.... is that help better than going directly to a chaplain? Why the need to refer people on if a secular counsellor can do a better job?

Truley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Not true, no-one can really say it a menaningful way. However, impartial observers can look on and see that the help from counsellors will be better than chaplains as counsellors deal with reality and chaplains deal with fantasy.

Lots of mental health problems are based on fantasy. For example if a girl goes to a counsellor with self esteem issues due to poor body image. The girl's perceived weight issues may be all in her head, a fantasy. But her problem is still 'real' in the sense that is causing her real distress and having an adverse effect on her quality of life. At the same time a person can go to a chaplain with a 'real' and practical problem, such as I did with my mother dying, or my classmate's funeral arangements. You can't say that I didn't have a legitmate problem, or that the chaplain didn't deal with it effectively. It's not up to you to decide who's problems are real and whos aren't.

Likewise it's not up to you to decide whos service is more effective. A counsellor deals with people based on a particular theory of how the mind works and how mental health issues should be dealt with. There is no way of quantifying the effectiveness of a counsellor or a chaplain, only the receiver of the service can decide that.

robindch

johnfás wrote: »

Moderator intervention to set the terms of the debate - worrying.

Not in the slightest -- please read the post again. That intervention was a straightforward request to one poster to (a) calm down and cut out the inflammatory language and (b) not to misrepresent another poster.

Kooli

robindch wrote: »

Moderator note -

Mark Hamill did not claim that all religious people are psychotic and it was you who brought up the topic of fundamentalist atheism without prompting. Or indeed, any reason to.

Calm down a bit and try to reply to what the poster actually said.

thanks.

Well maybe I misunderstood - if he claims I should treat religious clients as those who are 'hearing voices' and need a 'cure' then he is talking about psychosis. Unless I misunderstood. I didn't mean 'psychotic' in a general way like people say 'what a psycho', I meant in the real terms of psychosis, where people are 'hearing voices', like in schizophrenia. If that's not what he meant, then I do apologise, but I don't know what else to read from the implication that I 'treat' religious people in such a manner. So I was replying to what he actually said, but maybe I misunderstood what he actually meant.

And I'm not sure what the problem is with mentioning fundamentalist atheism, but I will refrain from doing so if I'm not allowed to. I just felt it was relevant because Mark is claiming to talk about secularism, but I think he is misrepresenting secularism, and what he is actually describing is more like fundamentalist atheism.

axer

Kooli wrote: »

fundamentalist atheism

This combination of words doesn't make sense.

robindch

Kooli wrote: »

And I'm not sure what the problem is with mentioning fundamentalist atheism, but I will refrain from doing so if I'm not allowed to.

You can mention pretty much whatever you like, but do be aware that "fundamentalist atheism" is a largely meaningless boo-phrase which it's probably best to avoid using unless you want to define what exactly it means.

There isn't much difference between "There {is no god|are no gods}" and "There really, really isn't any god or gods"

prinz

robindch wrote: »

There isn't much difference between "There {is no god|are no gods}" and "There really, really isn't any god or gods"

There is however a marked difference between atheists, and people who deliberately want to go out of their way to enforce their notion of 'secularity' on others. Various posters on this thread illustrate the difference perfectly when it comes to tje application of the above sentence to real life scenarios.

Kooli

axer wrote: »

This combination of words doesn't make sense.

I can't think of a better way to put it, but I get that it's probably the wrong word. I'm trying to find a way to describe a type of atheism that tries to force itself on other people, rather than the more common type of atheism which takes the line of 'I don't care what religion you are or what beliefs you hold as long as long as they don't impact on my life, education, choices etc.'

When you talk about stripping services for people of religion, 'curing' people of religion, invading their private lives, then it's something a bit more than the 'live and let live' philosophy most of us would like to see in a secular society.

I would like to see a natural removal of religious services, but only as a result of a natural decline in the numbers of believers, not as a result of force.

The other reason I used the word fundamentalism was because of the constant repeating of the mantra 'because it's not secular'. It was like an ideology was being blindly put above any logic, rationality, reason, debate with no further explanation.

I hope it was OK for me to explain what I meant. Perhaps someone else could suggest a better term for what I'm describing.

robindch

prinz wrote: »

There is however a marked difference between atheists, and people who deliberately want to go out of their way to enforce their notion of 'secularity' on others.

Yes, and for the sake of clarity, it's best to bear that difference in mind

It's only called "fundamentalist atheism" in order to create a false analogy with fundamentalist religion, so that the idea can be discarded without consideration.

Neither, to start with, is there anything "fundamentalist" about secularism -- basically, the idea that religion is something that the state should not fund or favour. A bit like atheism or pregnancy, it's a state that you're in or you're not.

Kooli

robindch wrote: »

Neither, to start with, is there anything "fundamentalist" about secularism -- basically, the idea that religion is something that the state should not fund or favour. A bit like atheism or pregnancy, it's a state that you're in or you're not.

But this thread shows that it's not as black and white as it first appears. I believe in secularism, but I don't have a problem with a college providing a service for its religious students that has no impact on its non-religious students. If it involved favouritism towards religious students in the college at large, or the promotion of a certain faith being tied in with the educational activities of the college, then I would have a problem with it. At the moment I don't. Others believe that to be secular means removing any religious services on the basis of ideology, regardless of whether they compromise the secular nature of the institution. The ideology comes ahead of the best interests of the students and the college, and I just don't agree with that.

So am I 'a bit pregnant'?

prinz

robindch wrote: »

Neither, to start with, is there anything "fundamentalist" about secularism -- basically, the idea that religion is something that the state should not fund or favour. A bit like atheism or pregnancy, it's a state that you're in or you're not.

Tbh it is a bit of a grey area. There are many religious people who also believe in a secular state etc. IMO it's not as simple as saying the State cannot fund anything connected to religion otherwise it's not secular, that to me is nonsense. The State does not fund religion, but it should distribute funds where appropriate. It should not fund or favour anything solely because of it's religious affiliations. IMO however there is nothing stopping it from funding a public service where it is the only/or the best option even if it has religious connections.

Take for example a rough neighbourhood in a secular state. There is only one youth group in the area which is organised by the local pastor and membership/facilites are free to any kid of any religion or of none from the area. Should the secular state refuse funding to this group? Should it wait until someone else (say a postman/lecturer...) sets up a similar youth group and then fund that while ignoring the first? Or should it say to both that funding will be supplied based on merits/numbers of kids etc/activities/benefits to the neighbourhood?

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

But first let me get this straight. You are saying that the chaplaincy should be abolished, and the students who were seeking help from the chaplaincy could use the secular counsellor instead, who would then use their professional training to CURE them of their religious belief? (that's a genuine question, I want to make sure I am clear on your position)

So religious people are all psychotic? Wow, that's quite a claim!!

johnfás wrote: »

Moderator intervention to set the terms of the debate - worrying. Mark Hamill, in the passage quoted by Kooli, implied that a university counsellor (the statement was pointed to Kooli who has already identified himself/herself as holding such a position) would seek to "cure" somebody of their religious convictions. Kooli is surely, in an open forum, quite entitled to query the full implications of such a statement without undue intervention by a moderator.

I didnt say that religious people where psychotic, I said that you should give them a real world cure to their issues. In the context of college, with students who have issues with grades and courses and lecturers, you are better off giving them a real world answer than pandering to their beliefs. An impartial advisor will give them the best answer to deal with reality, as opposed to a religiously biased chaplain who may over emphasis the importance of the beliefs in the context of reality.
In simpler terms, if you have a student who believes that his/her geology class is offensive to their realigious beliefs, you are better off having a secualr counsellor who will tell them that what are being taught is objective science and parta and parcel of all the other science they already accept, as opposed to a religious advisor who may pander to their sense of offense. Religious advisor do not offer real world advise, and in college, you need real world advise.

Kooli wrote: »

If you were a counsellor, and you had a client who believed in God, would you use your professional position and expertise to try and dissuade them or show them the 'truth'? (I would really like you to answer that question if you could). Because it seems you are suggesting that's what I should do with my religious clients (of whom I have many, but they are not coming to me for religious guidance, because they have the chaplaincy for that).

If that belief was obstructing their education, then yes I would. Tell me, if you had a client, whose belief in santa claus was giving them a hard time in college, would you try to dissuade them of that? What if they honest to god beleived that women had no place in higer education? Or foreign people? People are wrong in so many of their opinions and those wrong opinions can cause enough problems to require intervention. You shouldn't pander to them just because the opinion is religious.

Kooli wrote: »

But you are talking about fundamentalist atheism. Where any expression of religious belief, which has ZERO affect on non-believers, is not tolerated. Where your views are pushed onto others who are not interested in them, and not seeking them. It's a 'my way or the highway' approach, and is completely intolerant.

People can express their belief any way they want, but if it effects their college work, then unfortunately for them, they need to be told what comes first. Someone may not like being told that the earh is older than 600 years old, but you cant change the curriculum to keep them happy, and letting them give up is hardly going to improve them either.

Mark Hamill

hivizman wrote: »

Possibly "greater choice in student support" would have been better. We regarded the provision of religiously grounded student support through the chaplaincy as enhancing student choice and making it less likely that students in difficulty would "fall through the net" if they were unwilling to deal with the counselling service.

"Enhancing student choice" is meaningless in terms of efficacy though. Get some strippers and you enhance student choice. Bring in homeopaths to teh clinic and you enhance student choice. And you will get students who specifically use these services and, after using these services, will tell you how great they are and how much help they get. But they dont do anything for the students, not in th real world. They are witch doctors, who offer placebos and pander to peoples beliefs. It does not help these learn to deal with their issues in the real world.

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I didnt say that religious people where psychotic, I said that you should give them a real world cure to their issues. In the context of college, with students who have issues with grades and courses and lecturers, you are better off giving them a real world answer than pandering to their beliefs. An impartial advisor will give them the best answer to deal with reality, as opposed to a religiously biased chaplain who may over emphasis the importance of the beliefs in the context of reality.
In simpler terms, if you have a student who believes that his/her geology class is offensive to their realigious beliefs, you are better off having a secualr counsellor who will tell them that what are being taught is objective science and parta and parcel of all the other science they already accept, as opposed to a religious advisor who may pander to their sense of offense. Religious advisor do not offer real world advise, and in college, you need real world advise.


If that belief was obstructing their education, then yes I would. Tell me, if you had a client, whose belief in santa claus was giving them a hard time in college, would you try to dissuade them of that? What if they honest to god beleived that women had no place in higer education? Or foreign people? People are wrong in so many of their opinions and those wrong opinions can cause enough problems to require intervention. You shouldn't pander to them just because the opinion is religious.


People can express their belief any way they want, but if it effects their college work, then unfortunately for them, they need to be told what comes first. Someone may not like being told that the earh is older than 600 years old, but you cant change the curriculum to keep them happy, and letting them give up is hardly going to improve them either.

You didn't use the word psychotic, but you directly suggested I treat my religious clients like my other clients who 'hear voices' (in other words, the psychotic ones). So I'm not sure what you meant by that, if not to compare religious belief to psychosis - perhaps you can clarify the comparison?

The extreme examples you have given of religious beliefs getting in the way of education are just that - extreme - and they probably do require some sort of intervention, although I don't know what! But for the regular religious student, who sees their religion as a positive and supportive influence in their life, and who is looking for spiritual guidance and a sense of religious community, and these beliefs do not stop them from participating in education, do you still suggest they get sent to a counsellor for a 'cure'?

I find it more helpful to stay away from only using the most extreme examples to prove a point. I find it highly unlikely that the examples you have given come up very often. I can't see many students going to a chaplain with issues around specific beliefs being in conflict with what or how they are being taught.

Mark Hamill

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps you need to check the thread title again then. Why you would try to keep the issue of university chaplains out of a discussion revolving around, well university chaplains it beyond me.

I was trying to keep the discussion purely about supposedly secular colleges funding chaplains. I was trying to avoid discussing the genereal efficacy of religious advisors.

prinz wrote: »

So we're back to the hypothetical nonsense either/or's. I see. As above re the two provide different services.

Stop dodging and just answer the question.Which in your opinion is more important?

prinz wrote: »

On that basis people don't "need" secular counsellors either. People don't "need" on-campus anything except leture halls and lecturers.

People get issues and issues need to be dealt with, and they generally need help with those issues, so they need some sort of counselloing.

prinz wrote: »

Of course it can.

Its a contradiction. Instititions are the services they provide. If they dont provide secular services, then they are not secular.

prinz wrote: »

Again, personal opinion. I would be more than willing to see a chaplain of a different faith. Once again your comments only apply in a situation where students have no decision, no choice. This is a false scenario that you have not demonstrated to be based in reality.

Do you honestly think that a gay student willbe happy to see a religious student about a gay issue, if they think that the chaplains religion will make them biased? Dont be rididculous.

prinz wrote: »

Sorry, why would someone who has an issue with going to see a chaplain.... go to see a chaplain? This is still boggling my mind. Again the only way this applies is in an alternate universe where only chaplains are provided and no other secular counselling services, can you provide links for these universities in this country?

Thast my point. If they have an issue they wont go.

prinz wrote: »

Any chance we could get back to chaplains soon?

We are still on it, that was called an analogy.

prinz wrote: »

Wrong. Depends on the issue troubling the individual themselves.

Wrong. We dont let people out of mental institutes because they say they are better.

prinz wrote: »

You admitted yourself that if someone had a religious/faith issue the secular counsellor could refer them on to a member of whatever faith.... is that help better than going directly to a chaplain?

The exact same I would imagine.

prinz wrote: »

Why the need to refer people on if a secular counsellor can do a better job?

If the student isn't willing to look at his/her issues from a real world point of view, then the counsellor cant really do anything. If they insist, without discourse on real world practical solutions to their problems, that they need religious advise, then maybe, as a purely short term, and it could be applicable (they are more likely to improve if they stay in college and are forced to see new ideas, then if they leave and go home and stew in old ideas)

Mark Hamill

Truley wrote: »

Lots of mental health problems are based on fantasy. For example if a girl goes to a counsellor with self esteem issues due to poor body image. The girl's perceived weight issues may be all in her head, a fantasy. But her problem is still 'real' in the sense that is causing her real distress and having an adverse effect on her quality of life. At the same time a person can go to a chaplain with a 'real' and practical problem, such as I did with my mother dying, or my classmate's funeral arangements. You can't say that I didn't have a legitmate problem, or that the chaplain didn't deal with it effectively. It's not up to you to decide who's problems are real and whos aren't.

I never said people didn't have real problems, I said people need real solutions. You dont get a person an exorcist because they think they are possessed, even if they may claim they are cured afterwards. You use real world solutions to peoples problems, regardless of wether they like them or not, pandering to their whims wont give them real, long term rewards.

Truley wrote: »

Likewise it's not up to you to decide whos service is more effective. A counsellor deals with people based on a particular theory of how the mind works and how mental health issues should be dealt with. There is no way of quantifying the effectiveness of a counsellor or a chaplain, only the receiver of the service can decide that.

BS. If that were true, then the doctors in mental homes would be the ones who let everyone out, as they would be the ones getting most praise from their patients. But we dont listen to patients, as they have issues severe enough to require counelling.

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Stop dodging and just answer the question.Which in your opinion is more important?

*hand up in the air* I'll answer that one!

If I had to choose between the two, I think counselling is more important. So...I don't see how that changes anything.

If I had to choose between the counselling service and the health service, I think the health service is more important. I don't really see what the relevance is.

You're working on the assumption of an either/or situation that doesn't exist (except perhaps in the most abstract or hypothetical/theoretical sense, which is no way to run a college!)

prinz

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I was trying to keep the discussion purely about supposedly secular colleges funding chaplains. I was trying to avoid discussing the genereal efficacy of religious advisors.

So what was all that about chaplains not giving 'real help' etc if not discussing the general efficacy of... well chaplains?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Stop dodging and just answer the question.Which in your opinion is more important?

I haven't dodged. I've answered it plenty of times. It's a stupid hypothetical tbh. What's more important brain surgeons or spinal surgeons?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

People get issues and issues need to be dealt with, and they generally need help with those issues, so they need some sort of counselloing..

2+2=5. People also get issues on matters of faith etc.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its a contradiction. Instititions are the services they provide. If they dont provide secular services, then they are not secular.

But they do provide secular services.... any college/university you know of in this country that doesnt provide a secular counselling service?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you honestly think that a gay student willbe happy to see a religious student about a gay issue, if they think that the chaplains religion will make them biased? Dont be rididculous..

I'm not the one being ridiculous. Who is saying that a gay student has to see a chaplain about a gay issue? You're the only one dragging this along. If the gay student believes the chaplain would be biased go see the secular counsellor.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Thast my point. If they have an issue they wont go...

They could always avail of the other services. Just like a religious student may feel certain issues would be best dealt with by a secular counsellor.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

We are still on it, that was called an analogy....

An anaolgy that falls flat.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Wrong. We dont let people out of mental institutes because they say they are better.

Lauaghable it really is.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The exact same I would imagine.

Well no it isn't tbh. First you are arguing that secular counsellors are understaffed/under resourced/under pressure and now you think that on top of seeing students who need help they should provide a religious referral service to students who need not having taken any of their time to begin with?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If the student isn't willing to look at his/her issues from a real world point of view, then the counsellor cant really do anything. If they insist, without discourse on real world practical solutions to their problems, that they need religious advise, then maybe, as a purely short term, and it could be applicable (they are more likely to improve if they stay in college and are forced to see new ideas, then if they leave and go home and stew in old ideas)

Blah, blah, I'm a super enlightened atheist religious people are too stupid/backward etc they must be forcefully 're-educated'.

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

You didn't use the word psychotic, but you directly suggested I treat my religious clients like my other clients who 'hear voices' (in other words, the psychotic ones). So I'm not sure what you meant by that, if not to compare religious belief to psychosis - perhaps you can clarify the comparison?

I used the comparison to show that we should give every one real world solutions, not solutions that people like because they support their preconcieved beleifs.

Kooli wrote: »

The extreme examples you have given of religious beliefs getting in the way of education are just that - extreme - and they probably do require some sort of intervention, although I don't know what! But for the regular religious student, who sees their religion as a positive and supportive influence in their life, and who is looking for spiritual guidance and a sense of religious community, and these beliefs do not stop them from participating in education, do you still suggest they get sent to a counsellor for a 'cure'?
I find it more helpful to stay away from only using the most extreme examples to prove a point. I find it highly unlikely that the examples you have given come up very often. I can't see many students going to a chaplain with issues around specific beliefs being in conflict with what or how they are being taught.

Even outside of what they are taught, should a college, a place of learning, pander to this kind of thing? And this is not just a religious thing, if people were calling for college funded homeopaths, because some students want homeopathic consults, I would be still be here decrying it as nonsense that colleges shouldn't be supporting.

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

*hand up in the air* I'll answer that one!

If I had to choose between the two, I think counselling is more important. So...I don't see how that changes anything.

If I had to choose between the counselling service and the health service, I think the health service is more important. I don't really see what the relevance is.

You're working on the assumption of an either/or situation that doesn't exist (except perhaps in the most abstract or hypothetical/theoretical sense, which is no way to run a college!)

Thank you for answering that.
Now, as a counsellor, would you welcome the money the chaplaincy office gets, if it was given to your office/department instead?