College Chaplain

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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.


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.

I can only interpret that vague response about the psychosis things as backpedalling, but I'll drop it!!

As for homeopaths - they claim to provide cures to medical and physical problems. As far as I'm aware there is no science to back these claims. They do not do what they claim to do, and they are charlatans. So no college should back them.

Chaplains claim to provide religious and spiritual guidance, as well as a centre for religious community in the college. And that's what they do. Hurray! It's a service I would never need myself, and I fundamentally disagree with their beliefs, but that's fine, because there are plenty of other services out there for me! I don't ever have to cross their door! (but on the times I have done for professional reasons, I've enjoyed a cuppa and a nice chat).

So I see absolutely no relevance in the comparison.

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

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?

Yes I would!! I'd love it!! Doesn't mean it would ever come to me!!

I'd also welcome the spare money that would be freed up if the disability office closed down. Does that mean I'm going to campaign to have it shut down? Nope!!

Mark Hamill

prinz wrote: »

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

What are you even talking about now? I started off trying to avoid talking about the uselessness of chaplains in general, engaging in this discussion purely from secularism angle, and then later brought in the part about chaplains not being effective, after everyones defense of chaplains being that they give good help. You questioned this as me flipflopping already, hence the part you respond to here. Are you not even paying attention to your own posts?

prinz wrote: »

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?

This is a dodge. Instead of answering the question, you call it stupid, pose your own question or ignore it. That is dodging. Kooli post just after your own here was not dodging the question as he actually answered it.

prinz wrote: »

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

And people sometimes get issues with ghosts, but the government doesn't fund ghostbusters.

prinz wrote: »

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

All it takes is for one service supplied for the institution itself not to be secular.

prinz wrote: »

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.

You are the one who said the only person who wouldn't see a chaplain was the one trying to prove a point? Dont you remember, this was back before you backtracked and were claiming that chaplains offer counselling services on a par with secular counsellors.

prinz wrote: »

An anaolgy that falls flat.

In your opinion.

prinz wrote: »

Lauaghable it really is.

You think we should let mental patients out of institutes when they say are better? We should take the word of a person who has a serious enough issue that needs institutionalising.

prinz wrote: »

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?

Its exactly the same as it is to a student whose religion isn't represented by the chaplains the university may have. Besides, all departments in a university are understaffed,under resourced and under pressure. Universoty money is always limited.

prinz wrote: »

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

Ah, the victim mentality mixed with the "arrogance card". Like I said to Kool here, my stance on this is not atheistic, or antitheist, its anti stupidity. I am as much against homeopaths as I am religious chaplains, for much the same reasons.

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

Yes I would!! I'd love it!! Doesn't mean it would ever come to me!!

It would go to someone more useful and more in need than the chaplaincy.

Kooli wrote: »

I'd also welcome the spare money that would be freed up if the disability office closed down. Does that mean I'm going to campaign to have it shut down? Nope!!

People have an objective need for the disability office.

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

As for homeopaths - they claim to provide cures to medical and physical problems. As far as I'm aware there is no science to back these claims. They do not do what they claim to do, and they are charlatans. So no college should back them.

Chaplains claim to provide religious and spiritual guidance, as well as a centre for religious community in the college. And that's what they do. Hurray! It's a service I would never need myself, and I fundamentally disagree with their beliefs, but that's fine, because there are plenty of other services out there for me! I don't ever have to cross their door! (but on the times I have done for professional reasons, I've enjoyed a cuppa and a nice chat).

So I see absolutely no relevance in the comparison.

I see absolutely no difference between homeopaths and chaplains (or any other religious advisor or pseudoscience pedaller). They are both witch doctors, offering magic little sugar or spiritual pills which they claim will make everything ok. Both have legions of adoring follwers willing to testify as to efficacy. Both are completely full of sh*t and should not, in a million years, befunded by government or universities.

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Kooli post just after your own here was not dodging the question as he actually answered it.


All it takes is for one service supplied for the institution itself not to be secular.

Firstly, I is a lady.;)

Secondly, I think your other point above might be the crux of why we are disagreeing. I believe that a secular institution can still cater to the needs of religious people in the same way it caters to any group with sufficient numbers and sufficient need, as long as these religious beliefs are not favoured or pushed by the institution. To me that is still secular, because no religious instruction or practice is forced on any non-believer, and in fact they probably would never even know it's there.

You believe that a secular institution should not cater to their needs. Which means that the institution would be biased towards non-believers.

There are small ways in which I think some institutions ARE biased towards believers, and are not quite secular, and I would definitely argue against them. For example, when a student dies, the response is sometimes led by the chaplaincy (e.g. informing the classmates). I'm not into that, because no words from a religious person would be ANY comfort to a non-believer. So to me, that practice is anti-secular.

But I do not agree that the mere presence of a religious community on campus is any threat to the secularism of the college, even if they facilitate this service directly.

prinz

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What are you even talking about now? I started off trying to avoid talking about the uselessness of chaplains in general, engaging in this discussion purely from secularism angle, and then later brought in the part about chaplains not being effective, after everyones defense of chaplains being that they give good help. You questioned this as me flipflopping already, hence the part you respond to here. Are you not even paying attention to your own posts?

Yes, but obviously you aren't because you are going around in circles with your arguments.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This is a dodge. Instead of answering the question, you call it stupid, pose your own question or ignore it. That is dodging. Kooli post just after your own here was not dodging the question as he actually answered.

It's not dodging. It's a ridiculous either/or question that has no basis in the reality we live in. The answer, as I have already said, depends solely on the circumstances involved. Can you answer this one; which is more important the brain surgeon or the spinal surgeon?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And people sometimes get issues with ghosts, but the government doesn't fund ghostbusters..

If someone had an issue with ghosts they could approach both the chaplain or the secular counsellor.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

All it takes is for one service supplied for the institution itself not to be secular...

Not true.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You are the one who said the only person who wouldn't see a chaplain was the one trying to prove a point?

Still holds. Someone who doesn't want to see a chaplain doesn't have to. That they would still object to a service they are under no obligation to avail of is nothing more than trying to prove a point/attention seek. It would be similar to my saying I don't have an STD, the STD clinic can't help me, boooo at the STD clinic! How dare they exist if I choose not to avail of their services. Nobody is forced to use a service. That you object to a service being offered to others is nothing other than trying to prove a point.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You think we should let mental patients out of institutes when they say are better? We should take the word of a person who has a serious enough issue that needs institutionalising.

Wtf are you talking about at this stage?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its exactly the same as it is to a student whose religion isn't represented by the chaplains the university may have..

May have. Either way this line again has no basis in a realistic discussion. You try to accomodate as many as is reasonably possible.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ah, the victim mentality mixed with the "arrogance card". Like I said to Kool here, my stance on this is not atheistic, or antitheist, its anti stupidity. I am as much against homeopaths as I am religious chaplains, for much the same reasons.

Arrogance yeah. Bingo.

Dades

It's Friday folks - lets lighten up!

hivizman

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.

A good point. Given their historical roots, is it fair to describe Trinity College Dublin and the four constituents of the National University of Ireland as "secular colleges"?

I've been exploring the Chaplaincy provision at the newer universities in Ireland, Limerick and Dublin City University. Limerick has a full-time RC chaplain, with a part-time RC assistant and a part-time Anglican chaplain. The RC chaplains are members of the Salesian order, which runs the Catholic church next to the UL campus. It's possible, therefore, that the salary costs of the RC chaplains are being borne by their order rather than by UL. There is no dedicated chapel on campus, but there is a "House of Welcome", operating as a drop-in social centre, and a Contemplative Space, in which some services are held, but which is mainly presented on the Chaplaincy webpage as sonewhere where students and staff can drop in for quiet reflection.

Based on the background to DCU's establishment and its self-image as an "unconventional" university, I was actually surprised to find that DCU has a Chaplaincy. The Chaplaincy is based in an Inter-Faith Centre, centrally located next to The Hub. There is an RC chaplain, who is on campus between 9AM and 5PM, an Anglican chaplain (possibly part-time), and two receptionists.

There is a complete listing of all chaplains at tertiary-level colleges and universities in Ireland here.

robindch

hivizman wrote: »

There is an RC chaplain, who is on campus between 9AM and 5PM, an Anglican chaplain (possibly part-time), and two receptionists.

Are you saying that UCD is two-faithed?

hivizman

robindch wrote: »

Are you saying that UCD is two-faithed?

DCU, not UCD - other side of town.

If they had a chaplain dedicated to the Roman god Janus, would they be three-faithed or four-faithed?

Truley

Oh my gawd maybe they're amalgamated to form one big super religon that will control us all! :eek:

ahhhh *run*

robindch

Truley wrote: »

maybe they're amalgamated to form one big super religon that will control us all!

"There are some who say that this has already happened".

nozzferrahhtoo

Kooli wrote: »

who would then use their professional training to CURE them of their religious belief?

This is not what is required at all, and is a horrific straw man of what is generally being said on this thread.

The idea of a secular Counsellor would not be to “cure” them of any such thing, but to refer them on to the relevant people who CAN help the student. They are not there to “cure” the students faith in the absence of a chaplain to nurture it.

Just like we do not maintain an Octologist in the college, but have GPs. The GP has enough training to recognise the needs of the student, and enough knowledge to make genuine referrals. The GP recognises the needs of the student and points them to a source of help.

The idea of a counsellor in college should be the same, and rather than maintain a chaplain for every poissble religion, the approach of allowing the counsellor to reconise that the needs of the student are “spiritual” in nature and referring that student on to the relevant external facilities would be desireable in this case.

So just like a doctor can recognise that a student requires an Optician or an Octologist… and will have good data on how to refer that student to one… the counsellor can recognise when the task at hands requires a Priest, an Imam or the local White Which in the case of wiccans.

Kooli wrote: »

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.

But it does. Every single allocation of limited college resources has an imact on students, regardless of their religion or lack of it.

As will all allocation of resources the onus is on the managers of such things to ensure that the allocation is justifiable. I am yet to see a convincing argument that maintaining a Chaplain, and the resources required to do it, brings any benefit at all, let alone ones that could just as easily be achieved by a counselor with a good referral procedure and database.

Kooli wrote: »

I'd also welcome the spare money that would be freed up if the disability office closed down. Does that mean I'm going to campaign to have it shut down? Nope!!

Nor should you. There are genuine justifiable benefits of such offices that are actually required by the students and serve towards our vested interest in those students.

Maintaining the physical and mental health of the students serves our vested interests. I already suggested an experiment to you to test that theory if you wished.

What I have not seen is that a maintenance of the students spiritual whims gains us anything, and again if you want to claim it does in order to justify the allocation of resources to a chaplain… the experiment to support your position is very clear and I laid it out… and I imagine it is very easy to do.

Suffice to say as a reply to your above though, there is a BIG difference between shutting things down just because we welcome the money we would get by doing so... and unjustifiably throwing money away on useless expenses.

Kooli

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??

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?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is not what is required at all, and is a horrific straw man of what is generally being said on this thread.

The idea of a secular Counsellor would not be to “cure” them of any such thing, but to refer them on to the relevant people who CAN help the student. They are not there to “cure” the students faith in the absence of a chaplain to nurture it.

I totally agree with what you're saying, as do most people on this thread I think. I was only responding to the exchange above, which to me seemed to be directly suggesting that I treat religious clients the same as others who are hearing voices, and offer them a 'real world cure'.

I really can't see that that is a straw man?

Mark Hamill explained what he meant by the 'real world cure' part, but not the 'hearing voices' part.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kooli wrote: »

To me that is still secular, because no religious instruction or practice is forced on any non-believer, and in fact they probably would never even know it's there.

But the practise IS being forced on them in the form of resources from the college THEY TO attend being diverted into funding such services.

It is not as simple as you want to make it sound… as if keeping this service behind closed doors and away from non-religious students automatically means they are protected from its influence and the college is therefore still “secular”.

More accurate is to think of the college as a body of students and a limited pool of resources designed to cater to those students. The very second any of those resources are directed into a Chaplaincy service is the very moment that the ENTIRE student community is “affected” as a whole.

So “they would never even know it’s there” simply does not cut it at all.

Instead, if the students have little whims such as Religious beliefs or the wish to play a sport… there is a procedure there to set up student societies and there is a procedure to apply for and receive grants to maintain your student society. I see no reason why the religious should be granted a free by-pass for this procedure.

If they want to start a “Christian” society, let them do so. If they want to apply for money from the pool like everyone else let them do so. If they want to spend that money on a Chaplain, then let them do so.

What is so unfair about this?

nozzferrahhtoo

Kooli wrote: »

I totally agree with what you're saying, as do most people on this thread I think. I was only responding to the exchange above, which to me seemed to be directly suggesting that I treat religious clients the same as others who are hearing voices, and offer them a 'real world cure'.

I really can't see that that is a straw man?

Yea I think it is a straw man because the person was suggesting you treat a real world problem with a real world cure.... not treat them for having "faith" which is how you interpreted it.

The hearing of voices if a very real problem and many people suffer from them.

This is ENTIRELY different to suggesting that you cure them of their religion which is the interpretation that you chose to take from the persons words.

Let me use an example to shed more light…

… if you were a GP and someone came in to you riddled with cancer and that person happened to be a very dedicated follower of Homeopathy… you would likely not use Homoepoathy to help him.

You would say “Look, try your homeopathy on your own time… but I am a doctor so this is what I think is wrong with you and this is how I intend to work on it….”

At NO POINT HERE do you try and “cure” him of his belief in homeopathy. It just does not figure once in your diagnosis or subsequent procedures. It would be to entirely miss the point to suggest you were. You are just using real cures to solve a real problem and simply ignoring his faith in homeopathy.

The same is true of “hearing voices” and the patient thinks it’s the voice of god or whatever. You say to them “Look, I am a doctor, here are the causes of hearing voices, and this is what we are going to do to deal with it…. If you want to explore in the mean time a spiritual side of this, take this card for Father Mickey… and talk to him… now can I get on with my job?”

This is NOT even _remotely_ similar to “curing them of faith”.

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

Mark Hamill explained what he meant by the 'real world cure' part, but not the 'hearing voices' part.

nozzferrahhtoo explained my point about "hearing voices" well. My example of someone "hearing voices" was in response to your questioning what you would do with a religious person with a religious issue in one of your sessions. My point (that I approached in a roundabout way) is that you dont approach this person in terms of what they believe to be true (a gp should not approach cancer treament in terms of homeopathy just because his patient believes in homeopathy, or a psychologist shouldn't approach helping someone who believes they see ghosts by hiring ghostbusters).
You have to approach everyones problems in terms of what is actually wrong with them and what real world solutions can you offer them that will actually help them.
A person who wants a sense of religious involvement may just be lonely. You can offer them a referal to a local religious group, or maybe suggest other social activities in the college to stop them being lonely.
A person who sees a conflict between their religious beliefs and their study may not be best helped by sending them to a religious group who is just going to support their conflict.

Kooli

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yea I think it is a straw man because the person was suggesting you treat a real world problem with a real world cure.... not treat them for having "faith" which is how you interpreted it.

The hearing of voices if a very real problem and many people suffer from them.

This is ENTIRELY different to suggesting that you cure them of their religion which is the interpretation that you chose to take from the persons words.

Let me use an example to shed more light…

… if you were a GP and someone came in to you riddled with cancer and that person happened to be a very dedicated follower of Homeopathy… you would likely not use Homoepoathy to help him.

You would say “Look, try your homeopathy on your own time… but I am a doctor so this is what I think is wrong with you and this is how I intend to work on it….”

At NO POINT HERE do you try and “cure” him of his belief in homeopathy. It just does not figure once in your diagnosis or subsequent procedures. It would be to entirely miss the point to suggest you were. You are just using real cures to solve a real problem and simply ignoring his faith in homeopathy.

The same is true of “hearing voices” and the patient thinks it’s the voice of god or whatever. You say to them “Look, I am a doctor, here are the causes of hearing voices, and this is what we are going to do to deal with it…. If you want to explore in the mean time a spiritual side of this, take this card for Father Mickey… and talk to him… now can I get on with my job?”

This is NOT even _remotely_ similar to “curing them of faith”.

But if you look again at the question I asked Mark Hamill, I wasn't talking about someone who is 'hearing voices' at all, I was talking about someone looking for spiritual guidance or religious community (which I think would be common reasons to go to a chaplain). He was suggesting they could come to a counsellor instead if the chaplaincy wasn't there, but I see no reason for them to come to a counsellor, they don't need counselling!! They don't have mental health issues! The issues they have are nothing to do with me or my work.

So I asked what I would do with this student in my session, and he suggested a 'real world cure', similar to others who 'hear voices'. You yourself say the same thing about treating a 'real world problem' with a 'real world cure'. But I'm unsure what 'Real world problem' you are talking about?

If there is a student who is hearing voices and believes it is God, then of course I would be assessing for psychosis.

But let's leave that aside, because it would be such a small minority of cases, and is not representative of the religious community who attend the chaplaincy.

So maybe I'm missing something, what is the 'real world problem' I am trying to deal with in these students who come to me looking for religious guidance in the hypothetical situation I was asking about? Is it 'hearing voices'? Or is it something else that hasn't been mentioned?

Again, the homeopathy analogy doesn't make sense to me. If someone was sick and wanted homeopathy they would go to a homeopath. If they went to a GP they would be going for traditional medicine. So of course the GP should not be talking about homeopathy or offering them homeopathy.
In the same way someone looking for spiritual or religious guidance would not come to a counsellor because the counsellor offers something different! They would go to a chaplain!
But a lot of people on this thread seem to be arguing that someone who is looking for religious guidance should go to a counsellor! In the homeopathy example that makes sense, of course they should go to a GP because homeopathy isn't going to cure them. BUT, the comparison doesn't hold because what the service a student would go to a chaplain for just simply cannot and is not provided by a counsellor!

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo explained my point about "hearing voices" well. My example of someone "hearing voices" was in response to your questioning what you would do with a religious person with a religious issue in one of your sessions. My point (that I approached in a roundabout way) is that you dont approach this person in terms of what they believe to be true (a gp should not approach cancer treament in terms of homeopathy just because his patient believes in homeopathy, or a psychologist shouldn't approach helping someone who believes they see ghosts by hiring ghostbusters).
You have to approach everyones problems in terms of what is actually wrong with them and what real world solutions can you offer them that will actually help them.
A person who wants a sense of religious involvement may just be lonely. You can offer them a referal to a local religious group, or maybe suggest other social activities in the college to stop them being lonely.
A person who sees a conflict between their religious beliefs and their study may not be best helped by sending them to a religious group who is just going to support their conflict.

Actually if you don't approach a counselling client from the point of view of what they believe to be true, you won't be seeing them for a second session.

I do see what you're saying to a point, but the fact is you are assuming they have some sort of 'real world problem' or a psychological issue. For some, that may be true and I could of course help them (but not by ignoring or bypassing their beliefs, as you seem to be suggesting). But there are other students who I couldn't help. Firstly, those who don't have any psychological issues at all, they just want spiritual guidance. Secondly, those who do have psychological issues but they see them from a spiritual point of view, and they would never set foot in a psychologist's office, so I would never have the opportunity to help them!

Both of those student groups would therefore not be helped by anyone if the chaplaincy were gone.

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

Actually if you don't approach a counselling client from the point of view of what they believe to be true, you won't be seeing them for a second session.

You dont approach helping them in terms of what they believe.

Kooli wrote: »

But there are other students who I couldn't help. Firstly, those who don't have any psychological issues at all, they just want spiritual guidance.

A secular educational institution should not be directly funding spiritual advisors. (As nozzferrahhtoo suggests here, a student religious society set up in the usual way that all societies are, which funds its own advisor would be much fairer).

Kooli wrote: »

Secondly, those who do have psychological issues but they see them from a spiritual point of view, and they would never set foot in a psychologist's office, so I would never have the opportunity to help them!

They would not get real world help from a religious chaplain anyway, so what difference would it make? (the chaplain would either try to approach their issue religiously, which would at best, solve nothing, or they would refer them to a psychologist, who they would not go to see anyway)

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

They would not get real world help from a religious chaplain anyway, so what difference would it make? (the chaplain would either try to approach their issue religiously, which would at best, solve nothing, or they would refer them to a psychologist, who they would not go to see anyway)

Well it depends what you call real world help.

Imagine a student who is feeling a bit lost on campus, or a bit isolated, perhaps because their religion is very important to them and they haven't found others who feel the same. Maybe they don't feel they fit in. Maybe they don't drink and most of the 'freshers' activities revolve around drink, as do the ways in which their class get to know each other.

They could go to the chaplaincy and find a 'real world solution'. There they will find advice and guidance, and a community in college that they can be a part of. They will find people that they have things in common with. The chaplain may give them support in religious matters, such as staying true to their beliefs (perhaps about premarital sex) in the face of peer pressure. They may be much happier that way, feel more settled in the college, feel they 'belong' and hey presto, they don't drop out! (Yay more fees for the college!)

Yes that student could come to me, but you know what I'd do? Send them to the chaplaincy!! I don't see what 'real world solution' I could offer that would work as well for them (or better). The outcome would simply be better with a chaplain.

Now where there are mental health issues involved, I of course think they should be seeing a mental health professional. But where there are none, there is no reason they should.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kooli wrote: »

But if you look again at the question I asked Mark Hamill, I wasn't talking about someone who is 'hearing voices' at all, I was talking about someone looking for spiritual guidance or religious community (which I think would be common reasons to go to a chaplain).

Yes I am aware of that being your point. It is not for me to moderate the discussion between you and him. I merely wanted to point out that your interpretation of what he said about those “voices” was entirely wrong.

The user was using an analogy, that is all. You alas took that analogy up entirely wrong and suggested that the user was calling for counsellors to cure people of “faith”. Not so.

However as for your main point… IF a person comes to the college counsellor looking for some form of spiritual guidance then let that counsellor refer that student on to the local Wiccan, Imam, Priest, Yogi, Guru or whatever it is that is relevant. We do not need to maintain a representative of each of those faiths in the college to achieve ANY of this.

The student will then realise the same help from the person he is referred to.

This is the point of a college GP and a college Counsellor. They do not need to fix every problem that comes before them. They DO need to be trained enough to recognise the needs of the student and refer them on.

Just like we do not need an Octologist in colleges… but a GP who can diagnose Ear trouble enough to then refer the student on to an octologist… what need is there for a Chaplain?

Counsellors are not just there to solve mental health issues. They are there to recognise and diagnose the non medical needs of a student and to help them work through it themselves.

Kooli wrote: »

Again, the homeopathy analogy doesn't make sense to me. If someone was sick and wanted homeopathy they would go to a homeopath.

Our point exactly. And where would he find such a homeopath? A lot of people beleive in Homeopathy and some people would not be without it. Is there ANY onus therefore for the college to maintain a homeopathic salesman? Not in the slightest.

Why? Because the college can simply not be expected to cater to every single whim the student body decides to have. The resources of the college MUST be put into things that are actually useful and effective. Just because some students would LIKE to have access to a homeopathic salesperson, does not mean we need to cater to that.

So if some student randomly decides he would like to go to some sort of priest or chaplain... why should we pander to this? It has nothing to do with college and nothing to do with the successful completion of college courses... which is NOT something you can say about maintaining, say, a GP or a counselor.

The whole aspect of this is people are just auto assuming that spiritual health is on a par with physical and mental health. I already suggested more than once on this thread a set of experiments to test that and I suggest to you that the result of those experiments will likely show that physical health and mental health have a direct effect on general results, while nurturing a students faith in the supernatural will not.

And if the latter does not, what right have the masters of the limited resources of a college got to be investing in such things? The onus on them is to use resources wisely and effectively, not to squander it on random whims of the that the student population feel might be important.

Kooli wrote: »

But a lot of people on this thread seem to be arguing that someone who is looking for religious guidance should go to a counsellor!

Again, as I have just written, this is not wholly accurate. That they should go to the counsellor is a given frmo what we are saying, but not fort he spiritual guidance itself. The counsellor should be a first point of contact who will help a student work through their issues. A counsellor can easily diagnose the students problem as religious and spiritual in nature, and pull out the relevant leaflets, blurb and contact numbers that the student requires.

The example I keep using is that we do not maintain a college Octologist just because the college GP is unable to deal with most issues of the Ear. The GP infact diagnoses the ear issue and pulls out the necessary blurb and contact details of a trained octologist.

How is a counselor referring the student to an external Yoggi or Priest ANY different to that?

nozzferrahhtoo

Kooli wrote: »

Imagine a student who is feeling a bit lost on campus, or a bit isolated, perhaps because their religion is very important to them and they haven't found others who feel the same. Maybe they don't feel they fit in. Maybe they don't drink and most of the 'freshers' activities revolve around drink, as do the ways in which their class get to know each other.

No need to imagine it. It happens ALL the time.

For example there was a student in my class in college who was into Warhammer Fantasy gaming. He did not drink, hated night clubs, and so did not entirely fit in.

What did he do? He set up a Warhammer gaming society in our college, applied for funding for it and then partnered himself with the one in the University up the road and one in a university on the opposite coast to us.

Through this he found internally and externally a network of people where he did fit in.

What I am suggesting for the Christian student is to follow the same procedure as everyone else… stop pretending that being Religious gets you some special Bypass where you can avoid normal procedure… and then set up their own society by the normal methods.

Again I have to repeat my as yet unanswered question… what there is so unfair? Why does one persons fantasy based society usurp anothers? Why does one have to go through all proper procedures and another gets a free ride?

Kooli wrote: »

The chaplain may give them support in religious matters, such as staying true to their beliefs (perhaps about premarital sex) in the face of peer pressure.

You are totally assuming the “Chaplain” has any relevance to the faith the student feels part of at all. What of the Muslim student in a college with a Christian chaplain?? How is he going to feel any less left out than your example? Do we maintain a Muslim chaplain too then? If yes… what of the Hindu? The Wiccan? How many Chaplains do you want?

In fact what you suggest is MORE damaging to that student. Not only will he feel left out, but when he looks at the services offered he will not only feel left out, but will find that the college openly supports a religion that is not Islam. It will feel like even the college is against him.

However if there was only a secular counsellor… who could take BOTH students, diagnose their needs separately, and refer them on to the relevant external sources…. Then both students get a resolution…. And both students are not given the impression the college is specifically catering for the needs of others and not him.

Kooli wrote: »

Yes that student could come to me, but you know what I'd do? Send them to the chaplaincy!!

As you should. No one is saying you should not.

The argument is whether the college itself should be maintaining the contact that you refer the student to. Diagnosing the needs of the student and referring them on is EXACTLY WHAT WE WOULD WANT YOU TO DO.

The point we have is not that there is an issue with that… but there is an issue with the person you are referring to being one maintained by the college.

Your diagnosis and solution are sound. However just like the college does not hold in supply all the drugs the college GP might prescribe... the college ALSO should not hold in supply all the contact points the Counselor might prescribe.

What difference is there between the GP saying "Go to the Chemist and get drug X" and the counselor saying "Go down to Saint Anthony's and speak with Father Mickey"?

axer

Kooli wrote: »

Imagine a student who is feeling a bit lost on campus, or a bit isolated, perhaps because their religion is very important to them and they haven't found others who feel the same. Maybe they don't feel they fit in. Maybe they don't drink and most of the 'freshers' activities revolve around drink, as do the ways in which their class get to know each other.

There are plenty of relgious societies that they can join and plenty of people that can point them to those societies without needing a chaplain.

Kooli wrote: »

They could go to the chaplaincy and find a 'real world solution'. There they will find advice and guidance, and a community in college that they can be a part of. They will find people that they have things in common with. The chaplain may give them support in religious matters, such as staying true to their beliefs (perhaps about premarital sex) in the face of peer pressure. They may be much happier that way, feel more settled in the college, feel they 'belong' and hey presto, they don't drop out! (Yay more fees for the college!)

This is asking for special priviledge for religious students here.

Kooli wrote: »

Yes that student could come to me, but you know what I'd do? Send them to the chaplaincy!! I don't see what 'real world solution' I could offer that would work as well for them (or better). The outcome would simply be better with a chaplain.

Why not send them to a meeting of the religious society that would suit them best? What would you do with a athiest student experiencing the exact same issues only from the point of view of an athiest?

Kooli wrote: »

Now where there are mental health issues involved, I of course think they should be seeing a mental health professional. But where there are none, there is no reason they should.

You don't have to have a mental health issue to see a counsellor in fact I would assume a counsellor can help prevent a mental health issue from arising due to the counselling provided. Would you not agree?

prinz

axer wrote: »

There are plenty of relgious societies that they can join and plenty of people that can point them to those societies without needing a chaplain.

Really? There are? Funnily enough I don't remember a single one in my university.

axer

prinz wrote: »

Really? There are? Funnily enough I don't remember a single one in my university.

http://www.socs.nuigalway.ie/society_profiles/view/27
http://www.socs.nuigalway.ie/society_profiles/view/66
and thats only NUIG.

Heres one in in UCD:
http://www.ucd.ie/cunion/

Then there are two in Maynooth:
http://studentactivities.nuim.ie/clubsandsocs.shtml

prinz

axer wrote: »

http://www.socs.nuigalway.ie/society_profiles/view/27
http://www.socs.nuigalway.ie/society_profiles/view/66
and thats only NUIG.

Heres one in in UCD:
http://www.ucd.ie/cunion/

Then there are two in Maynooth:
http://studentactivities.nuim.ie/clubsandsocs.shtml

If only I'd gone to one of those huh. Point being, not every university has a religious/faith society.

Edit: The one I attended seems to have a Christian Society now. Must be a new thing. Don't recall that being there 8 years ago.

Kooli

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are totally assuming the “Chaplain” has any relevance to the faith the student feels part of at all. What of the Muslim student in a college with a Christian chaplain?? How is he going to feel any less left out than your example? Do we maintain a Muslim chaplain too then? If yes… what of the Hindu? The Wiccan? How many Chaplains do you want?

In fact what you suggest is MORE damaging to that student. Not only will he feel left out, but when he looks at the services offered he will not only feel left out, but will find that the college openly supports a religion that is not Islam. It will feel like even the college is against him.

Actually I think this point is important. My take on it (and I'd love to hear from a religious person if I'm totally off the mark here) is that if a religious person has religious issues, they would be more comfortable talking to a chaplain from any religion than to a secular counsellor. They would probably feel more understood there. I'm just imagining that if I were a believer I would prefer to go to someone else who believed (even if it was a different religion) than to someone who possible doesn't believe and might think I'm a bit mad. I can think of one of my clients who attends the chaplaincy regularly who is of a pretty uncommon religion, but I couldn't be sure they are representative.

So while minority religions probably won't find a student society on campus (cos there aren't enough of them), they may feel comfortable in the chaplaincy.

To repeat something I said earlier, if there comes a time when the number of religious students on campus has dropped and the chaplaincy is no longer justified, I will be really delighted! It's not something I have any time for myself.

But at the moment, there quite simply are lots of students with a strong Christian faith (which at the moment is a lot more than Wiccans or Warhammer players or even muslims) and I'm happy for any student service to continue to meet the needs of students for as long as required, as long as non-religious students don't feel that their needs are not being met as a result.

Student life can be really tough for some people, so I would never be one to advocate the removal of a student service unless I saw real evidence of harm. Ideological reasons just aren't enough of a justification.

Kooli

axer wrote: »

What would you do with a athiest student experiencing the exact same issues only from the point of view of an athiest?

Well that's a really important point. I don't see what an atheist equivalent would be? What service would an atheist look for that is to do with their atheism? Atheism simply means not believing in God, what specific supports would they need around that?

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

Well that's a really important point. I don't see what an atheist equivalent would be? What service would an atheist look for that is to do with their atheism? Atheism simply means not believing in God, what specific supports would they need around that?

An atheist student may be looking for an atheist (or humanist) association (maybe because they are feeling discriminated against because of all the religious chaplains ). What would you do then? Send them to the religious chaplain?

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

An atheist student may be looking for an atheist (or humanist) association (maybe because they are feeling discriminated against because of all the religious chaplains ). What would you do then? Send them to the religious chaplain?

I still don't get what their actual need is? What issue are they looking for help with? What service do they require??
It sounds like they are just trying to make some sort of political point. Student services aren't really there for that....

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

I still don't get what their actual need is? What issue are they looking for help with? What service do they require??
It sounds like they are just trying to make some sort of political point. Student services aren't really there for that....

Here is a your description of a theistic student who you said wouldn't be best helped by a secualr counsellor :

Kooli wrote:

Imagine a student who is feeling a bit lost on campus, or a bit isolated, perhaps because their religion is very important to them and they haven't found others who feel the same. Maybe they don't feel they fit in. Maybe they don't drink and most of the 'freshers' activities revolve around drink, as do the ways in which their class get to know each other.

Lest apply that example to an atheist student:
Imagine a student who is feeling a bit lost on campus, or a bit isolated, perhaps because religion is not important to them and they haven't found others who feel the same. Maybe they don't feel they fit in. Maybe they don't drink and most of the 'freshers' activities revolve around drink, as do the ways in which their class get to know each other.

What do you do? Do you send them away, saying student services are there to help with these issues, all the while welcoming in theistic students with open arms? If its not the student services job to help atheistic students wth these issues, why is it the student services to help the theistic students with these issues?

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Here is a your description of a theistic student who you said wouldn't be best helped by a secualr counsellor :


Lest apply that example to an atheist student:
Imagine a student who is feeling a bit lost on campus, or a bit isolated, perhaps because religion is not important to them and they haven't found others who feel the same. Maybe they don't feel they fit in. Maybe they don't drink and most of the 'freshers' activities revolve around drink, as do the ways in which their class get to know each other.

What do you do? Do you send them away, saying student services are there to help with these issues, all the while welcoming in theistic students with open arms? If its not the student services job to help atheistic students wth these issues, why is it the student services to help the theistic students with these issues?

That really makes no sense to me. You're saying someone would be looking for support services because religion is not important to them? And they are looking for other people who religion is not important to? I can't really imagine that.

Golf is something that is not important to me. I wouldn't particularly feel the need to seek out other people with the same non-interests as me to feel a sense of community!

I think you are determined to feel discriminated against!!

axer

Kooli wrote: »

That really makes no sense to me. You're saying someone would be looking for support services because religion is not important to them? And they are looking for other people who religion is not important to? I can't really imagine that.

Nope, they are exeriencing the exact same problems as the hypothetical person you posted about. The person is feeling lost on campus or a bit isolated. Religion means nothing to them. Maybe they feel like they don't fit in. Maybe they don't drink and most of the 'freshers' activities revolve around drink, as do the ways in which their class get to know each other.

What do you do?

Kooli

axer wrote: »

Nope, they are exeriencing the exact same problems as the hypothetical person you posted about. The person is feeling lost on campus or a bit isolated. Religion means nothing to them. Maybe they feel like they don't fit in. Maybe they don't drink and most of the 'freshers' activities revolve around drink, as do the ways in which their class get to know each other.

What do you do?

Oh OK so you're saying that their atheism is actually irrelevant. The previous poster said they were feeling lost or isolated because religion is not important to them.

You're just talking about a regular student who is feeling lonely, isolated, not fitting in or whatever. If they choose to come to me, I will help them. They might choose to go somewhere else (students union, societies, support groups, student advisor etc) and get the help there.

There are number of places they can go, and they will choose the one that best suits them based on what they feel they need. I'm not sure what the argument is? Are you saying they are discriminated against? Or that there should be some sort of 'atheist service' even though the students problems have nothing to do with belief or lack of belief? An extra service on top of what is already available?

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

That really makes no sense to me. You're saying someone would be looking for support services because religion is not important to them? And they are looking for other people who religion is not important to? I can't really imagine that.

Golf is something that is not important to me. I wouldn't particularly feel the need to seek out other people with the same non-interests as me to feel a sense of community!

I think you are determined to feel discriminated against!!

OK. You have said the part in bold on an Atheist and Agnostic forum, so I can only assume that you are taking the piss. Are you being satirical or something? Have I fallen for Poes Law?

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

OK. You have said the part in bold on an Atheist and Agnostic forum, so I can only assume that you are taking the piss. Are you being satirical or something?

Nope, not at all.

I just can't imagine a student needing support on campus because they are an atheist, and wanting that support to be atheist-specific. Perhaps you could explain it to me?

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

Nope, not at all.

I just can't imagine a student needing support on campus because they are an atheist, and wanting that support to be atheist-specific. Perhaps you could explain it to me?

I dont understand your problem. What did you come to this forum for? What do others come to this forum for? They want other athiests/agnostic to talk to, they want a little sense of community, like the people who go to the soccor forum want a little footbal community, the film forum goers want a little film community. I dont understand how you can you easily accept someone wanting a community on religious terms, but you have a problem with someone who specifically wants one without religious domination (not necessarily atheistic, just non religious, like a humanist society).
I honestly think you are just being difficult on purpose.

Truley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I dont understand how you can you easily accept someone wanting a community on religious terms, but you have a problem with someone who specifically wants one without religious domination (not necessarily atheistic, just non religious, like a humanist society).
I honestly think you are just being difficult on purpose.

But apart from college chaplains and religious societies aren't nearly all college societies and services without religious domination So what you're saying doesn't make any sense.

Can you name an aspect of college life that specifically isolates non-religous people?

Mark Hamill

Truley wrote: »

But apart from college chaplains and religious societies aren't nearly all college societies and services without religious domination So what you're saying doesn't make any sense.

Can you name an aspect of college life that specifically isolates non-religous people?

I dont understand how you can think that what you say here applies to students in college, but doesn't apply to people here on this forum? Do you have a problem with this forum? Does it baffle you why people come here to discuss things atheistically/agnostically?
Take what people want to discuss in their religious community* (abortion, education, presence in law and the constitution) and atheists/agnostics want to discuss the same things, but from the other point of view (ie non religiously). That is the point of this very forum. To not recognise that people outside of this forum may want the same things in college, is just madness.

*remember that a religious community only offers one thing that a secular community doesn't, and thats religious ceremony. Everything else (all the little clubs people make-book clubs, gaming clubs, sports clubs, discussion groups) still exist in secular societies.

axer

Truley wrote: »

Can you name an aspect of college life that specifically isolates non-religous people?

The same thing could be asked back to you. This is why secularism is a good thing as nobody should be isolated from anything or treated any better or worse just because of their beliefs. I for one would not visit a chaplain for advice since their beliefs are worn around their necks.

I think the overall point here is that you cannot cater for every belief or religion so it is best just to be secular and cater for everyone. A religious person can be helped just as well as a non-religious person with a secular counsellor. A religious counsellor might help a religious slightly better by affirming their beliefs but then a non-religious person or a person from a different religion loses out. Religious counsellors have no place in a secular college unless they want to fund themselves.

johnfás

I'd have no problem with a parallel support service being paid for by the university, in addition to current provisions, for those who are of an atheistic point of view. The problem is certification and accountability. In order to sanction somebody to have an official capacity on campus there has to be structures for both certification of the person in question and an accountability structure. If atheists want to organise themselves with like minded atheists and sort out such a structure, more power to them I say. The more choice for our young people when they go through struggles the better.

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I dont understand your problem. What did you come to this forum for? What do others come to this forum for? They want other athiests/agnostic to talk to, they want a little sense of community, like the people who go to the soccor forum want a little footbal community, the film forum goers want a little film community. I dont understand how you can you easily accept someone wanting a community on religious terms, but you have a problem with someone who specifically wants one without religious domination (not necessarily atheistic, just non religious, like a humanist society).
I honestly think you are just being difficult on purpose.

I personally come here because this is a topic that interests me and I enjoy discussing it.
I don't need any support around my atheism or atheist guidance. Maybe others come for that reason. I don't. Do you come here for atheist guidance?

I feel like we're arguing about a bizarre hypothetical. I would wager that it has never occurred that a student has requested a student support service that revolves around their atheism. If there was a need, then it would make sense that we are discussing it here. But I don't think there is one. So there's no need to argue about whether it should be provided!

Truley

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I dont understand how you can think that what you say here applies to students in college, but doesn't apply to people here on this forum? Do you have a problem with this forum? Does it baffle you why people come here to discuss things atheistically/agnostically?

eh... what?

Take what people want to discuss in their religious community* (abortion, education, presence in law and the constitution) and atheists/agnostics want to discuss the same things, but from the other point of view (ie non religiously). That is the point of this very forum. To not recognise that people outside of this forum may want the same things in college, is just madness.

Yes but what I'm saying is people outside of this forum, ie in third level institutions (which is the point of this thread) have all the freedom they want to discuss things from a specifically non religious point of view, or to get non-religious advice. The vast majority of the third level welfare and education services are, by their very ethos, non religious. So why would there be a need to set up another service that is specifically non religious? All colleges offer the freedom to set up humanist or athiest clubs. A chaplain is a religious guidance counsellor, a counsellor/psychologist/welfare officer is a secular guidance counsellor - are you suggesting a specifically athiest guidance counsellor? As in one who will be biased to the idea of no god?

remember that a religious community only offers one thing that a secular community doesn't, and thats religious ceremony. Everything else (all the little clubs people make-book clubs, gaming clubs, sports clubs, discussion groups) still exist in secular societies.

A chaplain offers a service specifically tailored to religious people who want it. It is a specific service that if taken away could not be replaced. The issue here isn't so much should we have a chaplaincy, the question is should we take it away.

axer wrote: »

The same thing could be asked back to you. This is why secularism is a good thing as nobody should be isolated from anything or treated any better or worse just because of their beliefs. I for one would not visit a chaplain for advice since their beliefs are worn around their necks.

I wouldn't consider it isolating as it is a seperate service for a specific type of person that people go out of their way to find and partake in. If you don't use it it has no direct effect on you, you simply don't use it. I don't consider myself isolated from the Cuman na Gaelige because I'm not a member and don't use their services.

I think the overall point here is that you cannot cater for every belief or religion so it is best just to be secular and cater for everyone. A religious person can be helped just as well as a non-religious person with a secular counsellor. A religious counsellor might help a religious slightly better by affirming their beliefs but then a non-religious person or a person from a different religion loses out. Religious counsellors have no place in a secular college unless they want to fund themselves.

As I said before the chaplaincy is a specific branch that works in conjunction with the overall mental health services. You can't easily compare a counsellor with a chaplain as they do not offer the same service, it is not just a case of one or the other. Doctors, Nurses, Psycharitists, Counsellors, Chaplains, Psychologists are all specialised branches of the Mental Health service. I don't see the point in forcing a student to see as psychologist or a counsellor when they would have been happier to see a chaplain. It wouldn't be financially better - as another poster already pointed out, and it wouldn't be conducive to a better overall service.

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

I personally come here because this is a topic that interests me and I enjoy discussing it.
I don't need any support around my atheism or atheist guidance. Maybe others come for that reason. I don't. Do you come here for atheist guidance?

I get guidance without any religious overtones, so in a way yes. I get to have conversations about things like abortion and smacking kids and science without any useless religious undertones and I get to discuss the issues religion presents in the real world, be it supposedly secular primary schools discriminating against the non religious or the issue of the burka. I come here, not for atheistic support, just for non-religious support, and sure some of the debates with theists can be interesting challenges.

Kooli wrote: »

I feel like we're arguing about a bizarre hypothetical. I would wager that it has never occurred that a student has requested a student support service that revolves around their atheism. If there was a need, then it would make sense that we are discussing it here. But I don't think there is one. So there's no need to argue about whether it should be provided!

You are looking at from the wrong way around (I thought I avoided this obvious convolution by describing these students as atheists and agnostics and humanists) Its not sevices that revolves around their atheism that they want, its services that dont revolve around religion (ie secular services).

Kooli

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its not sevices that revolves around their atheism that they want, its services that dont revolve around religion (ie secular services).

Like for instance counselling? And the health service? And the students' union? And the careers service? And the disability service? And the student advisory service?

Are you arguing that such a student who wants a secular service can't access one?

I'm confused, when I said I didn't understand why someone would seek an atheist support service, you were incredulous that I could not understand this, because I use this forum.

You're now saying that you weren't talking about an atheist support service at all, just a secular one?

I'm a bit lost...

Mark Hamill

Truley wrote: »

The vast majority of the third level welfare and education services are, by their very ethos, non religious. So why would there be a need to set up another service that is specifically non religious?

All third level welfare and college should be nonreligious. Its called secularism.

Truley wrote: »

A chaplain is a religious guidance counsellor, a counsellor/psychologist/welfare officer is a secular guidance counsellor

So chaplains are guidance counsellors? Are you sure? Because they weren't a page or two ago.

Truley wrote: »

- are you suggesting a specifically athiest guidance counsellor? As in one who will be biased to the idea of no god?

No where did you get that from?

Truley wrote: »

A chaplain offers a service specifically tailored to religious people who want it. It is a specific service that if taken away could not be replaced. The issue here isn't so much should we have a chaplaincy, the question is should we take it away.

The question is should a secular place of education be directly funding a chaplaincy. I say no because
1)A secular institution should not directly fund a discriminatory religious service.
2)If the religious students want one, then they can get the religious society to fund one.
3)A place of education, who holds to the ideals of providing the best possible education, should not be providing the untested placebo that is religious guidance (no more than they should provide homeopathy)

Truley wrote: »

I wouldn't consider it isolating as it is a seperate service for a specific type of person that people go out of their way to find and partake in. If you don't use it it has no direct effect on you, you simply don't use it. I don't consider myself isolated from the Cuman na Gaelige because I'm not a member and don't use their services.

You choose wether or not to be part of Cuman na Gaelige, wether or not to pay the membership fee and fund their activities. You dont in the case of a university employed chaplain.

Truley wrote: »

As I said before the chaplaincy is a specific branch that works in conjunction with the overall mental health services. You can't easily compare a counsellor with a chaplain as they do not offer the same service, it is not just a case of one or the other. Doctors, Nurses, Psycharitists, Counsellors, Chaplains, Psychologists are all specialised branches of the Mental Health service.

The chaplains are not specialised branches of the health services. You cant get a credited degree in chaplaincy, any one can offer their services, the label is legally protected. Where do you get this nonsense from? Its utter BS.

johnfás

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You choose wether or not to be part of Cuman na Gaelige, wether or not to pay the membership fee and fund their activities. You dont in the case of a university employed chaplain.

You choose whether or not you are a member of Cuman na Gaeilge, but not whether or not you fund the Irish language officer.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The chaplains are not specialised branches of the health services. You cant get a credited degree in chaplaincy, any one can offer their services, the label is legally protected. Where do you get this nonsense from? Its utter BS.

Chaplains have either an undergraduate degree with a pastoral component, and most have a masters degree or postgraduate diploma in pastoral studies. Such degrees are accredited by universities including the National University of Ireland and most major universities around the world.

Mark Hamill

Kooli wrote: »

Like for instance counselling? And the health service? And the students' union? And the careers service? And the disability service? And the student advisory service?

Are you arguing that such a student who wants a secular service can't access one?

I'm confused, when I said I didn't understand why someone would seek an atheist support service, you were incredulous that I could not understand this, because I use this forum.

You're now saying that you weren't talking about an atheist support service at all, just a secular one?

I'm a bit lost...

Its your own fault. You keep trying to twist what I say and you continuously conflate two issues. The issues of atheists/agnostics wanting the same the same sense of community that that lost lonely theist you described a few pages pack would want, and the issue of what a chaplain actually provides and wether the college should be directly funding it.
All students want a sense of community in college, all students want groups of likeminded people that they can discuss and act out their hobbies with. And so, colleges fund these based on the numbers who join each one. These are the societies and sports clubs you get.
The directly funded services supplied by the college, things like clinics, counsellors, the administration etc, are funded because these are essential for keeping the students healthy and for keeping them in class.
The chaplaincy however is not covered by either of these. As you said ,it is not just a counsellor with a religious slant, its worth is purely in terms of the religious ceremonies it covers.
However why should a college cover that?
The sense of community it supposedly gives is well covered by the other societies in college (both religious and non religious). As for the objective mental benefit? Its no more effective than homeopathy, a placebo which people will cheering support the efficacy of while dying of treatable disease. It doesn't offer anything that either: cant be gotten elsewhere, that can be objectively shown to work and that a secular institution should directly supprot and fund.