On School Chaplains and Religious Freedom

Bill Muehlenberg looks at today's High Court decision on school chaplain funding, and asks whether it might not be time for Christian organisations to start refusing taxpayer funding:

A High Court ruling has declared that government funding of the school chaplaincy program is invalid according to the Australian constitution. This ruling raises many issues and many questions, and is a very important decision indeed.

One news report covers the story this way:

The High Court has ruled that the national school chaplaincy program is constitutionally invalid because it exceeds the Commonwealth’s funding powers. In a landmark decision that could cast doubt on other areas of Commonwealth funding, the court this morning upheld a challenge to the scheme by Queensland father Ron Williams.

The Howard government introduced the scheme in 2007, offering schools up to $20,000 a year to introduce or extend chaplaincy services. One of Australia’s leading constitutional lawyers George Williams said the implications of the case were massive and could potentially affect any program directly funded by the federal government.

The ruling came about as a result of a challenge a Toowoomba father made about the chaplaincy program. The ramifications of this decision may well be far reaching, and it is too early to tell just what all the implications of this will be.

The report continues:

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott told reporters in Queanbeyan that he wanted the chaplaincy program to continue but noted that he hadn’t yet seen the court’s decision. ‘We invented the program, we support the program, we want it to continue,’ he said. ‘Let’s have a look at the decision and let’s see what the government has in mind. I think it would be a real pity if this program wasn’t able to continue.’

Scripture Union Queensland, Australia’s largest employer of chaplains, which was the defendant to the High Court action, said today’s decision was about a particular historical funding model. ‘Even though that model might be invalid, it does not keep chaplains from supporting school communities,’ chief executive officer Peter James said. ‘Instead, it means that a new funding model is needed.’

The High Court decision that government funding of chaplaincy in Queensland schools is invalid is only ‘a technicality’ and will not mean the end of the program, Australian Christian Lobby head Jim Wallace said today. ‘The government is committed to the program and I expect it will find an appropriate way of directing the funds,’ Brigadier Wallace said. ‘There’s no challenge to the religious aspect. I’d anticipate it will move quickly – we are talking about a bureaucratic solution’.

SU Queensland, which was the focus of this case, put out a press release saying in part:

“The High Court of Australia today ruled the Federal Government’s direct funding model is not valid. The Court left open the option for the Government to continue funding either under new legislation or a grant of funds to the states and territories. SU QLD Incoming CEO Peter James said the decision meant that the great work chaplains do across the nation will continue as long as the Government acts swiftly to ensure the funding continues.

“He said, although the historical funding model does not work, the court unanimously held there is no problem of ‘church – state’ separation from chaplaincy and that other funding models are possible. ‘Chaplains provide an important child and youth welfare role. This is recognised by the school principals and school communities who have chosen to have a “chappy”,’ he said.

“‘This decision means that for the vital work of chaplains to continue, we need a new funding model. We will be working with the Federal Government to ensure that happens.’ Mr James said that over 2000 school communities across Australia have chaplains and many will lose their chaplains if a new federal funding model is not put in place.”

Because it is early days yet, and because I am certainly not a legal eagle, my thoughts on this must be both tentative and limited. But a few general remarks can be made. While a program like this has done a tremendous amount of good, and helped countless children, the new strident atheism which is growing in voice and militancy is a factor to be reckoned with.

This particular father who initiated the case is obviously not a great fan of the faith, and it was his objections that have led to this outcome. Such opposition to faith-based charitable works like this is rather recent. In the not-too-distant past most Australians – even non-Christian Australians – would not have taken offence at such a program.

But the new atheism popularised by people like Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens has resulted in a new activism by the secularists and misotheists. And given that the West is no longer just post-Christian but increasingly anti-Christian, we can expect to see more of these sorts of cases and decisions.

Moreover, given these realities, this case opens up the much bigger issue of just how dependent Christian groups of any kind – be they churches, Bible schools, charities, parachurch groups, and so on – should be on any form of government funding.

The simple truth is, as the saying goes, “he who pays the piper calls the tune”. That is, whenever groups receive state monies, the state can dictate how that money is used, and they can radically curtail or restrict what these religious bodies do and say. They pull the strings, and the groups must act accordingly.

This is a major theological, political and historical issue which cannot be fully entered into here. But one historical point might be noted. Many decades ago groups like the National Civic Council lobbied governments to extend education funding to Catholic schools.

This was seen as a real justice issue. Simply put, religious folks who sent their kids to non-government schools were facing double jeopardy. They had to pay their taxes to support the public school system even though they did not directly benefit from it. Then they had to pay for the Catholic education as well – so they were getting slugged twice.

So in the 1960s changes were made and government funding became available for Catholic schools. That seemed to work fine at first, but as I mentioned, as governments get increasingly secular and hostile to religion, and as various activist groups keep demanding and getting special rights, this then puts real pressure on any religious body getting government funding.

For example, the whole raft of equal opportunity laws and anti-discrimination legislation includes all sorts of pro-homosexual agendas, which many religious schools would not be happy with. Often there are now exemptions for these groups, but they are tenuous at best, and could be withdrawn at any time.

Thus given this adversarial climate, increasingly religious bodies getting public funds will be asked – or demanded – to do things which violate their own religious principles and scruples. So what is to be done? That is a question I will not seek to finally answer here, but it is a vitally important question which must be raised.

It seems to me as Christian persecution intensifies, and anti-Christian bigotry becomes solidified, including at government levels, then all real churches and religious groups need to ask themselves some hard questions. How long can they feed at the government trough and not be compromised? At what point must they reject such funding?

Maybe they need to fully trust God for their finances, and not put all their faith – or so much of it – in the state. Those religious bodies which are getting government funds: what will they do? Will they prefer to compromise their convictions and water down their beliefs and practises, simply to keep getting the money?

Or will they take a stand on principle, and renounce such funding in the interests of maintaining pure policy, teaching and practice? Many religious bodies have not yet reached this place of decision – but they may soon well. Thus it is incumbent on all religious groups to think through these matters hard and long, before it becomes too late.

Bill Muehlenberg is a Melbourne based author who lectures part time in ethics, theology and philosophy. He has an interactive blogsite called CultureWatch. 

Comments

[Oldskool]

1.

So our constitution allows for millions upon millions to be spent on discussing gay marriage ad nauseum?

Our constitution allows for left wing lunacy to be spread like cancer into our school?

Our constitution allows for funding for gay pride marches?

our constitution allows for the ABC to be an appendage of the Left wing?

Yet it does not allow a little balance with the Chaplincy program?

Sadly, even our judiciary are being infiltrated by the left wing lunacy politics if that is the imbalance of the what they interpret the constitution to be

Just like Obama in the US the constitution is being set aside and brats radishes to suit the left wing agenda

[bluebell]

2.

I see the noisy MINORITY wins again!! At a time when our kids need all the moral guidance they can get this slimy weirdo pulls the rug from under a DECENT program that was delivering good results. It's people like this that make my blood boil. This wasn't about Christians pushing their barrow, this was about other religions providing guidance and comfort to their child adherents as well. His kids would NOT have been forced in any way to see these people. The guy is a nutty attention seeking fruitcake those despises any hint of religion inside a public school. Well, here's a message: It's not all about YOUR snotty nosed kids mate. There are other parents who pay their taxes, send their kids to school and who DON'T have problem with school chaplains!! As usual in this rudderless country it's the NOISY MINORITY that dictates to the overwhelming MAJORITY! So how many people here are going to take this crap???

[Matt Gray]

3.

OK hold the phone. This decision was actually a loss for the atheistic fraternity. The s116 argument was roundly dismissed by the highest court in the land. There was no breach of the section relating to religion. The only decision made was with respect to something the Federal government does in many different areas - it took on a role reserved for the states. That's it - they took a constitutionally invalid method to distribute funding. End of argument. It will be annoying for my mate who works in funding chaplains - he will now be put through more bureaucracy and admin - but the decision is a narrow one - not a broad ideological matter.

In fact, perhaps this has created a dead end for future action on s116. The atheist has blunted a potential future weapon for his team.

[FOIcentric]

4.

So it is alright for people to use schools to access children for the purposes of prosletizing? Everyone pays taxes, it is not about that, it is about what is suitable or appropriate for the home and school.

There is a reason why there is separation of Church and state. Yes children need guidance and a place to go if they experience problems. That is what counsellors are for, and counsellors can be Christians, atheists, buddhists or organic gardeners, as long as their primary motive is to assist not to use the contact as an opportunity for conversion. Religious beliefs are the domain of the home. It is up to parents to provide the value systems by which their children are raised not some arbitrarily appointed religious figure.

Can't people see this simple fact beyond the usual anti-atheist, anti-secularist diatribe. It is NOT anti-religion or anti-Christian to seek autonomy over the way we raise our children and to what influences they are subjected in their tender years.

A strong value system and moral guidance are not the domain of only the Christian religion. It is arrogant to assume so.

[David Capper]

5.

Matt,

What you say seems correct. It was the method of funding that was unconstitutional, not the Chaplaincy Programme per se. It appear what is required is different funding method (ie specific legislation or passing the funding to the States). The greater implication of this judgement appears to be that similar funding methods are used for many Commonwealth Government programmes, and these funding methods may now be unconstitutional.

[Jayel]

6.

Is this an example of the good Christian morals and values we can expect?

[Oldskool]

7.

The constitutional matter aside

You pose the question of recruiting to Christianity in school.

My response is that the only active recruiting is toward the left wing agenda in schools

Students are actively subjected to
PC left wing i agenda issues such all buttered up with their palatable titles
Such as

Family planning
Marriage equality
Save the planet
Etc etc

The religion that the secular world rams down the throats of the kids in schools is a left wing religion of lunacy

But don't let that worry the pc crowd

[dante]

8.

Well spoken bluebell, we should take this person into the street, strip him naked, put him on a pile of wood and burn him!!! Isn't that the way you christians used to deal with those that dared to oppose you? Unfortunately it's 2012 and not 1412, the era to which you clearly belong.

[dante]

9.

I stay away from this site nowdays because those that provide comments and the majority of those that post comments are not capable of explaining the truth. As another person correctly pointed out in the posted comments, this decision HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. It had to do with the funding model of a Howard vote-buying program which bypassed the role of the State in school fundings. That's all, it had NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. I wish idiots that write crap would at least be familiar with the facts ... but I'm wishing for too much, facts has never been the strong suit of right wing nuts. Oh well, I'm off again for a few weeks, there is only so much crap a person can deal with. Ciao

[John Mc]

10.

I stay away from this site nowadays

Yay! You're a loser who contributes nothing. Please continue to stay away; you're like a turd in a toilet bowel that won't flush.

[Arthur Dent]

11.

Family Planning is "pc left wing". Are you suggesting that the "right" SingTel use contraceptives oldskool ? Like all good Catholics .

[Arthur Dent]

12.

typo (predictive text )
SingTel = don't

[oldskool]

13.

Mr Dent

can only assume you are ignorant to the fact that late term abortions and termination of live and fully developed aborted humans is now labelled as a nice pc friendly term of "family planning"

[oldskool]

14.

nothing to do with religion? you say dante???

interesting that the individual who took this legal challenge was so doing because he didn't want religion being preached in schools under his misunderstanding of separation of church and state.

Right or wrong Dante????

and you say it has nothing to do with religion??

the legal challenge was inititated because it was religion.

But keep kidding yourself dante

[Arthur Dent]

15.

Oh. Please excuse my ignorance . I thought there was more to family planning than just abortion.

[oldskool]

16.

Mr Dent

It would not be the first time you have demonstrated your ignorance publicly

if you don't know what you are talking about, try keeping your opinions to yourself

[Arthur Dent]

17.

Hmmm. Seems there IS more to family planning than just abortion oldskool. Family planning covers contraception, sex with disability, HIV/Aids, men's health, women's health, menopause/HRT, periods, pregnancy/fertility, puberty, relationships, STIs and, yes abortion.
You're suggesting only left leaning people use these services? Or just one of them?

[oldskool]

18.

I'm suggesting that left wing policies are hidden behind palatable labels to make them less objectionable

[bluebell]

19.

Heh heh heh heh heh - yet the Toowoomba father & his supporters launching this High Court challenge specifically stated that his intentions were to REMOVE all religious chaplains from public schools. So don't give us this crap that it wasn't anything to do with r-e-l-i-g-i-o-n because it clearly was! The guy is a rabid hater of religion.

[Selim]

20.

I think that the High Court decision is a good one, despite the plaintiff wanting to get religion out of the schools. He's most certainly a taxpayer himself and he has a right that his money is not used in accordance with improper government procedures which pay for programs with which he disagrees with. The whole point of this is to keep the executive and its democratic obligations to each and every taxpayer in check, and this is precicely why governments must first seek approval from the Parliament to spend money, as is required by the Constitution. So, minority or not, yes, the High Court decision is a good one and it is certainly is a victory for the rule of law and democratic accountability. You know, believe it or not, but the Constitution will always remain a right based Constitution. This is exactly why there is a s.116 of the Constitution which prohibits the government from making laws which restrict your freedom of religion, should Christianity become a minority in the next hundred years.

[captain catholic]

21.

"should Christianity become a minority in the next hundred years. "
It wont be if the Second Coming happens in the next hundred years. Apparently one of the first signs will be zombies walking around-let's hope they're not hungry.
. "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first." —1 Thessalonians 4:16

[bluebell]

22.

You had better hope for your sake the words in the Bible are just mere words - because if true there will be no hope for you if and when it ever happened. Your smugness and arrogance is astounding in religious matters - I on the other hand take it more seriously and don't dismiss it out of hand so casually.

[captain catholic]

23.

Sorry bluebell, but i can't take Pascal's Wager. God would know I'm not fair dinkum.

[captain cathiolic]

24.

With respect bluebell, there doesn't seem to be a lot of "loving of enemies" or "turning of the other cheek" on this site.

[bluebell]

25.

This site is not a religious outlet - it is a conservative site devoted to nutting out conservative issues that effect this country. You can be conservative yet not religious - or you can be a raving lefty and be seriously religious. I actually have neighbors that fit the bill in this regard....:-)

'Loving of enemies' & and 'turning the other cheek' is what will ultimately be our undoing. Our enemies don't hold to such rules. You either get down in the gutter with them or surrender your freedom. Thank God our forefathers fought the good fight in WW2 based on my rules...:-) Certainly Winston Churchill had no such problems bending God's rulz when dealing with Nazi scum.

[kraka]

26.

"or you can be a raving lefty and be seriously religious"-you just perfectly described the global warming zealots!