There are a lot of things I could be doing other than writing blog posts on the internet, researching a book and setting up a national lobby group for reason, secularism and freethought in Australia. Sometimes I wonder, “What the hell am I doing this for?” Then a week like this comes along and the question is answered a hundredfold. Let me explain.
The week started with a tweet from Richard Saunders from the Australian Skeptics. Richard had picked up on an article in the Daily Telegraph [since deleted] spruiking an obviously shonky product called the Qlink Mini which purportedly shields mobile phone users from harmful radiation by resonating with “our body’s energy system” in order to “maintain the strength of naturally occurring protective energy systems within our bodies.” Richard smelled bullshit and so did I, Jason Brown (aka A Drunken Madman) and several others in the Australian skeptical community.
Channel 9’s Today Show technology reporter, Charlie Brown, was also caught up in the scandal when he made a slightly more skeptical, but unresearched report on the same product.
While Charlie’s transgression fell short of ‘cash for comment’ it was clear that he hadn’t done his homework and based his report largely on Qlink’s media release.
To his credit, Charlie engaged with his critics on his blog – whereas the Daily Telegraph simply pulled the Qlink article while Fenech went to ground. In his own defence, Charlie Brown wrote: “We ran this segment because QLink was in the media …” In other words, “It was in the news, so that made it news.” But Charlie admits he hadn’t used the product and it is obvious from his report that despite his ‘skepticism’ about the manufacturer’s claims, he hadn’t researched it either. In effect, Charlie just repeated what had already been uncritically reported elsewhere by ‘journalists’ like Fenech.
Today, “Bob”, a persistent poster on Jason Brown’s blog wonders why we have made such a big deal of this. And I’d like to answer that.
It’s not about some dumb piece of plastic that will do you no more harm than lighten your wallet to the tune of $48. It’s about a much bigger issue which starts with calling the media to account.
The Qlink incident has shown that a few intelligent, well-networked bloggers can make a difference. We can get a false story exposed on national television, we can shame a major daily newspaper and we can have an irresponsible journalist hauled over the coals for bringing their newspaper into disrepute. We are just ordinary consumers, but the internet gives us the power to fight back against an increasingly lazy and biased media.
And why is this important? It’s important because dishonest journalism isn’t just about selling you shonky devices to stick on your mobile phone. Dishonest journalism also influences the way people vote – and the governments we elect affect every aspect of our lives. It is said that a nation gets the government it deserves. It might also be said that our apathy buys us the media we deserve.
This struck home to me last night when I watched the following report from American political commentator, Rachel Maddow.
In this report, Maddow discusses the claim that President Obama’s recent trip to India and Korea will cost embattled American taxpayers $200 million per day and involve one-tenth of the entire US Navy anchored off India in case of a terrorist attack. I have to admit, if I was an American who’d lost their job and their house in the Global Financial Crisis and I heard that reported as if it were true, I’d be pretty pissed off too. But the fact is, the report is as misguided as Stephen Fenech’s spiel on the Qlink Mini Radiation Shield. It’s just not true. It’s a right-wing meme and the evidence put forward for it being true? “I’m not just making this up – it’s on the news!”
Because the story is on television, ‘in the papers’ and ‘on the radio’ millions of Americans will believe this lie and when the next election rolls around, it will form a part of their decision making. In short, shonky media reporting means that a very large number of Americans will place their votes for the next leader of the free world based on outright lies and distortions. If that doesn’t scare the crap out of you, I don’t know what will.
The self-contained right-wing media described by Maddow is little better than that which prevails in countries like North Korea. America’s media may not be controlled by the Government, but the vested interests which do control large sections of it (yes, Rupert, I’m talking about you) are clearly not driven by a commitment to truthfulness, accuracy and objectivity. As Maddow argues, while America does have a ‘free press’ many voters receive only the information provided by the right wing media conglomerates. These conglomerates have a vested interest in creating suspicion and paranoia about media outlets whose reports conflict with their conservative ‘spin’. How can journalists and editors be truthful, accurate and objective when they are clearly driven by a right-wing political imperative? If journalists will schill shonky products for money, it’s just another step to schilling lies for political motives.
For me, the difference between lying for political gain and lying for monetary gain are just two sides of the same coin. Sure, schilling a shonky ‘radiation shield’ isn’t going to effect world peace, but it’s the same kind of ‘sell-out’ journalism that leads to the highly politicized tabloid media now entrenched in America. Is that what we want here in Australia? Is this the kind of media we deserve?
We have shown this week, in a very small way, that we can fight back against a media that doesn’t represent our interests as consumers. If we do our research and shout loud enough and in the right places, we can make a difference. Sure, it’s a dodgy bit of plastic that caused a scandal this week, but next week it might be another ‘children overboard’ scandal reported uncritically by a lazy or biased press. If the media know that the public is not only watching, but checking and that we not only expect, but demand truthful, accurate and objective reporting, then we may just avoid the situation which exists in the USA.
This takes vigilance and effort on the part of the public, but not an inordinate amount of time. It simply means when you come across something that sounds biased or wrong, you do a little research and, if your concerns are warranted, you write to the media outlet and cry foul. If you have a blog, you can blog about it. If you’re on twitter, you can tweet your concerns. If you’re on Facebook you can share it. Encourage your followers to complain as well. Be polite, but firm. If we allow our journalists to parrot media releases and our newspaper editors and television producers to feed us uncritical, unscientific, unresearched pap, then that is what we deserve. I claim that we deserve much more, and the only way we’re going to get it is to actively engage as consumers and demand far better standards in journalism than we are getting from our press, popular radio and commercial television. These outlets are consumer sensitive and will react positively to public outrage.
In order to get the media we deserve, we have to stop being passive consumers and become active participants in the dissemination of news. The internet allows us to do that. An uncritical media report might sell you a shonky bit of plastic today – tomorrow it might sell you a shonky government. This is not just about a piece of plastic.
Special Plug: Don’t forget The Australian Book of Atheism edited by Warren Bonett and including a chapter on the history of atheism in Australia by me will be released into all good bookstores on 22 November. The book is available for pre-order from Embiggen Books and will be on sale at The Amazing Meeting (TAM Oz) in Sydney later this month.
“A NEW product that’s smaller than a five cent piece but powerful enough to shield us from the potentially harmful electromagnetic radiation generated by mobile phones and other electronic devices …”
*[update 5/11/10: page since removed by the Daily Telegraph – screenshot here]
This device, explains Fenech, “employs patented Sympathetic Resonance Technology (SRT) which can maintain the strength of naturally occurring protective energy systems within our bodies”:
“The Qlink Mini, priced at $48, is programmed with naturally occurring frequencies which resonate with our body’s energy system just like a piano string would resonate with a tuning fork.
This then shields us from exposure to outside stresses and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) which can cause sickness and disease.”
In an article that is little more than a (paid?) advertorial, Fenech doesn’t once stop to question the claims being made by the manufacturer. In fact, it seems, he hasn’t even bothered to do the most basic research to see if any of the claims can be validated. But have no fear, the skeptics network in Australia is alive and well and we’ve been doing a little research of our own today.
Over on the “A Drunken Madman” blog, my friend, Jason ‘smells a rat’. Is it possible this is a paid promotion? A little digging reveals that a paid* testimonial for the product has been provided by footballer, Mario Fenech:
Interesting, isn’t it that the ‘technology reporter’ who appears to have conveniently overlooked all of the evidence against this scam … ahem … product is Stephen Fenech – who just coincidentally happened to co-write Mario’s autobiography Personal Best. It doesn’t take too much research to see Stephen Fenech admitting that he’s Mario’s younger brother.
Of course, this wouldn’t be a problem if the product was legitimate or if Stephen had at least questioned the claims made by the Q-link, but it isn’t and he didn’t and that makes this it look awfully like money may have changed hands in return for publicity. Again, that’s fine – as long as it’s disclosed as an advertorial – which it isn’t.
So let’s look what else can be found on the blogosphere about this product. Pseudo-science debunker, Ben Goldacre (someone who has an actual medical degree), has had a close look at a similar product (a pendant) made by the same company. In fact, he and a few of his electronics expert friends pulled it apart. Here’s what Ben has to say:
“Last summer I obtained one of these devices [and together with some] electronics geeks examined the QLink. We chucked probes at it, and tried to detect any “frequencies” emitted, with no joy. And then we did what any proper dork does when presented with an interesting device: we broke it open. Drilling down, the first thing we came to was the circuit board. This, we noted with some amusement, was not in any sense connected to the copper coil, and therefore is not powered by it.
The eight copper pads do have some intriguing looking circuit board tracks coming out of them, but they too, on close inspection, are connected to absolutely nothing. A gracious term to describe their purpose might be “decorative”. I’m also not clear if I can call something a “circuit board” when there is no “circuit”.
Finally, there is a modern surface mount electronic component soldered to the centre of the device. It looks impressive, but whatever it is, it is connected to absolutely nothing. Close examination with a magnifying glass, and experiments with a multimeter and oscilloscope, revealed that this component on the “circuit board” is a zero-ohm resistor … You could easily pay as much as 1/2d for such a resistor. … They are very cheap indeed.
And that’s it. No microchip. A coil connected to nothing. And a zero-ohm resistor, which costs half a penny, and is connected to nothing. I contacted qlinkworld.co.uk to discuss my findings. They kindly contacted the inventor, who informed me they have always been clear the QLink does not use electronics components “in a conventional electronic way”. And apparently the energy pattern reprogramming work is done by some finely powdered crystal embedded in the resin. Oh, hang on, I get it: it’s a new age crystal pendant.”
That’s all well and good, but look at the promotional video for the product and you’d swear it has scientific backing. Here’s an advertisement for the same product, this one sold as a pendant:
Endorsed by Stanford University and the University of California? Hmmm, sorta, kinda. It seems there’s some kind of connection between a very elderly Emeritus Professor William Tiller from Stanford and Qlink, but Tiller appears to be something of a nutter. Even as far back as 1979, Tiller’s grasp on the concept of scientific evidence was questioned when he said that, although the evidence for psychic events was very shaky and originates with persons of doubtful credibility, it should be taken seriously because there is so much of it. That little gem earned Tiller James Randi’s Pigasus award for 1979.Tiller was also taken in by the self-confessed fake, Uri Geller.
How about Burton Goldberg, the PhD who appears in the video? Seems Burton’s PhD came in the form of an honorary (paid?) doctorate from the unaccredited and now defunct Capital University of Integrative Medicine. Not to put to fine a point on it – a degree mill.
The live blood analysis shown in the video is, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services, an “unestablished diagnostic test”: its methods are not generally accepted in laboratory practice. There is no scientific evidence for the validity of live blood analysis and it has been described as a pseudoscientific, bogus and fraudulent medical test (Brigden, Western Journal of Medicine, 1995; Adrian Morris, MBChB, DCH, MFGP, Dip Allergy (SA), Edzard Ernst, 2005)
To be fair, there is a scientific paper on the Qlink technology but it was clearly a ‘pilot’ study which ‘suggested’ some findings rather than proving them and it was published in the Journal of Complementary and Alternative Medicine from Mary Ann Liebert Publishers, a publisher you’ll find listed on the Quackwatch guide under “Publishers that Promote Quackery. (And oh! A Drunken Madman has done a little fossicking and found that the study was funded by Clarus Products International – the company which makes Qlink.)
In the same journal, Beverly Rubik, PhD also provides us with a paper on the technology mentioned in the promo – Sympathetic Resonance Technology. Sadly, Rubik’s credentials as a credible academic are severely compromised. Rubik accepts homeopathy as an alternative to mainstream medicine (despite the fact it has been proven, repeatedly, over many decades, to have no efficacy whatsoever). Rubik is also a believer in psychic powers (similarly disproved) and has spoken uncritically of her experience with Russia’s “magnetic women” who suspend metal objects on their foreheads and chests – a carnival trick which apparently anyone can do with smooth skin, a little moisture and the benefit of suction.
An article by Eric de Silva*, a real scientist (educated at Cambridge University) and published in a real scientific journal, Astronomy and Geophysics, says of the Qlink products:
“The manufacturer’s literature is laced with references to “non-Hertzian”, “non-physical”,
“higher state of physical order” not to mention “SympatheticResonanceTechnology”–
enough to make any physicist angry. It made my blood boil …”
“There is a worldwide industry trading on people‟s fears of electromagnetic fields (EMFs), by selling products offering protection from “bad‟ radiation. Such products claim to work, for example, by resonating with your “biofield‟, creating a shield against radiation or dissipating radiation. “
They asked de Silva, to provide his opinion on the Qlink products which they believe have scammed … ahem …. elicited over $10 million from gullible consumers. In response to the Qlink manufacturer’s claims, de Silva writes:
“The device has no power source and comprises of components that connect to nothing else. It also claims to act with something that has no physical basis (the “biofield”) and to tap into multiple dimensions, using a technology (Sympathetic Resonance Technology) which is virtually unheard of and for which there is absolutely no serious evidence.”
Now, I’m no scientist and the only access I have to research up here on my mountain is my PC and Google – far less than the resources and knowledge that should be available to a ‘technology reporter’ of some 20 years experience. In one short afternoon of research I’ve been able to show that the credibility of the ‘scientists’ supporting the Qlink product is severely compromised, that the claims made for it have been roundly debunked by credible scientists and that the test which supposedly proves its efficacy is not scientifically sound.
Surely Mr Fenech could have found out the same information had he only employed his journalistic skills …
We totally underestimated Mario’s popularity beyond Rugby League. Since Mario has been promoting our range of QLINK products we have seen a measurable increase in sales across all demographics.
Michael Kelly
QLINK Australia
* De Silva has a BSc in Physics at Queen Mary. After a masters project in experimental astronomy and studies in planetary geology he completed a doctorate in extragalactic astrophysics at the University of Cambridge (PhD,Darwin College).
Related Articles
During the week, Channel 9’s technical reporter, Charlie Brown also pimped the Qlink device – perhaps with a little more caution than Stephen Fenech but still with far less research and skepticism than the device deserves.
I am hoping that Brown (Twitter @charlietech) might ‘see the light’ and try to distance himself from the Fenech scandal by doing another story on Qlink – this one providing the real story provided in the links below.
Gladly’s ‘biofield’ gets all out of kilter when he hears about pseudo-scientific scam products. He recommends you read the following excellent books from his favourite bookstore, Embiggen Books.
It would be great if as many Queenslanders as possible could submit a short question relating to the intrusion of religion into Queensland state schools. The Premier, Anna Bligh and Education Minister, Geoff Wilson will be available to take questions from the public. Please make your question is short as this gives it more chance of being aired. A question from your own experience would be great, but as ‘inspiration’ here are some issues worth considering in relation to the Premier’s response to questions on religion and education in a previous question time:
The Premier lied when she said that Queensland has a secular education system. In fact, the word secular was expunged from the Queensland education act in 1910 and the Education Minister, Geoff Wilson, wrote to the Australian Secular lobby on 15 June 2009 saying: ‘… the government currently has no plans to re-introduce the word “secular” into legislation.’
The premier assured listeners that religion in state schools is voluntary and yet the ASL has repeatedly produced evidence to the contrary to Education Queensland and been ignored. We know for a fact that a large percentage of parents who have marked ‘no religion’ on enrolment forms have found their children were put into religious instruction classes without their permission and some parents who have explicitly requested that their children not be exposed to RI have found their kids have been seated at the back of the RI class!
How ‘voluntary’ is religious exposure when chaplains wander around the school grounds handing out religious material, say prayers on assembly and at school speech nights and invite kids to lunch-time Bible studies and religious school camps? How ‘voluntary’ is religion when in order to participate in a school wide ‘non-uniform’ day, kids have to make a donation to support the school chaplain?
Education Queensland allows Hillsong’s Shine and Strength programmes into state schools and represents them to parents as secular, despite ample evidence that these programmes are used for proselytising and to impart ‘Christian’ values. Even Anna Bligh admits in the video above that Shine is a Christian programme. The video below explicitly reveals the aim of the programme is to provide “influence from a godly perspective” and to fill a “gap” in the children’s lives.
“… it gives the church to have an opportunity to have a foot in the door … and to give them those principles … that they may not get if they’re not in a Christian family … I want to see these young girls come to a knowledge of salvation … to get to know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.”
The Premier says that intelligent design is appropriately used in senior science classes to encourage ‘critical thinking’. One wonders whether she also advocates that the ‘flat earth theory’ should be introduced into geography classes for a similar purpose.
The Queensland Government supports the National Schools Chaplaincy programme despite opposition to the programme from teachers unions, mental health experts, and parents and citizens groups who believe the programme short-changes our children and would prefer trained mental health professionals instead.
In 2008 the ratio of school counsellors to children in Queensland schools was 1:1300. Why is money being spent on chaplains rather than qualified professionals?
The more questions received on this subject, the more likely at least one or two will be put to the Premier and the Education Minister. Let’s let them know that this is an issue that’s not going to go away or be swept under the carpet.
Much excitement! I received my advance copy of “The Australian Book of Atheism” last night. Boy, it’s big! Even more exciting, we’ve just heard that it’s been reviewed in Bookseller + Publisher, the bible of the Australian book trade, and awarded a 5 star (out of 5 star) rating!
The book will be released into all good bookstores on 22 November (e.g. Booktopia, ABC Shops, Borders, Readings) and can also be pre-ordered from Embiggen Books (use the link below).
After I got home last night, I couldn’t resist dipping into the book immediately.
Editor, Warren Bonett has written a brilliant and funny introduction.
I started by re-reading my own chapter on the history of Australian atheism and was quietly pleased with this first attempt to sketch out the skeleton of a history which I hope to flesh out into a book over the next 12-18 months.
Max Wallace’s chapter on the Australian constitution picks up many of the historical markers in my essay and expands on them. Similarly, Clarence Wright’s “Religion and the Law” adds yet another layer of knowledge to the ‘historical’ section of the book.
Robyn Williams (The Science Show) headlines the next section on personal experiences of being an atheist.
“What puzzles the atheist, even about full-square mainstream religions, is how many odd, or even mad, shibboleths they insist upon,” Williams explains.
Colette Livermore, formerly a nun with Mother Teresa’s order follows with the story of her loss of faith.
“Mother Teresa asserted that ‘she, who has herself for a guide, has a fool for a guide.’ However, if the inner core of one’s being is surrendered, what protection does the individual have against tyranny?”
“… we were schooled as women to be as the Proverbs 31 woman. Stepping one step up from the ‘Submissive Wife’ movement so popular in the States, the Proverbs 31 woman is all of those things without actually being human. She is Mrs America and the Bride of Christ.”
Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon’s chapter comes next, writing about growing up in an atheist/communist household and its impact on her political views.
“The curious thing is that, as Australian society has become increasingly secular, religion has more than ever begun to creep back into political life.”
I was delighted to discover that David Horton is a brilliant, funny and witty writer. His light-hearted (but serious) diatribe against agnostics draws on inspirations as diverse as My Fair Lady and Bob Dylan.
“Being agnostic is a bit like voting for the Iraq war and then saying later that you only did so because of the dodgy intelligence, knowing all along that there wasn’t dodgy intelligence; there was in fact no intelligence …”
And, finally, around 2am, I finished my night’s reading with Tim Minchin’s beat poem, Storm. I think all of us have been in Tim’s situation – sitting at a dinner party when someone spouts off with some absolute religious or new age garbage and despite urgent, silently mouthed warnings and furious kicking under the table from our partner our self-restraint fails and we explode:
“I’m becoming aware
That I’m staring,
I’m like a rabbit suddenly trapped
In the blinding headlights of vacuous crap.
Maybe it’s the Hamlet she just misquothed
Or the sixth glass of wine I just quaffed
But my diplomacy dyke groans
And the arsehole held back by its stones
Can be held back no more.”
I’m going to spend today reading the rest of the book. Flipping through the pages I see that the Education section begins with my friend Hugh Wilson’s explanation of how Queensland’s secular education system was nobbled.
Professor Graham Oppy talks about evolution and creationism in Australian schools. The fabulous Kylie Sturgess gives us an insight into the life of an atheist teaching in religious schools:
“It’s 1999 and I am told that, as an employee of the nation of Islam, one of my duties is to supervise the female students of the college while they participate in Dhuhr. I make sure that my brightly dyed Coke-bottle red hair (invisible in the course of everyday work) is even more firmly sealed under my hijab ….”
A section of culture and society comes next, including essays on euthanasia and abortion from Dr Philip Nitschke and Leslie Cannold . Jane Caro talks about atheism and feminism, while Karen Stollznow (now one of the hosts of the Point of Inquiry podcast) looks into spiritualism and pseudoscience.
The section on politics includes essays from politicians Ian Hunter, MLC and former senator Lyn Allison as well as prominent Australian journalist, Michael Bachelard and academic Russell Blackford.
The Philosophy section examines the possibility of a moral, spiritual and meaningful life as an atheist, while Tamas Pataki talks about religion and violence.
And, in the final section, Dr Adam Hamlin and Dr Rosemary Lyndall-Wemm take us inside the human brain in an attempt to explain the ‘religious experience’ in naturalistic terms.
Don’t miss this book – and please let your friends know about it. As Meg Wallace said to me last night – “At last! The Australian atheist Bible!” 😉
Chrys Stevenson
Related Links
Point of Inquiry – Karen Stollznow interviews Warren Bonett about The Australian Book of Atheism
Pre-order The Australian Book of Atheism at a discounted price from Embiggen Books.
Controversy has raged this week over allegations that some young women were sexually assaulted by two or more players of the Collingwood Football Club following Collingwood’s premiership win on Sunday, 3 October.
Two days later, footballer, Peter ‘Spida’ Everitt, made headlines after tweeting:
Girls!! When will you learn! At 3am when you are blind drunk & you decide to go home with a guy ITS NOT FOR A CUP OF MILO! Allegedly……
One sports blogger says, “I am sickened with these comments coming from a “respected” ex player. Everitt is virtually claiming that the girls have lied about a sex attack.”
That’s a huge misrepresentation of Everitt’s tweet. Surely noting that the attack is ‘alleged’ isn’t tantamount to saying that the girls were lying. And is Everitt wrong to suggest that it’s a really bad idea for a girl to get into a cab with a drunken footballer she’s only just met at 3am in the morning? Frankly, if he was giving that advice to any young lady of my acquaintance, I’d thank him for it.
The hysteria reached fever-pitch when Kerry-Anne Kennerley, host of Channel Nine’s Mornings with Kerry-Anne interviewed Everitt and weighed in with her own editorial comment, warning that AFL players “put themselves in harm’s way by picking up strays”.
The general response has been outrage that anyone would suggest, even obliquely, that the responsibility for rape, or sexual assault, could in any way be placed on a woman.
I have sat silently through the week, reading my fellow feminists’ comments on this issue and cautioning myself to keep my thoughts to myself lest I end up as pilloried as author, Helen Garner. Garner found herself accused of being anti-feminist when, in The First Stone (1995), she lamented the high cost of (unproven) allegations of sexual harassment and assault on an academic at Ormond College, University of Melbourne. By stating that the relatively minor allegations (lewd comments and a groped boob) might have been handled without resort to court action and the destruction of an academic career, Garner effectively declared hunting season open, and herself as the fox. It was an object lesson for those of us who don’t always agree with the feminist consensus.
But, as my regular readers will know, sitting silently whilst steam is coming out of my ears is one of those things for which I have the least talent, and, of course, the temptation to argue my case has become irresistible. It’s important to state that while my argument, below, does refer to girls in pubs and footballers, I am not referring specifically to the women or the footballers involved in the Collingwood incident as I have no knowledge of the circumstances pertaining to those allegations.
Firstly and unequivocally, I do not believe that any woman is to blame for being sexually harassed, sexually assaulted or raped. I believe that men have a clear responsibility (regardless of whether they are sober or drunk) to ensure that they have the full, informed consent of a woman before engaging in any kind of sexual touching or sexual intercourse. No means no – at whatever stage of the ‘action’ “No” is given. And a woman is who is high or rip-roaring drunk is obviously not in a condition to give informed consent. If a man fails to obtain such consent and they continue anyway – even if the signals given by the woman are ‘mixed’ – then the blame lies with the man. If men are unable to control their sexual inclinations whilst drunk, they should refrain from drinking in mixed company.
Further, I fully appreciate that sexual harassment is often perpetrated upon vulnerable young women in an unequal relationship to their harasser. It isn’t easy to stand up to your boss (especially if you really need to keep your job), or to your teacher or university professor who may retaliate with failing grades. But, these days, there are protections against unlawful dismissal and universities take allegations of sexual harassment far more seriously than in the past. My argument, unlike Garner’s isn’t that women shouldn’t resort to the law in what may appear to be minor cases of sexual harassment, but I do agree with her to the extent that there are options that may and should be pursued before taking that route.
That said, and as much as it pains me to agree with Spida Everitt and Kerry-Anne Kennerley, I think the hysteria over their comments is unwarranted.
There is a marked difference between responsibility and blame. If I absent-mindedly leave the house without locking the front door and my house is burgled, the theft is not my fault, and the burglar is equally as guilty whether he came in by an unlocked front door or smashed a window to gain entry. However, I must bear some responsibility for having been lax about the security of my home – and my insurance company may rightly take that lack of responsibility into consideration when considering whether to pay out on my claim.
No-one in their right mind would suggest that because the onus lies on burglars to control their urge to steal, we should assert our freedom and independence by leaving our houses unlocked. Why then do some feminists (men and women) become so enraged when it is suggested that young women need to take some responsibility for their sexual safety?
I think suggesting to young women who dress provocatively, drink copiously and fraternize flirtatiously with footballers on a bender that they bear no responsibility for unwanted sexual advances is not only wildly unrealistic, but downright dangerous. Yes, ideally, footballers (or indeed, men in general) should behave themselves and act with as much respect towards a drunken woman with her boobs hanging out as they would to a stone-cold sober nun in full habit. But, realistically, it’s just not going to happen. That doesn’t excuse the men’s bad behaviour. However, it does mean that young women must be taught to take some responsibility for their own safety.
I have long been an advocate of raising young women to be confident and assertive. We need to give girls the tools to keep themselves safe and, where possible, to avert unwanted sexual attention. We need women warriors, not wimps, and I don’t believe we achieve that by telling young women they are not responsible, at least to some degree, for their own safety.
The difference between assertiveness and victim-hood is nicely expressed in an example from Australian scientist and academic, Dr Marjorie Curtis.
A couple of my experiences may be of interest … The [London] Tube is well known for its gropers, and I remember an occasion where a man started groping me, getting bolder and bolder as time went on. I tried to move away but he wouldn’t let me. He was also making verbal threats. Luckily I was near the door, and when I arrived at my destination I leapt off the train at the last minute, and was relieved to see him being carried away by the train. I was absolutely terrified.
However, I was put to shame not long after when a friend encountered the same situation. She had more confidence than I, and grabbed the man’s hand and somehow managed to haul it over her head, saying, ‘There is a hand on my body. It is not my hand. I wonder whose hand it may be?’ The groper turned scarlet and shot off the train at the next station, to the applause of most of the passengers.
Her action turned a potentially nasty situation into a comic one, and probably put the groper off for life, whereas my cowardice merely left my groper confident that he had power over women, and could get away with quite unforgiveable behaviour.
Curtis’ account reminds me of a similar situation I had with an over-amorous boss when I was 20 years old. Soon after starting my employment, I found myself cornered in the photo-copying room with my boss leaning across my body, his hands pressing against the wall above my shoulders. There was no escape. I said quietly. “Mr Smith, if you make one more move I will raise my knee and kick you so hard in the groin that you will be black and blue for a month. Further, I will then call your wife and tell her why I am sending you home with bruised balls. Do I make myself clear?”
Smith said, “Oh, so that’s how it is, eh?”
“That’s how it is,” I replied.
“OK, now I know,” he said, “Thank you for making your position clear.”
I never had another problem with him and, in fact, some time later I received a generous raise in salary.
Now, it was certainly not my fault that Mr Smith decided to sexually harass me, but I did feel I had a responsibility to take assertive action to resist it. If you like, I felt a responsibility to ‘man up’ and be my own advocate. I refused to be a victim.
Similarly, a woman who decides to go out drinking with footballers should feel perfectly free to do so – and to dress as she pleases and drink as much as she likes – but at the point at which she is invited to accompany a footballer home (or to a hotel room/dark alley or similar), assuming she doesn’t want to have sex with him, she has a responsibility to herself to say, “Nah, I’ve had too much to drink, and so have you, I think I’ll just go home. Here’s my number, call me tomorrow when we’re both sober if you’re still interested.”
If we are going to argue that a drunken woman isn’t in full control of her faculties and therefore can’t take that level of responsibility, then don’t we also have to argue that a drunken man’s responsibility in making decisions is similarly impaired? That’s where the legal slippery slope begins. My argument is that drunkenness is no excuse – you may have diminished responsibility when drunk, but you always have the choice of whether or not to get so drunk that you can’t make reasonable decisions. Your responsibility, whether you’re a man or a woman, begins before you get smashed.
Let me recount another personal experience. I was just 15 years old when, to my parents’ horror, I started hanging out with bikies. On one occasion – I couldn’t have been more than 16 – I found myself, very late at night, in a disused quarry full of drunken bikies. I had put myself in that predicament. Nobody forced me. I had chosen to fraternize with bikies, I’d chosen the cute little see-through top I was wearing with a view to titilliating, I’d chosen to down a few drinks and I’d chosen to get on the back of a bike and go to the party. At one point, when the party started to get very rough, I felt a hand on my shoulder. A young bikie whispered in my ear, “Come on, things are getting out of hand, I’m going to get you out of here.” And he put me on his bike and took me home. Had I been raped that night I would not have been to blame, but I would have been, in part, responsible for putting myself in a situation where I was at risk. The young man who saved me, Graham, (I still remember his name), not only saved me, but protected his mates as well.
While men must bear the blame for sexual harassment, assault and rape, women cannot exonerate themselves from the responsibility of looking out for their own security and for advocating for themselves. Both men and women must also be pro-active in looking out for each other. In some cases this will not be sufficient, but in many cases it will. Sexually aggressive men are bullies and, often, cowards. The best way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them. The victims of bullying are not to blame for the bully’s actions, but they can learn to take responsibility for deflecting or avoiding the attacks.
I must add, at this point, that I am fully aware that many victims of sexual assault and rape have not recklessly put themselves at risk and I am well aware that once a sexual attack has commenced, only the victim, herself, can decide whether resistance or compliance is the best strategy to minimise her risk of serious injury or death. My argument here should not be construed as saying that every woman who gets raped has been reckless with her personal safety, or that every woman who is assaulted should fight back. Context is everything. Neither am I saying that because a woman is drunk or reckless it should be a mitigating factor in favour of the assailant. Absolutely, unequivocally, I am not arguing that at all.
But to paint women, universally, as the helpless victims of male sexual aggression is to infantilise us and, may I say, emasculate us. Women can have ‘balls’ and we need to encourage that in our young women. We need to teach men that ‘no means no’ but, equally, we need to teach women how and when to say no – and in most instances, that ‘no’ is going to be far more effective before you get into a cab with a drunken man you’ve only just met at 3am in the morning.
When I woke up this morning, I found my elderly mother already up and watching the television.
“One of your mob’s been burning Bibles,” she said, faintly amused.
“One of my mob? You mean an atheist?” I said.
“Yes. It was on the news.”
“An Australian atheist?”
“That’s what they said.”
“Well it wouldn’t be anyone I know,” I said, confidently. “Probably just some nutter.”
“Oh wait, here’s the news on now, come and watch.”
And there, on the television was someone I do know – Alex Stewart, a lawyer, and member of the Brisbane Atheists.
“Oh dear, Alex,” I thought, “What have you done?”
What Alex did was to post a video on YouTube, showing himself in the midst of a tongue-in-cheek experiment to determine which burned better; the Bible or the Koran.
The news, in recent days, has been full of an American evangelist threatening to burn copies of the Koran. This, apparently, was Alex’s response to the outcry. Alex’s method of determining the burning properties of the holy texts was to use leaves of the books as cigarette papers to roll what appeared to be joints.
“Oooh, I think I just tongued Jesus,” says Alex, licking a page from the Bible.
“I wonder what Mohammed, would have thought about this?” Alex muses as he rolls a page from the Koran.
“Is this profanity? Is it blasphemy? And does it really matter? I guess that’s the point with all this crap. It’s just a fuckin’ book. Who cares? Who cares? Like, you know, it’s your beliefs that matter … and, quite frankly, if you’re going to get upset about a book you’re taking life way too seriously. Where did I put that fuckin’ lighter?”
“The final point which I would like to make,” says Alex, “which I think a lot of people ignore, is that it’s just a book and, like, you can burn a flag, no-one cares, like, people get over it. So, with respect to books – like the Bible, the Koran whatever – just get over it. I mean it’s not as though they’re burning your copy – they’re burning someone else’s. That said, I don’t think it’s completely appropriate unless it’s done for a good purpose which, um, I’d say I’ve done today.”
A disclaimer at the end of the video clarifies Alex’s point in making the piece: Why get upset when someone disrespects your beliefs? It’s not like you lose the belief.
After watching the video I checked my inbox and found it bulging with emails from people asking, “Do you know this person? What do you think about this?”
I have to admit that my first reaction was that I didn’t like it. To me, it was unnecessarily provocative, slightly juvenile, and, above all, a monumental waste of Alex’s considerable intellectual gifts. In short, I was disappointed in Alex. Here is someone with the talent to be a future leader of the new Enlightenment and, instead, he opted for notoriety and 15 minutes of fame by taking a cheap shot which would inevitably make the rest of us look bad.
By mid-morning it became apparent that Alex’s stunt had gained national media interest. He was even the opening story on Kerry-Anne Kennerley’s advertorial morning show. By late afternoon, the video had been deleted from Alex’s YouTube channel. Tonight, I assume, Alex will be on the news and the current affairs shows – unless his employer has issued an ultimatum during the day.
One has to give Alex credit, at least, for having ‘cut through’ to gain national media exposure about issues of free speech, the limits of religious tolerance, and the right to blaspheme. He has given the country something to think about. He has launched a discussion that will reach beyond the halls of academia and into people’s living rooms. And, let it be said, Alex has made some very good points; principally, I think, the fact that someone burning a holy book is attacking only printed paper – they are not causing believers or their beliefs any actual harm. Alex has made himself an object lesson for Phillip Pullman’s oft repeated injunction: “… no-one has the right to live without being shocked. No-one has the right to spend their life without being offended.”
Importantly, Alex’s video is part of a wider topical debate within the atheist and skeptical communities. How do we best achieve our goals? Should we engage only in calm, rational and respectful debate? Or should we heap derision on ideas we believe are not only delusional, but dangerous? Christians are hardly polite in dealing with atheists – should we respond in kind?
Former JREF president, Phil Plait recently sparked intense debate in the atheist and skeptical communities with his “Don’t be a dick” talk at the James Randi Educational Foundation’s TAM8, convention.
“… there’s been some alarming developments in the way skepticism is being done,” says Plait, “ … the tone of what we’re doing is decaying. And, instead of relying on the merits of the arguments … it seems that vitriole and venom are on the rise.
… The message we’re trying to convey is hard all by it’s lonesome … [it’s] a tough sell.
… Right now in this movement … hubris is running rampant and egos are out of check … What I’m … concerned with is our demeanour … remember, the odds are against us, there are more of them then there are of us … we have to admit that our reputation amongst the majority of the population is not exactly stellar”
Plait asks his audience to consider how best to achieve the goal of ‘selling’ rationalism. He continues:
“The key, is obvious to me, at least … it’s communication … [therefore] our demeanour – how we deliver this message – takes on crucial, crucial importance …”
Using insults [and make no mistake, Christians and Muslims alike will find Alex’s video insulting], says Plait, is like using a loaded weapon.
“ … we need to be exceedingly careful where we aim that weapon … when you’re dealing with someone who disagrees with you, what is your goal? … it may rally the troops, it may even foment people to help you and to take action … but is your goal to score a cheap point, or is your goal to win the damn game?
.. When somebody is being attacked and insulted they tend to get defensive. They’re not in the best position to be either rational or self-introspective … in the skeptic movement we have our share of people who are a bit short in the politeness department … Taking the low road doesn’t help. It doesn’t make you stronger, it doesn’t make you look good, and it doesn’t change anyone’s minds.”
“In times of war,” says Plait, “we need warriors. But this isn’t a war … we aren’t trying to kill an enemy, we’re trying to persuade other humans. And, at times like that we don’t need warriors. What we need are diplomats.”
Before engaging with our opponents, he concludes, we must first ask ourselves, “What is my goal?” and then ask, “Is this going to help?” Secondly:
“… and not to put too finer point on it, don’t be a dick! … But, Seriously, OK, don’t. Don’t be a dick. All being a dick does is score cheap points. It does not win the hearts and minds of people everywhere and, honestly, winning those hearts and minds, that’s our goal!”
Plait’s “Don’t be a dick” speech sparked a rash of debate on the internet. Even Richard Dawkins joined in the fray, saying:
“ … Plait naively presume[s], throughout his lecture, that the person we are ridiculing is the one we are trying to convert. Speaking for myself, it is often a third party (or a large number of third parties) who are listening in, or reading along … I am amazed at Plait’s naivety in overlooking that and treating it as obvious that our goal is to convert the target of our ridicule. Ridicule may indeed annoy the target and cause him to dig his toes in. But our goal might very well be (in my case usually is) to influence third parties, sitting on the fence, or just not very well-informed about the issues. And to achieve that goal, ridicule can be very effective indeed.”
PZ Myers, perhaps one of the most successful, and tactless, campaigners for disbelief and skepticism backs Dawkins:
“I’ve been totally unimpressed with the arguments from the side of nice, not because I disagree with the idea that positive approaches work, but because they ignore the complexity of the problem and don’t offer any solutions … We don’t need to be trivially abusive, but on subjects we care about deeply, we should express ourselves with passion.”
Curiously, even Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, while not exactly condoning atheist attacks, concedes that the rhetoric of some evangelical leaders has been so strident they have invited an in-kind rebuke from non-believers.
“We have done a terrible job of presenting our perspective as a plausible world view that has implications for public life and for education, presenting that in a way that is sensitive to the concerns of people who may disagree,” he said. “Whatever may be wrong with Christopher Hitchens’ attacks on religious leaders, we have certainly already matched it in our attacks.”
I have two views on Alex’s video. My personal or ‘gut-instinct’ view is that I wouldn’t have done it, I don’t ‘approve’ of it, and I don’t think the cost, either to our community or to Alex personally, is worth the brief, if intense, amount of publicity it will elicit. But, my intellectual view as a historian and sociologist is somewhat less emotional and more tempered. I have learned that every social movement needs both intellectuals and radical agitators. No social movement has ever succeeded without both – and both usually work in tension with each other. The Civil Rights movement was advanced by both Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. The Female Eunuch, Germaine Greer’s brilliant intellectual treatise on feminism was equally supported by ‘strident’ feminists burning their bras in the street. The Vietnam War was halted by diplomatic efforts and by university students marching the streets with placards. I’m also pretty sure that many quiet campaigners for gay rights were horrified and not a little concerned about their credibility when that movement exploded into parades featuring gay men in fishnet stockings and pink feather boas! But, in each case, the two-pronged strategy has worked.
So, while I would not have chosen Alex’s approach, I defend his right to take the path he has chosen. I also concede that my ‘gut-instinct’ in this case is very likely wrong. While I’m not the type of person to burn my bra, ride on a float in a skimpy outfit, argue with the bellicosity of Malcolm X, or march through the streets (I attended my first, quiet protest this year at the age of 51!), that doesn’t mean that those choices are not valid. Alex is not me, so Alex doesn’t have to conform to my choices or sensibilities. I accept that I don’t have the right not to be offended by Alex’s video. And I agree absolutely with his point, that those who take offence at something with does not materially effect either them or their faith, only gives fuel to the fire being stoked by their detractors. As one wit on Twitter posted today:
“News” : copies of The God Delusion burnt by Muslim/Christian groups.
Response from atheists – “Meh”.
I don’t like Alex’s approach – it makes me uncomfortable, and embarrassed. I fear for the consequences. I don’t like seeing Alex being called ‘an idiot’ on television. Although the wisdom of his actions may be debatable, he is far from an idiot. But, despite my misgivings, Alex has my support and I trust that he will similarly give others in the movement, who may make choices he doesn’t agree with, the benefit of the doubt, and support them in their choice to take a path he wouldn’t.
NOVEMBER 2010 RELEASE – AVAILABLE ALL GOOD BOOKSTORES INCLUDING ABC SHOPS, READINGS BOOKS & BOOKTOPIA, OR PRE-ORDER NOW FROM EMBIGGEN BOOKS.
Over 18 months ago, Warren Bonett and I were having dinner in a pub at Noosa. He said, “I’m thinking of doing a book on Australian atheism.”
I said, “Great idea! I’ll help.”
I hurried home and drew up a long list of possible contributors and Warren pretty well did all the rest!
I can remember Woz and I swapping excited emails as amazing people we’d admired from afar said, “Yes, we’ll contribute!”
I don’t think either of us had any clue just how much work it would involve and Warren – with help from his partner, Kirsty Bruce, Karen Stollznow and our friend, Jode – has done the vast bulk of the work while also running his science-based bookshop Embiggen Books at Noosaville (also online).
There were worried weeks when we wondered whether it would find a publisher and then jubilation when Henry Rosenbloom, the founder of Scribe, contacted Warren personally to accept the book.
Weeks of editing followed and, now that the book is in its final stages, Scribe has announced a publication date of December 2010. Scribe is touting The Australian Book of Atheism as its ‘anti-Christmas’ book. The book is an anthology of essays from around 35 Australian authors including:
Me (on the history of Australian atheism) and many more.
My chapter took months to research and more months to write and polish. Ambitiously (OK – over ambitiously) it covers the history of Australian atheism and freethought from 1788 to the present. I was astounded at the amount of material I uncovered – some of it hilariously funny and some it heart-breakingly sad. I finished the chapter feeling that this country’s heritage and national identity owes a good deal more to irreligion than to Christianity.
And now, in just a few short months, our book will be on the shelves of Australia’s major book stores! I really can’t describe the excitement to see this little idea, hatched over a couple of glasses of wine in a pub, come to fruition!
I do hope my readers will add it to their ‘Mythmas’ list.
Pre-orders can be made now, for a discounted price at Embiggen Books.
Chrys Stevenson
Update
19 August 2010 – The chapter list for The Australian Book of Atheism has been released. I’m very proud to be in with the first chapter and amongst such prestigious company. Take a look! Pre-orders available now – publication late November/December:
Chrys Stevenson [Historian], Felons, Ratbags, Commies and Left-Wing Loonies [The history of Australian atheism]
Max Wallace [Australia New Zealand Secular Assoc], The Constitution, Belief and the State
Clarence Wright [Lawyer], Religion, and the Law in Australia
Robyn Williams [The Science Show, Radio National], A Part-time Atheist
Dr Colette Livermore [former Sister of Mercy nun], Atheism: an explanation for the believer
Tanya Levin [former Hillsong member, feminist, author People In Glass Houses], Above Rubies
Hon. Lee Rhiannon [former MP, Senate candidate], Growing up Atheist
David Horton [BA, BSc, MSc, PhD, DLitt – biologist, archaeologist], Agnostics are Nowhere Men
Tim Minchin [entertainer], Storm
Hugh Wilson [Australian Secular Lobby], Public Education in Queensland
Peter Ellerton [Australian Skeptics, Winner of the 2008 Prize for Critical Thinking], Theology is Not Philosophy
Professor Graham Oppy [Philosopher of Religion], Evolution vs Creationism in Australian Schools
Graeme Lindenmayer [Rationalist Society of Australia], Intelligent Design as a Scientific Theory
Dr Martin Bridgstock [Senior Lecturer, Biomolecular and Physical Sciences], Religion, Fundamentalism & Science
Dr Philip Nitschke [Founder/Director Exit International], Atheism & Euthanasia
Alex McCullie [blogger, CAE tutor on Atheist Philosophy], Progressive Christianity: A Secular Response
Dr Leslie Cannold [Bioethicist], Abortion in Australia
Jane Caro [Author, Social Commentator], Why Gods are Man-Made
Dr Karen Stollznow, Spiritualism & Pseudoscience
Rosslyn Ives [Council of Australian Humanist Societies] Life, Dying & Death
Hon. Ian Hunter MLC, Prayers in Australian Parliament
Lyn Allison [former Senator], Ever Wondered Why God is a Bloke?
Michael Bachelard [Journalist], Politics and The Exclusive Brethren
Dr Russell Blackford [Philosopher, co-editor 50 Voices of Disbelief], Free Speech
Dr John S Wilkins [Philosopheer], The Role of Secularism in Protecting Religion
Warren Bonett [Editor], Why a Book on Atheist Thought in Australia?
Dr Robin Craig [Geneticist, Philosopher], Good without God
Ian Robinson [Rationalist Society of Australia], Atheism as a Spiritual Path
Professor Peter Woolcock [Humanist, Ethicist], Atheism & the Meaning of Life
Dr Tamas Pataki [Philosopher], Religion & Violence
Dr Adam Hamlin [Neuroscientist], The Neurobiology of Religious Experience
Dr Rosemary Lyndall Wemm [Neuropsychologist], The Neurology of Belief
More
Here, courtesy of Embiggen Books, are some wonderful videos of presentations by Warren Bonett, editor of the Australian Book of Atheism, and Russell Blackford one of the authors.
Gladly’s Book Recommendations
Gladly’s looking forward to a very large pot of honey once those royalties start rolling in! If you can’t wait until December to read a great book on atheism, try these books which you can order online from Embiggen Books.
If Alex’s Wildman’s suicide (discussed in my previous article) raises concerns about the National School Chaplaincy Program, consider the teenagers who are probably most at risk in our schools. Research studies reveal that one-third of all teenagers who commit suicide are gay. Considering that gay teens only comprise one-tenth of the school population, this means that they are 300 percent more likely to kill themselves than heterosexual youth.
So to whom do we entrust these vulnerable young people? Evangelistic, fundamentalist Christians. As Adele Horin wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald:
“… Religious institutions remain the last bastion of bigotry. They have resisted the evidence from health and legal professionals that homosexuality is a normal part of human sexuality. They have instead maintained a hardline interpretation of a few scattered references in the Bible.
… Church leaders should be spreading a message of love and acceptance of gays. Instead, they are part of the problem.”
The Australian Coalition for Equality’s spokesperson, Rod Swift, says his organisation has concerns about the abilities of chaplains to counsel young people dealing with issues of sexuality. But are those concerns misplaced? Let’s look at what one of the organisations which supplies chaplains to Australian schools thinks about homosexuality.
GenR8 Ministries says they ‘utterly reject and repudiate’ the assumption that homosexuality should be regarded as ‘acceptable sexual behaviour’. Instead, they are in favour of ‘a healthy and wholesome society in which young people are brought up effectively to their full humanity.’
What? Rewind that. Are they really suggesting that homosexual people are not ‘fully human’??? Is that the message their chaplains give to young people who come to them with issues about sexuality?
GenR8 opposes efforts to:
“enforce favourable attitudes to groups with sexual practices that are proscribed in, not only our authoritative Scriptures, but in the teachings of other major religions.”
They note that:
“Homosexual activity as with heterosexual fornication and adultery are serious sins in Christian theology and Biblical teaching, and we are committed to teaching this.”
This attitude, of course, contravenes the policies of Australia’s public education departments and GenR8 are well aware of this. GenR8 Minisitries freely admit the conflict in values:
“There is increasing awkwardness in teaching Christian sexual ethics when schools have secular humanist policies that clearly conflict with this teaching.”
They go on to complainthat:
“… to be asked to collude in wrongdoing of such a kind as this that does so much damage to the people involved themselves as well as giving the worst kind of messages to young people trying to consolidate their sexual identity and form healthy relationships with proper sexual discipline is totally unacceptable to us.”
Chillingly, GenR8 note that they do not oppose homosexuality, per se, only homosexual acts which they regard as ‘fornication’. They add that the idea of same sex marriage is ‘repugnant’. Their view, clearly expressed, is that sexual activity outside of marriage is unacceptable, and that gay people should never be allowed to marry – and therefore, should never be permitted to express their sexuality physically.
Given this, we can expect that the advice given to a troubled gay teen by a GenR8 chaplain would be either:
a) change or deny your sexuality (or, indeed, ‘pray the gay away’) or,
b) accept your sexual ‘inclination’ but look forward to a celibate life with no prospect of physical intimacy with a life partner of your choice and, of course, no children.
Can you imagine the psychological torment such advice inflicts on a sensitive teenager?
Former Jesuit, William Glenn a graduate of a Catholic high school which embodied these kinds of attitudes describes his experience as a gay teen:
During puberty’s final onslaught I came to believe that I was evil. And more: that I was sick, sinful and unacceptable in the eyes of the world. All our culture’s words and notions and judgments came home to roost in me, a 16-year-old gay boy, whom the world, let alone his parents, could not know. But finally, and primarily, I came to believe that I was unacceptable as a human being in the eyes of God. The more I prayed to be changed, which was the concentrated content of my prayer (deeply aware that I had not chosen this but believing it was visited upon me because of my sinfulness), I regarded my not changing as God’s judgment on me. [I was] abandoned .. to despair because the person I had become could effect no change, could not desist from either my feelings or my desires, no matter how hard I fought them or prayed to be delivered from them. In the end, I was utterly alone.
But, according to GenR8, this isn’t really a problem because:
“The issue has not yet emerged to our knowledge in relation to our chaplains – perhaps partly because they do not have a formal religious teaching function and are not to proselytize.”
Strange, then, that the 2009 National School Chaplaincy Association (NSCA) report (quoted by the Australian Psychological Society) , found that 40% of school chaplains say that they deal with issues of student sexuality. But GenR8 are Christians – they wouldn’t lie, would they?
So, how do chaplains deal with students who have issues relating to sexuality? I don’t doubt that many are sensitive and accepting but I also have no doubt that many are not.
In a letter to the Atheist Foundation of Australia, for example, a former student of Victoria Point High School alleges that the chaplain was distributing “Jack Chick” style anti-homosexual pamphlets to students.
In Western Australia, ‘Anita’ – a teacher with two teaching excellence awards – alleges that, until recently, her school had “a chaplain from the Church of Christ who handed out anti-gay leaflets”. That same chaplain, says Anita, refused to provide pastoral care for a gay student:
“He did not counsel a gay student who’d had a knife held to his throat. That same student came back to school the next day because his mum had taken it to the police who said they [couldn’t] do anything about it… He headed back to school and was beaten up that day by the other students…”
When Anita suggested that some measures should be put in place for LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual) students the chaplain sarcastically replied, “Why don’t you do something for left-handers?”
Shocked, Anita said that she would:
“… when he could tell me about left-handed people who are not allowed to be open about being left-handed, who are beaten up at school because of it, thrown out of their homes, labelled as pedophiles and rejected by their families…”
Anita’s championing of gay students was not a hit at her previous school, either. She tells the story of being paired with the chaplain in the staff’s ‘Kris Kringle’ (similar to Secret Santa). Of their exchange of gifts she says:
“I received…a cactus in a little pot with a blue ribbon on it… A banana and two kiwi fruits … A cucumber with a red condom on it with a Father Christmas face on it … And a cheap shitty Christmas stocking …”
A chaplain in regional WA confessed that, even if she knew a student was gay, she wouldn’t take any action unless it became ‘an issue’. This is chillingly reminiscent of the Alex Wildman case, with the school waiting until it was too late to intervene with an ‘at risk’ child. Given that research evidence shows clearly that gay students are most at risk before they come out to anyone, the approach of waiting for students to come out before providing support could be deadly.
The WA chaplain defended the lack of proactive support for gay students. She feared that if she talked about homosexuality, the kids might want to try it. She felt that talking about the subject might somehow ‘glorify it’. But research at Deakin University has found that the only effect of pro-active education about homosexuality was to reduce teenage students’ homophobic attitudes and behaviours. Teaching kids about homosexuality in no way made them more prone to experiment or to become more sexually active. Of course, we could expect a trained counsellor or psychologist to know that. We can’t expect an unqualified chaplain, whose church tells him that homosexuality is a sin and can be ‘cured’, to either be familiar with, or to accept, such research.
Julia Gillard’s announcement that a re-elected Labor Government would spend another 220 million of tax-payers’ dollars to expand the current National School Chaplaincy Program by more than 33% should outrage every parent. How much more responsible it would be to spend that $220 million – or more – on full-time, qualified counsellors for our kids. It’s not as if the chaplains are a complement to counsellors. School counsellors, it seems, are nearly as rare as hen’s teeth! Take a look at the results from a 2008 study of the ratios of counsellors to students in our public schools.
ACT – 1 counsellor to 850 students
NT – 1 to 2500
NSW – 1 to 1050
QLD – 1 to 1300
SA – 1 to 1994 (at best)
TAS – 1 to 1800.
But, is our government committing more money to counsellors? No, they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on unqualified people with a religious agenda! As my friend, Sean the Blogonaut (a teacher himself) says, “Who would you prefer to work with your troubled teen? A qualified counsellor or a retired motor mechanic?” (the only professional qualification of a chaplain of Sean’s acquaintance).
What price do we put on our children’s welfare and mental health? This should be a national scandal! What would be the reaction if adults needing psychological assistance were told by Medicare or their private health fund to visit their local minister or pastor instead – because it was cheaper?
The National School Chaplaincy Program must be stopped. It is nothing more than a means by which politicians are attempting to buy votes from right-wing Christians. It has nothing whatever to do with the best mental-health outcomes for our children.
Julia Gillard’s announcement shows that she is willing to sacrifice Australian children’s welfare in return for Christian votes. That is, quite frankly, sickening. It now appears that the only way to stop this ill-advised and dangerous program is the High Court action which will challenge the scheme on constitutional grounds.
It was announced, this week, that high-profile Sydney barrister, Bret Walker, SC will lead the legal team engaged for this land-mark constitutional challenge. The importance of having the case represented by such a leading figure in Australian law cannot be overstated. Walker is one of Australia’s leading barristers. He has been president of both the NSW Bar Association and the Law Council of Australia and Governor of the Law Foundation of NSW. He is Editor of the NSW Law Reports and Director of the Australian Academy of Law. It is exciting that such a high profile, well-informed, legal luminary believes that Ron’s case is strong with a high chance of success.
Walker will be supported by barrister, Gerald Ng, and the law firm, Horowitz and Bilinsky. The next step in the legal process is approaching, and further details will be released when it occurs.
In the meantime, if you have read this series of articles –
Part Three: Gay Teens at Risk from School Chaplaincy
and you share my concerns about the National School Chaplaincy Program, I urge you to dig deep and donate to the High Court Challenge team.
Chrys Stevenson
8 August 2010: The Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, will today announce an allocation of $222 million to boost the number of chaplains in schools by more than one-third, which would mean about 3700 schools will be covered under the voluntary scheme introduced by the Howard government.
First time comments on this blog are moderated, but will be approved as soon as possible.
Further Action
If you oppose the National School Chaplaincy scheme, please donate to the High Court Challenge against National School Chaplaincy. A paypal facility is available on the website.
Ron Williams, a parent from Toowoomba, is bravely taking on the government and arguing against this scheme on constitutional grounds. He has recently announced that high profile lawyer, Bret Walker SC will lead the legal team. Walker will be supported by Gerald Ng, Barrister, and the law firm, Horowitz and Bilinsky.
Note – money raised for the High Court Challenge goes into a trust for the payment of legal fees, not to Ron Williams and his family. For a small (or large) investment, this is a chance to be a part of Australian history.
Gladly’s Book Recommendations
Gladly’s favourite book store for online purchases is Embiggen Books. If you’ve found this article interesting you may enjoy this further reading:
Australia’s national school chaplaincy program was introduced by the Howard government in October 2006 and continued and expanded by the Rudd Government. Provided at enormous cost to Australian tax-payers, the result is that over 2,000 state schools currently employ chaplains, providing the chaplains and their churches with direct exposure to approximately 720,000 children (Overington, 2008).
My first article in this series argued that it is a pointless exercise, for all concerned, to place evangelical Christians into schools and then tell them they can’t promote their theistic beliefs. This article will deal with another misleading claim of the National School Chaplaincy Program – that is, that chaplains do not counsel students. In this article, I will argue that chaplains do counsel students and that this is tantamount to playing Russian roulette with children’s lives.
First, it is important to note that chaplains require no formal secular academic qualifications. Scripture Union, one of the major bodies contracted to supply chaplains to schools explains:
“Most Chaplains aren’t trained, qualified professional counsellors. It would be a misrepresentation to describe them in that way. Even if some Chaplains do have formal counselling qualifications, it would be sending the wrong message to stakeholders and the public about what Chaplains are and do.”
Of course, the government and the organizations which supply chaplains claim this isn’t a problem because chaplains are not permitted to offer ‘counselling’ to students. Really? I contend that this is a matter of semantics – and Scripture Union reveals why.
“There are legal ramifications that come into play when you use the terms ‘counsellor’ and ‘counselling’.
Obviously, there will be times when Chaplains will be involved in talking one-on-one with students, staff and/or parents about issues and problems that they’re facing, but Chaplains should be involved in nothing more intensive than high-level pastoral care.”
So, chaplains don’t provide counselling – they provide ‘high-level pastoral care’. And in what areas is this ‘pastoral care’ put to use? According to the Effectiveness of Chaplaincy Report (2009), chaplains have been called in to help with children’s anger issues, grief and loss, bullying, peer pressure and self esteem as well as self harm and suicide. Even more concerning, according to the Rationalist Society of Australia, is anecdotal evidence suggesting that the more devout the chaplain, the less likely they are to refer students to professional services.
In another document, Access Ministries quotes a chaplain saying: “At the moment…., in the last week I’ve got two Grade 5 kids on suicide watch.”
“The language used is important. The term ‘counselling’ should be avoided. ‘Pastoral Care’” or ‘pastoral conversations’ are much better terms to use when describing this element of a Chaplain’s role. This is not intended to be ‘sneaky’ [really?] but rather to accurately describe and represent the Chaplain’s role.”
So, let’s get this straight. Chaplains are not allowed to evangelise or counsel students. Apparently, what they are allowed to do is to have ‘pastoral conversations’ during which they are prohibited from offering advice or offering prayer or religious faith as a solution. So, what exactly do they do during these ‘pastoral conversations’? Pat the student’s hand and mutter “There, there”? Whistle Dixie?
“I find it difficult to imagine a chaplain who is engaged with students and young people who have problems – and that’s where they will largely be used – to not be involved in counselling.”-
“Most school chaplains spend much of their time in pastoral work. They counsel young people who are referred to them, or those who come to them voluntarily”.
Note that in this quote the words ‘pastoral work’ and ‘counsel’ are used interchangeably.
Let’s be honest about what taxpayers are investing in with the National School Chaplaincy Program. We are placing untrained, unqualified people with a religious agenda into our public schools to support and, yes, counsel, at risk kids. Consider this job description by a chaplain who worked at Balwyn State High School :
“Teenage suicide, depression, grief associated with separation or divorce or death, questions of sexual identity, illness, abuse, physical disability, drug use and teenage pregnancy are issues which the school chaplain confronts day in day out.”
Later promoted to a supervisory role, she continues:
“We as supervisors constantly worked with moving stories of chaplains supporting students who were pregnant and needed to make hard choices about whether or not to have the baby, with chaplains journeying with students who come out as gay, or who struggled with their own attitudes to homosexuality, chaplains ministering in a time of community grief after an accident had led to the death of one or more of their students, or a range of other pastoral situations.”
Nobody doubts these people are well-meaning, but I might be equally well meaning if I attempt to extract someone’s appendix with the intent of making the pain go away. The fact remains that my total lack of training in medicine means there is every likelihood I’ll kill them instead. Good intentions are no defence.
Experts agree that what is needed in schools are not chaplains, but trained counsellors. Speaking on behalf of the NSW Teachers Federation, Angelo Gavrielatos said:
“At a time of ever increasing social pressures on children, what is needed is an enhancement of professional school counselling services. Currently the school counsellor to student ratio stands at about 1:1000 in NSW schools. This money for the NationalSchool Chaplaincy Program would be better spent on additional school counsellors to achieve a more manageable caseload.”
The Parents & Citizens Council agrees. President, Elizabeth Singer, complains that schools are being forced to turn to school chaplains because of inadequate funding and teacher training for crucial development programs. She says:
”Funding has not been available in another form that they [schools] could use so they have had to turn to chaplains. … ‘We have received complaints from families that schools are having to rely on chaplains to meet the social and emotional needs of the students. In government schools there is a feeling that this should be delivered by secularly trained people.”
“On a number of occasions since the establishment of the NSCP, the APS has been contacted by members who are concerned about chaplains who have been employed in schools to provide mental health counselling to students. This has occurred either instead of or in replacement of school psychologists.”
The APS complains:
That the government is supporting a scheme which allows unregistered and unqualified school chaplains to work outside their boundaries as spiritual and religious personnel;
That there is clear evidence that school chaplains are engaging in duties for which they are not qualified;
That there is clear evidence that church organisations and ministries are supporting school chaplains in their boundary violations;
That the NSCP promotes a combination of religious guidance and mental health service provision, which is in contrast to mainstream evidence-based service provision;
That the government is complicit in encouraging dangerous professional behaviour by funding school chaplains independently of other services carried out by professionals who are both qualified and registered.
Let me reiterate here: teachers don’t want the scheme; parents and citizens don’t want it; and the people most qualified to deal with our childrens’ mental health say the program is dangerous.
The upshot of this misguided policy is that school communities who would prefer to have financial assistance to employ a trained counsellor – or to extend a part-time counsellor’s hours to full-time – are prohibited from doing so. And trained counselors who are qualified and willing to work as ‘chaplains’ but are not associated with a religious organization are also disqualified.
For example, I have been told that Vermont secondary school in Tasmania declined to have a school chaplain because they wished to maintain a secular school. Instead, they wanted to apply the government funding to a youth counsellor with no affiliation to a church. This was denied. Surely this is religious discrimination? As social worker, Tarnya, posted on an internet blog:
“I am a Social Worker and have completed a masters paper in spirituality in state schools. I have worked as a school counsellor for more than five years, yet under John Howard’s scheme I am ineligible to apply for the recently announced positions of chaplain as I do not have a Christian affiliation which is deemed suitable by Scripture Union (the employing body).”
Bioethicist and teacher, Chris Fotinopolous, explains the problem confronting schools:
“There is no doubt that mental illness places a strain on already stretched school welfare resources. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 2004-05, 7 per cent of children aged under 15 years were reported to have some form of mental or behavioural problem as a long-term health condition, with rates rising from very low levels among children aged under five years to 10 per cent of children aged 10-14 years.
But, because of the direction of funds to the NSCP, rather than qualified counselors, Fotinopolous says:
“… government schools are impelled to accept $20,000 a year for the implementation of a chaplaincy program not because they see a need for religious observance in schools, but rather as a means of securing desperately needed welfare assistance for students at risk. Considering these statistics, no school could be blamed for accepting federal funding for welfare assistance, but the Government does deserve criticism for attaching desperately needed funds to a church-led school welfare program.”
So, what is the harm? What can happen when, instead of funding a full-time trained counsellor in a school, the government provides a part-time counselor and a full-time chaplain?
Let’s consider the case of fourteen year old Alex Wildman, Alex, a student at Kadina State High School in Lismore, was the victim of long term, relentless bullying and physical abuse by his peers. Yet, despite having spent a ‘significant’ amount of time with Alex over several months, the school chaplain admits that he “… never picked up that he [Alex] was being harassed.” Notably, the school counsellor had no dealings with Alex during the sixth months he was at Kadina and the school acknowledges that “No real attempt was ever made to encourage Alex to see the school counsellor”. Perhaps they believed, misguidedly, that with the chaplain working with the child, there was no need.
The extent of Alex’s problem only came to light when Alex was punched repeatedly in the face by a fellow student. The chaplain’s response was to approach Alex on assembly the next day and ask if he was OK. Alex replied, “ I’m fine … it’s all cool now…” and, apparently, the chaplain took him at his word.
The next day Alex hanged himself.
Let me make it perfectly clear, I am, unequivocally not blaming the chaplain for this incident. I do, however, blame the government that made this teenager’s first line of support a person who obviously had insufficient training to pick up on the signs of a child in danger. The chaplain is as much a victim in this as anyone. He was put in a position for which he was clearly unqualified. He failed to see the signs that a trained counselor may have noticed. He failed to ask the questions that might have encouraged Alex to share his concerns.
Of course, I can’t guarantee that if a full-time counsellor had been employed at the school, Alex would still be alive. But it is sobering that, after examining the circumstances of Alex’s death, the coroner made particular note of the need for a full-time professionally trained counsellor at the school.
National School Chaplaincy is a dangerous programme which short-changes our children and plays Russian roulette with their lives. Sure, chaplains are cheap in comparison to trained counsellors, youth workers and psychologists – but is this really an area where we should be skimping on cost? I understand, absolutely, the claim that chaplains provide a valuable resource by being ‘out there’ interacting with the children rather than sequestering themselves in their offices. But that is not an argument for school chaplaincy – it’s an argument to change the way counsellors work in schools.
In the next instalment of this series, I will argue that the group most at risk from this ill-advised scheme are teenagers who are, or think they may be, gay.
Chrys Stevenson
Update – 8 August 2010: The Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, will today announce an allocation of $222 million to boost the number of chaplains in schools by more than one-third, which would mean about 3700 schools will be covered under the voluntary scheme introduced by the Howard government.
First time comments on this blog are moderated, but will be approved as soon as possible.
Further Action
If you oppose the National School Chaplaincy scheme, please donate to the High Court Challenge against National School Chaplaincy. A paypal facility is available on the website.
Ron Williams, a parent from Toowoomba, is bravely taking on the government and arguing against this scheme on constitutional grounds. He has recently announced that high profile lawyer, Bret Walker SC will lead the legal team. Walker will be supported by Gerald Ng, Barrister, and the law firm, Horowitz and Bilinsky.
Note – money raised for the High Court Challenge goes into a trust for the payment of legal fees, not to Ron Williams and his family. For a small (or large) investment, this is a chance to be a part of Australian history.
Gladly’s Book Recommendations
Gladly’s favourite book store for online purchases is Embiggen Books. If you’ve found this article interesting you may enjoy this further reading:
“You can put a silk hat on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”
“A leopard can’t change his spots.”
“Beware the wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
“If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands.” – Douglas Adams
Australia’s national school chaplaincy program was introduced by the Howard government in October 2006 and was continued and expanded by the Rudd Government. Provided at enormous cost to Australian tax-payers, the result is that over 2,000 state schools currently employ chaplains, providing the chaplains and their churches with direct exposure to approximately 720,000 children in state schools. (Overington, 2008).
A key plank of the program is that chaplains are not permitted to evangelise.* It is passing strange, then, that the major bodies contracted by the government to supply chaplains to schools are evangelical – and expect their chaplains to conform to that religious tradition.
To me, the fundamental flaw in the national school chaplaincy program is that the government is specifically hiring evangelical Christians to go into state schools – and then telling them not to evangelise. It’s like hiring a fox to look after the hen-house under strict instructions it’s not to eat the chickens: the directive is neither fair to the chickens nor the fox.
Let’s consider, as a case study, the Scripture Union, a major supplier of chaplains to the nation’s schools. Scripture Union Australia’s aims, mission statement and working principles are all strongly centred on evangelism. Further, chaplains employed by the Scripture Union are required to adhere to its core principles and beliefs. The Scripture Union, for example, believes – and expects its chaplains to believe – that:
“… the Old and New Testament Scriptures are God-breathed, since their writers spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit; hence are fully trustworthy in all that they affirm; and are our highest authority for faith and life.” (Scripture Union – Aims & Beliefs)
Given this commitment to the literal truth of the Bible, one can only assume that they consider the call to evangelise as a holy commandment. Growth Groups, an interdenominational group in the UK explains this divine imperative:
“The call to evangelise is clear from Scripture. In Matthew 28:18-20 Jesus gives His disciples the “Great Commission”. In Acts 1:8, He tells them that they will be His “witnesses” (Acts 1:8) and the remainder of the book of Acts tells the story of how they spread the gospel to the ends of the earth.”
“We acknowledge the commission of Christ to proclaim the Good News to all people, making them disciples, and teaching them to obey him.” (Growth Groups)
Of course, Tim Mander, CEO of Scripture Union Queensland, and spokesperson for SU Australia, insists that all chaplains work under Education Department guidelines. Mander tells us, reassuringly, that:
“One aspect [of the school chaplaincy program] is that the chaplain cannot proselytise or evangelise and we respect and adhere to that.” (Percy, 2008)
Curiously, this directly contradicts a directive from a Scripture Union International policy paper which says, in part:
“We believe that our mandate is to bring children and young people into the life of established churches by programs that serve them in environments in which they feel comfortable.”
“We believe that, in the case of families that are not Christian, the evangelism of the whole family rather than of children in isolation is still our objective. However, if this cannot immediately be realised, we believe that God still calls us to evangelise children themselves.” (Scripture Union International, 2005)
While the Scripture Union says they resist approaches that treat children as ‘targets’ of evangelism – how can this be reconciled with their stated mandate to evangelise?
The truth is that they can’t and don’t reconcile these conflicting directives. It is clear from reading anything written by the Scripture Union that their entire raison d’être is to be a recruiting agency for Jesus. This is their primary purpose in our state schools and there should be no mistake about it.
Of course the chaplains’ missionary zeal is circumscribed, somewhat, by the government’s guidelines – but only while they are dealing with the children within the confines of the school grounds. That’s why there is an all-out effort to encourage the children to participate in out of school activities where they are removed from the scrutiny of parents and teachers and the ‘grooming’ process can be continued.
“The good news is that God is doing some incredible work through the ministries of SU Queensland. School chaplaincy, camps and missions are exposing thousands of young people and children to the good news of Jesus every year.” (SU News, June 2006)
“In Australia, SU operates in every state and territory and mobilises around thousands of volunteers each year to engage young people and families in holiday programs at beaches and in urban or rural townships, camps, secondary and primary schools, through sports, recreation, outdoor education and school chaplaincy.
SU’s ministry brings us into contact with hundreds of thousands of children, young people and families per year making SU one of the largest mission movements to children and youth in the world. But what drives us is a desire to see lives transformed. We are serious about making a difference.” (Scripture Union Australia – About SUA)
“With urgency. We intentionally make opportunities to present life-giving messages that invite children to respond positively to Jesus. Our approach is urgent because children will, by their nature and because of the world in which they live, turn away from God unless they are evangelised and nurtured.” (Scripture Union International, 2005)
“Last year alone, over 2500 kids went on SU Queensland camps where many committed their lives to Jesus for the first time.”
Don’t tell me that those children – many of whom are now recruited through SU’s chaplaincy programme – weren’t ‘targets’ for evangelism.
Of course, it is up to parents whether to allow their children to be involved in these out of school activities. But, as Ron Williams of the Australian Secular Lobby explains:
“Chaplains go on excursions and on school camps, so if you want your children to have no exposure to the chaplain, you’ve ‘volunteered’ for them not to go to the museum or the bush camp.” (Williams in Potts, 2010)
SU’s mission is clear. Groom the children within the schools, win their friendship and the trust of their parents and then invite them to a fun adventure camp. Get the unchurched and non-Christian kids to put pressure on their parents to let them attend. Once you have the children in your care, and beyond the jurisdiction of the Education Department and their parents, work on them to ‘give their lives to Jesus’.
Now, some may take exception to the use of the word ‘grooming’. After all, isn’t that what pedophiles do? Yes it is – and I use the word deliberately.
While I am not suggesting that chaplains (in general) are grooming children for anything more than religious conversion, it is impossible not to see the similarities between the two approaches.
The first stage is to identify a child who is vulnerable in some way – often the same kind of ‘at-risk’ child that may be ‘targeted’ by a chaplain. One of the best ways to do this is for the pedophile to spend a lot of time in places like ‘your child’s school and playground’ – exactly the place where the chaplain identifies children who may be open to conversion.
The second stage is to win the trust of the child and his parents in order to gather as much information as possible about the intended victim. Similarly, we have the kindly chaplain listening to the child’s problems, playing sport with them in the playground, maybe visiting the parents to discuss the child’s welfare. We also have the use of the intimate and familiar term ‘Chappy’.
In the third step, once the pedophile knows a little about his victim, he steps into that child’s life to fill a need. For example, a lonely child might receive extra time and attention, and a child who feels unloved might receive unconditional affection – exactly the kind of attention provided by a chaplain.
The fourth step in the grooming process is to lower the child’s inhibitions about sexual matters. Of course, the chaplain (generally!) doesn’t do this, but taking a child on a camp where all the ‘cool’ counsellors pray publicly and give testimonies about how Jesus made them happy and successful and confident may certainly lower a child’s inhibitions about following a religion.
The fifth stage for a pedophile is the overt sexual abuse of the child, often resulting in marked changes in personality and behaviour. Again, the correlation with chaplaincy is the successful religious conversion of the child – an event specifically designed to result in marked changes in personality and behaviour. Indeed, a stated aim of the evangelical Christian is to ‘change lives’. And what else can we expect when a child is finally convinced to accept the premise that they are a sinner whose only chance at redemption is to live in the humble service, and in accordance with the moral (or immoral) precepts, of a supernatural deity?
In light of the above, consider the following video from SU Australia. There is no denying that, in many respects, it is a ‘good news’ story, and I am absolutely, unequivocally not implying that the chaplain or any of the camp counsellors are pedophiles. The correlation here is the process which is employed. This process becomes very obvious in “Jarred’s Story”:
The evangelistic agenda is carefully avoided in the Jarred video, but for more insight into the SU Connect camps mentioned in the story, consider this:
“Keanu Schubert is 16 and lives in one of Brisbane’s headline suburbs. Now in Year 11, Keanu came to Connect in Year Nine – “pretty much a mess”. “There was not a lot of good stuff happening,” said Keanu. “I was close to doing things no one should think about.” One the first expedition Keanu made friends among boys he described as his school enemies. Part of his transformation included hearing about Jesus and becoming a disciple. He’s now connected to a number of church youth groups in the Springwood area.” (Journey Online – Queensland Uniting Church, 2008)
Further, training literature from SU Connect provides advice on how to engage children into talking about the Bible by using movies such as “The Matrix” or by talking about football. (Knowle Parish Church – Leaders Resources)
Make no mistake – religious conscription is at the very heart of everything Scripture Union does. My issue is not that the children are being helped, but that they are being helped at a price by people with an agenda. Indeed, sounding very much like a fox who’s been given the keys to the hen-house, SU’s CEO, Tim Mander admits:
“To have a full-time Christian presence in government schools in this ever-increasing secular world is an unbelievable privilege. Here is the church’s opportunity to make a connection with the one place through which every young person must attend: our schools.”
You can almost hear him salivating at the prospect of all those young, unsaved souls.
Now, with all this talk of foxes in hen-houses and wolves in sheep’s clothing and pigs in top hats, I must call a pause here to say, perversely, that I don’t think that the chaplains, themselves, are bad people. In general, I believe, they are kind, sincere, enthusiastic, loving people with a genuine desire to help the kids in their care. I also don’t dispute the fact that, in providing a friendly ear and some much needed attention for at-risk kids, they may fulfill an important role. I don’t question, at all, the value of having someone in the school who has the time to play sport and ‘hang out’ with the kids and listen to their problems. I don’t question that taking ‘at risk’ kids on adventure camps does wonders for their self-confidence and discipline. What I question is why religion is brought into this process. Why are evangelistic Christians, (often with no formal qualifications), who have an agenda which clearly goes beyond friendship and support, providing these services? If our children need counseling and advice from adult mentors, surely these should be qualified people who have no agenda other than to assist the children in their care. If school counselors are less effective than chaplains because they’re not out in the playground with the kids – get them out in the playground!
State schools should provide a religion-neutral environment for children with parents of all faiths and no faith. It is not sufficient to say that the Christian chaplain is ‘non-denominational’. The act of placing an evangelical Christian chaplain into a school and telling them not to evangelise is unfair to both the chaplain and the children. It places the chaplain in the position where they have to answer to two masters. When ‘God’ is telling you to spread the gospel and that children who are not ‘saved’ will burn in hell for eternity, and the Education Department is telling you that you mustn’t ‘target’ children for conversion – which ‘master’ do you think a good, evangelical Christian will listen to? If you sincerely believe that, without conversion, a young person you care for will suffer eternally, how could you not find ways to defy government protocols or at least find ways to circumvent them? And, indeed, this is exactly what chaplains do. As we have seen, even if they have to take care what they do and say within the school, they use their position ‘strategically’ (SU’s own word) in order to entice the children into out-of-school activities where they, or other Christian agencies they work with, are not constrained by Education Department policy.
For Christians reading this article, consider how you would feel if, instead of placing Christian chaplains in state schools, the government decided to employ Muslim counsellors whose role was to get close to the children, identify those ‘at risk’ and then encourage them to go to Islamic adventure camp where they were encouraged as part of a ‘long term programme’ to convert to Islam and accept the Koran as the true word of God. Would you be arguing then that there is ‘no harm’ in bringing religion into state schools?
Chaplains are not evil, but they have no place in state schools. You cannot place an evangelistic Christian into a state school and expect them not to create opportunities to evangelise. They are compelled by their religious beliefs to do so. Chaplains should not be put into that position and parents should not have their beliefs (or lack of belief) undermined by someone within the school whose primary aim is to entice their children into adopting a particular narrow, fundamentalist, literalist, Christian ideology.
It’s not fair to put a fox in a hen-house and tell him he’s not to eat the chickens while he’s in there. You cannot expect him not to follow his innate compulsion to eat chickens. Even if you happen to find a fox with remarkable self-control, a clever fox will simply invite the chickens to step outside – perhaps for a ‘really fun’ adventure camp – and eat them then. He is then able to claim, quite honestly, that he complied absolutely with the directive not to eat the chickens in the hen-house. The fox is not evil. You can’t blame the fox for doing what a fox does. The blame lies squarely on whoever decided that it was a good idea to put a fox in a hen-house and direct him not to act like a fox.
Chrys Stevenson
This is Part One of a three-part series of articles. See also:
8 August 2010: The Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, will today announce an allocation of $222 million to boost the number of chaplains in schools by more than one-third, which would mean about 3700 schools will be covered under the voluntary scheme introduced by the Howard government.
Clarification from Australian Secular Lobby
*”A key plank of the program is that chaplains are not permitted to evangelise.”
Although this is generally true, Hugh Wilson of the Australian Secular Lobby provides the following clarification:
It depends which programme you are talking about. DEEWR prohibit proselytising, but are silent on evangelising, but EQ prohibit both, so a NSCP chaplain in an EQ school cannot do either. The ASL discussed with DEEWR what they meant by ‘proselytise’, because the word is not defined by them. Within the private school section of DEEWR , there is a vague description of ‘proselytise’, and that comes out closer to EQs evangelise. The new policy is here and says, in part:
“instruct volunteer and/or paid chaplain that s/he is not to evangelise or proselytise at any time in the delivery of chaplaincy program”
Evangelise: Engagement and dialogue with a student/s with intent to attract to a particular faith group.
Proselytise: To solicit a student for a decision to change belief system.
First-time comments on this blog are moderated but will be approved and published as soon as possible.
Further Action
Yes! You can do something. If you believe that the National School Chaplaincy Program is contrary to Australia’s secular principles and that chaplains (however well-intentioned) should not be placed into state schools, please support the High Court Challenge to the National School Chaplaincy Program being mounted by Ron Williams .
“NSCP federally-funded state school chaplains across Queensland may: conduct Christian prayers on all-school assembly; at significant school ceremonies; hold lunchtime prayer/Bible study sessions and engage with students in the classroom, playground, school excursions, school camps and sport. Chaplains oversee and conduct Religious Instruction classes and on-campus church-designed and run programs including Hillsong ‘Shine’ which connect children with evangelistic off-campus clubs, programs and camps.
Contact with concerned parents in every Australian State and Territory reveals that occurences of the federally-funded National School Chaplaincy Program being utilised as a Christian evangelic ministry are common within the nation’s state schools.
After years of correspondence and meetings with state education and DEEWR executives as well as personal meetings with two Education Ministers and their Directors General, in 2009, a frustrated Mr. Williams sought advice regarding a possible High Court challenge to the constitutional legality of the Commonwealth providing treasury funds to the National School Chaplaincy Program. In February 2010, Horowitz & Bilinsky accepted the case.
This matter concerns more people than the Williams family from Queensland. It concerns all Australians, of all faiths and none, who support the secular ‘wall of separation’ concept concerning church and state. This ‘wall of separation’ is required to safeguard our multicultural, multi-faith and non-faith liberal democracy that has become the hallmark of the civilised 21st century nation Australia rightfully claims to be.
Mr. Williams has established a trust account for the purpose of accepting donations to defray the considerable costs related to this s.116 ‘wall of separation’ constitutional challenge. Mr. Williams has instructed his solicitors that all funds deposited to the account are only to be applied for costs and disbursements associated with the High Court proceedings.
Considerable financial support from the broader Australian community will be required by Mr. Williams in order to meet his expected, and unexpected, legal costs. Whatever your faith position might be, this is a significant legal exercise aimed at ensuring Australia really is a secular nation-state, as our forebears clearly intended it to be.
Please secure a stake in your nation’s secular future by donating as much as you feel comfortably able to.”
Please note that funds donated go directly into a solicitors’ trust fund to be applied only to legal costs. The money does not go to Ron Williams personally.
You could also write to or email your local Federal Labor candidate and/or the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard with your objections to the National School Chaplaincy Program and noting that the extension of this program will be a consideration in your decision on who to vote for at the forthcoming election.
Gladly’s Book Recommendations
Gladly’s favourite book store for online purchases is Embiggen Books. If you’ve found this article interesting you may enjoy this further reading:
Gladly’s Book Recommendations
Much excitement! I received my advance copy of “
When I woke up this morning, I found my elderly mother already up and watching the television.
Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear 