Laurier Chaplain has become obsolete
|
February 24, 2010 3:59 AM
|
Re: Have a subversive Sabbath, Feb. 10
As we progress into the 2010s I still wonder why we have a chaplain here at Laurier.
Brian Bork speaks of his childhood Sundays as being quiet and peaceful.
But he is painfully unaware of the fact that back in those times the Lord’s Day Act prohibited businesses from operating on the Sabbath.
It was an offence against freedom of religion and was discriminatory towards non-Christians.
Thankfully, with the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms section on religious freedom, it was finally overturned. Perhaps Bork wants to return to those times, but for me and many others who want to progress towards a more secular and free world, the Sabbath represents repression.
As for his position as chaplain, I feel that it is terribly redundant and out of date.
If I am not mistaken, we do have Counselling Services and many other places such as the Women’s Centre, Rainbow Centre and a Peer Help-Line from which to seek guidance.
Besides that, the Chaplain’s Office is an affront to separation of church and state.
You need only read his article to see that he represents one and only one religion, that of Christianity. His high appraisals of the Judeo-Christian tradition and claims that the Sabbath was written into creation and the cosmos serve only to alienate those of different religious backgrounds or no religious background.
In a time when budgets are tightening, I have a proposition to kill two birds with one stone: get rid of the Chaplain’s Office.
–Andrew Chai
Comments
Does this guy not realize this university started out as a seminary?
Additionally, the chaplain's office serves a specific need the same way the other services such as the Women’s Centre, Rainbow Centre and a Peer Help-Line serve their respective needs.
Whynot get rid of all of them?
And the USA was once a part of Great Britain too. But, what does that have to do with the present?
The fact is we live in a country that is secular and respects separation of church and state. So, a public university which receives public funds cannot privilege one religion over others. Either have a chaplain to represent each religion or have no chaplain at all.
But, really I do not see how a university should have anything to do with a student's spiritual needs. If you want spiritual guidance you can go to a church, temple, synagogue or a mosque.
Also, I made specific arguments in my letter. So, if you disagree you should actually try and address those arguments.
Red herrings and non-sequiturs won't serve you well.
Well spoken, Andrew. As for getting rid of all of them, those other groups are there to assist those particular groups...women, teens, etc. A Christian chaplain serves to help... Christians. Coming from the United States, I am glad that there isn't an overabundance of religions bleeding into public areas, but I have to agree with Andrew on this one. Why just one denomination? Even though I'm an Atheist, but do recognize how spirituality can be comforting to many ( I wont get into a discussion of its use to discriminate rather than help people), having a singular denomination represented, especially at a public institution, just furthers the "Better than thou" mentality found in so many organized religions.
It seems like there are a couple issues here that we have to pick apart. First, should a public university recognize and provide for the religious needs of students? Second, should student services be group specific or all encompassing? There are some other issues at play such as the appropriate steps public universities should take in economic downturns, but I think the answers to the two aforementioned questions are what we need to find.
My answer to the second question is that student support services should cover as many students as possible in their mandate, calling the mandate of the Chaplain's Office and Women's Centre into question (possibly the Association of Black Students, though I'm unsure of the funding and support structure). I suppose this could be called the "for us, (paid for) by us" approach.
As for the first question, I'm not so clear. Obviously religious campus clubs are funded and that's a good thing, but I'm not sure if it should be in the university's perogative to ensure religious student services on campus.
In the case of religious clubs, if your religion is not represented there is nothing preventing you from starting one up. There is much equality there.
As for the position of Chaplain which is a hired position (to my knowledge), there is no way for a student that is not represented by said Chaplain to hire a chaplain to represent him/her.
But, I think the issue of separation of church and state and maintaining the neutrality of a public university on religion is the key issue. A publicy funded university has no business in promoting any religion or religious affiliation.
I just found this article now, and would like to add my 2 cents.
First, I don't see why it ticks off so many people that they were told they should take a day off and relax. If an atheist told you to take a day off each week instead of a Christian, would you reject the idea so easily?
Next, I think the concept of seperation of church and state is really misunderstood here. What is means is that there is no official church operated by the state (e.g. the Anglican Church). This is at least how it is the American understanding as recorded in their constitution. Besides, does Canada actually promote your understanding of the seperation of church and state as you understand it? Our coins say "God save the Queen" (D.G. REGINA), our queen is the head of the Anglican Church), and we celebrate days like Thanksgiving and Christmas.
Finally, The idea that WLU is promoting a certain religion with the Chaplain's Office is doubtful since there are actually several chaplains from different religious groups. Besides Brian Bork, there is a Roman Catholic chaplain, an Eastern Orthodox priest, a Jewish rabbi, a Lutheran chaplain, and a few others that I don't know.
That is so true