SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE - RELIGION vs STATE FUNDING - further thoughts - and some cartoons to attract a bit of attention - seems Facebook requires picture to get anyone to notice anything important .... This follows on from my earlier post, which was an email I sent to the Herald Letters about the Catholic University seeking to hire a Researcher - one whom I believe will be obliged by the ethos there to be BIASED. I presume at least SOME Federal money goes to the ACU enabling the employment of people on $100,000+ for such positions. After going shopping, I later went back to digging around, and felt I had to qualify a few remarks to the paper and to my local MP - and here - so I wrote this - After sending my email a couple of hours ago about the RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP at the Austr. Catholic University and Govt funding of theological disputation, I dug deeper into the position description and background of the Theology Faculty (and related Institutes). As I suspected, it is pretty clear no one who was unorthodox would be hired or tolerated. Not just as an individual are they meant to be closely in tune with Church ethos (whatever that may be said to mean??) - I suspect it means supporting main stances on dogma and the hierarchy. In addition the appointee is to be part of a Team, which would pressure anyone even more into some sort of compliant consensus. I am writing again to correct one minor point. The position, as advertised in the newspaper, and the 1st on-line level, had no dates of even centuries indicated (just being Early - which I took to be from about 1st to 4th Century A.D. - how early can be said to end 800 years later well after the fall of the Roman Empire in the West is beyond me - that is NEVER the usage as found in books on this topic). I later found, buried elsewhere in a pdf file that had to be downloaded, that there IS a start date of fourth century ending in the early Middle Ages (8th Century). This changes the situation marginally. A few of the issues I mentioned in the previous email as controversial might be excluded by a fourth century start date (I had assumed that 400 AD would be the END date, not the start, in that regard the advert is thoroughly misleading) - so while the University could object to my claims, hiding behind quibbles on the date I implied, in reality, this only slightly affects the points I was making. E.g. about many of the earlier key historical issues on the settling of key questions of dogma. I can say this, as generally speaking the Fourth Century was when the the Roman Empire abandoned support of paganism and stopped persecuting the early churches, from about the mid 300s the Christian religion became official. The new later, end date, does make a difference as it now included everything AFTER that for 400 years. In this period the structure of the church was built up as a massive property owner and vital agent of administration, in the Empire (and after it) around the Mediterranean - up to Scotland. Suddenly being official meant previously private squabbles became vital issues of state - so HAD to be defined (no doubt seen as legal societal issues, not private matters anymore), so differences could not be glossed over. Regardless of the dating, my criticism stands re. the Federal Govt funding this research position (even if only in part) - as being in violation of the Constitution. Such a position, run in a University within the Church, is (I think) inevitably going to be inherently biased in favour of the Churchs orthodox position. It basically makes little difference at all. In fact, checking the ACU site opened up to me the entire issue of HECS funding of students doing Theology - especially if they are seeking to enter Holy Orders (or whatever term the various denominations uses). Many of the mainstream universities had strong Church ties in the 1800s, and there are all sorts of vestiges of this even today - many of which may be receiving Federal money - e.g. the Anglican Moore College at Sydney University, and any other schools, faculties, institutes of theology and religion, etc. In short - how much Federal money do these numerous institutions receive? That is a matter of their PRIVATE conscience, and should NOT be state subsidised AT ALL. The issue is fundamentally one of separation of Church and State - if the State is aiding the training of priests, etc., it is in effect, aiding the establishment of any of the religions that so benefit. As far as I can tell, this is a total contradiction of the Constitution.
Posted on: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 08:00:10 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015