I would agree that the chaplaincy programme introduced into Australia sounds like an effort to give religion greater prominence within childrens lives.
For believers, many of whom are sincere in their belief that values derived from their religion are of great value to impressionable young minds, the defence of such a programme would be seen as a good thing.
For secularists, humanists, atheists etc, the money would be better spent on a non-denominational councillor, rather than a religious figure.
Any of you out there read PZ Myers blog, Pharyngula? He posted an interesting link the other day to an analysis of what churches and religions spend their money on - money derived from the faithful, and not subject to tax, since religions are all given charitable status.
Supporters of churches and religions often talk about the good works that their faith does, offering money, help, support, programmes to the needy and disadvantaged.Those of us with a more cynical nature would often point to the fact that such help comes with strings attached for the recipient, often in the form of offering prayer, or attending sermons and the like - but regardless of that, faiths often justify their existence to society and their flock by proclaiming their commitment to good and charitable works.
Only, that seems not to be the case, and one could question whether religions should be tax exempt at all.......
http://freethoughtblo.../the-church-business/