|
I'm not so sure guys.
Personally, I would love to see a multi-faith chaplaincy, or the chaplaincy being funded independently by the church, AND I think most students would agree with that if they were to sit down and think about it properly.
The problem is that most aren't - all they're going to see is our society 'causing trouble' and begrudging the chaplaincy offering a real service to people, which is technically available to everybody. I wouldn't agree with this view obviously, but I think we might be better off picking our battles.
I also think a public attack is not very likely to persuade the college, as they might see it as piggy-backing on the conferring fee campaign, and perhaps as motivated by a desire to be visible rather than genuine concerns.
I'd draw the parallel with HAI's campaign against the religious oath the president and judges are required to take. While we are all clearly opposed to this too, at least Adam and I thought it was a bad way to go about it - the ordinary man on the street was just going to see them as kicking up a fuss about something fairly inconsequential, and so the Humanists would inevitably lose a lot of credibility with the general public.
What would seem to me to be the better option would be to work at the issue pretty quietly, on a personal and longer-term basis. We could voice our concerns to the relevant authorities, laying out exactly why it's an unfair use of student money. By taking a personal approach i think they'd feel under more pressure to at least give us adequate reasons for continuing to pay for it out of student money. I'd imagine this approach would garner better results from the college and a better public perception.
Thoughts?
|
