The most concerning thing at the moment seems to be that wealthy private christian schools set their fees in such a way so that poorer christians are forced into non-christian schools. Every Christian student who wants to have a Christian education should be able to have one. And then it wouldn't matter that much what ideologies are in fashion elsewhere.

The first subject that should not be taught is ... religion.

The author neglects the most dominant - and violent - religion of all: the State.

As Mises said, as soon as one has constructed the concept of a superior being, over and above society, and autonomously aiming at ends of its own choosing, one has essentially constructed the notion of a God.

Add to this the common beliefs that this Being can
- suspend the laws of nature in our favour (making scarce resources "free"),
- create wealth out of thin air (economic "stimulus" - (i.e. makes us richer) by printing squiggles on paper)
- control the weather and the winds that blow (by taxation of course, what else?),
- know what the distribution of all resources everywhere should be
- cure the sick
- decide what people's consensual sexual relations should be
- decide what is a crime for anyone else is actually a social necessity and a selfless virtue in the State
- and so on.

Add these common beliefs I say - just read OLO for lots of examples - and you have the most common religion of modern people - the State itself.

Notice how the author talked about the State, but never questioned the fixed idea of the State itself?

The very existence of government funding, government schooling, government-dictated curriculum, and government-mandated teacher qualifications, intrinsically teaches children that the government:
- has a the State has a right to condition children to salivate to the sound a bell - real Pavlovian stuff
- has a right to teach them whatever it wants
- has a right to hassle and bully and persecute and ostracise them for non-attendance or disobedience

- has a right to imprison or threaten to imprison people - i.e. everyone - to get the money - (the crime called 'demanding money with menaces' if anyone else does it)- for compulsory government indoctrination of children
- has a right to take custody of children without their or their parents consent for purposes of indoctrination - (crime of called kidnapping' if anyone else does it)
- has a right to indoctrinate children about the virtue and necessity of the participate in aggressive acts of mass killing
- has a right to provoke conflicts between groups in society and then intervene to favour itself - (this article is about a case in point)
- is entitled to maintain at coerced public expense its own dependent class of intellectual bodyguards and priests – the intellectual class – to preach and propagate belief in the State at every turn on every subject
- etc. etc . etc.

Seeing all this, who can doubt that the State is itself by far the most common, dominant, and established religion of all in modern society? It even has its own creation myths: the “social contract” (non-existent); "representative" government (not); the divine right of environmentalists, and so on.

Since the historical separation of church and state, indoctrination of children by government is far more noxious than indoctrination by religion, since the religions are less in a position to do such harm and on such a scale.

At the time of the separation of church and state, much of the argument had to do with the compulsory funding by the state of church activities which are now performed directly by the state, instead of by organised religion.

Any talk of good education and the good society, of corrupting authority, and of indoctrinating children with noxious ideologies, must start with the desirability of separating state and education, for exactly the same reasons that the separation of church and state is desirable.

Love this debate. It very different in Australia as we are 'multi cultural'. But this discussion in a country with a rich and old heritage is very different, Even Aboriginal culture. These cultures do not shy away from educating the next generation on their ideals, cultures, religions, social standings and more... Without sounding 'red-neck' (because I am half-Sri Lankan, Quarter French/Qtr Australian and Australian born), but why cant we embrace who we are and our english/colonial heritage? I know it's not a culture we can be super proud of, but name a culture/religion that has a squeaky clean past? And why cant we teach the next generation this culture? Thats why we travel and love visiting other cultures, because we are so nonchalant about who we are as 'Australian's'