I'm resisting the temptation to be as a 'Pitbull on a Chiwawa' here :) but I see a great start, and a questionable finish in this article. Embedded in some of these statements are the predjudices (mostly unconcious) which are the root of so much misunderstanding about Christianity.

<<First, it is not a devotion to religion which makes for divisions in society. It is the relative importance one places on the religious law and the law of the land.>>

Excellent point! The problem though is that IF the religion itself,
leaves no room for any other political construct than "it", the only type of importance adherants will allow is 'pre-eminence' over the state.

It is the Christian understanding of the State, that believers are to be 'Salt' (to preserve righteousness) and "light" to show the way at whatever level of society they happen to inhabit.
It does not suggest any idea of a 'Christian' State. This is totally foreign to Islam, which views 'Islamic' as the only legitimate type of State.

<<<<Truly understood, the message of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism and all the major world religions are very similar in nature, and a profound understanding of these religions will lead to a common experience of the shared humanity of all people.>>>>

Islamic view
-is 'once we have defeated all the enemies of Islam, there will be peace...under the Islamic State'

The Christian view

is that minds and hearts within any state will be changed by the Grace and love of God, through repentance and faith and though beginnings may be small, it will permeate the whole society through witness and testimony as happened to the Roman Empire up until Constantine.

Bhuddhist View

"it doesn't matter anyway, we are on about enlightenment, Karma, 8fold path, 4fold way etc not creating states.

Taoist View:

We place our trust ..in the Tao, that we may live in peace and balance with the Universe...

The point I'm trying to make is that the roots and fundamentals of a religion itself determine how it views State law.

I agree D-B, the basis of law is formulated upon our primary values of how we view others; this will determine our accomodation or segreation of those who differ from us. Even in large religious schools there is enough social and family cultural diversity to create the need for students to learn to accept difference.

People preach racial and religious tolerance. Which is fine, but how about extending that to poltical tolerance. For example, Liberal leftists being tolerant of the Hansonites (and allow Hansonites to actually have a say in public debate without being vilified). I'd like to see that! Ha Ha Ha HA hahhaha.

I cannot find a solid argument in any of the above against Dennis Altman’s proposal for full secular primary education, except that it would have to be extensively funded.
Altman’s proposal merely aims to mix children of different home life (religious or otherwise) at the ‘formation’ stage. How can there possibly be no benefit to this? The more we ‘homogenise’ the social mix at this age the better.
It would also do more to mix the ‘disadvantaged with the rich’, a proven way of offering opportunities to those needing to ‘break the cycle of poverty’.
The primary school system should incorporate education of a ‘system of values’ that most religions hold at their core, such as non-violence & benevolence. There should be classes specifically aimed at developing good life skills & other appropriate attributes. Children should be exposed to all the popular religions. They should eventually be able to make their own choice as to which, if any, spiritual path they take.
As parents, (almost by definition) we impose our values & prejudices on our children, consciously or otherwise. As parents we have a responsibility to ensure our child’s education is healthy & broad, certainly without discrimination.
Obviously we would need substantial changes to our current primary school system. But this does not mean that it should not be.