Was it you or the sub-editor that chose the word intolerance for the title here, Stephen?

To what extend should tolerance extend to intolerance?

While organisations of christian schools are vigorously defending their opportunities to discriminate against minorities http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/adb/ll_adb.nsf/pages/adb_general#areas, and beat their pupils http://www.abc.net.au/am/stories/s246823.htm you’ve got to wonder who in fact is the more intolerant.

In any event, questioning the allocation of public funds to organisations that advocate intolerance is not of itself intolerance – it’s a valid and necessary part of the political process.

Mr O'Doherty does get a tad snaky about definitions ... and then his argument moves from 'Christian schools' to ‘Christian education’. Are they synonymous, Stephen? More care required too?

My objection to the Christian school movement is two-and-maybe-threefold. Firstly, they foster societal division whereas the public schools are, or can be, great 'ameliorators' of social difference (in fact this is one of the key reasons for school per se). Secondly, the costs are extraordinary and they are an inefficient societal mechanism. Robert Lowe in the 1830s in the NSW parliament sent such elitism to sleep for 150 years. A pandering populist under the guise of religion allowed a giant to reawaken. Finally, the folly is that they will eventually make education too expensive for the masses and we will be back to where we were in the 19th century. So read the history!

Read about Robert Lowe, Stephen. His biography may be informative and the reasons for his actions run counter to what you are promulgating, I believe. He ended up unloved in UK as Viscount Sherbrooke after being Gladstone’s Exchequer but that doesn't make him wrong!

I agree with the author that people shouldn't lump lower fee Christian schools in with the likes of the Kings School and Sydney Grammar.

But in the same breath he defends the million of dollars given to the richest schools, schools which simply don't need the money. The principal of Kings said it himself: his school doesn't need the money.

These schools get so much money from school fees and government funding they've got millions of dollars just sitting in the bank, just waiting for a new film theatre or swimming pool, while many public schools can't even afford repairs.

It's grossly unfair and deep down every reactionary defender of the current funding system knows it.

The rich schools regularly give out messages to parents effectively threatening them that if the government cuts funding to the school they will be forced to jack their children's school fees up even further. It's a lie, but that's why the parents squeal so much.

They should understand, their child's school increases their children's fees by 10pc a year simply because they CAN: they are operating in a sellers market and they don't care whether you can afford it. There are plenty of richer kids ready to take your child's place.

"the diversity in the Australian community applies equally to all school settings."

Where is the diversity in schools that are set up with the sole purpose of attracting one particular section of the community? Children attending religious schools are mixing with children from the same backgrounds and sharing the same belief systems as themselves. Hardly a setting that could be described as diverse.

True diversity can only exist in a universal education system which is open to everyone irrespective of race, religion, ability level or capacity to pay. The growth of independent schools has created an emphasis on difference. It is dividing society and breeding intolerance.

'The growth of independent schools has created an emphasis on difference. It is dividing society and breeding intolerance.' One could easily argue that State schools that embrace the religion of secular humanisn is more intolerant than most. As a result of this philosophy people can murder the unborn and then try and explain it away by science. The hopefully flawed theory of evolution is held on to and no other theories are tolerated. I thought that the religion of secular humanism celebrated 'difference'. It is the intolerance of the State system that aids the growth of the independent schools. As stated on previous posts many if not most people send their kids to private schools not for religous purposes but because of the failure of schools based on secular humanisn. If the State schools stopped preaching their religion then they might not lose people who make many sacrifices to send their children to private schools.

I suspect that if there were ever measures to introduce a reduction in funding to private schools, parents would revolt at the ballot box. The big, high fee private schools generally lie in blue ribbon Liberal seats, and probably draw many of their clientele from such areas. However, the smaller independent schools (where funding would be a much bigger issue/burden) generally lie in marginal seats. It would be electoral suicide to try to take the money away.

Also, I suspect that even if all of this managed to happen anyway, many of the people in the independent sector would simply switch to homeschooling or community schooling (and co-incidentally, there would be a rise in black market/non-monetary activity), like in the U.S.

I think a lot of people are missing the point that you can stick whatever ideology you want on people, but some people won't accept that. Some people genuinely don't like the state system for a whole lot of non-funding issues (the funding just makes things easier or harder), and every action has a reaction. People don't just get up one day and pull their kids out of the local state school. There's a whole lead-up to that. Also, aside from being unfair, it's innacurate to think that everyone who doesn't like the state model of education is some kook. If anything, it only drives them further away.