Chris

Well, of course you don't, you're (apparently) not religious. I, on the other hand, see plenty of reasons why I would choose a faith-based education for my children if that option were open to me. But that's hardly surprising, as I have a faith-based worldview that I wish my children to share.

This just illustrates that you're not grasping what it is we're talking about here. You equate 'religious dimension' with 'religious education', as if the spiritual growth of the children is adequately catered for by serving up facts about various world religions. A proper religious dimension affects all aspects of the practices and the ethos of the school and gives a spiritual context to all subjects. Naturally that is more evident in some subjects more than others, although I expect there is probably a profound spiritual truth to be found even within 2 + 2 = 4 if you look hard enough.

That old chestnut ... the problem with this rather glib (if you don't mind my saying) statement is that when there is no division, there must necessarily be unity. And the people who make this statement usually assume that the unity that will ensue is unity along their own preferred lines. You want a world in which religion is a hobby that sits in a neat compartment within a person's life and doesn't affect or bother anyone else, or cause that person to do or say anything that you disagree with, even if it doesn't directly harm you at all. Christianity and Islam, however, are evangelistic religions by their very nature. They are diametrically opposed to your point of view and elimination of 'division' would be impossible without either eliminating the religions, or having everyone convert to one of them.

But not if parents judge that the best way to do that is through the medium of the school education they give to their children?

Again, you are confusing the learning of facts about a religion with the living of a religion in daily life. Christianity is a way of life. When followed Biblically (as opposed to the nominal 'Christianity' many in this country still adhere to), It reaches into everything you say and do. It's not just about learning to recite the books of the New Testament or recalling who built the Ark.

IIRC some Christian schools in this country have tried that, to loud choruses of tabloid hysteria, and lofty derision from the likes of the Guardian. But again, you're missing the point, this is about ethos and principles more than it is about the teaching of facts.

It's not a cuts both ways debate at all, you're completely changing the subject!

You stated that you don't believe in Church intervention in education. I countered that without Church intervention there wouldn't even be education in this country - or at least not in the way we know it.

A discussion about whether, overall, religion makes a positive or negative contribution to the world would be interesting, but it is quite irrelevant to the original point about Church intervention in education.

Actually, starting a little closer to home, I think Christians would cause less conflict if they understood their own religion at all. Taking the Crusades, as a classic example, there is absolutely no justification in the Bible for what occurred. But then there is absolutely no justification in the Bible for a lot of things Popes have proclaimed. Similarly 'Christians' blowing up each other in Northern Ireland, or rioting or fighting against Muslims in Beirut, East Timor or wherever.

Beyond that, yep, a little understanding would be very useful. However I would be interested to see your evidence for the failure of faith-based schools to deliver a sufficiently rounded religious education.