[Age of Ignorance]

The first thing I'd like to personally address is the fact that, at least in my country, secularism applies only to the daily occurrences in Parliament, the requirements to be elected, and the oppression of certain religious orders. The Constitution of the Commonwealth quite clearly states:

"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth." (Section 116)

I'd also like to point out that, as far as I can tell, the "secularism" of the United States also applies in the same or similar fashion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (1st Amendment)

I think it's quite obvious then that, in Australia and the United States, contrary to the beliefs of many, "separation of church and state" is not an argument that can be relied upon in discourse of this debate.

With respect to my own personal opinion, I do not believe that religious exercises should be taught or practiced in public schools at all. I do not believe that public schools should be able to affiliate with a specific religious order and I believe that any student, regardless of their religious affiliation, should be welcomed into the public school system. I do, however, believe it is a private educational organisation's right to affiliate with whatever religious order they feel; they are, afterall, privately owned and operated separately from public institutions.