Dipped in to find this back at the usual 'is religion good or bad' stuff that my RE teacher used to use to fill up space in Yr9 when too hungover to actually think (at least until she was reprimanded for throwing up in the bin).
Wanted to respond to some earlier to-and-fro on selection though, where gooseberrybushes says
"Selection by faith is the only kind of selection. It's almost better than selection by income (as in independent edu) because it really does reflect effort, commitment, hard work etc etc, hopefully qualities likely to be passed on to the children"
This is what drives so many of us mad, and is wrapped up in the basic issue of whether religions belief should be that special. If you want a system that selects in this way so it groups committed parents then argue for a return to the days of parental meetings with the Head and waiting lists, or for the possibility of exclusion if parents don't live up to their end of the bargain. Or accept, as I would, that such a system is so cack-handedly unfair and immoral it isn't worth supporting.
But what you're arguing for is that one factor which may indicate involvement and ability to contribute, but by no means clearly, should remain. You want to select to 'keep standards up', but on grounds which are not designed to select for what you want. That's barmy-it's like popping out for a sandwich but then blindly grabbing anything in the Boot's fridge.
And the only reasons it stands is because religion is seen as a bit special when set against other belief systems. Can you imagine if I wanted to set up a school which selected only parents with proven commitments of time to working with anti-discrimination groups (who would include many liberal Christians, to defuse any undertone there)?