To support the argument in favour of funding private religious schools - currently the hot topic of the day - the fact that there is funding for Catholic schools is used as the prime rationale. The one point that seems frequently to be omitted is that Catholic schools are public schools.

They are public schools. This means that the curriculum taught in them meets the provincial standards. This, to some extent, appears to be John Tory's stance. But does he go the distance, for it also means that any student can attend them, whether that student is a Roman Catholic or not.

Many of the students that go to - for example - Robert F. Hall Catholic Secondary School in Caledon East, amongst which numbers my daughter Patricia has been counted, are not Catholic; some are Jewish; others are Protestant; lots of others are not committed to a church at all. Yet, all the students must attend the Masses held at the school for the Catholic holidays; they must wear the school uniform; they must take religion (and this includes world religion) as a mandatory subject.

If these principles were applied to the current crowd of religious schools looking for funding, perhaps the debate could be resolved.

Firstly, they would no longer be private schools. They would be public schools, obliged to educate their students to provincial standards. Their teachers would be required to achieve the same levels of certification as any teacher in the public system. In addition, it means that any student in the province, barring usual rules about transportation and the catchment area of schools, would be allowed to attend these delightful and interesting public schools newly entered into the system.

This is the point: that these once private schools would no longer abide simply by their own rules; they would be required, by virtue of being in the publicly funded public system, to be "normal" in their adherence to "normal" school oriented laws.

They would have to be tied into or create their own school boards. They would have to account financially for themselves as do all publicly funded schools. Their standards of treatment, health and safety would all be regulated in the same way.

In other words, much of what makes them separate would disappear. The religiously based private schools would become as similar to non-religious schools as the Catholic schools are. But what is important to them, namely the religious aspects of their institutions, would, for the most part, be intact.

If the argument against funding religious schools is partially about creating an increasingly segregated society; if, as seems the case, our intensely diversified population is less and less inclined to mix, surely this is the beginning of the answer to the need to truly integrate.

Let the private schools open their doors. Let them welcome in whomever wishes to come and learn. If they want public funding, let them become part of the whole public system.

They can dictate a dress code and religious observances, whether it means praying five times a day or attending a mass four times a year. But they would necessarily have to deliver a level of education that meets the curriculum of every other school in the province.

Our differences would become our similarities. Our understanding of our diverse cultures would deepen to the point where there would be no thought of intolerance. Astudent from a "Christian" background who goes to a "Muslim" school would bring his own perceptions to blend with those of his school chums. Together, in their youth, with other interests in common, the possible antagonism in cultural differences could become non-issues.

Think it over. Here at last is the chance to deal with cultural tensions on the level where it is possible to resolve them. All learning begins with early education. Achild will always believe that his own environment is "normal". As soon as young people are permitted to mix in a spontaneous way, unfettered by the prejudices of their elders, they will never worry about the cultural differences if their personalities are compatible.

In other words, any two or 10 people can get along as long as they have enough in common as to what makes them laugh, or engage in conversation about even mundane things, or allows them to enjoy a sport together.

So, herewith a note to the private schools: based on these conditions, do you still want the money?

I wish I could claim the credit for these ideas at their base, but the fact of the matter is that it is Patricia, a few years graduated from high school, now back in school herself at university, who laid down the foundation for these thoughts. It is so clear to her that our young people ought be a whole society as opposed to many guarded sects. This is the only way in which this war weary world will ever emerge into the sun. And I think she is oh, so right.

The youth of this world have a great deal of work before them. If the average 13-year-old truly understood the kind of mess he/she has to clean up, left to them by several generations of sloppy, short-sighted, greedy, war mongering, idiotic adults, that 13-yearold would either roll up his sleeves and say, "Just watch me fix this." Or he would hide away in the deepest possible place.

As part of the generations that created the mess for this young person, it is our job to encourage and enable him to fix it. Part of how we do this is to raise him knowing, for sure, that we are all one under the skin; that culture and religion are, in many ways, part of the mess and can no longer be the elements that run the policies of the globe.

Perhaps, if our children attend each other's schools, their similarities will overwhelm their differences.

Most importantly, as Patricia says, "How can we understand one another if we don't know what's at the core of each other's spirituality?"