Rethinking religion and belief in public life: a manifesto for change
The time has come to rethink religion's public role in order to ensure equality and fairness for believers and non-believers alike, says a major new report launched by the National Secular Society.
The report says that Britain's "drift away from Christianity" coupled with the rise in minority religions and increasing non-religiosity demands a "long term, sustainable settlement on the relationship between religion and the state".
Rethinking religion and belief in public life: a manifesto for change has been sent to all MPs as part of a major drive by the Society to encourage policymakers and citizens of all faiths and none to find common cause in promoting principles of secularism.
It calls for Britain to evolve into a secular democracy with a clear separation between religion and state and criticises the prevailing multi-faithist approach as being "at odds with the increasing religious indifference" in Britain.
Terry Sanderson, National Secular Society president, said: "Vast swathes of the population are simply not interested in religion, it doesn't play a part in their lives, but the state refuses to recognise this.
"Britain is now one of the most religiously diverse and, at the same time, non-religious nations in the world. Rather than burying its head in the sand, the state needs to respond to these fundamental cultural changes. Our report sets out constructive and specific proposals to fundamentally reform the role of religion in public life to ensure that every citizen can be treated fairly and valued equally, irrespective of their religious outlook."
Read the report:
Rethinking religion and belief in public life: a manifesto for change
Add your endorsement to the manifesto for change
Add your endorsementComplete list of recommendations
Our changing society – Multiculturalism, secularism and group identity
1. The Government should continue to move away from multiculturalism and instead emphasise individual rights and social cohesion. A multi-faith approach should be avoided.
2. The UK is a secularised society which upholds freedom of and from religion. We urge politicians to consider this, and refrain from using "Christian country" rhetoric.
The role of religion in schools
Faith schools
3. There should be a moratorium on the opening of any new publicly funded faith schools.
4. Government policy should ultimately move towards a truly inclusive secular education system in which religious organisations play no formal role in the state education system.
5. Religion should be approached in schools like politics: with neutrality, in a way that informs impartially and does not teach views.
6. Ultimately, no publicly funded school should be statutorily permitted, as they currently are, to promote a particular religious position or seek to inculcate pupils into a particular faith.
7. In the meantime, pupils should have a statutory entitlement to education in a non-religiously affiliated school.
8. No publicly funded school should be permitted to prioritise pupils in admissions on the basis of baptism, religious affiliation or the religious activities of a child's parent(s).
9. Schools should not be able to discriminate against staff on the basis of religion or belief, sexual orientation or any other protected characteristics.
Religious education
10. Faith schools should lose their ability to teach about religion from their own exclusive viewpoint and the law should be amended to reflect this.
11. The Government should undertake a review of Religious Education with a view to reforming the way religion and belief is taught in all schools.
12. The teaching of religion should not be prioritised over the teaching of non-religious worldviews, and secular philosophical approaches.
13. The Government should consider making religion and belief education a constituent part of another area of the curriculum or consider a new national subject for all pupils that ensures all pupils study of a broad range of religious and non-religious worldviews, possibly including basic philosophy.
14. The way in which the RE curriculum is constructed by Standing Advisory Councils on Religious Education (SACREs) is unique, and seriously outdated. The construction and content of any subject covering religion or belief should be determined by the same process as other subjects after consultation with teachers, subject communities, academics, employers, higher education institutions and other interested parties (who should have no undue influence or veto).
Sex and relationships education
15. All children and young people, including pupils at faith schools, should have a statutory entitlement to impartial and age-appropriate sex and relationships education, from which they cannot be withdrawn.
Collective worship
16. The legal requirement on schools to provide Collective Worship should be abolished.
17. The Equality Act exception related to school worship should be repealed. Schools should be under a duty to ensure that all aspects of the school day are inclusive.
18. Both the law and guidance should be clear that under no circumstances should pupils be compelled to worship and children's right to religious freedom should be fully respected by all schools.
19. Where schools do hold acts of worship pupils should themselves be free to choose not to take part.
20. If there are concerns that the abolition of the duty to provide collective worship would signal the end of assemblies, the Government may wish to consider replacing the requirement to provide worship with a requirement to hold inclusive assemblies that further pupils' 'spiritual, moral, social and cultural education'.
Independent schooling
21. All schools should be registered with the Department for Education and as a condition of registration must meet standards set out in regulations.
22. Government must ensure that councils are identifying suspected illegal, unregistered religious schools so that Ofsted can inspect them. The state must have an accurate register of where every child is being educated.
Freedom of expression - Freedom of expression, blasphemy and the media
23. Any judicial or administrative attempt to further restrict free expression on the grounds of 'combatting extremism' should be resisted. Threatening behaviour and incitement to violence is already prohibited by law. Further measures would be an illiberal restriction of others' right to freedom of expression. They are also likely to be counterproductive by insulating extremist views from the most effective deterrents: counterargument and criticism.
24. Proscriptions of "blasphemy" must not be introduced by stealth, legislation, fear or on the spurious grounds of 'offence'. There can be no right to be protected from offence in an open and free secular society.
25. The fundamental value of free speech should be instilled throughout the education system and in all schools.
26. Universities and other further education bodies should be reminded of their statutory obligations to protect freedom of expression under the Education (No 2) Act 1986.
Religion and the law
Civil rights, 'conscience clauses' and religious freedom
27. We are opposed in principle to the creation of a 'conscience clause' which would permit discrimination against (primarily) LGBT people. This is of particular concern in Northern Ireland.
28. Religious freedom must not be taken to mean or include a right to discriminate. Businesses providing goods and services, regardless of owners' religious views, must obey the law.
29. Equality legislation must not be rolled back in order to appease a minority of religious believers whose views are out-of-touch with the majority of the general public and their co-religionists.
30. The UK Government should impose changes on the rest of the UK in order to comply with Human Rights obligations. Every endeavour should be made by to extend same sex marriage and abortion access to Northern Ireland.
Conscience 'opt-outs' in healthcare
31. Efforts to unreasonably extend the legal concept of 'reasonable accommodation' and conscience to give greater protection in healthcare to those expressing a (normally religious) objection should be resisted.
32. Conscience opt-outs should not be granted where their operation impinges adversely on the rights of others.
33. Pharmacists' codes should not permit conscience opts out for pharmacists that result in denial of service, as this may cause harm. NHS contracts should reflect this.
34. Consideration should be given to legislative changes to enforce the changes to pharmacists codes recommended above.
The use of tribunals by religious minorities
35. The legal system must not be undermined. Action must be taken to ensure that none of the councils currently in operation misrepresent themselves as sources of legal authority.
36. Work should be undertaken by local authorities to identify sharia councils, and official figures should be made available to measure the number of sharia councils in the UK to help understand the extent of their influence.
37. There needs to be a continuing review by the Government of the extent to which religious 'law', including religious marriage without civil marriage, is undermining human rights and/or becoming de facto law. The Government must be proactive in proposing solutions to ensure all citizens are able to access their legal rights.
38. All schools should promote understanding of citizenship and legal rights under UK law so that people – particularly Muslim women and girls – are aware of and able to access their legal rights and do not regard religious 'courts' as sources of genuine legal authority.
Religious exemptions from animal welfare laws
39. Laws intended to minimise animal suffering should not be the subject of religious exemptions. Non-stun slaughter should be prohibited and existing welfare at slaughter legislation should apply without exception.
40. For as long as non-stun slaughter is permitted, all meat and meat products derived from animals killed under the religious exemption should be obliged to show the method of slaughter.
41. In public institutions it should be unlawful not to provide a stunned alternative to non-stun meat produce.
Religion and public services
Social action by religious organisations
42. The Equality Act should be amended to suspend the exemptions for religious groups when they are working under public contract on behalf of the state.
43. Legislation should be introduced so that contractors delivering general public services on behalf of a public authority are defined as public authorities explicitly for those activities, making them subject to the Human Rights Act legislation.
44. It should be mandatory for all contracts with religious providers of publicly-funded services to have unambiguous equality, non-discrimination and non-proselytising clauses in them.
45. Public records of contracts with religious groups should be maintained and appropriate measures for monitoring their compliance with equality and human rights legislation should be put in place.
46. There should be an enforcement mechanism for the above, which would for example receive and adjudicate on complaints without complainants having to take legal action.
Hospital chaplaincy
47. Religious care should not be funded through NHS budgets.
48. No NHS post should be conditional on the patronage of religious authorities, nor subject directly or indirectly to discriminatory provisions, for example on sexual orientation or marital status.
49. Alternative funding, such as via a charitable trust, could be explored if religions wish to retain their representation in hospitals.
50. Hospitals wishing to employ staff to provide pastoral, emotional and spiritual care for patients, families and staff should do so within a secular context.
Institutions and public ceremonies
Disestablishment
51. The Church of England should be disestablished
52. The Bishops' Bench should be removed from the House of Lords. Any future Second Chamber should have no representation for religion whether ex-officio or appointed, whether of Christian denominations or any other faith. This does not amount to a ban on clerics; they would eligible for selection on the same basis as others.
Remembrance
53. The Remembrance Day commemoration ceremony at the Cenotaph should become secular in character. Ceremonies should be led by national or civic leaders and there should be a period of silence for participants to remember the fallen in their own way, be that religious or not.
Monarchy and religion
54. The ceremony to mark the accession of a new head of state should take place in the seat of representative secular democracy, such as in Westminster Hall and should not be religious.
55. The monarch should no longer be required to be in communion with the Church of England nor ex officio be Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and the title "Defender of the Faith" should not be retained.
Parliamentary prayers
56. We believe Parliament should reflect the country as it is today and remove acts of worship from the formal business of the House.
Local democracy and religious observance
57. Acts of religious worship should play no part in the formal business of parliamentary or local authority meetings.
Public broadcasting, the BBC and religion
58. The BBC should rename Thought for the Day 'Religious thought for the day' and move it away from Radio 4's flagship news programme and into a more suitable timeslot reflecting its niche status. Alternatively it could reform it and open it up to non-religious contributors.
59. The extent and nature of religious programming should reflect the religion and belief demographics of the UK.
Add your endorsement to the manifesto for change
Add your endorsementThe 2017 General Election
If Scotland wants to uphold children’s rights, its schools need to change
After the Scottish parliament's decision to sign a charter for children's rights into law, Megan Manson says parties in the upcoming election should challenge religious groups' privileged influence over education policy.
In March, the Scottish government took a bold step in safeguarding children's rights. It incorporated the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) into Scots law, which makes it unlawful for public authorities to act incompatibly with the CRC.
This is a progressive move, and remarkably it secured unanimous support among MSPs. But it means little if religious interference into the rights and freedoms of children is not curbed. Religion – and particularly the major Christian denominations – continues to wield a disproportionate influence over many aspects of Scottish life.
This is despite the fact that Scotland's religious landscape is changing dramatically. Some of the most recent data available, collated by researcher Clive Field in February, reveals that the percentage of Scots who define themselves as Church of Scotland declined from 32.1% in 2012 to 21.5% in 2019, and Catholics from 15.5% to 13.6%. In the same period the percentage of Muslims has increased from 1.5% to 1.8%, and the percentage of those with no religion has shot up from 41.3% to 53.7%.
The imminent Scottish parliamentary election is a chance for parties to show what this might mean in practice. And religious control of Scotland's schools currently undermines children's rights in several ways. So here are three pledges that parties should adopt to ensure incorporating the CRC into law isn't simply political virtue signalling, but truly does improve the rights of all children in Scotland.
#1 A religiously neutral school system
Sectarian tensions between Catholics and Protestants mean Scotland is still, sadly, a divided society. Its segregated schools system doesn't help.
One in five of Scotland's local authority schools are denominational. All but four of these schools are Catholic. Even in schools that are non-denominational, unelected religious appointees on local authority education panels help to maintain religious control in the classroom.
Article 14 of the CRC protects the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, while Article 29 protects a child's right to an education that develops their personality, talents and abilities to the full. Including schools that can impose religious values, beliefs and practices within the state education system is incompatible with these rights.
A school system divided by religion is wholly unsuitable in a country where over half the population has no religion and where numbers of adherents to minority religions are increasing. Scotland should work towards ensuring all of its schools are community schools that are equally welcoming to children and families of all religions and beliefs.
#2 End discrimination in school admissions and employment
Ending Scotland's faith-based schools system will take time. In the short term, the Scottish government should commit to ending faith-based discrimination in local authority schools.
CRC Article 2 protects children's rights to protection from all forms of discrimination, including discrimination based on their parents' beliefs. However, religious discrimination is permitted in Scotland's denominational schools, enabled by exceptions in the Equality Act 2010. This means Catholic schools can prioritise children with baptism certificates in their admissions, and require prospective teachers to hold a Catholic Teaching Certificate as well as a religious reference.
Allowing state-funded schools to discriminate against children and families on the basis of religion flies in the face of the principles of inclusion and fairness. It also goes against Article 2 of the CRC. No school in Scotland should be permitted to pick and choose pupils on the basis of religion in this way. And discrimination against teachers is both unfair to the staff affected and a pointless hindrance to children getting the best possible education.
#3 End coercive religious observance
The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 requires schools to hold daily acts of religious observance (which is invariably Christian). Although parents have the right to withdraw their children, this is frequently challenging to implement in practice, and children cannot withdraw themselves.
The UK is the only Western democracy to legally impose worship in publicly-funded schools. The United Nations has repeatedly challenged the UK's collective worship and religious observance laws on the grounds that they are incompatible with Articles 14 and 29 of the CRC, in addition to Article 5, which recognises the child's increasing capacity to make their own choices.
The laws are a relic of a time long past when Christian worship was a social expectation. In the largely irreligious 21st century Scotland it is an illiberal anachronism, which again would ordinarily fall foul of equality law were it not for the exceptions built in to permit religious observance. Repealing the religious observance laws would be an obvious and comparatively simple means of upholding children's rights in Scotland's schools.
Any party that were to include one of these pledges in its manifesto would face hostility from the religious elites, horrified to see their elevated position in Scotland's schools under question. But if Scotland's political parties take their commitment to the CRC seriously, they must be prepared to confront religious privilege. Children's rights cannot come second place to religious ideas.
Image: Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock.com.
Western liberals’ weakness on blasphemy is letting down Muslim dissenters
The hand-wringing in the face of a vicious campaign against a teacher sends a demoralising message to those fighting for free speech on religion globally and in British Muslim communities, says Kunwar Khuldune Shahid.
The Batley Grammar School teacher who has been suspended, and gone into hiding, after showing a caricature of Islam's prophet Muhammad in class last week, now understandably worries that he might be killed. While the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) worries that the teacher may have shown an image that "plays into" an "Islamophobic trope", and many on the Western left similarly wring their hands, it remains unclear if fearing for one's life over offending Islam also constitutes a phobia. Others, graciously, have responded by quickly condemning 'extremists on both sides', as if the defence of liberal principles were equivalent to Islamist intimidation.
After the satirical French publication Charlie Hebdo was targeted in a jihadist attack, the gruesome murder of its journalists was rationalised through the 'Islamophobia' that it was guilty of, for treating Islam like any other religion. When French schoolteacher Samuel Paty was decapitated after showing Charlie Hebdo's caricatures in school, 'Islamophobia' once again became the rallying cry.
At first it was a publication's act of satirising Islam that translated into asking to be murdered. Now it's teachers showing those cartoons in lessons on blasphemy that is translating into 'asking for it'. Next it may well be critics of this blatant endorsement of Islamic blasphemy laws in the West who might 'ask for it'.
This gruesome eventuality has long been a reality in Muslim-majority countries, where individuals have been killed for mere criticism of the blasphemy laws. A dozen Muslim states sanction death for blasphemy and apostasy, and 20 mandate prison sentences. The day the Batley Grammar School teacher was suspended, and left at the mercy of radical Islamists, yet another man was killed for blasphemy in Pakistan. Since then, over the past week, radical Islamists have initiated violent protests in Bangladesh demanding, among other means of institutionalised persecution, capital punishment for blasphemy against Islam. On Tuesday, a man was burnt to death in Nigeria for 'insulting prophet Muhammad'.
It is impossible to separate the Islamist blasphemy laws in Muslim-majority countries and the demands to silence critique, caricaturing and satire of Islam by Muslim minorities. It shouldn't need saying but it is actually possible to uncompromisingly defend the rights of minorities, and shield them from majoritarian groups, without mollycoddling them over regressive and often downright bigoted beliefs.
Similarly, drawing cartoons or mocking religious beliefs as satire, or exposing believers to ideas completely antipodal to their beliefs in critical learning settings, do not constitute persecution. An offence, or its gravity, needs to be universally applicable and cannot be determined by the reaction of a group. Otherwise, we're a Hindutva attack on a steakhouse away from equating beef cuisine with persecution of Hindus.
Sketches or depictions of Muhammad are no more prohibited in Islam than cow slaughter is in Hinduism; or more poignantly, no more offensive than Hindu wives outliving husbands was two centuries ago. Europe consumed centuries over 'religion wars' between Christian sects which found one another's beliefs offensive. The rise of a radical, and puritanical, literalist brand of Islam, impacting Muslim majorities and minorities alike, is a corollary of a similar sectarian warfare within Islam today.
Some interpretations of Islam have long incorporated the tradition of drawing Muhammad, which means that the ubiquitous claims masquerading as fact that 'Islam prohibits depictions of Muhammad' or that 'Muslims are offended' by such illustrations paints all Muslims with a monolithic, and arguably regressive, brush.
However, even if there is a 'true' version of religion that might uphold certain beliefs, and even if every single one of its billions of adherents were to endorse them identically, that still cannot be used as justification to suppress rights, including the fundamental freedom of speech. And the only legal asterisk on this right should be explicit incitement to violence.
Again, to hold offended sensibilities as the limit of free speech is to not only fail miserably in understanding the very need for protection of such a freedom — since what is acceptable by all doesn't have to be guarded. It is also to constantly lower the threshold of what is 'offensive'. Even more critically, it can shield ideologues from countering viewpoints, which often is the raison d'etre of protests undertaken by those believing their ideas to be the ultimate truth.
Perhaps most pungently, endorsement of this censorship on the part of Western liberals makes it harder to normalise criticism of religion and undermines the fight against Islamic blasphemy laws that hang like a sword over millions in Muslim-majority countries. More than just an ideological regression on the part of the left, such upholding of Islamist ideas has even translated into European courts upholding blasphemy laws that many from Muslim majority countries are escaping from. And in acquiescing to the Islamist narrative in the garb of 'protecting Muslims', liberals in the West have not only abandoned dissidents in Muslim-majority countries, they have also helped facilitate regression of Muslim minorities in their own countries.
When the MCB's first ever female leader was asked questions that would be considered extremely basic for any other community, those otherwise unflinching in their quest for gender quality instinctively shouted 'Islamophobia'. Much of the western left embraces the MCB's calls for 'inclusivity' and 'care' when faced with cartoons. It showed less interest when, for example, an Ahmadi Muslim shopkeeper was killed in an Islamist attack in 2016 – and the Muslim Council of Britain's focus was declaring that 'Ahmadis are not Muslims'.
Shouldn't such marginalisation or violence committed for Islam, or the fear of one's life over cartoons on Islam, be the bigger concern here?
Shouldn't more energy be dedicated towards elimination of this widespread belief, codified in many Muslim-majority countries, but also preached in many mosques in the West, that blasphemy against Islam merits death?
One doesn't have to be a linguist to discern the contrast between statements issued by many Muslim community groups over killings in the name of Islam, and satire of Islam.
Indeed, Western liberals are complicit in facilitating these Islamic blasphemy narratives around the world. For, when states otherwise upholding free speech on religion start backtracking, those living in countries where blasphemy still mandates death will have little hope.
Listen to Kunwar Khuldune Shahid on the NSS Podcast
You can listen to an interview with Kunwar Khuldune Shahid on a recent NSS podcast in which we cover Islamist ideology, jihadism, blasphemy, and the importance of free speech. Listen now.
A lesson in blasphemy
After a teacher was suspended for showing cartoons of Muhammad in class, Stephen Evans says we shouldn't accept a religious veto on critical enquiry in the classroom.
It may not be quite the lesson the teacher had in mind, but a lot of people have been schooled recently on how blasphemy codes are imposed in the modern day. Not by the law, but through outrage, intimidation and the underlying threat of violence.
A teacher at Batley Grammar School in Yorkshire who was trying to educate students about free speech and blasphemy is in hiding. Suspended, fearing for his career and under police protection.
Everyone's primary concern here should be for the safety and wellbeing of the teacher. Let's hope he keeps his job. His pupils are doing their level best to make sure that happens.
But there's a wider concern over what is deemed reasonable in a liberal democracy – and how Islamic exceptionalism has whittled that away.
If you're teaching about free speech and blasphemy, surely cartoons that created so much debate are a legitimate resource. This shouldn't be seen as unusual. Teachers often use challenging and provocative material in lessons to explore ideas and topics.
Of course, this needs to be handled sensitively. It's reasonable, for example, to give students who don't want to see these images the opportunity not to. But all the information to hand suggests the teacher in question handled this responsibly. And teachers must have the freedom to explore hot-button issues and enable students to think critically about them. We shouldn't accept a religious veto on attempts to open children's minds.
The context in which the cartoons are used is critical. The boundaries of freedom of expression are different in a classroom compared to society as a whole. But in the right environment, surely, we can trust students to see and think about images that may provoke or offend and be part of a discussion about the right to free expression – and the tensions that may exist between that and various religious worldviews. The starting assumption shouldn't be that those discussions must take place within the confines of an Islamic blasphemy taboo.
Parents and anyone else with concerns about what gets taught in schools can raise their views through the appropriate channels. But they shouldn't be allowed to disrupt and veto children's education. That's precisely what has happened at Batley Grammar School this week.
The school's kneejerk response has been a big part of the problem. Incredibly, the ringleader of the protesters appears to have been given a role in drafting the school's statement. It is therefore unsurprising that it gave an unequivocal apology for using a "totally inappropriate" resource. The teacher was suspended and thrown to the lions. Teaching on the subject matter was withdrawn.
As well as being grossly unfair to the teacher in question, it can only serve to further fuel a climate of censorship and exceptionalism around Islam – which does ordinary Muslims no favours. Indeed it's patronising to Muslims to assume they will all take offence at the use of a caricature – however crass the caricature may be. Protesters who shout loudest are not representative of all Muslims – and assuming they are plays into unhelpful stereotypes.
The school's response has been to acquiesce to religious demands. Yet still the protesters weren't satisfied and showed up the next day to demand a sacking.
A large chunk of our society appears to have learned nothing from the Salman Rushdie affair or the 2019 protests in Birmingham over relationships and sex education lessons. Appeasing fanatics will only store up more trouble for the future. It will not buy you a quiet life. Bullies need to be confronted, not placated.
If your primary concern here is the feelings of the protesters, then your priorities are misplaced. A teacher is suspended, in hiding and under police protection because of a resource used in class. That is the real issue. And despite the way some have tried to spin this story, there is no equivalence between standing up for critical thought and using bullying tactics and intimidation to shut it down.
We can't base what we teach in schools on what people subjectively find offensive. If we do, we will find ourselves having to treat any number of topics with kid gloves. Of course, lessons should be conducted in a respectful manner. There is a right to free expression. There is a right to a religion or belief. There is no right not to be offended.
We should encourage young people to think for themselves, and support teachers who make good-faith efforts to help them – even if infantile religious fundamentalists can't handle that.
Women in NI should have the same abortion rights as other UK citizens
Other people's religious beliefs shouldn't be allowed to continue to thwart women's access to safe and accessible abortion services in Northern Ireland, argues Stephen Evans.
This week the UK government took the unusual step of intervening to speed up the roll out of abortion services in Northern Ireland.
It was almost impossible to terminate a pregnancy legally in NI until 2019, when Westminster voted to legalise abortion there. But since then, Northern Ireland's devolved government has failed to establish the services which were legislated for. So this week Brandon Lewis, the secretary of state for Northern Ireland in the UK government, laid new regulations before parliament, allowing him to direct the NI Department of Health to commission the services.
The government says it is taking these powers as a "necessary and proportionate" step to ensure legal and human rights obligations are upheld.
The government is right. For too long women in NI have been denied the same rights as other UK citizens to access to healthcare. With members of the legislative assembly (MLAs) continuing to fail women, an intervention to protect their human rights is required.
Stormont's Department of Health has said the matter is "controversial". Women's human rights shouldn't be "controversial". But religion's hold over politics has led the assembly to drag its heels on this issue.
For many politicians in NI, religion goes beyond a personal belief. The Bible forms the basis of their policy making. So rather than allowing women and girls the right to make their own reproductive choices on matters affecting their bodies, they seek to impose their religious dogma. The desire to restrict reproductive rights, and to control women's bodies, is a hallmark of the theocratic mindset.
Northern Ireland's propensity for fire and brimstone Christian politics explains why its previous ban on abortion was so strict – with women in almost every circumstance facing up to life in prison for a termination.
Thankfully, those laws were repealed in October 2019. But the DUP, with its strong links to the Free Presbyterian Church, has wasted little time in amending the abortion laws introduced by the UK government. The Severe Fetal Impairment Abortion (Amendment) Bill, which seeks to amend the law to ban abortions in cases of non-fatal disabilities, including Down's syndrome, has been backed by a majority of MLAs.
This despite the UN committee for the elimination of discrimination against women (Cedaw) including in its recommendations to the UK "that abortion on the ground of severe foetal impairment be available to facilitate reproductive choice and autonomy".
Just 12 MLAs voted to allow women the right to choose abortion in line with international human rights standards. As remarked by one of them, Paula Bradshaw, the bill is all about "the ongoing denial of women's rights".
Northern Ireland's four main churches – Roman Catholic, Church of Ireland, Presbyterian and Methodist – have all piped up this week to express their objections to the roll out of safe and accessible abortion services.
A statement from Catholic bishops this week branded these services as "extreme", "liberal" and somehow "discriminatory" – and called on all MLAs and political parties "not to meekly acquiesce" to the UK government's intervention.
"What Westminster seeks to impose, against the clear will of a majority of people here, is a law which blatantly undermines the right to life of unborn children and promotes an abhorrent and indefensible prejudice against persons with disabilities, even before they are born," they insisted.
But the all-male bishops do not speak for "a majority of people". A poll in 2020 showed that the majority of people in Northern Ireland don't think that abortion should be a crime (58%). There is even more widespread support to decriminalise abortion for women who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest, or in the case of cases of fatal foetal abnormality.
But the human rights of women shouldn't be dependent on religious dogma or opinion polls.
Religious adherence is diminishing across the UK, but religion's political influence isn't receding at anything like the same rate. This is to the detriment of human rights.
The objections to abortion rooted in religious ideology must be recognised for what they are – the imposition of religious dogma on all women regardless of their religion, belief or their own thoughts about abortion. Nobody with a moral objection is compelled to have an abortion and medical professionals who do not want to participate in carrying out a termination are not obliged to do so.
Religious objections must not be allowed to obstruct women's rights to appropriate medical care and to bodily autonomy. If MLAs are unwilling to fulfil their international human rights obligations and ensure women have access safe and local abortion services, they should be compelled to do so.
Image: StunningArt/Shutterstock.com.
Ending compulsory worship in schools should be next on the agenda for Wales
Following major curriculum reforms in Wales, Alastair Lichten argues that the Senedd should now turn its attention to ending the collective worship requirement in schools.
Last week the Welsh parliament passed the most comprehensive education reform in its history. Children across Wales will now have access to a more balanced religion and belief curriculum. And the introduction of statutory relationships and sexuality education represents a significant step forward for children's rights. But amid the laudable overhaul, one reform was conspicuous by its absence.
Across the country pupils are continuing their phased return to on site learning. They will have missed out on so much of the communal school experience, including assemblies. One aspect of school assemblies that hasn't been missed is organised worship. But as things stand, the law still contains a bizarre requirement on all schools in Wales to ensure pupils take part in a daily act of worship, which must normally be "wholly or mainly of a Christian character".
This anachronism often comes as a surprise for parents. For example, Helen from Swansea signed our petition on the subject to say: "I was shocked to discover my 6-year-old son was being asked to pray in class, something that had never been discussed with us as parents."
There is a right to withdraw, but due to potential stigma, general awkwardness, and in some schools, active discouragement, this is rarely exercised. Many schools ignore the requirement or creatively reinterpret it to hold inclusive assemblies. But where worship is imposed it undermines children's rights and is alienating for the majority of pupils.
It's not clear how many schools have tried keeping up with the requirement through online learning in recent months. But it's safe to assume that home learning has meant that for the first time, for many pupils, the decision of whether or not to participate in worship during the school day has been genuinely voluntary.
Collective worship has been raised as an issue throughout the curriculum reform process. But calls for change have repeatedly been kicked into the long grass. As Anthony, another supporter of the petition from Cardiff, told us: "I have been writing to my Welsh assembly member for years about this. The opt out is not feasible at all, so worship is in effect enforced."
Excuses for delays are running out. Now is the time to build on the consensus behind curriculum reform to make sure all aspects of the school day are inclusive and suitable for all pupils. That means ending mandated worship and reconsidering how assemblies should be designed. This would have the support of parents like Chris, from Wrexham, who signed the petition to say: "Group assembly is massively important but should not be a platform for religious worship. How can an assembly be fully inclusive if some have to opt out to avoid religion?"
The new curriculum creates a duty on all schools to "promote knowledge and understanding of (the) UN conventions on the rights of children and persons with disabilities". The NSS has long argued that the collective worship requirement is incompatible with this convention. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has agreed with us and called for an end to this requirement in its last two periodic reviews of the UK. Developing case law also throws the sustainability of the collective worship requirement into question, as some parents are demanding an inclusive alternative.
Laws requiring schools to hold worship should be removed across the UK. Wales has taken the lead on reforming religious education and should now do the same with collective worship. The worship requirement was introduced by English politicians in the 1940s, when they were anxious about declining Christianity – and determined to protect the English church's position. Such a mandate clearly has no place in 21st century Wales.
That's why ahead of the 2021 Senedd election, we're calling on all political parties to support an end to the collective worship requirement. Please join me in doing so.
Any serious counter-extremism strategy should consider religious charities
As a commission calls for action to tackle hateful extremism, Megan Manson says changes in the charity sector – including legal reform – would be both helpful and compatible with fundamental liberal principles.
This article is available in audio format, as part of our Opinion Out Loud series.
Last month the Commission for Countering Extremism (CCE) published a report reviewing current strategies for dealing with 'hateful extremism'. The commission is keen to marginalise activity that intends to advance a religious "supremacist ideology" by creating a climate conducive to hate crime or violence, or to attempt to erode fundamental rights and freedoms.
Anyone wading into this territory faces a delicate balancing act. Trying to legislate against extremism risks encroaching on freedom of expression. But it's also reasonable for policy makers to seek to disempower those who push supremacism and undermine liberal democracy.
One approach that would achieve a balance between cracking down on extremism and maintaining civil liberities is to tackle the exploitation of the charity sector by extremists. Among the many issues identified as a barrier to counter extremism, the report found that the Charity Commission, which registers and regulates charities, faces "significant operational challenges" in confronting extremism in charities. So this seems like a good place to start - there's no good reason why lax charity laws should give tax breaks and official recognition to organisations which push extremist ideologies.
One charity highlighted in the report is Islamic Research Foundation International (IRFI), which was also featured in the National Secular Society's 2019 'For the public benefit?' report on religious charities. Until 2019 one of its trustees was Zakir Naik, an Islamic preacher who was denied entry to the UK in 2010 due to his extremist views. IRFI finances Peace TV, which Ofcom took off the air in 2019 following multiple breaches of the broadcasting code for hate speech and inciting murder.
After the NSS raised repeated concerns, the Charity Commission finally intervened last year and appointed an interim manager to "consider the future viability" of IRFI.
IRFI has existed as a registered charity since 2007. Why did it take so long for the Charity Commission to take action against a charity that clearly isn't serving a public benefit?
According to the Commission for Countering Extremism, the Charity Commission "faced difficulty" to automatically bar Naik as trustee because his extremist actions "do not come under the scope for disqualification". It is ludicrous that a person who is barred from entering the UK can nevertheless operate a UK charity. The report suggests creating a legal framework dedicated to countering hateful extremism, which could help the Charity Commission in barring unsuitable trustees.
But there is a more fundamental issue in charity law that leaves the door open to extremists looking to abuse charitable status. And that is the privileging of religious charities.
IRFI lists its first charitable object as "the advancement of the faith and religious practices of Islam". It is one of thousands of registered charities that exist for the recognised charitable purpose of "the advancement of religion".
As the NSS argued in For the public benefit, an irreconcilable tension exists between the charitable purpose of "the advancement of religion", and the requirement for all charities to serve a public benefit. In many cases, religious charities offer no demonstrable public benefit at all that would justify the tax breaks and other perks of charitable status.
And in some cases, as evidenced by IRFI, religious charities cause harm. IRFI is just the tip of the iceberg. The NSS has referred a number of charities to the Charity Commission for extremist or hateful content promoted or signposted on their websites. Islamic Centre Leicester, Bolton Central Islamic Society and The Preston Muslim Cultural Centre all hosted or linked to content that promoted the killing of gay people or people who leave Islam.
And earlier this year, we raised concerns about the Ghamidi Centre of Islamic Communication, which registered as recently as in December. This charity had lectures on its website calling homosexuality a disease, comparing gay people to murderers, and saying it is acceptable for a husband to "punish" his wife if she challenges his authority.
Concerns about extremism have arisen in charities of other religions too. In November 2019 the NSS reported ten charities belonging to the Christadelphian sect of Christianity for website content including implicitly condoning the death penalty for homosexuals and Wiccans and stating that women should be subservient to men. One of the charities was registered as recently as 2019.
Most of the extremist content that the NSS reported was thankfully removed. But this 'whack-a-mole' approach to tackling extremism in the charity sector is unsustainable and inefficient. It does not address the extremism that may be promoted beyond charities' websites – in sermons at places of worship, for example. And it does not prevent organisations that promote extremist messages from registering as charities in the first place.
Every one of the charities listed above exists primarily to promote religion. And that is precisely what they are doing – they are promoting extremist religious ideas. The assumption in law that religion is somehow inherently beneficial, and that 'advancing religion' should therefore entitle an organisation to charitable status, ignores the fact that many religious teachings promote ideas that are reasonably regarded by 21st century UK society as extremist and hateful.
The Commission for Countering Extremism's report has identified a pertinent problem and outlined some helpful measures which could help tackle it – including assisting the Charity Commission in its role of weeding out unsuitable activity in charities. But to tackle extremism in the charity sector effectively, this needs to be accompanied by a thorough refresh of the laws that determine what is and isn't a charity.
Updating charity law to remove "the advancement of religion" would not revoke the charitable status of religious organisations that do genuine good – for example, the many religious charities that run food banks, homeless shelters and other services that assist poor and vulnerable people – because these activities can be listed under another charitable purpose.
But it would be a big step in preventing our charity sector from being exploited by those who want to undermine our democratic values of equality and human rights in the name of religious extremism.
Image: Dr Zakir Naik, via Wikimedia Commons, © Maapu [CC BY-2.0] (cropped)
Faith-based school admissions pave the way for sexist and unreasonable demands. It’s time to end them
An adjudicator's ruling has exposed the outrageous requirements a state-funded faith school places on pupils and their families. This shows the need to end faith-based discrimination in admissions, says Megan Manson.
Allowing state schools to prioritise children whose family belong to a particular religion is a bad idea. Using faith-based admissions criteria leads to segregation, unfairness and inequality. If it weren't for extensive exemptions in the Equality Act 2010 designed to accommodate faith schools it would certainly be unlawful.
Another upshot of allowing faith schools to pick and choose children according to religion is the proliferation of lengthy and complex admissions arrangements. For example, it's not uncommon for Catholic schools to prioritise children with Catholic baptism certificates, then children who are preparing to be baptised into Catholicism, then children with parents of other Christian denominations, then children from families of other religions, and finally any other children who don't fit into these categories (i.e. those from nonreligious families).
This is ridiculous enough. But this is by no means the limit to how outrageous school admissions can be. As a recent admissions tribunal decision demonstrates, allowing faith schools to apply their own faith-based criteria can lead to truly extraordinary requirements placed on prospective families and children.
In February the Office of the Schools Adjudicator (OSA), which decides whether or not schools are complying with the Schools Admissions Code, found a multitude of problems in the admission arrangements of Beis Yaakov Jewish High School. Beis Yaakov is an all-girls faith school located in Salford and has been state-funded since 2005.
The catalogue of issues identified by the OSA in Beis Yaakov's admissions arrangements include:
- Specifying dress codes for pupils that were not sufficiently "objective", for example, requiring pupils to conform to "the ideas of modesty and the true dignity of a Charedi Jewish girl".
- Requiring fathers of pupils to be a member of a Charedi ('ultra-Orthodox') synagogue. Because only men whose mothers are Jewish can usually join such synagogues, the OSA determined that this requirement is contrary to the School Admissions Code and to equalities legislation. The OSA also said the "understanding" that members of synagogues will make "regular voluntary contributions" meant this requirement fell foul of the prohibition on giving priority to children on the basis of financial support parents may give to religious authorities associated with a school.
- Using a panel of rabbis appointed by the local synagogue to settle disputes regarding the religiosity or Jewish status of pupils. The OSA said that it was "inappropriate" for a case to be referred to a religious institution for a decision affecting a pupil's admission to a school based on anything other than what is set out in the admission arrangements.
- Requiring parents seeking faith-based priority to provide contact details of two Charedi 'referees'. The OSA said this was inappropriate because it may breach data protection laws and render the school's admissions system "susceptible to abuse".
The deviations from the admissions code identified by the OSA are striking in themselves. But what is perhaps more shocking is the elements in Beis Yaakov's admissions criteria that the OSA did not criticise.
For example, the OSA did not object to the fact that the dress code imposed on prospective pupils and their mothers is both sexist and unreasonable. It specifies that mothers and girls "will dress at all times in accordance with the strictest standards of Tznius (modesty)", which includes prohibiting "figure hugging dresses", "very brightly coloured" clothing and clothing made from "trendy" fabrics. Additionally, mothers must completely cover their hair "at all times", sleeves "must cover the elbows at all times", and tights "should be worn at all times and it should be apparent that they are being worn".
Such outrageous demands might belong in a Victorian etiquette book. They certainly do not belong in the admissions criteria of a 21st century state school. And yet the only objection given by the OSA is that they might be difficult to understand because they aren't "objective".
It doesn't end there. The OSA's report mentioned that the admissions arrangements require families to strictly limit their children's access to all forms of communication including cinema, theatre and written material. The OSA not only fails to question these extreme restrictions the school places on the private lives of its pupils and it families – it appears to approve them. It gives the example of the requirement that "school aged children do not watch television" as one that is capable of being judged objectively, and is therefore acceptable.
This isn't the first time the OSA has given a free pass to state-funded faith school admissions arrangements that are sexist and controlling. In 2018 the OSA considered a case relating to Yesodey Hatorah Senior Girls School in London. The adjudicator effectively ruled that the school was not breaching the school admissions code by requiring families not to wear leather or lycra, access the internet or use online entertainment.
It is perplexing that the OSA can seemingly do nothing to stop a state school from imposing admissions codes that reinforce gender inequality and force parents to prevent their children from taking part in everyday society by placing severe restrictions on what they see, hear, read and wear. Indeed, both would seem contrary to the welfare and educational needs of children growing up in 21st century Britain.
But allowing any school, even if it has a less severe religious ethos, to use faith-based admissions arrangements sets a precedent for more extreme faith schools to set extremely exclusive criteria. If we accept the premise that state schools can be religious communities, which decide who can attend based on religious criteria, we make it far harder to challenge even patently ridiculous religious rules.
The issue should also cause us all to question the very existence of state-funded faith schools in the first place. Despite being funded by taxpayers from all religion and belief backgrounds, it is plain from their admissions arrangements that schools like Beis Yaakov are not intended for the whole community. They are intended only for an insular religious minority willing to obey, and make their children obey, the draconian rules of religious leaders.
While every person should have the right to choose this lifestyle, the state should not be expected to facilitate and promote it. And the state certainly should not direct our taxes to schools that cater only to this lifestyle and exclude anyone who challenges or rejects it.
Joint campuses are a cop out in efforts to tackle sectarianism
As the Scottish government confirms funding for a new joint campus between a non-denominational school and a Catholic one, Neil Barber says ministers should instead seek a unified, secular education system.
In Neilston, a village in East Renfrewshire, £30m funding has just been confirmed to build a new school campus by the end of this year. This will 'join' non-denominational Neilston Primary and Catholic St Thomas' Primary on one site.
Local people are understandably pleased by this investment, but with each school retaining its own head teachers, parent-teacher councils and as yet unclear religious customs or lack of them, is this good news for attempts to tackle sectarianism in Scotland?
A few months ago I was on a panel with religious leaders giving evidence to the Scottish parliament's Justice Committee about the flawed new hate crime bill. We were asked for suggestions as to how sectarianism could be tackled other than by the policing of hate crime. In response I said that all children should be educated together in integrated, religiously neutral schools.
To the nodding of the other religious leaders, the director of the Catholic Parliamentary Office, Anthony Horan, assured us that children were not taught sectarianism on a Sunday morning by their priest or minister. Of course children will rarely learn sectarian animosity from older people in a church setting, but put them in the jungle of the playground where they are desperate for acceptance and tribal belonging, and you have a whole new social petri dish.
Several joint campuses, which bring schools with different identities together in the same place, have opened or been proposed in recent years. Some policy makers in Northern Ireland also appear to have taken an interest in the idea.
In some cases the campuses may bring a feeling of small improvement to the status quo. When I researched the new school in Neilston for example, a journalist from the Barrhead News told me she'd heard the schools had already celebrated a joint Christmas art fayre. What's not to like about that?
However, there can also be significant drawbacks. A school which emphasises your differences from children whose parents are of another religion or who have none is bad enough, but imagine a school where the otherness of your fellow pupils is defined daily at close quarters!
A few years ago, plans in North Lanarkshire for several joint campus schools caused panic amongst Catholic officials who feared that "sharing of facilities like staffrooms will erode the Catholic ethos of a school". Politicians who supported the plans argued for the economics but also privately hoped for some softening of the sectarian divide sadly common in some parts of Scotland.
Despite this obvious benefit there was much concern about the free display of crucifixes, and separate entrances and facilities, including toilets, for teachers in the Catholic part of the school. Michael McGrath, who was the director of the Scottish Catholic Education Service at the time, vehemently denied that segregated schooling led to sectarianism, strangely claiming: "That's nonsense. Catholic schooling promotes diversity." Could it be that joint campuses often simply entrench segregation under one roof?
Remember that we are talking about the religious beliefs of parents here. Children are too young to understand the reasons for the separation they would experience, and have rights of their own. Articles 12 and 14 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child promote young people forming their own opinions about religious belief. Parents are of course entitled privately to discuss their personal religious views and choices with their children but these delineations should not be promoted in schools and certainly not tax funded schools.
Despite the well-meaning hope of many that building joint campuses is a 'step in the right direction', they are no substitute for all children learning and playing together in religiously neutral schools.
Even if politicians realise this, they have yet to wean themselves off religious block votes. The churches' power has been entrenched in Scotland's education system for far too long. Ministers should stand up to it.
Image: Ben Molyneux/Shutterstock.com.
NI’s education review is a golden chance to take a stand for inclusion
Alastair Lichten says a review of education provision in Northern Ireland must be willing to challenge entrenched religious interests to deliver on ambitions for a more efficient and inclusive system.
Voters in Northern Ireland consistently rate education as a high priority. This was reflected in the prominence given to an independent review on education in the 2020 deal which restored devolution. Despite areas where NI schools perform extremely well, every challenge the system faces has its roots in, or is exacerbated by, the sectarian division.
The review will consider "the prospects of moving towards a single education system". That's quite an ambition in a country where over 90% of pupils attend religiously segregated schools. Religious sectoral bodies wield great power in Northern Ireland, dominating the planning and delivery of education, including through control of governing bodies and curricula, and acting as a barrier to reform.
On a recent episode of the NSS podcast, I discussed the independent review and the issues it should consider with Sam Fitzsimmons, of the Integrated Education Fund (IEF), and Matthew Milliken, of Ulster University. The IEF has released its own position on the review and its terms of reference (ToR). The NSS has also received assurances from education minister Peter Weir that the issues that matter to secularists can fall within the ToR.
We will be engaging actively with the independent review, along with our friends and partners in NI, and helping our supporters to do the same. We will urge the panel to seize this opportunity to:
1. Roll back religious groups' control of schools
Last week a University of Ulster paper described Northern Ireland's education system as a "bewildering alphabetical word-storm of acronyms and initials". This is thanks largely to the vested interests of churches. If starting from scratch, no one would suggest such a bizarre and fragmented system.
The review should recommend putting control of education in the hands of accountable organisations, who prioritise the needs of school communities. Sectoral bodies, including religious groups which currently control schools, should transform into independent NGOs.
2. Tackle the inefficiencies caused by religious segregation
Religious bodies jealously protect 'their' schools, even when this creates gross inefficiencies, while communities suffer. As a result there are close to 50,000 surplus school places across NI and almost £100m a year is wasted on duplication, not counting additional transport costs.
No one wants to see schools close. But in much of the country pairs of schools – one largely serving children from Catholic backgrounds, and one largely serving children from Protestant backgrounds – are standing half empty. These need to be combined into single integrated schools to free up investment and better serve children. These decisions should put in the hands of communities.
3. Bring schools in line with equalities legislation
There is no good reason why teachers should be the only profession in NI to be excluded from anti-discrimination protections. Consistently large majorities tell pollsters they believe the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 should be extended to cover teachers.
4. Phase out religious governance of schools
Researchers have warned that continuing to embed overtly Christian denominational influence on governing bodies undermines schools' ability to meet the changing needs of their pupils. The review should also recommend gradually reducing the proportion of school governors appointed on religious grounds and moving to a fully inclusive governance model. Reducing sectoral bodies' control over governing bodies means their ethos would be more responsive to the needs of the school community, rather than the interests of the religious body.
5. Integrate more existing schools
Large majorities of parents in NI would like to send their children to integrated schools, which bring together children from different backgrounds. But far too few have this option. We want a fully integrated community ethos system. But in the short term the community led process of transformation is the best route to integrated status for most schools.
The review should look at ways to encourage this and reduce the scope for opposition from sectoral bodies. Areas with low levels of integrated provision, and where pupils are having to travel a disproportionate distance, should be prioritised.
6. Ensure all aspects of the school day are suitable for all pupils
Schools shouldn't be agents of faith formation, so the archaic requirement that pupils take part in a daily act collective worship should be abolished. It's not enough to make worship nondenominational Christian rather than distinctively Protestant or Catholic. That doesn't serve pupils who don't identify Christian or respect pupils' independent right to develop their own beliefs.
7. Modernise education about worldviews
Religious education in NI schools is controlled by religious bodies to a greater extent than anywhere else in the UK, and designed to "develop an awareness, knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the key Christian teachings… and develop an ability to interpret and relate the Bible to life". RE is not properly inspected and is often delivered partly by external evangelical organisations.
There should be a new worldviews curriculum suitable for all schools and developed by educational experts with educational, rather than confessional, aims.
8. Modernise RSE provision
Currently schools are required to develop a curriculum for relationships and sex education based on their religious ethos. Provision is extremely unequal and often organised to promote religious interests and views, rather than provide a comprehensive, rights-based education for pupils. This needs to change.
Time for change
No challenge facing education in NI is unique, even within the UK. Wales needs to reorganise and modernise school provision in the face of changing populations. Scotland has a legacy of sectarianism and a divided education system to reflect it. In England the entrenched interests of faith bodies act as a barrier to reform.
But the extent of religious control in NI's schools and the damage that segregation has done are more substantial. There is now a golden opportunity to tackle this. Let's hope the review panel seizes it.
Image: Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock.com.
The evidence against faith schools is overwhelming
A comprehensive new bank of academic research shows how shaky the main arguments for faith schools are, say its authors Steven Kettell and Rebecca Vernon.
Since state-funded faith schools were radically expanded and diversified by the New Labour governments almost two decades ago, controversy around their place in the UK's education system has never been far away.
Supporters claim faith schools offer a variety of benefits, including greater choice for parents, superior educational outcomes, and the promotion of moral values. Critics strongly dispute such claims and maintain that state-funded faith schooling is incongruous in a country where religion is in significant decline.
Figures from the British Social Attitudes survey show that more than 50% of adults in Britain now describe themselves as having 'no religion', yet around a third of all state-funded schools in England are classified as having a faith (overwhelmingly Christian) designation. On an average school day over a million children will be found attending Church of England schools, a figure that dwarfs the average church attendance (currently standing at just 690,000 for any given Sunday).
While much has been written on this topic, research findings are often published in a variety of locations (often difficult to access), making it hard to gain a comprehensive view of the debate. We hope to address that. The Faith Schools Research Bank draws together available research which highlights the negative effects of faith schools, making it easy to access from a single location.
The research bank is divided into five sections, each outlining a key area in the debate. Research contained in the first section, 'social cohesion', challenges claims that faith schools are socially beneficial, as the evidence shows that segregating pupils on the basis of their parents' faith fosters exclusivity, insularity, and social division.
In the second section, 'performance and selection', we address the question of educational outcomes. Research here shows that faith schools do not produce better grades than non-faith schools once factors other than the alleged faith 'ethos' of the school (such as pupil intakes and demographics) are accounted for.
The third section deals with issues of 'choice and admissions'. This reveals substantial flaws in the argument that faith schools are good for parental choice. It looks at the way faith schools often compel parents to send their children to schools with a religious outlook which they may not share. It also highlights their use of unfair admissions procedures to limit entry for children whose parents do not share their religious faith.
Research in the fourth section, 'values and morality', examines the claim that faith schools are able to promote enduring moral values. Many studies here show that faith schools are primarily motivated to advance the interests of particular religious institutions, a goal that undermines the intellectual freedom and autonomy of their pupils, and that the promotion of religious values often runs contrary to ideals of equality in areas such as sexual orientation and reproductive rights.
The final section, on 'opinion polls', sets out a wide range of polling data questioning the popularity of faith schools in Britain. The evidence here suggests that there is a strong and consistent opposition to the idea of state-funded faith schools, from religious and non-religious citizens alike.
Entries in the research bank have been collated from three key sources of information: (1) peer-reviewed academic articles, based on an extensive survey of more than one hundred journals published during the last decade and a half; (2) reports from third-party organisations, such as think-tanks, charities, and campaign groups; and (3) findings from opinion poll surveys conducted on the issue of faith schools since their introduction.
Each entry in the research bank provides an easily digestible snapshot of the key evidence contained in the study, providing an at-a-glance overview of the central argument and how it relates to the core themes of the debate. All documents are fully referenced, and wherever possible we have provided direct links to the sources that we have used. Where we have been unable to do this (for instance, in the case of academic articles that are viewable by subscription), we have linked to alternative sources (such as the available author copies) as frequently as possible.
It is our intention to expand and update this research bank over the coming months and years, allowing us to include more research findings as they become available. Our hope is that it will provide an invaluable and comprehensive resource for anyone interested in the ongoing debate around faith schools in Britain.
Launch event: The NSS will be holding an online Q&A with Steven Kettell on Thursday 8 April. Click here to register.
Image: LightField Studios/Shutterstock.com
The 2015 General Election
Anglican bishops lobby for exceptions to mandatory reporting laws
Bishops ask that admissions of child sexual abuse during confession be exempted from mandatory reporting
Anglican bishops lobby for exceptions to mandatory reporting laws
An Anglican group has told the government laws mandating the reporting of child sexual abuse should not apply to religious confession.
Responding to a Home Office consultation on the introduction of mandatory reporting laws, Forward in Faith - a conservative Anglican group which opposes the ordination of women - said that an exception should be included to "make provision for the Seal of the sacrament of Confession".
The response was signed by eight Church of England bishops, including the bishops of Wakefield, Blackburn and Chichester. The latter, Martin Warner, holds one of the 26 seats reserved for Church of England clergy in the House of Lords.
Under the proposals announced by the government earlier this year, people who work with children in England would be obliged to report suspicions of abuse to authorities. Those who failed to do so would risk being prosecuted.
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which published its final report last year, recommended the introduction of such measures, specifying that they should "not be subject" to religious exceptions, and that abuse must be reported even if it is revealed during "sacramental confession".
In its response, Forward in Faith said that obliging priests to breach the confidentiality of confession by requiring them to report abuse would compromise religious freedom. The law already requires that admissions of terrorism or money laundering during confession must be reported.
Forward in Faith also said that removing the absolute confidentiality of confession would harm survivors of abuse, adding that it was an "incredibly remote contingency" and "unproven concern" that perpetrators of abuse "will abuse the Seal [of confession]".
However, research by Irish academic Dr Marie Keenan suggests that confession has been used by clerical sex offenders as a "site of respite from guilt" and may enable "abuse to continue".
Richard Scorer, head of abuse law at Slater and Gordon, has also said there is "ample evidence that many disclosures of child sex abuse are made in confession which, if they had been acted on, could have prevented subsequent abuse."
The NSS has asked Lambeth Palace whether the Church of England supports the stance of the eight bishops. No response had been received at the time of publication.
NSS: 'exemption for the confessional must be fiercely resisted'
NSS president Keith Porteous Wood said: "These calls for an exemption for the confessional must – in the best interests of the child - be fiercely resisted. Were the confessional to be exempted, failure to report would become almost impossible to police. It would become almost impossible to refute false claims that knowledge of abuse was obtained in a confessional setting.
"Furthermore, it is vague what constitutes confession in the Anglican church which does not have booths. This ambiguity provides yet another opportunity for those with knowledge of abuse to have an excuse not to disclose it."
Regulator told group accused of antisemitism to register as charity
Cricklewood Muslim Youth Trust warned Muslims to "Keep away from the enemies of Allaah [sic] the Jews & Christians"
Remove bishops from the Lords, NSS tells parliamentary committee
NSS: Giving 26 seats in House of Lords to bishops shows "institutional favouritism for one religion"
Denmark stood up against fundamentalists in the past. It must not give in now
It is now almost two decades since an organised campaign of lies, threats and violence attempted to force Danish society to abandon its right to freedom of expression and in its place install a particularly regressive version of Islamic blasphemy codes.
In late 2005, a number of Danish Muslim organisations, together with the authorities of several Muslim-majority countries, tried to bully the Danish government into interfering with the publication of the Jyllands-Posten newspaper. The paper had printed a dozen cartoons of Muhammad as part of an editorial discussing criticism of Islam and self-censorship.
Eleven ambassadors from Muslim-majority countries requested that Denmark suppress the paper's right to operate freely and to pursue those responsible for the cartoons under the "law of the land". The prime minister declined, pointing out that it would be illegal for him to do so. Furthermore, he would not denounce the paper, and would not meet with the concerned diplomats to discuss the matter. For this, Denmark saw its embassies violated, citizens attacked, and economy sabotaged.
Today, Muslim fundamentalists are once again demanding that Denmark and its neighbour Sweden give up their democratic principles in order to placate their offended feelings. In recent weeks, copies of the Quran have been set alight at several protests in both nations, primarily by unsavoury characters from the far right-wing of Scandinavian politics, although on at least one occasion by an Iraqi asylum-seeker.
The choice to destroy, rather than contribute, written words is not accidental. Publishing an illustration of Muhammad makes the point that blasphemy codes apply only to those who choose to follow them. Any statement of principle to be found in the burning of a religious text is far weaker. Indeed, the act is inherently anti-intellectual and contemptuous of literature – in that regard exhibiting the same mindset as the hysterical Islamist mobs calling for retribution.
But focusing on the nature of the act is a mistake. The crucial point is that Denmark and Sweden should not modify their fundamental values according to the dictates of a gang of theocratic crooks.
Concerningly, both governments are considering doing exactly that. The Swedish judiciary has already had to prevent the government from encroaching on the rights of its citizens, and the Danish government is now joining them in seeking 'legal means' to prevent further protests.
Their desire to do so is not incomprehensible. Sweden has already seen its embassies besieged, diplomatic staff shot, and stern warnings of potential attacks issued by its security services. Attempts have also been made to isolate both internationally, with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation – a collection of 57 nations that claims to "safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world" – condemning the burnings as "acts of aggression that spread hatred and contempt for religions and threaten global peace, security and harmony".
For this group, which includes some of the most vicious and repressive regimes on earth, to lecture others on human rights and the spreading of hatred is hypocrisy of the most shameless kind. Faced with such pressure, one would hope that the UK, EU and US might make some expression of solidarity with their democratic allies. Instead, they have each issued mealy-mouthed statements condemning the supposed acts of desecration.
European nations may think these efforts of appeasement will make them safer. They will not. Does anyone seriously believe that, were a ban on burning the Quran implemented, those voicing their displeasure would pack up and go home, now satisfied that their terms had been met and never to be seen again?
Of course not. It is not just the content of any freely expressed remarks or actions which religious fundamentalists are opposed to, but also, and more importantly, the principle that anyone should be able to speak about their faith opinions in a way they do not like.
No quarter should be given to this way of thinking. To act as an apologist when a Quran is burnt because it is 'hateful' is to validate violent intimidation as a means to bring about a political agenda.
It also encourages further thuggish behaviour of the kind perpetuated against Sweden in recent weeks. If concessions to such efforts at intimidation continue to be made, there will come a point at which the essential components of a free society will cease to function.
In 2005, the Danish authorities ultimately did not retreat from a defence of their values. To do so now would be a grave mistake. Fundamentalists say that any offence to their faith is 'intolerable'. We should make it clear: in a democracy, prioritising religious feelings above freedom of expression is intolerable.
Image: Protestors against Quran burning in Sweden outside the Sweden Embassy of London, January 2023. Credit: Loredana Sangiuliano, Shutterstock
The Church of England is legitimising spiritual abuse
The Exorcist director William Friedkin died at the age of 87 this week. His seminal film immortalised the concept of exorcism in our popular culture. But you may be surprised to learn the practice is alive and well in our established church.
The Church of England – the church which our head of state swears to maintain and which has formal representation in parliament – practises a "deliverance ministry" to this day. As of 2011, the Church of England had 44 exorcists, one per diocese, each appointed by the archbishop of Canterbury.
Indeed, the late Anglican exorcist Ken Gardiner said: "I have seen exorcisms succeed. People came to me in a state and, in the name of Jesus, I've commanded whatever was there to leave."
The Church's 2023 guidance allows parents to consent to "formal rites of deliverance" for their children, "including those involving touch". The "laying on of hands" may be deemed necessary to cast out "demons", it says.
Traumatising a child by telling them they are possessed with a demon, and that a priest needs to touch them to cast the demon out, is surely inherently abusive.
On top of this, the guidance asserts that, in the "majority of cases" of 16-17 year olds, the consent of parents does not need to be obtained. Medical advice must be sought but there is no explicit requirement to follow it. Perversely, there is only one third party whose permission is required: the local bishop.
In recent months, the Church has been publicly shamed by its abysmal record on child safeguarding: the ever-mounting allegations of sexual abuse at Soul Survivor church, the suspension of the former archbishop of York, the decision to sack its own Independent Safeguarding Board – to name but a few. One might expect they would know better by now.
Exorcism is also linked to the harmful and homophobic practice of so-called 'gay conversion therapy'. Just last year, Matthew Draper alleged he had been subjected to exorcism by a church in Sheffield in order to rid him of "the demons of homosexuality". The claims are now being investigated by the Diocese of Sheffield.
For the avoidance of doubt, Professor Sir Robin Murray of Kings College's Institute of Psychiatry has said he knows of no "scientific evidence that exorcism works".
The probable harms of Anglican exorcism are not limited to its own congregations. The Church's "deliverance ministry" legitimises more extreme forms of spiritual abuse by other faith groups.
Earlier this year, a newly registered religious charity in Belfast posted a Facebook picture laying out the "five kinds of witches". The post draws on a sermon given by Nigerian pastor Daniel Kolawole Olukoya. In an unhinged screed, Olukoya pontificates on "eaters of flesh and blood" and "the register of darkness" as parishioners nod approvingly. He enjoins his rapt followers to receive "deliverance" from demonic witches and wizards.
It would be easy to dismiss these beliefs as eccentric but they are, in fact, treated with deadly seriousness by some adherents here in the UK.
In 2000, Victoria Climbie was tortured to death after a Christian preacher convinced her family she was possessed by "evil spirits". The pathologist who examined her body said it was the worst case of abuse he had ever seen.
In 2015, Kristy Bramu was accused by his sister and her boyfriend of 'kindoki' - a Congolese form of witchcraft. He drowned in a "ritual cleansing" bath after being subjected to "sadistic" and "prolonged" torture.
In 2021, as part of an Islamic ruqya exorcism, anaesthetist Hossam Metwally put his partner Kelly Wilson into a coma and nearly induced cardiac arrest.
To our knowledge, Anglican exorcisms have not, in recent years, had fatal consequences. But they are inspired by the same sinister belief: that people can be by possessed by demonic forces and these forces can be overcome through religious intervention. The deliverance ministry of the established church, an arm of the British state, gives succour to the most dangerous forms of spiritual abuse.
Today, August 10, is the World Day against Witch Hunts – a day for standing up against the abuse and killing of people believed to be witches or 'possessed' by evil spirits. What better occasion for us to challenge the Church's perpetuation of spiritual abuse? Exorcism should be the preserve of fiction and future Friedkins, not the established church.
Image: Francisco Goya, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
NHS trust wants to “better understand” why its chaplain met Taliban
Suliman Gani met with minister who is "a key figure in the Taliban's ideological projects"
No religious loopholes for reporting abuse, NSS warns government
Mandatory reporting laws "must apply to all religious settings" including the 'seal of confession', says NSS
No religious loopholes for reporting abuse, NSS warns government
There must be no religious exemptions to laws requiring child sex abuse to be reported, the National Secular Society has warned.
The NSS has told the Home Office it must resist religious lobbying for sacramental confession to be exempted from new mandatory reporting laws.
The NSS's warning came in response to a Home Office consultation on implementing a recommendation from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) that people who work with children be legally obliged to report incidents of sex abuse.
The NSS said mandatory reporting laws "must apply to all religious settings", including the 'seal of confession'.
During sacramental confession, which is held by the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations, an individual reports their 'sins' privately to a priest and asks for forgiveness.
In countries including Ireland and Australia, the Catholic Church has resisted laws which would require a priest who heard disclosures of child sex abuse during confession to report the incident to the authorities.
The NSS said there is "ample evidence" many disclosures of child sex abuse have been made in confession which, if acted on, could have prevented subsequent abuse.
Research has found that sex abusers within Catholic clergy have used confession to disclose their abuse and absolve themselves of guilt, in the knowledge that their abuse would not be reported. This enabled the continuation of abuse.
Dynamics in other religious institutions may affect their willingness to report child sex abuse, the NSS warned. This includes the Jehovah's Witnesses' 'two witness' rule in which elders of a congregation will only act if there are two witnesses to any 'sin' committed, including abuse.
The NSS expressed concern that the government does not appear to have accepted IICSA's recommendation to abolish the three year time limit for child abuse personal injury claims. It also said organisations where abuse has occurred should bear the cost of a victim redress scheme.
The NSS said other reforms are necessary to protect children in religious settings, including:
- Greater powers to tackle unregistered schools and a compulsory register for all children not in school.
- Ensuring all schools, including faith schools, teach inclusive and objective relationships and sex education, and removing the parental right of withdrawal.
- A review of the 'advancement of religion' charitable purpose, as it appears to enable religious institutions with repeated safeguarding failures to operate as registered charities and benefit from tax breaks.
NSS: Government 'must ensure religious privilege does not undermine mandatory reporting law'
NSS head of campaigns Megan Manson said: "We welcome the government's engagement with IICSA's recommendation to implement mandatory reporting laws for child sex abuse. But such a law must have no religious loopholes.
"Close ties to the state, deferential attitudes and prioritising institutional reputation over the rights and well-being of children have all enabled child sex abuse in religious settings.
"The government must ensure religious privilege does not undermine any new legal duties to report suspected child sex abuse, no matter how hard some churches may lobby for exemptions."
Nicky Campbell to deliver NSS Bradlaugh Lecture
'The Big Questions' host to share insights into career and media's treatment of religion at NSS event
