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
Ireland's mother and baby homes scandal shows the necessity of separating church and state
The misery which women and children faced for decades highlights the damage that can be done when states leave religious authority unchecked, says NSS president Keith Porteous Wood.
"The chance of survival of an illegitimate infant born in the slums and placed with a foster-mother in the slums a few days after birth is greater than that of an infant born in one of our special homes for unmarried mothers."
That was a line from a report on Ireland's mother and baby homes, which were largely run by the Catholic Church. At the time a bishop, perhaps better at misogynist slights than actual childcare, described the inspector who wrote this as "a troublesome spinster who thought she knew everything about what was best for babies". That was written in 1939, and several such homes were operating even in the 1990s.
Despite pressure from the UN – and even ultimately from its Committee Against Torture – it took until last month for a state sponsored report to be published. Being so much later, greater candour could reasonably be expected even than that shown by the brave Alice Litster, the author of the 1939 report.
Instead, the 2021 report has been branded a "whitewash", "cold" and "legalistic" as a result of some of its conclusions, such as: "However, it must be acknowledged that the institutions under investigation provided a refuge - a harsh refuge in some cases - when the families provided no refuge at all". There's no suggestion here that failures to provide refuge were more than likely prompted by opprobrium preached to the pews.
This line comes despite the grotesque level of infant mortality in the homes, which the report acknowledges elsewhere. It notes that "9,000 children died in the institutions under investigation - approximately 15% of all the children who were in the institutions" and "75% of the children born in a home in Bessborough (a suburb of Cork) in 1943 died within the first year of life". Also, one of these 'homes', run by the Sisters of Bon Secours, was Tuam - notorious worldwide for the hundreds of babies and children "buried inappropriately in the grounds of the institution" without even being recorded (site of mass grave pictured). The mortality rate was a greater scandal.
But what are the root causes? Everything possible went against these poor women, and their children. The report acknowledges that "there was a considerable lack of knowledge regarding contraception, menstrual cycle and sex education in general". Sex education had to be in accordance with the (Catholic) ethos of the school. Yet even by 2010 "almost 74 per cent of young people [were] receiving little or no sex education".
DUP leader Arlene Foster expressed the problems starkly in response to an equivalent report on Northern Ireland that was simultaneously released. "Children were raped or victims of incest then they were victimised again by being put into these homes. It was not their fault that they were raped or the victims of incest yet they were the ones who suffered." She also noted a key reason: "Those who perpetrated the crime went scot-free."
A further reason – I believe a very significant and largely unacknowledged reason – is the proscription of contraception, one of several puritan provisions of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935, in line with a papal encyclical of 1930. The report describes the act as "arguably the legislation that came closest to enforcing Catholic moral teaching. … The proportion of Irish unmarried mothers who were admitted to mother and baby homes or county [run] homes in the twentieth century was probably the highest in the world. … No country complied with Catholic teaching on birth control in as dedicated a fashion as Ireland … but this rearguard action to preserve Ireland's distinct moral and legislative culture coincided with a steady rise in the number of unmarried mothers."
There were no "unmarried fathers", of course; most got off scot free, and that is another key contributory factor. Less than 15% of cases of sexual crimes against children were prosecuted. Sexual crime was seen as "an ideological as well as a law enforcement issue in a newly emerging [Irish] state sensitive to the views of its enemies and the outside world and insecure about its place in it, a nation that legitimised itself, in no small part, as a beacon of Celtic Catholic purity in a world otherwise sullied by sin… the overwhelming majority of sexual crime prosecutions were never reported in the nation's press and that those that were, were reported in ways that obscured the actual nature of the offence".
But we need to ask "why?", at least one more time, the state failed to uphold its duty of care to vulnerable women and children in these publicly funded institutions. The largest single underlying factor, implied in much of the above, was the absence of church-state separation, of secularism. The church behaved like a department of the state; it sometimes even looked to be the other way around. So it is no wonder that "some survivors are convinced that the blame lies primarily with the Catholic Church and a craven Irish state tugging the forelock to the hierarchy".
Some of these factors and associated societal attitudes, especially the callous and contemptuous dismissal of unmarried mothers and their offspring, may also have been contributory to another type of criminal behaviour where, sadly, Ireland appears to have been in a class of its own: clerical sexual abuse of minors. So many poor, unvalued children were dragooned into the industrial schools (set up specifically for "neglected, orphaned and abandoned children"), many run by the Christian Brothers, and notorious for the scale of abuse. If the state's record is anything to go by, the reluctance to prosecute for sexual offences will have been even greater for clerics than others.
And the far-reaching and unintended implications of the lack of contraception have led me to ponder something on a far greater scale. Could the church's encouragement of large families and the lack of contraception have contributed to many hungry mouths and fuelled the astonishingly large diaspora from the tiny state of Ireland of which it is so justly proud?
On an optimistic note, tribute was paid to that "troublesome spinster" in the Irish parliament: "Ms Alice Litster… one of the heroes of the report… is mentioned 440 times". She is also to be remembered through the establishment of a scholarship. And let us not forget that Ireland's transition to a socially liberal and more caring society has been at a meteoric pace probably unseen anywhere else in the world, as has been its decline in church attendance.
These homes were a shameful episode in Ireland's history that demonstrates the necessity of a clear separation between church and state. Ireland has made huge strides towards this, but lapses are frequent and, as even the lamentable state of sex education in recent times reveals, it has not thrown off those shackles altogether.
We must hope it resolves to do better. And the world should note the damage that can be done when states leave religious authority unchecked.
Also read: letter from Keith Porteous Wood on Ireland's mother and baby home scandal, published in The Tablet [also available here].
Image: View of the mass grave at the Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home, Tuam; via Wikimedia Commons, © AugusteBlanqui [CC BY-SA 4.0]
Religious censorship is about ownership
Theocratic demands for censorship in India and Pakistan reflect attempts to grab power which undermine everyone's religious freedom, says Megan Manson.
Recent news suggests Hindu extremism is putting freedom of expression in India in deep danger.
Last month the makers of the Amazon Prime series Tandav (pictured) offered an "unconditional" apology after certain Hindu nationalist politicians took offence at the show's depiction of Hindu deities.
In the 'offending' scene, one of the actors plays a student, who in turn plays the role of the god Shiva in a college play. He talks about his involvement in a social media popularity contest with another god, Ram. That's it.
Cue outrage from members of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The chief minister of the state of Madhya Pradesh, Shivraj Singh Chauhan, tweeted: "Nobody has the right to disrespect our gods and goddesses."
A key aide to Uttar Pradesh's chief minister Yogi Adityanath tweeted that the makers of the show should "be prepared to pay the price".
And Ram Kadam, local legislator in the state of Maharashtra, tweeted that he'd filed a police complaint about the show.
The apology from Tandav's crew was not enough to appease the extremists. After the statement was issued, a hashtag which translated to "we want arrest not apology" gained over 70,000 tweets. And so the director agreed to remove the Shiva scene.
And that was still not enough. India's Supreme Court has indicated it will not protect Tandav's creators from arrest, saying: "Your right to freedom of speech is not absolute. You cannot play the role of [a] character that hurts the sentiments of a community."
Tandav is but one of many victims of increasingly aggressive attempts by Hindu fundamentalists to censor any representation of Hinduism they don't like. Indian stand-up comic Munawar Faruqui has spent weeks in prison after allegedly making offensive jokes about Hindu deities (reports suggest he didn't even tell them). And many other Indian comedians have been attacked by Hindu nationalists for 'hurting religious sentiments' in recent years.
This Hindu fundamentalism isn't solely an issue for India, either. Last year a Lancashire farm apologised for holding yoga sessions in fields of cows because self-appointed Hindu 'spokesperson' Rajan Zed complained it 'trivialised' Hindu concepts. In recent years, the same Rajan Zed has also held international crusades against the use of Hindu imagery on beermats, doormats, drinks, jewellery, clothes, towels, pillows, kitchen utensils, roads, video games, and children's toys, to name but a few.
Even when Hindu deities are depicted in a positive light and in situations poking fun at other religions too, the Hindu nationalists are poised and ready to take offence. A rather sweet Australian commercial depicting deities from various religions enjoying a dinner party together and cracking jokes was taken off air in 2017 after Hindu fundamentalists complained about the depiction of the god Ganesha (who, incidentally, was played by a practicing Hindu).
So why are Hindu nationalists spending so much time and energy defending their gods from perceived slights? It may be partly about 'hurt sentiments' – but perhaps more importantly, it's also about ownership.
When religious leaders demand everyone, members of the religion or not, follow narrow rules for how they talk about or depict religion, they are demanding greater power for themselves. It is a very effective way of ensuring only an elite few are licensed to talk about religion, in an approved manner. The more obscure and draconian the rules, the better, because attempts to depict religion in a neutral or even positive manner still risk breaking one of those rules. As a result, those who are not in the elite inner circle of religious leaders avoid talking about religion at all. They must rely on approaching religious leaders for comment, and in doing so they give those leaders complete control over the conversation about religion.
Surrendering free speech about religion to fundamentalists is a key factor in the emergence of religious and sectarian persecution. Consider the Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan. Their interpretation of Islam is somewhat different to the majority Sunni denomination, and as a result Pakistan's state has declared them non-Muslims. In other words, it has declared ownership of Islam. Any Ahmadi Muslim who claims to be a Muslim is subject to Pakistan's harsh blasphemy laws. And scarily, last month Pakistani authorities tried to enforce this on an Ahmadi group based in the United States.
Islam is a diverse religious tradition. But censoring minority sects because their interpretation conflicts with that of the majority corrodes this diversity, leading to religious homogenisation. Similar processes are at work in other Muslim-majority countries, where radical Islamists are replacing unique regional forms of Islam with a fundamentalist monoculture.
The same process is underway in India. India is renowned as a nation of many religions and beliefs. Its constitution establishes the nation as a secular democracy in recognition of this diversity, and that no religion or belief is valued more or less than another.
And there is huge diversity within India's largest religion, Hinduism, itself. Being considerably older, Hinduism is perhaps even more diverse than Islam. In fact, the very concept of "Hinduism" as a single religion is a relatively modern invention, used as a convenient label to describe the huge variety of regional folk traditions, practices and beliefs that have persisted throughout India across thousands of years.
The Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) ideology embraced by the BJP is proving toxic towards this diversity – both diversity of religions and beliefs, and diversity within religions. Hindutva seeks to define India as a Hindu nation. It is no coincidence that those who find themselves accused of 'offending religious feelings' in India are frequently Muslims.
But Hindutva is also corrosive even to the Hindu traditions it claims to protect. It seeks to take ownership of one particular form of Hinduism – a fundamentalist, intolerant form – and impose it on all Indians as the Hinduism. And because of the BJP's moves to tie this form of Hinduism to the state, it will result in a Hinduism designed to serve political goals rather than the spiritual and cultural needs of India's people.
To that end, Hindu nationalists are robbing Indians, including Hindus, of the ability to use shared cultural heritage to express themselves. They are creating a culture in which people are fearful to invoke the names and images of India's ancient and ubiquitous deities lest they find themselves threatened, bullied, or even imprisoned.
And as we sadly learned from Tandav's example, attempting to appease extremists with apologies and self-censorship merely adds fuel to the fire, spurring them on to seek and destroy other 'blasphemers'.
We must not be persuaded by accusations of 'offence' and 'hurt feelings' and allow religious elitists with their own political and personal agendas to take exclusive ownership of religion. Religion and its symbols and traditions belong to all of humanity to use as we wish – to revere, or to ridicule. Letting extremists dictate who can talk about religion, and how, ultimately erodes everyone's freedom of religion, belief and expression.
Christian nationalism is a key part of Trump’s legacy
As the US presidency changes hands, Alastair Lichten argues that understanding Christian nationalism is essential to understanding Donald Trump's legacy and its consequences for the world.
This article is available in audio format, as part of our Opinion Out Loud series.
Over 1,200 books have been written about the Trump presidency, so far. It will take some time and distance to fully understand Trump's reshaping of US and global politics. But as I predicted four years ago, Christian nationalism has been at the heart of his policy agenda.
Christian nationalism
Until recently (outside secularist and nonreligious focused media) journalists have shied away from this phrase. In the US case perhaps they're wary of offending a still overwhelmingly Christian audience.
Since the insurrection at the US Capitol on 6 January there has been more widespread recognition of this trend. As The Atlantic said of the Jericho March (a set of the protests who march beseeching god to overturn the election): "Many of those who mobbed the Capitol on Wednesday claimed to be enacting God's will." The Religion News Service quoted an historian: "For decades now, evangelical devotional life, evangelical preaching and evangelical teaching has found a space to promote this kind of militancy." The New York Times noted: "This potent mix of grievance and religious fervour has turbocharged the support among a wide swath of Trump loyalists, many of whom describe themselves as participants in a kind of holy war."
There's plenty of conservative fantasy and liberal horror stories about a Christian revolution overthrowing the US government. But the events of 6 January made these feel all too real. With gallows erected and armed zip cuff carrying participants intent on taking hostages, comparisons to the President's Day Massacre – the fictional inciting incident which launches the theocratic Gilead regime in the world of the Handmaid's Tale – write themselves.
The weaponisation of 'religious freedom'
Secularists admire America's clear constitutional commitment to the separation of religion and government. But it would be hard to find another four years in US history when such jurisprudence has changed more dramatically. Decades of precedent have been overturned and a new understanding of 'religious freedom' more accommodating to Christian nationalism has replaced it. With a full third of the federal judiciary appointed to life terms by Trump, this is likely to be a particularly enduring policy legacy.
It's (not) the economy stupid
In 2016 significant parts of the commentariat insisted that beyond the blustery cultural war rhetoric Trumpism was really about economic anxiety. A similar bias motivates those who insist Islamism can only be explained in terms of reaction to economic grievances.
In Western democracies, voters sorting themselves around economic issues seems so natural that any other ideological or cultural sorting is often dismissed as an aberration or mere rhetoric. Economics play their part in Trumpism, but do not fully explain it.
In his recent discussion with me on the National Secular Society's podcast, Andrew Seidel highlighted Christian nationalism's move from the fringe to the centre of American political power. Understanding this is necessary to understand how, under Trump, US partisan identity has sorted along cultural, rather than economic lines, to an unparalleled extent.
We should be particularly wary of political sorting along religious lines, given the almost inevitable politicisation of religion it brings. Indeed, political, rather than theological or even social-economic differences are becoming the biggest denominational divides in the US. And it is cultural, not economic, forces transforming non-religious Americans into a voting bloc which may soon be as reliably Democratic voting as African Americans, and twice as numerous.
When America sneezes, the world catches a cold
It is not impossible to see such a dynamic emerging in UK politics. Our increasing polarisation between urban and suburban voters has little religious dimension, but similar divides have been exploited before. Christian nationalist movements in most of Europe may be less developed than their American counterparts. But there are deep financial and institutional links.
While parallels between US and UK politics can be overstated, our politicians have a long history of looking across the pond for inspiration. Few frontline UK politicians are seeking to be labelled 'Britain's Trump'. But there are many in Britain – and not all on the political right – who see a potential realignment of politics along 'culture war' issues as a path to political power.
It remains to be seen if Christian nationalism will remain a dominant ideology of the US political right. But it's hard to see it retreating back to the fringes overnight after four years in power. And the threat that it could become more mainstream in the UK can't be dismissed either. We need to be vigilant and willing to challenge the weaponisation of religious identity.
Our school – and community – were severely disadvantaged by our C of E status
Former headteacher John Mapperley says the school he ran was given a vastly reduced range of options when considering academy status – and he believes the church puts its own interests above those of pupils.
I recently retired as the head of a voluntary controlled Church of England school near Nottingham.
During my time the local diocesan board of education (DBE), which oversaw Church of England schools in the area, had a strict policy of only allowing schools to become academies if they joined majority church-led multi academy trusts. This vastly increased the diocesan influence in VC schools at governance level and simultaneously held back the development of these schools.
Our governing body had three foundation governors (governors appointed by the local diocese) out of 15 governors in total. Bearing in mind that the school was entirely maintained by taxpayers' money via the local authority and served a village community whereby no other schools were within reasonable walking distance, there was never any good argument for a 'distinctively Christian education'. However, the rules laid down by the local diocese meant that, if the school became an academy, the proportion of church appointees among its governors would increase from 20% to 50%.
Furthermore, the diocese was not prepared to stretch its resources beyond the MATs that had already been set up. So in practice our school had a choice of four MATs to choose from – all with church majority boards of directors and members.
It is widely understood that in order to change the hostile stance of the Church of England in the early days of academy policy roll out, Michael Gove negotiated a protocol whereby DBEs would have the right to veto any church school's application to join a multi academy trust. The vast majority of dioceses have used this power to construct policies which only allow schools to join MATs which are dominated by church appointees at both director and member level. This vastly increases the church's influence over schools and their governing bodies. This has massively reduced the options open to church schools when compared to other maintained schools and blocked many schools from continuing previously productive collaborations with non-church schools.
We were severely disadvantaged by this restriction – opportunities to join MATs set up by local schools that we had enjoyed fruitful partnerships with came and went. Furthermore, because our feeder infant school was not a church school and nor was the secondary school we fed into, the opportunity to work more closely with these vital stakeholders was closed to us. The diocese pointed out that the infant school could always join the diocesan MAT alongside us – but not surprisingly the governors of the infant school didn't feel this option would be beneficial.
We spoke to the DBE on several occasions about this and were asked to prepare a document for discussion at one of its board meetings – we called this a request for 'self-determination'. Our request was turned down but no explanation was offered and the arguments raised in support of our request were not answered. I followed this up a year later with a suggestion that I attend a DBE meeting both to put our case in person and to better understand the diocesan position – my request was denied.
It is important to note that academisation cannot be reversed and it is very rare for schools to have the option to swap these associations. We were limited to four multi academy trust options. We were happy to seriously consider them all but we also knew that we had a duty to our current and future stakeholders to consider all options in order to find the best for our pupils and community. When we put this to the director of the DBE she pointed out (repeatedly) that we were a church school, as if this fact in itself made further discussion unnecessary. The diocese made very little attempt to justify its refusal to consider non-church collaborations beyond this and insistence that the church family of schools was worth preserving (for whose benefit, you may ask?).
It appears that our local DBE could not justify its hardline position and was either not able to or unwilling to justify it. As a result long standing and natural collaborations have had to be disbanded or dismissed as maintained schools without church school restrictions have forged ahead with their trusts and other structures. To hinder church schools in this way is in my view a gross dereliction of the DBE's duty to do the best it can for our children.
It appears that the desire to increase the church's power and influence in 'its' schools is stronger than the desire to provide the best possible education and life chances for pupils.
A shortened version of this story appeared in our 2020 report Power grab: Academisation and the threat to secular education.
Religious conversion isn’t a charitable endeavour
Some registered charities exist primarily to convert members of one religion to another. Megan Manson says such activity is harmful to community cohesion – and shouldn't be treated as a valid charitable purpose.
This article is available in audio format, as part of our Opinion Out Loud series.
In the UK's increasingly diverse society, community cohesion is essential to ensure all people from all walks of life can get along. At the NSS we see secularism as the best means of fostering social cohesion, because it ensures all people, regardless of religion or belief, are treated equally in public policy and equally before the law.
Some religious activities are divisive in nature and pose a threat to community cohesion. Public proselytism in particular can be contentious. Unwanted evangelism can be annoying, alienating and sometimes distressing if suggests non-believers and 'transgressors' are sinners deserving of eternal punishment. Yet many organisations that exist primarily to proselytise are registered charities.
And some of those charities may even target specific religious groups for conversion, as highlighted in a recent report in The Jewish Chronicle.
In the report, Jewish community consultant Steven Jaffe revealed that approximately 15 registered charities "exist exclusively to convert Jews to Christianity", or as a significant part of their purpose. These charities have raised more than £35m in the past five years.
One such charity identified in the report is Messianic Testimony. According to the Charity Commission, it exists for "the advancement of the Christian faith" through "the evangelisation and discipleship of Jewish people" and "by the teaching of biblical truth with specific regard to the purposes of God for Israel and the Jewish people".
Another is Eurovision Mission to Europe, a member of the Evangelical Alliance. Its most recent annual report says that in 2016 its focus was on "evangelism in Israel amongst Holocaust Survivors".
And then there is The Vincent Society, which operates under the name CMJ UK. Its charitable objects include "undertaking evangelism which is appropriate for but not exclusive to Jewish people". Its activities include "Jewish Evangelism" training for "Christians and Church groups" and youth evangelism training in partnership with Scripture Union.
The reason for this apparent fixation on converting Jews is, as Jaffe identifies, largely theological. Some Christian traditions teach that the world's salvation lies in converting Jews, while others point to biblical pronouncements about taking Christianity's message "to the Jew first".
But many in Jewish communities, understandably, do not welcome these evangelists' attempts to convince them to turn to Jesus in order to fulfil perceived religious duties. As Jaffe says, such evangelism "does poison Jewish-Christian relations" and "targeted and at times aggressive or underhand proselytism cannot co-exist with friendship".
Jews aren't the only group who find themselves targeted by Christian charities. The massive evangelical charity Samaritan's Purse uses its deeply unethical Operation Christmas Child scheme to try and convert children in countries with large Muslim populations.
And as recently as September, an organisation called Two:Nineteen registered with the Charity Commission. Its purpose: "to advance the Christian religion by providing training resources to churches to enable non-speaking (sic) members of the local community to participate in the activities of the local church, including by providing instruction in English language". In other words, it exists to evangelise to immigrants through English lessons.
It's fairly clear that its mission of "stimulating gospel outreach and cultural integration" is a one-way street. One blog on Two:Nineteen's website says that when a Muslim asked to give out literature promoting Islam at one of the English classes, she was told that this "was not appropriate for a church-based group" and "there have been opportunities for the church to bless her family in turn since then". Another blog on the website about "Understanding the Chinese Worldview" says that "misguided religious practices", i.e. traditional Chinese beliefs, "need to be confronted".
There is little doubt that those who support or work for these charities sincerely believe they are doing good. Their desire to convert people to Christianity comes not from malice or spite, but from a deep conviction that the Christian way to live brings happiness in this life and thereafter.
But good intentions are not enough when it comes to charity. A charity must serve a public benefit and must not cause harm – that's why the state grants charities such generous tax breaks and other financial benefits. It is hard to recognise how a charity that exists primarily to convert members of one religion to another serves a benefit to anyone except the religion of the charity. Conversely, it is easy to argue that such a charity may be harmful because it can foster division, intolerance and mistrust between communities.
So why are such organisations able to become charities? It is because 'the advancement of religion' is one of the recognised 'charitable purposes' in law. Although in theory there is a requirement for religious charities to pass the 'public benefit test', our 2019 report found that in practice a huge number of religious charities appear to do nothing but benefit themselves, sometimes to the detriment of the public.
A liberal society should allow religious organisations to try and convert others, provided such activity does not exploit the vulnerable. That is a basic necessity of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. But should a liberal society encourage and facilitate such behaviour, particularly when it undermines community cohesion, by granting charitable status to organisations that engage in it?
There are many religious charities, just as there are many secular charities, which genuinely provide a tangible public benefit. But every one of those charities can classify its activities under charitable purposes other than 'the advancement of religion', for example 'the prevention or relief of poverty', 'the advancement of education' or 'the promotion of religious or racial harmony'.
While 'the advancement of religion' remains on the list of charitable purposes in law, we will continue to see the emergence of charities that do little or nothing but pit religious communities against each other in the name of spiritual salvation. And this should cause us to question whether 'the advancement of religion' belongs on the list of charitable purposes at all.
This article is available in audio format, as part of our Opinion Out Loud series.
Image by Robert Koorenny from Pixabay (cropped to fit).
"Being offended is the price we pay for living in a free society": NSS CEO talks to Charlie Hebdo
The French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has been the target of terrorist attacks in 2011, 2015, and 2020. All of the attacks were motivated by its publication of cartoons of Muhammad, whose depiction is prohibited in some of interpretations of Islam. The January 2015 attack on Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish supermarket left 17 people dead.
In October French middle-school teacher Samuel Paty was beheaded by an Islamist. He was targeted for teaching about freedom of expression, and using a Charlie cartoon in class. Since then much discussion in the Anglo-Saxon media has focused on the perceived shortcomings of French secularism, rather than on the threat posed by Islamist intolerance.
In light of the killing Charlie Hebdo's latest edition, marking the sixth anniversary of the 2015 attack, was dedicated to the teaching and promotion of critical thinking. In this edition Inna Shevchenko interviewed National Secular Society chief executive Stephen Evans. This is reproduced here in English with kind permission.
Cartoon translation: 'Children, now we will say a little prayer for secularism and the right to blasphemy'
Charlie Hebdo: The French principle of secularism is often attacked by those who praise the British approach to religion and what are called "multiculturalism policies". Is secularism so unpopular in the UK?
Stephen Evans: We don't have secularism in the UK. We have a state church, and the queen is both head of state and the supreme governor of the Church of England. Sessions of the British parliament begin with prayers, and there are seats in the House of Lords reserved for bishops, who have influence and power over legislation. Public money is used to fund religious schools across the country – one-third of state-funded schools in the UK are now religiously oriented 'faith schools'.
And over the years, as society has diversified, instead of adopting secular principles, we have adopted a multi-faith model that extends privileges to all religions alongside the Church of England. The National Secular Society has long campaigned for a model closer to French secularism, but what we have here is very different.
I suppose adopting the multi-faith model was politically less risky than separating state from churches?
The model is very much the legacy of having an established church. Given the church's political role and influence and the fact that the monarchy is closely linked to the Church of England, it was indeed easier to extend privileges to other denominations rather than to strip the church of its status and privileges.
The Church of England is quite happy to share privileges with other religions, as it recognises that this is the only realistic way to preserve its own privileges. For example, the church is one of the most enthusiastic proponents of reserving seats in in the legislature for representatives of other religious communities, alongside its 26 bishops which already have automatic seats in the House of Lords.
But, most of the population is secular in outlook, and the majority of people don't actively practice a religion or hold religious beliefs. We need to embrace diversity and build an inclusive society, but that does not justify our policies and our education system or anything else being organised around religious identities.
Your organisation is leading an active campaign against public religious schools across the Channel. What is the influence of religions on the British education system?
This is another legacy issue that really dates back to 1944, and the passing of the Education Act, which brought about massive school reform in post-war England and established a national education system. This law established a system of publicly funded religious schools.
Many faith schools now select children on the basis of the religious activities or beliefs of their parents, and hire teachers based on their religious identity. These discriminatory practices are allowed because, even in the Equality Act of 2010, specific exemptions have been introduced so as not to provoke conflict with religious schools.
In addition, many independent schools have a religious orientation. And there is then a third category of establishments: illegal religious schools. They are not registered and function not really as schools at all but as indoctrination centres, where priority is given to religious education – to the detriment of secular education.
This is a difficult problem to solve. Homeschooling is permitted in the UK, and when illegal schools are closed children very often go on to be home schooled. We know that France is currently trying to tackle this problem. It is certainly easier to do this within a secular system. It will take political will.
The UK is also the only Western democracy to impose compulsory worship in all schools, which is an anomaly. How do religious ideas influence school curricula?
Yes, compulsory school worship still exists legally, although compliance isn't enforced by the state. Another issue is religious education classes in state schools – still a compulsory subject throughout a student's school life.
Keeping with this outdated model rather than replacing it with a civics education course, as we are proposing, the UK is undermining important values in education. Especially with the explosion of fake news and conspiracy theories spreading all over the internet, it is very dangerous to teach children to accept information on the basis of pure faith. The influence of religion in education is, I think, a factor in the failure to teach critical thinking and freedom of expression which are vital for society. France is very robust and successful in defending its republican values, secularism, freedom of expression, while here we're almost apologetic about promoting these principles.
Recently, however, the University of Cambridge rejected a proposal to curtail freedom of expression at the university. It was about requiring faculty and students to be "respectful" of divergent opinions and diverse "identities". The vote against this proposal marked a reaffirmation of freedom of expression on campus and in education. Can we keep the hope that progressive ideas will eventually triumph over religious and identity politics?
I'm optimistic by nature, and our work will continue but, today, I am somewhat pessimistic. There are too few people and organisations in the UK willing to stand up for freedom of expression. We have gone too far in wanting to protect people from being offended.
Our organisation was one of the few to publish Charlie Hebdo cartoons out of solidarity. Too often the focus is on respecting each other's opinions, rather than respecting diversity of thought and valuing freedom of expression.
There is a difference between respecting the right of individuals to express themselves and respecting their opinions. Cambridge academics emphasised that all opinions should be tolerated, that everyone should be allowed to speak out, and that everyone's opinions and beliefs can be challenged.
Being offended is the price we pay for living in a free society. Too few of us defend this idea in the UK.
The lockdown exemption for communal worship represents a dangerous double standard
With the country again plunged into a strict lockdown, Stephen Evans questions the rationale behind and wisdom of an exemption for religious worship in England.
All parts of the United Kingdom have again been plunged into another lockdown. With hospitals under more pressure than at any time since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, we are again facing tough restrictions on our lives and liberties. One key difference this time, however, is that in England, churches, mosques, synagogues and temples will remain open - not just for individual prayer, but for communal worship.
Any liberal society should place a very high premium on suspending civil liberties and restricting public gatherings – including religious ones. There may be good grounds to keep places of worship open in some circumstances, most obviously if they are acting as hubs for volunteering or charitable services. But permitting communal worship during a legally enforceable 'stay at home' rule will understandably raise eyebrows – not to mention infection levels.
With draconian restrictions on normal life currently commonplace, it's unsurprising to find some inconsistencies in the rules and guidance. But we should expect the government to value people equally, which means it should apply a consistent cost-benefit analysis when deciding to make exemptions to the current restrictions. And on that basis, the arguments that can be made in defence of the exemption for worship don't hold water.
In the new lockdown people across England will be told to stay at home unless for very specific reasons. We will only be allowed to exercise outdoors once per day. We may not meet socially with anyone outside our household or support bubble (although we're allowed to exercise with one other person). Schools have transitioned to remote working – a measure the government went to great lengths to avoid.
As the prime minister announced the latest lockdown there was no question that pubs, libraries or entertainment venues would be allowed to open. Communal sport outdoors is banned. What is the logic behind forcing outdoor sports venues, such as tennis courts, golf courses and swimming pools, to close, but allowing worshippers to gather under the same roof?
It may well be that many places of worship have been diligent in terms of managing risks and limiting numbers of attendees. But the same is true of many businesses which have been forced to close – some of them long ago.
Communal worship is, of course, important in the lives of many religious people, and any reasonable person would sympathise with those who wish to take part in worship but can't. But that's not a reason for the government to assign it any more or less importance than the secular pursuits that give other people purpose and meaning. Religious freedom is a qualified right; there shouldn't be a hierarchy of rights with religion at the top.
This exemption is also likely to increase the risk to some already vulnerable groups. Congregations in Anglican and Catholic churches tend to skew towards older people (which may be part of the reason why several priests expressed dismay at the exemption on social media on Monday night). According to the European Jewish Demography Unit, a disproportionate number of UK Jews have died during the pandemic. And the disproportionate mortality amongst black, Asian and minority ethnic people – who make up a large proportion of some minority religious groups – is well documented. In this context, sending out the message to religious communities that new lockdown restrictions don't necessarily apply to them appears reckless.
The exemption for worship also weakens the message that 'we're all in this together'. Inconsistencies and perceived double standards can reduce compliance – and so risks undermining the collective effort to suppress the virus. With so many of us making so many sacrifices, the special treatment for religious services will strike many people as unjustified exceptionalism and religious privilege.
And it seems likely that this policy has been influenced by extensive lobbying from religious interests. When the first lockdown was introduced in March last year, worship was treated roughly like other ways people chose to spend their time. And when that lockdown was eased, worship was initially allowed on similar terms to other activities. But in recent months some religious leaders and their cheerleaders have increasingly called for it to be treated as a special case.
In response ministers seem to be giving in for a quiet life. At least by the time the government introduced tier 4 restrictions in many areas last month, communal worship had become incongruous with the sweeping restrictions on people's lives elsewhere.
And a similar lockdown in Scotland, announced earlier on Monday and presumably based on very similar scientific evidence, has instructed places of worship to close. Is the difference perhaps an indication of the political clout of the Church of England?
Either way, the exemption in England indicates a worrying deference to religious entitlement. Let's hope it doesn't cost too many lives.
All I want for Christmas is freedom of and from religion
Opponents often erect a straw man of secularism to justify demands for religious privilege. But freedom of religion must come with freedom from religion, says Stephen Evans.
There was little sign of Christmas spirit in my inbox the other day when a Christian gentleman got in touch to accuse me of being a "Devil's advocate who wants to turn off the light of God's Son Christ message". What had I done to provoke his wrath? I suggested in a letter to the Telegraph that Christians shouldn't have a right to refuse to provide services to gay people.
The email arrived just as I was listening to the government's 'faith engagement adviser' talking about an "evangelical secularism" that wants to "close down faith".
And all this got me thinking about the gulf between what secularists say, and what many religious advocates hear, or claim to hear.
Another recent example of this phenomenon came when I suggested that places of worship shouldn't be privileged when it comes to public safety measures to suppress COVID-19. Anglican priest Giles Fraser translated this as me "gloating about churches being closed". When I explained that I actually want churches to remain open, so long as it is safe for those attending them, he simply responded with "I don't believe you". Nevertheless, I chucked some money in the pot to help rebuild his church hall which recently collapsed. It is Christmas, after all.
Like many others, Giles has created a fictitious bogeyman secularism, to help defend religious privilege. The essence of secularism is fairness, so a straw man secularism needs to be erected to effectively challenge it. So, in Giles Fraser's worldview, secularism becomes a "thin camouflage for anti-religious bigotry".
Many people who support the idea of a secular state may have an unfavourable view of religion – but that doesn't make them bigots. And many sincere religious believers are also persuaded by the advantages of a secular state. Whatever their personal views on religion, National Secular Society members unite around the principle that everyone should be free to believe whatever they like, and to live out those beliefs, as long as it doesn't inflict harm or impinge on the rights and freedoms of others.
But this live and let live philosophy isn't always shared by some of the loudest advocates for religious freedom. They loudly declare their support for freedom of religion, but they're less keen on its necessary corollary – freedom from religion.
Freedom from religion is the ultimate litmus test for a true commitment to freedom of religion or belief. Unless you equally support individuals' rights to manifest their atheism or live their lives free from religion, then it's likely to be religious privilege you support, not religious freedom.
And religious privilege is deeply ingrained in the UK, undermining freedom from religion.
Our head of state is the defender of the Christian faith. The Church of England is established by law. The Westminster parliament begins its sittings with Anglican prayers – as do some local authorities. Anglican bishops have an automatic right to seats in the legislature. National events have a distinctly religious feel.
Public money funds faith schools. A third of all schools have a religious ethos. The majority are Christian, and equality law exceptions mean many can prioritise children from Christian families in admissions. The children from non-Christian families who do attend these schools routinely have someone else's religion imposed on them. We even have laws requiring daily school worship.
And some Christians still claim 'marginalisation'.
Decades of declining adherence has made Anglican supremacy harder to justify. So, a multifaithism has emerged with minority faith and belief groups competing for crumbs from the establishment table.
Church schools have morphed into state-funded faith schools. Anglican chaplaincy in hospitals, schools, prisons and the armed forces has become multifaith. There are even calls for other faith leaders to join Anglican clerics on the 'bishops' bench' in the Lords. The Church of England is willing to see its privileges extended to other faiths – but can't accept them being removed.
Multifaithism may make Christian privilege seem less egregious, but it completely neglects those who aren't so assertive about their beliefs – the majority – who eschew religious labels. The religiously indifferent are simply expected to put up with other people's beliefs being foisted upon them.
Secularism's proposition is to level the playing field. It's not about closing down faith, but making it a personal matter for individuals, and not the business of the state.
So, whenever you hear a straw man secularism being erected, you can be sure that someone, somewhere, wants to impose their religion – either on a person or public policy – where it doesn't belong.
Religious diversity, like all other forms of diversity, should be a welcome component of society. But we don't have to – and nor should we – organise public policy, services and state occasions around it. Fuelling identarian politics is divisive and unlikely to end well.
Focusing instead on our common humanity and what we share as citizens is a more cohesive approach. Secularism is the best recipe for living better together.
At Christmas, now a largely secular affair, Christian anxieties about declining influence often come to the fore. For some, Christmas is a sacred religious holiday that marks the birth of Jesus Christ. For others it's family time – or something closer to its origins, a period of merriment, feasting and gift giving to mark the winter solstice. For some, Christmas just isn't a thing.
Secularists have often been accused of trying to take the Christ out of Christmas. But no sensible person wants to stop people choosing to mark religious festivals if they wish to. And the truth is, people vote with their feet. Secularism simply gives people the freedom to decide for themselves. And that really is something to celebrate.
So, however you decide to spend the upcoming holidays, take care of yourself and others. And may next year be better than the last.
RE shouldn’t be a vehicle for the Church of England’s interests
A new study of a widely-used set of RE resources illustrates the way powerful groups control the subject to accommodate the evangelical mission of the Church of England, says Chris Selway.
Imagine if the history curriculum in schools was controlled by the Tudors – or the Victorians. The subject would be distorted by the worldview of the powers controlling it. This parallels what is happening to the subject of religious education. RE is being funded and controlled by Christian, usually Church of England aligned, trusts and producer communities – groups who produce resources to shape how their religion is covered.
In my new report (Understanding Christianity and the study of religion and worldviews: How the Church of England has gained control of religious education) I outline how the church and its agents have shifted the subject away from the ideal of a realistic, critically engaged, impartial and pluralistic study of religion and worldviews to fit with their own vision for education.
For most schools, RE has many aims but is primarily about developing a religious literacy that enables pupils to negotiate a religiously plural society. But the Church of England, with its long history of involvement with RE, is keen to pass on its faith to the next generation. Its evangelical mission is not limited to pupils in its own schools.
And sympathetic groups have been able to put their stamp on RE syllabuses in schools across much of the country. As local authorities have slipped from power in education, control of RE has fallen into the hands of producer communities, usually funded by Christian trusts.
The most prolific is RE Today, listed as a trading name for the charity Christian Education Movement. Its team of advisers also provides leadership and sponsorship for the National Association for Teachers of Religious Education (NATRE). RE Today developed the Understanding Christianity resource for the C of E. Members of its team, along with many C of E diocesan advisers, also act as advisers for numerous Standing Advisory Councils on Religious Education (SACREs), which determine RE curricula at a local level.
RE Today produces two model syllabuses that the 150 or so regional SACREs can use under licence with local authority funding. As part of the licencing agreement, the syllabus is not to be reproduced or published openly. So, unlike the National Curriculum, what children are learning in many schools is hidden behind password protected websites. This is highly unusual and conflicts with the interests of parents, school visitors and the general public who have provided the funding.
Its first syllabus – 'Model A' – originally included the note that it was approved for use in C of E voluntary aided schools. The coverage of Christianity has most learning outcomes linked to Biblical passages. In total, about 40 other authorities have adopted this model or one almost identical to it. It means they are, probably unwittingly, legally obliging teachers in many schools to follow a syllabus that was designed to suit the expectations of the small minority of the more evangelical C of E schools.
RE Today's 'Model B' syllabus relies heavily on the 2016 Understanding Christianity resource. This syllabus has now reached almost 20 local authorities. The result is that a great many community schools nationally are now following a syllabus that is deferential to the C of E's expectations for the subject. It is closely mirrored by 'diocesan syllabuses' nationally to ensure that, even if their schools are following a different syllabus, Understanding Christianity is the expected resource for the teaching of Christianity in all of their schools.
Understanding Christianity has clear limitations, and these have always been noted on its dedicated website. Most importantly it is a resource for the teaching of Christianity and not teaching about Christianity. There is no historical framework to help pupils understand the development of Christianity from a small Jewish cult to the diverse range of beliefs and practices that fall under the umbrella term of Christianity in the world today.
It relies on an underpinning notion of 'text-impact-connections', which is deeply flawed. It posits that Christians are primarily motivated by the Bible, this has an impact on them and then pupils should reflect on how that teaching connects with their own lives. The only evidence offered is by way of case studies of unusually devout individuals and groups with no reference to empirical data. There is almost no acknowledgement of the fluid and syncretic nature of Christian belief and practice, whilst mainstream Protestant or Anglican church teachings are generalised as being the accepted norm for Christians.
The resource tends to depict Christian teachings as timeless and uncontroversial, neglecting to consider contradictions and conflicts which would undermine that narrative. It asks leading questions, such as "What did Jesus do to save human beings?". And by emphasising the positive impact of Christianity, it helps to perpetuate the essentialising of religion which academics have identified as a serious weakness in the subject.
In some ways, Understanding Christianity can be a useful tool for teachers. But it is not available for public scrutiny. Access to it is restricted to those schools who have attended a training course, usually run by diocesan advisers. Its approach and the extent of its influence illustrate a wider problem: religious groups and producer communities enjoy too much control over the leadership, financing and teaching of RE.
A balanced study of religion and worldviews, for example, may well show how a communal worldview can enrich and enhance people's lives and benefit society. But it should also show how religions and worldviews can be motivators for harmful practices and how, for many, leaving a religion can be empowering, liberating and life-enhancing. The fact that only a minority of adherents are devout must be acknowledged.
A change of approach may also help to address the lack of credibility around the teaching of religion as it stands. According to YouGov polling, religious education is one of the least valued subjects in our schools. Tackling this requires the complete remodelling of the administration, teaching, resourcing and monitoring of RE, or 'Religion and Worldviews' as suggested by the Commission on Religious Education in 2018.
But it may also be that powerful groups, such as the Church of England and the producer communities, stand in the way of the reform necessary to make that happen. That would beg the question of whether religious education is redeemable in its current form. Perhaps the subject itself needs to be reconsidered. In an increasingly pluralistic and non-religious society, religion could instead form part of a wider study of cultural, political and societal diversity.
Either way, religion should be taught in an objective, critically-informed and pluralistic manner. Education shouldn't be a vehicle for bringing up the next generation of believers.
And in the meantime, if you don't know what your child is being taught in RE lessons it might be worth your while investigating whether they are being taught Christianity or taught about Christianity.
Chris Selway's research is available for download now.
The Catholic Church’s dogma shouldn’t undermine sex education
The local council in the Outer Hebrides has endorsed Catholic Church resources on sex and relationships – with some demanding they're used "exclusively". Neil Barber says this is a misguided decision.
There has been a bit of a stooshie in The Comhairle.
The Comhairle nan Eilean Siar is the local government council for the area of Scotland comprising the Outer Hebrides. It is based in Stornoway on the Isle of Lewis.
At its meeting on 30 November councillors held a debate over the Scottish executive's guidance for local schools on Relationships, Sexual Health and Parenthood. As part of the debate they considered amendments on whether to commend materials from the Scottish Catholic Education Service for use in island schools.
After a debate shrouded in confusion, the council has said it's approved SCES's materials for use. A councillor behind one of the amendments is even unhappy that the council won't commit to using them "exclusively".
Is the Catholic Church really an appropriate body to advise schools on how to teach RHSP?
The usual Catholic dogma of sexual abstinence till heterosexual marriage is cruel and naïve and simply does not recognise the real world facing young people.
Furthermore, its doctrine still insists that homosexual relations are "objectively disordered" and damns gay people unless they submit to spending their whole lives in celibacy. SCES's resources on health and relationships education push "the church's vision" of "marriage as the ultimate expression of love between man and woman" on children from primary school.
What an absurd and inappropriate message for pupils to receive in school and what a charter for bullies! Homophobic bullying is a significant issue in Scotland's schools: in 2018 an LGBT Youth Scotland survey found 71% of LGBT young people experienced bullying in school and 50% experienced suicidal thoughts or behaviours.
Surely religious views on such subjects are a private choice for parents and should, while respecting equality legislation, be the preserve of Sunday schools?
The Catholic Church in England and Wales was recently excoriated by The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse for prioritising its own reputation over the safety of children in its care. We still await the Scottish Child Abuse Inquiry's report into the same issue, but very much doubt there will be a clear tartan line between the two inquiries' findings. Perhaps the church should be hanging its head in shame rather than presuming still to prescribe sexual morality to others.
In trying to put the record straight Malcolm Burr, the chief executive of The Comhairle, has written that there has been "no decision exclusively to use materials provided by Scottish Catholic Education Service". He's said that while use of material from the SCES has been "commended to schools," lesson plan final decisions are "for head teachers and individual teachers, in consultation with their schools' parent councils". He also advises that "SCES materials are already used in some Comhairle schools".
Surely the children of the Outer Hebrides deserve more consistent guidance than they'll get from a gamble on their head teacher's personal religious beliefs?
Failure to provide the facts about safe respectful sex will only facilitate unsafe and unhealthy experimentation, and denying young people information about how to be happily gay does not result in fewer gay people: just fewer happy gay people.
You can also read a letter from Neil Barber to The Scotsman on this topic, published on Friday 11 December.
The 2015 General Election
Sexist state church should be disestablished
Imagine if a colleague of yours, due to his deeply held religious beliefs, refused to follow his manager's instructions because that manager is a woman. What would happen?
In almost all cases this would be unacceptable; places of work which tolerated it would probably find themselves on the wrong side of the law. Although both sex and religion or belief are protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, the law is clear that individuals cannot discriminate against their colleagues just because their religion says they should.
But there still exist niches where such obvious sexism is permitted – and one of those is the established church.
It is quite incredible that in the 21st century, 500 Church of England churches ban female priests. This is thanks partly to religious exemptions in the Equality Act, and partly to the 2014 House of Bishops' Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests issued when the Church finally decided to let women be bishops. The declaration includes the principle that the Church "remains committed to enabling" those who are "unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests" to "flourish".
In other words, men who don't want to suffer the indignity of accepting a woman's authority don't have to and will be continued to be welcomed by the Church with open arms.
Increasing numbers of CofE members find the Church's stance on female clergy abhorrent. The church of St Fimbarrus in the Cornish town of Fowey has recently u-turned on its prohibition of female vicars following a backlash from parishioners. Ironically, Fowey was once home to The Vicar of Dibley star Dawn French.
Growing numbers of parliamentarians are also challenging the Church's sexism. Last month Labour MP Diana Johnson challenged the Church's representative in the House of Commons, Andrew Selous, on this issue.
Selous' response? "The Church of England is fully committed to all orders of ministry being open equally to all without reference to gender. The Church is also committed to ensuring that those who cannot in good conscience receive the ministry of women priests or bishops are able to flourish".
Two mutually exclusive commitments, if ever there were. The Church will not be equally open to clergy of both sexes as long as it allows parishes to reject one of those sexes.
Some may argue that, unlike the Church's homophobic approach to gay marriage, this is a strictly internal affair which only affects female CofE clergy, not the wider public. But the established Church's commitment to helping misogynists within their ranks "flourish" has broader implications. It tacitly implies that there's something so subversive about women with authority that it's reasonable for men to reject them.
While women's rights in the UK have inarguably progressed, women are still underrepresented in positions of power and overrepresented as victims of domestic violence. The UK's gender pay gap stands at nearly 15%. A meagre nine percent of FTSE 100 companies and just under five percent of FTSE 250 companies had female CEOs in 2022. Only 35% of members of the House of Commons and 29% of the Lords are female. According to Refuge, one in four women in England and Wales will experience domestic abuse in her lifetime, two women a week are killed by a current or former partner, and domestic abuse drives three women a week to suicide. Ninety-three percent of defendants in domestic abuse cases are male while 84% of victims are female.
Religious promotion of female subordination upholds and feeds narratives fuelling discrimination and violence against women. Religiously sanctioned notions that women exist to serve men translate into decision making which limits women's opportunities, and into relationships which are coercive, controlling and abusive.
With church attendance rapidly dwindling, supporters of establishment are running out of justifications for the extraordinary privileges granted to the CofE. One often repeated justification is that the Church offers moral leadership with some sort of 'ethical insight' denied to the secular arms of the state.
But a church which prioritises keeping conservative male clergy appeased to the detriment of women who just want equal treatment doesn't seem particularly moral. Rather, it seems to be putting its own interests above those of the nation it claims to serve.
Just as the Church cannot credibly claim commitment to equality while allowing parishes to discriminate against female clergy, it cannot serve the needs of the nation while clinging to outdated dogma which holds back women's rights.
Parliamentarians know this, and they're weaponising the Church's established status against the Church itself. On the issue of female clergy, father of the house Peter Bottomly MP delivered an ultimatum: "The Church Commissioners should understand that either the Church of England gets rid of what ought to have been temporary exemptions from the Equality Act 2010 or Parliament will do that for it".
Perhaps parliamentarians ought to go one further and begin the disestablishment process themselves. After all, do we really want a religion with such an appalling record of homophobia and child abuse, as well as misogyny, as part of the architecture of our constitution?
The dignified and principled thing would be for the Church to jump before it is pushed: it should initiate disestablishment. That would give it the theological independence it craves while clearing our 21st democracy of the aberration of a state religion.
Now that would be serving the needs of the nation.
Image: gazlast92, Shutterstock
NSS welcomes council decision to replace prayers at meetings
The National Secular Society has welcomed a council's decision to replace prayers at meetings with a 'moment of contemplation'.
Chair of Newark and Sherwood District Council Cllr Celia Brooks told a full council meeting on July 18th (pictured) that the council is a "new, progressive model" and councillors "will now be asked to spend a moment before the full council meetings in contemplation of the business of the meeting, or other matters from the wider community which may impact on our residents".
She added: "It is felt that this being a replacement for pre-meeting prayers demonstrates the way in which the council wishes to work to be inclusive of, and truly representative of, all our communities".
She then asked for councillors to stand and offer silent "thoughts or prayers" for those affected by the recent murders in Nottingham.
Conservative councillor Rhonda Holloway, who opposed the change, said she read the "usual prayer" before heading to the civic suite for the full council meeting.
The decision to replace the prayers comes after the Conservative Party lost their majority after the May local elections.
Several local authorities in England begin their meetings with prayer as part of their official business, although others recognise that the practice is inappropriate. Last year, Isle of Wight Council and Congleton Town Council decided to end prayers opening meetings.
The NSS campaigns for inclusive local democracy and opposes the imposition of acts of worship in council meetings.
Welcoming Newark and Sherwood District Council's decision, NSS head of campaigns Megan Manson said: "This is an excellent move by the council, which will make meetings far more inclusive of residents of all faiths and beliefs.
"Everyone can participate equally in a moment of reflection – and, as we're already seeing, councillors who do wish to pray can still do so before they enter the meeting.
"We encourage all other local councils to follow Newark and Sherwood District Council's progressive example."
Faith schools repeatedly refuse to teach about same sex relationships
Three independent faith schools are refusing to teach about same sex relationships despite previous criticisms from inspectors.
According to Ofsted reports published this month, three Jewish faith schools in London have failed to meet independent school standards because they do not teach the required content in relationships and sex education (RSE).
Leaders at Beis Trana Girls' School told Ofsted they "do not intend to teach pupils about the legal rights and responsibilities" regarding equality.
Although statutory guidance for the RSE curriculum mandates teaching about the protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010 - including sexual orientation and religion and belief -. orthodox Jewish faith schools frequently refuse to teach about protected characteristics due to religious objections to same sex relationships.
Pupils at Beis Trana are not "taught about all the ways that people can be different" and how these differences are protected by law. Ofsted said that as a result of the school's approach, pupils "were not being prepared for life in modern Britain".
This latest inspection at Beis Trana follows a full inspection in 2022, which rated the school "inadequate". The 2022 inspection noted secondary school age pupils "are not taught about the different types of relationships that people may have and the legal rights of those with protected characteristics".
Beis Trana has not received a rating above "requires improvement" since 2014.
Meanwhile, Ofsted found that leaders at Shiras Devorah High School continue to omit "any encouragement of respect for other people" with particular regard to the protected characteristics of "sexual orientation, civil partnership or gender reassignment".
The school's leadership did not explain how they intend "to encourage pupils to respect others". No changes have been made to the RSE curriculum since the school's previous inspection in 2019, when it was found to "not permit reference to all of the protected characteristics" set out in the Equality Act.
At both Beis Trana and Shiras Devorah, school leaders told Ofsted inspectors not to speak to pupils about relationships and sex education. They also confirmed their refusal to teach about sexual orientation and other protected characteristics was due to their faith ethos and parents' wishes.
In another report, Ofsted said leaders at Bnei Zion Community School were "still not providing pupils with an understanding of differences in modern British society", including the protected characteristics. Bnei Zion has been judged to be 'inadequate' since 2016, when Ofsted similarly found pupils were "not given opportunities to learn about people of other faiths or those of none, or about different lifestyles and values".
Although new plans had been drawn up for personal, social, health and economic (PSHE) education, they did not "accurately reflect what is taught", or include "what pupils need to know" and what they should be taught about "other religions, faiths, beliefs and cultures".
The school also prevented inspectors from asking pupils anything about "sex, sexual orientation, civil partnership or gender reassignment".
Ofsted said the school is continuing to breach its registration agreement by admitting 172 pupils between the ages of three and 11. The school is registered to admit up to 200 pupils between the ages of three and five only.
NSS: 'Disregard for RSE shows contempt for the law'
Jack Rivington, campaigns officer at the National Secular Society, said: "Ofsted has repeatedly found Beis Trana, Shiras Devorah, and Bnei Zion refusing to teach about different kinds of people and relationships due to religious concerns.
"As well as failing to fully prepare students for life in Britain, this repeated flagrant disregard for legal requirements show contempt for Ofsted and the independent school standards.
"For a school to openly admit it has no intention of following the regulations is unacceptable. Ofsted must be sufficiently empowered to deal with schools that flout the law in this way, whatever their religious ethos".
From Barbie to blasphemy: how religion muzzles free speech
This week, religious groups have found ways to be offended by both of the summer's biggest blockbusters. In Pakistan the Punjab censor board, widely believed to be in thrall to religious fanatics, has delayed the release of Barbie over "objectional content".
And in India, Hindu nationalists have called for a boycott of Oppenheimer, which features a reading from the Hindu scripture Bhagavad Gita during a sex scene. Cillian Murphy and Florence Pugh's lovemaking has been branded "a direct assault on religious beliefs" and a "conspiracy by anti-Hindu forces".
Petty grievances like these may appear inconsequential but they are the thin end of the wedge: they lay the turf for the growing global backlash against so-called blasphemy.
Earlier this month, the UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution banning the burning of religious texts. The resolution, backed by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, came in response to an Iraqi refugee burning a Quran outside a mosque in Stockholm. Muslim protestors in Iraq made their dissatisfaction known by storming the Swedish embassy and, seemingly without irony, burning Swedish and LGBT pride flags.
Book burning is an unedifying spectacle – better to combat an idea with reasoned critique than destruction – but freedom of expression ceases to be meaningful if it only protects those acts we agree with.
And by accepting the physical sanctity of a religious text, we begin to accept the sanctity of the dogmas therein, many of which fly in the face of liberal values and are contemptuous of human rights.
It would be a mistake to think this is a far-flung issue. Blasphemy laws, both official and de facto, are alive and well here in the UK. Earlier this year, a 14 year-old autistic pupil in Yorkshire received death threats after a Quran he brought into school was dropped and scuffed. With local councillors and imams baying for blood, the student was suspended and issued with a non-crime hate incident by the police.
And in a chilling echo of the beheading of Samuel Paty, a teacher at Batley Grammar School was driven into hiding after he showed students a caricature of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The school prostrated itself before protestors, offering a "sincere and full apology" for the "great offence" caused.
When we as a society cede ground on seemingly less important issues – take, for example, allowing religious extremists to cancel the film The Lady of Heaven – we lose our appetite for the fights that matter most. To quote the Home Secretary: "Timidity does not make us safer; it weakens us."
We are 'lucky' that in the UK, blasphemy-motivated murders are rare (although they do occur). But we cannot and should not take this for granted. We need only look across the Channel to the attack on Charlie Hebdo to appreciate the blood-stained zeal with which fundamentalists treat blasphemy. Indeed, a newly published Henry Jackson Society report warns anti-blasphemy actions in this country could "inspire intimidation, violence and even mass killings".
So let's stand united for freedom of expression and oppose notions of blasphemy in all its forms.
Image by Anderson Menezes from Pixabay
Report: ‘blasphemy’ backlash could lead to violence
Religious backlash to 'blasphemy' could "inspire intimidation, violence and even mass killings" in the UK, a new report has warned.
The report, published by the Henry Jackson Society, cites recent examples of how extreme anti-blasphemy actions have led to death threats.
These include Kettlethorpe High School, where a student scuffed a Quran, and Batley Grammar School, where a teacher was forced into hiding after showing pupils cartoons of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
It also draws on the 2016 murder of Asad Shah in Glasgow by an Islamist extremist who sought to defend the "honour" of Muhammad.
Shah was a member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, which believes that Muhammad was not the final prophet. This belief is considered blasphemous by many Muslims and in Pakistan it is a criminal offence for Ahmadis to refer to themselves as Muslims.
The report says a Pakistan-based religious movement known as Khatme Nubuwaat, which advocates capital punishment for Ahmadis, has been linked to extreme anti-blasphemy actions in the UK.
Extreme anti-blasphemy action deserves the same attention as "the likes of Al-Qaida and Isis", the report says, noting the 2015 attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine and the 2020 murder of Samuel Paty in France as examples of the most extreme outcomes.
It also remarks on a "subculture of competition" between certain Islamic sects to demonstrate the most zealous defence against perceived insults to Muhammad.
The report recommends an interdepartmental task force be set up to investigate anti-blasphemy actions at schools; local councillors receive dedicated training to respond to anti-blasphemy actions; and the Department for Education issue robust public statements that prioritise upholding free speech in response to anti-blasphemy actions.
It comes in the wake of the UN Human Rights Council passing a resolution to ban the burning of religious texts including the Koran.
Blasphemy laws have been repealed in England, Scotland and Wales but remain on the statute book in Northern Ireland.
NSS: "Concrete steps" needed to support schools and other institutions
NSS campaigns officer Alejandro Sanchez said: "This report lays bare the dangers associated with de facto blasphemy laws in the UK.
"Free speech is a fundamental human right which must not be undermined by fears of violence.
"The government must now take concrete steps to better support schools and other institutions accused of offending religious sensibilities."
Image: London/United Kingdom - October 30 2020: Muslim protesters stage an anti France demonstration outside French embassy in London. I T S, Shutterstock.
New religious charity promotes ‘witch hunting’ sermon
The National Secular Society has expressed concerns about a newly registered Christian charity which promoted a sermon on 'witch hunting'.
Mountain Of Fire And Miracles Ministries Belfast, which registered with the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland last month, shared details about a sermon on "five kinds of witches or familiar spirits" on its Facebook page in April (pictured).
The sermon, available on YouTube, was delivered by pastor Daniel Kolawole Olukoya, who founded Mountain of Fire And Miracles (MFM) Ministries in Nigeria.
The National Secular Society has warned promoting these ideas could lead to the 'spiritual abuse' of children and vulnerable adults accused of being witches.
Pastor says people may be "unconscious" witches, 'exorcises' them
In the sermon, thought to be held in Nigeria, Olukoya says people can become witches if their parents are witches, or by being "initiated" by witches without their knowledge by sharing food with them.
Olukoya appears to 'exorcise' the audience by telling them to "receive your deliverance in the name of Jesus".
He then tells a story of a pastor who was "unconsciously initiated" because "his dad was a wizard", and was attacked by demons. He says: "I am praying for anyone here suffering from unconscious initiation to be set free by the power and the blood of Jesus" before 'exorcising' them again.
The National FGM Centre, which aims to protect children from abuse linked to faith or belief, has identified belief in "witchcraft and spirit possession" as a motive for abuse.
Figures suggest thousands of children in the UK are victims of abuse linked to witchcraft beliefs.
Some children have died through witchcraft abuse. They include Victoria Climbie, who was tortured to death in 2000 at the age of eight by her great aunt and her partner in London after a Christian preacher convinced them Victoria was possessed.
And in 2015, eight-year-old Ayesha Ali was killed by her mother and partner in London after being accused of being a witch.
Church criticised for role in witch-hunts and 'conversion therapy'
Mountain Of Fire And Miracles Ministries has been criticised by Nigerian human rights advocate Leo Igwe for promoting witch-hunting through its international network of churches. In Nigeria and other parts of west Africa, mob violence and persecution based on witch accusations are frequent. Last month a man was arrested in Nigeria's Bauchi State after he poured kerosene on a girl and set her on fire after accusing her of witchcraft.
MFM has also been criticised for practising 'gay conversion therapy' in the UK. In 2017 an investigation found a Liverpool branch of Mountain of Fire and Miracles offered 'gay cure' sessions involving intense prayer and starvation.
In another Facebook post last year, MFM Minstries Belfast's pastor Raphael Olushola Peters lists "homosexual relations" alongside "offering children as sacrifices" and "sexual relations with animals" as "abominable things" which "lead to diseases, deformity and death" and "disrupt family life and society".
MFM Ministries Belfast is registered under the charitable purpose of "the advancement of religion".
Northern Ireland Charity Commission guidance says charities' purposes "must be beneficial, not harmful". But the Commission has previously refused to penalise an NI charity promoting a form of "change orientated therapy" for gay people, despite evidence that 'conversion therapy' can be extremely harmful.
MFM Ministries Belfast says the "direct benefits" of the charity are "Religious worship to members and the public providing emotional upliftment". It says: "We do not foresee any harm from our activities".
In 2019 the Charity Commission for England and Wales appointed an interim manager to MFM Ministries International due to financial and administration concerns.
NSS: Witch-hunting ideology "can lead to extreme harm"
NSS campaigns officer Alejandro Sanchez said: "This charity is registered under 'the advancement of religion'. But the type of religion advanced through this sermon is clearly not in the public interest.
"Charities are meant to benefit the public. But promoting the idea that some people can be 'witches' possessed by evil spirits can lead to extreme harm to children and vulnerable adults.
"If 'the advancement of religion' enables charities to promote the superstitions fuelling witchcraft abuse, this charitable purpose must be urgently reviewed. No charity, religious or not, should be allowed to promote ideology which fuels child abuse."
Taxpayers shouldn't be burdened with propping up the Church
Faced with dwindling congregations, the Church of England is looking for ways to fund the growing repair bill of its aging buildings. Could your taxes be the answer?
Quite possibly, yes. Because the Church has successfully lobbied the government to allow more money to flow from cash-strapped local authorities to places of worship.
Using her seat in the House of Lords to further the Church's interests, the bishop of Bristol Vivienne Faull argued that legal uncertainly was preventing parish and town councils from funding church repairs.
The uncertainty stems from two conflicting bits of legislation – the Parish Councils Act 1894, which says that funds cannot be given to churches, and the Local Government Act 1972, which says that they can.
Now, faith and communities minister Baroness Scott has added an amendment to the Levelling Up Bill which will abolish a clause in the 1894 act to make clear that local authorities can fund churches and other places of worship.
Many churches hold historical and architectural significance. Few would want to see them fall into a state of disrepair. But who should foot the bill for their maintenance? Before any public money is spent, questions need to be asked about whether the organisation responsible for their upkeep has the means to do so.
England's 16,000 Anglican places of worship are the responsibility of the Church of England. The CofE is one of the largest private landowners in the UK and sits on £10.3 billion investment fund. Its assets were estimated in 2016 at £23 billion, since when the fund has grown by £3.6 billion.
Speaking in the House of Lords, Lib Dem peer Paul Scriven argued that if any of the Acts should be withdrawn, it should be the 1972 Act, not the 1894 Act. When it comes to maintaining religious buildings "the first port of call should be the reserves which the Church of England holds", he argued.
This view was echoed by Baroness Lorely Burt, who suggested more state subsidies would be an "inappropriate use of taxpayers' money" given the "extreme wealth" of the Church of England.
Despite its significant wealth, the CofE frequently pleads poverty. Due its fragmented financial and organisational structure, the Church can hide its money in plain sight, leaving many parishes in dire financial difficulty and struggling to afford repairs.
But the CofE can certainly find money when it wants to. Between 2017 and 2020, £248 million was allocated to evangelism as part of the Church's (so far unsuccessful) efforts to attract new worshippers. This has included splashing the cash on 'planting' new churches, hiring 'social media pastors', converting a nightclub in Bradford into a church with a gym to attract students, and recruiting children and young people's 'mission enablers' to "bring Christ to young people".
This year it also announced a £100m fund to make reparations for its slave trade links. And in a bid to tempt couples back to church weddings (which fell by half between 1999 and 2019) the Church has just voted to trial dropping its £500 fee for weddings. So, while lobbying for easier access to public funds for church buildings, the church is turning its back on a reliable source of income.
Churches, like any other organisation, should be responsible for their financial sustainability.
The Church of England received £750 million of public money between 2016 and 2021. This level of reliance on government funding risks creating dependency and discouraging financial accountability.
Britain is no longer a majority Christian nation. Fewer that 1% of the English population attend Anglican services on the average Sunday. With emptying pews and ageing congregations, the Church needs to face up to reality and downsize to survive. Until it learns this lesson, taxpayers shouldn't be further burdened with propping up an ailing yet wealthy religious institution.
As well as the practical reasons for resisting state grants to religion, there is also an important one of principle. Taxpayers at odds with the Church's doctrine and those it discriminates against, such as same sex couples who aren't even permitted to marry in their churches, may well have reasonable objections to their money funding a religion they reject. Providing financial support to religious institutions blurs the lines between the government and religions and undermines the state's commitment to treating all citizens equally.
So, when local churches come knocking for local authority grants, councils should remind them of the Church's wealth and refer them back to their powers above.
Image: UKgeofan at English Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0
Religious selection in schools challenged in parliament
Parliamentarians have spoken out against state schools which religiously discriminate against children in their admissions.
Baroness Lorely Burt today asked education minister Baroness Diana Barran if she agreed that "all children – irrespective of faith and belief background – should have equal right to access schools" funded by taxpayers' money.
Faith schools in England have exemptions from the Equality Act 2010, which enable them to prioritise children from families who share their faith if they are oversubscribed.
This can include requiring parents and children to regularly attend a local place of worship or provide evidence of baptism.
Many parents find that because they belong to no religion or a minority religion, they are unable to send their children to their local school.
Lorely Burt: "in agreement" with UN
Burt told peers that children of nonreligious families experience "double discrimination", because approximately 40% of all faith schools and 60% of Catholic schools give priority to children of families of any religion against those of no religion.
She said she is "in agreement" with the UN Commission on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which last month criticised the UK over discrimination in faith schools.
The CRC urged the UK to prevent "the use of religion as a selection criterion for school admissions in England" to "guarantee the right of all children to freedom of expression and to practise freely their religion or belief".
Other peers opposed to religious selection pointed out that only three other OECD countries – Ireland, Israel, and Estonia – allow state funded schools to practice faith selection.
They also highlighted that disadvantaged pupils are under-represented at faith schools, while those with high prior attainment are over-represented.
Baron Kenneth Baker said he did not know of any Church of England schools which practice faith selection Former archbishop of Canterbury, who became a temporal peer after retiring from the bishops' bench, also said the Church of England is "tolerant of other faiths".
But a quarter of Church of England state secondary schools prioritise children from different faiths over children from non-religious families. One in four dioceses surveyed advise local CofE schools to reserve some places on faith grounds.
Speaking on behalf of the government, Barran said the UK is a "proud signatory of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child", but the government "supports faith schools' ability to set faith-based oversubscription criteria."
NSS: Faith-based selection "goes against our basic values"
The National Secular Society, which has long campaigned for the equality law exemptions for faith schools to be repealed, briefed peers ahead of today's debate.
NSS head of campaigns Megan Manson said: "This debate should be a wake-up call to the injustice of inexcusable religious discrimination in our school system.
"Allowing state-funded schools to select children based on their family's religion goes against our basic values: equality, inclusion, fairness, and freedom of religion or belief.
"Our government must cease enabling religious institutions to foster this discrimination and segregation within our schools. It's time for faith-based school admissions to end."
This month the NSS also met with the Department for Education to echo the CRC's concerns.
NSS calls for change as RE “least useful” subject again
The National Secular Society has called for a rethink of religious education as polls again reveal the subject's unpopularity.
A poll last month revealed religious education (RE) to be one of the least popular school subjects, with over a quarter (28%) of those surveyed naming RE the least useful subject. Twenty-six per cent said they would remove it from the school curriculum.
In contrast, 88% said more needs to be done to educate children on personal finance. Sixty-three per cent of teachers said managing money should be added to the school curriculum.
The findings, from a survey of 2,000 adults via OnePoll on behalf of Discount for Teachers, are consistent with other recent research on RE. Last year a YouGov poll found 58% of Brits consider it not very important (31%) or not at all important (27%) to teach religious studies at secondary school.
A separate survey last year found 34% of academies in England do not include RE on the school timetable.
RE in England is regularly criticised as out of date and failing to be broad, balanced and inclusive.
It is the only compulsory subject that is locally determined, largely by religious interest groups. It is even less balanced in faith schools, which teach the subject in accordance with the religion of the school.
Some proponents of RE have resisted attempts to make it more balanced, inclusive and relevant by replacing it with a 'religion and worldviews' subject, similar to recent reforms in Wales. Two practitioners recently announced the creation of the 'Religious Education Network', which "rejects the downgrading of religion into just another world-view".
NSS: Replace RE with "more relevant and useful" subject
NSS chief executive Stephen Evans said the latest statistics support the growing concern that RE is "an outdated and unpopular subject area with no clear educational rationale".
He said: "It's no surprise that teachers and the wider public are wondering whether it wouldn't be better to replace RE with a subject which teaches more relevant and useful skills to the next generation.
"There is value in children and young people learning about a plurality of religions and beliefs. But a subject dedicated to religion is not necessary to achieve this.
"Education about the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, moral and political virtues such as civility and tolerance, and respect for human rights including freedom of religion or belief, will nurture greater harmony and social cohesion. These values should be promoted throughout our state schools.
"An outdated model of RE isn't the appropriate vehicle for this."
Image: Dragana Gordic, Shutterstock
UN rights body votes in favour of banning Quran burnings
The National Secular Society has warned a United Nations resolution to ban the burning of religious texts could be detrimental to human rights.
Members of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) today voted in favour of a resolution for the "deliberately and publicly" burning of the Quran or "any other holy book" to be prohibited by law.
The UK voted against the resolution. In a statement yesterday, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office said: "we do not accept that, by definition, attacks on religion, including on religious texts or symbols, constitute advocacy for hatred".
Other states opposed to the motion included France, Germany and the USA, but they were outvoted 28 to 12.
The resolution follows a high profile incident in Sweden last month, when Iraqi refugee Salwan Momika burned a Quran outside a mosque in Stockholm. Momika is an atheist formerly from Iraq's persecuted minority Christian community.
The resolution was introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which has long supported efforts to curtail 'blasphemous' speech.
The OIC is an intergovernmental organisation of 57 states and claims to be the "collective voice of the Muslim world". Although it stopped explicitly campaigning for a global blasphemy law in 2011, it has repeatedly spearheaded attempts to install "backdoor" blasphemy laws. The NSS warned the UN of the OIC's attempts to use 'hate speech' laws to restrict free expression last year.
The resolution passed was amended to include the explicit provision that burning the Quran and other holy books should be banned. The original resolution did not include this statement.
Allegations of Quran desecration are regularly used in Islamic theocracies to persecute members of minority communities. Last year, a 65-year old member of Pakistan's Ahmadi Muslim community was arrested after being accused of destroying an anti-Ahmadi propaganda poster that had verses from the Quran on it, according to the International Human Rights Commission. Ahmadi Muslims face widespread oppression and discrimination at the hands of the Pakistan state.
During the debate on OIC's resolution, the UK's representative to the UN Simon Manley said some members of the OIC have "not shown the same willingness to debate a certain other largescale, and in this case, state-sponsored manifestation of religious intolerance affecting a significant Muslim community."
He added: "In combatting religious intolerance, we must always be mindful that other rights must also be respected.
"The exercise of the right to freedom of expression is not unlimited. But it is something we hold dear, and which can only be limited under very clear, narrowly defined parameters under international human rights law."
UNHRC resolutions are not legally binding, but can be used to pressure states to change their laws.
NSS: OIC "more interested in protecting religion than protecting individuals"
NSS chief executive Stephen Evans said: "Equating the desecration of religious books and symbols with incitement to violence is a pernicious attempt to impose blasphemy laws by stealth. The Islamic nations behind this resolution have long been more interested in protecting religion than protecting individuals.
"Speech and expression must be viewed in context. Crude attempts to impose blanket prohibitions clearly risk capturing and silencing legitimate expression and dissent.
"Democratic societies must find ways to combat intolerance and hatred without further restricting freedom of expression to meet increasing sensitivities of certain religious groups."
