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 endorsement

Complete 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 endorsement

The 2017 General Election

Anglican gay sex debate is a reminder of the need for secularism

The Church of England's position on same-sex relationships should set the wheels of disestablishment in motion, says Stephen Evans.

The archbishop of Canterbury's affirmation of his church's official rejection of gay sex and same-sex marriage this week has caused much consternation. Those upset and dismayed by the move include many Anglicans who recognise the suffering this regressive position has inflicted upon gay people around the world.

The issue of homosexuality is a source of deep and bitter divisions within the Church of England. The divisions within the wider Anglican Communion are even greater. Some national Anglican churches have taken steps toward approving same-sex relationships, while others remain sharply opposed. Ninety Anglican bishops this week issued a statement seeking to affirm and celebrate LGBT+ people. Meanwhile, Ghanaian bishops have backed a proposed law that would lengthen jail terms for gay and trans people and force some to undergo so-called 'conversion therapy'.

Here, the CofE doesn't permit same-sex marriage and does not officially bless same-sex civil marriages. Gay clergy are permitted to be in relationships, so long as they remain celibate. A cruel expectation that can only fuel loneliness, longing and, presumably, some lying.

The Anglican theological position on LGBT issues is really a matter for Anglicans. But due to the CofE's established status, its clergy have a specific legal duty to marry parishioners. So when the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act was introduced, the Church lobbied for a 'quadruple lock' to ensure the duty did not extend to same-sex couples. It also protected the Church of England's Canon law, which says marriage is the union of one man with one woman.

The CofE's position on this, as with abortion and assisted dying, is out of step with British social attitudes and sits uncomfortably with its status as the established church.

The Church is entitled to its dogma. But equally, secular-minded citizens should expect this to have no bearing on the affairs of state.

The absence of a separation between church and state means the Church continues to wield incredible constitutional power and is deeply embedded in public life. Its canon law forms part of the law of the land. Parliamentary sittings begin with Anglican prayers. Twenty-six CofE bishops sit as of right in our legislature, shaping laws that affect us all. A quarter of all state funded primary schools and hundreds of secondary schools are run by the CofE. A privilege the Church uses to push its theology in schools and meet its target of doubling the number of "young active disciples" in England by 2030. All very educationally inappropriate.

The privileges enjoyed by the Church run contrary to secularist principles of equality and fairness. They have no place in one of the world's least religious countries. Its established status and privileged position within British political and public life is an absurdity that will only grow starker with time.

The Church tying itself in knots over gay sex and same-sex marriage is a reminder that the time to set the wheels of disestablishment in motion has come.

Such a move would not herald the demise of western civilisation, as some reactionaries might claim. Separation of church and state is a core enlightenment principle, born in the 'age of reason' – a period that brought secular thought to Europe and paved the way for greater liberty, equality, and individual rights. These ideas are the cornerstone of the world's strongest democracies. It's time to for the UK to embrace the concept of secular democracy fully and fearlessly.

Polling suggests such a move would sit well with the British public, a majority of whom think the Church should be separated from the state. Sixty-two per cent agree that religious clerics shouldn't have an automatic right to seats in the House of Lords.

The move would prove popular with some Anglicans too. A new book, 'Beyond Establishment' by Anglican Jonathan Chaplin, argues the CofE itself should voluntarily relinquish its privileges and established status to "free the church to pursue its own mission with greater authenticity." It's an argument we're increasing hearing from Anglicans who value church autonomy and recognise the importance of state impartiality.

Disestablishment need not be a clash between church and state. It could be progressed with the mutual understanding that a formal separation stands to benefit both. Both sides can surely recognise that maintaining a minority established church in a religiously pluralistic and largely secularised nation is unsustainable.

For that to happen, parliamentarians must be bold enough to disentangle the country from its mediaeval past. And the Anglican hierarchy must be prepared to relinquish the political power and prestige that establishment brings. Secular minded citizens of all faiths and none should unite in encouraging them to do so.

Image: fourthandfifteen, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Freedoms that flow from secular democracy need to be defended

The rolling back of reproductive rights in America shows necessity of secularism, says Stephen Evans.

"History is not a linear narrative of progress. Rights may be won and taken away; gains are never complete or uncontested".

These words from American historian Eric Foner will surely resonate with millions of women across the United States right now who have lost their constitutional right to abortion after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade.

The decision means individual states will now be able to legalise or prohibit abortion. Thirteen states have 'trigger laws' on the books, which means abortion will swiftly be outlawed in most cases. The signs are that new abortion bans in many states will be more restrictive than those from the pre-Roe era.

In America and elsewhere around the world, opposition to women's reproductive autonomy is largely driven by Christian theology – the religious idea that all human life is made in the image of God and begins at conception. Prohibitions and severe restrictions on women's access to abortion are the enshrinement of that theological viewpoint into law.

Christian conservative activists may rejoice at their recent Supreme Court victory, but abortion bans do little to reduce the number of abortions. Severe restrictions on access to abortion compel women to either seek out unsafe abortions – which can have fatal consequences – or carry a pregnancy to term against their will. Both are truly chilling prospects.

In her 1993 confirmation hearing to join the Supreme Court, the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg told the Senate Judiciary Committee: "The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman's life, to her well-being and dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself. When Government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices."

Criminalising abortion also fuels stigma against women and girls. Unsurprisingly, women denied abortions are more likely to experience anxiety and loss of self-esteem. Early nineteenth century pioneers of birth control also recognised the role of reproductive freedom in liberating women from crippling poverty. The same is true today.

These real-world implications of abortion bans demonstrate what secularism really means to ordinary people's everyday lives. The undermining of American secularism is going to hit women hard, particularly the most vulnerable.

But as Katherine Stewart explained in a piece for The Guardian, the dismantling of America's wall of separation between church and state is all part of a long-term Christian nationalist agenda to impose a certain moral and religious vision on the population at large. Millions of dollars have been ploughed into capturing the courts and promoting a warped interpretation of "religious freedom" that entails privileging Christian nationalists' religious ideology at all other citizens' expense.

An obvious question is could it happen here?

Speaking in parliament following the US decision overturning the right to abortion, Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab said the right to abortion in the UK is "settled".

Obviously, a government minister saying something doesn't make it so. Besides, the Supreme Court judges who reversed Roe v Wade made similar noises during their confirmation hearings. But the UK is not the USA, and Britain's secular outlook means the ground is far less fertile for the Christian Right.

In many ways, reproductive rights here are heading in a positive direction. Abortion was decriminalised in Northern Ireland in 2019. Early medical abortion at home has recently been made more freely available. And the Scottish Government is committed to legislating for buffer zones around abortion clinics so women can access services free from harassment and intimidation.

But all of this remains contested. A few Christian parliamentarians appear keen for the Supreme Court ruling to open up the debate. US Christian Right groups have spent at least $280m fuelling campaigns against the rights of women and LGBT people across five continents, including Europe. In Poland, where church and state grow ever closer, an activist is facing three years in prison for sending abortion pills to a twelve-week pregnant woman and victim of domestic abuse during lockdown. Last week, Open Democracy revealed that a UK anti-abortion group that wants to replicate America's backlash against reproductive rights has placed more than a dozen interns in MPs' offices since 2010.

There is no room for complacency.

Another brick in America's crumbling wall of separation that fell recently was the Supreme Court's Kennedy v. Bremerton School District ruling which paves the way for prayer and the promotion of religion in public schools. As the dissenting opinion of Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, the decision sets the US "further down a perilous path in forcing states to entangle themselves with religion".

On this issue, the UK leads the way in bad practice. State funded faith schools and laws requiring all schools to hold acts of worship mean parents' and students' freedom of religion or belief is routinely undermined. On the very day the UK government hosted a major ministerial conference on promoting freedom of religion or belief, the High Court in Belfast ruled that the application of these laws in Northern Ireland breaches human rights. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has repeatedly called on the UK to repeal legal provisions for compulsory worship.

These transgressions persist, not because of strong public support, but through political inertia and an unwillingness to prioritise pupils' interests over the churches.

And it's not only in education where the privileging of religion frustrates the reforms necessary to protect freedom of religion or belief or respect personal conscience.

As with abortion rights, opposition to the right to choose an assisted death is largely driven by sanctity of life viewpoints. Religious doctrine is rarely offered as justification for anti-choice positions, but often lurks beneath the surface.

Yet the growing secularity of the UK population almost desensitises us to the need for secularism. Such complacency risks hard-won equality and human rights wins going backwards.

Despite growing irreligiosity and religious indifference, religion remains a political force. UK conservative Christian lobby groups are well-funded and active across a wide range of policy issues. The Church of England's established status affords it significant influence over policymaking, extending not only to policy change, but also defending the status quo.

The lesson from America is take nothing for granted. The erosion of church and state separation is about to wreak havoc on the lives of ordinary Americans. Secularism has an important role to play in underscoring human rights and ensuring they are applied fairly. British citizens who value the choices and freedoms that flow from a secular society should be prepared to defend it.

Obituary: Former NSS president Terry Sanderson

An obituary to Terry Sanderson, who died on June 12^th 2022, by his civil partner Keith Porteous Wood.

I regret to inform you of Terry's death, at the age of 75. He died peacefully and, as he wished, at the home we have shared so happily for forty years. He bore his illness with characteristic fortitude and dignity.

Terry was born in Maltby, a poor working class mining village in South Yorkshire. His loving family were entirely supportive of him as a gay man (which they first discovered from the local newspaper), and – later – of us as partners.

His rich and varied life was devoted to serving others and fighting injustice. Almost his entire working life was spent helping adults with learning difficulties, or campaigning for gay rights and secularism, our dual passions.

Not long after homosexuality was decriminalised, he bravely set up a mail order book business, called Essentially Gay, from his tiny bedroom in the very macho Maltby to help those who were isolated and unable to obtain information and support. He even imported books from the US, which despite being entirely innocent, were frequently impounded by cruelly homophobic custom officials on both sides of the Atlantic.

His talents as an incisive and provocative writer and journalist were put to so many uses in the service of gay rights and secularism. Some of his books are shown here but over the decades he wrote many more, especially gay self-help books, which ran into numerous editions. Hardly a month went by without readers of these books thanking him movingly for having transformed their lives.

He made his monthly Mediawatch columns in Gay Times, a campaigning platform to challenge the inhumane treatment of gay people in the media, which he continued uninterrupted for a quarter of a century – necessitating him reading every newspaper. This was reinforced by his frequent complaints to, and fierce battles with, media regulators. It all helped to create the hugely more compassionate coverage we enjoy in this country today. These hundreds of columns have become social history and are also the subject of a book. They are being curated by the Queer Britain museum and are searchable here.

Terry played a leading role for nearly 25 years in developing the National Secular Society, and was its president for 11 years. His skills as a journalist and writer were put to good use compiling articles, news releases and the popular weekly NSS Newsline, which he founded.

But there was another, delightful, side of Terry; he was popular, well-liked, and had a wide circle of friends. And he was humble; he never sought out praise or recognition.

He loved music and was a devotee of Marlene Dietrich and had a wicked sense of humour. He wrote humorous books and even plays. He was always searching for outstanding historic cinema clips. The best of each year's crop were screened every Christmas in a popular benefit show for the Cinema Museum.

Terry declared at the end of April on Facebook that he was placing himself "in the hands of the angels, i.e. the Macmillan nurses." Macmillan Cancer Support, Marie Curie and paramedics have indeed provided selfless care of the highest order, as have the palliative care specialist nurses associated with the Meadow House Hospice (which also provides care in the community) in Ealing, west London. We cannot thank them enough. We are similarly grateful for the wonderful care and world-class treatment Terry received at the Charing Cross Hospital, Hammersmith, west London.

Terry updated his autobiography to include references to his experience with cancer. Disclosing his terminal illness provoked a flood of touching tributes. Most people do not live to hear their eulogies; but he (and I) have drawn great comfort from them. Two are shown below:

___

From Human Rights activist Peter Tatchell:

I am so sad to hear about your diagnosis. My thoughts are with you at this difficult time.

I want you to know how much I admire and appreciate the magnificent contribution you have made over so many decades, from Gay Times Media Watch monthly column for 25 years to How To be A Happy Homosexual, your superb work that transformed the National Secular Society into such an effective and influential organisation - and much more.

After you are gone, your legacy will remain.

We are much indebted to you - and Keith.

Your personal and human rights partnership of nearly five decades has been inspirational.

I am so proud to have known you both and your amazing efforts for LGBT+ and other human rights.

You will be remembered always with love and affection.

___

From Sir Ian McKellen:

25 years ago when I was discovering the delights of coming out, Terry's journalism and books were an eye-opener – always rational and indignant, effortlessly on the high moral ground. I hope he is proud of his influence on the legal and social changes which his reporting encouraged.

All the best and more, as the days go by.

___

Thank you to everyone else who sent us tributes for your kind words.

As Terry concluded his final Facebook post:

"Goodbye – and try to be kind to each other."

Terence Arthur Sanderson

17 November 1946, Maltby, S. Yorkshire

– 12 June 2022, London

You may wish to contribute in Terry's memory to Cancer Research, Macmillan Cancer Support, Marie Curie, LNWH Charity – Meadow House Hospice and/or Charing Cross Hospital.

Britain’s de facto blasphemy law strikes again

Pandering to fundamentalism is not the way to a more open, tolerant and peaceful society, argues Stephen Evans.

With cinemas pulling the plug on a 'blasphemous' new film, the ugly spectre of religious censorship has again returned to the UK. Citing 'security concerns', cinema chains have cancelled screenings of The Lady of Heaven, a historical drama concerning the life of Lady Fatima, the daughter of the prophet Muhammad.

Cinemas acted in response to a series of protests in Birmingham, Bolton, Bradford and Sheffield by groups of Muslim fundamentalists who insisted the film should not be shown.

The pattern of events is depressingly familiar. Something subjectively deemed 'offensive' is published; so called 'community leaders' whip up outrage; angry mobs descend; then, as sure and night follows day, the 'sinners' repent, buckle under the pressure and self-censor in the hope of a quiet life – or perhaps just life, full stop.

Ever since the "Rushdie affair" in 1989 when the late Ayatollah Khomeini, then the supreme leader of Iran, issued a religious decree or 'fatwa' condemning Salman Rushdie to death for writing a book he'd never even read, we've seen countless attempts to shut down expressions that people find offensive.

British Muslims who protested Rushdie's novel, The Satanic Verses, were outraged that their deepest beliefs had been offended and demanded censorship.

Blasphemy laws were still on the statute books in England at the time, but they were widely regarded as dead letter laws. And besides, they only covered the tenets and beliefs of the Church of England.

The events were a low point for community relations in Britain. The Blair government reacted by bringing forward legislation to criminalise "incitement to religious hatred". The new law was described by Salman Rushdie at the time as "a cynical vote-getting attempt to placate British Muslim spokesmen, in whose eyes just about any critique of Islam is offensive."

Secularists and other free speech campaigners warned that the proposed law would dramatically hinder free speech. The bill passed, but only after a vital free speech amendment was secured, by 288 to 278 votes, which protected "discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult, or abuse of particular religions, or the beliefs or practices of its adherents."

Nevertheless, the Rushdie Affair and the subsequent government pandering to religious leaders ushered in a new era of identity politics, giving rise to a growing culture of offence whereby people feel they have a right not to be offended.

It also marked the start of a new kind of blasphemy code, imposed not by law but by intimidation and the threat of violence.

Early examples of this include theatres cancelling performances of Jerry Springer: The Opera after an extremist Christian advocacy group threatened to picket them.

Soon after, Birmingham's Repertory Theatre prematurely ended the run of Behzti (Dishonour), a play that depicted murder and rape in a Sikh temple, after violent protests by Sikhs. The leader of the local gurdwara reasoned: "Free speech can go so far. Maybe 5,000 people would have seen this play over the run. Are you going to upset 600,000 Sikhs in Britain and maybe 20 million outside the UK for that?"

The theatre's executive director admitted that the play's closure amounted to censorship, but said he had a "duty of care to staff and audiences".

Then came the pulling of The Jewel of Medina, a historical novel by Sherry Jones that recounts the life of Aisha, one of Muhammad's wives, from the age of six.

The book was all set for publication by Random House when it was abruptly cancelled due to concerns about possibly "inflammatory content".

British publishing house Gibson Square stepped up and decided to publish the book instead, with its founder Martin Rynja calling for "open access to literary works, regardless of fear". Three days later his London home was firebombed. The book was pulled. The Jewel of Medina has never been published in the UK.

A similar picture was emerging across Europe. In November 2004, the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was killed on a busy street in Amsterdam. Murdered because of a documentary he made with ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali, which criticised the treatment of women in Islam. His assailant, a Dutch-Moroccan Islamist, objected to the film's message.

Then came the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 editorial cartoons most of which depicted Muhammad, in an attempt to "contribute to the debate about criticism of Islam and self-censorship". Muslim groups in Denmark objected, and the issue eventually led to protests around the world, including violent demonstrations and riots.

Not long after, Islamist extremists stormed the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo, which had published Muhammad cartoons, brutally killing 12 people and injuring 11 others.

The list goes on.

Back to the UK, and this week's events are reminiscent of last year's Batley affair. Then, Muslim protestors gathered outside school gates objecting to the use of teaching resources about free speech which featuring images of Muhammad. A teacher was forced into hiding fearing for his life, and the school capitulated. The fears were understandable. The previous year a teacher in France, Samuel Paty, was stabbed and beheaded by an Islamist militant for having shown cartoons of Muhammad in a class on freedom of expression.

It's easy to condemn those who succumb to the mob, but who in their position can say hand on heart that they would stand up the bullying and intimidation, when the repercussions have the potential to seriously harm those they have a duty to protect?

Even The Freethinker, one of the world's oldest surviving freethought publications, has said it will no longer publish Jesus and Mo cartoons because it has "no faith in the ability or willingness of the UK authorities to ensure that our right to freedom of speech is defended against extremists."

Outside one of the cinemas targeted this week, Islamist rent-a-mob ringleader Shakeel Afsar (who also popped up in Batley and led anti LGBT inclusivity protests outside a school in Birmingham) said:

"The city of Birmingham will not tolerate the disrespect of our prophet (pbuh) and there will be outcomes from your actions. You will have repercussions for your actions. We have been trained from birth that we must defend the honour of our prophet and we will lay our life on the line."

There is no right not to be offended and blasphemy isn't a crime. But there are laws that ban incitement to violence. Anyone doing so should be held accountable. There is a limit to free speech. And this is where the line should be drawn.

It's lamentable that in modern Britain a handful of religious fundamentalists can dictate what people can and cannot watch at the cinema. As Malik Shlibak, executive producer of the film, said: "While I support the right to protest among those opposed to the film, I do not support their aim of censoring what the British public can and can't watch." Shlibak has since received death threats.

Not screening films based on what people subjectively find offensive is incompatible with freedom of expression. If this cornerstone of liberal democracy is to mean anything, it must apply to expressions that offend. And this principle must be robustly defended.

The impact of this pernicious form of censorship goes well beyond the books and films that get cancelled. It extends to all the words that never get written, all the things that never get said, and all the art that never get made, through the act of self-censorship.

Political leaders and civil society need to be much clearer that religion's sacred cows – or any other sincerely held ideologies for that matter – are not beyond discussion, criticism, depiction or mockery.

Pandering to fundamentalism is not the way to a more open, tolerant and peaceful society. Promoting free speech as a positive value is the way. This is a lesson that needs to be learned. And fast.

Should specialist theological colleges receive public funds for higher education?

Specialist theological colleges focused on doctrinal training create inherent conflict with the academic freedom and anti-discrimination requirements of education. Therefore, they should neither receive public funds nor be registered with the Office for Students, argue Chris Higgins and Keith Sharpe.

Most of us are familiar with religious privilege in primary and secondary education, but few are aware of the extent of special religious treatment in higher education (HE). Some of these privileges are historical or ceremonial. Others, including public funding of several specialist theological colleges, raise serious questions about the impartiality of the state and the consistency of HE regulation.

British universities have a reputation for the academic and non-confessional teaching of theology and religious studies. Over the years, various churches have also established specialist theological colleges to train their own ordinands according to their own specific doctrine.

In a secular democracy, religious organisations should be able to undertake theological and doctrinal training of their future clerics, protected from state interference. They should be allowed to preach their values and beliefs, within the law, even if they conflict with values of equality, individual freedom or scholarship held by wider society. But they should do this without state support.

The Higher Education and Research Act (2017) requires HE providers that wish to have direct access to public funds (including student loans) to register with the Office for Students (OfS) and abide by their conditions of registration, which are designed to raise the quality of HE provision and increase access and participation. This presents challenges for theological colleges whose doctrinal beliefs conflict with these standards.

Some theological colleges have chosen not to register with the OfS and to forego the benefits, instead partnering with a university which must then take responsibility for the activities of the college. Other theological colleges have chosen to register with the OfS. The National Secular Society's research has highlighted several conditions of registration with the OfS that a number of theological colleges are finding difficult, if not impossible, to meet.

1. Academic freedom and freedom of speech

The governing documents of some theological colleges include statements such as activities "shall be carried on in strict accordance with the doctrinal basis set out" (Moorlands College) or require staff and students adhere to a statement of faith such as "We believe the Bible, as originally given, to be without error…." (Regents Theological College). Such colleges are not upholding the principle of academic freedom which, as outlined by the OfS, includes the ability "to question and test received wisdom" and "to put forward new ideas and controversial and unpopular opinions". Higher education should stimulate curiosity and new ideas, not support indoctrination. Education that requires adherence to specific doctrinal beliefs is in breach of the terms of registration with the OfS and should not be supported by public funds.

2. Access and participation

Specialist theological colleges do not admit students through UCAS, unlike universities and the majority of HE providers, but through their own internal, often non-transparent processes.

Although the Equality Act (2010) permits theological colleges to discriminate on grounds of religion or belief when admitting divinity students training for ordination, the Act makes no exception for discrimination on grounds of sex or sexual orientation, or on grounds of religion when admitting students studying courses other than divinity. Yet some theological colleges have doctrinal beliefs which discriminate against LGBT+ students. For example, Moorlands College's code of conduct for students forbids same-sex relationships, effectively excluding gay students. Other colleges with restrictive doctrinal beliefs run courses in business (Christ the Redeemer) or performing arts (Regents Theological College).

Discrimination in admissions, whether direct or indirect, is in direct conflict with OfS conditions requiring transparent and fair admissions and should preclude such colleges from receiving public funds.

3. Governing bodies

Many theological colleges appoint their governing bodies not on a skills basis but by virtue of individuals' membership of, or leadership position in, a church or group of churches. One college's governors are "appointed by strict spiritual guidelines and biblical qualities that mirror Christ like attributes". The appointment of governors because of their leadership position in the church to which they owe their primary loyalty creates an unavoidable conflict of interest, particularly in cases where the church owns and operates the college. Governing bodies appointed in this manner are also inconsistent with the Nolan Principles of Public Life, which must be adhered to by all organisations in receipt of public funds.

4. Value for money

In England, universities are exempt charities whereas specialist theological colleges are registered charities. The principal financial regulator of registered charities is the Charity Commission, which has different priorities. As a result, these theological colleges avoid the rigorous scrutiny of public funds designated for educational purposes which is undertaken by the Department of Education or OfS for other publicly-funded education providers. The OfS is also unable to fulfil its prescribed role of ensuring value for money for students and the taxpayer. Of particular concern is the fact that some theological colleges (e.g. Christ the Redeemer) are owned and operated by a church or group of churches with no clear separation of church funds from those provided from the public purse for educational purposes.

Over the past six months, the NSS has made formal complaints (known as 'third-party notifications') to the OfS regarding three specialist theological colleges: Moorlands College, Christ the Redeemer College London, and Regents College (Elim FourSquare Gospel Alliance). Unfortunately, the OfS is currently less than transparent about their investigations and outcomes. Changes in the recent Post 16 Skills Act (2022) make clear that the OfS can share updates on third-party notifications, its own investigations and responding actions. We trust the OfS response will soon be open to public scrutiny.

We consider the breaches of registration severe enough to merit deregistration and preclude these colleges from direct access to public funds. Assuming the OfS does not weaken its regulatory requirements, this will have implications for several other theological colleges. All HE providers must conform to the same high standards if they are to receive public funds. The OfS and other education authorities must stand up for their principles and refuse to let these theological colleges off the hook.

Discuss on Facebook

Image: McElspeth from Pixabay

Encouraging evangelism in public services will promote division, not divinity

A survey reveals members of the public generally get along well with Christians – but feel less enthusiastic about proselytism. Megan Manson says this should be a warning to politicians who want faith groups to be free to preach when delivering public services.

There have been increasingly aggressive moves to put faith groups in charge of delivering public services.

In 2020, Conservative MP and evangelical Christian Danny Kruger published a report calling for the government to "invite the country's faith leaders to make a grand offer of help" in public services, as part of the government's 'levelling up' initiatives. This, he said, should be in exchange for a "reciprocal commitment from the state".

The idea of faith groups running community services makes many people uneasy. There are reasonable concerns that some faith groups can and do use these opportunities to proselytise to vulnerable members of the public, and that some groups may discriminate against service users, employees or volunteers on the basis of sex, sexuality, religion or belief. But Kruger's report dismissed such concerns as "faith illiteracy" and "faith phobia".

Hot on the heels of Kruger's report, the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on faith and society quietly removed the non-proselytising clause from its 'faith covenant'. The faith covenant is an agreement between faith groups and local authorities which lays out a set of principles that guide interactions between them and the general public.

In the past, the NSS has publicly supported the faith covenant, particularly because the covenant specified that faith groups have to deliver their services "without proselytising". But minutes from the APPG's October meeting reveal some faith groups objected to this clause, hence its subsequent removal. This now weights the covenant very much in the favour of faith-based agendas rather than public wellbeing.

Then in September, the government announced a new £1 million ' faith new deal' pilot fund exclusively for faith groups that provide community services. Giving public money to groups on the basis that they are religious seems to fly in the face of equality law, but despite repeated requests from the NSS, the government has yet to justify discriminating against non-religious community groups in the provision of this fund.

Kruger, the APPG and all other parliamentarians so keen to roll out the red carpet to faith-based community services would do well to read a new survey from a coalition of Christian groups including the Church of England, the Evangelical Alliance and HOPE Together. The report reveals that whatever Christians feel, the non-Christian majority is in no mood for evangelism – and that proselytising can drive a wedge between Christians and their non-Christian neighbours.

The 'Talking Jesus' report, released in April, found only 6% of the 4,000 UK adults surveyed are "practising Christians", i.e. Christians who go to church at least monthly, and pray and read the Bible at least weekly. Meanwhile, 52% are not Christians – results that are consistent with other recent surveys.

But the 6% who are practising Christians feel very strongly about the need to spread their faith. Seventy-five per cent agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, "It is every Christian's responsibility to talk to non-Christians about Jesus Christ". Fifty-nine per cent said they are "always looking" for opportunities to talk to non-Christians about Jesus.

The results demonstrate that concerns about Christian groups evangelising while delivering public services are far from being the result of 'faith illiteracy' – Christians themselves are saying they consider it a duty to use every opportunity they can to share their faith with non-Christians.

And how do the non-Christians react to this? The survey results are eye-opening.

Over half (55%) of non-Christians who had conversed with practising Christians about Christianity disagreed with the statement, "I felt more positive towards Jesus Christ". Even more, 60%, disagreed with the statement "I wanted to know more about Jesus", and 73% disagreed with "I felt I was missing out by not sharing their faith". Nearly a quarter (23%) indicated that the conversation made them feel uncomfortable. Christians evangelising to non-Christians are in fact having the opposite effect of that intended – they are actively turning people off Christianity.

What's rather sad is that over half of non-Christians (51%) disagreed with the statement "I felt closer to the person in question" after having a conversation about faith with a Christian. Attempts to evangelise, however well-intended, seem to be leaving most non-Christians feeling alienated from their Christian acquaintances. A profound demonstration of how divisive unwanted proselytism can be.

This is particularly dispiriting in light of the real potential of meaningful friendship between Christians and non-Christians. Non-Christians are highly complementary of the Christians they know – the top qualities they ascribed to them were "friendly" (62%), "caring" (50%) and "good humoured" (33%).

What they don't like is the Christian church. The top two traits non-Christians ascribe to the church are "hypocritical" and "narrow minded".

The fact that non-Christians evidently have warm feelings towards the Christians they know, but feel much colder towards proselytising and to the church itself, speaks volumes about the British public. Far from being 'faith phobic', they are tolerant, even affable, towards Christians. They just don't want Christianity thrust upon them – a religion they consider hypocritical and narrow minded, which considering its treatment of LGBT+ people and women, is not an unfair assessment.

Unfortunately, the authors of 'Talking Jesus' seem oblivious of the implications of their own findings. In their conclusions, they stress the importance of continuing to evangelise – including in the public sector. The report says: "The call to churches is to work with the schools where they live to encourage and enable faith to flourish and develop as children grow in these environments". School evangelism is especially contentious – children are particularly vulnerable and unable to escape unwanted proselytising easily in the school environment.

'Talking Jesus' reveals a clash between the increasing non-Christian majority who are happy to get along with Christians provided they aren't preached at, and a shrinking Christian minority who see it as their duty to spread their faith. Regrettably, it is the latter that the government's pro-faith 'levelling up' schemes will privilege and empower. If this survey is anything to go by, letting religious groups use public service provision as a mission field will end in tears – both for the public who don't want to hear about Jesus while asking for help, and for the well-meaning Christians who will no doubt feel rejected and hurt when their 'good news' isn't well received.

What is more likely to foster good relations between faith groups and their community is to ensure offers of help are given without any religious strings attached – no proselytism, no discrimination. A secular approach to public services, regardless of the ethos of the community delivering it, is what the government should be encouraging.

Discuss on Facebook

Image: Pexels from Pixabay

NI education conference shows cause for secularist hope

The National Secular Society recently held an online conference on inclusive education in Northern Ireland. Here, Alastair Lichten shares the videos from the conference and thoughts on the speakers' key messages.

Education in Northern Ireland features levels of religious privilege, discrimination, segregation, and control not seen anywhere else in the UK. Entrenched religious interests make reforms extremely difficult. However, we are continuing to see broad, cross-community and grassroots support for a more pluralistic, integrated approach.

Our online conference on Saturday - Towards inclusive education in Northern Ireland – was an opportunity to reflect on recent successes, current challenges, and causes for optimism, with our expert panel of academics, advocates and activists.

Our first speaker Kellie Armstrong MLA shared her experiences overcoming institutional opposition to passed her Integrated Education Act, why this matters and what more needs to be done. The NSS has long supported similar legislation along with further moves towards a fully integrated system.

Human rights lawyer Darragh Mackin discussed his work on a case arguing that the legal requirement for school assemblies and RE to promote Christianity were incompatible with children's and parents' human rights. The NSS campaigns to end mandated collective worship in Northern Ireland, and across the UK, and for fundamental reform of education about religion and beliefs.

Dr Matthew Milliken is a researcher with the UNESCO Centre in Ulster University's School of Education. He discussed his work on the Transforming Education series of papers, with a focus on religious discrimination against teachers in NI. The recently passed Fair Employment (School Teachers) Act has ended the exemption of teachers from equality laws, but Dr Milliken's talk covered some of the other barriers the NSS is campaigning to end.

Megan Turner is the training and development co-ordinator for Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) with sexual health charity Common Youth. Currently RSE is taught based on each school's faith ethos, meaning pupils suffer where quality is extremely variable, and where topics are restricted or distorted through faith-based approaches.

The individual talks were followed by a lively Q&A session.

NI remains far more religious than the rest of the UK, and the churches' entanglement in education is far more institutionalised. However, as NI becomes more diverse, as the links between political and partisan identity loosen, and separate education becomes ever more costly and unworkable, calls for reform will continue to grow.

Learn more about, and add your support, to proposals to address religious privilege, discrimination, and control in Northern Ireland's education system.

The Church shouldn’t have a privileged platform in political debate

Following the furore over the archbishop of Canterbury's latest political intervention, Stephen Evans argues Justin Welby should be free to speak, but his words shouldn't carry the constitutional weight they do.

The archbishop of Canterbury faced criticism from across the political spectrum this week after using his Easter sermon to claim the government's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda were 'the opposite of the nature of God'.

During holy communion at Canterbury Cathedral, which was simultaneously broadcast live on the BBC, Justin Welby said: "The principle must stand the judgement of God and it cannot".

As you'd expect, the architects of the plan responded robustly. Government ministers and Conservative politicians lined up to defend their policy, accusing Welby of "hypocrisy", "naivety" and of "sharpening political divisions".

But opponents of the government's policy also took Welby to task. Writing in the Guardian, Simon Jenkins called the Rwanda plan for refugees "shocking" and "bizarre", but added: "…when a state-established church summons God to condemn an evil policy it merely confuses the forces that need mustering against it".

Jenkins is right. Asylum policy isn't a religious matter. Dragging religion into an already highly charged debate is unlikely to enhance the discussion. It can, however, serve as a catalyst to polarise arguments. Framing arguments in religious terms is unlikely to resonate widely anyway, as it's a language few people in Britain speak.

Clerics enjoy expressing their own opinions and claiming that their views are their gods' views, too. But it shouldn't be assumed they speak for anyone else. Take, for example, Catholics' views on marriage equality, contraception, and abortion, which are rarely aligned with the pontifications of the Pope. Christians overwhelming support assisted dying, while church leaders actively lobby against it. Welby publicly backed Remain before the 2016 referendum. Anglicans in the pews leaned towards Leave.

Political decisions should be based on reasoned arguments that stand or fall on their own merits. The days of something being right or wrong because someone's interpretation of religious scripture suggests it is are long gone.

And one must question the worth of religious leaders' interventions when it's become increasingly clear they have no unique access to special moral insights denied to the rest of us. The Church's treatment of LGBT people and its outrageous handling of child sex abuse within its ranks are but two examples of behaviour that has destroyed any moral authority it ever had.

Evoking gods to make political arguments is as unpopular as it is unwise. Even when the public agree with Welby's sentiments on political matters, they still consider his interventions inappropriate. Sixty per cent of UK adults agree that religion should be "kept separate from government policies". Sixty-two per cent of Britons say there is "no place in UK politics for religious influence of any kind". And 71% of people say religious leaders should have no influence over the decisions of the government. Just 8% said they should.

All of this should be taken into consideration when deciding how much weight to give political interventions from clerics.

Religious leaders are entitled as anyone else to speak out on political issues. They should not, however, be given a privileged platform to do so and their voice shouldn't sound louder than anyone else's.

This is the real issue with Welby. He's the leader of the established Church. He and his senior Anglican colleagues are handed seats as of right in the House of Lords to shape public policy and the laws that affect us all. His sermon was broadcast live on state media.

Constitutional inertia and institutional religious privilege have enabled the leader of a an increasingly niche religious denomination to have a grossly disproportionate public role.

One of the more eyebrow-raising reactions to Welby's latest political intervention was from Conservative MP Ben Bradley, who said: "I think we separated the church from the state a long time ago".

Bradley's knowledge of the UK's political settlement may have been found wanting, but his instinct that church and state should be separate is spot on.

Welby's words shouldn't carry the weight they do by virtue of his privileged role as leader of the state church. Let Welby speak, but disestablish his Church.

Discuss on Facebook

Image: Foreign and Commonwealth Office, CC BY 2.0

Time to follow Northern Ireland in ending religious discrimination against teachers

After ending a blanket exemption from equality laws, Northern Ireland will outlaw religious discrimination against teachers. Ella Sen examines the situation across other UK nations and urges them to follow suit.

Religious discrimination against teachers in Northern Ireland is slowly coming to an end. By 2024, the Fair Employment (School Teachers) Bill will remove the blanket exemption from the Fair Employment and Treatment Order 1998 (FETO) allowing schools to select teachers according to religion.

The situation is still far from perfect. Other structural issues will remain, including a requirement for a certificate in Catholic education in many schools, making it harder for some teachers to work in schools outside their community.

Nevertheless, the end to the FETO exemption will help pave the way for greater integration in the nine in ten schools currently segregated according to religion. It will give teachers across NI greater freedom in where they work without being held back by their background or beliefs.

And in a surprising twist, the reform is set to give more protection to teachers from religious discrimination than anywhere else in the UK.

In England and Wales, the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 allows faith schools to apply a religious test when appointing, remunerating, retaining or and promoting certain 'reserved teachers' or in disciplining them for conduct that is "incompatible with the precepts… of the (school's) religion".

'Reserved teachers' can include one fifth of teaching staff, including the headteacher in voluntary controlled faith schools (mostly Church of England) and all teachers in voluntary aided faith schools (mostly Catholic, some CofE and other minority faiths). The situation in academies and free schools with a religious character will depend on their funding agreement.

The ability of faith schools to religiously discriminate against teachers is enabled by a number of exemptions in the Equality Act 2010. Without these exemptions, such discrimination would be unlawful.

The legality of such discrimination can even take experienced and qualified teachers by surprise. Many cannot believe how our society can possibly permit certain public servants to be hired over others because of their religion.

Research in 2019 by Teacher Tapp found that while schools of all types rely on nonreligious teachers, these teachers are significantly underrepresented in faith schools. The exclusionary policies and ethos of faith schools may explain why 75% of nonreligious teachers would not like to switch to a faith school. Though religious and nonreligious teachers are both very comfortable discussing religion and belief issues in non-faith schools, nonreligious teachers in faith schools are significantly less comfortable – perhaps an impact of knowing they could be legally disciplined for the 'wrong' views.

The situation is similar in Scotland. Almost all denominational (faith) schools in Scotland are Catholic. The process of applying to teach usually requires a Catholic Teaching Certificate. Applicants also need to submit forms confirming their commitment to "supporting and developing the ethos of Catholic education", with a religious reference, for approval by the local bishop.

A teacher's religious affiliation has no relevance to teaching English, maths or any other subject. Yet it causes significant barriers for the 58% of Scots who are nonreligious. The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 should be amended to end such discrimination.

Enabling this form of discrimination in Catholic schools can lead to absurd scenarios. In 2019 St Martin's RC Primary School only allowed non-Catholics to apply for its headteacher position after three unsuccessful attempts to recruit a specifically Catholic headteacher. And even then, they re-dubbed the role as 'leader of learning' – a role carrying the same responsibilities as a headteacher but with a less prestigious title.

Ultimately, organising schools around an exclusive religious ethos is always going to make it difficult for some teachers to work there, especially as more and more individuals identify as nonreligious. There should be no hierarchy of teaching opportunities based on individuals' religious or nonreligious beliefs.

And the progressive reforms taking place in NI should prompt us to challenge the archaic and discriminatory teacher employment laws in the rest of the UK.

We will be discussing many of these issues in our upcoming (21 May 2022) conference Towards inclusive education in Northern Ireland with reformers, activists, politicians and academics.

Discuss on Facebook

Image: 14995841 from Pixabay

CofE plans to increase influence in post-16 education smack of hubris

The Church of England's emerging plans to expand their role in sixth form and further education colleges, accompanied by empire building and evangelism, may undermine the secularity and inclusivity of this sector, argues Alastair Lichten.

The Skills and Post-16 Education Bill has attracted little media attention. Compared with other wide ranging government proposals that could increase religious control of education, the bill has been seen more as a technical tidying up exercise. Those opposed to any religious discrimination, privilege or control of state education have traditionally had few worries about the further education (FE) sector.

The bill introduces the ability for the small number of faith-based sixth form colleges to convert into to 16-19 academies, and join faith-based multi-academy trusts. However, we grew more concerned when it emerged that the government's "main success indicators" includes: "…in future faith bodies applying to establish (new) 16-19 academies".

This, coupled with our concerns over the Church of England's (CofE) efforts to expand its influence over the wider FE sector, led us to dig deeper into their lobbying and meetings with the Department for Education surrounding the bill.

The CofE acknowledges that it has little to no experience in the FE sector but sees it as an important area of evangelism to "build a younger and more diverse church" and "engage with a missing generation".

We have uncovered the CofE's "Action Plan for FE Partnerships following a roundtable meeting with the Secretary of State for Education and the Archbishop of York". This provides new insight into the Church's hoped-for "market warming" process.

Chaplaincy

The first of the CofE's two key aims is to "reimagine chaplaincy provision" across FE, where there currently remain "only a handful of full-time college chaplains". FE and sixth form colleges already have a cadre of professionally-qualified and committed staff who work diligently to enhance the welfare and wellbeing of students of all backgrounds, abilities and aspirations, and of all faiths or none.

Religious organisations are to be commended for providing spiritual support to college pupils who request it. Secular welfare professionals in FE require a high degree of cultural literacy and should always be prepared to make referrals in the very rare cases where pupils request religion-specific support. But for the CofE, waiting for young people to voluntarily come to them is a losing game.

Employing unqualified chaplains whose first loyalty is towards their theology diverts funds from, and creates potential for conflict with, the open and inclusive support provided by professional welfare services. The recent case of a chaplain sacked by Trent College in Nottingham for putting personal belief above the school's open policy on diversity is but one example.

In an unsuccessful bid last year, the CofE requested funding for chaplaincy provision at 12 colleges from the College Collaboration Fund. The CofE's action plan involves seeking "some indication of the background to that decision", presumably beyond that offered to other applicants without such privileged access to government ministers. It admits that the application for chaplaincy funding "formed a significant early element in the 'market warming' process" for their expansion into FE. The CofE clearly feels entitled to "the DfE's assistance, to rapidly explore alternative funding opportunities".

Church group of colleges

The CofE's long term aim is to create a "formal Church group of FE colleges", one "where ethos is a binding factor" similar to their network of state funded faith school s. Because very few new colleges are likely to be funded, the CofE's plan is to expand its influence over existing institutions by identifying "those colleges who are positively responding" to its chaplaincy and other outreach. The Church may frame its empire building as benevolent outreach to a neglected education sector. But it's getting a foot in the door with no reflection on whether an exclusive faith ethos is wanted, necessary or appropriate.

For many pupils, attending a FE or sixth form college will be their first educational experience outside of a faith school, or with far greater diversity. The CofE acknowledges that "the FE sector is culturally, religiously, and ethnically very diverse" and that "it is sometimes put, FE Colleges are secular institutions". However, its proposals attack the predominantly secular approach that underpins such successful diversity.

Discuss on Facebook