Secular Education Forum

The Secular Education Forum (SEF) provides expert and professional advice and opinion to the National Secular Society (NSS) on issues related to education and provides a forum for anyone with expertise in the intersection of education and secularism.

The SEF's main objective is to advocate the value of secularism/religious neutrality as a professional standard in education. The SEF welcomes supporters of all faiths and none. It provides expert support for the NSS working towards a secular education system free from religious privilege, proselytization, partisanship or discrimination.

Want to get involved?

Sign up

Join our mailing list to apply to join the forum. You'll be kept up to date with news, meetups and opportunities to contribute or volunteer.

Membership of the Secular Education Forum is intended for education professionals (including current, former and trainee professionals) and those with a particular expertise in the intersection of secularism and education. All requests to join will be considered after signing up to the mailing list.


Education blogs and commentary

A selection of blogs and comment pieces on education and secularism. For education news from the NSS, please click here.

Don't extend religious privilege in parliament - end it

Don't extend religious privilege in parliament - end it

Posted: Wed, 6th Sep 2023

If you're vexed by Anglican clerics sitting as of right in our legislature deciding on the laws that affect us all, would you be assuaged by the idea of the bishops being joined by an assortment of imams, rabbis and priests?

No, I thought not.

But whenever the question of House of Lords reform comes up, the so called 'solution' of multifaith 'lords spiritual' is floated.

A recent survey of Church of England clergy found that almost half of them think the seats currently reserved for Anglican bishops in the House of Lords should be shared with other faith leaders.

This idea isn't new.

As long ago as 1970 the Archbishops' Commission on Church and State accepted the reduction of the number of bishops to 16 and proposed that the additional places be taken by other religious leaders.

In 1985 Conservative MP Richard Holt tabled an amendment to reduce their numbers to 14. Holt's plan involved replacing nine of the Church of England's bishops with representatives from other faith groups.

Then, in 1999, a report from The Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords suggested the second chamber should have fewer Church of England peers to allow for more non-Christian representatives and other Christian denominations.

In 2011, a paper produced by the Conservative Christian Fellowship called for a "broad bench of Lords Spiritual", saying there was a "strong argument that our legislature would benefit from the wisdom of leaders of Baptist, Catholic, Methodist and black-led congregations".

The Woolf Institute's Commission on Religion and Belief in Public Life also published a report in 2013 which called for the representation of religion in the House of Lords to be reformed to "give voice to a greater variety of religious voices".

That support for a multifaith arrangement should come from within the Church of England itself isn't surprising. They know the game is up. In a country which even they concede can no longer be called Christian, their unique privileges are increasingly hard to justify. They know that their only real hope of retaining privileged political influence is to share the privilege around a bit.

Under the present arrangement, 26 Anglican bishops sit as legislators in the House of Lords by right of their position within the established Church.

This situation is unique in the democratic world. Iran is the only other country that provides seats as of right for clerics in its national legislature. The bishops' role in the House of Lords dates back to the feudal and medieval days of the 14th century – and is clearly unfit for a 21st century democracy.

Reform is long overdue. But a multifaith approach is fundamentally flawed and entirely unworkable.

On point of principle, why should religious groups enjoy preferential and automatic status in the country's legislature? There's no sound rationale for providing any distinct explicit representation for religious bodies in a modern, democratic chamber.

It is sometimes argued that the bishops' bench helps to maintain a space for religion in public life. But it's not clear why any special interest group should have a special space carved out for them. Religion is well equipped to compete just fine in the marketplace of ideas without a leg up.

The aspiration to make the House of Lords representative of the diverse beliefs and perspectives within the UK is sound. But under the current appointments system, this pluralism can be achieved by ensuring appointments reflect the UK's diversity in all its forms. Religious leaders can and have been appointed to the House of Lords through the existing appointments process. Such appointments should be on merit rather than as of right.

And it's worth noting that many temporal peers are religious – a much higher proportion than in the country, partly because of their greater average age. Many use their position to advocate for their faith. Religious interests are very well served in parliament without the need for special seats to be 'reserved'.

It has been suggested that religious leaders add value by bringing a moral dimension into parliamentary proceedings. This idea is as outdated as it is offensive. Religious leaders aren't the moral compass of the country. Quite the contrary, considering the public's opinion on issues ranging from same-sex marriage to assisted dying. Ordinary members of the House, whether religious or nonreligious, are just as able to bring ethical, moral, spiritual or philosophical perspectives into legislative deliberations.

And there certainly doesn't seem to be any desire amongst the public to have religious representatives automatically appointed to the second chamber. A 2021 YouGov survey found only 16% of British people believe bishops should be entitled to a seat in the House of Lords. It's hard to see that support rising if a collection of other faith leaders were to join them.

A multifaith approach to the lords spiritual would pose significant practical problems, too.

The question of which faith communities would be represented, and then identifying and selecting individuals who could legitimately represent those faith communities, would be both extremely difficult and highly divisive.

Unlike the Church of England, many denominations and faiths don't have a hierarchical structure. There is no supreme governing body in Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism or Islam. Which schools of thought would be represented and who would represent them? Would Ahmadis, who are considered non-Muslims by many mainstream Muslims, be represented, too?

The Chief Rabbi may be the rabbinical authority of the Orthodox sector, but his authority isn't recognised by the Reform Synagogues or by other congregations. Canon law doesn't even permit Roman Catholic priests to be members of secular legislative bodies, so would Catholic representation need to be undertaken by lay Catholics? Would Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, as Christian denominations, be treated on an equal footing with others? Would Nonconformists, Pagans and Humanists get a seat at the table? Would their consciences even allow them?

The whole concept of multifaith lords spiritual is a non-starter. Our democracy shouldn't be organised along the lines of Radio 4's Thought for the Day.

Removing seats 'as of right' for religious leaders is a more sensible, suitable and sustainable approach for a modern democracy.

Local authorities in Scotland are leading the way here by removing voting privileges of the religious representatives they are required by law to appoint to their education committees. The next step is surely to remove the obligation to appoint them in the first place. The same goes for the bishops in the Palace of Westminster.

Reserving a special role in policymaking for representatives of religious institutions runs counter to principles of equality. And this is the principle that should guide Lords reform. Religion should take its place alongside all other special interest groups and lobby through the same democratic channels.

People of all faiths and none should be encouraged to participate in our democracy, but it should be on the basis of equality rather than privilege.

Image: Roger Harris, Wikimedia Commons

Denmark stood up against fundamentalists in the past. It must not give in now

Denmark stood up against fundamentalists in the past. It must not give in now

Posted: Fri, 11th Aug 2023

It is now almost two decades since an organised campaign of lies, threats and violence attempted to force Danish society to abandon its right to freedom of expression and in its place install a particularly regressive version of Islamic blasphemy codes.

In late 2005, a number of Danish Muslim organisations, together with the authorities of several Muslim-majority countries, tried to bully the Danish government into interfering with the publication of the Jyllands-Posten newspaper. The paper had printed a dozen cartoons of Muhammad as part of an editorial discussing criticism of Islam and self-censorship.

Eleven ambassadors from Muslim-majority countries requested that Denmark suppress the paper's right to operate freely and to pursue those responsible for the cartoons under the "law of the land". The prime minister declined, pointing out that it would be illegal for him to do so. Furthermore, he would not denounce the paper, and would not meet with the concerned diplomats to discuss the matter. For this, Denmark saw its embassies violated, citizens attacked, and economy sabotaged.

Today, Muslim fundamentalists are once again demanding that Denmark and its neighbour Sweden give up their democratic principles in order to placate their offended feelings. In recent weeks, copies of the Quran have been set alight at several protests in both nations, primarily by unsavoury characters from the far right-wing of Scandinavian politics, although on at least one occasion by an Iraqi asylum-seeker.

The choice to destroy, rather than contribute, written words is not accidental. Publishing an illustration of Muhammad makes the point that blasphemy codes apply only to those who choose to follow them. Any statement of principle to be found in the burning of a religious text is far weaker. Indeed, the act is inherently anti-intellectual and contemptuous of literature – in that regard exhibiting the same mindset as the hysterical Islamist mobs calling for retribution.

But focusing on the nature of the act is a mistake. The crucial point is that Denmark and Sweden should not modify their fundamental values according to the dictates of a gang of theocratic crooks.

Concerningly, both governments are considering doing exactly that. The Swedish judiciary has already had to prevent the government from encroaching on the rights of its citizens, and the Danish government is now joining them in seeking 'legal means' to prevent further protests.

Their desire to do so is not incomprehensible. Sweden has already seen its embassies besieged, diplomatic staff shot, and stern warnings of potential attacks issued by its security services. Attempts have also been made to isolate both internationally, with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation – a collection of 57 nations that claims to "safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world" – condemning the burnings as "acts of aggression that spread hatred and contempt for religions and threaten global peace, security and harmony".

For this group, which includes some of the most vicious and repressive regimes on earth, to lecture others on human rights and the spreading of hatred is hypocrisy of the most shameless kind. Faced with such pressure, one would hope that the UK, EU and US might make some expression of solidarity with their democratic allies. Instead, they have each issued mealy-mouthed statements condemning the supposed acts of desecration.

European nations may think these efforts of appeasement will make them safer. They will not. Does anyone seriously believe that, were a ban on burning the Quran implemented, those voicing their displeasure would pack up and go home, now satisfied that their terms had been met and never to be seen again?

Of course not. It is not just the content of any freely expressed remarks or actions which religious fundamentalists are opposed to, but also, and more importantly, the principle that anyone should be able to speak about their faith opinions in a way they do not like.

No quarter should be given to this way of thinking. To act as an apologist when a Quran is burnt because it is 'hateful' is to validate violent intimidation as a means to bring about a political agenda.

It also encourages further thuggish behaviour of the kind perpetuated against Sweden in recent weeks. If concessions to such efforts at intimidation continue to be made, there will come a point at which the essential components of a free society will cease to function.

In 2005, the Danish authorities ultimately did not retreat from a defence of their values. To do so now would be a grave mistake. Fundamentalists say that any offence to their faith is 'intolerable'. We should make it clear: in a democracy, prioritising religious feelings above freedom of expression is intolerable.

Image: Protestors against Quran burning in Sweden outside the Sweden Embassy of London, January 2023. Credit: Loredana Sangiuliano, Shutterstock

The Church of England is legitimising spiritual abuse

The Church of England is legitimising spiritual abuse

Posted: Thu, 10th Aug 2023

The Exorcist director William Friedkin died at the age of 87 this week. His seminal film immortalised the concept of exorcism in our popular culture. But you may be surprised to learn the practice is alive and well in our established church.

The Church of England – the church which our head of state swears to maintain and which has formal representation in parliamentpractises a "deliverance ministry" to this day. As of 2011, the Church of England had 44 exorcists, one per diocese, each appointed by the archbishop of Canterbury.

Indeed, the late Anglican exorcist Ken Gardiner said: "I have seen exorcisms succeed. People came to me in a state and, in the name of Jesus, I've commanded whatever was there to leave."

The Church's 2023 guidance allows parents to consent to "formal rites of deliverance" for their children, "including those involving touch". The "laying on of hands" may be deemed necessary to cast out "demons", it says.

Traumatising a child by telling them they are possessed with a demon, and that a priest needs to touch them to cast the demon out, is surely inherently abusive.

On top of this, the guidance asserts that, in the "majority of cases" of 16-17 year olds, the consent of parents does not need to be obtained. Medical advice must be sought but there is no explicit requirement to follow it. Perversely, there is only one third party whose permission is required: the local bishop.

In recent months, the Church has been publicly shamed by its abysmal record on child safeguarding: the ever-mounting allegations of sexual abuse at Soul Survivor church, the suspension of the former archbishop of York, the decision to sack its own Independent Safeguarding Board – to name but a few. One might expect they would know better by now.

Exorcism is also linked to the harmful and homophobic practice of so-called 'gay conversion therapy'. Just last year, Matthew Draper alleged he had been subjected to exorcism by a church in Sheffield in order to rid him of "the demons of homosexuality". The claims are now being investigated by the Diocese of Sheffield.

For the avoidance of doubt, Professor Sir Robin Murray of Kings College's Institute of Psychiatry has said he knows of no "scientific evidence that exorcism works".

The probable harms of Anglican exorcism are not limited to its own congregations. The Church's "deliverance ministry" legitimises more extreme forms of spiritual abuse by other faith groups.

Earlier this year, a newly registered religious charity in Belfast posted a Facebook picture laying out the "five kinds of witches". The post draws on a sermon given by Nigerian pastor Daniel Kolawole Olukoya. In an unhinged screed, Olukoya pontificates on "eaters of flesh and blood" and "the register of darkness" as parishioners nod approvingly. He enjoins his rapt followers to receive "deliverance" from demonic witches and wizards.

It would be easy to dismiss these beliefs as eccentric but they are, in fact, treated with deadly seriousness by some adherents here in the UK.

In 2000, Victoria Climbie was tortured to death after a Christian preacher convinced her family she was possessed by "evil spirits". The pathologist who examined her body said it was the worst case of abuse he had ever seen.

In 2015, Kristy Bramu was accused by his sister and her boyfriend of 'kindoki' - a Congolese form of witchcraft. He drowned in a "ritual cleansing" bath after being subjected to "sadistic" and "prolonged" torture.

In 2021, as part of an Islamic ruqya exorcism, anaesthetist Hossam Metwally put his partner Kelly Wilson into a coma and nearly induced cardiac arrest.

To our knowledge, Anglican exorcisms have not, in recent years, had fatal consequences. But they are inspired by the same sinister belief: that people can be by possessed by demonic forces and these forces can be overcome through religious intervention. The deliverance ministry of the established church, an arm of the British state, gives succour to the most dangerous forms of spiritual abuse.

Today, August 10, is the World Day against Witch Hunts – a day for standing up against the abuse and killing of people believed to be witches or 'possessed' by evil spirits. What better occasion for us to challenge the Church's perpetuation of spiritual abuse? Exorcism should be the preserve of fiction and future Friedkins, not the established church.

Image: Francisco Goya, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Sexist state church should be disestablished

Sexist state church should be disestablished

Posted: Wed, 2nd Aug 2023

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

From Barbie to blasphemy: how religion muzzles free speech

From Barbie to blasphemy: how religion muzzles free speech

Posted: Wed, 26th Jul 2023

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