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 upJoin 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.
Time for an anthem we can all sing with sincerity
Posted: Wed, 26th Oct 2022
The religious and monarchical God Save the King should make way for something that the whole country can sing along to, says Stephen Evans.
Speaking in 2020 the new prime minister Rishi Sunak described the UK as a "secular country".
Rishi was right in the sense that British people, irrespective of their personal religious beliefs, are overwhelmingly secularist in their outlook and attitudes.
We are also one of the world's least religious countries. The latest British Social Attitudes survey revealed a significant and long term decline in the proportion of people who identify with Christianity along with a substantial increase in those with no religious affiliation, and a steady increase in those belonging to non-Christian faiths.
It also found very low confidence in religious organisations, but tolerance of religious difference. The election of a Muslim London mayor and the appointment of the UK's first Hindu prime minister is testament to that.
Our constitutional privileging of Christianity is therefore looking increasingly absurd. The continued existence of an established church in a modern pluralistic, multifaith and increasingly secular democracy is unsustainable. For example, it's nonsense that Rishi Sunak – a Hindu – is, as prime minister, responsible for advising King Charles on ecclesiastical appointments to the Church of England.
If Britain is to become a truly a secular country, we need to reflect this reality by uncoupling religion from the state and ceremonial occasions.
So isn't it time we also reconsidered our national anthem?
God Save the King was adopted more than 250 years ago – making it yet another relic of a time when adherence to the state religion was expected and assumed. That time has long disappeared into the past. The anthem should, too.
Officially God Save the King is the national anthem of the United Kingdom, but it has also been synonymous with England. In 2010, the Commonwealth Games Council for England polled the public to decide the athletic team's anthem. Three options were put forward. The clear winner was Blake's Jerusalem with 52% of the vote compared to Land of Hope and Glory with 32%. God Save the Queen came in a distant third with just 12%. England's cricket and rugby teams have also since switched to Jerusalem.
God Save the Queen King is essentially a sycophantic hymn, invoking a supreme being that many people don't believe in (God) to save an individual born into a position of privilege (the King). Almost all other international anthems are about the countries themselves, or the people, not their rulers.
A study by the Pew Research Center in 2017 asked citizens of 13 countries whether being Christian was important to national identity. Just 18% of UK citizens said it was. People on the right of the ideological spectrum were more likely to view religion as very important to nationality.
But in today's diverse Britain, isn't it inherently divisive for notions of national identity and belonging to be tied up with religion? This isn't something we can build a collective identity around.
Non-Christian political, civic and religious leaders, sports personalities representing their country, and perhaps many of us who feel little affinity with God or monarchy, face a difficult decision whether to pay lip service to the anthem and sing along, or not – and run the risk of criticism for not showing sufficient 'respect'. I consider myself a patriot, but God Save the King isn't something I can sing with authenticity. So, I don't.
These things matter. Equality, integration, social cohesion and a sense of shared citizenship is made so much harder when national identity is so intrinsically tied to religion. Wouldn't it be better to build a more inclusive and authentic national identity, rather than cleave to something vaguely Christian, increasingly meaningless and so obviously exclusionary?
It's not as if God Save the King is universally loved. During the Queen's Jubilee in 2012, YouGov asked people how they felt about the anthem. An overwhelming number of people said they didn't like it. Participants not in favour of the anthem used a slew of derisory 'd' words to describe how they felt about it: 'dull', 'depressing', 'dour', 'dull', 'downbeat' and (most popular) 'a dirge'. Almost half of 18-24 year olds don't even know the first verse.
If we are to end the pernicious pretence of the United Kingdom being a 'Christian Country', our anthem needs a rethink. Something more secular would allow all citizens to express themselves with sincerity, whatever their religious beliefs.
Let's not let tradition stand in the way of having something we can all sing along to. Suggestions on a postcard please…
Image: LA(Phot) Simmo Simpson, OGL v1.0OGL v1.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Child evangelism isn’t charitable
Posted: Thu, 20th Oct 2022
Religious organisations with a focus on evangelising and converting children are exploitative and potentially harmful. They shouldn't be enabled by our charity or education systems, says Megan Manson.
"Sinners by nature and practice, children stand guilty and condemned before God."
"We need faithfully and tenderly to warn children of eternal separation and punishment."
"We will not coldly announce, 'If you go on in your sin, you will go to hell.' Yes, we will teach this solemn truth, but with tenderness and entreaty."
These sinister statements are from a pamphlet entitled "A manual on the evangelism of children". They tap into children's deepest fears: separation from loved ones and inescapable punishment.
Many would consider telling children they are sinners destined for hell callous and cruel, if not downright abusive. Yet this pamphlet is produced by a registered charity: Child Evangelism Fellowship (CEF). Its official charitable objects are to advance "the evangelical Christian faith and in particular child evangelism".
CEF is explicit about why it is obsessed with preaching to children: "Children are open to anything! They are sensitive, vulnerable, impressionable…If we have the opportunity to leave a lasting impression on children, because they are more open, then we must do all we can to reach them with the Gospel. The formative years pass very quickly."
Or as it puts more succinctly: "Win a child and you win an adult". In other words, children are far easier to effectively convert to Christianity than adults. And in a society where religious affiliation is undergoing rapid decline, it's easy to see why religious groups are scrambling to access the easiest people they can convert.
The ethics of taking advantage of children's comparative lack of knowledge, experience and critical thinking skills to inculcate religious dogma are already questionable. But much of CEF's activity is especially exploitative.
For example, their recent 'Hope for Ukraine' scheme cynically uses Russia's invasion of Ukraine as an opportunity to send "gospel packs" to Ukrainian children. These contain pamphlets telling children to ask Jesus to forgive their sins because: "King Jesus is in Heaven now but one day He will come back to our world. He will punish forever all those who have chosen to live their own way. He will welcome all His forgiven friends".
What effects does evangelism have on children? We've only recently begun to understand that in some cases, religious inculcation can be harmful. The term "religious trauma syndrome", coined a decade ago, is now an increasingly common description for a set of symptoms, including anxiety, depression and relationship issues, experienced "as a result of prolonged exposure to a toxic religious environment". And children, whose minds are still developing, are uniquely vulnerable to this condition.
Despite the ethical implications, child evangelism is far from unusual. Most branches of Christianity make a particular effort to preach to children. It's one of the main reasons why the Church of England, the Catholic Church and other major religious institutions are dedicated to maintaining a vice-like grip on a third of state schools, disproportionate influence over religious education (RE), and stubborn resistance to ending our archaic collective worship laws.
CEF is clear that it uses the collective worship laws and RE as a means to get to children at their schools, where they are a captive audience, and further their evangelising mission. And it is far from alone in this initiative.
There are now numerous charities whose main purpose is to send preachers into schools and proselytise to children. School teachers, grateful that someone else can take on collective worship and RE duties, frequently buy into the idea that these groups are merely promoting 'religious literacy' and are unaware of their real priorities. As CEF says: "Our ministry is not to entertain the children, nor even to educate them, but to evangelise them".
Before the pandemic and subsequent social distancing measures, issues relating to evangelism in schools were the most common types of casework the NSS dealt with.
One of the charities the NSS receives most complaints about is Scripture Union (SU). Their sessions have included an 'abstinence-only' approach to sex education. Another school evangelism charity the NSS has dealt with is Cross Teach, which according to parents told children that if they did not believe in God "they would not go to a good place when they died".
And new child evangelism charities continue to join the register. Last year the Programme For Applied Christian Education (PACE) re-registered as a Charitable Incorporated Organisation. One of its missions is "helping everyone in schools explore the Christian faith" through lessons, assemblies and lunchtime clubs. Its teaching materials include statements like "Abortion = Bad, Adoption = Good", marriage is "ideally" one man and one woman, and hell is where "God perfectly punishes all the sin of those who never wanted his forgiveness" .
And many more have registered which do not deliver school sessions but do run Sunday Schools and other out-of-school activities for children, or hold overseas evangelical work with a specific focus on children.
All this begs the question – why are these organisations registered charities at all?
Charities are supposed to provide a public benefit in exchange for the generous tax breaks, Gift Aid and other financial perks such status gives, in addition to public trust. But it's very difficult to see how charities set up with a specific purpose to evangelise, and ultimately convert, children fulfil that benefit.
I'm sure many child evangelists sincerely believe they are providing a public benefit, because they truly think they are saving children from hell. Indeed, this used to be a mainstream view – back in a time when most people believed in hell.
But today, most Brits don't have religious beliefs, let alone a belief in hell. Conversely, evidence indicates that inculcating children with fundamentalist religion risks a multitude of psychological harms. This should be enough to dislodge the notion that advancing religion through child evangelism is a public benefit.
But charity law hasn't caught up with the present. "The advancement of religion" is still a charitable purpose in law because there is still an underlying assumption that advancing religion, whatever form that may take, is inherently beneficial to society.
Our charity sector should not be used as a vehicle for furthering religious interests at the expense of children's mental health and freedom to explore religion or belief on their own terms. And neither should our schools be used as mission fields. We need to truly modernise our laws governing both charities and education if we want to prioritise the education and welfare of children above religious concerns.
Tackling child abuse in religious settings: What must happen next
Posted: Thu, 6th Oct 2022
As the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse draws to an end, Richard Scorer explains what the government needs to do to prevent abuse in religious settings and to ensure justice for survivors and victims.
On 20th October the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) will publish its final report, bringing IICSA to an end eight years after it was first established. Over that period IICSA has investigated a wide range of institutions in England and Wales, both religious and secular. Religious organisations examined include the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, and (more superficially) various minority religions. The final report will focus on recommendations. What do we need from it?
In my view, four recommendations are particularly important to survivors of abuse in religious settings.
1. Mandatory reporting law
The most important – as I and so many others have said before – is mandatory reporting. A mandatory reporting law imposes a legal obligation on specified individuals ("mandated persons") to report known or suspected cases of child sexual abuse to specified state agencies. Most countries now have mandatory reporting in some form including 86% of European nations, so England and Wales are out of step with the rest of the world in not having it.
Many institutions suffer from reputational pressures leading to them covering up abuse, but as IICSA has confirmed, the pressures for reputational protection at the expense of children are particularly acute in religious settings, and it was because of church scandals that the Australian Royal Commission placed such emphasis on mandatory reporting.
In England and Wales it remains legal, in 2022, for a member of the clergy to know that a child has been raped, and not to report it. This is unacceptable and IICSA has unearthed more than enough evidence to justify changing the law.
However, IICSA needs to recommend real mandatory reporting, not a faux version of it. Reforms that fall short of real mandatory reporting are likely to be ineffective. Given the systematic cover up of abuse in the Catholic Church, it may be tempting for IICSA to recommend a criminal offence of concealment of abuse. But in practice, such an offence is likely to be very difficult to prosecute to the criminal standard. Ireland introduced a "Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences Against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act" in 2012; there has not yet been a single prosecution under the Act. We need a legal regime which works, and which changes culture.
The pressure group Mandate Now have developed a well-designed mandatory reporting model. Their draft law has several key features:
- It requires the reporting of known or reasonably suspected child sexual abuse.
- It applies to "Regulated Activities", i.e. personnel responsible for the care of children within institutional settings, not to the population as a whole (laws which purport to do the latter are generally ineffective). Some religious activities involving children sit outside the current definition of Regulated Activity, but Mandate Now has designed a clause that includes them in its legislative proposal.
- The reporting requirement is backed up by the threat of criminal penalties for non-reporting. It cannot be stressed enough that the purpose of well-designed mandatory reporting is not to criminalise people, but to embed a culture of reporting and to protect good people who report concerns from detriment. This might include bullying or being put under pressure not to report, as graphically exposed in the IICSA report on the scandal at St Benedict's Ealing. To have teeth, mandatory reporting needs a proportionate criminal sanction. When the Irish government introduced a version of mandatory reporting in 2015, following the devastating report into recent cover ups of clerical sex abuse in the Catholic Diocese of Cloyne, it failed to include any sanction for non-reporting. The Irish government argued that that mandated persons who broke the law would suffer disciplinary sanctions from their professional body. But as the Cloyne report demonstrated, the Irish Catholic Church continued to conceal abuse after publicly committing to reporting it to statutory authorities in 1996, so it is unrealistic to imagine the church can be relied upon to apply meaningful internal sanctions.
- The reporting obligation needs to apply to not just to the operators of the setting but also to all other employed, contracted or voluntary staff for the time they are personally attending such children in the capacity for which they were employed. It's not just the leadership team at the top of the organisation; we know from IICSA just how often those in leadership positions in religious organisations choose not to see or hear what their subordinates are trying to tell them, so mandatory reporting has to give all those working with children in those settings the cover to report directly. This is important: leaving the reporting in the hands of religious leaders who have failed so egregiously to do it up to now would be a recipe for further concealment.
- Finally, there can be no religious exemption or when it comes to the confessional: I explain here why such exemptions are wrong. Even Cardinal Nichols in his evidence to IICSA appeared to accept the seal of the confessional is at odds with the legal principle that the interests of the child should be paramount.
2. Empowering agencies to respond to abuse
Mandatory reporting cannot be introduced in a vacuum. Agencies have to be resourced to respond to it. Alongside it we need an overhaul of the mechanisms for oversight of safeguarding in religious settings. As the IICSA counsel observed, currently these settings are less well-regulated than donkey sanctuaries.
The inadequacies of inspection systems operated by Ofsted and other oversight bodies such as the Charity Commission were very obvious from the hearings. Achieving effective regulation is a major challenge, particularly given the sheer number and variety of religious settings, which range from large settings such as cathedrals down to house churches involving just a few people. But we need to make a start.
And when it comes to investigating abuse in religious settings, a change in police attitudes is also necessary: there has sometimes been a reluctance to investigate abuse in minority religions for fear of stoking community tensions. This has to change if victims and survivors of abuse in religious settings are to have meaningful access to justice.
3. No more time limits for child abuse civil claims
We need to abolish the unfair and antiquated law on time limits for civil claims, which has often prevented legitimate compensation claims from going forward.
The law in England and Wales states that a civil claim for childhood sexual abuse should be brought within three years of the victim turning 18. This is a totally unrealistic expectation given that the average time delay between abuse and a survivor's disclosure is 22 years. Although the courts in England and Wales do have the power to set aside this three year time limit, it should not exist in the first place. Scotland has already (in 2017) abolished the three year time limit.
Some religious organisations, particularly the Catholic Church, have been particularly aggressive in relying on limitation defences. The three year time limit needs to be removed in England and Wales too.
4. Full compensation for survivors
Finally, we need proper redress for survivors. A civil claim is often a distressing and highly adversarial process. One reform idea is to work towards a single national redress scheme, funded by the organisations where children have suffered abuse. Personally I think this a recipe for many years of argument about who contributes what. In Ireland, the Catholic Church got away with contributing vastly less than it should have done, leaving the taxpayer to pick up much of the bill for clerical sex abuse, a totally perverse outcome.
A better approach may be to ensure that organisations where abuse has occurred themselves offer proper redress to help to compensate for the terrible harm caused by abuse. The Church of England, a very wealthy organisation, has been promising a national redress scheme for some time, but keeps delaying its introduction, leaving some survivors in a desperate position. I hope that IICSA will force the pace on this, so that compensation can become easier for survivors, whilst prohibiting any removal of the opportunity for a civil claim, should the survivor wish to proceed with one.
Of course, these are not the only changes we need to see. Lots of other issues have been highlighted by IICSA, for example the dangers of unregistered religious schools.
An issue which needs much more attention is the Church of England's unjustified exemptions from statutes governing other public sector bodies such as freedom of information laws. But for survivors and those who represent them, the changes highlighted above particularly important.
During the hearings, IICSA's chair, Professor Alexis Jay, has been tight lipped about what reforms she has in mind, and the various reports issued by IICSA so far have been similarly unrevealing. The under-resourcing of society's response to child abuse has been the 'elephant in the room' throughout IICSA, and many survivors fear that the 'dead hand of the Home Office' may deter the inquiry panel from recommending the necessary reforms; we shall see. Despite several years of hearings we have no real idea as to whether IICSA will embrace these reforms or not.
And of course even if it does, we face a political battle to ensure that the reforms are implemented by government, and not watered down or abandoned. However, when the final report comes out on 20 October, IICSA will be judged primarily on how it addresses these key issues.
Our head of state should not have constitutional ties with religion
Posted: Tue, 27th Sep 2022
As King Charles assumes the title of Defender of the Faith, Stephen Evans argues that the role of head of state in a modern democracy should have no constitutional ties to religion.
In his first address to the nation as monarch, King Charles said he would endeavour to serve all his subjects whatever their "background or beliefs" with loyalty, respect and love.
It would be easier to give credence to the sincerity of this statement if our head of state didn't also assume the dual role of head of the Church of England.
Upon the death of Queen Elizabeth, King Charles immediately became the Church's Supreme Governor and "Defender of the Faith". For the avoidance of doubt, that faith is the "one true protestant faith".
His coronation in Westminster Abbey next year will be a deeply religious affair. He will be anointed with holy oil, blessed, and consecrated by the archbishop of Canterbury. Holy Communion will be celebrated.
Ours is the only monarch left in Europe still crowned in a religious ceremony. All others have abandoned coronations or replaced them with simpler ceremonies to mark an accession.
A religious coronation is a peculiar way to inaugurate a head of state in one of the least religious countries on Earth. The UK's religious landscape has changed out of all recognition since the last coronation in 1953. We now have a non-religious majority and a significant proportion of citizens who follow non-Christian religions.
Many of them will feel alienated by a ceremony purporting to legitimise a new head of state where he pledges to protect the privileges and doctrine of a church they don't belong to. And let's not forget, the doctrine King Charles will swear an oath to preserve asserts that gay sex is a sin, and that same-sex marriage is illegitimate.
It is also a Church that represents just one UK country whose weekly attendance is only one per cent of the UK population.
We expect our monarchs to remain strictly neutral with respect to political matters. So why the double standard when it comes to religion?
Is it really appropriate for the UK prime minister to have a weekly meeting with the Supreme Governor of the Church of England to discuss government matters? With Anglicanism so deeply entrenched in our constitution it's hardly surprising that religious privilege runs through Britain like the letters in a stick of Blackpool rock.
King Charles has made clear his intention to be a defender of faith generally, not only the faith. This fits with the role the Church of England has assumed for itself as a means by which other denominations and faith communities can be elevated in public life.
It's not clear to what extent members of other faiths are content to ride on the coattails of the Anglican establishment. But clearly many faith leaders enjoy the enhanced status granted by the Church of England holding the door open for them. Humanists may on occasion be invited along, but ultimately, the favouritism shown to the Church of England, with 'crumbs from the table' for other religious groups, demeans minority faiths and almost entirely neglects and disenfranchises the nonreligious and religiously unconcerned majority.
Both the late Queen Elizabeth and King Charles have been advocates for religious freedom. They have nevertheless seemed unconcerned that the role of head of state in our democracy is reserved exclusively for practising Christians. The monarchy's religious role is underpinned by an assumption that all future monarchs will be believing Anglicans – indeed, the constitution prevents Catholics from becoming the monarch. How is this compatible with concepts of fairness or freedom of religion or belief?
The accession of a new King will inevitably raise questions about the relevance of monarchy in a modern democracy. After all, inherited power and privilege by virtue of birth is an affront to everything modern Britain claims to stand for.
Turning a blind eye to a morally unjustifiable institution at the heart of our constitution, which claims a 'divine right' to rule over the rest of us, can't be good for our national psyche. Nor can cleaving to our past in the absence of any confidence in our ability to carve out a democratic future.
It will therefore be interesting to see the extent to which apparent support for the monarchy has been tied up with an admiration and respect for Queen Elizabeth. But for as long as the monarchy remains, it is right and reasonable to initiate reforms to ensure our head of state has no constitutional entanglement with religion.
There is clearly a fondness both at home and overseas for our costumed British pageantry. As the Queen's state funeral demonstrated, it's something we do well. But concepts of nationhood and citizenship are too important to centre around an anachronism.
If we want those living within these isles, irrespective of creed, colour or belief, to buy into Britishness and feel part of a cohesive collective, our national identity must be meaningful and inclusive. It too often feels like a pretence, cherished by some, but alienating to others. Even our religious and monarchical national anthem, God Save the King, is exclusionary, lacking meaningfulness for nonbelievers and republicans.
A constitutional settlement based on Anglican supremacism is a non-starter for a country that aspires to be a beacon of freedom and equality. It's time we had a serious debate about the kind of country we want to be.
A version of this article was originally published by The Independent.
Iran protests are a reminder that the hijab is symbol of subjugation
Posted: Thu, 22nd Sep 2022
In a country where removing the headscarf is a punishable crime, women burning their hijabs deserve our solidarity.
Something at once heartening and deeply depressing is happening in Iran.
Amid a rising death toll, brave Muslim women are taking to the streets, burning their hijabs, and claiming their freedom not to wear them.
The protests erupted following the death of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Iranian Kurdish woman, shortly after being detained by the 'morality police' for allegedly not complying with the regime's strict hijab rules. Activists say Amini was beaten by police officers while in detention, causing her serious injuries that led to her death. Police deny the allegations.
Protests have since spread from the capital Tehran to at least 50 cities and towns nationwide.
Iranian authorities and a Kurdish rights group have reported rising death tolls. Amnesty International say security forces have used metal pellets, tear gas, water cannons, and beatings with batons to disperse protesters.
Ever since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, authorities in Iran have imposed a mandatory dress code requiring all women to wear a headscarf and loose-fitting clothing that disguises their figures in public. The law has been strictly enforced by Gasht-e Ershad agents, better known as the 'morality police', who have been have admonishing and terrorising women for decades.
Now the Islamic regime is rattled. To placate protesters, Iran's minister of culture, Mohammad Mehdi Esmaili, said on Wednesday the regime was already considering changing the morality police before Amini's death. "We recognise criticisms… and many of the existing problems will be addressed." The head of the morality police has reportedly been suspended from his post. But few will be reassured.
Meanwhile, the regime has placed restrictions on social media and there are signs that it may be poised to use even more force against protesters.
Despite often being touted as an expression of Muslim women's empowerment, the situation in Iran is a reminder that the hijab is symbol of subjugation. Iran's requirement that women – and only women – cover their head is rooted in the misogyny of the fundamentalist religion at the heart of the country's theocracy. It is misogyny that too many religious institutions, included some that are registered charities in the UK, are only too happy to promote in order to maintain the patriarchal status quo.
To wear a hijab or not should be a personal choice. For many Muslim women and girls around the world, it simply isn't. Choice can be restricted in many ways, through laws, coercion, or community pressure.
And in a country where removing the hijab is a punishable crime, the protestors deserve international support and solidarity. May their voices undermine theocracy in Iran and herald a new dawn for women's rights and freedoms.
Image from Isaac Nowroozi, via Twitter.
