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.
‘Islamophobia’ distracts from tackling anti-Muslim bigotry
Posted: Tue, 30th Nov 2021
We need to tackle anti-Muslim hate, but the politicised and problematic term of Islamophobia should be ditched, argues Nova Daban.
As we reach the end of 'Islamophobia Awareness Month' (IAM), the term 'Islamophobia' itself continues to generate endless debates, leaving it with no agreed definition.
Despite the term being used to describe prejudice and hateful attitudes towards Muslims, it has also been used to shield Islam from criticism, even hampering efforts to challenge extremism. The concept of Islamophobia risks creating a blasphemy code inimical to free speech and a secular liberal democracy.
There are several other terms that could be used to describe the verbal and physical abuse Muslims receive. Anti-Muslim bigotry or hatred, for example. Or even Muslimophobia. So why the insistence on a term that continues to be controversial and continuously fails to gain widespread support from civil society or the government?
IAM aims to "highlight the threat of Islamophobic hate crimes" and "showcase the positive contributions of British Muslims to society". Off the back of this there have been a couple of recent exchanges in Parliament about the failure to establish a working definition of the term. In a House of Lords debate, the government acknowledged that 45% of religious hate crimes were targeted at Muslims but warned that the term was being weaponised by groups to undermine free speech.
There is no dispute about the need to address anti-Muslim bigotry, but attempting to do so at the expense of freedom of expression will be counterproductive.
Another reason to be cautious around the IAM campaign is that they claim to have been co-founded by MEND. The organisation's former director of engagement Azad Ali has previously stated that the Islamist-inspired 2017 Westminster attack, in which Khalid Masood killed five people, was "not terrorism". He also described al-Qaeda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki in 2008 as "one of my favourite speakers" and spoke affectionately of him, stating "I really love him for the sake of Allah."
The term 'Islamophobia' arms Islamists with a weapon to attack anyone that criticises anything and everything related to Islam, from religious texts to misogyny and even terrorism carried out in its name. A very recent example of this is a Canadian school cancelling a Nadia Murad event because "it would foster Islamophobia". Nadia Murad, a Yezidi victim of ISIS, was enslaved and raped by the Islamist terrorists during their onslaught in Iraq and Syria. She describes the horror she faced at the hands of the Islamic State's brutality in a new book called The Last Girl.
For many Muslims, there is nothing more offensive than brutal terrorists attempting to hijack their religion and destroy its reputation. So why is it 'Islamophobic' to discuss terrorism, enslavement, and rape?
How far do we go in branding criticism of ancient and regressive religious and cultural practices as Islamophobic? Muslim-majority countries such as Syria, Algeria and Kazakhstan have banned full-face veils (niqabs and burqas) in certain contexts on the basis that they compromise security and symbolise discrimination against women. Suggesting anything along these lines in countries like the UK automatically leads to accusations of Islamophobia. Do you then stay consistent and call Muslims that support such moves "Islamophobic", or do you stop and think about why debates are also taking place in Muslim societies?
The hostility faced by many Muslims just trying to live their lives in peace should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. Anti-Muslim bigotry is real, and those championing human rights and a truly secular society should do more to fight it. We need to combat far-right terrorism that targets Muslims, such as the mosque attack in New Zealand. We must confront China's oppression of Muslims in Xinjiang. Muslims should not have to fear for their safety. But this is no reason to promote the double-edged sword of Islamophobia, which is politically loaded and polarising.
The UK government should resist pressure to adopt a working definition of 'Islamophobia' and come up instead with a strategy to tackle anti-Muslim bigotry. This will ensure we can tackle discrimination against Muslims, whilst keeping blasphemy codes at bay and keep everyone safe from extremism.
Don’t sacrifice the principle of universal human rights to religious leaders
Posted: Mon, 22nd Nov 2021
A recent report on state-sanctioned killings of 'blasphemers' and 'apostates' suggests re-interpreting Islam as a solution rather than promoting universal human rights. Megan Manson argues this is the wrong approach.
Last month Monash University released a report highlighting the appalling atrocities committed due to 'blasphemy' laws.
'Killing in the name of God: State-sanctioned violations of religious freedom' exams the twelve countries where 'apostasy' and/or 'blasphemy' are punishable by death*. Eleven of those countries have Islam as the state religion. The exception, Nigeria, has no state religion but the twelve Nigerian states in which blasphemy is punishable by death operate a sharia law system in parallel to secular courts. The death penalty is justified through statements in Islamic texts calling for those who change religion to be killed.
While actual executions for these 'crimes' are rare, the report explains how the death penalty for religious offences contributes to extrajudicial killings and killings by civilians and extremist groups.
For example, Pakistan pursues high volumes of prosecutions for blasphemy, but it has never conducted a judicial execution on this basis. The report suggested the combination of taking such a strict stance against blasphemy and failing to carry out death sentences encourages mobs and vigilantes to do the dirty work on behalf of the state. One victim of this approach was Tahir Naseem, an Ahmadi Muslim who was shot dead while standing trial for blasphemy last year.
The report also highlights how trumped-up charges of political and security-related offences are used to convict and execute religious minorities and dissidents. By adopting Islam as the state religion, the government can frame acts against religion as acts against the state.
'Killing in the name of God' is an important report and must be commended for raising the plight of those targeted by blasphemy and apostasy laws around the world. It does not shy away from explicitly demonstrating the link between Islamic theology, Islamic theocracy, and state-sanctioned killings.
What's less encouraging are the report's suggestions for ending these killings.
It says: "rather than framing advocacy in the language of human rights, a better alternative would be to work with pre-existing normative structure, such as promoting a contemporary understanding of Islam that rejects the retention of the death penalty".
The report advocates the involvement of faith leaders in this approach, stating that their role in campaigning for human rights "cannot be understated" and that as "respected figureheads and custodians of religion, faith leaders may be better positioned to inspire respect for human rights than those perceived as foreign."
The report concludes: "The Qur'an embraces religious freedom, and as we have shown, the abolition of the death penalty for religious offences is entirely compatible with its teachings".
No doubt the authors believe shoehorning human rights into an Islamic framework, rather than promoting human rights as a universal for all regardless of religion or belief, would be more palatable for leaders in theocracies such as Iran, which has challenged the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as "a Western concept of Judeo-Christian origin."
But by playing into these arguments rather than challenging them, 'Killing in the name of God' ignores the likely undesirable consequences of this approach.
For example, there are plenty of individuals and organisations in these countries who embrace the concept of universal human rights. These people are no more 'foreigners' in their countries than the Islamic fundamentalists, but suggesting their values are 'foreign' adds to their alienation.
Take Leo Igwe, founder of the Humanist Association of Nigeria. Igwe tirelessly campaigns on a wide variety of issues, including combatting 'witchcraft' persecution, defending LGBT+ rights, and speaking out for religious minorities. One of Igwe's most recent projects is to introduce lessons on critical thinking into Nigeria's schools.
In between all this, Igwe is fighting to get fellow campaigner Mubarak Bala (pictured) released from his imprisonment in connection with 'blasphemous' Facebook posts. This is not the first time Bala lost his freedom for expressing views that differ from Islam. In 2014 he was confined to a psychiatric hospital for not believing in God.
It's hard to see how the Islamocentric approach advocated by 'Killing in the name of God' can help Nigerians like Igwe and Bala. It would surely reinforce the divide between Nigerian Muslims and atheists – and the power the former has over the latter.
There are many more individuals in these countries who value the concept of human rights for all. The reason why we may not always hear their voices is obvious to anyone who's read the report – anyone who says anything that could be deemed in any way against Islam risks their very life. Surely the solution is to empower the voices of these grassroots activists, rather than trying to appeal to religious leaders who oppress them with watered-down, sharia-compliant versions of 'rights'?
Of course, human rights organisations have a role to play in ensuring those promoting more liberal interpretations of Islam which reject the death penalty, and even better reject the criminalisation of 'blasphemy' and apostasy' altogether, have the freedom to express this. But this does not require us to abandon universal human rights and secular democracy, or those striving to promote both in their own countries.
'Killing in the name of God' is an excellent report, and recommended reading for all those concerned with ending the death penalty for blasphemy and apostasy – and indeed the criminalisation of these concepts. But we should be extremely wary of any solution that elevates religion and religious leaders over universal human rights. Instead of dancing to the tune of theocrats, let's listen to those oppressed by them and let them be heard.
*Those countries are: Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
Picture via Humanists International
‘Inclusive language’ in the army is meaningless without inclusive culture
Posted: Mon, 8th Nov 2021
The Armed Forces must dismantle their institutional Christian privilege if they are truly committed to inclusivity, says Megan Manson.
This article is available in audio format, as part of our Opinion Out Loud series.
The Ministry of Defence has recently released an 'Inclusive Language Guide' (pictured). The guide promotes "using words that refer to everyone and avoiding words that exclude or offend".
On the face of it, the section on "Religion and Belief" looks promising. It offers sensible advice, such as not assuming a person's religion from their name or appearance, or their dietary preferences from their religion.
It's also focused on nonreligious beliefs. This is refreshing; nonreligious people are all too often neglected in conversations about religion or belief inclusion. The guide suggests, for example, using the term 'first name' instead of 'Christian name', and dropping the archaic term "morning prayers" for morning meetings.
This will no doubt be well-received by many nonreligious people in Defence – a demographic which is growing rapidly. The percentage of members of the Armed Forces who say they have no religion has shot up from less than 10% in 2007 to 34% in 2021.
But will a guide on speech truly make the army more inclusive of people of all faiths and none?
The Inclusive Language Guidance suggests the army is aware that prayers can be divisive and alienating for those who don't share in that tradition. It is therefore strange that while the guidance advises avoiding the word 'prayer' to refer to morning meetings, little has been done to address the actual prayer and religious services that are an inescapable part of life in Defence.
The Queen's Regulations for the Army (QRs), which set out the policy and practice of the army, were recently updated to specify that soldiers may not be compelled to attend acts of religious observance against their wishes. But this is negated by another clause in the regulations stating commanders may order a parade that includes a religious service which soldiers are expected to attend. In other words, soldiers who don't wish to pray must stand by silently while their comrades take part in the invariably Christian ceremony.
Such parades may include acts of remembrance, important occasions for all serving in Defence. While the Army General Administrative Instructions state that acts of remembrance should be "inclusive" and "separate religious elements from those that pay tribute to the fallen", in practice Christian prayers are still incorporated seamlessly into the proceedings with little separation.
The only way to avoid the religious parts is to not attend at all – and that is neither a realistic nor desirable option for personnel. Regardless of religion or belief, all soldiers want to take a full and active part in their unit's act of remembrance – but how can they do so when it is an act of worship?
Christian acts of worship pepper army life far beyond remembrance services. Units have their own 'corps collects', or prayers which mentions the unit. Army chaplains may be called upon to bless flags and ships. And 'passing out' parades for new soldiers may incorporate a Christian blessing, such as this one held by the Army Foundation College in February.
The only way to make military events truly inclusive of non-Christians is to remove Christian rituals from official proceedings, and so put Christianity on the same footing as all other religions and beliefs.
Another area of army life where Christian privilege is particularly acute is chaplaincy. Only ministers of a select group of eight 'sending churches', all Christian, may be chaplains (or 'padres') of regular army units.
When it comes to other religions, the Armed Forces have appointed religious leaders from the Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh faiths to act as "advisers on matters specific to those faith groups", according to its guidance on religion or belief. It says action "is being taken to appoint civilian Chaplains from the faiths other than Christian most represented within the Armed Forces."
But there is no equivalent 'chaplain' specifically for the nonreligious. The guide says: "Should non-religious personnel in the Armed Forces wish to discuss their beliefs or problems with someone other than chaplains, there are a wide range of non-religious organisations which provide support and advice, including social workers, doctors and other professionals."
In other words, personnel who require nonreligious pastoral support are told that the army will not help them and they must go elsewhere.
According to the Army's recruitment page, chaplains "join the Army as a Captain earning £48,999." It hardly seems inclusive to offer such a prestigious and well-paid role only to Christians for the benefit of Christians, and nothing at all for the nonreligious.
And in addition to chaplains, the army permits an evangelical Christian group, The Soldiers' and Airmen's Scripture Readers Association (SASRA), unfettered access to "to share the gospel within the gated communities where the Army and the RAF are based". SASRA states its charitable objects as "to spread the saving knowledge of Christ among the personnel of HM forces in any part of the world." In other words, SASRA has a specific proselytising agenda.
Christian privilege in the army not only adversely affects nonreligious personnel and those who belong to minority faiths. It also impacts soldiers who are LGBT.
The 'sending churches' include denominations notorious for their anti-LGBT views, including the Free Church of Scotland, Elim Pentecostal Church and the Salvation Army. As military chaplains are required to "set forth God's word at all times" according to the Royal Army Chaplains' Department, what does this mean for gay soldiers who come to the chaplain with relationship problems, for example? Will they receive impartial and non-judgmental counselling if the chaplain sees their lifestyles as sinful?
Then there is the issue of same-sex marriages on military premises. Those who wish to marry on barracks have no option but the military chapel – which is largely under the control of the sending churches, most of which object to same-sex marriage.
As a result, while there are 190 military chapels in England and Wales registered for marriages, there has only been one gay wedding in a military chapel since same-sex marriage was legalised in 2014. Because there are no secular provisions for weddings on military sites, gay personnel have no meaningful options but to marry on a civilian site.
There are some encouraging signs of policy change that may indicate the army is waking up to the problems caused by its Christian bias.
Previously, QRs in effect make it impossible for atheists to become commanding officers, because the regulations imposed a duty on commanding officers to "encourage religious observance by those under their command" and to "set a good example in this respect". The QRs also required soldiers to get permission to change religion and said the "reverent observance" of religion in the armed forces is of the "highest importance".
Following long campaigning efforts from armed forces members, the QRs have now thankfully been recently revised to remove these unfair and illiberal requirements from the regulations.
The Armed Forces are clearly concerned about inclusivity, and over the years they have made many changes to make themselves more welcoming to all.
But it's also clear Christianity still holds a disproportionate sway over what is an increasingly irreligious and religiously-diverse army. If our Armed Forces are sincere in their desire to be welcoming to all, inclusive language is not enough – bold action is needed to ensure personnel of all religions and none are treated equally and fairly.
With special thanks to Lt Col (Retd) Laurence Quinn for his contributions.
Lt Col Quinn has produced two reports on the issue of inclusion of the nonreligious in the army; you can read them here and here.
A vision for inclusive assemblies for all
Posted: Fri, 5th Nov 2021
Paul Stanley's work shows how much more inclusive and engaging school assemblies could be without the anachronistic legal requirement for religious worship, argues Sue Garratt.
My husband Paul Stanley was a schoolteacher for 12 years and a headteacher for 15. He died in September 2019 aged only 54. Despite being head of a large Church of England school, he was a staunch atheist and a long-term member of the NSS. Naturally, this led to much wrestling of conscience: it was not always easy juggling his professional duty with his firmly held beliefs that a school wasn't a religious community and no place for leading worship.
Paul ran countless school assemblies over many years. He saw value in a whole school community gathering together regularly to reflect on the many significant issues that he felt were important for children to understand. However, he found it unacceptable that schools, well into the 21st century, still have a legal obligation to implement a daily act of collective worship.
Although this may be widely ignored, he thought it anachronistic that it is still written in law, as well as being enforced and inspected in faith schools. Despite having a good relationship with the Church, Paul resented the implication and the expectation that he should be some kind of religious leader when he stood in front of the children for a whole school assembly.
It was, of course, very important to him to be a positive role model for the children in his care. He wanted to make them think about the world, and he was more than capable of doing this, and of furthering their learning, knowledge and understanding, their social and moral development, and their wonder and appreciation of the world around them without leading worship and without recourse to any god. He was always very clear that he didn't enter the teaching profession to be an advocate for any religion.
Paul understood that school aged children becoming ever more diverse and nonreligious meant that they were more likely to access the moral messages if they weren't taught using religion. He was also frustrated by the fact that most published assembly materials focused on religious references and prayers, so he spent many years creating his own.
In the autumn of 2018, when Paul's illness was first diagnosed, he decided to publish his collection of assemblies, hoping to provide a useful resource to reduce the burden on over-worked headteachers. A book deal followed just before he became too ill to work, and 'Assemblies for All' was published posthumously in March 2021.
The best of Paul's assemblies are gathered in this book which is aimed mainly at Key Stage 2 pupils. The many themes covered include: creativity, humility, peace, thankfulness, truth and promises, animal rights, service to others, justice and fairness, overcoming adversity, courage, trust, perseverance, and the importance of friendship. None of these of course has anything to do with worship or requires religion.
Paul saw a significant gap in the market for an engaging assembly resource book written by a serving headteacher and with all children's interests and needs at its heart. Paul felt that it was more important than ever that children examine such themes and values at a time when the school curriculum has, sadly, become 'squeezed', narrow and results driven.
When he died, tributes from the school community flooded in. Parents said he was empathetic, understanding, and honest. Pupils raved about his 'cool' assemblies, and described him as 'respectful, decent, supportive, kind, and caring to children'.
Paul knew what made children tick. His wealth of experience in schools, as well as his humanity and compassion, are apparent from his assemblies. Positive messages are emphasised, and global human issues are explored, in thought-provoking ways – and without wedging in any deity.
Paul made a huge difference to many people's lives over the years. I hope he will, through his book, continue to have an impact on even more children in the future.
Assemblies for All: Diverse and exciting assembly ideas for all Key Stage 2 children, £22.49
Image: Assemblies for All cover (cropped)
Islamist extremism won’t be addressed by ignoring it
Posted: Thu, 21st Oct 2021
The national conversation following the brutal killing of David Amess suggests an unwillingness to tackle the Islamic extremism behind it, argues Stephen Evans.
The brutal killing of David Amess, stabbed to death at his Essex constituency surgery last week, was a vile, cowardly attack on decency and democracy.
The utter senselessness and callousness of this killing makes it hard to comprehend.
MPs and commentators have understandably expressed shock and grief, taken time to remember a man who dedicated his life to public service, and reflected on his legacy.
But the national conversation around Sir David's killing has also taken a bizarre turn on the issue of what caused it.
In no time at all commentators were blaming the "toxic political discourse" and "social media internet trolls" who hide behind anonymity while spreading hate.
This certainly is an issue, but it doesn't appear to be the issue, not as far as this murder is concerned.
The crime is being investigated as a terrorist incident. The suspect, Ali Harbi Ali, a Briton of Somali heritage, appears to have links to Islamic extremism, and was previously referred to the counterterrorist Prevent scheme. The Crown Prosecution Service will submit to the court that the murder had both religious and ideological motivations.
Nevertheless, the conversation has remained fixed on social media abuse. It's almost as if the facts were inconvenient to the narrative, so have been ignored.
The only mention of Islam in the many moving tributes to David Amess in Parliament on Monday was in the context of 'Islamophobia'. Politicians appear keener to debate the definition of 'Islamophobia' than tackle Islamist extremism. Many seem more interested in undermining Prevent and making counter-radicalisation efforts as toothless as possible than advancing ways to keep society and those at risk of radicalisation safe.
This perhaps speaks to the troubling political influence of certain Muslim lobby groups who are more interested in peddling victimhood than addressing the issues of extremism within Islam.
We all need to be a bit less squeamish about this. Research last year found the majority of British Muslims are concerned about Islamist extremism and support the principles behind the Prevent programme. This isn't surprising. Muslims who see no contradiction between their religious identity and loyalty to British values so often find themselves at the sharp end of Islamist intolerance.
There's nothing 'Islamophobic' about addressing concerns shared by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
We must accept that the poison of Islamist extremism is prevalent in Britain and poses a real threat to our liberal values and fragile democracy. There is an enemy within. It's not Muslims; it's those who seek to use violence and threaten basic liberal values such as freedom and democracy. MI5 is aware of more than 43,000 people who pose a potential terrorist threat to the UK. Ninety per cent of the watchlist is thought to be made up of Islamic extremists.
The separatist ideology at the root of Islamist extremism is being preached in British mosques - more than half of which are now thought to be under the control of the puritanical and orthodox Deobandi brand of Islam. A new book by Ed Husain, Among the Mosques, paints an alarming picture of parallel societies developing in parts of Britain, fuelled by mosques preaching an illiberal Islam that not only promotes intolerance but also fosters extremism.
Meanwhile, Islamist extremists who preach hatred, sow division, and promote sectarianism have exploited a charity system that grants organisations charitable status on the basis that they exist for the 'advancement of religion', one of the charitable purposes set out in law.
One example is a charity which is now being investigated after the NSS recently referred it to the regulator. The charity's aims and objectives include "to further the true image of Islam". On its website we found sermons praising the Taliban, encouraging Muslims to fund jihadists, and referring to the "dirty qualities" of Jews.
Then consider that this year, in Batley, an intolerant minority of extremists protesting outside school gates dictated what can and can't be taught in British schools. A teacher was effectively hounded out of his job for using cartoons of a religious figure to teach about free speech and blasphemy. He now lives in fear for his life after facing death threats. The curriculum was changed while the government stood idly by, and so-called liberals quietly acquiesced.
Meanwhile, young minds are being closed in Islamic schools that promote sectarianism and segregation, whilst paying lip service to their duty to promote fundamental British values.
One reason why this is happening is because the few people willing to speak up about it are quickly dismissed as Islamophobic, a slur akin to racism, that can seriously damage reputations.
As far as politicians are concerned, these problems find their way into the 'too difficult' box: a place for all the unpopular subjects that governments and their civil servants aren't prepared to confront. So instead, lawmakers fixate on laws to crack down on speech and stop people being horrible to each other on the internet.
People should definitely stop being horrible to each other on the internet. And public servants must be free to do their jobs without fear and intimidation. But that alone won't address the myriad problems posed by radical Islam.
There was a moment in 2015, during David Cameron's premiership, when the government appeared determined to confront Islamist extremism by defending secular liberal democracy and building a more cohesive society. But many in positions of power now seem to have given up.
Never mind being willing to tackle the problem. The discourse following the killing of David Amess suggests we hardly seem willing to name it.
