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.
All children should have the right to refuse circumcision
Posted: Fri, 25th Jun 2021
A judge has ruled that a boy who was taken into care shouldn't be subjected to non-consensual, non-therapeutic genital cutting. This is welcome, says Megan Manson - but every child should have similar rights.
A court has just ruled that a toddler taken into care should not be circumcised, despite the wishes of his Muslim parents.
A one-year-old boy known as "P" was removed from his parents at birth, following concerns about abuse. He was placed in the care of his maternal aunt and uncle, who are not Muslim and who have agreed to look after P throughout his life. In November, P's mother, with his father's support, sought the court's authorisation to have P circumcised before his second birthday. However, the local authority and the child's carers disagreed.
Justice Cobb concluded that the decision to circumcise P should be deferred until he is "able to make his own choice, once he has the maturity and insight to appreciate the consequences and long-term effects of the decision".
This ruling is very welcome. The judge has thankfully protected P's bodily integrity and his personal freedom of religion or belief, rightly siding with the local authority and P's aunt and uncle who think this decision should be for P alone when he is ready.
But there are some troubling elements in the judgment that suggest, had some of the circumstances of the case been different, the decision may have gone the other way. While it's a relief that the judge ruled in favour of P's human rights, parts of the ruling indicate the need to reconsider the place of infant circumcision in law and society.
#1 Why use a pro-circumcision doctor for expert evidence?
The judge used expert evidence from consultant urologist Altaf Mangera. Mangera is himself a Muslim, and it appears he was chosen specifically because he could "speak as to the religious importance and timing of the procedure". Unsurprisingly, Mangera gave the opinion that if the court feels P "should be raised as a Muslim child", his parents "should be given the same rights as all other Muslim families; which is to have a circumcision at a young age". Mangera also referred to the "suggested benefits" of circumcision.
To his credit, Mangera also acknowledged that there is "divided medical opinion" about the supposed benefits of circumcision, and said that if there was any doubt as to whether or not P would be raised Muslim, the court "may wish to delay the procedure".
But the fact that a urologist appears to have been chosen as an expert on the basis of his Islamic faith is a problem. Surely a urologist consulted to provide a medical opinion on circumcision should give just that, without any religious ideology attached?
It appears medical advice given to the local authority was rather different. The LA said it "defers to the medical advice in that unless it is medically necessary that [circumcision] is something that we would not support". This would suggest the local authority's advice took a considerably less favourable stance on infant circumcision.
#2 To what extent should the "strongly held views" of parents be considered?
The mother's representative argued that the parents' "strongly held views" should carry "considerable weight", which formed part of the judge's guiding principles in his ruling. But to what extent should these override the interests of the child?
As the judge pointed out, it is hard to ascertain P's wishes and feelings on the matter given that he is only a toddler. And yet we can draw reasonable conclusions from Mangera's description of circumcision as to how he would be likely to feel about the procedure.
Mangera said circumcision for young children requires them to be restrained; not something you would require in a painless and risk-free procedure, one imagines. The judge acknowledged that circumcision would be "painful and distressing to P for a number of days or weeks". For the operation typically used for children older than two, the "most difficult factor" to deal with is "fear of the injection or the procedure", and the recovery period "would be longer".
Furthermore, both parents expressed that they would like P to be circumcised now because later he may choose not to, as he would be "deterred by the likely pain and discomfort". The judge also acknowledged that circumcision later in life would "require greater cooperation from P".
It isn't hard to conclude from this that even though P is incapable of truly understanding the implications of circumcision or communicating his feelings, he would be unlikely to want to go through with it. It's also not hard to conclude that the parents want P to have the procedure now partly because he is incapable of resisting.
If evidence suggests that P is more likely than not to be distressed by a medically unnecessary and permanent procedure, and to refuse it as soon as he is old enough to do so, should the feelings of the parents really trump the child's?
#3 Does the Children Act need some revising?
Much of the judge's decision appeared to hang on Section 33 of the Children Act 1989, a piece of legislation designed to protect children's welfare. The specific section of the act quoted by the judge says:
"While a care order is in force with respect to a child, the local authority designated by the order shall not cause the child to be brought up in any religious persuasion other than that in which he would have been brought up if the order had not been made."
This is no doubt intended to prevent children from being indoctrinated into a religion different to that in which they were raised, which could create tension and hostility between parents and carers. However, P's case highlights problems with this law.
Although P has lived with non-Muslim carers since birth, Section 33 appears to place a duty on local authorities to ensure the carers raise P within his parents' Islamic religion. The carers have in fact been doing this; in contrast, P's parents have done nothing to support raising P in their religion, apart from insist that he be circumcised.
The judge said it is "important that P retains, and is allowed to develop an interest in, the profound and rich tenets of the Islamic faith". The word "retains" here in particular raises eyebrows. It assumes that P has somehow internalised the tenets of Islam by virtue of being born to Muslim parents. And what if, at a young age, P decides he isn't interested in Islam, or he prefers to emulate his aunt and uncle's beliefs? Does Section 33 still compel the local authority to continue teaching him about Islam, and prohibit the carers from letting P share in their beliefs? This would effectively inhibit children in care from exploring different beliefs and making up their own minds about what to believe.
Thankfully, the judge determined that Section 33 does not require the local authority to hand P over for circumcision. But things may have been different if P's parents were Jewish. The judgment noted that although P's circumcision may represent an important component of his religious heritage, circumcision is "recommended not obligatory" in Islam.
While circumcision may not be a central requirement in Islam, most Jewish sects consider it an obligation to circumcise baby boys, preferably when they are eight days old. Had P's parents been Jewish, would Section 33 have compelled the judge to rule differently?
It would be concerning if the degree to which circumcision is considered a requirement in a religious or cultural tradition is a factor in deciding whether parents should be permitted to circumcise their children. It would lead to people of different faiths being treated differently before the law. And it could potentially open the door to other harmful religious practices being permitted, if it can be demonstrated those practices are sufficiently central to religious teachings.
#4 The bigger picture: All children should be protected from non-consensual circumcision
P has escaped a painful, permanent and medically unnecessary procedure that is also risky. In the US, where most circumcisions are performed under clinical conditions, over 100 babies die from circumcision complications every year. And in 2011, nearly a dozen infant boys were treated for life-threatening haemorrhage, shock or sepsis as a result of non-therapeutic circumcision at a single children's hospital in Birmingham.
There's a deep disparity in the relevant laws protecting children. Girls are protected from all forms of genital cutting, even forms less invasive than typical male circumcision, by the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. But there are no laws that protect boys from unwanted cutting to their genitals.
This disparity even led to contradictory remarks in the judge's ruling. He said the court will be "slow to conclude that a parent faithfully striving to follow the teachings of their religion is acting unreasonably", but also said it "can never be reasonable parenting to inflict any form of FGM on a child". Parents who do cut their girls' genitals frequently cite perceived religious obligations as the justification. So why do we treat male and female genital cutting differently?
The bottom line is this: nobody, regardless of sex or religious background, should be subjected to non-therapeutic genital cutting without their express consent. Certainly, no child should undergo such a procedure while they are too young to give informed consent.
P has been allowed to grow up and make the decision to retain or lose his foreskin when he is old enough to do so. All boys should be allowed the same choice. We shouldn't question the right of parents to circumcise their children only when a dispute arises – we should question it in every single case.
Image by Esi Grünhagen from Pixabay.
Evidence and compassion should trump dogma in assisted dying debate
Posted: Thu, 24th Jun 2021
As politicians again grapple with assisted dying, we should beware attempts to impose a religious worldview on those who want the option of alleviating their suffering, argues Stephen Evans.
Bills to legalise assisted dying have again been lodged both at the Scottish and Westminster parliaments, raising hopes of a political breakthrough.
In Scotland, proposals to introduce the right to an assisted death for terminally ill, mentally competent adults have been brought forward by Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur, with the support of a cross-party group of MSPs. Meanwhile, the UK parliament will soon consider a private member's bill from crossbench peer Molly Meacher to "legalise assisted dying as a choice for terminally ill, mentally competent adults in their final months of life".
By her own admission, Baroness Meacher's bill is "modest in its scope". Two independent doctors and a High Court judge would have to assess each request, which if granted would enable a terminally ill person with six months or less left to live, to end their life in a manner, time and place of their choosing.
Despite the bill's narrow scope and stringent safeguards, it is likely to face dogged opposition, with organised religion leading the charge.
Some of that opposition is likely to come from a new all-party parliamentary group on "dying well", set up to "stand against the legalisation of assisted suicide" and "promote access to excellent care at the end of life".
The group's website makes no mention of religion. But it's striking that the vast majority of its officers appear to be committed Christians.
Beneath all their secular rationale against assisted dying, is there perhaps a desire to impose a Christian worldview on the general populace?
Legal reforms to allow choice at the end of life can be seen as part of the much larger struggle against religious authority and the idea that life and death are for God alone to determine.
If you think God is (or should be) supremely in control, the societal shift towards respect for individual autonomy may be problematic. But in a secularised society, biblical perspectives and faith-based 'sanctity of life' arguments hold little sway. As the former second church estates commissioner (the parliamentary go-between between church and state) Caroline Spelman complained during the 2015 House of Lords debate on assisted dying: "The view that life is a gift from God with all that it entails, including pain and suffering, and that it is not for us to bring it to an end, is perceived to be at odds with the prevailing view of our rights, including a perceived right to end our own life." Therefore, religious opponents of assisted dying increasingly cite secular 'slippery slope' concerns instead, warning of widespread abuse of vulnerable people.
Such concerns may be legitimate but can surely be addressed by carefully thought through safeguards – tried and tested elsewhere, in other jurisdictions where forms of assisted dying are permitted. There's space for reasonable discussion over the impact of these safeguards and how far they should reach. But where politicians doggedly insist that it's impossible to apply them, it suggests an unwillingness to respect individual autonomy in any circumstances. This is a hallmark of attempts to impose a religious agenda on those who don't share it.
Faith-based opposition to assisted dying also leans heavily on improvements to palliative care, arguing that better 'end of life' care means nobody need die an agonising, drawn-out, undignified death. But as My Death, My Decision's campaign policy director, Phil Cheatle, has pointed out: "Palliative care is a wonderful service that helps many people – and could help even more with increased funding. But even the best palliative care cannot help in all situations." An insistence that it can may again be an indicator that religious objections are at the root of the opposition.
Organised religion has long been a barrier to progressive reforms. The last time assisted dying was considered in Westminster, the archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, the archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols and the chief rabbi Ephraim Mirvis led a multifaith coalition of faith leaders in opposing the bill.
But as with many other ethical questions, such as reproductive rights, the pontifications of religious leaders are often at odds with the views of those in the pews.
A Populus survey commissioned in 2019 found that 80% of religious people supported the legalisation of assisted dying for terminally ill adults with mental capacity. And a recent poll found that 53% people of faith felt religious leaders were wrong to campaign against the last assisted dying bill, while just 22% felt it was right.
And now, a new 'religious alliance for dignity in dying' has been formed to challenge the perception that religious people are universally against assisted dying.
The group's chair, Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, said: "We must puncture the myth that religious people oppose assisted dying. Anti-choice religious leaders and groups don't speak for the majority. We must work together to make the compassionate case for assisted dying."
The former archbishop of Canterbury George Carey is also part of the alliance. He says he's "painfully aware" that he's out of step with other Christian leaders "although, ironically, in step with the vast number of Christians who see the need for change".
As polarised as we may sometimes appear as a society, there is broad consensus on assisted dying.
Religious and non-religious people may find themselves torn between the instinct to sustain life and the wish to alleviate suffering. But as citizens and lawmakers grapple with these important questions, we need to ensure we're being guided by evidence and compassion, rather than religious dogma.
This isn't easy to guarantee in a country so steeped in religious privilege – where bishops enjoy seats as of right in the legislature, faith leaders are routinely treated with deference by the media and schools exist to promote religious worldviews.
Everyone should of course have their say. But religious leaders don't have a monopoly on morality. And we should beware attempts to impose their view of morality on those who want the option of an assisted death.
Image: Photographee.eu/Shutterstock.com.
The expansion of Catholic influence at St Mary’s University threatens academic freedom
Posted: Fri, 18th Jun 2021
A pro-vice chancellor's remarks suggest the governance of St Mary's University, Twickenham is heading in an inappropriate direction. This shows the need to oppose religious control of universities, says Keith Sharpe.
In introducing his recent bill to defend freedom of speech in universities the secretary of state for education, Gavin Williamson, spoke of the "chilling effect of censorship", expressing concern about 'cancel culture' and 'deplatforming' as a means of limiting freedom of expression.
I have previously drawn attention to the 15 publicly-funded faith universities in the UK. The governing bodies of these universities are dominated by ex-officio members of a church rather than individuals appointed according to Nolan principles of public service. How can a governing body chaired by and comprised primarily of individuals whose first allegiance is to the doctrines of a particular religious organisation be confident that this does not influence the values of the university they govern?
One way in which the governors of faith universities can limit freedom of speech and introduce religious censorship is in the appointment of their vice-chancellor, requiring candidates to be practising members of the church which dominates the institution's governance. This not only excludes many able candidates who do not share the governors' beliefs, but implies an intention to shape that institution in accordance with the governors' own particular religious doctrine.
This potential risk now seems to have become a reality, at least in one faith university. Francis Campbell was appointed vice-chancellor of St Mary's University, Twickenham in 2014 and set about making the university properly Catholic. In a recent podcast in the Spectator series 'Holy Smoke' the pro-vice chancellor for academic strategy at St. Mary's, Professor John Charmley who was appointed by Campbell, explained exactly what properly Catholic means.
First, a new post of 'director of Catholic mission' was created to promote Catholic doctrine amongst the staff and students because everybody needs to understand that "we are all children of God" and because St Mary's must work "to revive and serve the church". This is utterly inappropriate. It is not the business of any university maintained at public expense to "serve the church" or to promulgate particular belief systems. Furthermore, such a limited view of the purpose of publicly-funded education countermands the government's policy of enhancing access and participation from all parts of society.
Second, and perhaps more astonishingly, Professor Charmley went on to say that he wanted Catholic values to be embodied "in all disciplines", not just Theology. "It is our role to emphasise the eternal verities," he declared.
This is deeply worrying. The 'eternal verities' Professor Charmley refers to are not evidenced truths; they are 'revealed' truths - the doctrines of his church, such as the divinity of Jesus Christ. The university seems to be expecting all lecturers to interpret and present their subject matter in the light of Catholic doctrine. How would this imposition distort teaching and research in history or literature, for example, or biology and human evolution? In the 21st century every university should be a place of independent and free inquiry in which students are taught to think for themselves and challenge conventional wisdom based on evidence, and in which all are at liberty to pursue knowledge and truth openly without constraint.
In contrast, Professor Charmley seems to favour sustaining particular doctrines that he and the governors of St Mary's hold dear. Free speech in universities requires that academics and scholars can express unorthodox views and do not have to comply with any doctrine. Indeed, registration by the Office for Students requires that academic staff at an English higher education provider have freedom within the law to "question and test received wisdom" and "put forward new ideas and controversial and unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy". It does not seem that St Mary's intends to meet these conditions.
The governors at St Mary's, and senior staff such as Professor Charmley, appear to place allegiance to the doctrines of their church above their duties to the university for which they are responsible. These policies should be recognised for what they are and resisted by staff and students alike. They should also be reviewed by the Office for Students, to protect academic freedom and freedom of speech in our universities.
Image: Statues overlooking the park at St Mary's University, Twickenham. © AndyScott, via Wikimedia Commons [CC BY-SA 4.0]
Charity law shouldn’t enable misogyny
Posted: Thu, 17th Jun 2021
A Christian organisation which pushes misogynistic messages, including by blaming women for rape, has registered as a charity. This highlights a widespread problem which needs legal reform to address, says Megan Manson.
A religious organisation that says "female trousers are the uniform of harlots" has just become a registered charity.
Holiness Revival Movement Worldwide Europe (or 'Horemow Europe') is a Christian organisation that registered with the Charity Commission for England & Wales at the end of May. And it has a real problem with women who wear trousers.
One of the many anti-trouser rants on its website by Pastor Paul Rika says "women wear trousers because of the spirit of whoredom" and that if a woman wears "a godly skirt or gown, it does not entice or seduce any man".
The tone of the blog goes from ridiculous to creepy. Pastor Rika says wearing trousers helps women "to market her commodity to get the opposite sex aroused as they view the shape of her private part" and enables "their buttocks to appear bare, tight and seductive."
If that wasn't sinister enough, Rika continues: "Because men are naturally moved by what they see, the tendency is for them to be aroused when they see a woman in trouser (sic) walk by.
"With the exception of a few that can resist such a pull, their minds will be on what their eyes have fed on and they will continue to think about the private part of that women."
These statements already have the trappings of 'rape culture' – they promote the idea that women should dress 'modestly' because of the uncontrollable feelings of sexual desire they may otherwise induce in men. But in case there was any doubt, a tract on the website explicitly blames women's fashion choices for contributing to rape:
"What does it mean to look sexy anyway? It is simply to appeal for or suggest sex by the way you dress and apply make-up. No wonder there is increase in rape today and people are not addressing the real problem. You who dress like this is a strong contributor to the problem."
Unfortunately, Horemow Europe is by no means the only charity promoting misogyny.
Several other charities perpetuate deeply sexist stereotypes - including by encouraging women to stay at home and do what their husbands tell them. For example:
Croydon Mosque and Islamic Centre
A pamphlet on this charity's website says that women generally shouldn't leave their home, but if it becomes necessary (and they have their husband's permission) to do so, they should "cover everything from their head to their feet". A woman out in public should also "refrain from raising her voice unnecessarily" and her burqa "should not be decorated or attractive".
Newton Evangelical Church
A sermon on this charity's website entitled "Raising Godly Boys and Girls" tells women that "if you're blessed with a husband it means submitting to him" and being a wife "involves working at home and being kind". This charity registered this year.
The Christadelphian Sunday School Union
This charity is a Sunday school for children. One of the worksheets on its website says a woman "is subject to her father, and then to her husband". It also says: "If we are honest, most women are better than men at preparing an ecclesial supper, talking to children and old people etc. and men are, in general, better at most of the more leading roles. We should all delight in what we can do and get on with it."
Another worksheet says "We see that wives should submit to their husbands, in the same way as we should all submit to Christ".
Elsewhere it gets worse. Several Islamic charities have hosted or signposted material that endorsed or condoned violence against women. These have only been taken down after the National Secular Society raised concerns with the Charity Commission:
Ghamidi Centre of Islamic Communication
A lecture on this charity's website entitled "The Right to Beat Wives" said it was acceptable for a husband to "punish" his wife if she challenged his authority, provided it did not "leave any sign of wound" on her. This charity was registered in December 2020.
IslamBradford
This charity's website linked to an external site called 'Islam Question & Answer' on its 'Resources' page. Islam Question & Answer says the "many benefits" of female genital mutilation (FGM) include taking away "excessive libido from women" and reducing "excessive sensitivity of the clitoris" which is "very annoying to the husband, especially at the time of intercourse."
Thamesdown Islamic Association
This charity's website hosted a book, Kitabun Nikah by Hadrat Maulana Muhammad Ibrahim and Palampuri Sahab, which said a husband was allowed to subject his wife to "mild hitting". It also appeared to condone marital rape by implying a wife cannot refuse sex with her husband: "When a man calls his wife to fulfill his desires, she should come to him although she may be near a stove (cooking)."
The book also said Allah had "granted the males authority over females"; it was a husband's "responsibility" to "keep in check the character of the wife"; and a husband should "immediately caution" his wife if he found her "freely mixing and conversing with the servants of the house or other strangers".
Finally, Kitabun Nikah instructed husbands: "If the wife is literate, she should be encouraged to study Islamic literature. Never permit her to read novels, comics and other harmful literature."
Serving a genuine public benefit is a fundamental requirement to become a charity. Promoting the subjugation and abuse of women does the very opposite. It is bizarre that on the one hand, there exist so many charities set up to support women who are victims of domestic violence, FGM and rape, while on the other the Charity Commission continues to register charities that fuel the misogyny at the root of these crimes.
While in many of these cases the commission has intervened and stopped religious charities promoting misogyny, the fact that new charities advancing the same ideas continue to register regularly demonstrates that the situation is unsustainable. Under the law as it stands the commission is left trying to play whack-a-mole, which is inefficient and unreliable.
Meanwhile the more fundamental problem remains unaddressed: organisations can become charities - with all the tax benefits and public recognition this brings - solely on the basis that they are 'advancing religion'.
That's exactly what these charities are doing – they are advancing widely-held religious ideas that women belong under the control of men, as justified by interpretations of religious texts.
It's high time we rejected the outdated assumption that 'advancing religion' is inherently beneficial and therefore a charitable activity. All charities, religious or not, should be expected to uphold the rights and dignity of women. In the UK in the 21st century, this surely isn't a big ask.
The NSS has written to the Charity Commission this week to raise concerns over the registration of Horemow Europe.
The PM's Catholic wedding shows the need for a church-state divorce
Posted: Wed, 9th Jun 2021
In light of his Catholic wedding, Boris Johnson has handed over the duty of advising on the appointment of bishops. Megan Manson asks why the prime minister should have any business in church affairs in the first place.
A head of government will no longer advise the state religion on appointing its clerics because he got married according to the rites of a different sect.
It's a story we might expect from a distant, troubled theocracy. But it's exactly what's happened here in the United Kingdom following Boris Johnson's surprise Catholic wedding.
The wedding, coupled with Johnson's infant baptism into Catholicism, means one can convincingly argue he is a professing Catholic. And according to the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, nobody "professing the Roman Catholic religion" may advise the crown "directly or indirectly" in the appointment of Church of England bishops.
Thanks to reforms introduced when Gordon Brown was prime minister, when there's a vacancy for a bishop the prime minister no longer chooses nominations for bishops from a list. The PM's job is to pass a name which is pre-chosen by the Crown Nominations Commission to the queen. But as Joshua Rozenberg has argued, it still seems fair to say this constitutes advising the crown on the appointment, at least "indirectly".
If Johnson continued doing this, he could face being found guilty of "a high misdemeanour, and disabled for ever from holding any office, civil or military, under the crown". So understandably lord chancellor Robert Buckland (a practising Anglican) is taking on the job instead to avoid any potential legal cases.
The whole fiasco raises uncomfortable points about the established church's impact on our democracy.
The first point is that anti-Catholic bigotry still lingers on the statute books. The law barring Johnson from advising on bishops is explicitly anti-Catholic – a prime minister belonging to any other faith, or one of no faith, could perform this duty without breaking the law. As one No 10 source said: "It's an incredibly anachronistic thing that a Jew or a Muslim could nominate a bishop but not a Catholic."
It's by no means the only example of anti-Catholicism at work in our state. Catholics are explicitly prohibited from becoming the monarch. Indeed in 2018 Princess Alexandra of Hanover lost her place in the line of succession after deciding to become a Catholic. The coronation ceremony also has anti-Catholic overtones. The anti-Catholic discrimination within our constitution is completely at odds with our supposed values of equality and tolerance. It surely does nothing to alleviate entrenched sectarian divisions and resentment, particularly in Northern Ireland and Scotland. And it weakens our ability to speak out against state-endorsed oppression of religious minorities in other countries, such as Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan.
And perhaps the more obvious point is: what business does any government minister have in appointing bishops? It makes about as much sense as the PM advising on the next chief Druid, or the next England captain.
The state's role in appointing bishops exposes weaknesses in our constitution when antiquated laws clash with the realities of the 21st century UK's pluralistic society. It also creates a convoluted process for the church - which would arguably be better served by disestablishment, as it would have the independence to pursue its mission without state interference.
The relationship between the head of government and the bishops serves as a reminder of the bishops' unique position within parliament. Twenty-six C of E bishops are granted specially reserved seats in the House of Lords as of right. Iran is the only other country to automatically grant seats to clerics in its legislature. The Anglican bishops wield power both in terms of their ability to vote on issues ranging from abortion to same-sex marriage, and their access to key decision-makers in the corridors of Westminster. Their presence in the House of Lords is an anti-democratic elephant in the room.
Handing the job of advising on bishops over to Buckland saves the government from the task of tackling these knotty problems. It's a fudge, and it's one that will probably work for the time being.
But other fudges made to accommodate the established church are getting harder to ignore - and have a more direct impact on people in Britain. Consider, for example, why one third of our state schools are (mostly C of E) faith schools, and why we have laws requiring Christian collective worship in all state schools. In the increasingly irreligious and religiously diverse society of the UK, the discriminatory nature of faith schools and collective worship stands out like a sore thumb.
Once again this stems back to the church's ties to the state. This is all made possible thanks to the raft of exemptions put in the Equality Act 2010 in order to avoid the question of religion in schools. During the drafting of the act the Joint Commission on Human Rights, which played a key role, recommended the government "revisit" the collective worship law. It also pointed out the incompatibility of allowing faith schools to discriminate on religious grounds in their admissions criteria.
But rather than tackle this issue head-on by challenging the Church of England's role in state education, the government opted to create exemptions in the act that would give the church and other religious organisations free rein to discriminate against children on the basis of religion or belief. It opted for a fudge, to prop up the status quo and to avoid confronting the more challenging, fundamental problems caused by the relationship between church and state.
Over half the British population have no religion. Little more than 10% are affiliated with the Church of England, including only one per cent of 18-24 year olds. Prior to the pandemic less than two per cent of the population regularly attended C of E church services. With every passing day the UK is outgrowing the established church, whose privileged place in our democracy looks increasingly unsustainable.
The problems caused by Johnson's apparent Catholicism acutely highlight the conflict between the ancient codes directly flowing from the establishment of the church, and the modern concept of human rights and equality for all. There is simply no getting away from the fact that you cannot simultaneously have a state religion, and a democracy that treats all citizens of all religion and belief backgrounds equally. The problems the PM's marriage has highlighted should prompt divorce proceedings between church and state.
Image: 10 Downing Street, OGL 3, via Wikimedia Commons
