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.
House of Lords makes politicians out of prelates
Posted: Fri, 12th May 2023
Religious leaders should be free to speak out on matters that concern them, but they should do so on the basis of equality, not privilege, argues Stephen Evans.
Justin Welby's recent intervention in the House of Lords debate on the Illegal Migration Bill has sparked much discussion about whether religion and politics should mix.
The archbishop of Canterbury attacked the government's legislation to stop small boat crossings (amongst other things) as "morally unacceptable". Referencing the Bible, he pointed out that Jesus taught us to "welcome the stranger".
Welby's speech provoked a predictable backlash from supporters of the bill. Conservative MP and member of the Home Affairs committee James Daly said: "The unelected archbishop should stick to religion and keep out of politics". Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson was so angry she said she could "cheerfully bop the nitwit on the mitre". Former cabinet minister Lord Forsyth suggested the archbishop should concern himself with "issues spiritual, rather than temporal."
But the fact is Welby is one of 26 bishops of the Church of England given seats as of right as lawmakers in our upper chamber. Their role as members of the 'lords spiritual' gives them direct influence in the secular realm of legislating, making politicians out of prelates.
Whether or not you agree with Welby on this issue, the archaic and unjustifiable arrangement that inserts Anglican clerics into our legislature needs to be addressed. It turns our parliament into a pulpit from which bishops can pontificate on any issues they choose – often in a self-serving way. For example, by imposing their theology through opposition to assisted dying or same sex marriage, or by promoting the use of publicly funded schools for proselytism.
Civil society groups, religious and secular, should be free to speak out on issues that concern them. But there's no good reason why Church of England clerics should uniquely enjoy a privileged platform in parliament to do so.
With the media focussing almost exclusively on the archbishop's intervention, you'd be forgiven for not noticing that scores of other members of the House of Lords lined up to voice strong opposition to the Illegal Immigration Bill, too – along with a coalition of 176 civil society organisations who called on parliamentarians to urge the government to immediately withdraw it.
The bizarre focus on a church leader finding government legislation "morally unacceptable" suggests we still believe a bishop's opinions carry greater moral weight that anyone else's. The idea that religious leaders have access to moral insights denied to the rest of us is as offensive as it is outdated. In the case of most organised religions, it is also demonstrably false.
It's this same outmoded and prejudiced attitude that keeps BBC Radio 4's 'Thought for the Day' ringfenced for religious ideas, Christian worship mandated at the start of school days, and prayers before parliamentary sittings.
Clerics in the legislature, like the heads of state's Christian coronation, is a medieval tradition that sits uneasily in a 21st century pluralistic secular democracy.
Constitutional reforms have often struggled to gain political saliency in modern Britain, but the Labour Party's next manifesto looks set to include plans to abolish the House of Lords, which would automatically take the bishops with it.
When we do finally get around to reforming our second chamber, explicit religious representation shouldn't feature. Practicalities aside, extending Anglican privilege to more faith and belief groups would simply fuel division and neglect the nonreligious and religiously unconcerned. Religious privilege should be ended, not extended.
But Justin Welby and other faith leaders are perfectly entitled to join other civil society organisations in trying to persuade decision-makers to hear and understand their point of view. It's a free country. But there's no reason to give them a privileged pedestal from which to do so.
Image: Roger Harris, CC BY 3.0
The coronation isn’t for us. It’s for the Church.
Posted: Tue, 2nd May 2023
As King Charles' coronation approaches, Megan Manson says we must stop letting the Church using our affairs of state to promote itself.
A coronation fit for a king, not a modern democracy
Posted: Thu, 27th Apr 2023
An exclusively Anglican religious ritual is no way to inaugurate a head of state in diverse Britain, argues Stephen Evans.
Whether in a republic, or in a constitutional monarchy like the UK, the investiture of a head plays an important role. It forms and reflects a nation's identity and can provide for a rare 'unifying moment' for all its citizens.
It is therefore regrettable that the crowning of King Charles will happen as part of an exclusively Anglican religious ritual.
It's long been thought that the upcoming coronation will be a more multifaith affair than the previous one. But this was always going to be a tall order. King Charles might have desired a more 'diverse' ceremony, but the Church of England had other ideas.
So, it seems the role of other faiths will be limited to performative subservience – Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and Jewish peers presenting the king with various bits and bobs of coronation regalia.
According to reports, Baroness Merron, a Jewish peer and former Labour MP, will bring the king one of the coronation robes. Lord Patel, a Hindu crossbench peer, will carry the sovereign's ring. Lord Kamall, a Muslim Conservative peer, will bring some bracelets. And Lord Singh, a Sikh crossbench peer, will bring him a glove.
Clerics from other faiths will form part of a "faith procession" but won't be asked to give any readings or blessings.
Such tokenistic gestures are a poor substitute for genuine inclusivity. The plans demean other faiths and – as is so often the case with multifaithism – completely neglect the nonreligious and religiously unconcerned.
This coronation, like all others, is intended to project and entrench Anglican supremacism and privilege. That's the whole point. The rest is window dressing.
The archbishop of Canterbury will be the one to place the solid gold crown on the king's head. Away from the public's gaze, he will anoint our head of state with holy oil, a part of the ceremony echoing the divine right of kings. The king will swear oaths to defend the Church of England's privileges and doctrine.
The whole affair is positively medieval and deeply anti-secular.
The coronation will not only seem outdated to many, within the context of modern Britain. It will also be inaccessible to many in terms of what it seeks to represent. The archbishop is understood to be giving the king 'religious guidance' on the theological significance of all of this, but many of us are likely to be suitably bemused and alienated.
The Church of England regards the coronation as a "unique missional opportunity". But the danger to monarchy is that the optics of a religious coronation will render it as irrelevant as the CofE is to many Brits. This is especially true of younger people, who regard the Church as out of touch on social issues such as same sex marriage and gay sex which are still regarded as sinful by the CofE. Recent polling found that 78% of those aged 18-24 aren't interested in the royal family. Just 3% of the same cohort describe themselves as Anglican.
Despite being an exclusively Anglican ritual and legally unnecessary, the coronation will be paid for by the UK government using taxpayer money – a situation not supported by more than half of Britons. The National Secular Society's freedom of information request as to the expected cost was met with a refusal to disclose by the UK government, but estimates suggest it will run to many tens of millions of pounds. Against the backdrop of the Church and the monarch's substantial wealth, Graham Smith of Republic has described the state funding of the coronation as a "slap in the face" for people struggling with the cost-of-living crisis.
Regardless of whether individuals support the idea of monarchy or not, a head of state's official accession should be inclusive and representative of the heterogeneous state they will be heading. A wholly Anglican coronation service is no longer capable of reflecting or responding to modern British society.
Many will no doubt be seduced by the spectacle of the coronation. The status quo and tradition will be defended by those who subscribe to British exceptionalism and quite like the idea of the UK still being a Christian country, including some minority faith leaders who benefit from the leg up that Anglican establishment can provide.
But King Charles is no champion of religious freedom. A genuine commitment to this important principle is inconsistent with the role of head of state being reserved exclusively for practising Christians. The monarch's religious titles of 'defender of the faith' and 'supreme governor of the Church of England' are underpinned by an assumption that all future monarchs will be believing Anglicans. This is statistically unlikely and runs counter to the concept of freedom of religion or belief.
The coronation exists to assert the Church of England's supremacy over the constitution, the monarchy, the state and its citizens. It's the ultimate privilege from which all other religious privileges flow.
A global audience will tune in to watch a ghost of what the UK once was, rather than what it has become. They may well marvel at the pomp and pageantry, but I bet they'd take equality and democracy over inherited power and religious privilege for themselves.
The role of head of state in a 21st century democracy should not operate like this. It betrays everything modern Britain should stand for. This coronation should be the last. And then the work to separate church and state should begin.
Hospital chaplains: unfair, unevidenced, unnecessary?
Posted: Thu, 20th Apr 2023
NSS research shows the NHS significantly cut real-terms chaplaincy spending between 2009 and 2021. This is a step in the right direction – but £29m a year is still far too much to be forking out on a religious service, argues Dr Alejandro Sanchez.
National Secular Society research has found that in 2020/21, the NHS spent £29.7m on chaplaincy. In absolute terms this is not dissimilar from the £29m spend in 2009/2010. When adjusted for inflation, however, this represents a 20.3% real-terms cut.
It would seem the NHS has deprioritised funding for chaplaincy – and this is no bad thing.
A new report from the Nuffield Trust says public satisfaction with the NHS has slumped to its lowest level ever since surveys began in 1983. Waiting times, staff shortages and inadequate funding are the top sources of dissatisfaction. Increasing NHS staff, making it easier to get GP appointments and improving waiting times for operations should be the top priorities, according to about half of those surveyed. There are several other priority areas identified, but chaplaincy, or even general pastoral care, are not among them.
The NSS has long questioned the wisdom of using the already over-stretched NHS budget on providing a religion-specific service with contestable health benefits. We don't deny that providing spiritual and pastoral care to patients is deeply compassionate act which brings comfort to people at their lowest. But when the NHS is struggling more than ever, is it justifiable to continue spending millions on what's first and foremost a religious activity?
Unfair
In 2020/21, the NHS employed 910 chaplains. Of the 460 that data was available for, over 78% were Christian. This is entirely incongruous with last year's census data which revealed England and Wales are minority Christian countries for the first time. If the NHS is to employ chaplains, it should, at the very least, ensure that they are representative of the population they minister to.
The overrepresentation of Christian chaplains comes as no surprise when one examines how chaplaincy roles are advertised. A 2020 report by the Network for Pastoral, Spiritual, and Religious Care in Health found Christian chaplains enjoy "unfair advantages", including job specifications that use Christian criteria such as "ordination and endorsement from a Christian authorising body." No wonder then that the Church of England was the only faith group to reject the findings of the report.
Unevidenced
There is no compelling evidence that spending more on chaplains results in better outcomes for patients. Previous NSS research examined whether NHS trusts that spent more on chaplaincy had better results as measured by two benchmarks. No statistically significant relationship was established between higher chaplaincy spend and either mortality rates or 'Standards for Better Health' – a measure of quality of service and use of resources. The report concluded that chaplaincy spending could be cut by £18m without detriment to patient outcomes.
With the NHS on its knees and staff morale at all-time lows, surely the system would benefit by reallocating the chaplaincy budget to employ over 1,000 more junior nurses. And the notion that junior chaplains may be paid £9,000 more than newly registered nurses cannot be right.
Unnecessary
The key attribute of any successful hospital chaplain is the ability to empathise with and relate to the patient in front of them. They must provide support to the patient in their hour of need in a friendly and non-judgemental way. Religiosity is in no way a pre-requisite of these skills.
In 2020, an Catholic NHS chaplain was accused of telling a gay patient he "should not be with his husband" and he "would go to hell". After his contract was ended for budgetary reasons, the chaplain in question said the NHS "were not prepared to tolerate having a chaplain on site who would not affirm what the Catholic church teaches to be a sin."
Furthermore, a 'Caring for the Hindu patient' leaflet, produced by the chaplaincy section of Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust, perpetuates hierarchical and discriminatory aspects of the Hindu caste system. It describes the Harijan caste as "the lowest Hindu caste (untouchables). Menstruating women and mourners can be seen as ritually unclean and therefore untouchable." By contrast, the Brahmin are the "highest Hindu caste".
While I am in no way suggesting that all chaplains foist religious dogma upon their patients, these cases certainly serve as a cautionary tale of the risk in mixing faith and healthcare.
What's perhaps even more disturbing is that chaplaincy opens the doors for those with more sinister agendas – such as Jehovah's Witness elders who want to ensure members of their congregation who happen to be hospitalised don't receive a blood transfusion, even if this means death.
In an increasingly diverse and irreligious society such as ours, it makes little sense to organise patients' pastoral care around religious identities. While it should remain the prerogative of religious groups themselves to fund religious care, the appointment of NHS pastoral support staff must become separate from the religious affiliation of the applicant. When considering how to reform the NHS for greater fairness, effectiveness and best use of limited public funds, chaplaincy must be one area up for review.
Special thanks to Dominic Wirdnam and Tom Shaw for their research into chaplaincy spending in the NHS.
Why are safeguarding experts fleeing the Catholic Church?
Posted: Tue, 11th Apr 2023
Experts appointed to tackle abuse in the Catholic Church are quitting their roles. Keith Porteous Wood says this demonstrates the dire mess the Church is in – and that justice can only be secured if secular authorities play their part in holding the Church to account.
Professor Hans Zollner, regarded as "one of the greatest experts" on clerical abuse in the Catholic Church and an "ambassador for safeguarding", has resigned from the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, despite his term of office still having two years to run.
This Commission was set up to advise the Pope on "the most opportune initiatives for protecting minors and vulnerable adults" and "to promote local responsibility in the particular churches".
Zollner (pictured) was appointed in 2014 by the Pope as one of the Commission's founding members. He resigned over concerns about the Commission's "responsibility, compliance, accountability and transparency" which every church institution, "let alone the [Commission], is bound to uphold." He also described the financial responsibility and accountability as "inadequate", saying it was "crucial that the Commission clearly show the use of funds in its work".
To the fury of the Commission's president Cardinal O'Malley, Zollner also went so far as to announce that he wanted to disassociate himself from the Commission because of urgent "structural and practical issues" including the Pope's decision to make the Commission subservient to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), formerly known as the Inquisition. The NSS has criticised the DDF's dubious role over safeguarding over many decades.
Baroness Hollins, who herself has resigned from the Commission, also criticised the DDF move. She considers it "anomalous to put safeguarding commission into the department that deals with allegations against priests given that its brief is to prevent abuse and to address the care and healing of victims/survivors."
Zollner said in his parting statement: "The protection of children and vulnerable persons must be at the heart of the Catholic Church's mission.
"That was the hope I and many others have shared since the commission was first established."
That he uses the past tense suggests he no longer thinks that this role is fulfilled by the Commission, or indeed by the Church as a whole.
That is a view we have long held. If the Church and the Pope took safeguarding seriously, the Pontifical Commission would be a gold standard. Instead it is a laughing stock.
The two abuse victims who were appointed at its inception have long since resigned in disillusionment, or worse. One "in protest" because "there was no collaboration with the Vatican".
The other, Peter Saunders, told me that the Pope showed no interest in the Commission whatsoever. On one day it sat, the Pope spent the whole day observing coffins being filed past him as some sort of commemoration, rather than attend the Commission's deliberations.
More recently there have been reports of the Commission running out of money so it could operate only on a skeleton basis, although the Vatican is known to have great wealth. Surely the Pope of all people would be the first to access to these funds, if he had the slightest interest in doing so. But on past performance, I doubt he has.
Instead the Commission has had to resort to hand outs from the Italian Bishops Conference. This body refuses all calls to institute a comprehensive independent inquiry of clerical abuse in Italy. It would be naïve to believe that their money will come without strings attached. It is not difficult to see why Zollner has thrown in the towel.
Baroness Hollins described Zollner "as a man of integrity [who] tells it how it is." In the whole of the Catholic Church, Zollner has been the only person of influence I have trusted during my work on clerical abuse of minors and he knew only too well of the many shortcomings, but had no power to even start to remedy them.
So where does that leave the Church on clerical abuse? In my view, incapable and unwilling to police itself on clerical abuse or to compensate victims fairly. It is a worldwide institution where criminality is endemic. And all too often civil authorities, even for example in supposedly secular France, give Church criminality a free pass.
The root cause of such abuse is the unchallengeable power of the hierarchy, or "clericalism". Pope Francis also accepts this, but is doing little if anything to limit it.
The most extreme example of this clericalism has been the hierarchy's refusal, on Francis' watch and presumably therefore with his agreement, to uphold the Vatican's obligations under the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child beyond the confines of the minuscule Vatican City State. It does so on the disingenuous pretext that it lacks the "capacity or legal obligation to impose the [obligations of the Convention] upon the local Catholic churches and institutions present on the territory of other States", despite the Pope's absolute power to appoint and dismiss bishops at will.
So, we have this massive worldwide organisation that is a law unto itself in which inquiry after inquiry confirms that sexual abuse of minors and vulnerable adults continues on a significant scale.
The only hope I can see of any improvements from within come from the growing calls for "synodality", for the laity to play a much greater role church governance, thereby limiting clericalism. The Church in Germany is leading the way on this and even considering changes to doctrine on homosexuality and celibacy in defiance of the Vatican. The synodical movement has been fuelled in part by the need to find a way to reverse the fast-emptying pews. But for such a movement to take hold on a significant proportion of the church will take decades or centuries.
So how else abuse in the church be tackled? There must be action from those outside the Church, as well as within.
First, the public and media can put pressure on state's justice and police to act decisively, without deference to religion, in rooting out abuse. This includes calling for independent state lawyer-led inquiries into clerical abuse, and NGOs submitting evidence to the Committee on the Rights of the Child about abuse on a country by country basis. NGOs should also publicise their findings to put pressure on member states to remedy shortfalls in their response to clerical abuse.
Second, statutes of limitation on criminal abuse and civil claims must be maximised or eliminated. This was one of the recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in England last year.
Finally, we must ensure that every state has a well-designed mandatory reporting law for abuse of minors that carries a criminal sanction.
We may already be seeing progress on the last point. Just last week, the home secretary announced a plan to introduce a legal requirement to report child sexual abuse in England. We'll be scrutinising these plans to ensure they are effective and do not make any concessions to religion – for example, it is crucial that, as in Australia, there are no exemptions for disclosure in the confessional.
What's more, the massive publicity over clerical abuse over many decades has reduced clerics' overbearing power over minors. Abusers any longer take it for granted that victims' accusations will not be believed.
There is still a long way to go to secure justice for victims and survivors of abuse in the Catholic Church. But as these developments demonstrate, pressure must come from states and the United Nations, as little can be expected from the Church.
