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.
Homophobic churches and liberal states make for unhappy bedfellows
Posted: Mon, 27th Mar 2023
Parliament should begin the process of disestablishment rather than try to fix the Church of England, argues Stephen Evans.
A recent exchange in parliament revealed the incongruity of a state church in a liberal democracy.
Last week, a group of respected parliamentarians brought forward a bill to allow for same sex marriage in the Church of England. Unlike other religious organisations, the Church of England is explicitly banned from holding same sex marriages by parliament. This arrangement was part of a 'quadruple lock' to protect the Church from potential legal challenges when same sex marriage was legalised. This was felt necessary because, again, unlike other religious organisations, the CofE is legally obliged to marry all those who reside within a parish. There was clearly a tension between this duty and its opposition to same sex marriage.
The Same Sex Marriage (Church of England) Bill would simply enable CofE clergy to conduct same sex marriages on Church of England premises, if they choose to do so, without breaking the law of the land. This would clearly advance the religious freedom of Anglicans who support same sex marriage and see no conflict between that and their faith. The CofE's official doctrine would remain its own affair. On that basis, this is a bill worthy of support.
But by Ben Bradshaw's own admission, the intent behind the legislation is to nudge the CofE in the direction that the bills proposers want it to go. The Church's established status is being used as leverage to get the Church to adopt a more inclusive doctrine, consistent with the parliamentarians' own worldview.
This is legitimatised by virtue of the Church being established by parliament and subservient to it.
But it's this archaic arrangement that parliament ought to address, rather that the Church's doctrine. Establishment strikes at heart of the enlightenment principles of separation of church and state and freedom of religion or belief.
Prejudice against homosexuals is no longer socially acceptable in modern Britain. Religious organisations that display such prejudice are increasingly experiencing pushback when they interact with the state, through public funding or service provision such as the running of schools. Quite right, too. Attempts to impose homophobic doctrine with public money shouldn't be tolerated.
The Church of England's problem is that it doesn't just interact with the state, it's part of it. Our head of state is its Supreme Governor; its bishops are appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister and enjoy seats as of right as lawmakers in the House of Lords. It runs thousands of state funded schools.
Speaking in support of his bill, Ben Bradshaw said with the privileges of establishment "comes a duty to serve all citizens equally".
The secular state should absolutely serve all citizens equally, but is that a realistic expectation for religious organisations with a doctrine to uphold? Bradshaw's view echoes the Church of England's own untenable vision it has for itself as being a "Church for the whole nation".
Those days over. The concept of a state church in a nation characterised by its religious, racial and sexual diversity is absurd.
The Church of England is in the business of 'proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ'. That's fine for those that want it, but it isn't a mission that accords with vast swathes of the British public.
According to the 2021 census, the number of us ticking the Christian box has fallen to less than 48%. The proportion of the population identifying as Anglican is down to just 12%. Fewer than 1% of the population attend Anglican services on any given Sunday. And 52% of the public say they do not regard themselves as belonging to any religion.
We're clearly not a Christian Country. The case for dismantling the CofE's relationship with the state is now overwhelming. Parliamentarians would do well to acknowledge this and establish a commission to untangle the ties that bind.
For the time being, such an untethering isn't something most within the Church are keen to contemplate. Particularly the bishops who enjoy the power and prestige that establishment brings. But perhaps they could be persuaded.
Opposing Bradshaw's bill, Andrew Selous MP, who represents the CofE in parliament, gave the impression that the Church was somewhat envious of the independence of other faiths.
Selous said: "Freedom of the Church of England to decide its own doctrine, a freedom that members from all parts of this House champion for religions and beliefs all over the world and one that we should therefore apply equally to the Church of England."
He said several Catholic MPs have told him how grateful they were that parliament was not "telling their Church what to do".
Well, there's a reason for that – their church isn't the state church and isn't answerable to parliament.
The Church of England can't have it both ways. To expect the all the status and privileges of establishment with all the independence of other religions and denominations is a classic example of having one's cake and eating eat. If the Church of England is disestablished, parliament will have no legitimate right to intervene. And that's the way it should be.
I wish those trying to build a more inclusive church well. It's worthy work, but it's not the job of the state – or at least it shouldn't be.
Clearly an officially homophobic institution has no business being the state church. But ultimately, it's not just the Church's prejudice that should be consigned to history, it's the whole concept of an established church itself.
Parliament’s rift with the Church shows the need to separate religion and state
Posted: Thu, 23rd Mar 2023
MPs dismayed over the Church of England's position on homosexuality are pushing for legislation to permit the Church to marry same sex couples. This throws the traditional arrangement between church and state into serious question, says Keith Porteous Wood.
Almost unnoticed, the closest we have ever come during my decades with the National Secular Society to a skirmish between the House of Commons and the Church of England came on 21 March over the Same Sex Marriage (Church of England) Bill. If passed it would enable the solemnisation of marriages of same sex couples by the Church, but only by clergy who wished to carry them out.
On one level the fight was over nothing; it was a ten minute rule debate, allowing the proponent to make their case for ten minutes and an opponent – in this case the Church – ten minutes to oppose it. Such bills rarely become law.
But this one just might, given that the Commons at least is losing patience with the Church over what it sees as its continued discrimination against same sex couples by refusing to marry them.
After spending decades kicking the proverbial can down the road avoiding a decision for decades, the latest Synod decided 60% to 40% against permitting same sex marriage. It opted instead to reaffirm traditional opposite sex marriage but allow couples in a same sex marriage to be blessed (but not the union itself). The decision has angered both same sex marriage opponents and proponents, including the House of Commons.
The support for this bill, symbolic or not, was as impressive as it gets: the maximum allowed number of sponsors from across the House including the longest-serving female and male members. And seemingly many more would have sponsored it if had they been able.
Parliament set precedents for influencing the Church in this way when first women priests, then women bishops, were introduced. In both cases Synod relented before long, surely realising the alternative (such as it is facing now) would be far more damaging.
However, it is not a case of Parliament needing to be patient while the Church gets its house in order as it had been with women priests and bishops. There is no realistic prospect of the Church changing its mind on same sex marriage anytime soon, as this would need a two thirds majority in Synod, including two thirds of the bishops. This time only one out of 41 voted in favour.
The response from the Church's representative Andrew Selous showed the Church is taking the bill seriously and sought to throw everything but the kitchen sink at Parliament. You could almost hear the barrel of arguments being scraped. He opined that the bill "seeks to usurp the role of the democratically elected General Synod of the Church of England, as well as to remove the freedom of the Church of England to decide its own doctrine, a freedom that members from all parts of this House champion for religions and beliefs all over the world and one that we should therefore apply equally to the Church of England."
In so doing he equated the democracy of the Synod of his Church, whose regular Sunday attenders do not even reach one per cent of the English population, to democracy electing members of Parliament. He implied that the Church could determine any doctrine, presumably even when thought abhorrent by Parliament; that the Church's established status brings with it no responsibility to reflect the country's perspectives. I do not accept his claim that that this legislation impinges on religious freedom; it is permissive so no clergy are compelled to do anything they do not wish to do.
It comes to something when Peter Bottomley, Father of the House, told the Church representative in a recent debate that "this House will not put up with being held up by one third of one part of the General Synod … [and that] the enabling Act of 1919, which established a General Synod can be amended".
Is it not incredible that so many of the great and the good lent their support to this bill which opposes current doctrine but even more significantly rips up the convention of nearly fifty years that Parliament leaves the Church to initiate legislation involving itself? This is Parliament saying, "if you can't get this right, we will do it for you".
The Church should take note, but it seems incapable of doing so. A reportedly "tearful" Archbishop of Canterbury was intransigent, telling Synod last month that "MPs should not influence church on same-sex marriage" and that "he will ignore threats of parliamentary intervention to force the Church of England to allow same-sex couples to marry in church."
Dr Welby is of course at liberty to ignore "threats of parliamentary intervention", whether or not doing so is in the interests of the organisation he leads. But ignoring threats does not make them go away. Parliament is the ultimate power over these issues, as he may yet be compelled to accept, unless he opts for disestablishment. Then Parliament should and would withdraw any intervention and the CofE would be as free as any other church to do as it wishes within the confines of the law.
Image by Bhakti Kulmala from Pixabay
The state must stop faith schools behaving like cults
Posted: Tue, 7th Mar 2023
New research by the NSS has found some state funded faith schools' admissions policies are so extreme they appear to breach human rights. Jack Rivington calls for urgent reform in the education system to prevent state endorsement of regressive religious practices.
Is it right for a state school to control how their students' families dress, whether they can use the internet, what they can eat, and when they have sex?
As it stands, our government seems to think that it is. In a new report, the National Secular Society has revealed how some faith schools are insisting applicants follow regressive aspects of religious doctrine in order to access a place for their children – and are getting the green light from the state to do so.
In the most concerning cases, some schools insist that families follow so-called 'family purity laws', an aspect of Orthodox Judaism which regulates when a married couple may have sexual intercourse according to the stages of the menstrual cycle. The practice can require women to provide evidence of their vaginal discharge to a Rabbi, and to 'cleanse' themselves in a ritual bathing process following menstruation.
Many of the schools in our study frequently insist upon 'modest dress' for both parents and children, with a particular focus on the clothing of women and girls. Others demand that children only read books approved by the school, and do not access the internet. Adherence to religious dietary practices is also frequently required. Most of the schools stipulate that parents and students obey these rules not only at school, but at all times.
These rules are incompatible with human rights: the right to a family and private life; to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; to freedom of expression; and to an education. The particular emphasis placed on women's 'modesty' also undermines sexual equality.
How have schools been allowed to get away with imposing such rules?
School admissions and coercive control
These requirements are found in the schools' admissions policies, which set out the process for allocating places when a school is oversubscribed. In such circumstances, exemptions from equality law allow faith schools to prioritise applicants according to their religiosity. Whilst this is normally assessed on the basis of criteria such as baptism status or church attendance, our report demonstrates that the current system is allowing schools to push criteria to extremes.
The admissions policy of a school must comply with the school admissions code, which requires oversubscription criteria to be "reasonable, clear, objective, procedurally fair, and comply with all relevant legislation, including equalities legislation". Additionally, the policy must not unfairly disadvantage children from a "particular social or racial group", nor those with a disability or special educational need.
Concerningly, the Office of the Schools Adjudicator – the body responsible for reviewing complaints regarding school admissions policies – has, when reviewing formal objections to religious criteria, found several admissions policies examined in the report to be acceptable. This shows that, in effect, the OSA considers such policies to be compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010, because the code specifies admissions policies must comply with this legislation. The OSA decisions also demonstrate that it considers the policies to be to be 'reasonable' – a further requirement under the admissions code.
What possible understanding of 'reasonable' can consider the sexual behaviour of parents legitimate grounds on which to assess applications for places at a school? That the OSA has found no fault with such criteria, either on the basis of reasonableness or in relation to human rights, demonstrates a serious failure in the current system which requires immediate review.
The report's consideration of 'coercive control', which is gaining attention as part of increased focus on the role religion can play in abuse, makes the case for urgent government action even clearer.
Last year, 'anti-cult' watchdog Family Survival Trust (FST) published a report on coercive control in UK religious groups. The report drew parallels between coercive behaviour as defined by the Home Office in connection with domestic abuse, and coercive behaviour observed in high control religious groups. Disturbingly, many of the behaviours identified by the FST are also readily identifiable within the admissions policies of some state-funded faith schools.
The practices of high control religious groups and the policies of the schools examined by our report bear more than a passing resemblance. Based on government guidance, if an individual exhibited the behaviours of these schools within the context of an interpersonal relationship, there is a significant possibility they would be committing a criminal offence. Whilst such practices do not have the same legal status within an organisational context, we should regard them with similar ethical disapproval. That the UK education system is facilitating such practices is therefore deeply alarming.
The school admissions code is enabling schools to impose religious criteria which are entirely unreasonable in their content, coercive and controlling in nature, and in breach of human rights. It is therefore unfit for purpose. In our report, we recommend a review and update of the code as a matter of urgency in order to prohibit criteria which undermine human rights or amount to coercive control. A new code should also provide more detailed guidance to the OSA on how to interpret and apply terms such as "reasonable".
Fundamentally, such issues occur because of the exemption given to all faith schools permitting religious discrimination in their admissions. Without very specific prohibitions, the legitimacy of any religious criteria facilitates the inclusion of all religious criteria. As long as we grant religion an undue influence in UK education, problems of this kind will persist.
We need to normalise blasphemy
Posted: Tue, 28th Feb 2023
Stephen Evans argues that the huge overreaction to a Quran being scuffed in Kettlethorpe is symptomatic of the adoption of a new de facto blasphemy code.
Blasphemy laws may have been officially abolished across Britain, but the repeal of archaic legislation to protect God and the Christian religion has been swiftly replaced with new taboos around perceived insults against Islam and its prophet Muhammad.
The latest iteration of Britain's new de facto blasphemy code came last week when four students were suspended from Kettlethorpe High School in Wakefield after a Quran was allegedly 'desecrated'.
From what's been reported it appears a Quran received minor damage after being brought into school as a forfeit by a pupil who lost while playing a Call of Duty videogame with other students.
The pupil in question, according to his mother, has high-functioning autism. The school's head teacher has said there was no malicious intent by those involved.
Nevertheless, the all too familiar pattern of 'community leaders' whipping up tension and peddling misinformation led to a massive overreaction to what should be an internal school disciplinary issue. Inevitably, the children received death threats.
One local councillor, Usman Ali, took to social media to describe the so-called desecration as "serious provocative action which needs to be dealt with urgently by all the authorities, namely, the police, the school and the local authority."
Meetings were hastily arranged, and local Muslims were summoned to the mosque, where the boy's mother was paraded, pleading for forgiveness. West Yorkshire Police were also in attendance. Chief Superintendent Andy Thornton explained that a hate incident had been recorded, but to his credit, added that to call what happened criminal was wrong and that it should be an educational opportunity.
But what are the lessons to learn from this?
The only message likely to be conveyed is that religion, and particularly Islam, must be respected. Or else.
Schools certainly need to teach respect for others (and books) and the importance of civic values such as tolerance, kindness, and peaceful coexistence.
But we also need to communicate the corollary – that free expression and freedom of religion are both necessary to counter intolerance. Freedom to question, criticise, mock and even insult religion is every bit essential as the freedom to practise it.
A series of flashpoint incidents with weak responses (for example, Batley, the demonisation of Louis Smith and The Lady of Heaven cancellations) has created the impression that protecting religious sensibilities is sacrosanct. Pandering to religious outrage has created a new de facto blasphemy code.
This needs to be addressed.
A recent review of the UK's Prevent counter-terrorism programme highlighted the "violence associated with accusations of blasphemy and apostasy" as an area of particular importance in countering extremism.
An improved understanding of blasphemy and its role in the wider threat posed by Islamism was amongst the review's recommendations, accepted by the government. This is encouraging.
We need to make clear that blasphemy codes apply only to those who voluntarily submit themselves to them – and that in a liberal democracy there can be no legal right not to be offended.
The idea that Islam requires special protection gives succour to the Islamists keen to enforce their blasphemy codes with intimidation and violence. It also infantilises Muslims by tacitly acknowledging that blasphemy codes are necessary to protect their sensibilities – and assumes an inability to live in a society that upholds liberal principles.
Human rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali once said: "We've had Life of Brian, now we need Life of Muhammad". Her point was about the need to normalise blasphemy and break taboos around Islam, such as depictions of Muhammad. A failure to do so since the Rushdie affair and Charlie Hebdo shootings has led to routine self-censorship, undermining the very principle and purpose of free speech.
Too often the job of standing up to Islamist bullies has been ducked by liberals and delegated to the far-right. This polarises debate and gives free speech the air of an 'issue of the right' – and in doing so weakens support for the right to free expression.
Let's hope that, unlike in Batley, those accused of blasphemy can safely return to school. Any further involvement from the police should be directed solely towards investigating the death threats they've received.
But more broadly we need to inculcate an understanding in all British citizens that life in tolerant, plural societies entails debate, disagreements and having your sensibilities offended from time to time. What a tolerant society can't tolerate is the use of intimidation and violence to shut down whatever offends you.
Why not judge politicians by their views?
Posted: Tue, 21st Feb 2023
Kate Forbes' religious beliefs have come under scrutiny as she bids to succeed Nicola Sturgeon, prompting suggestions of 'Christianophobia'. But NSS chief executive Stephen Evans argues that her views shouldn't get a free pass just because they're religious.
Kate Forbes' decision to join the race to succeed Nicola Sturgeon has prompted questions over whether her religious views are compatible with being leader of party and nation.
The church to which Forbes (pictured) belongs, the Free Church of Scotland, follows a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. It is opposed to gay marriage and believes there are very few circumstances in which abortion is justified. It traditionally opposes doing most activities on a Sunday, and its adherents used to tie up playground swings to prevent children from having fun on the sabbath.
All of this appears to be at odds with modern Scottish society. It's reasonable to question whether an individual who holds these views is well placed to lead the SNP and indeed hold the position of first minister.
Forbes kicked off her campaign by saying she would have voted against gay marriage "as a matter of conscience" but would have "respected the democratic choice made". In 2018, whilst a backbencher, she told a prayer breakfast that politicians should recognise the treatment of the "unborn" as a measure of "true progress". This will naturally alarm anyone concerned about women's reproductive freedoms. If Forbes is measuring societal progress by its adherence to her religious dogma, that's a concern.
So quizzing politicians, particularly potential leaders, about their positions on social issues is entirely legitimate. That such positions are grounded in religious beliefs does not provide them any exception from scrutiny.
Political parties can of course accommodate difference and disagreements. But leaders set the tone. They need to embody the values of the party, or the country they aspire to lead. So, when it comes to leadership, personal views that clash with party policy are harder to reconcile.
But voters, in the main, have no issue with political leaders holding religious beliefs. They may, however, be less impressed if they suspect these supernatural beliefs inform their public policy positions. It's one thing to live a life according to one's own conscience; it's quite another to seek to impose your religious beliefs on others through the law.
The public are well within their rights to look unfavourably on politicians who want to restrict women's reproductive rights, deny equal rights to same-sex couples or obstruct reforms to allow people the choice of an assisted death at the end of their lives.
Even when politicians express no desire to impose their personal religious views on others, voters may well still judge them on their beliefs.
Tim Farron has said "remaining faithful to Christ" was incompatible with being leader of the Liberal Democrats. Throughout the 2017 election campaign, Farron was repeatedly questioned over his attitude to homosexuality and abortion. After first being evasive, insisting it wasn't his job to pontificate on theological matters, he eventually said he did not believe gay sex was a sin and that he was pro-choice.
Farron made it clear that his role as a legislator would be unaffected by his personal convictions. For many, that answer wasn't good enough.
There's nothing wrong with this. Being judged by the choices we make and the opinions we form seems reasonable. And a discriminatory belief motivated by religious faith isn't a free pass from criticism.
People vote in different ways for different reasons. If voters make up their minds based on a politician's beliefs, that's not discriminatory, it's democracy.
In an increasingly secular society, it's no surprise that so called 'traditional Christian values' are becoming less popular. The idea that gay sex is sinful has caused incredible harm and is repulsive to many, including an increasing number of Christians. Politicians with unpopular ideas are going to have their judgement questioned. Again, that's democracy, not discrimination.
Scrutiny of Kate Forbes' beliefs is being used by some social conservatives to push a narrative of 'Christianophobia' – the idea that an anti-Christian bias exists in modern Britain. Writing in the Telegraph, Fraser Nelson asked whether Forbes' faith effectively debars her from public office. Rod Liddle asked, in trademark provocative and devious style: "Should Christians be allowed to stand for elected public office — or should we ban them, as we do with serving coppers and bankrupts?"
The idea that scrutinising politicians' religious views is symptomatic of anti-religious prejudice is nonsense. Unpopular opinions and discriminatory beliefs may be a disadvantage but being Christian isn't.
Let's look at the facts. The role of head of state in Britain is reserved exclusively for an Anglican. Church of England bishops are given 26 seats as of right to sit in our legislature. Westminster's parliamentary sessions begin with Christian prayers. Children from Christian families can be prioritised in the admission policies of Christian faith schools, which are state funded and make up almost a third of England's state school sector. All schools in England and Wales are required by law to hold broadly Christian worship. Schools in Scotland are also required to hold regular acts of religious observance.
Christians have long been privileged, not disadvantaged. As Britain becomes a freer, fairer, more secular society, the privileges they've become accustomed to will increasingly be challenged. 'Traditional Christian views', often a euphemism for prejudice, will be challenged too. In an open, liberal society, diversity of thought should be defended and all opinions, however unpopular, should be aired. But no beliefs or ideas should be insulated from criticism on account of being religious.
Kate Forbes is entitled to her beliefs. But democracy demands that they are open to scrutiny. And if her beliefs are at odds with those of the party and nation she aspires to lead, she may not be the ideal candidate for the job. That's for SNP members to decide.
Image: Scottish Parliament, OSPL
