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.
A homophobic church shouldn’t be an arm of the state
Posted: Fri, 20th Jan 2023
Anglican bishops' stance on same-sex marriage shows Church and state have drifted apart. Formal separation should follow, say Stephen Evans.
After a six year process of "listening and learning" Church of England bishops have decided their stance on same sex marriage will not change.
In a sop to Anglicans who want a more inclusive church, bishops are proposing to allow 'prayers' and 'blessings' for same-sex couples in civil partnerships. Bishops will also apologise to LGBT+ people for the "rejection, exclusion and hostility" they have faced in churches. The Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, said bishops were "deeply sorry and ashamed". But they're not changing their position.
The issue of same sex marriage has caused decades of deep division within the Church. The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby said the latest plans "will appear to go too far for some and not nearly far enough for others."
Initial reactions suggest he's not wrong. Equality campaign group Changing Attitude England said bishops had chosen to "continue the practice that systemically abuses LGBTQIA+ people" and called their apology a "hollow gesture".
Jayne Ozanne, a prominent LGBT+ campaigner and a member of the synod, said the bishops' decision was "utterly despicable".
She said: "I cannot believe that five years of pain and trauma has got us here. We have had countless apologies over the years but no action to stop the harmful discrimination".
Meanwhile, conservatives are livid at what they see as the Church's "capitulation". Christian Concern said the decision to bless gay couples (or "sexual immorality", as they put it) will "go down in history as a turning point in the decline and fall of the Church of England."
There may be those who think the Church is being principled in upholding its theology on marriage. I'm not a theologian so I can't comment on that, other than to say theology often seems to be in the eye of the beholder. When societal attitudes shift, churches often find themselves behind the curve, but eventually catch up. On issues such as contraception, divorce and women priests, the theology seems to shift when it suits.
One also wonders to what extent the bishops' resistance to same sex marriage is driven by an eagerness not to cause further schism by upsetting the deeply homophobic churches in the global Anglican Communion. Kieran Bohan, co-ordinator of the Open Table Network, expressed concern that "the pressure of being an international denomination, with thousands of Anglican churches around the world, has influenced the Church of England in delaying doing the right thing."
The Church of England's position on this issue matters to everyone, including the non-Anglican majority, because it's the state church. It runs publicly funded schools; its bishops are granted seats as of right in our parliament; it plays a leading role in state occasions. Our head of state is tasked with defending its doctrine.
Parliamentarians keen for the Church to change its stance have used its established status as leverage.
Labour's Ben Bradshaw has accused the Church of "actively pursuing a campaign of discrimination against lesbian and gay people". He warned that without change the Church's "extraordinary and unique privileges in its role in the nation's life" are "unsustainable."
Following this week's announcement, he predicted the Church was heading for a "major constitutional clash with parliament".
He said: "It's a very dark day for the C of E. I'm confident that parliament will want to take a very close look at this. The overwhelming view of MPs on both sides of the house is that it is not sustainable for our established church to be institutionally homophobic and to actively exclude a portion of the population, whom they have a duty to serve."
Tony Baldry, a former Conservative MP, government minister and Second Church Estates Commissioner, has echoed this: "I have little doubt that if the church cannot find a way forward that enables clergy either to marry same-sex couples or to bless their weddings, MPs will soon feel the need to intervene."
Steve Reed, MP for Croydon North and the Shadow Secretary for Justice, said it was "unacceptable for the established church to continue pandering to ancient bigotry".
Conservative MP and leader of the House of Commons Penny Mordaunt also weighed in this week, applying pressure with an open letter expressing hope that the bishops would "back reform".
As a secularist, I find the spectacle of politicians trying to force a church to change its doctrine all somewhat unedifying. But given the CofE's established status, external meddling is inevitable and perhaps justifiable.
The ideal solution is for the Church and state to go their separate ways. The union is no longer a marriage made in heaven. We've simply grown apart. While British society has become increasingly secular and liberal in its outlook, the Church leadership remains several steps behind.
In 2016 Justin Welby described the Church's bishops in the House of Lords as the "most orthodox since WW2". Last year he said there was "unanimity" on the bishops' bench against assisted dying and affirmed the validity of a declaration that gay sex is a sin.
The Church of England has shown itself to be institutionally homophobic. Its doctrine is its own affair, but this minority religion has no business being an arm of the state.
Disestablishment would mean the CofE could no longer enjoy privileged links to the state; but also, that parliament would have no legitimacy in wading into its internal affairs. This is right in principle. A religiously impartial state would better suit the reality of modern Britain – and the Church would be free to determine its direction without undue interference. Separation of church and state would be best for both.
The NSS is hosting a free online discussion on February 15th on the future of Church and state with Anglicans who support disestablishment. Find out more and book your place.
Happy Christmas, secular Britain
Posted: Tue, 20th Dec 2022
2022 was the year which made the case for secularism stronger than ever – not only in the UK but across the world, says Stephen Evans.
Claims that striking unions have declared 'war on Christmas' have at least taken the heat off secularists this year.
Previous Decembers have seen a steady slew of tall stories about 'militant' secularists wanting to take the 'Christ out of Christmas' or replace it entirely with some sort of godless Winterval. The claims were usually nonsense but batting them away became something of a Christmas tradition at NSS HQ. Things have been quieter this year. Perhaps our message is getting though?
Christmas has never been the target of secularists. Like almost everyone else, we see it for the inclusive religious/secular mash up that it is – and welcome the chance for a bit of a midwinter break.
In truth, nobody can claim Christmas as their own. The same should be said of our state and its intuitions.
Prime ministers and political leaders have in the past used this time of year to claim Britain is a 'Christian country'. Such claims have never been accurate, but this year's census figures should ensure that claim is retired for good.
The number of people identifying as Christian falling below half of the population is a watershed moment. Church of England Sunday attendance figures being at just 0.9% of the English population tell an even starker story. Christianity being a minority interest provides a real opportunity now to rethink and reform our political settlement to reflect reality. The census figures paint a picture of growing irreligiosity and religious pluralism. An inclusive secular state, not a Christian country, is the best way to manage that diversity.
Next year's coronation in which King Charles will be anointed by a bishop and swear to defend the Anglican faith will serve as a glaring reminder of the archaic religious privilege at the heart of our constitution. It's a privilege that makes every sensible secular reform a herculean task.
Nevertheless, throughout 2022 we've been working tirelessly to achieve a secularist influence over public policy. Our proposals for updating marriage law were reflected in the Law Commission's recommendations for reform. In the face of religious opposition, we've successfully lobbied to improve women's access to abortion services and for a review of assisted dying laws. We've promoted the rights of children to live, learn and develop their beliefs free from religious coercion and control. And we've stepped up whenever necessary to remind religious offence takers that free speech is a positive value we're unwilling to surrender.
Next year will mark the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Secularism's role in allowing equality and human rights to flourish is too often unrecognised and hugely underappreciated. In a world where polarisation, authoritarianism and religious fundamentalism are gaining ground, the secular liberal democratic ideals that underpin human rights can't be taken for granted.
This year's US Supreme Court ruling in Roe v Wade was a wakeup call to remind us all that conservative religious views threaten women's reproductive rights globally. Closer to home an ascendant religious right is eroding reproductive freedoms in Italy and Poland.
Meanwhile, women and religious and sexual minorities living under Islamic regimes have continued to feel the full force of a complete absence of secularism. The Iranian women leading protests and risking their lives to overthrow their despised theocratic rulers know better than most that a state separated from religious institutions is necessary to protect everyone's rights and freedoms.
Secularism's time has come.
Our mission now is to bring people together to build a freer, fairer and more tolerant society. A secular state is the best means of achieving this.
So, enjoy the festive break – and make it your mission to make a stand for secularism. Join us as a member today, and we'll put your principles to work, championing freedom of belief, expression and choice.
It’s not just the Census. Everywhere you look, the CofE is withering.
Posted: Mon, 12th Dec 2022
By every measure membership figures for Church of England are in freefall – and the church's increasingly outdated values are partly to blame. There is no justification for it to remain the established church, says NSS president Keith Porteous Wood.
The 2021 Census showed the proportion of people of England and Wales identifying as Christians dropped to 46% from 59% just a decade earlier. In effect 6 – 7 million have moved from defining themselves as "Christian" to "no religion". That's around a fifth of Christians and 12% of the whole population.
The Bible Society believes the shift away from Christianity happened some time before the past decade, but few continue to claim a faith they do not hold simply to court social approval.
This first Christian minority in the Census prompted numerous calls for the disestablishment of the Church of England – including, of course, from ourselves at the National Secular Society. But another perhaps even more compelling case for disestablishment came hot on its heels in the CofE statistics on mission 2021. Normal Sunday CofE attendance for all ages represents just 0.9% of the English population, some way short of the 46% of Christians in the Census.
The Church's accelerating decline in attendance, a decline which has continued for well over a century, poses an existential threat. The archbishop of Canterbury told the BBC's Sunday Programme that CofE attendance had been declining "at a rate of about 1.5% since the 1950s …. and inevitably you drop below 50% at some point", seemingly conflating the very low CofE church attendance with the population's Christian affiliation. By my calculations, the compound decrease in the decade from 2009 to 2019, approximately Dr Welby's tenure, was nearer 2.5% per annum.
Extending that to twelve years, 2009 to 2021, during which period CofE attendance dropped from 895.000 to 509,000, the compound annual decrease reached around 4.5%. Covid is largely to blame for this. Or put another way, Covid accelerated that decline by a decade, as at 2.5% per annum the decline to 509,000 (the figure in 2021) would not have been reached for a further ten years.
(These calculations rely on the only published figures available and assume that few who stopped attending over Covid will have returned in 2022, although the CofE – and doubtless Dr Welby – are expecting "further bouncing back".)
It does not seem to have occurred to Dr Welby that some of his actions could have contributed to the decline. The NSS would fight for the Church's freedom to determine its own doctrine, however unpopular, provided it did not impinge on human rights. However, in my opinion the Church continues to pay a heavy price in reduced attendance and affiliation for metaphorically marching the Lords Spiritual through the "nay" lobby in the Lords on popular human rights measures.
The Church was not alone in opposing the assisted dying bill, but its forced abandonment will have caused a great deal of unnecessary suffering and indignity. It will also have boosted the market for single tickets to Dignitas in Zürich for those going prematurely, while they still have the strength.
And on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, the bishops did not just unanimously oppose it despite it imposing no obligations on the Church whatsoever: they unforgivably abused their parliamentary positions, and indeed democracy itself, by attempting what the Church Times described as a "wrecking amendment" that if successful would have prevented parliament from even debating the issue.
The average age of congregations, and the speed with which any increase in age takes place, is also crucial to long term sustainability. Significant long term rapid rises in age result in a decrease in energetic helpers and disproportionately greater declines through mortality.
In 1979 the average age of congregants was 36; younger than that of the population. Over the next 19 years, it rose a further nine years, then in the following nearly quarter century, it rose a further 16 years. The archbishop of York recently stated that it was "61 — that is 21 years older than the average age in the population".
Given the Church's acknowledgement of congregations being 21 years older on average than the population, the over 75s will obviously be significantly over represented too, as the many white hairs testify. Many play or have played key roles such as churchwardens and contributed generously to the church. But of those who survived Covid and have returned to church, for how much longer?
They are not being replaced by the young or even middle aged. NatCen found "the sharpest decline … has come among the middle-aged…. the percentage of 45 to 54-year-olds who told the researchers that they were C of E in has fallen from 35 to 11 per cent". Only 1% of 18 to 24 year-olds regard themselves as belonging to the CofE, and only a small proportion of them actually attend.
So it is little surprise that in 2021 the median sized church had an average attendance of 22 adults and one child, and over the whole year two baptisms, one marriage and four funerals.
When the interviewer asked Dr Welby whether his Church "is facing irreversible decline" he emphatically retorted "absolutely not". Yet, six months ago, the Church Times published the predications of a statistician who had analysed attendance data from 2000 - 2020. He concluded that "the Church of England faces extinction within 40 years because the faith it proclaims is not "contagious" enough. … "[it] will cease to be a national Church, and the Churches of Scotland and Wales will disappear by the middle of this century."
How many of could now argue in good conscience that the rapidly declining CofE so at odds with British values still deserves (if it ever did) to be England's established church and hence that of the British State? The bishops must be removed from the House of Lords, and then the process of disestablishment must be completed as soon as possible.
Secularism has never been so relevant and necessary – unlike the established church
Posted: Tue, 29th Nov 2022
The Census 2021 results reveal that for the first time, most people in England and Wales aren't Christian. Megan Manson says the case for a secular state has never been stronger.
It's official: Britain can no longer be called a 'Christian country'.
The 2021 Census figures published today reveal Christians are now a minority in England and Wales, making up 46% of the population. The nonreligious are now the largest religion or belief group in Wales and the second largest in England. Non-Christian religions have generally seen an increase in their adherents.
It should be a humbling moment for the UK's churches – not least the Church of England. Christianity has been in decline for decades, but rather than relinquish its disproportionate privileges, the Church has clung on to them for dear life. It continues to use its 26 bishops in the House of Lords as a voting block to support its agendas. It resists calls to remove Christian prayers from parliament and from all state-funded schools. And it refuses to let go of the thousands of state schools under its control. Faced with rising competition from a myriad of other religions, and of course nonreligious worldviews, the Church no doubt sees these privileges as the final aces in its hand.
And yet, the number of Christians continues to fall.
The decline of Christianity and the rise of nonreligious identity can be seen throughout the UK. In Northern Ireland, those without a stated religion are the second largest group according to its Census results published in September. Scotland's Census data won't be published until 2023, but 2018 survey data found 59% of Scots are not religious.
Explaining the shrinking Christian percentage isn't difficult. Migration fuels a steady stream of non-Christian religions from Asia and Africa into the country, diluting Christianity's overall market share. Meanwhile, Brits who are descended from Christians are turning away from their ancestral religion as its ideology no longer fits the 21st century world they now inhabit. Science has replaced creationism. Equality has replaced biblically endorsed patriarchy. Tolerance has replaced condemning those who aren't in an opposite-sex marriage. And the stigma of being a non-believer has almost completely vanished.
Within this picture of religious diversity and irreligiosity, the established church and its web of institutions and influence across the state look increasingly incongruous. And that's something to bear in mind for the upcoming inauguration of our head of state next year.
Our monarchy's ties to the church run deep – indeed, the monarch's authority is supposed to be divinely ordained. As well as being our official head of state, King Charles is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and 'Defender of the Faith'. While Charles has stated he wants to be defender of all faiths, his coronation will be an explicitly Anglican rite. He and his wife will be anointed and blessed by the archbishop of Canterbury in Westminster Abbey. And he will take an oath to "maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England".
For many the ceremony will be a fascinating view. Fascinating because, for most Brits, it will be inscrutable and exotic. We'll be watching an ancient quasi-shamanic initiation ritual of a largely unfamiliar tribal religion, complete with elaborate costumes and esoteric songs and chants. But is that how a nation should be viewing its leader? As an otherworldly and outlandish religious figure with little to nothing in common with the people he leads? As Monty Python and the Holy Grail put it, "strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government". Neither are strange men invoking a god only a minority believe in to crown the head of state.
For the Church to continue to cleave to its constitutional privileges in a country where Christians are now the minority is embarrassing at best, imperious at worst. Never before has it been clearer why a secular state is really the only settlement that can meet the British public where it's at: a largely irreligious, diverse hodgepodge of people with a broadly liberal outlook on life. It's time for state and church to go their separate ways, for the best for both.
Time for an Islamophobia self-awareness month
Posted: Thu, 17th Nov 2022
Recent incidents reveal pushing the term 'Islamophobia' is less to do with challenging genuine anti-Muslim bigotry, and more to do with controlling speech around Islam – including excusing extremist behaviour, says Jack Rivington.
November has seen a noticeable increase in the use of the expression 'Islamophobia' by politicians and public figures. Afzal Khan MP described it as an "insidious hatred" in a parliamentary point of order, Labour party chair Annelise Dodds wrote to her opposite number Nadhim Zahawi demanding the government take greater action to address it, and Baroness Warsi accused the Conservative Party of being in denial over the extent of the issue.
This extra attention coincides with the annual observance of 'Islamophobia Awareness Month' (IAM) campaign, the stated intention of which is to bring about a "society free from Islamophobia in all its forms". However, what IAM considers to be amongst those forms should be of concern to all, especially those within the political establishment who have lent the campaign, and concept, their support.
In one respect, a call to address anti-Muslim discrimination is justified. In the year ending March 2022, 42% of religious hate crimes involved Muslims as the perceived target group, with an increase of 28% in the total number of cases over the previous year. This makes Muslims the largest group by some margin, though it should also be noted that in 23% of cases British Jews were the target, despite their population being approximately one tenth that of Muslims.
No matter the numbers, freedom of religion and belief is a fundamental human right that must be maintained and fought for in a secular and democratic society. This is as much the responsibility of citizens as it is of government, and it is therefore right that we all remain mindful of the abuse faced by British Muslims. A campaign with this as its goal would be uncontroversial.
However, it is clear that some advocating for IAM do not have this as their sole purpose and are instead using the campaign to promote a concept of Islamophobia which reclassifies legitimate discussion and critique as racism or hate speech.
One such organisation is the pressure group 'Muslim Engagement and Development' or MEND, which has been accused of supporting an Islamist agenda. A co-founding organisation of the awareness month campaign, many of its employees, including members of the senior leadership, have faced accusations of extremism, including legitimising the killing of British troops in Iraq, promoting antisemitic conspiracies, and downplaying acts of terrorism.
MEND has also sought to undermine the Prevent counter-extremism strategy – which it has described as 'Islamophobic' – by spreading misinformation that the program deliberately targets Muslims. They have been joined in this effort by the National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP), another supporter of the IAM campaign which recently claimed "institutional Islamophobia" was an issue within counter-terrorism policing. The association further called for the term 'Islamist' to be scrapped due to its unfair stigmatisation of Islam, a ridiculous demand which demonstrates a startling instance of mistaken priorities. The association's capacity for offense would be far better redirected towards the extremists themselves – if anyone, it is they who are giving the religion a bad name, not those who record and monitor their activities.
Concerningly, the sentiments expressed by NAMP are also to be found in All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims' report setting out its definition of Islamophobia. In a section setting out why instances of Islamophobia are not confined to hate crimes, but also include more general behaviours or attitudes, the report approvingly quotes a claim that opposition to Islamism can be a constitutive part of Islamophobia. According to that view, as Islamism can be viewed as the advancement of Islam as a political system, secular opposition to such religious interference is Islamophobic.
It is this APPG definition which advocates of the IAM wish to see adopted by all organisations and government bodies as the proper understanding of 'Islamophobia' – and indeed, many local governments and political parties already have.
Other instances of 'Islamophobia' as identified by MEND include criticising those who protested against the film 'The Lady of Heaven' in June. Despite the anti-Shia sentiment reported at many of these protests, as well as the implied threat towards cinemas and their staff, MEND said that those who described protests as "dangerous and harmful" exemplified "structural Islamophobia". According to MEND, it isn't those who chant sectarian slogans targeting other Muslims who are guilty of a hate crime, just those who are concerned by it.
Another set of protests MEND was keen to support were those in Batley, which last year saw demonstrations outside a local school after a teacher used cartoons from the Charlie Hebdo magazine depicting Muhammed to teach about the issue of blasphemy. MEND described the cartoon as both "Islamophobic" and "extremely offensive", with the school eventually pressured into suspending the teacher before making a frightened apology. Although MEND said they condemned threats to both the staff and school, the teacher was ultimately driven into hiding and remains unable to resume a normal life.
Whilst it would be nice to know whether members of parliament such as Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner – who were photographed alongside Khan with a 'Labour against Islamophobia' placard in hand – agree with groups such as MEND on what constitutes Islamophobia, such clarifications are now irrelevant. 'Islamophobia' is irretrievably linked to the suppression of entirely legitimate speech and is unsalvageable as a useful term.
This is unsurprising given the historical origins of the idea of 'Islamophobia'. Between 1999 and 2010, a series of resolutions regarding the 'defamation of religion' were presented at the United Nations which introduced the term for the first time. Originating with the Islamist organisation the Muslim Brotherhood, these resolutions were pushed by a coalition of 57 Islamic nations known as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and constituted an attempt to introduce a blasphemy law on an international scale. The campaign was opposed at the time by western democratic nations on the grounds such resolutions were incompatible with the human rights to freedom of speech, belief, and religion.
It is therefore strange to see members of parliament for one of those western democratic nations getting onboard with a campaign promoting the idea. This understanding, that 'defamation' of the religion of Islam is itself Islamophobic, has never gone away, as evidenced by its continued usage in that context by organisations such as MEND.
Furthermore, the term is now not only being deployed to suppress criticism of Islam as a religion, but also as a cover for hateful actions perpetrated by individual Muslims. This month, the president of the National Union of Students, Shaima Dallali, was dismissed from the role following an investigation into accusations of antisemitism. Despite admitting to making a number of antisemitic posts on Twitter, for which she has apologised, Dallali attributed her dismissal to 'Islamophobia', which rather seems to undermine her apology. A number of organisations echoed her claim including the Muslim Association of Britain and the Muslim Council of Britain. Both are listed as supporters on the IAM website.
This accusation, presented without any evidence, that Dallali is herself a victim of discrimination when she is simply facing the consequences of her own conduct, is an outrageous attempt on the part of all involved to excuse her actions. The involvement of organisations central to IAM in such allegations should be sufficient to discredit the entire campaign, as well as any notion they are concerned with anti-racism or improving community relations.
The important work to tackle genuine instances of anti-Muslim discrimination and abuse is also tarnished by these poorly disguised attempts to deflect criticism from a religious and political agenda by designating such critiques bigoted or racist. Those involved should be ashamed.
The time is long overdue for those who have lent their support to the concept of Islamophobia to issue a clarification. Do they agree with the organisations behind IAM on what constitutes Islamophobia or not, and will they distance themselves from the term or continue to act as useful idiots?
Update 14/12/2022: After being contacted by the NSS regarding the National Association of Muslim Police's proposed changes to counter-terrorism terminology, the Home Office and College of Policing have confirmed that there are "no plans" to make any such changes and that current terminology is both "accurate" and "fit for purpose".
