The British monarch is required to take on the role of Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
No head of state should promote an official religious preference.
Let's end the ties between our head of state and the Church.
Our head of state, the monarch, holds the title 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England'.
This means the monarch must also be a full member of the Church of England – an anachronism in one of the least religious and most religiously diverse countries in the world.
Despite dwindling congregations, the monarch must also take an oath to maintain the Church of England and to preserve the Church of Scotland.
The position of head of state should not be reserved for members of one particular faith. Most countries allow citizens of any religious affiliation to be head of state. Everyone should be free to follow any personal faith, or none. The monarch is the only person in the country not free to have whatever personal faith they wish or have none at all.
Only 34% of the public think future British monarchs should be required to be members of the Church of England and keep the title of supreme governor of the Church of England.
The ties between the Church and the monarchy are typified by the coronation. The UK is the only democracy to have such an explicitly Christian ceremony for its head of state's accession, with the monarch pledging to maintain the "Laws of God" during an Anglican coronation ceremony in Westminster Abbey. The Church has a key role in the coronation of a new monarch, who is crowned and anointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The coronation also has sectarian anti-Catholic overtones. Catholics are explicitly excluded from becoming monarch.
The monarch's declaration of preferential status for one denomination of one religion renders everyone who is not of that religion less than full citizens.
If British monarchs are to continue acting as head of state, they should relinquish the role of head of the Church in order to end the unfair privilege afforded to the Church of England, and show equal regard for citizens of all faiths and none.
Take Action!
1. Write to your MP
While our Head of State is also the head of the established church, we cannot have church-state separation. Ask your MP to support the separation of church and state.
2. Share your story
Tell us why you support this campaign, and how you are personally affected by the issue. You can also let us know if you would like assistance with a particular issue.
3. Join the National Secular Society
Become a member of the National Secular Society today! Together, we can separate religion and state for greater freedom and fairness.
Latest updates
Charles’s accession could prompt disestablishment, says NSS report
Posted: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 05:50
Prince Charles's accession to the throne will offer a "particularly opportune moment" to press the benefits of disestablishing the Church of England, according to a new report published today.
In Separating Church and State: The Case for Disestablishment, the National Secular Society (NSS) says the Prince of Wales will antagonise the non-Anglican majority of the UK population if he retains a coronation oath overtly committing him to uphold the tenets of the Anglican faith.
If he seeks to avoid this difficulty by adopting the title 'Defender of Faith' – as some reports suggest he could – Charles will antagonise many supporters of the Church of England. This will especially apply to those who wish to have more control over their own affairs.
The NSS says the arguments for disestablishment are "compelling" and the long-term prospects of it happening are "positive". "At the present time, there is no clamour for separation from the Government or Members of Parliament," the report says. "The longer-term picture, however, is a far more positive one."
It says overt support for establishment "remains weak". Secularisation, increasing cultural diversity and the divergence between Church leaders' ethical views and those of wider British society will undermine current justifications for establishment.
Other "potential flashpoints" will "emerge with considerable frequency" as a result of the "significant values gap between the hierarchy of the Church and mainstream British public opinion". The report cited the Church's "regressive stance" on issues such as the ordination of female Bishops, same-sex marriage and the decriminalisation of assisted suicide.
The status quo, the report argues, creates inequalities and allows Church leaders to impose their views on others. "Establishment, by definition, grants undue privileges to one particular religion, to one particular section of the population and to one particular institution."
The NSS says the arguments commonly made in defence of establishment are "flawed in a number of ways". It says it is "absurd to imagine that religious leaders have access to a wellspring of ethical knowledge that is somehow denied to non-religious citizens" and "the notion that a state-promoted religion is required to uphold a sense of national cohesion is clearly anachronistic in a multi- and non-faith democratic society".
It adds that disestablishment would bring benefits to the Church of England, by freeing it from having core elements of its internal governance subject to an external body's approval. This argument has found sympathy among some senior figures in the Church. Former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, for example, recently said establishment "reflects a slightly odd 16th-century view of the absolute inseparability of the Church and state, which is realistically not where we are now".
Williams added that he was "a bit reluctant to think of disestablishing the Church at this particular point, simply because it would feel like a concession to public secularism".
The NSS's report cites several precedents for disestablishment. Church and state were separated in Ireland in 1871 and Wales in 1920. During the 20th century countries including Brazil, Chile, Turkey, South Korea and Sweden abandoned their state religions. Since 1 January 2017, Norway has divested itself of an established Church.
The report calls for initial steps including the removal of Anglican bishops' right to sit in the House of Lords, an end to Anglican prayers in both Houses and the removal of existing legislative relations between parliament and Church.
"The voices of religious privilege are loud and their vested interests are strong," it concludes. "But if the problems of twenty-first century life are to be effectively addressed, and if Britain is to become a modern state rather than one in which Parliament continues to cleave to its mediaeval past, then the separation of church and state needs to be part of the solution."
Commenting on the report, NSS chief executive Stephen Evans said: "The disestablishment of the Church of England is both desirable and realistic. No state can protect the rights of all freely and fairly while maintaining official links to a religious institution. And establishment is increasingly incongruous with the British people's attitudes to religion.
"Parliament should begin by taking smaller steps, such as revoking the right of Anglican Bishops to sit in the House of Lords. In the long run we are confident that opportunities will arise to press the case for more fundamental change, and the hollow nature of the arguments for establishment will be exposed."
Read the report: Separating Church and State: The Case for Disestablishment
Charles vows to keep “Defender of the Faith” title as King
Posted: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:28
Prince Charles has stated that he will retain the monarch's traditional title as "Defender of the Faith" as King, whilst "ensuring that other people's faiths can also be practised."
During an interview, the Prince denied long-running speculation that the title, which has been in continuous use since 1544, would be amended to encompass all faiths and religions. It had long-been reported that Prince Charles was to change the title to omit "the", rendering it as "Defender of Faith" upon his accession to the throne.
The Prince said that although he would "rather be seen as 'Defender of Faith'" because he was concerned "about the inclusion of other people's faiths and their freedom to worship in this country", this was compatible with the original, traditional wording.
The Prince had earlier considered adopting the title "Defender of the Faiths", to incorporate other religions into his Coronation, before proposing "Defender of Faith" which he has now also rejected. Prince Charles said that his earlier comments on amending the title had been "frequently misinterpreted" and, referencing a speech made by the Queen in 2012, said that the Church of England's purpose "is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions", but rather the Church "has a duty to protect the free practise of all faiths in this country."
He added that he had his own Christian standpoint, as "Defender of the Faith", but stated that this was compatible with being a "protector of faiths" more generally.
The coronation oaths, deriving from legislation that is over 300 years old, require the new monarch to swear to "maintain the laws of god, the true profession of the Gospel" and maintain the privileged status of the Church of England.
The National Secular Society has called for a fundamental review and redesign of the oaths to make them more inclusive and appropriate for the modern era.
Stephen Evans, NSS campaigns manager said: "There have been two major changes in society since the Queen came to the throne. Firstly, there is now a vast number of people who do not identify with any religion; and secondly, there is a wide variety of religions and denominations in the modern UK.
"Changing the monarch's title to 'Defender of the Faiths' or 'Defender of Faith' would acknowledge one of these trends, that we now live in a multi-faith society, but neither of these titles, nor the retention of the original wording, acknowledges that we now live in a country where – according to the Social Attitudes Survey – the majority of citizens do not subscribe to any religion.
"The monarchy has a long history of adapting as society changes; it must now be time for the institution to adjust to the fact that a large proportion of Britons are non-believers. Ideally, that would mean the head of state not have any constitutional entanglement with religion – or religions."
