Services funded by public money should be open to all, without alienating anyone.
The recent drive to contract out public services to faith groups risks undermining equal access.
Help us keep public services free from discrimination and evangelism.
The government is increasingly pushing for more publicly-funded services to be provided by religious organisations.
Many faith-based groups have carried out social service without imposing their beliefs. But religious groups taking over public service provision raises concerns regarding proselytising and discrimination.
65% of people have no confidence in church groups running crucial social provisions such as healthcare with only 2% of people expressing a lot of confidence.
Any organisations involved in delivering public services should be bound by equality law and restrictions on proselytisation.
Those advocating for faith organisations to take over more public services risk undermining these restrictions, which exist to protect both the public and third sector.
"We have concerns that some religious groups that seek to take over public services, particularly at local level, could pursue policies and practices that result in increased discrimination against marginalised groups, particularly in service provision and the employment of staff. Non-religious people and those not seen to confirm to the dominant ethos of a religious body, such as being in an unmarried relationship or divorced and being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered, could find themselves subject to discrimination."
Unitarian Church (Submission to the Parliamentary Public Administration Select Committee about the Big Society agenda)
There are also concerns about faith-based mental health and pastoral care in public institutions, including chaplaincy programmes in the NHS and the armed forces. Where such services are funded by the state, they should not be organised around religion or belief.
Religious commentators are often keen to document the contribution of religious organisations to the third sector and social activism. But they fail to demonstrate why it should be the state's role to build this capacity or why local authorities shouldn't have legitimate concerns about religious groups running services.
Take Action!
1. Write to your MP
Ask your MP to protect secular public services.
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
Christian charity can’t discriminate against gay carers, court rules
Posted: Wed, 8 Jul 2020 13:57
The National Secular Society has welcomed a ruling that a Christian fostering service acted unlawfully by refusing to allow gay people to sign up as carers.
Cornerstone (North East) Adoption and Fostering Service launched a High Court challenge against Ofsted after inspectors penalised it for failing to comply with the Equality Act 2010.
Ofsted, which inspects childcare, adoption and fostering agencies, downgraded Cornerstone from "good" to "requires improvement" in 2019 because the charity requires applicants "to refrain from homosexual conduct".
On Tuesday Justice Julian Knowles ruled this policy unlawful. He said the law "requires Cornerstone to accept gay men and lesbian women as potential foster carers".
Exemptions in the Equality Act which allow religious organisations to discriminate against gay people in some circumstances do not apply because Cornerstone performs functions on behalf of public authorities, the judge said.
He added: "It hardly needs be said, but I categorically reject any suggestion that gay men and lesbians cannot make wonderfully loving foster and adoptive parents whether they are single or in same-sex partnerships."
The judge said Cornerstone's policy of only allowing evangelical Christians to foster was lawful.
The ruling was welcomed by Ofsted's chief inspector Amanda Spielman, who said it offers "much needed clarity in what is a difficult, complex area of law".
NSS head of policy and research Megan Manson also welcomed the judge's ruling that Cornerstone cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
She said: "The law is clear: if you are providing a service on behalf of a local authority, you cannot discriminate against gay people even if your religion does not accept same-sex relationships.
"This confirmation will come as a relief to millions of people in the UK who are gay, lesbian or bisexual.
"It also affirms Ofsted's role in upholding equality law in the adoption agencies, schools and other settings it inspects."
The ruling is consistent with a similar case in 2010, in which Roman Catholic adoption agency Catholic Care was told it could not, as a charity, discriminate against same-sex couples.
Cornerstone is considering appealing against the ruling.
About Cornerstone
Cornerstone is an evangelical Christian registered charity which says it provides an "adoption and fostering child care service according to Christian principles". It is funded primarily from payments made by local authorities when they place a child for fostering.
Its policy for foster carers stipulates they must attend church regularly, and avoid "all sexual sins" including cohabitation and "wilful violation of your birth sex", in addition to "homosexual behaviour".
At the time of the hearing Cornerstone had 14 approved households across the north of England.
Freedom of Information requests made by the NSS revealed that Sunderland City Council made 33 referrals to Cornerstone between 2015 and April 2020. They currently have two foster placements with Cornerstone. Northumberland County Council made 30 referrals.
The NSS also found Durham County Council gave Cornerstone a total of £17,294 in 2017-18.
Regulator reconsiders proselytising doctor case after NSS challenge
Posted: Mon, 6 Jan 2020 10:45
A medical regulator will review a decision not to investigate a GP in Kent who has admitted he initiates conversations about religion during appointments after a National Secular Society intervention.
The General Medical Council (GMC), which registers medical practitioners, originally decided not to investigate Dr Richard Scott in November after the NSS raised concerns about his conduct.
The GMC dismissed the case on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to take it further.
The NSS then challenged that decision, noting that evidence continued to suggest Dr Scott was openly flouting the council's code of conduct.
Now the GMC has told the society it will review its decision under Rule 12 of its Fitness to Practice rules, which allow reconsideration if new information comes to light.
The NSS's challenge noted that:
- Patients at Dr Scott's surgery had complained about religion being pushed on them, as revealed in minutes from a patients' group.
- Dr Scott admitted patients had complained in the Mail on Sunday after the GMC's decision, saying "only about 10" had done so.
- Dr Scott told a radio show he would continue to initiate conversations with patients about faith, and said he hadn't changed his approach since receiving a warning for doing so in 2012.
GMC guidance says doctors "may talk about your own personal beliefs only if a patient asks you directly about them, or indicates they would welcome such a discussion".
It also says doctors must not "impose [their] beliefs and values on patients" or "cause distress by the inappropriate or insensitive expression of them".
National Secular Society chief executive Stephen Evans welcomed the GMC's decision.
"Dr Scott's recent comments appear to make clear that he holds the GMC in contempt and considers himself above the rules it puts in place to protect patients. Being an evangelical Christian should not exempt him from the standards expected of all doctors working in the UK.
"Conversion activity is exploitative and violates the trust that should exist between doctors and patients, particularly when it targets vulnerable patients. Medical regulators should take all reasonable steps to prevent it."
Background to the case
The NSS originally raised the case early in 2019 after being contacted by a member of the public who was concerned about an acquaintance being treated at Dr Scott's surgery.
The NSS was told the acquaintance was "highly vulnerable" and being made to feel uncomfortable because Dr Scott was imposing his religious views during appointments.
The NSS also raised remarks from a BBC Radio 4 interview which suggested Scott was ignoring GMC ethical guidelines.
The NSS asked the GMC to explain how it planned to ensure Dr Scott met the standards required of a doctor, and to protect patients' right to access health care without evangelism.
See also: Fresh scrutiny for evangelical Christian GP Richard Scott, in The Observer.
