Twenty-six Anglican bishops are given seats as of right in the House of Lords.
The UK is the only western democracy which reserves seats for clerics in its legislature.
This is unfair, undemocratic and undesirable. It's time to abolish the bishops' bench.
Two archbishops and 24 bishops of the Church of England currently have automatic seats in the House of Lords. They are sometimes known as 'the lords spiritual'.
We campaign for a secular upper house with no specific religious representation, whether of Christian denominations or any other faiths. In a secular state no religion or its leaders should have a privileged role in the legislature.
Any serious proposals to reform the House of Lords must address the unjustified privilege of the bishops' bench.
62% of Brits think no religious clerics should have an automatic right to seats in the House of Lords.
After over a century of decline in religious attendance in Britain, the claim that bishops — or any other religious representatives — speak for any significant constituency is not warranted. Less than 1% of the British population now attend Anglican services on the average Sunday.
In addition, the presence of religious leaders amounts to double representation of religious interests as many peers already identify themselves as being religiously motivated. Retired religious leaders are often appointed as peers.
Bishops do not have any "special moral insight" unavailable to everybody else. The idea that bishops or any other 'religious leaders' have any monopoly on issues of morality is offensive to many non-religious citizens. Those who profess no religion are no less capable of making moral and ethical judgements.
In an increasingly secular society the role of religious representatives in our legislature has become irrelevant, and has stood in the way of progressive legislation.
Take action!
1. Write to your MP
Ask your MP to help end the archaic, unfair and undemocratic bishops’ bench in the House of Lords.
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
Boris Johnson describes bishops in the House of Lords as “clerical fossils”
Posted: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:12
London Mayor Boris Johnson has described Anglican bishops with the automatic right to a seat in the House of Lords as "clerical fossils."
Speaking to LBC, the Conservative politician discussed the separation of church and state in the UK and said that the division "is not perhaps as thoroughgoing in this country as you might like to think."
The Mayor told listeners, "don't forget we have bishops sitting by right in our upper house" and added that it was an "an interesting fact" that the UK has "some clerical fossils still in our legislature."
In recent months bishops in the House of Lords have opposed mitochondrial donation, and they opposed equal marriage legislation in 2013.
Twenty-six bishops, including two archbishops, currently have the automatic right to a seat in the House of Lords. The National Secular Society, which campaigns against religious privilege, welcomed the Mayor's comments.
NSS campaigns manager, Stephen Evans, commented: "It's refreshing to hear a politician advocating for the principle of the separation of church and state. We see all around the world the conflict that is created when religion and government are entwined.
"The position of the bishops in the House of Lords means that they have privileged access to the political process and the ability to vote on laws that apply to us all. Britain is incredibly religiously diverse and many of us don't hold or practise any religious beliefs. Mr Johnson is therefore right to recognise that our political structures should reflect the reality of changing times by separating religion from the state.
The Mayor's comments came in response to a question about sharia 'courts' operating in the UK.
Mr Johnson warned of what he called a "system running in parallel with UK justice". He said: "Everybody must be equal under the law, and everybody must obey the same law. That is absolutely cast-iron."
He was very critical of previous comments on sharia made by some Anglicans, and took what he called "grave exception" to support for sharia tribunals. Mr Johnson noted that "clerics in the Church of England… [have] said we should be a little bit indulgent" about sharia law and he said "I won't have it."
The Mayor added: "I'm worried sometimes by the faint bat-squeaks of support that I hear for that idea even from clerics in the Church of England."
Former Archbishop Rowan Williams argued in 2008 that the introduction of some elements of sharia law in the UK seemed "unavoidable".
Mr Johnson argued that religious arbitration tribunals "cannot replace" civil proceedings.
He said that if people "want to have some ceremonial proceeding according to religious ritual or whatever, that is fine. But the actual implementation of the law has got to be done in British courts according to British law, agreed by Parliament.
"That is where the law emanates from. The law emanates in the end from people voting for MPs who enact the statutes which we all obey. That gives this country a vital equality."
The Mayor was speaking the day after Home Secretary Theresa May promised a review of how sharia courts operate in the UK, which was welcomed by secularists.
Mr Evans added: "Secularism is much maligned by those seeking to maintain religious privilege by supporting a multi-faith approach, but secularism remains the only sensible framework for ensuring that all citizens' personal freedoms of religion or belief and conscience are equally respected."
Lords’ wrecking amendments to equal marriage bill fail
Posted: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 17:48
This week saw the end of three days' worth of debate in the House of Lords over the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill whilst in its committee stage. The debate revealed a substantial number of wrecking amendments submitted by Lords, all largely a variation on just a few themes.
One of which was the insistence that we should distinguish between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage. There was an amendment, tabled by Former Conservative Party chairman, Lord Mawhinney, which called for a heterosexual marriage to be lawfully described as "traditional marriage"; another, by Lord Carey, said that "nothing in the Act can take away the right of a man and woman to enter a traditional marriage"; one of Lord Hylton's amendments called for the bill to leave out the word "marriage" and replace it with "union"; and a final one by Lord Armstrong sought to clarify that "lawful marriage between a man and a woman is matrimony". These amendments were either withdrawn or failed.
There were also attempts to have the performance of same-sex marriage ceremonies to be subject to an opt-in mechanism rather than the default; for example, Lord Curry introduced an amendment requiring a congregation to Ballot in order to opt-in to performing same-sex ceremonies, whilst Lord Singh also proposed an amendment for opting-in to performing same-sex marriages, but this time for Sikh groups only. Baroness Cumberlege proposed, and then withdrew, an amendment giving registrars with a conscientious objection to same-sex marriage the right not to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples.
All the while, there have been complaints from the Coalition for Marriage. Speaking to Pink News, Coalition for Marriage spokesperson Dr Sharon James made the surprising statement that Liberal Judaism, the Unitarians and the Quakers have been given "a disproportionate amount of time" in the debate for equal marriage at the expense of "mainstream Christian people". Given the number of amendments, all grounded within a traditional Christian perspective, attempting to distinguish between heterosexual marriage and same-sex marriage by emphasising notions of 'tradition' and 'matrimony', Dr James's assertion could be understood as somewhat disingenuous.
During the Lords' debate, there was also concern expressed for teachers. Despite the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, dismissing the notion that teachers opposed to same-sex marriage would be in danger of losing their jobs, Lord Dear looked to entrench an amendment that stated no teacher should be required to endorse same-sex marriage if that teacher has a conscientious objection to it.
Last week, Equalities Minister, Maria Miller revealed that the government will be proposing that the Public Order Act 1986 be amended so as to explicitly protect critics of same-sex marriage. The Public Order Act includes a number of clauses prohibiting the provocation of hatred or violence, and Ms Miller's amendment seeks to clarify that criticism of same-sex marriage does not constitute such an offence; it states, that "any discussion or criticism of marriage which concerns the sex of the parties to marriage shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred". This amendment is seen as an attempt to appease those equal marriage opponents who had previously voiced fears that the passing of the bill would lead to their being prosecuted.
According to the findings of an international poll conducted by Ipsos MORI and released today, 55% of people in the UK support equal marriage.
The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is due to go to report stage on the 8 July and have its third reading on the 15 July.
