Many religious charities do fantastic work.
But many others fail to provide a public benefit and some cause harm.
It's time to end religious privilege in charity law.
Charity work carried out by people of all faiths and none should be recognised and celebrated. Much of the work of religious charities, such as helping the poor, is secular in nature and beneficial to society.
But there are religious organisations which exploit the privileged status of religion in charity law to conduct activities that do not fulfil a genuine public benefit, and only serve to further religious ideology.
In the worst cases, religious charities may harm society and individuals.
Registered charities must serve a purpose recognised as "charitable". Charity laws specify a list of "charitable purposes," one of which is "the advancement of religion".
Charities must also demonstrate that they provide a genuine public benefit. But guidelines are vague on what constitutes a public benefit, particular in relation to religious activities. There is still an assumption in the charity system that religion is inherently beneficial. This view is not supported by evidence and implies those without a religion are somehow less moral or charitable.
The inclusion of the advancement of religion within charitable purposes gives religion a privileged position in the charity sector. It enables religious organisations to acquire all the benefits of charitable status, including tax relief, gift aid and public respectability, simply by "advancing religion".
It also includes religious organisations that cause harm to society. This includes charities which facilitate religious genital cutting, support the non-stun slaughter industry, and promote extremism, hatred and intolerance of other people.
The NSS believes all charities, religious or not, should be held to equally high standards. That's why we campaign for "the advancement of religion" to be removed from the list of charitable purposes, and for religious charities to be held to the same equality laws as all other charities.
Take action!
1. Write to your MP
Tell your MP it's time for "the advancement of religion" to be removed as a charitable purpose. Enter your postcode below to find your MP and send a letter to them.
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 us
Become a member of the National Secular Society today! Together, we can separate religion and state for greater freedom and fairness.
Latest updates
MPs support bid to restore ‘public good’ presumption of religion
Posted: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 06:52
MPs have backed a bid by Conservative MP Peter Bone (right) to amend the Charities Act to restore the presumption that all religious groups are for the public benefit and therefore can be charities.
Mr Bone's Ten Minute Rule bill is aimed at protecting religious groups like the Preston Down Trust, a member of the Plymouth Brethren, who recently had its charitable status removed by the Charity Commission after it decided that the exclusivity with which the Church conducts many of its activities, did not provide sufficient benefits to the wider public.
Writing on the Conservative Home website, Peter Bone, an active member of the Church of England, said: "This is another sign of a growing secular movement against religious groups in this country and another example of the state interfering with the church. "
Introducing his bill to Parliament, he said: "What is happening is creeping secularism in society. With just a few days before we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, and in recognition of religious freedom, I urge right hon. and hon. Members to support my ten-minute rule Bill."
166 MPs voted in favour of Mr Bone's attempt to introduce the bill, with just 7 voting against.
Bills introduced under the ten-minute rule are generally used only as a means of making a political point as there is little parliamentary time available to pass the bill into law.
The move comes after a letter signed by 113 MPs in support of the Plymouth Brethren was was delivered to the Prime Minister on Monday. An additional letter demanding that ministers take action, signed by 53 MPs, including 45 Conservatives, was published in the Telegraph on Wednesday.
The decision not to grant charitable status to the Plymouth Brethren led to Christian MPs to accuse the Charity Commission of having "secularising agenda". Conservative MP Charlie Elphicke accused the Charity Commission of trying to suppress religion and predicted that the Plymouth Brethren case, where the organisation has been refused charity status, will be the first of many.
The Charity Commission chair, William Shawcross, has described such accusations as "quite simply, wrong."
After a series of recent parliamentary debates on the issue, a report detailing reasons why the Plymouth Brethren do not meet public benefit requirements was published by Paul Flynn, the Labour MP for Newport West.
The report, written by John Weightman, a former member of the Brethren, has also been submitted to the Charity Commission and the Public Administration Select Committee, of which Flynn is a member.
Mr Bone's motion was also opposed by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO).
Elizabeth Chamberlain, policy officer at NCVO, said: "Public benefit is what makes a charity a charity, and most are keen to demonstrate the value of their work.
"Peter Bone's plan risks downgrading religious charities in the public mind. They would become unique among charities in not having to show how they are of benefit to the public."
In a recent Lords debate about the role of religion in public life, Baroness Berridge, who has family members in the Exclusive Brethren, questioned whether religious groups that 'harm health and split families' should be allowed to be charities. The Conservative peer called for a former Archbishop to set up a church-led inquiry into the theological and psychological implications of Exclusive Brethren beliefs.
You can read the introduction of the bill and a full breakdown of how MPs voted on Hansard
Christian MPs accuse Charity Commission of having “secularising agenda”
Posted: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:41
Nick Hurd, the Government minister for civil society, fended off a barrage of criticism this week over the Charity Commission's decision not to grant charitable status to the Plymouth Brethren.
In a debate in Westminster Hall about the use of the public benefit test for religious charity registrations. Christian MPs lined up to express their anger at the Charity Commission. Robert Halfon, Conservative MP for Harlow, called for an inquiry into the Commission's decision and said it "puts the tax status of hundreds of charities in doubt".
He said: "The Brethren are trying to deal with Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs on the question of how each hall should communicate with its donors—thousands of people making donations with gift aid declarations, and making claims with their self-assessment returns. The charities do not know what to tell them. What has happened is unjust and inconsistent and is creating fear in many churches, not just in Harlow but across the country."
Last Monday Halfon, Fiona Bruce, Conservative MP for Congleton and Stephen Pound, Labour MP for Ealing North had a meeting with William Shawcross, Charity Commission chair. Pound said Shawcross had "sought to reassure us that there is no anti-Christian bias in the Charity Commission, although I suspected some of us were slightly more convinced than others".
Stewart Jackson, Conservative MP for Peterborough said: "This is about a battle, about the secularisation of society and about calling a spade a shovel, which is quango activism," he said.
But Nick Hurd said that the Charity Commission was an independent organisation, not under the control of the government. "It is not subject to ministerial direction or control," he said. "It is an independent registrar and regulator. Its independence is set out in statute, and ministers and the government have no power to intervene in Charity Commission decisions."
Throughout the debate the Commission was subject to a tirade of abuse from some of the 40 MPs who attended. They called it "'Rotten', 'discriminating', 'a bureaucratic bully crushing the little guy', 'a hidden agenda', 'unjust', 'inconsistent', 'arbitrary', 'a wolf in sheep's clothing'.
Mr Hurd said: "There were concerns that the Charity Commission is pursuing an anti-Christian agenda. I am satisfied that that is not the case. As a public body, the Charity Commission is bound by equalities duties and by law must not discriminate in its dealings with different religions or faiths. A fact that has not emerged from the debate is that the Charity Commission continues to register hundreds of Christian charities each year, including charities that were previously excepted. That fact has to be reconciled with various statements—some of them quite wild—about the Commission discriminating."
