The UK is one of the last western democracies with a state religion: the Church of England.
The Church's entanglement with the state is bad for both.
Join our campaign to disestablish the Church.
CAMPAIGN ALERT: Support the disestablishment bill
In November 2023, a private member's bill to disestablish the Church of England was selected in the ballot.
Please write to your MP and urge them to support this bill, to make the UK are more equitable and democratic country for people of all religions and beliefs.
Since our founding in 1866, one of our primary objectives has been disestablishment of the Church of England: its formal separation from the state.
More than 150 years later, census figures show most people in England and Wales are not Christian. Surveys consistently reveal a similar picture in Scotland. The case for disestablishment has never been stronger.
Disestablishment means the Church would no longer have privileged input into government - but also that government could not involve itself in the running of the Church. Both sides would gain autonomy. This is why support for Church-state separation can be found within the CofE itself.
There have been many proponents, religious and non-religious, for church-state separation, and there are a wide variety of motivations for supporting this reform.
The existence of a legally-enshrined national religion privileges one part of the population, one institution and one set of beliefs. Removing all symbolic and institutional ties between government and religion is the only way to ensure equal treatment to citizens of all religions and none.
The Church of England has enjoyed significant privileges relating its established status for many centuries. These privileges have remained largely unchanged despite the massive and continuing reduction in support for the Church in the UK. It is highly likely that this trend will continue for the foreseeable future, making the Church of England's continuation as the established church unsustainable.
- Christians are a minority in Britain. In Wales and Scotland the majority have no religion.
- Just 1% of 18-24 year olds say they belong to the Church of England.
- Less than 1% of the population regularly attend Church of England church services.
The Church of England is also out of step with the UK public on several key issues: it remains opposed to same-sex relationships and allows parishes to reject women as bishops and priests. These discriminatory positions cannot be reconciled with the Church's status as part of the UK state.
And no institution with the shameful historical record of the Church of England safeguarding and abuse should retain its privileged role in the British establishment.
The existence of a legally enshrined national religion privileges one part of the population, one institution and one set of beliefs. Removing all symbolic and institutional ties between government and religion is the only way to ensure equal treatment of citizens of all religions and none.
Take action!
1. Write to your MP
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
National Secular Society defends cinemas’ freedom not to screen religious adverts
Posted: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:38
The NSS has defended cinema chains' freedom to refuse religious or political advertising after the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) accused them of "failing to uphold Britain's long tradition of freedom of expression."
The EHRC has offered its legal expertise to the Church of England, should the Church seek to use the law to force cinemas to screen its advert featuring the Lord's Prayer. The EHRC also said it would examine issues raised by Digital Cinema Media's (DCM) decision not to screen the advert as part of its ongoing examination of the laws protecting freedom of religion and belief.
However, the National Secular Society has accused both the EHRC and Church of England of using a "free speech" argument where it doesn't apply.
Stephen Evans, the National Secular Society's campaigns manager, said: "As the EHRC's own guidance on freedom of expression makes clear, free speech considerations do not apply to decisions taken by private companies.
"The Church may be disappointed but it cannot claim its free speech has been infringed simply because a cinema chain exercises its commercial freedom not to screen religious advertising in its cinemas.
"Cinemas are free to decide for themselves which material they wish to screen and the Church of England has failed to advance any cogent legal reason why cinemas should be compelled to screen the Church's commercial. Even more concerning is that the Commission has offered to intervene and assist the Church without giving any legal justification either, instead echoing the Church's victimhood narrative on this issue. This has placed unwarranted pressure on a commercial company operating within the law, and we believe in good faith.
"The even-handedness of DCM's policy also means it has not been unlawfully discriminatory. The actions of the Church and the Commission therefore represent an unreasonable interference on DCM's lawful commercial activities."
In a statement on its website, EHRC Chief Executive Rebecca Hilsenrath voiced strong opposition to the decision not to show the adverts on the grounds they might 'offend' people. "There is no right not to be offended in the UK; what is offensive is very subjective and this is a slippery slope towards increasing censorship", she said.
Stephen Evans, commented:
"We wholeheartedly agree with the Commission that nobody has the right not be offended – a principle we regularly uphold by actively defending the right of evangelical street preachers facing sanction for speaking out in ways we find offensive. There is rightly no law prohibiting cinemas from screening religious messages if they want to. However if they choose not to for commercial reasons then that is their right. It is therefore disappointing and somewhat perplexing to see the Church, and particularly the EHRC, seeking to deny them that freedom."
Mr Evans added that the NSS hoped to work with the Commission to encourage it to include a secularist perspective on this issue in the commission's inquiry.
DCM's long-standing policy of not accepting political or religious advertising applies regardless of the specific religious or political beliefs involved. DCM say the policy was "informed by feedback from customers" and it believed a "clear neutral stance remains the fairest policy for all".
A spokesperson for DCM told the Mail on Sunday: "We remain confident in both the appropriateness and lawfulness of our neutral policy and as such are happy to assist the Commission as and when we hear from them."
The Church created a media storm last month after claiming that its advert had been 'banned' in fear of causing 'offence'. However, DCM informed the Church of England as early as August that its policy of not carrying religious or political advertising meant it would not be accepting the Church's advert. The majority of the scenes were filmed subsequently.
The Church of England's media campaign around the so called 'Lord's Prayer ban' was timed to coincide with the launch of its "Just Pray" website in November. The BBC, which worked closely with the Church to promote the story – even attending the filming – amended its own article to replace the word "ban" with "snub" shortly after publication following criticism.
The Church has claimed that it wanted to screen its advert featuring the Lord's Prayer prior to the new Star Wars film which opens in cinemas this Christmas. Steven Slack, the Church's legal adviser warned the decision not to screen the advert gave rise to the possibility of legal proceedings.
However, a UK Human Rights Blog from One Crown Office Row barristers' chambers suggested the Church of England did not have a "right to buy" commercial advertising space in cinemas and indicated that any claim brought under the Equality Act would be unlikely to succeed.
Mr Evans added: "It's understandable that a company delivering an entertainment experience for all may want to avoid overtly religious and political content – not because it is offensive – but because both are subjects about which people feel very strongly and differently about. DCM's policy simply reflects that.
"Nobody at the National Secular Society finds the Church's advert remotely offensive and would support DCM's freedom to screen it if it chose to. However, if religious or anti-religious advertising were allowed free reign in cinemas those calling for the Lord's Prayer to be shown now may feel differently about other adverts. Cinemas simply recognise that a night out at the cinema might not be the best forum for competing ideologies to be expressed."
Also see:
So called Lord's Prayer 'Ban': It's Winterval all over again
Time for the Church to come clean on the 'Just Pray' controversy
Find out about the National Secular Society's joint campaign with the Christian Institute to 'Defend Free Speech'
Woolf Commission’s multifaithism 'completely at odds with the religious indifference that permeates British society'
Posted: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 06:52
A major new report on the role of religion and belief in public life has been criticised by the National Secular Society for calling for a multi-faith approach "completely at odds with the religious indifference that permeates British society."
The NSS said the Woolf Commission is "wholly misguided" in calling for religious representation in the House of Lords to be extended to representatives of other faiths and denominations rather than calling for the abolition of the bench of bishops.
The NSS is also critical of the Commission's recommendations on education, which it accuses of being "tokenistic" and of "not going remotely far enough".
The report acknowledges the "negative practical consequences of selection by religion in schools" and states: "selection by religion segregates children not only according to religious heritage but also, frequently and, in effect, by ethnicity and socio-economic background".
It notes that many religiously "devout" people "are opposed to religious selection in pupil admissions" and says that "there are many and increasing numbers of parents in England who do not want to send their children to a religious school, but whose only choice of a state school locally is a religious one."
In spite of this criticism, the report does not call for an end to faith schools, or even for the statutory elimination of discrimination. The report merely calls on bodies responsible for school admissions to "reduce selection on grounds of religion" in both pupil admissions and employment practices.
The Commission does however join the growing chorus of calls for the requirement on schools to provide a daily act of worship to be abolished – a move long called for by the National Secular Society; an amendment to the Education Bill in 2011 tabled by NSS honorary associate Lord Avebury to achieve this was opposed by both Government and Church.
The report was convened by the Woolf Institute, which studies relations between Christians, Muslims and Jews. Patrons include the former archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Iqbal Sacranie, former general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain (who once said of Salman Rushdie: "Death, perhaps, is a bit too easy for him .. his mind must be tormented for the rest of his life unless he asks for forgiveness to Almighty Allah"), and Lord Woolf, the former chief justice. Its 'Commission on Religion and Belief in British Public Life' was chaired by Baroness Butler-Sloss.
Commenting on the report, Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said:
"There are some sensible recommendations in the Commission's report, but on the whole it clearly reflects the overbearing influence of vested interests and their reluctance to make recommendations for any fundamental change, however necessary. Disestablishing the Church of England should be a minimum ambition for a modern Britain in the 21st century."
"This report seeks to promote a multi-faith approach to public life which is completely at odds with the religious indifference that permeates British society. Efforts to accentuate religion across public life in schools, higher education, in the House of Lords, national state occasions and through taxpayer-funded chaplaincy, all serve to marginalise the religiously indifferent who support the freedom to believe and worship, but would like also to be left free from religious interference in their own day-to-day lives.
"What we have at the moment is a secularised country – one of the most secular in outlook in the world – but one still dominated by a disproportionate level of religious influence. This report would see that interference strengthened at all levels of society."
"The report is right to highlight the divisive nature of faith schools but fails recognise that religious discrimination and social segregation are an inevitable result of having faith schools in the first place. Instead of faith-based education we need a truly inclusive secular education system in which religious organisations play no formal role – however unpalatable that may be to faith communities seeking to use publicly funded schooling to prop up their religion. The report doesn't even call for the minimum to make any difference: the repeal of equality law exemptions that allow for discrimination on grounds if religion or belief in admissions and employment."
Extended religious representation in the House of Lords
Perhaps the most controversial and self-serving of the Report's recommendations however is for the House of Lords to "include a wider range of worldviews and religious traditions, and of Christian denominations other than the Church of England." Such a move could see a reduction in the number of bishops and places given to imams, rabbis and other non-other non-Christian clerics as well as evangelical pastors.
On that specific recommendation, Mr Wood commented: "We completely reject this recommendation. The United Kingdom is unique among Western democracies in giving religious representatives seats in its legislature by right. The vast majority have abandoned all links between religion and State, with no discernible adverse consequences.
"We believe it is now time to remove the automatic right of Church of England Bishops to sit in the House of Lords. It is also vitally important that a reformed Second Chamber should not have any religious-based representation whether ex-officio or appointed, whether of Christian denominations or any other faiths. The presence of religious leaders amounts to double representation of religious interests as many temporal peers already identify themselves as being religiously motivated.
"Most Christian leaders are very much more morally conservative than their followers and those of minority faiths significantly more so than the public. A second chamber with a greater input from such voices would make it significantly less representative of the nation as a whole."
Protected funding for faith-based chaplaincy
The report also calls for state funding of religious chaplaincy to be protected. It says: "Funding for chaplaincies in hospitals, prisons and higher education should be protected with equitable representation for those from non-Christian religious traditions and for those from humanist traditions."
Freedom of Information requests recently revealed that religious chaplaincy currently costs the NHS at least £23.5 million every year.
Mr Wood commented: "As a publicly provided service, the NHS should neither discriminate in employment nor service provision. NHS posts should no longer be ring-fenced for people of certain beliefs; such blatant discrimination is not acceptable for any publicly-funded post. Any explicitly religion or belief based representation in hospitals should be paid for by the organisations they represent or funded by charitable trusts, just as the air ambulance service is. Pastoral care funded and provided by the NHS itself should be secular in nature, not be organised around religious identities."
Increased religious involvement in national civic events
The report also calls on those responsible for national and civic events "to ensure that the pluralist character of modern society is reflected".
Commenting on this proposal, Mr Wood said: "Our national and civic events, including the Remembrance and the Coronation, would be more inclusive and relevant if they were secular in nature and not led by the religious. We saw in Paris recently that national ceremonies can be conducted on a secular basis and still have dignity and, more importantly, inclusiveness."
Religious literacy
The report also calls for the introduction of a 'statutory entitlement' for pupils to learn about religions and non-religious worldviews. It also says attempts should be made to "increase religion and belief literacy amongst all journalists and says "every newsroom" should retain "at least one religion and belief specialist". In addition it recommends a 'panel of experts' on religion and belief to handle complaints about the media.
The National Secular Society dismissed this as "a dangerous idea". "No-one should be able to dictate to the press how religion is reported. The media should be completely free from this sort of manipulative pressure", said Mr Wood.
Other recommendations includes further examination of the issues arising from religious tribunals "with a view to disseminating best practice" and Radio 4's Thought for the Day slot to be extended to include contributions from those who will speak from a non-religious perspective. The NSS said the slot in the Radio 4's Today programme was a "religion-promoting anachronism" that should be dropped.
In a recommendation backed by the NSS, it also calls for counter-terrorism legislation to be framed in such a way as to "promote, not limit, freedom of enquiry, speech and expression".
The Baroness Butler-Sloss says that the 144-page report's recommendations amount to a "new settlement for religion and belief in the UK".
Keith Porteous Wood said: "Britain urgently needs a new settlement but, for the most part, this report doesn't represent a sensible way forward. Instead of a multiculturalist, multifaith framework, which has serves us so poorly until now, we need a secular framework where everyone is equal before the law and where citizens interact with the state as equals, not as members of religious communities through a group identity. In a society as irreligious as ours, where religious belief is declining and simultaneously diversifying, this is a vital principle. It offers our best hope of fostering a fair and open society in which people of all religions or none can live together harmoniously and as equal citizens."
Read the full report online: Living with difference: Community, diversity and the common good
