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
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."
Anglican vicar denounces Charlie Hebdo as “vile”, says religion should be protected from ridicule
Posted: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:38
An Anglican vicar has described the French satirical, anti-racist magazine Charlie Hebdo as a "nihilistic little rag" and compared their cartoons to the anti-Semitic publications of Nazi Germany.
Writing in the parish magazine of Presteigne in Powys, Wales, the Reverend Stephen Hollinghurst said he doesn't think "those poor cartoonists deserved or 'asked for' what they got", before adding, "looking at the other hand, did they really have the right to attack, ridicule and offend."
He states that Charlie Hebdo attacked "virtually anyone in their nasty magazine" which he described as "a thoroughly unpleasant, nihilistic little rag despite its recent acquisition of almost sacred status."
The vicar begins his piece by questioning if freedom of speech is "really a fundamental, absolute, unconditional human right" and goes on to state: "I do find myself asking why it is, quite rightly, unacceptable, to offend, attack, ridicule or otherwise persecute people on grounds of their race, colour or sexuality, it is apparently ok to do so because of their religious beliefs or practices."
He states that this is a "double-standard almost universally accepted in the modern, sophisticated, liberated Western World" and questions "do we really have the right to say what we like about (or to) whoever we like?"
Extraordinarily, Reverend Hollinghurst goes on to compare Charlie Hebdo's satirical cartoons with the anti-Semitic propaganda of Hitler's Germany. Hollinghurst claims it is "ironic" that the West condemns the "summary murder of people because of their (in this case, Jewish) faith, whilst defending to the hilt the right of others (cartoonists in this case) to ridicule and offend people of faith and their beliefs."
The Anglican vicar asks readers, "didn't the Holocaust begin with vile anti-Semitic cartoons? Is there that much difference?"
He adds, "I'm not sure I have the answers."
The newsletter was sent to the National Secular Society by a concerned parishioner who received it in the post. He described the commentary as "jaw-dropping" and said that Hollinghurst's "vehemence in the cause of intolerance and against freedom of expression" was "giving respectable cover to violent extremists."
He added that the vicar's rant "makes me wonder if he grasps what racism or sexism or anti-Semitism actually are, or the implications … for those in this neighbourhood (and elsewhere) who live at risk of violent prejudice."
Also see: Bishop of St Asaph describes French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo as "gratuitously offensive"
