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
Secularists call for an end to Chancel Repair Liability in Lords debate
Posted: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:26
Secularists made a strong case for abolishing Chancel Repair Liability (CRL) in a debate in the House of Lords on Friday 16 January 2015, in which peers urged the Government to remove CRL, described as a "medieval anomaly," from the statute book.
Since the dissolution of the monasteries by Henry VIII, some Anglican parishes can demand money from local property owners to repair their church regardless of whether or not they are Anglicans.
The debate was initiated and led by Lord Avebury, an honorary associate of the National Secular Society, who said that the "only fair solution is abolition." He emphasised that he was only aware of two instances of churches suing for CRL, once in the 1930s and once around ten years ago. In the 1980s the Church's synod and the Law Commission had agreed to phase out or abolish CRL. Yet in the last decade, following CRL registration legislation, as many as 17,000 properties have been registered, in many cases blighting their value and saleability.
Only around one in twenty of the 5,200 parishes who could register CRL had done so, probably because of difficulties in ascertaining liability from old records which are imprecise or missing, or out of concern that registration would cause "harm to the mission of the church." The Bishop of Derby confirmed that the Church "support[s] abolition in principle … [but] needs to be recompensed," despite, as Lord Avebury pointed out, it having recovered minimal CRL in the last century and with little prospect of recovering much in future.
The Earl of Lytton, a Chartered Surveyor, highlighted CRL's potential to "destroy more third party property value than it confers in benefit in terms of chancel repair," in other words the value of property could be significantly reduced by a CRL registration even if the Church ends up never benefiting from it.
Lord Cashman, also an NSS honorary associate, argued that reform of CRL "could help to improve the UK's standing in the World Bank rankings" for "ease of doing business." He noted that the UK is ranked 68th on the ease of the registration of property, against our overall ranking of eighth.
Lord Cashman said that in parishes where hundreds or even thousands of properties were registered "untold distress is caused to a significant proportion of the community" if CRL is enforced, "including many without the knowledge or resources to cope with it." The peer also pointed out that in Gorleston, liable residents were made an 'offer' by the local vicar to "pay the parish £50" to receive a "certificate of exemption" from CRL which he promoted as cheaper than insurance, but, following legal questions, these and all the registrations had been revoked.
NSS honorary associate Lord Taverne cited the example of one landowner who was "nearly driven to suicide" over CRL, and spoke of the "trauma" experience by landowners who purchased houses without knowing that the land was subject to CRL. Lord Taverne said that "the case for abolition of this oppressive anachronism is overwhelming" and said that CRL "can ruin lives." The peer noted the Archbishop of Canterbury's "deep concern about social justice" and urged the abolition of CRL "as soon as possible."
The Earl of Lytton said that the unquantifiable and theoretically limitless liability was enforced in a "capricious manner" and that the blight of registration can "destabilise family finances, destroy livelihoods and wreck lives."
Speaking for the Government, Lord Ashton said "I believe that the church is in discussions with the National Secular Society, for example, in dealing with this. The Government have said that they are prepared to join in those discussions or to take account of them. The Government have no plans to change the law at present" but if given "evidence of actual hardship taking place, we will consider this measure."
Lord Kennedy, Labour's front bench spokesperson, was keen for CRL to be abolished and urged the Government to become much more proactively involved, for example to welcome such discussions."
The NSS, along with other local campaigners affected by the tax, has been calling for an end to the archaic liability and been in negotiations with the Church and senior civil servants and politicians at Ministerial and constituency level. It has also been working closely with Lord Avebury in formulating the Chancel Repairs Bill, its second reading is expected after the General Election.
Many homeowners had bought homes on land liable to pay the levy, often without any knowledge of the tax, and were shocked to receive letters stating a liability on the land to pay money for chancel repairs.
NSS Executive Director Keith Porteous Wood, said; "We particularly welcome Labour's support, and hope that the Government will reflect on the harm done by CRL, particularly given some of the examples cited in the debate, and work with us to find a way to abolish CRL. I also hope that, until abolition, the Church will develop ways of alleviating the suffering caused by CRL, which is of little benefit to the Church in any case."
The full debate can be read here.
NSS Respond to Parliamentary Reform Committee
Posted: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 15:18
The National Secular Society has responded to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee's consultation on a "new Magna Carta." The Committee has been inviting members of the public to give their views on whether the UK should have a written constitution.
Whilst the NSS does not have a position on whether the UK should adopt a written constitution, the society has written a response outlying what secular principles ought to be enshrined in a codified constitution, should one be written, or should some other type of reform take place.
The consultation also asked for comment on whether the UK should have a written constitution, a codification act, or a non-binding statement of constitutional principles if and when the UK's constitution is reformed. Though the NSS does not have a mandate from our membership to address this point, the NSS did raise concerns about Britain's current constitutional system with the Committee, and promoted a positive vision for how secular principles could transform the British state and foster a fairer, freer system of government.
The NSS raised a number of concerns with the UK's current constitution, including the presence of unelected Bishops in the House of Lords, the Monarch's role as head of the Church of England and as "defender of the faith", and the way in which some of the Monarch's religious responsibilities are delegated to the Prime Minister.
The NSS submission promoted secular principles in our response, principles which are codified in the society's secular charter.
The NSS submission argued that demographics and public opinion make the present arrangements unsustainable, and pressed the case for setting a secular precedent in the UK's constitutional affairs now, so that the rapid growth of minority religions do not lead to a confessional approach to politics in the future, where the privileges of the Anglican Church are conferred on other religions proportionately.
As noted in the NSS submission: "It is entirely possible (and likely) that the dominance of the Church of England across institutions in the UK will lead to a confessional approach in the future, shutting out the plurality who have no faith whatsoever, as minority religions are invested with similar privileges as the Church of England. This has already happened in education."
The NSS response drew attention to how a written constitution might deal with the education system: "A secular education system is one of our principle objectives, and, though the problem now is primarily one arising from government legislation and not of constitutional construction, a constitutional resettlement is one possible solution to the merger of religion and the state education system."
The topic of the consultation was discussed at Conway Hall in December 2014, when the chair of the Reform Committee, Graham Allen MP, spoke to NSS members about the work his committee was doing.
The NSS submission argued that "all citizens should be equal before the law, and not categorised into faith groups with group rights" and that "any new constitutional settlements must priorities individual rights over group and religious rights." It also noted that "the values of the secular charter are at the heart of … most constitutional law and philosophy" and that it is a "common principle of most constitutional thought that religion and state should be separated."
NSS Campaigns Manager Stephen Evans added; "I encourage people to add their voices to the consultation response whilst late submissions are still being accepted, and to urge the adoption of the secular principles that guarantee religious freedom, including the freedom to believe or not, and the freedom to change your beliefs or religious views.
"Whatever your opinion on whether Britain should have a written constitution, I encourage you to take this chance to add your voice to the national debate."
Although the consultation has now closed, late submissions are being accepted
The NSS does not have a formal position on whether the UK should have a written constitution, our submission advocated secular principles, principles we would campaign to see advanced under any constitutional system.
