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
Norway makes another step in the long road to separating church and state
Posted: Tue, 15 May 2012 17:07
The Norwegian Parliament is planning to amend the country's constitution on Monday to continue the long, drawn-out effort to separate the church from the state.
The amendment will abolish the Lutheran Church of Norway, which will then be renamed The People's Church.
The nation will have no official religion, and the government will not participate in the appointment of church deans and bishops. However, the church tax will remain in place and churches will continue to receive the lion's share, with humanist organisations benefitting to a lesser extent.
Svein Harberg, the spokesman for the Church, Education, and Research Committee stated that the decision "is historic both for the Norwegian Church and for the politicians in Parliament."
A parliamentary committee report presented on Tuesday contains a unanimous recommendation to move the church a step further away from the state – although there is still a long way to go to achieve complete separation.
According to the Norwegian Humanist Association's website (translated with Google Translate so open to misinterpretation):
"There will still be a church office in the government apparatus, and a minister who will be responsible for that department. It will continue to be the case that the employer has the responsibility for priests and "clerical" employees. There is in other words, no change. The state will not give the church the freedom to be a separate legal entity, as they wish. The requirement that the employees of the Department must be members of the Norwegian Church, however, is waived."
The amendment will remove the requirement for half of parliamentary members to be members of the Lutheran Church.
The state will no longer be responsible for the appointment of bishops and deans, something the church has been lobbying for over a long period. Instead, Norway will treat all religions and philosophies equally.
"The state will no longer engage in religious activities, but support the Norwegian church, national church and other religious and belief communities in line with it," reports NRK.
The unanimously supported amendments are expected to be formally passed on Monday
Traditionally, every citizen of Norway became a member of the Church of Norway upon baptism. 79 percent of Norwegians are registered members, but only about 20 percent make religion a large part of their lives and only two percent attend church regularly, according to 2009 and 2010 data. A 2002 study done by Gustafsson and Pettersson revealed that 72 percent of Norwegians "do not believe in a personal God."
Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: "On closer inspection, this turns out to be a far cry from the total separation that was initially heralded in some newspapers. But it is a step in the right direction and hopefully the process will continue – probably over decades.
"It would take the same kind of careful and gradual unravelling of our own state from the established church if there was ever a will to do it. If the process was ever begun, it would take generations to reach a proper conclusion to make Britain into a modern secular democracy."
Note: This is an amended version of an article that was originally published on Tuesday 15 May 2012
Monarch’s role as head of Church of England “unsustainable”
Posted: Tue, 15 May 2012 00:03
The National Secular Society says that the Queen's or any future Monarch's role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England is unsustainable – despite the results of a new poll showing that 79% of British adults think that the Queen still has an important "faith role".
The ComnRes poll for the BBC also shows that 73% of respondents agree that the Queen and future monarchs should keep the titles of Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith.
Meanwhile, just one in four think the Queen and future monarchs should not have any faith role at all.
By comparison, opinion is more divided regarding Prince Charles's suggestion that he should be Defender of Faith (as opposed to Defender of the Faith; 50% agree that if Prince Charles becomes King, his title should become Defender of Faith, compared to 35% who disagree.
Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: "Britain is a very different country to what it was when the Queen came to the throne in 1952. We can no longer sustain the idea that the Church of England is of any real significance to the vast majority of people.
"Attendance at churches continues to fall – now only one in fourteen is in church on a normal Sunday and the rising proportion who declare themselves to be non-religious is around the same as those declaring themselves Christian.
"If the Queen declares an allegiance to, and indeed preferential status for, only one religion — as she did at her coronation — then it renders everyone who is not of that religion to be less than full citizens.
"Prince Charles's suggestion that he be "Defender of Faith" would be a step forward, but the ultimate goal must surely be for the Church of England to be disestablished and for Britain to be a secular democracy that includes everyone of whatever creed or none without privilege or disadvantage. No head of state, be they monarch or not, should express any religious preference, far less be under a formal obligation to sustain one.
"The monarch should be free to follow any personal faith, or none, but the monarch is the only person in the country not free to have whatever personal faith they wish, or have none at all.
"The monarchy's role in this country is now almost entirely ceremonial anyway, and its relevance will be continually reduced as demographic trends of diversity continue. If the monarchy is to survive as anything more than a sentimental relic, it will have to face up to the fact that this country has changed radically over the past three generations. The next monarch must move on or be left behind as a Ruritanian-style sideshow.
"Despite dwindling congregations, British monarchs promise in their Coronation oath to maintain privileges for the Church of England. It is unacceptable that only a protestant Christian can be head of state. Neither could be less appropriate in one of the least religious and most religiously diverse countries in the world. Practically all western democracies have abandoned the medieval concept of establishment, most recently Sweden.
"That younger people are so markedly less enthusiastic about a religious monarchy is a sign that this is the way we should be changing the oath for those that will be our head of state in future generations."
Had the question about whether 'the Queen and future Monarchs should have any faith role or title at all' not mentioned the Queen, we are convinced that the result would have been much more in favour of no faith role.
