Disestablish the Church of England

Disestablish the Church of England

Page 108 of 110: A state religion has no place in a 21st century democracy.

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

Sarkozy’s smoke and mirrors promises to religious leaders

Posted: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 12:56

As soon as politicians start sucking up to religious leaders, you can be sure there is an election in the offing. This is certainly the case in France, where President Nicolas Sarkozy is suddenly very enthusiastic for religion to play an important role in "public life". The fact that he is lagging in the polls may also have something to do with it.

But he's walking a bit of a tight-rope here because he knows that the French people value their secularism above almost everything else. And so, although he offers emollient words to the various priests and mullahs, he actually offers them nothing new at all.

At a traditional New Year meeting on January 25, he told a gathering of religious leaders that although the country has a secular constitution it doesn't mean that religion shouldn't be closely involved in public policy.

He said: "A secular society is one which has decided to separate churches from the state, so the state doesn't have to account for its choices to churches, and churches don't depend on the state to live and organise – this is secularity, a secular republic," he told religious leaders.

"But this doesn't mean churches, respecting the law, are forbidden from speaking. Nor does it mean your words shouldn't go beyond the walls of your places of worship. That would be a strange idea of democracy: Everyone has a right to speak, except you," he told the leaders, including Paris Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois.

Sarkozy said France's status as a "secular and social republic" was "written in black and white" in its constitution, along with its guiding principle of "laïcité," or secularism.

However, he added that the country's religions should also participate in national debates and in "creating our cultural identities". He said it would be a "strange schizophrenia" to preserve France's religious heritage while insisting religions had "nothing more to say, offer and impart."

"The spiritual richness you animate, the depth of thought you embody, the values you bear all have a vocation to address themselves to those who never cross the threshold of your churches, mosques, synagogues and temples," the president told the religious leaders.

The Church claims that two-thirds of the French population is Catholic, although less than one in ten goes to Church or has anything to do with Catholicism. 40 per cent declare themselves unambiguously to be atheists. So why does Mr Sarkozy feel the need to make such meaningless abasement to the churches?

In a similar bid to win favour with religious voters before the May 2007 election, Sarkozy (himself a Catholic) pledged to improve ties with religious communities. During a December 2007 visit toRome, he said he believed "laïcité", set out in a 1905 church-state separation law, should be interpreted "more positively" to enable religion to be seen "not as a danger, but as an advantage."

After another Vatican visit in October 2010, the president was accused by opposition politicians of violating the secularism principle by taking part in prayers at Rome's Basilica of St. John Lateran.

In his January speech, Sarkozy defended a controversial April ban on Muslim veils, which he said were "incompatible" the country's values and the "dignity of women".

He added, however, that he was also deeply concerned by recent "aggressions against religious symbols," including attacks on Jewish and Muslim cemeteries, and said the country would guarantee all citizens "the right to practise their chosen faith." But who, other than competing religionists, are carrying out these attacks?

"Not only does our republic guard against intervening in the religious sphere – it will always be ready to defend those who are attacked or threatened because they believe, pray or witness publicly to their faith," the president said.

"Our republic will intervene immediately if citizens start affronting each other and will [act strongly against] all those who seek even once to inflame the furnace of religious hatred on its territory. This ravaging hatred has sometimes been on the point of sweeping France away. Let [us] be clear: It will not do so again."

French newspapers said Sarkozy's speech was a response to a call on 22 January by Francois Hollande, his main Socialist challenger in April-May presidential elections, for the 1905 separation law to be written into the national constitution. The separation law, however, makes an exception for Alsace-Lorraine (formerly inGermany), because this was agreed in a Vatican concordat. The secularist group La Libre Pensée therefore oppose Mr Hollande's proposal because it would make it much harder to reverse the Alsace-Lorraine exception in future.

Cardinal Vingt-Trois also criticized Hollande's proposal, presumably because of the provisions it makes for the remainder ofFrance, as have Orthodox, Muslim and Jewish leaders.

In his speech, Sarkozy said he felt "truly comforted" by the presence of religious leaders, who demonstrated France had "created conditions for peaceful, harmonious and friendly coexistence between religions."

He added that Christianity had become a target in the country, and he praised Cardinal Vingt-Trois for "showing French Catholics are not living in an isolated camp and can respond to provocation with communion. As I've said many times, freedom of conscience is perhaps the most precious good guaranteed by our republican laws," the president said. But he added: "No religion will impose dogmas and precepts in France on those who wish to avoid them. But nothing can prohibit the idea of transcendence from being present in our society. The concord and harmony governing relations between the different religious currents here and irrigating the social body provide an excellent guarantee of peace," he said.

Reading between the lines it is quite clear that Sarkozy is offering religious bodies absolutely nothing new. There is no restriction on them joining in national debate at the moment. The fact that nobody listens to them is another matter entirely.

Majority of Britons want bishops out of the House of Lords

Posted: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:45

A Yougov poll for the Sunday Times has revealed that the majority of people in this country do not think Church of England bishops should be entitled to sit in the House of Lords.

The poll asked: "Currently, 26 senior Church of England bishops are entitled to sit in the House of Lords and vote on laws. Do you think bishops should or should not be entitled to seats in the House of Lords". In response, 58% said no, they should not be entitled, while 24% thought they should. 18% didn't know.

It also asked asked: "How in touch or out of touch with public opinion do you think the Church of England bishops are? 65% said they were out of touch, 21% said they were in touch while 14% didn't know.

Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society, said: "The Government should take its cue on the Bench of Bishops in the House of Lords from the public, who overwhelmingly believe the Bishops should go. The time has gone for kow-towing to these out of touch bishops and vested interests in the Church. When reform of the House of Lords comes up for debate, the removal of the Bench of Bishops can now be considered with confidence with the knowledge that most of the country think it should go."

More information