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
IHEU report reveals extent of global discrimination against non-believers
Posted: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:26
The International Humanist and Ethical Union has released its second annual report on the global state of human rights for non-believers, atheists and agnostics. The report found a "trend towards targeting 'atheists'" across the world, and concluded that "the overwhelming majority of countries fail to respect the rights of atheists and freethinkers."
The report draws attention to "hate campaigns against the non-religious" in 13 Muslim-majority countries, and examples of legislation and hate speech designed to curtail the rights of non-believers. These include a law in Saudi Arabia which equates atheism with terrorism and which prohibits "calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion."
The report also singles out Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, who branded secularism, humanism and liberalism as "deviant" and who dismissed human rights as a danger to Islam.
The Egyptian Ministry of Youth is also cited in the report, for their campaign to warn Egyptians about "the dangers of atheism".
Although the IHEU 'Freedom of Thought' study paints a grim picture of human rights across the globe, the authors do make a case for some positive trends. They write that, "if 2014 has seen something of a surge in hate directed at atheists, it is at least a backlash against a steadily globalising conception of non-religious identities."
"The non-religious are also recognising themselves more, stumbling upon new terms and new arguments through international media and the internet, coming together online, talking, in some countries meeting in secret. The non-religious are raising their heads above the parapet. There is a backlash, but it's a backlash that is a response to a surge of new ideas and new connections, and we can hold onto that."
The report gave every country in the world a "Freedom of Thought" status, with rankings ranging from "free and equal" to "grave violations."
Countries ranked as "free and equal" include Sierra Leone, Taiwan, Province of China, Estonia, Kosovo, Belgium, The Netherlands and Fiji.
Nations with "grave violations" against the human rights of the non-religious include Somalia, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, China, North Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq.
The report notes that "19 countries punish their citizens for apostasy, and in 12 of those countries it is punishable by death. Pakistan doesn't have a death sentence for apostasy but it does for blasphemy, and the threshold for 'blasphemy' can very low; so in effect you can be put to death for expressing atheism in 13 countries."
The United Kingdom is rated as having "system discrimination." The IHEU report finds that "religion has little unwanted influence over most people in daily life, and the number identifying as non-religious in the most recent census has increased dramatically; however some education reforms in the past few years including in 2014 have increased the influence of religion in schools and removed secular options from some courses."
The report cites a number of "systemic issues" in the UK, including "systematic religious privilege" like the control of "some public or social services" by religious groups and the existence of an established church. The research also notes that "religious schools have powers to discriminate in admissions or employment."
Religious influence in schools criticised in House of Lords “religion in public life” debate
Posted: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 21:10
The role of religion in schools has come under scrutiny during a House of Lords debate on the role of religion and belief in public life. The debate was called by the Rt Revd Lord Harries of Pentregarth, formerly the Bishop of Oxford.
The debate was wide-ranging, with discussion ranging from faith schools to social action, to the presence of Bishops in the House of Lords, though many speakers addressed education prominently in their speeches. Lord Harries, introducing the debate, acknowledged that there had been "major issues concerning religion in schools."
Baroness Falkner, an honorary associate of the National Secular Society, said that whilst parents' religious and philosophical convictions should be respected in the educational provision that the state offers, the demand for a religious education, wholly on parents' terms, was an "unreasonable and potentially divisive demand which must be resisted".
The Baroness said that "rather than facilitating the segregation of pupils along religious lines, we should be doing everything we can to ensure that children of all faiths and none are educated together in a respectful and inclusive environment."
The Baroness also drew attention to the "wider problem of faith-based schools narrowing the curriculum to suit their own particular religious ethos." She cited the example of the Yesodey Hatorah secondary girls' school, which recently admitted redacting exam questions on human reproduction, because they conflicted with the 'ethos' of the school.
Baroness Falkner also criticised the requirement for a daily act of 'broadly Christian' collective worship in schools, saying that the law is "unevenly applied, can reduce a broad and balanced approach, and seriously undermines parents' abilities to raise their children in accordance with their own beliefs."
Baroness Massey drew attention to a "mistaken confusion of education and indoctrination" and argued for education to "develop personal and social skills, good citizens and thinking skills based on dialogue and discussion rather than on one-dimensional doctrine."
Lord Warner noted testimony heard by the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group from the "original Trojan Horse whistle-blower" as well as a former student of an Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) school. Warner told the House how parliamentarians on the committee had been "truly shocked to learn what was going on in some of our schools in 21st-century Britain in the name of religious beliefs, and by the apparent inability of our legal and regulatory systems to safeguard our children from what can only be described as indoctrination and abuse."
Warner added that the curriculum in the ACE school system "is a fundamentalist Christian one that originated in the United States. It is widely considered to be creationist, homophobic and misogynistic. The teaching materials used in these schools that were presented to us certainly supported this view. Much of the material is in a comic strip format with characters that could only be described as risible if they were not being used to brainwash and indoctrinate young minds. It was very scary that the so-called science teaching was leading to certification that was being used to progress children to further education."
Lord Dubs criticised presence of Church of England bishops sitting in the legislature as of right. The Labour peer said that if he had to set a pub quiz question it would be "apart from the House of Lords, in which legislature in the world is a block of seats reserved for members of a religion?"
When he asked if there were "any takers", other peers responded correctly with cries of "Iran".
Turning to education, Lord Dubs warned "the more religious-based schools we have, the more divisive will be the consequences." He said faith schools were "having a damaging effect on our society and on the religions themselves."
Commenting on the role of religion in social action, Labour peer Baroness Sherlock, herself a practising Anglican, noted the "contribution that believers and faith-based organisations make to our national life". She stressed the need to "learn from the strength of faith-based work but recognise that there are risks, both to the state and to the groups, of drawing faith-based groups into delivery."
Promoting the role of religion in public life, Lord Singh of Wimbledon said "religious instruction" was required for society, stating that religious teaching was like an "ethical satnav". Lord Blair went further, and said that whilst atrocities had been committed in the name of religion, "worse has been done in the name of secularists creeds."
Conservative peer Lord Ahmad, responding on behalf of the Government, said he believed that faith was a "force for good". The Communities minister reinforced Secretary of State, Eric Pickles' warning about secularism "becoming so aggressive that it attacks religion in all respects and encourages intolerance towards others ". He said the best response was to "champion values that define our country", many of which he said were "founded in faith".
Lord Ahmad recognised the value of a broad-based education, and addressing Baroness Falkner's concerns directly, said it was "essential that all schools prepare children for modern life". He said the Government was "working with local school leaders and governors to ensure that children are not put at risk by the rise of extremism".
In closing, Lord Harries said there was a "need in our society to build common ground between religious believers and those who have no religion but regard themselves as humanists" and cited the moral philosopher Michael Sandel, criticising society for focusing on individual freedom alone, to the neglect of other values.
Commenting on the debate, Stephen Evans of the National Secular Society, said: "Britain's religion and belief landscape has changed dramatically over the past few decades and there is clearly a need to rethink the role of religion in public life.
"The increasingly diverse nature of society means the traditional manner of categorizing people by their faith identity is anachronistic and redundant, not to mention dangerous. If we are to avoid sectarianism becoming a major problem, the state needs to treat people as individual citizens rather than as members of a particular faith or belief group.
"It's time the public domain became wholly secular, leaving religion as a matter of private conviction – and not the basis on which we organise schools and other public services which we all share."
