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
I’m keeping Canberra secular, says Chief Minister
Posted: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:11
A spat about the separation of religion from governance has broken out between politicians in the Australian capital of Canberra.
Vicki Dunne (Liberal), who is speaker of the Legislative Assembly is challenging the Chief Minister, Katy Gallagher (right) (Labor) to attend a church service to mark the beginning of the new Assembly on February 11.
But Ms Gallagher is insisting that Canberra is secular and that ''as a matter of principle'' she and her colleagues will not take part in the ceremony.
Mrs Dunne wrote to the Chief Minister last week asking her for a second time to attend the service and to join a procession at the beginning of the ceremony and address the congregation. ''Notwithstanding the Labor Party's stance on the issue, I still am pleased to invite you, as the territory's Chief Minister, to attend and participate in the service,'' Mrs Dunne said in her letter. ''Firstly, I invite you to walk with me in the procession at the commencement and in the recession at the conclusion of the service.
''Secondly, I invite you to speak to offer a greeting to the gathering. I would appreciate your co-operation by keeping the greeting to about 300 words.''
Mrs Dunne said the service would be conducted according to Christian liturgy, but she would invite representatives from the ''broader spiritual community'' to the event.
''I hope this church service will establish a strong and lasting link between the Assembly and the many spiritual communities across Canberra,'' Mrs Dunne's letter said.
In her reply, Ms Gallagher reiterated the government's position that ''as a matter of principle, we are opposed to creating a formal nexus between religious worship and the Legislative Assembly."
The Chief Minister said Canberra had been well served by the secular basis of the Assembly. ''I therefore advise that I will not be accepting your invitation to attend and participate in the service, but I wish you all the best for the day.''
Ms Gallagher said on Tuesday that the ceremony could be seen as the beginning of a formal link between the Assembly and the church if she attended. '''I don't want to appear churlish or disrespectful, my declining of the invitation is to make sure we keep the Assembly as the secular institution it has always been. If that is to change it should be done by a vote of the Assembly, not a day that was organised by the Speaker.''
Mrs Dunne confirmed that the ceremony would go ahead whether the Chief Minister attended. ''As is completely proper I extended an invitation to the Chief Minister,'' she said. Whether the Chief Minister decides to attend this community event or not is completely her decision.''
Religious opt-outs make Australia’s anti-discrimination law a “bigot’s charter”
Posted: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 12:45
In a move that has enraged human rights advocates, the Australian government has given religious groups wide-scale opt-outs in proposed new anti-discrimination laws.
The new law brings together all the existing anti-discrimination measures, but the Government has agreed to demands from religious bodies that they should be permitted to be able to discriminate in employment against a wide range of people – including pregnant women.
Needless to say, gay people will be left almost entirely at the mercy of religious intolerance with no protection if they are employed by an employer with a religious ethos.
The draft of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill permits "faith-based groups", including schools and hospitals, to refuse to hire people because of a wide range of attributes that would be unlawful for any other organisation. This includes women who are pregnant or potentially pregnant – to avoid having to employ unwed mothers.
The Human Rights Law Centre's director of advocacy and strategic litigation, Anna Brown, said that while the bill introduced important new protections from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and removed the ability of religious bodies to discriminate on the basis of age, sex and breastfeeding, it was a ''missed opportunity'' to narrow the broad exemptions available to religious groups.
Religious organisations employ thousands of people in Australia – the Catholic Church being one of the country's largest employers. The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference is adamant that the church should retain its rights to discriminate, but Anglicans are divided.
They rely on government funding but because of their religious status are allowed to vet the sexual practices of potential employees in ways that would be illegal for non-religious organisations.
The Australian breakfast cereal Weet-Bix is made by a company called Sanitarium which defines itself as a religious organisation owned and operated by the Seventh-Day Adventist church, which means it would be able to discriminate against people with these attributes.
Sanitarium spokeswoman Julie Praestiin said the company's workplace culture was ''grounded on Christian-based values of care, courage, humility, integrity and passion which are generally shared by the Australian community''.
Hugh de Kretser, executive officer of the Federation of Community Legal Centres, said that Sanitarium, which is understood to have a turnover of $300 million a year — although the church is not required to lodge Sanitarium's financial reports — should not be allowed to discriminate.
''That a large organisation with a turnover of $300 million a year is given a green light by the law to discriminate highlights the problems with these exemptions,'' he said.
President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, said: ''In a secular society such as Australia … one does not want to give any sort of particular priority to one freedom above the right of people to non-discriminatory employment.'' She said it was important ''that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater'' as the bill was the first step towards creating a coherent federal human rights system.
David Nicholls, President of the Atheist Foundation of Australia, said, "Repugnant religious bigotry will always be with us; the same cannot be said for governments that openly support it. The Prime Minister is backing a minority view of overly zealous religious leaders and followers and has been advised badly on this matter.
"Australia's ever-creeping soft theocracy, which includes the Howard debacle of chaplains in state schools and progressive legislation not enacted or stymied by faith initiatives, has become a matter only controllable by the voter," Nicholls said. "Tasmania removed the ability of religions to discriminate on such grounds about ten years ago," Nicholls stated. "As far as we know, it has not sunk beneath the waves or suffered any inconvenience because of it."
See also: Labor's anti-discrimination bill is a bigot's charter
