We don't think religious worship should play any part in the formal business of the state.
We want to see parliamentary and local government meetings conducted in a manner equally welcoming to all attendees, whatever their personal beliefs.
Parliamentary prayers
Sittings in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords begin with Anglican prayers. MPs and peers stand for prayers facing the wall behind them – a practice thought to have developed due to the difficulty members would historically have faced of kneeling to pray while wearing a sword.
When the chamber is at its busiest, parliamentary prayers act as a bizarre and antiquated seat reservation system. Even MPs and peers who are slated to speak have no option but to attend prayers in order to reserve a seat.
Whilst they may be viewed by some as an important tradition, parliamentary prayers serve to assert the superiority of Christianity (and the Church of England in particular) at Westminster. This 'tradition' is inimical to a modern, pluralistic, secular democracy.
In the Scottish Parliament, Tuesday afternoon sessions begin with 'Time for Reflection', with faith and belief representatives invited to addresses members for up to four minutes. The Northern Ireland Assembly begins formal business with a period of two minutes of silent prayer or contemplation. The Welsh Assembly has adopted no such rituals.
Parliamentarians who wish to pray are free to do so. But prayers should not form part of the official business of Parliament.
Council prayers
Many local authorities in Britain also begin their meetings with prayer.
Local democracy should be equally welcoming to all sections of society, regardless of their religion or belief. Council meetings should be conducted without anyone feeling excluded, or compelled to either participate in prayers or absent themselves from part of the meeting.
Council prayers open the door to wholly unnecessary conflict and sectarian squabbles within local authorities. There is a history of local councillors being bullied and marginalised for challenging council prayers.
The absence of prayers from the formal business of meetings in no way impedes religious freedoms or denies anybody the right to pray. Conversely, organised worship in secular settings imposes worship on those who do not share the faith. A genuine commitment to freedom of religion or belief is incompatible with including acts of worship in the formal business of council meetings.
If local authorities wish to hold a moment of silent reflection at the beginning of a meeting, or if councillors wish to meet for prayers prior to the meeting, they are at liberty to do so.
Take action!
1. Write to your MP
Please enter your postcode and urge your MP to support an alternative to parliamentary prayers, to make parliament more welcoming to people of all faiths and none.
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 - for example, if you would like to challenge prayers at your own council.
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
Poll shows majority think councils shouldn’t pray
Posted: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 14:04
Two new polls about religion, which specifically asked a question about the Bideford case, illustrate an ambivalent reaction among the public.
Both were conducted by YouGov, but using different samples and methods of approach.
The first poll (pdf) showed that 55% of respondents were against councils holding prayers with only 26% of respondents in favour. Twenty percent were uncertain. Support for prayers was strongest among those who defined themselves as very/fairly religious (52%), Christians (46%), the over-60s (40%), those considering that Britain should be a Christian country (40%), and Conservative voters (34%).
However, irrespective of their personal view about whether it was appropriate for councils to hold prayers, 55% thought that they should definitely be allowed to hold them, rising to 78% of Christians, 76% of the very/fairly religious, 72% of those wanting Britain to be a Christian country, 67% of over-60s, and 66% of Conservative voters. Just 34% argued that councils should not be allowed to have prayers, with 11% expressing no opinion.
Another seeming contradiction that surfaced in the poll was that, although only 24% of the sample described themselves as very or fairly religious and 43% regarded themselves as belonging to a religion, 56% agreed that Britain is a Christian country and 61% that it should be a Christian country.
Endorsement of the proposition thatBritainshould be a Christian country was, unsurprisingly, highest among professing Christians (88%), the very or fairly religious (79%), over-60s (79%), and Conservative voters (77%). Dissentients numbered 22%, with 18% undecided.
What was especially interesting was that even 37% of those who considered themselves as not at all religious and 44% of those having no religion wantedBritainto be a Christian country. 41% and 43% respectively agreed that it already is such a country. 36% and 40% also thought that councils should be permitted to hold prayers before their formal meetings.
The irreligious, it therefore seems, can be just as equivocal about their 'belief' as the many self-identifying Christians whose lack of commitment to the faith was exposed in the Ipsos MORI poll for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (UK) published last week.
The second poll (pdf), for the Sunday Times, asked eight questions about religion, the first of which was: 'Do you think that religion is more often the cause of good or evil in the world?' Only 12% elected for good with 58% opting for evil, with the main variation being by gender (61% of men, 54% of women). 27% said that neither answer applied or both equally.
With regard to religion inBritain, 17% viewedBritaintoday as too religious, 36% as too secular, 31% as balanced between religious and secular, and 17% expressed no opinion. Men and the under-40s were marginally more likely to describe Britain as too religious; Conservative voters, the over-60s and Londoners as too secular.
49% agreed that religion still provides critical guidance for our everyday lives, with 40% dissenting and 12% unsure. The age cohort with the lowest level of agreement was 25-59 years (43%). While the peak of 61% among the over-60s was to be expected, less predictable was the 50% recorded for the 18-24s.
Respondents were next asked whether the Church of England continues to carry out a valuable role, a question obviously prompted by the Queen's speech atLambethPalaceon 15 February.
YouGov's respondents were split on this issue, with 42% agreeing, 41% disagreeing, and 16% unsure. Most support for the Church came from Conservative voters (55%); least backing was found inScotland(32%).
Since the Church of England is established (albeit only in England), it might seem slightly odd that 67% contended that religion should have no place in public life, being entirely a personal matter. 24% wanted religion to have a role in the public square, including 28% of the 18-24s.
51% assessed that religion inBritainis in terminal decline, with no great fluctuation by demographics. 24% disagreed and 26% did not know what to think.
Belief in God stood at 38%, with 21% unsure, and 33% disbelieving. Believers were twice as numerous among Conservative voters (45%) as Liberal Democrat voters (22%), and they were also somewhat concentrated in the over-60s (44%) and in Scotland (45%).
The final topic, triggered by the Bideford case, was whether local councils should be able to hold prayers at the beginning of their meetings. 53% of adults thought that they should (peaking at 66% of Conservative voters and 65% of over-60s), 32% that they should not, with 15% undecided.
Council prayers: doubts over Eric Pickles' “general power of competence”
Posted: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 07:40
The government is activating a power it claims will allow councils in England to hold prayers at meetings.
Communities secretary Eric Pickles has rushed through the implementation of a general power of competence — contained in last year's Localism Act — that enables councils to do anything an individual can do that is not illegal. The "general power of competence" contains no reference to religion or religious expression.
The National Secular Society questioned the act's reach and said the move could be challenged in court.
Last week, The High Court ruled that it was unlawful for councils to hold prayers as part of a formal local authority meeting. The ruling, which followed a legal challenge by the National Secular Society and a former local councillor, is now in place and applies to Councils in England and Wales.
Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society, commented:
"A number of senior lawyers have expressed doubt whether the Localism Act will, as Mr Pickles hopes, make prayers lawful, and the Act was clearly not passed with that express intention. His powers to pass legislation are not, as he implies, untrammelled. Council prayers increasingly look set to become a battle between the Government and the courts at ever higher levels.
"We are not the aggressors; our compromises of a period of silent reflection in the meetings, or prayers before them, were rejected. Does Mr Pickles believe his powers permit Muslim, Moonie, Scientology and Wicca prayers too?"
