Services funded by public money should be open to all, without alienating anyone.
The recent drive to contract out public services to faith groups risks undermining equal access.
Help us keep public services free from discrimination and evangelism.
The government is increasingly pushing for more publicly-funded services to be provided by religious organisations.
Many faith-based groups have carried out social service without imposing their beliefs. But religious groups taking over public service provision raises concerns regarding proselytising and discrimination.
65% of people have no confidence in church groups running crucial social provisions such as healthcare with only 2% of people expressing a lot of confidence.
Any organisations involved in delivering public services should be bound by equality law and restrictions on proselytisation.
Those advocating for faith organisations to take over more public services risk undermining these restrictions, which exist to protect both the public and third sector.
"We have concerns that some religious groups that seek to take over public services, particularly at local level, could pursue policies and practices that result in increased discrimination against marginalised groups, particularly in service provision and the employment of staff. Non-religious people and those not seen to confirm to the dominant ethos of a religious body, such as being in an unmarried relationship or divorced and being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered, could find themselves subject to discrimination."
Unitarian Church (Submission to the Parliamentary Public Administration Select Committee about the Big Society agenda)
There are also concerns about faith-based mental health and pastoral care in public institutions, including chaplaincy programmes in the NHS and the armed forces. Where such services are funded by the state, they should not be organised around religion or belief.
Religious commentators are often keen to document the contribution of religious organisations to the third sector and social activism. But they fail to demonstrate why it should be the state's role to build this capacity or why local authorities shouldn't have legitimate concerns about religious groups running services.
Take Action!
1. Write to your MP
Ask your MP to protect secular public services.
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
NSS: Andy Burnham’s claim that Muslims can’t trust the police is deeply divisive
Posted: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 14:38
The National Secular Society has criticised Shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham for suggesting that British Muslims couldn't trust the police when they report hate crimes.
Speaking at a fringe meeting at the Labour Party Conference, Burnham said that the police had a "possible conflict of interest" when dealing with anti-Muslim hate crimes, and that the Government "almost legitimise" anti-Muslim "behaviour".
Burnham compared the Government's anti-extremism strategy with burkini bans in France, describing Prevent as "an approach to policy that singles out one community for different treatment".
According to a report in the Independent Labour's Shadow Home Secretary said: "There's a lot of people in this country not necessarily at risk from 'Islamic extremism' but it's far-right extremism. That's what we're talking about here, but where is the statutory duty on that? … There are so many issues with it that it needs a root and branch review."
In reality, the Government's guidance on Prevent says: "Our Prevent work is intended to deal with all kinds of terrorist threats to the UK. The most significant of these threats is currently from terrorist organisations in Syria and Iraq, and Al Qa'ida associated groups. But terrorists associated with the extreme right also pose a continued threat to our safety and security."
Burnham then told the group that there was a need for "trusted third parties for reporting hate crime".
"If people have a feeling that the bodies that they would go to are also simultaneously being asked to monitor them there's a possible conflict of interest there isn't there?"
Because of Prevent, Burnham said, "people won't feel able to come forward and say exactly what's happening to them and their family if they also feel they're being monitored in some way.
"Is there then a need to create trusted third parties for reporting hate crime so that it isn't the case that people have to go directly to the police or [possibly] the council?"
Mr Burnham suggested that Prevent was causing anti-Muslim attacks, and that the Government was effectively legitimising this.
He said: "If governments are doing things to almost legitimise things in some way by saying this community does need to be treated differently, it does need to be watched at a local level, because there's danger here in terms of behaviour, that is highly problematic."
The NSS responded that "Andy Burnham's cheap posturing on Prevent and comments about the police sow division and distrust. Whatever you think about Prevent, Mr Burnham's specific suggestion – that there is no duty to deal with far-right extremism – is simply false.
"It is incredibly irresponsible to suggest that Muslims might need to bypass the police to access justice and that Muslims can't trust the police.
"It is particularly incendiary for Mr Burnham to imply that the British state somehow legitimises anti-Muslim behaviour and even attacks on Muslims, which does seem to be the implication of his comments.
"Having groups that monitor and attacks and collect data is valuable, provided they collect reliable information on actual attacks and crimes, rather than including examples of vaguely defined 'hate speech' on social media. But that is very different to saying, as Mr Burnham did, that these groups should substitute the police so that Muslims don't ever need to 'go directly to the police' or local authorities."
Burnham was speaking to the controversial group Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND). MEND's chief executive Sufyan Ismail has accused Tell MAMA, a group which collects data on anti-Muslim attacks, of being "pro-Zionist" and said Muslims couldn't associate with it because it was "making all sorts of comments we might not agree with when it comes to homosexuality".
Before the General Election Sufyan Ismail claimed that "It's perfectly OK under UK law to hate Islam and Muslims, it's not a problem…if you're Muslim, [the law says] you can take liberties big time, that's why women are getting their hijabs ripped off."
Crematoria should be religiously neutral and welcoming to all
Posted: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:09
The National Secular Society (NSS) has urged the Government to ensure that all state-owned crematoria are religiously neutral, allowing religious symbols to be added when requested.
In response to a government consultation on crematoria provision, the NSS said there should not be a presumption that religious symbols are wanted in services.
The Society said that "fixed religious iconography should be removed from crematoria wherever it is practical and reasonable to do so and all civic crematoria should be religiously neutral spaces by default, providing a range religious symbols/iconography to be made available to users upon prior request."
In its consultation response the NSS added that facilities such be "welcoming and sensitive" to all families and that religious iconography should be made available for all who want it in their services – but not featured as standard.
Research carried out by jointly by Bristol Secular Society and Nottingham Secular Society revealed that of the 251 crematoria in England, 29% have fixed religious iconography – typically in the form of a Christian cross.
The Government launched the consultation over concerns that crematoria facilities were not suitable to families of minority faiths.
The NSS response said it supported moves to accommodate cultural or religious traditions where possible provided it can be done at proportionate and reasonable expense and without in any way disadvantaging other users.
Though the National Secular Society welcomed the Government's review into crematoria provision to make sure that facilities are suitable for all, it challenged the Department for Communities for referring to England as a "Christian country" in press statements concerning the review.
The Society expressed concern that this language could be used justify the dominance of Christianity over secular spaces such as crematoria and it urged the Department "to refrain from framing our national identity around a particular religion."
NSS campaigns director Stephen Evans said: "Crematoria provision should give families the opportunity to honour and respect the wishes of their loved one at a most difficult time. A religiously neutral environment should be the default position with crematoria operators making very clear to families and loved ones that religious iconography is available and can be used for services."
In 2015 there was controversy after a crematorium in Lancashire removed a cross from the altar. 40% of the site's services were non-religious and the cross was stored so that it could be installed when it was asked for.
A local councillor said that it was "usual industry practice" for buildings to be "non-denominational" so that they have the "flexibility to make all families welcome, whatever their beliefs."
