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
Obama calls religious opt-out in new defence bill “unnecessary and divisive”
Posted: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 12:43
President Barack Obama called a conscience clause for military chaplains in the National Defence Authorization Act "unnecessary and ill-advised."
The NDAA provision ordered that no member of the armed forces may require a chaplain to perform a rite or ceremony that violates the chaplain's beliefs, and that chaplains may not be disciplined for refusing to perform such a ceremony.
The provision, which was introduced by now-former Missouri Rep. Todd Akin, was a response to Obama's 2011 repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
Activists seeking religious privilege claimed that army chaplains would be required to "violate their consciences" by administering sacraments to gay people or officiating at gay weddings.
The clause in the bill reads: "The Armed Forces shall accommodate the beliefs of a member of the armed forces reflecting the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the member and, in so far as practicable, may not use such beliefs as the basis of any adverse personnel action, discrimination, or denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment."
But Obama, who declared his personal support for gay marriage last year, said the bill's concerns are unfounded.
"The military already appropriately protects the freedom of conscience of chaplains and service members," Obama wrote on 2 January in announcing his signing of the bill. "The Secretary of Defense will ensure that the implementing regulations do not permit or condone discriminatory actions that compromise good order and discipline or otherwise violate military codes of conduct."
Obama signed the NDAA on 2 January in Hawaii after it passed the Senate on 21 December, saying that although he did not agree with each provision in the 680-page bill, "the need to renew critical defence authorities and funding was too great to ignore."
MPs support bid to restore ‘public good’ presumption of religion
Posted: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 06:52
MPs have backed a bid by Conservative MP Peter Bone (right) to amend the Charities Act to restore the presumption that all religious groups are for the public benefit and therefore can be charities.
Mr Bone's Ten Minute Rule bill is aimed at protecting religious groups like the Preston Down Trust, a member of the Plymouth Brethren, who recently had its charitable status removed by the Charity Commission after it decided that the exclusivity with which the Church conducts many of its activities, did not provide sufficient benefits to the wider public.
Writing on the Conservative Home website, Peter Bone, an active member of the Church of England, said: "This is another sign of a growing secular movement against religious groups in this country and another example of the state interfering with the church. "
Introducing his bill to Parliament, he said: "What is happening is creeping secularism in society. With just a few days before we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, and in recognition of religious freedom, I urge right hon. and hon. Members to support my ten-minute rule Bill."
166 MPs voted in favour of Mr Bone's attempt to introduce the bill, with just 7 voting against.
Bills introduced under the ten-minute rule are generally used only as a means of making a political point as there is little parliamentary time available to pass the bill into law.
The move comes after a letter signed by 113 MPs in support of the Plymouth Brethren was was delivered to the Prime Minister on Monday. An additional letter demanding that ministers take action, signed by 53 MPs, including 45 Conservatives, was published in the Telegraph on Wednesday.
The decision not to grant charitable status to the Plymouth Brethren led to Christian MPs to accuse the Charity Commission of having "secularising agenda". Conservative MP Charlie Elphicke accused the Charity Commission of trying to suppress religion and predicted that the Plymouth Brethren case, where the organisation has been refused charity status, will be the first of many.
The Charity Commission chair, William Shawcross, has described such accusations as "quite simply, wrong."
After a series of recent parliamentary debates on the issue, a report detailing reasons why the Plymouth Brethren do not meet public benefit requirements was published by Paul Flynn, the Labour MP for Newport West.
The report, written by John Weightman, a former member of the Brethren, has also been submitted to the Charity Commission and the Public Administration Select Committee, of which Flynn is a member.
Mr Bone's motion was also opposed by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO).
Elizabeth Chamberlain, policy officer at NCVO, said: "Public benefit is what makes a charity a charity, and most are keen to demonstrate the value of their work.
"Peter Bone's plan risks downgrading religious charities in the public mind. They would become unique among charities in not having to show how they are of benefit to the public."
In a recent Lords debate about the role of religion in public life, Baroness Berridge, who has family members in the Exclusive Brethren, questioned whether religious groups that 'harm health and split families' should be allowed to be charities. The Conservative peer called for a former Archbishop to set up a church-led inquiry into the theological and psychological implications of Exclusive Brethren beliefs.
You can read the introduction of the bill and a full breakdown of how MPs voted on Hansard
