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
Charitable status of thousands of religious groups could be challenged
Posted: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:51
The Charity Commission is seeking to clarify the law on what constitutes a public benefit for charitable purposes and whether some religious groups still fall into that category.
Changes in charity law introduced by Labour in 2006 meant that more than 3,500 religious groups that did not previously have to register for charitable status must now do so if they have an income of more than £100,000.
They also have to prove that their activities have a public benefit.
The case revolves around the Preston Down Trust, which runs meeting halls for the non-conformist Exclusive Brethren in Torquay, Paignton and Newton Abbot. This group, together with Horsforth Gospel Hall Trust in Leeds, has lodged an appeal with the charity tribunal against the Charity Commission.
The Charity Commission said that "We were unable to conclude that the organisation is established for the advancement of religion for public benefit. The central issue in the appeal will be whether the public benefit requirement is satisfied in relation the exclusive Brethren organisations under the law as it now is. [We] took into account the nature of Christian religion embraced by the trust and the means through which this was promoted, including the public access to its services and the potential for its beneficial impact on the wider community."
The Exclusive Brethren shun contact with non-members and their services are not open to people from outside their sect. The group was formed in Dublin in the 1820s. The 16,000 members in Britain do not use a specific church name and take their inspiration solely from the Bible.
Their case was taken up by Tory MPs including Robert Halfon, MP for Harlow, who called the commission "anti-Christian" in the House of Commons.
"Christian groups serving the community have a right to charitable status. They should not be subject to politically correct bias," he said. (Although it is difficult to know how an organisation that shuns contact with the outside world can be serving a public benefit).
Despite the usual panic-mongering about supposed religious liberty infringements from the Christian Institute, the Charity Commission welcomed the tribunal as an "opportunity for the law to be clarified in this area as it affects the Exclusive Brethren".
A commission spokeswoman said the Horsforth Gospel Hall could be affected by the outcome of the case. "It, along with a small number of Exclusive Brethren organisations, was registered prior to the implementation of the Charities Act 2006 on the basis of the law as it was then understood," she said. "The 2006 act removed the presumption of public benefit from certain classes of charity including religious charities. The central issue in the appeal will be whether the public benefit requirement is satisfied in relation the exclusive Brethren organisations under the law as it now is."
Rod Buckley, a member of Preston Down Trust, told Third Sector magazine that it does allow non-members to attend services.
Woking council to proceed with discriminatory 'free parking for faith groups' policy
Posted: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:34
Councillors in Woking have officially adopted a controversial new policy statement which gives free parking concessions to worshippers.
The council narrowly voted in favour of retaining their policy despite a challenge from the National Secular Society which pointed out that offering such concessions was likely to be illegal under the Equality Act 2010.
In response to the challenge, Woking Borough Council sought legal advice which supported the view that the policy was likely to be in contravention of equality legislation. The Council subsequently commissioned an equality impact assessment which reported back with options they could use to ensure it was not committing unlawful discrimination.
The Council now say they will welcome applications from other faith groups – but as the non-religious remain disadvantaged, the policy is still likely to be in breach of equality law.
An alternative motion put forward by the council's Liberal Democrats to extend the free parking on Sundays to all residents of Woking between 7am and 1pm was not upheld.
Cllr Denzil Coulson, leader of the Woking Liberal group, said: "We strongly believe that Woking residents of all faiths or none are entitled to benefit from free parking. We felt it would have been fairer to spend £156,000 to help all 96,000 residents on a Sunday rather than spending £40,560 for just 345 cars belonging to one particular faith group.
"Not only would this have been a fairer approach, it would have helped to stimulate economic activity in the town on a Sunday."
The council's decision has also been questioned by local residents. One resident told the local media: "It's still breaking the law, as far as I can see. They've put a 'band aid' over the problem. They are still discriminating against non-churchgoers."
A Freedom of Information request to Woking Borough Council in 2011 revealed that preferential parking concessions for people going to church saved worshippers £55,864 between 1 January 2009 and 30 June 2011.
The National Secular Society is taking legal advice as to how best to proceed. The Society's President said: "The Council's arguments for continuing with this discriminatory policy are full of holes. We are now seeking legal advice on how best to challenge it. We are aware that there are other councils around the country that have similar policies and it is important that this is clarified."
