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
End religious appointees on Scottish education committees, NSS says
Posted: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 08:13
The National Secular Society has urged members of the Scottish parliament to remove religious appointees from councils' education committees in a major report on the topic.
The NSS's report, Religious Reps: unrepresentative, unnecessary and unjustified, argues that reserving a special role in policy making for representatives of religious institutions runs counter to democratic principles.
The report also reveals that eight of Scotland's 32 councils are willing to consider revoking voting privileges from the representatives, after another council removed them earlier this year.
The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 requires local authorities in Scotland to appoint three religious representatives to their education committees. At least one of them must be appointed by the Catholic Church and one by the Protestant Church of Scotland.
The NSS's report calls for legislative change to remove the religious representatives' positions. It argues that religious representatives should be able to "feed their views in through the normal civic/ democratic process", but their views should "not be given any special or institutional weight".
"If Scotland is to be a country where all citizens irrespective of background have an equal chance to participate in decision making, then it can't give one select group a privileged role.
"Reserving a special role in policy making for representatives of specific religious institutions, and in so doing automatically excluding the majority of Scottish citizens based on their protected characteristics of religion and belief, clearly runs counter to principles of equality."
The Scottish government has previously rejected NSS lobbying to remove the religious representatives.
The NSS's report says in the absence of political will in the Scottish parliament for such change, local councils should act to restrict religious appointees' roles.
In April Perth and Kinross Council voted to end religious representatives' voting privileges after the Scottish government said there was no legal obligation to grant these rights.
The NSS has since written to all 32 councils in Scotland to ask them to follow suit. Edinburgh City Council is set to consider revoking the voting privileges next Thursday (22 August). Responses to the NSS's letter show that several other councils could reconsider the rights.
Several other councils have indicated a willingness to consider revoking the privileges, with East Ayrshire Council currently consulting with organisations which appoint unelected members over the idea.
Shetland, Highlands and Dumfries and Galloway councils may all consider voting privileges in their current governance reviews. Councils in Fife, the Scottish Borders and West Lothian have all indicated they could be considered in future governance reviews.
The NSS is sending the report to all MSPs and councillors on Scotland's 32 local authorities.
NSS education campaigner Alastair Lichten said: "The law requiring the appointment of religious representatives to education committees gives religion undue influence over the education of Scottish children and undermines efforts to make Scotland more democratic and equal. The Scottish government should repeal it as soon as feasibly possible.
"In the meantime councillors across Scotland can limit the influence of this undemocratic law by voting to remove religious appointees' voting rights and reforming their positions. It's encouraging to see that some councils are considering this and we urge others to follow suit."
The report has been endorsed by the Edinburgh Secular Society (ESS) and the Scottish Secular Society (SSS), who led petitions on the subject at the Scottish Parliament in 2013 and 2016 respectively.
Neil Barber of the ESS said: "Churches have not owned our schools since 1872. That there remain these unchallenged religious privileges in education is tantamount to selling a house but retaining a back door key."
He added that it was "absurd" to suggest faith groups brought "a politically neutral wisdom to the table".
Professor Paul Braterman of the SSS said: "This century-old arrangement was originally put in place to protect the interests of the churches whose schools were being merged into the national system. But surely, now, we can agree that the only interests that matter are those of the children, and the wider community of which they are part."
Watchdog backs council which put child’s needs before parents’ religion
Posted: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 12:05
A local government watchdog has dismissed a Muslim parent's complaint that a council failed to regard his son's "religious heritage" when it placed him in care with a non-Muslim family.
The adoptive father of a child in the care of Leeds City Council complained to the local government and social care ombudsman that the council did not show regard to his son's "culture and religious heritage".
The ombudsman did not find fault in Leeds City Council's actions regarding the child, referred to as 'C', noting that the child "does not identify as a Muslim". It said the council "must find a balance between the wishes of C and his parents".
C is a looked after child who was placed in the care of the council following a care order issued by a court and whose own views diverge from his parents' Islamic beliefs.
The father, referred to as 'Mr B', approached the ombudsman after making several complaints to the council about the care of C. He claimed the council had "not allowed" his son to attend a mosque or religious events.
C's care plan, which set out objectives and contact with his parents during his time in foster care, said the council should "encourage and facilitate" C's involvement in religious activities, whilst "taking his views into account".
The care plan also said the council would prioritise C's "cultural and religious requirements" when identifying the right match for a foster placement. However, it said "this could not take priority over ensuring the match meets his complex needs".
In November 2018, the council placed C with a long-term foster placement. C's parents raised concerns that the foster placement was not from the same religious or cultural background as C. The council said it "made every effort" to find a religious and cultural match, but it had not been possible. It said it felt the current placement met C's needs.
The ombudsman accepted it is "not always possible" to find a "culturally matching foster placement" and said "it is not for me to criticise the council's choice of foster placement if it is satisfied the placement is stable and meets C needs".
Mr B complained the council had refused to let C be absent from school for two weeks to observe the Islamic festival of Muharram. He also complained that his request for added contact sessions with C for "religious observance" had been turned down.
The council said it felt best to keep to the arranged contact times because C had expressed that he did not "identify as Muslim". It also said it would not normally endorse such a long period of absence from school.
In September 2018 Mr B raised further concerns that the council was "not allowing" C to attend other religious events. C's adoptive mother said C turned up at their home unannounced and asked for additional contact to attend an event. The council said C had told them he "did not wish to attend mosque at that time" and "it could not force him to attend".
The council said it made sure everyone involved with C "is aware of his cultural and religious background". However, it said there is a "clear tension" as C "clearly expresses his views which diverge from his parent's strongly held views". It said it will "undertake life story work with C when he is ready".
The ombudsman said that the council must "find a balance" between the views of C's parents and "the wishes of C". It said: "If C does not currently identify as a Muslim and does not wish to attend religious events, I cannot criticise the council for not ensuring he does."
The ombudsman said the council had been "in regular contact with Mr B" and that it had "always given reasons and explained why it has taken a course of action he is concerned about". It said they could see "no evidence the Council has not been sensitive to Mr B's views or culture".
In its final decision, the ombudsman said it had "not found fault with the council" in the way it had complied with recommendations made during the complaints process.
National Secular Society campaigns officer Megan Manson said: "This is a welcome outcome.
"The ombudsman has acknowledged that Leeds City Council rightly prioritised the wishes and best interests of a vulnerable child, while accommodating the religious views of the parents wherever reasonable to do so.
"Too often, authorities prioritise the religious desires of parents over the needs and beliefs of their children. We see this in schools, where children do not have the right to withdraw themselves from collective worship and parents can restrict their access to crucial aspects of sex education. And we also see this in healthcare, where parents can legally have their son's genitals cut without consent and without medical need.
"The attitudes of the council and the ombudsman demonstrate a better balance between respecting the parents' beliefs and the child's best interests. This should be a welcome lesson for wider society."
The local government and social care ombudsman is an independent watchdog for local government. Complainants to local councils can refer their complaint to the ombudsman if they are not satisfied with how the council has responded to their complaint.
