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
Church’s right to veto hospital chaplaincy appointments upheld
Posted: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 11:04
A gay vicar who claimed that his bishop had discriminated against him by denying him a post as a hospital chaplain has lost his claim at an employment tribunal.
Canon Jeremy Pemberton, who, against Church of England rules, married his same-sex partner, was prevented by the Church from becoming Chaplaincy and Bereavement Manager with Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust. Mr Pemberton failed to convince an Employment Tribunal that the Anglican Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham had acted in breach of the former's Human Rights or otherwise unlawfully in refusing to grant a licence to permit him to take up a position.
The refusal to grant the licence in the circumstances would have constituted direct discrimination, were it not that "organised religion" has an explicit exception. This case provides the pernicious practical implications of the exception.
Mr Pemberton sought to establish that the bishop was acting as a qualification body in providing or withholding the licence, and that the bishop exercised that function in a discriminatory way, which would be unlawful.
Unfortunately for Mr Pemberton, the Tribunal ruled that while the diocese was acting as a qualification body, its refusal to grant the licence was lawful, given Mr Pemberton's failure to follow canon law by marrying his same sex partner.
The Tribunal noted that the Church's canons, which have the force of law and to which clergy give oaths of obedience, contain definitions of marriage as an institution restricted to couples of the opposite sex.
Although the Tribunal reminded themselves "that the resolution of the theological dispute … would take the Court beyond its legitimate role" there was a great deal of theological argument in the case between the liberal Bishop of Buckingham, rebutted by a more mainstream representative from the Archbishops' Council.
Mr Pemberton acknowledged he needed the licence from the Respondent to be legally able to perform Church of England ministry in the Trust. On the other hand, the Church conceded that "the Trust determined the purpose of the employment and the employment was for the Trust's purposes not those of the diocese".
Keith Porteous Wood, the NSS's Executive Director said: "It is reasonable for a hospital trust employing a chaplain acting on behalf of a religious body to require that body's authorisation. Nevertheless, the judgment acknowledged that 'The Church cannot impose upon the Trust one of its priests as a chaplain' and that a chaplain could be secular.
"Patients are not entitled to require the hospital to provide at its expense a cleric from any particular denomination or religion. In doing so it has resulted in discrimination involving a publicly funded post, whether or not this is technically in breach of the Trusts' public authority equality duty.
"Future chaplaincy appointments should not be contingent on them being licensed by any religious body. Instead these publicly-funded appointments should be made open to all, regardless of religion or belief or sexual orientation."
Religious chaplaincy costs NHS £23.5 million a year
Posted: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 16:16
Figures published in the Independent have revealed that NHS Trusts spent over £23 million on religious chaplaincy in the last financial year – the equivalent cost of employing 1,000 new nurses.
The expenditure on chaplaincy services represents an increase of £1.5m on the previous financial year despite falling levels of religious adherence in the UK.
The data was obtained by the Independent newspaper from Freedom of Information requests sent to 230 NHS Trusts.
According to the data, several Trusts pay their full-time chaplains from £30,764 to £40,558; part-time chaplains are paid between £25,783 and £34,530.
In addition to employing chaplains, several Trusts pay local religious institutions such as the Roman Catholic Church for extra religious services.
Despite ostensibly offering 'spiritual care' to all, the role of chaplain is only open to individuals authorised by their faith community. The vast majority of hospital chaplains are Anglican.
The National Secular Society has again questioned whether NHS budgets should be spent on providing religious care.
Stephen Evans, NSS campaigns manager, said: "If hospital chaplaincy is to remain a specifically religious service then the NHS shouldn't be paying for it.
"If NHS Trusts consider it cost effective to offer emotional or spiritual support to staff and service users, then those positions should be open to any professionals with the skills to provide necessary support, regardless of their religion or belief. In a religiously diverse and largely irreligious society such as ours, it makes little sense to organise patients' pastoral care around religious identities."
Speaking on BBC radio, Rev. Paul Walker, leader of the chaplaincy team at Tees, Esk and Eear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust said secularists had a "valid point with the decline in religious attendance" and admitted that the "vast majority" who called on his services as a chaplain were "not religious people".
Rev'd Walker pointed out that chaplains were employed from "all religions" but said "when religious people come into hospital they tend to get their own support from their own vicars or ministers". He said "when they're not religious and suddenly feel the need of chaplain, that's when they call us".
The Rev'd praised the role of religion in healthcare, stating "an awful lot of doctors are very religious people and would love to bring more religion into what they're doing".
Hospital chaplain Dave Russon, also speaking to the BBC, said he didn't have "any real problems with the comments made by the [National] Secular Society". Addressing the provision of religious care, the pastor said "the church should pay for that side of the work we do".
He said there was "growing need for spiritual care" but said if chaplains are attached to a religious organisation then "religious care should come from them".
Antony Lempert, Chair of the Secular Medical Forum, commented: "As a publicly provided service, the NHS should neither discriminate in terms of employment nor service provision. That some NHS posts are still ring-fenced for people of certain beliefs is not acceptable. Despite the change of language towards 'spirituality' and 'spiritual care' an NHS post that excludes applicants on the basis of their belief, or lack of it, whilst claiming to include all patients in the provision of an aspect of care provided exclusively by religious staff is fundamentally inequitable and dishonest.
"There is considerable debate about the value of outsourcing pastoral care to chaplains. Some argue that resources would be better spent on employing more healthcare professionals supported to provide holistic care to all patients irrespective of belief. If the NHS wishes to outsource pastoral care for all patients then there is no rationale for restricting the role of chaplain to those of faith.
"Rev'd Walker may be right that some religious doctors would love to bring more religion into what they're doing. It is therefore a good thing that such doctors are restrained by the GMC (the doctors' regulatory body), which advises all doctors that it is usually inappropriate to share their own views with patients. Patients have a right to expect that when they consult a professional their care should not be dependent on the personal beliefs of the doctor they happen to consult. Supporting patients from a wide variety of beliefs is part of a doctor's wider holistic role and is not an invitation to share the doctor's own beliefs, particularly with vulnerable and distressed patients."
