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
Funding for school chaplains ruled illegal in Australia
Posted: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:09
A father of four from Toowoomba in Australia has won a High Court action challenging the Australian government's funding of a school chaplaincy programme.
Ron Williams (pictured right) brought his action on two counts. First, that the employment of chaplains by the state violated the constitution's ban on "religious tests for office" and secondly that the Government had overstepped its powers by funding the scheme.
The case failed on the first count but succeeded on the second.
Constitutional experts now say that this could prove to be the "court case of the year" because it challenges the whole manner in which the federal government funds projects.
The controversial schools chaplaincy scheme was started by the previous government in 2007. It offers schools up to $20,000 a year to introduce or extend chaplaincy services. Despite many protests, the present Government has vowed to extend the scheme.
Attorney General Nicola Roxon was quick to tell reporters that the funding of the chaplains would continue, despite the court finding. She said that the government would find some other way of keeping the present chaplains – operating in about 2,700 schools - and expanding the scheme to a thousand more schools.
A constitutional expert said that the High Court had found the Commonwealth lacked the power to fund chaplains via executive action without accompanying legislation. "The Commonwealth might go back and try and support the chaplaincy program with legislation but it's far from clear the High Court would uphold the chaplaincy program even with legislation," he said.
The next round of payments for the chaplaincy program is due later this year.
The High Court ruled that the case did not impact on the freedom of religion, unanimously dismissing Mr Williams' charge that school chaplains' religious position breached the constitution.
The constitution says that "no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth" and Mr Williams had argued that the definition of school chaplains included a "religious test" for office.
But the court found that school chaplains werenotCommonwealthemployees, but rather were engaged by an external organisation, Scripture Union Queensland, and the Commonwealth did not enter into contractual or other arrangements with the chaplains.
But by majority the court held that the funding agreement between chaplaincy provider Scripture Union Queensland and the Commonwealth was invalid because it was beyond the executive power of the Commonwealth.
Mr Williams said he was elated by the ruling. He thanked his legal team, including solicitor Claude Bilinsky and barristers Bret Walker, SC, and Gerald Ng, and the hundreds of supporters who had made small donations to support the case.
He said he had launched the case to secure a secular education for his children. "If we can't have a playing field within the public school system for our children that has freedom of religion and freedom from religion, I don't think there's anywhere else to go," he said.
Although proselytising is specifically banned under the school chaplain's program, the lobby group Fairness in Religions in School says there is evidence some school chaplains are working to convert children to their church.
The group points to a speech by an Access Ministries chaplain in which the chaplain mentions the program as a covert way of spreading God's word.
"So remember, it is God's hand within and across our schools through the commitment of Access Ministries. Access Ministries provides Christian religious education teachers and chaplains to over 2,000 young Victorians in our schools," she said.
"Now that is not always overt, CRE (Christian religious education) workers are definitely there to present the gospel, to present bible stories. Chaplains - it is not always as overt as that, it is much more covert."
The Federal Government has already investigated Access Ministries, after the group's chief executive, Evonne Paddison, told a conference - ''we need to go and make disciples".
See also: Australian census reveals a big rise in those with "no religion"
Evangelising GP disciplined by medical watchdog
Posted: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:13
A Margate GP who was accused of distressing one of his patients by inappropriately trying to evangelise him has received a warning from the General Medical Council (GMC). If any further complaints are made about him, he risks being struck off the medical register.
Zealous Christian Dr Richard Scott told the GMC that "doing God is good for your health" but he was adamant that he had not overstepped the mark on account of his religious convictions. The GMC panel disagreed.
In delivering its determination, the chair Dr Chrisopher Hanning said: "While the allegations relate to what occurred on a single occasion your actions nevertheless constitute a significant departure from the principles in Good Medical Practice. The Committee considers that it is appropriate, proportionate and in the public interest for the protection of the reputation of the profession to issue you with a warning.
The Committee directs that the following warning be attached to your registration:
"During a consultation with a patient in August 2010 you expressed your religious beliefs in a way that distressed your patient.
You subsequently confirmed, via National media, that you had sought to suggest your own faith had more to offer than that of the patient.
In this way you sought to impose your own beliefs on your patient. You thereby caused the patient distress through insensitive expression of your religious beliefs.
Your actions were in direct conflict with the GMC's supplementary guidance: Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice. This states in paragraph 19 that:
The incident occurred in August 2010 when a 24 year old non-Christian man, known as "Patient A" – who was described as "psychologically troubled" – came to the surgery for a consultation."
Dr Scott claimed that at the end of the consultation he made a "gentle offer" to the patient to broach the subject of faith and was told "go for it". But this was not the version of events that was described by the patient and later his mother complained that Dr Scott was imposing his own views on patients, which is against GMC rules.
Dr Scott immediately claimed that it was another example of the "marginalisation of Christianity" and his case was taken up by the Christian Legal Centre, which has brought many of the recent notorious court cases seeking special treatment for Christians in the workplace. Dr Scott refused to accept a warning from the GMC and opted to go for an oral hearing.
Patient A was reluctant to give evidence at the hearing but was allowed to do so over the telephone.
In the interim, Dr Scott and the Christian Legal Centre embarked on a misinformation campaign in which he was portrayed as another victim of the persecution of Christianity. Newspapers such as the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph told his story from a distorted and one-sided perspective. Dr Scott gave interviews on Radio 2 and Radio Five Live in which he admitted he had told the young man that Christianity was a better religion than his own. The National Secular Society drew the GMC's attention to these interviews and provided transcripts.
As a consequence, Andrea Minichiello Williams, CEO and chief propagandist of the Christian Legal Centre, was barred from the hearing.
At the renewed hearing, which was held this week in Manchester, Dr Scott gave prolonged testimony as to the efficacy of Christianity in the treatment of medical conditions. (More details.)
However, his surgery, The Bethesda Medical Practice, is described as "an "expressly Christian doctor's surgery" – even though it is paid for by the National Health Service to serve the whole community.
Reacting to the findings, Dr Antony Lempert of the Secular Medical Forum said:
"We welcome the GMC's determination making it clear that doctors — whether religious or not — must set aside their own personal beliefs and not evangelise when treating patients, far less suggest that they adopt a different belief. Doing so needlessly puts patients in a difficult position.
"There is no reliable evidence — whatever may have been claimed at this hearing — that any belief system has benefited health. Basing treatment on this premise is therefore potentially harmful to the patient and to the doctor-patient relationship.
"Patients consult their doctors for their professional expertise and not for their doctor's religious beliefs. For GPs to share their own religious beliefs during consultations is almost always inappropriate; attempts to proselytise or to claim one or other religion as somehow better than another is unprofessional and should never take place. Doing so puts often vulnerable patients into the uncomfortable position of feeling the need to take account of their doctor's beliefs. Some patients may feel unable or unwilling to contradict the doctor because of the power imbalance between doctor and patient. Should a patient raise religious matters during a consultation, the doctor must not take this as an opportunity to evangelise, but if appropriate may explore the patient's own ideas and concerns.
"The allegation made by Dr Scott that the GMC has specifically targeted Christianity is perverse. The GMC and many members of the public have been given great cause for concern by the unfounded claims that Dr Scott has made to this patient, and has admitted he has made to thousands more. We would fully expect the GMC to take similar action against doctors of all faiths or none who behaved in a similarly inappropriate fashion and who risked undermining the confidence of the public in the professionalism of medical practitioners.
"We also oppose publicly-funded NHS General Practices being labelled as being of any religion or belief. Labelling General Practices as being of any one belief system risks giving patients the impression that only such patients will be welcomed, and that other patients are, at best, tolerated. This puts unacceptable pressure on some patients to decide whether to actively opt out of spiritual care, as they are invited to do in Dr Scott's practice, or go along with the religious element for fear of alienation. Forcing such a dilemma on patients undermines the doctor-patient relationship – a relationship based primarily on trust. Particularly where there is a limited choice of GPs, this compromises patients' entitlement to publicly-funded medical treatment."
Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society, added: "We are also concerned at the description of the Bethesda Medical Practice in Margate, where Dr Scott works, being described as "expressly Christian". This is a practice set up for the use of the whole community using public money; it cannot be hijacked by any particular religion and used — as in this case — for evangelical purposes. All aspects of the National Health Service, whether hospitals or GP practices, must be equally open to all members of the community, regardless of their faith. Nobody should feel that they are not welcome because the practice has put a religious label on itself.
"The NSS will consider making a complaint to the local health authority about this."
