Twenty-six Anglican bishops are given seats as of right in the House of Lords.
This is unfair, undemocratic and undesirable. It's time to abolish the bishops' bench.
Two archbishops and 24 bishops of the Church of England currently have automatic seats in the House of Lords. They are sometimes known as 'the lords spiritual'.
We campaign for a secular upper house with no specific religious representation, whether of Christian denominations or any other faiths. In a secular state no religion or its leaders should have a privileged role in the legislature.
Only one other sovereign country reserves seats in its legislature for clerics: the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Any serious proposals to reform the House of Lords must address the unjustified privilege of the bishops' bench.
62% of Brits think no religious clerics should have an automatic right to seats in the House of Lords.
After over a century of decline in religious attendance in Britain, the claim that bishops — or any other religious representatives — speak for any significant constituency is not warranted. Less than 2% of the British population now attend Anglican services on the average Sunday.
In addition, the presence of religious leaders amounts to double representation of religious interests as many peers already identify themselves as being religiously motivated. Retired religious leaders are often appointed as peers.
Bishops do not have any "special moral insight" unavailable to everybody else. The idea that bishops or any other 'religious leaders' have any monopoly on issues of morality is offensive to many non-religious citizens. Those who profess no religion are no less capable of making moral and ethical judgements.
In an increasingly secular society the role of religious representatives in our legislature has become irrelevant, and has stood in the way of progressive legislation.
Take action!
1. Write to your MP
Ask your MP to help end the archaic, unfair and undemocratic bishops’ bench in the House of Lords.
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
Lords’ wrecking amendments to equal marriage bill fail
Posted: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 17:48
This week saw the end of three days' worth of debate in the House of Lords over the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill whilst in its committee stage. The debate revealed a substantial number of wrecking amendments submitted by Lords, all largely a variation on just a few themes.
One of which was the insistence that we should distinguish between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage. There was an amendment, tabled by Former Conservative Party chairman, Lord Mawhinney, which called for a heterosexual marriage to be lawfully described as "traditional marriage"; another, by Lord Carey, said that "nothing in the Act can take away the right of a man and woman to enter a traditional marriage"; one of Lord Hylton's amendments called for the bill to leave out the word "marriage" and replace it with "union"; and a final one by Lord Armstrong sought to clarify that "lawful marriage between a man and a woman is matrimony". These amendments were either withdrawn or failed.
There were also attempts to have the performance of same-sex marriage ceremonies to be subject to an opt-in mechanism rather than the default; for example, Lord Curry introduced an amendment requiring a congregation to Ballot in order to opt-in to performing same-sex ceremonies, whilst Lord Singh also proposed an amendment for opting-in to performing same-sex marriages, but this time for Sikh groups only. Baroness Cumberlege proposed, and then withdrew, an amendment giving registrars with a conscientious objection to same-sex marriage the right not to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples.
All the while, there have been complaints from the Coalition for Marriage. Speaking to Pink News, Coalition for Marriage spokesperson Dr Sharon James made the surprising statement that Liberal Judaism, the Unitarians and the Quakers have been given "a disproportionate amount of time" in the debate for equal marriage at the expense of "mainstream Christian people". Given the number of amendments, all grounded within a traditional Christian perspective, attempting to distinguish between heterosexual marriage and same-sex marriage by emphasising notions of 'tradition' and 'matrimony', Dr James's assertion could be understood as somewhat disingenuous.
During the Lords' debate, there was also concern expressed for teachers. Despite the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, dismissing the notion that teachers opposed to same-sex marriage would be in danger of losing their jobs, Lord Dear looked to entrench an amendment that stated no teacher should be required to endorse same-sex marriage if that teacher has a conscientious objection to it.
Last week, Equalities Minister, Maria Miller revealed that the government will be proposing that the Public Order Act 1986 be amended so as to explicitly protect critics of same-sex marriage. The Public Order Act includes a number of clauses prohibiting the provocation of hatred or violence, and Ms Miller's amendment seeks to clarify that criticism of same-sex marriage does not constitute such an offence; it states, that "any discussion or criticism of marriage which concerns the sex of the parties to marriage shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred". This amendment is seen as an attempt to appease those equal marriage opponents who had previously voiced fears that the passing of the bill would lead to their being prosecuted.
According to the findings of an international poll conducted by Ipsos MORI and released today, 55% of people in the UK support equal marriage.
The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is due to go to report stage on the 8 July and have its third reading on the 15 July.
Secularism defended during Lords debate on religion
Posted: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 15:25
The Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Falkner has given a spirited defence of secularism during an otherwise largely deferential debate about the role of religion in public life.
Her intervention came during a debate moved by Lord Singh of Wimbledon to ask the Government what assessment they had made of the role of religion in society in the UK.
Lady Falkner emphasised the role and importance of the secular space in public life and said religions have just as much right to express their views as anyone else, but those views should not be privileged in the framing of public policy and law. She said Secularism, often unjustly maligned, is becoming more widely understood and recognised as its importance in a multi-religious society becomes more appreciated. She told the House of Lords that separating religion and state enables those of all religions and none to participate as equal citizens.
She continued: "In a society in which church attendance continues to dwindle and congregations age - I am sure there are anecdotal exceptions, but the statistics are very clear - we rapidly approach a time when we need to think about the extent to which religious precepts should be allowed, often through the workings of both Houses, to override the view of the people on sensitive social issues. When I say "the view of the people", I mean even religious people."
In a later intervention, Baroness Flather said she was "pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, put in a word or two that did not quite pass for praise of religion." She declared herself as a secularist and atheist but distanced herself from Richard Dawkins, saying "not all atheists are like him."
Lord Singh, opening the debate, bemoaned the "bad press" received by religion and complained about faith being "pushed into the margins of society". He said keeping religion out of public life was akin to keeping ethical considerations out of politics.
Despite numerous claims of religion being marginalised, The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells made full use of his privileged position in the House of Lords to sing its praises. He did, however, describe the recent Synod vote not to allow female bishops as a "public relations disaster and a serious setback".
Crossbench peer Lord Bilimoria expressed his sadness that religion is declining in the UK and asked if the Government was doing enough to encourage and promote religion. He added "What religions do more than anything else is promote integrity and values."
During a thoughtful intervention, another crossbench peer, Lord Hameed said: "Religion binds people together in communities, and politics helps to mediate peacefully between their differences. One of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century came when politics was turned into a religion. The single greatest risk to the 21st century is that the opposite may occur, not when politics is religionised, but when religion is politicised."
Conservative Peer and former Secretary of State for Education, Lord Patten, told peers it was important to recognise that Governments can benefit from the spiritual guidance and advice of religious groups, but warned "religion should not be a matter for Parliament, despite the presence of the "reverend Prelates and most reverend Primates in your Lordships' House."
The crossbench peer Lord Curry of Kirkharle then expressed deep concern about "the increasing dominance of secularism". He suggested that as a consequence, many Christians found themselves not only marginalised but in some cases victimised. He said he was sure that this applies to other faiths, too. He added, "Doing God and doing good is what millions of people in Britain want the freedom to do today."
Conservative peer Baroness Berridge used her speech to commend the Charity Commission's recent decision to refuse charitable status to the Exclusive Brethren and dismissed concerns that the charitable status of other religions was at risk.
She explained that she has family in the Brethren herself, so knows how they work: "They hold to the doctrine of separation, so exclusives cannot live in semi-detached houses, as they share a party wall with non-Brethren.
"They cannot eat with non-Brethren, cannot have friends with non-Brethren; they have no TV, radio, cafes, restaurants, etc. They can attend only Brethren schools and they now work only for Brethren businesses. Attending university is banned."
"Groups about whom there is credible evidence that they harm health, split families and send no one to university can exist in a liberal society, but whether they should be charities is very much open to doubt," she added.
"The religion and public benefit guidance needs to be clarified, but we also need clarity on the outer limits of what is acceptable behaviour for all religious groups."
1,175 religious organisations successfully applied to the Commission for charity status in the past year. Just one – the Brethren – was turned down for public benefit reasons.
Winding up the debate, the Minister for Faith and Communities, Baroness Warsi, again stressed the "vital role" religion plays in British society. To underline the importance attached to religion by the Government she then went on to point out the vast amounts of money they are spending on various interfaith projects.
Lady Warsi said the Government was committed to maintaining the status of religious education as a compulsory subject that all pupils must study, and to the provision of collective worship in schools. She also repeated Communities Secretary Eric Pickles' assertion, and with equally careful wording but also with no basis, that council prayers at the start of Council meetings are now legal.
She concluded:
"When I first set the tone for this Government's faith agenda in 2010, declaring that we would "do God", many warned that this was something that a government Minister should not say. Two years on, I am heartened to see that so many Ministers have got behind this agenda, and our actions demonstrate the importance that we attach to the role of religion in British society."
