Event report: Interfaith panel discussion - 'Should Britain be a Secular State?'

Time: 17 November 2011, 18:30 - 21:00
Place: Ricardo LT, Drayton House, University College London


For our first panel discussion, UCLU ASHS invited the university's faith societies to explore the topic of secularism. The panel consisted of representatives from UCLU AMSA (Tahir Nasser) and UCLU Catholic Society (Kajtek Skowronski), as well Treasurer Kieran on our behalf, while President Robbie chaired the discussion.

Each of the panelists were first given 3 minutes to express their views on secularism in the UK. AMSA, highlighting citations from the Koran, advocated a view of 'You for your religion and me for my religion': the ruling religion in a non-secular state would impose restrictions on the minority religions. This would conflict with the Islamic principle of justice, as 'secularism is justice.' Hence, the role of religion in society should be to guide, but not dictate, legislature. Echoing this sentiment, CatholicSoc expressed that theocracy will not work in society - highlighting that Jesus believed the church and state were distinct -, but that religion should still maintain an active role of positive moral guidance in a system grounded by secular reason. A note was also made on how UCL's secular roots was the first university in England to admit Catholic students. Finally, ASHS brought up the issue that although the UK policy is to treat all religions as equal, this does not necessarily prevent the conflicts we would wish for secularism to prevent. Moreover, the Judeo-Christian foundations of the UK still has its influences in this society, as evidenced by e.g. the Queen being Head of State and Bishops in the House of Lords.

As each of the three societies represented were in favour of a secular Britain, then, the Q&A session of the discussion revolved around the more fine-grained differences in their approaches to a secular state. A question from the audience led to reflections from each of the panelists on their stance on government-funded faith schools in the UK. AMSA conceded that allowing for private faith schools will uphold the principle of free will, whereas public schools should teach morality common to all religions, rather than promote any one religion over others. Conflicts within religions are too many and too complex to avoid implicitly favouring one religious view. Contrastingly, CatholicSoc argued in favour of public faith schools by pointing out that the free choice of schools is still maintained, and that government funding is not significantly drained by maintaining faith schools. Moreover, it was stressed that faith schools do not necessarily limit diversity in the student population, as many Catholic schools are attended by a wide variety of non-Catholic ethnic minorities. Countering this, Kieran representing the ASHS reflected on his own experience in Catholic schools, noting that despite being in one of the most multicultural areas in the UK, the vast majority of his peers were Catholic. Nevertheless, faith schools should be upheld, he argued, as this would allow for 'atheist academies', i.e. 'you have to play along to get along.'

The topic of faith schools was further explored in detail between the panelists and the audience members: to what extent is admitting a child to a faith school an act of labelling or priming an individual without self-awareness? Here, CatholicSoc pointed out that regardless of admission to faith school, children cannot be brought up with blank slates, and that as long as faith schools teach the national curriculum, religious supplementary input is not a negative influence if this is what the parents wish for their child. Another issue raised by the audience, was that while public funding of faith schools may not necessarily be financially detrimental, it is also a question of morals, as individuals would not want their tax money to contribute towards values they do not support.

Following continued discussion of other less strictly relevant (but inevitable) issues including human versus religious morality and whether there is such a distinction, as well as abortion and ethics, each of the panelists summarised their views. CatholicSoc asserted that a secular state should not undermine the role of religion, but value well-reasoned religious beliefs; ASHS cast reflection on how religion will still inevitably influence a secular state, in particular discussions regarding abortion and LGBT - an influence which must be accepted for democratic reasons; while AMSA expressed surprise at the knowledge of Britain's non-secular influences during the discussion, and stressed that although a secular state free of any ruling religion would be the only just form of government, non-secular influences such as the monarchy should not be removed as this would demonstrate injustice to the country's heritage.

"Argument for a Secular Britain" - Haris Ismail

The ideal of true secularism holds firm the view that the church and state must be kept entirely separate. In a society adhering to this basic principle, each person is to be treated as an individual where equality in the political, legal and educational systems regardless of religious belief is of paramount importance. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, one of America’s founding fathers, a secular society is one in which “no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever” and furthermore the religious shall not be afforded any privileges or special treatment simply because of their beliefs. Why is it then, that in today’s supposedly secular society, religious leaders are still treated with sycophantic reverence and given the platform and the power to influence the way our country is run?

Perhaps the most shocking example of this religious special treatment is found in the second chamber of the British parliamentary system: the House of Lords. Currently sitting in the Upper House in Westminster are 26 unelected Protestant Bishops; men (note, not women) who have the power to amend or reject crucial bills that could potentially play a decisive role in determining the laws of the land. Known as the “Lords Spiritual”, these Bishops are an unwanted remnant of the 1661 Clergy Act – unwanted not only by me, but by 74% of the population who agree that “it is wrong that Church of England bishops are given an automatic seat in the House of Lords”. The most common defence of their presence is that their position as religious leaders somehow affords them a greater and more authoritative insight into matters ‘spiritual’ or ‘moral’. This view is not only patronising and offensive, it is simply incorrect. Put it this way: in a debate on assisted suicide would you rather the people with the power to shape the law based their conclusions on reason and evidence, as medical ethicists and moral philosophers do, or on out-dated and irrelevant scripture and the even more reprehensible justification of ‘faith’? Indeed, this very issue highlights another strong argument against these unelected bishops in the House of Lords – they don’t always even represent the views of the majority within the institution they are supposed to represent, the Anglican Church. A 2004 vote on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill revealed that 81% of Protestants agree that “a person who is suffering unbearably from a terminal illness should be allowed by law to receive medical help to die, if that is what they want” and yet the bishops still opposed the bill.

The news of reform to the House of Lords may sound welcome to secularists across the country but Nick Clegg’s proposals, made in June this year, would actually see a 1% proportional increase of the number of bishops allowed to sit in parliament as of right. Furthermore, the Church is to be handed new powers to choose over half of their representatives – a fact that enables the religious authorities to work together with more cohesion to influence legislation. The British Humanist Association notes that “these proposals in effect create a new largely independent, and largely unaccountable, bloc for the Church of England in Parliament”.

Whilst bishops get a free ride in the House of Lords, there is another heinous privilege that our government and media afford the religious: freedom from scrutiny. A debilitating paranoia of causing offense serves to protect and preserve the role that religion plays in society, as we are constantly told to “respect” the beliefs of others.

The effects of this paranoia can be seen all around us. One of the biggest perpetrators of providing religion with undue protection from criticism is the BBC. Last year the state-funded broadcaster introduced new guidelines that were condemned by the National Secular Society as “a threat to free speech” and were seen to be “an entirely retrograde step [since] almost anything that isn’t wholly reverential towards religious beliefs can be perceived as offensive by some believers”. Special status is already given to religion on flagship programmes like Radio 4’s Thought for the Day (which invariably invites a religious figure to deliver an early-morning dose of meaningless spirituality) and significant portions of prime time news programmes are often devoted to informing the public that prayers are being held or religious vigils are being kept; information that is as meaningless as the act is useful. What’s more, under the new guidelines comedians, satirists and commentators wanting to be critical of religion have had their work strictly censored – a luxury that would never be afforded to other matters of individual choice like political affiliation or fashion sense and there is no reason why religious beliefs should be free from similar questioning.

A secular society does not have to be one that shuns religion completely; in as diverse and multicultural country as ours the freedom to practice one’s religion in peace is seen, quite rightly, as a fundamental right. However, a truly secular democracy ensures that such religious beliefs are kept out of government policy and legislation. To create such a society we must do as columnist Johann Hari proclaims, and ensure that “nobody is granted special rights just because they claim their beliefs come from an invisible supernatural being”.

Haris Ismail
University College London