Secularism protects us all. Britain should embrace it.
Modern Britain is one of the most religiously diverse countries in the world, with more non-believers than ever before.
Despite having an official state religion, most British people — regardless of their religious beliefs — have a secular, or at least ‘secularish’, outlook. We may not yet be a secular state, but poll after poll has shown that the British public — including religious believers — support secularist principles.
As the writer Myriam Francois-Cerrah rightly points out, “Britain is already deeply secular country. The exception is the Church of England and the privileges it continues to enjoy”.
Let’s look at the polling. A huge 81% of Brits agree with the statement: “Religious practice is a private matter and should be separated from the political and economic life of my country”. More of us oppose than support the idea of the UK having an official state religion. Only a third approve of state funding for faith schools. British citizens (including churchgoers) overwhelmingly reject the Church’s position on abortion, assisted dying and same-sex marriage.
This all points towards strong support for secularist principles.
The state church has largely been abandoned by the population. Old churches are cherished but the God stuff is a turn off. Less than 2% of the population regularly attend Church of England church services. Just 1% of 18–24-year-olds say they belong to the Church of England.
The British public is largely characterised by its indifference to religion.
We’re not a nation of religious zealots, nor are we particularly anti-religious — although there is significant hostility to religion when it tries to impose itself where it’s not wanted or impede the rights of others. Nevertheless, data from the Pew Research Centre confirmed that people from the UK feel far less strongly about religion than most other people around the world.
Despite this indifference, religion is of course inescapable. Religion is ever-present in our news broadcasts. The spectre of terror we now live under is largely motivated by it. Our school system is to some extent organised around it. Our national ceremonies are dominated by it. Our national broadcaster is excessively deferential to it. Political leaders often refer to Britain as a “Christian country”.
But if we want people off all faith backgrounds and none to buy into Britain’s values and the promise of shared citizenship, a civil conception of ‘Britishness’ would be more effective, more inclusive — and certainly more honest — than a vague religious one.
Growing irreligiosity and the emergence of other faiths demands that we rethink the role of religion in public life. Do we accommodate Islam, with its political ambitions, and all the other minority religions and give them equal footing with Anglicanism — or do we start building a wall of separation between religion and state?
Given the transformative social changes taking place in Britain, secularism, with its commitment to everyone’s religious liberty, stands to benefit us all, so why is it not more enthusiastically embraced?
Part of the reason perhaps is that secularism is widely misunderstood — often wilfully.
Many defenders of religious power and privilege dismiss secularism by falsely equating it with atheism and opposition to religion. The aim here is to present secularism as something that seeks to undermine religion, thus deterring religious believers from subscribing to perfectly reasonable secularist arguments.
Atheist secularists, it should be noted, have themselves perhaps been guilty of muddying the waters. Indeed, it was Charles Bradlaugh, who founded the UK’s principal secularist organisation, the National Secular Society over 150 years ago, who famously clashed with George Holyoake over whether secularism necessitated atheism. Bradlaugh acknowledged that some secularists were not atheists, but it was his championing of atheism under the flag of secularism which in some ways still shapes people’s perception of secularist today.
Back in the mid-19th century, Bradlaugh’s fight for the rights of atheists was a noble and necessary one. But today’s unbelieving secularists might do well to separate their personal beliefs from their expression of support for secularism, so as not to give it an air of ‘politicised atheism’.
There are good reasons for secularism to be supported by religious believers. They should feel welcome in the secularist circles. The National Secular Society today has members of various faith traditions — and the movement is stronger for it.
Another tactic for traducing secularism is to equate it with authoritarianism, or even a form of ‘extremism’. As Jacques Berlinerblau has pointed out, “commentators on the right and the left routinely equate it with Stalinism, Nazism and Socialism, among other dreaded isms.” The weapon of using a pejorative adjective to attack secularism is also regularly deployed. Faith leaders, government ministers and academics are often keen to portray secularism as ‘intolerant’, ‘extreme’, ‘aggressive’ or ‘militant’.
The truth is no sensible advocates for secularism in the UK are proposing anything remotely ‘intolerant’ or ‘aggressive’. The National Secular Society’s Secular Charter is certainly a radical challenge to the status quo, but it’s hardly a form of ‘extremism’.
Vague support for the established church endures because Britain is home to many ‘cultural Christians’. Even Richard Dawkins describes himself as a ‘secular Christian’. Christianity is, after all, a major influence among many that shape our current ways of life. At a time when many people are understandably concerned about the growing presence and influence of Islam in the UK, there is also sense that Christianity might be a bulwark again creeping Islamisation.
But surely a better response would be stand up for a principled and very British form secularism — a muscular yet inclusive form of secularism — a codification of ‘live and let live — but within limits’.
As much as there is to admire about Laïcité, the French model of secularism isn’t the right fit for Britain.
The ‘soft secularism’ which manifests itself as multi-faithism is also a path best resisted. In a country as religiously indifferent and diverse as ours it’s dangerously divisive to organise public policy around religious identities.
The American concept of separation of church and state is perhaps closer to the mark. But we need to carve out our own British model of secularism — one which seeks minimal interference with the free exercise of religion yet protects secular spaces and ensures religious freedom is always balanced against an individual’s right to live their lives free from religion. A model that treats a person’s religion as a personal and private matter rather than the basis for public policy. One that robustly asserts the primacy of secular law and the principle of one law for all.
Secularists are often unfairly accused of wanting to “eradicate religion from public life”. It’s certainly true that we want to see religion’s public role greatly diminished — an end to publicly funded faith schools is an example of this. But we should support an open society where people are free to express their beliefs, but at the same time be clear that there are limits to religious toleration.
Pluralism is fine, but too much of a laissez faire approach can have a corrosive effect on our cherished liberal values. It can restrict the freedom of women and children — particularly in minority communities, harm LGBT+ rights, undermine animal welfare and impede social cohesion. Religious conflict and sectarian grievances have the potential to tear our society apart. Secularism can protect against that.
Secularism offers us something precious. The chance for citizens to live in peace with other citizens whose creed is different from their own. If we want a freer, fairer and more tolerant society, where everyone’s freedom of religion or belief is respected, and no one else’s religion controls how we live our lives, secularism is something we should embrace.
