Is ‘militant secularisation’ taking hold in Britain?
The claim
“My fear today is that a militant secularisation is taking hold of our societies. We see it in any number of things: when signs of religion cannot be displayed or worn in government buildings; and where religion is sidelined, marginalised and downgraded in the public sphere.”
Baroness Warsi, 14 February 2012
The background
Sayeeda Warsi called for Europe to be “more confident in its Christianity” in an official visit to the Vatican today.
In a Telegraph article, she warned of the rise of “militant secularisation” across the continent.
Is there evidence that aggressive secularisation is taking hold in the UK?
How religious are the British?
In the 2005 Eurobarometer poll only 38 per cent of people in the United Kingdom said they “believe there is a God”, although a slightly higher proportion (40 per cent) agreed with the statement “I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force”.
On the other hand, in the last published census in 2001, 70 per cent of the population identified themselves as Christian.
But the British Humanist Association disagrees with the way the question was phrased in the census (“What is your religion?”).
In a 2011 YouGov poll for BHA, 53 per cent of people who answered the same census question said they were Christian, but only 29 per cent answered “yes” to the follow-up question “Are you religious?”, and 65 per cent said “no”.
The National Centre for Social Research’s annual British Social Attitudes survey found that 50 per cent of people said they had no religion, compared to 31 per cent in 1983.
And only 20 per cent of people said they were affiliated to the Church of England in 2010, compared to 40 per cent in 1983.
The proportion of people who considered themselves Catholics has remained steady while the number of non-Christians has risen from 2 per cent to 6 per cent since 1983.
That rise – presumably connected to immigration – may be why the proportion of people who attend a religious ceremony of some kind has remained stable (14 per cent in 2010 compared to 12 per cent in 1990) while attendance in the Church of England has dropped.
What about Baroness Warsi’s claim that religion is being “sidelined, marginalised and downgraded” in the public sphere?
The law
Unlike in France, British schoolchildren are not banned from wearing religious clothing and symbols.
And unlike in Spain, there’s no blanket ban on public sector workers wearing crucifixes or other religious insignia in the workplace.
It’s up to individual schools and private companies to decide their own dress codes, but everyone has the right to go to court if they think they are being discriminated against.
Andrew Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, insisted that Christians face increasing discrimination, with employers more flexible in accommodating other faiths, and the courts more likely to uphold the rights of homosexuals in disputes with Christians.
That doesn’t prove that the law is inherently biased against Christians. And it’s important to note that the recent High Court ruling banning prayers at council meetins doesn’t signify a change in the law.
The High Court ruled that the atheist town councillor who complained about prayers being included in council business was not discriminated against, and his human rights were not infringed. The judges simply said the council had no powers to hold prayers under the existing law.
Faith schools
England has a high number of faith schools paid for by the taxpayer – 6,814 schools, or 34 per cent of the maintained sector, according to the latest Department for Education figures. About 67 per cent are CofE and 29 per cent are Catholic.
And it’s a matter of government policy, as set out in the Coalition Agreement, that ministers want to enable more faith schools to spring up.
All state schools have to hold a daily collective worship, which must be “wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character”.
Comparisons with other countries are tricky, due to very different arrangements over funding, but Britain appears to be among the countries with the highest direct state subsidy for religious schools, along with Belgium and Ireland.
Other examples of public money being spent on religious institutions include Christian chaplains in the military, which cost the taxpayer £22m a year, and NHS chaplains, funded by the state to the tune of £29m a year, according to Freedom of Information requests.
State religion
The UK is one of only four EU member states to have an established church covering part of its population – the Church of England. The others are Denmark, Malta and Greece.
Other European countries to retain an official state religion include Monaco, Liechtenstein, Iceland and Norway.
But the symbolic retention of an established religion doesn’t tell the whole story about relations between church and state. In France, a country often held up as an example of secularism, the upkeep of all churches built before 1904 is paid for by the state, whereas there’s no state funding in the UK.
Finally, Britain is one of a very few countries where non-elected clergy form part of the legislature in the form of the 25 bishops who sit in the House of Lords.
David Pollock from the British Humanist Association claims that Iran is the only country in the world where non-elected clerics play a comparable role in the business of government.
The verdict
Numerous polls and surveys suggest that the number of people who hold religious beliefs in general, and attend Christian church services in particular, is falling.
Other research suggests that the number of people who consider themselves devotees of other religions is rising.
The British Social Attitudes survey puts the proportion of those who regularly attend services at 14 per cent. That puts Britain about halfway up various European league tables of religious observance.
But curiously, the secularisation of the state is much more advanced in many other European countries.
And in some areas of British civic life like faith schools and the awarding of government contracts to groups like the Salvation Army, the separation of religion and state appears to be in reverse.
Terry Sanderson from the National Secular Society told FactCheck: “Religion is definitely on the back foot in this country. That doesn’t mean to say that it doesn’t have an awful lot of influence.”
There are 35 comments on this post
Like most things the Conservatives seem to be pining for an era that is firmly in the past.
Personally I wish the politicians would concentrate on governing and let the religious leaders worry about the decline of faith.
Alternatively, the Coalition could put there money where their rhetoric is and invest in those much needed churches, since faith isn’t declining … oh wait.
Hey, blame Prof. Dawkins, he’s a lefty after all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Do you call this an impartial analysis? There are a number of facts here, but it’s not at all clear that they have much to do with Baroness Warsi’s assertion. Quoting from NSS and BHA advocates seems an odd way to establish a neutral, fact-based argument in this case.
Example. You say “That doesn’t prove that the law is inherently biased against Christians.” – but this wasn’t the assertion. You set up a straw man, to knock it down. Poor journalism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just seen Channel 4 news interview Evan Harris of the National Secular Society, as Baroness Warsi was unavailable to comment on the issue of the exclusion of the religious voice. This rather bizarre choice of replacement spokesperson just totally underlines the problem with militant secularism in Britain. It is not so much the actual laws but the strangle-hold this ideology has on the MEDIA !!! For a nation where in 2011 50% of the population claimed to be religious – I can’t see 50% of the national media coverage being religion friendly !!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think saying ‘Britain should be more confident in its Christianity’ is, in itself, marginalising a huge number of people who are not of the Christian faith. I also find that people who are either agnostic or atheist are more tolerant of all other faiths than those who are of a specific faith. Over the last 30 years people who are agnostics or atheist have felt more confident about expressing their beliefs than they have been in the past, but they do not feel the need to force it down peoples’ throats, therefore ‘militant secularism’ is largely an oxymoron. Indeed it is usually those of extreme faith that are militant and sometimes offensive in their views. Most ordinary people of faith in this country are more than comfortable in expressing their personal beliefs and views without fear of prejudice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Religions are power bases that proponents defend by self seeking discrimination. After hundreds of years of dirty politics the UK still struggles to extrecate itself from servitude to the variouse forms of Christianity and is always at risk from other metaphysical belief systems competing for the wealth of the nation.The current batch of Westminster politicos are closely tied into what is thought to be ‘the esablishment’ headed by the Crown, the Tory Party at prayer
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Militant secularisation is a real force. The national media appears allied with the national secular society and others. There is a clear agenda within the media to talk up secularism. We in the population are not granted the same access to national media so an arguement and debate is stifled.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You used the wrong graphic.
The arrow should point unequivocally to fiction.
There is no armed wing of the BHA. There are no NSS suicide bombers. No bishops have been shot leaving the Upper House as they go get a pizza. Secular Humanists funded bus ad campaigns, they didn’t explode outside St Paul’s station. No crowds clutching The God Delusion have harried children on their way to sate funded Islamic faith schools.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cathy,
Since we have suffered a thousand years of militant Christianity the religionists now should do the decent democratic thing and step aside as their superstitious nonsense begins to fade.
In fact I have never witnessed any “militant secularism” in Britain. Religion in this country has simply outlived its practical usefulness, especially when it failed to address Establishment immorality and criminality. For example, the Church of England wasn’t named “The Tory party at prayer” for nothing. But of course it applies to all religions and sects, not just Protestanism.
Organised religion has proved itself a suppressive evil force in society. It even endorsed the implementation of industrialised slavery and pogroms. Occasional individuals of outstanding goodness were no match for the entrenched interests of clerical bureaucracy.
In short, organised religion is guilty of hypocrisy on a massive scale, which is why fewer and fewer people want anything to do with it. But few would contest a right to hold private religious views, even though religion has NEVER been democratic in theory or application.
In the end religion is simply superstitious despotism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well said.
Militant secularism? Nonsense, there is no such thing, just those who are sick of hearing this particular form of special pleading that people of faith, so called, now go in for – the bandwagon that Baroness Warsi has so cynically hitched a ride on. (i.e. we’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch ours). The only militant ideology on the march these days is religious ideology; just sit back and listen to them babble. Let them believe whaterever they like, but please let them do it at their own cost; don’t encourage them by feeding them my taxes or by instilling their doctrines in schools.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There is something to the millitant secualrism claims, but not at all in the way it is being represented by Warsi and by the Vatican (as it was the pope that started with this particular bit of spin last year during the papal visit).
Countries where the catholic chruch held a lot of sway, where the state and chrush just blended together, and where scandals of abuse have been rampant (e.g., the Republic of Ireland), there is increasing and deserved anger against the church, but calling this anger “militant” and “secular” means the Pope and the Vactican can continue to avoid their responsisbilities for past failings and the need to change in order to protect people in the future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So sick of the media baching of religion, if sa person adheres to a faith they are blamed for war and all sorts of historical atrocities, there appears to be a modren cultural denial of abuses of power in political and secular society, religion has become the modern scapegoat for greed. I doubt very much if the Mullah’s, priests, bishops and members of the religous hierarchies of any faith have had much to do with the policies that created the sub-prime mortagages that wrecked the golobal ecomonmy and has paralysed ecomomies across the globe. They carry on creating oppertunities for harmony in a highly hypocritcal environment!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have no problem with people being or not being religious. It is their choice though it does seem fewer and fewer are choosing christianity if attendance at church is any measure.
I do object to it getting into the political arena and being used as a guide to how the country should be run. I object to bishops being in the house of lords by right – you might as well say every head teacher should be in the lords.
It increasingly seems that religion is an excuse for conflict – every believer thinks (s)he is right and that it is necessary to defend their religion against others and non believers. Just look at how many conflicts in history have been justified on religious grounds.
And if you want to see what a dreadful effect on the body politic christianity can have, look no further than the extreme wings of the Republican party in the USA.
The difference between the religious and we atheists is that we are happy for them to carry on worshipping as they will and behaving as they think fit. They insist we should behave like them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why is it that the religionist crowd seem to equate the priviledge to insert their personal religious views into every aspect of public life as a right, and any progress towards a religiously neutral society as an act of secural millitancy?
Such attitudes are taken to far greater extremes in the USA (if yesterday nights Daily Show is anything to go by) but it’s still rediculous to hear similar claims in the UK.
Why should prayer services form part of the formal part of any local council meeting? What would any of these christian councilors thing of an Islamic call to prayer forming a formal part of council meetings? If you want to pray, go to church and pray, pray in your bedroom, pray outside (or even inside) the meeting room before the formal meeting. Don’t inflict your prayer on non-christians (be they atheist, agnostic, Budhist, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, etc…) in a place of business any more than you would proselytise in those same said meetings. It’s neither the place, nor the time for it. Religion (or lack thereof) is a personal thing, it doesn’t have to be trotted out at ever opportunity or worn on your sleve like some war medal!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The accusation of ‘militant secularisation’ comes from devotees of religions that have long histories of aggressive promotion of their own creeds at the expense of other beliefs. You never hear Hindus or Zoroastrians complaining about ‘militant secularists’ because to them faith is a personal matter.
The aggrieved whining from the real militants – Christians and Muslims – has only come about because fair-minded people are unhappy that there are areas of British life where those not of a state-sanctioned religion are unable to, for example, send their children to a school that doesn’t offer a level playing field without religious indoctrination.
The fair and just approach would be for religion to be absent from schools and allow parents to have religious instruction at home or place of worship – but apparently suggesting this makes you some sort of militant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I fear right wing politicians in the UK are too influenced by their US colleagues. “Militant secularism” is a straw man. It barely exists. It is, howveer, the demon that aggressive Christians have been using in the US to drive their right wing agenda. We should refute this attack on what is essentially a tolerant society – at least in religious matters (except for a small number of extremists). I have no objection to religions though i don’t believe myself – provided they practice the same tolerance that they expect for themselves. Equally I don’t support intolerant secularism, particularly when it snaps away at trifles. The problem we all face is the increasingly rampant individualism that places “my welfare” above that of the community and leads to (a) antisocial behaviour of all sorts (b) a refusal to contribute to the community (e.g. private health, private education) and (c) a belief that money can buy anything. Instead of seeking to heighten differences, politicans would do better to promote & support things that bring us together more as a community.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m a simple man, so I’ll keep it simple: As a secular society we have free speech. Religions repress free speech in favour of dogma.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Fact Check was deeply flawed: many facts were skewed or incorrect. There’s a trend in the public & UK media to trash & ridicule religion, or specifically Christianity. This is not generally evident in Europe. Plus anyone of an Eastern faith, especially Islam is largely immune, whether from fear of retribution, to avoid racial accusation or from excessive political correctness.
This anti-religious ‘bias’ is mirrored by the judiciary. True we don’t have anti-religious laws, but the minute there’s a Christian issue in front of a judge it’s a foregone conclusion. Witness the BA cross issue, etc, etc.
As for the £22 million spent on Military Chaplains, one cheap shot deserves another: the least that can be done if the state wishes to send young people to their deaths.
Faith schools are not paid for by the tax-payer: schools are paid for by the tax-payer & the religious values supported by these schools are a small price for the money from those churches & from religious taxpayers.
Work-place prayer rooms are a PC joke. One I knew had no cross or anything Jewish. The Trafford Centre room has such heavy Islamic use that anyone else would be viewed as intruding…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If proof was needed of anti-Christianity I referred to earlier, just look at the other postings here. Of the 5 who don’t support the view there’s ‘militant secularism’ in the UK, every one takes pot shots against religion and Christianity.
Sure, much has been done wrong in the name of religion, but that’s the point: in the name of religion! It has always been a convenient tool in power-politics & the true cause of evil is power & money, not religion. Oh drat! Dr Harris won’t let me use the loaded word ‘evil’.
Politics, frequently in the name of religion is to blame. That explains (note ‘explains’, not ‘justifies’) Christian Crusades, anti-Jewish Pogroms, persecution of Catholics and Protestants in the UK & its legacy of religious intolerance in Northern Ireland, even the Iraq war & yes, the largely resulting growth in extreme Islam & fatwah-intent mullahs.
If your posters & large parts of the public blame religion for all the world’s evils, rather than call for the demise of religion they might as well call for politics to be banned. Of course it’s not going to happen: both are cherished beliefs systems, both have their share of good & bad. That’s…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I assume I must be one of your 5. If so, you haven’t read what I wrote. My concern is with militant “Christians” in the US whose version of Christianity is largely based on the Old Testament & not on what the New Testament records Jesus as saying and doing. I agree with Saltaire Sam (post below) that Jesus’s approach was closer to socialism than capitalism(cf moneychangers in the temple, difficulty of a rich man getting to heaven like getting a camel through the eye of a needle, etc). Jesus told us to turn the other cheek & love our neighbours as ourselves, yet the most Christian of our recent Prime Ministers involved the UK in several wars costing hundreds of lives and Mrs T differed little from Blair in that regard. Every belief and non-belief has its zealots, but taken over all, the UK remains a tolerant society with a legal process which attempts to balance the rights of the individual against those of the community as a whole. Sometimes it gets it wrong. But all those who believe there is militant secularism taking over society can quote are isolated incidents. And if you want a real example of an institution which is regularly misrepresented & attacked in the media – see…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
…EU
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The claim from Baroness Warsi was that ‘militant secularism’ is taking hold in Government (a.k.a. the law), so saying, “That doesn’t prove that the law is inherently biased against Christians.” is, in fact, the refutation of the assertion being made.
There is no straw man fallacy here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s one of the great ironies of modern society that Christianity, a religion based around a man who preached socialism, has become the religion of extreme right wing zealots.
Perhaps it was just that Rome found it was a good way to get extremely rich and powerful and once you get that, you get the right wing.
Another indication there is no god – if there were (s)he would have struck them down by now for distorting the message.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
joc69, you state, ” We in the population are not granted the same access to national media so an arguement and debate is stifled.”
This website is an international medium, and you are on it, debating. Here’s your big chance to put down a closely-reasoned argument which will change peoples’ views. Don’t waste this opportunity for free speech (writing) by whingeing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
More of the same anti-religious – or rather anti-Christian bias above.
I’m interested to see what Philip was about to write in his final line. I agree with every word you say except your penultimate sentence as I do believe there is a bias.
It might surprise many but I class myself as a Liberal Democrat – not a Socialist but certainly left wing & without doubt of the old Liberal, radical wing of that great party. So I’m certainly not right wing, or C of E at prayer. I’m pretty radical & left wing on international & economic matters, just a bit conservative on moral issues, which is no bad thing looking at the decline in society & morals. But I accept there’s often economic reasons for these ills & I’m not a hanger and a flogger.
So what’s this got to do with it? Simply I too cherish the liberal, fair, egalitarian society most of the anti-religious posters (if I can call you that) hail. I too value democracy & freedom of speech, having memberships of several pressure groups in that area. Once I would have called for disestablishment & prayers taken out of Parliament. But no longer as I am also Christian & I feel the constant attacks on religion need to…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
be resisted. (those were the final words)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
iano: “pot shots” was an appalling metaphor to use in connection with the arguments presented by the secularists in this thread. That terminology says more about you than us.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry but that’s the way I see it. It says just as much about those who seem to dislike any religion and abhor anyone who has any religious beliefs… The Sandersons, Pollocks and Dawkins et al.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Th sooner it is properly marginalised the better for everyone, including religious folk.
Religionistas of all flavours have an agenda which they think trumps all others.
And, if you can bring yourself to believe in the (incredibly unlikely) proposition that there is an omnipotent creator who rules everything – that has an internal logic. Which is what makes it so dangerous.
Once you have convinced yourself “God wants it” all other considerations of humanity, conscience, and even common sense – simply don’t matter.
Examples of religiously inspired death and destruction abound. Non-religious folk need to understand religion is a danger to them.
But, even more important, religious folk need to understand somebody else’s religion is even more dangerous to them!
It was not atheists who were burning Protestants (and later Catholics). It was not atheists who were slaughtering Jews in WW2. It is not atheists who are murdering Christians in Somalia and Sunnis in Iraq.
Why do you think the USA is a secular state?
It was certainly not to protect atheists. It was to protect Christians from other Christians.
Look it up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ve answered all this nonsense in a previous post – it is politics in the name of religion which is the evil not religion itself. And if for a minute you think Nazi Germany’s extermination of the Jews was done in the name of Christianity perhaps you should study this a bit deeper.
It was anything but Christian and a whole lot closer to atheism in its denial of religion, as Hitler too had no time for religions. Some argue that it was a new religion, an anti-Christian heresy which deified the Fuhrer who was in any case rather closer to the anti-Christ in his beliefs and morals than anything Christian. But either way it wasn’t caused by religion in the way you suggest (the fault of Prussian Protestants and Bavarian Catholics?) No it was caused by distorted, corrupted, evil political beliefs and the lust for power, glory and empire – as simple as that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’d like to answer the ‘pot shots’ jibe & other anti-religious arguments. I might be right & there is a God, I might be wrong & you proved right when one day I don’t wake up in some dreamy heaven (or end up in some fiery pit). The simple truth is that none of us will know who is right or wrong until we’re all dead.
The difference is I prefer to believe there may be something else after this life & belong to an organised religion to that effect. The other key difference is I don’t impose my religion on others or ridicule someone’s atheism or agnosticism. I don’t really mind if you don’t believe, sad though it may be.
However the real difference between us is that atheists always seem determined to stamp out religion & make common cause with anyone who insults or ridicules someone’s deeply held religious views. Proof? Just look at 2 NSS blogs – ‘Baroness Warsi & her gang of pious politicos are out of step with the nation’. ‘What’s a fate worse than death? Being brought up in the Catholic Church!’
I’m sorry you find ‘pot shots’ offensive, but I find comments like these very insulting & ‘pots shots’ is my politest way. Cheap, intolerant, rabid,…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
iano: “….sad though it may be….” Is that not ridicule? But yes, I do believe that “pot shots” is the most polite term you can think of. My point was that the Secularists here are not being militaristic or militant in any way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The comment “Baroness Warsi and her gang of pious politicos are out of step with the nation” is neither insult nor ridicule. It’s the plain truth.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Two easy answers to your point. It is insulting if someone finds it insulting: so an insult isn’t judged (or quite obviously taken) by those who dish it out, rather by those who receive it. Clearly it is meant to be insulting as otherwise why use inflammatory language such as ‘gang’ & ‘pious? The whole phrase was clearly coined to give insult or ridicule.
My second answer concerns whether her supposed ‘gang’ is in fact out of touch. This is clearly incorrect as shown in the latest census results which clearly showed a majority in favour of Christianity. That’s not even counting many other religions which taken together show a majority of believers in this country.
Sad though it maybe is simply an emotional viewpoint & not ridicule as it would be in yoof parlance: it is saddening to me but clearly not to someone who couldn’t give a damn about religion. Fine you have your belief/non-belief and I’ll have mine. That’s all I ask.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
militant secularisation is an OXYMORON
all you theists, so focused on your pyramid scam religions, are the only militants as there has never been anyone who has killed in the name of secularism or atheism.
secularism = peace
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes there has, please read above! Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot just to name four secularist atheists from the last century… or further back the French Revolution, the archetypal anti-clericalist, original secularist state.
That’s the trouble with militant secularists – including the clearly foolish Dawkins – they know nothing of history (or choose to be ‘unscientifically’ highly selective &/or blind to the facts) but continue to pretend they are a ‘reasoned & scientific’ authority on subjects which plainly they know nothing about.
In passing, no it isn’t an oxymoron. It is most definitely militant secularism when you get so would up over someone else who has a belief you personally abhor & probably regard as ridiculous nonsense. Get over it, will you. Let those who want to believe, believe what they want.
If you don’t wish to share that belief or have none, that’s fine by me. But it’s blindingly obvious that today it isn’t so much religions or the ‘Church Militant’ which proselytise & try to change beliefs: it’s militant secularism. Or should I say: militant, quasi fascistic atheism masquerading as oh so lovely and cuddly, harmlessly rational…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0