Britain Should Become Secular, and Uphold Secular Values

The reasons why I think that it is essential Britain becomes secular and upholds secular values.

By Romer Kitching

Before I begin, I’d like to clarify my intentions for this article. I do not like religion, nor am I religious, though this centres on why religion should not have a place in matters of state. Secularism is the separation of state and religion, and it is an ideology that is active in many countries around the world. In fact, Britain is in the minority in the sense that it has a state religion: Protestantism. This has been active since 1534, when Henry VIII decided to separate Britain from the Catholic Church so that he might annul his marriage with Catherine of Aragon. He appointed himself head of The Church of England. To this day, the head of state in Britain is also the head of the Church, and Queen Elizabeth is no exception to this rule.

Whilst Britain is a Protestant state, there is a lower percentage of practising Christians in the UK than there are in the USA, which is officially secular. Secularism in the legal sense is not particularly meaningful, as a country can have no state religion whilst still being heavily influenced by a certain belief system.

 Secularism as an ideology transcends its literal meaning. It essentially promotes equality, and a truly secular country would seek to remove religious privilege. Religious believers are citizens with the same rights and obligations as anyone else, and I think it is necessary that Britain and the people of Britain start to recognise this.

The first issue I would like to address is that of education, as it is the most important to me. Faith schools and religious dress in schools are examples of religion infiltrating a system where everyone should have equal opportunity and rights. To see an example of religious privilege in the education system, one need only look in our school contact book. “No jewellery, except a watch (except for religious purposes)” is shortly followed by: “Clean Shaven (except for religious purposes which have been supported by a letter to the Headmaster from the appropriate recognised Religious Leader)”. You may consider this to be a minor issue, or you may think the solution is to condone facial hair and jewellery for non-religious people. However, Britain has a long standing history of school uniform and conformist appearance in schools; for a very good reason. When you enter a school, you are there to learn, and you accept the rules of that institution. Essentially you are submitting to authority, which is a necessary part of growing up. A school uniform unites people, cheesy as it may sound, under the same rules. It is a method of treating all pupils as equal, and it also removes fashion trends that may divide people, in school. The fact that, in our school, a certain faith can surpass school rules in terms of importance does two things: It undermines the authority of the institution and it elevates Religion beyond its stature. I remember in the lower years of the school, certain students, namely the devout Catholics and Muslims, could be exempt from sex education classes, and some pupils did not attend ‘Religious Education’ classes which were compulsory for everyone else. To me it is outrageous that information, which is so important for adult life, can be avoided by certain individuals because it upsets the religious sensibilities of their parents.

Faith schools are an even more extreme example of religion altering education. Under the jurisdiction of Michael Gove, the introduction of Academies meant that faith schools received more control over curriculum and admissions because they are not solely funded by the LEA. It was not until June this year that the Fair Admissions Campaign was launched, which attempts to stop Academies and State Schools from prioritising the admission of religious pupils. However, this problem has not been fully resolved, and Academies can still set aside parts of the national curriculum and change the length of the school day. They can also choose the pay of their staff, something accommodated by private funding, to attract the best teachers, which in turn detracts from the prosperity of state schools. Unregulated, private, religious schools still exist, and there are 700 unregulated madrassas in Britain, attended by approximately 100,000 children of Muslim parents. There were widespread reports of sexual abuse in these institutions, published in 2006, something which resulted in a one-time government inspection. Similar reports have been published regarding Catholic, private schools, such as those regarding St. Benedict’s in West London, who have had 21 cases of sexual assault in 30 years. In fact, the Head Abbot allowed a former headmaster to return in 2007 despite allegations of sexual abuse. It is an unfortunate truth that religious, private schools have experienced a disproportionately high number of sexual assault charges. I do not wish to make a case for secularism based on paedophilia, though a system whereby all schools were secular, state funded, and carefully regulated would stop these offenses from taking place.

Personally I think the idea of schools having a religious tone is fundamentally wrong. Religious people often argue that they should be free to express themselves, though it is hardly fair to say that a child born into a religious family and sent to a religious school is ‘free’ to choose which set of beliefs they adhere to. Ideally, all schools should follow a curriculum whereby Religious Education is compulsory, and students can learn the truth about all different beliefs without a religion being glorified or overrepresented in any school. The current situation is far from this, and, in the words of Richard Dawkins, "Faith schools don't so much teach about religion as indoctrinate in the particular religion that runs the school. Telling a child that he or she belongs to one particular faith paves the way . . . for a lifetime of discrimination and prejudice". Faith schools pose a serious problem for integration, as they allow for the offspring of religious believers to almost inevitably become the next generation of people who adhere to that faith. Free will is irrelevant here, religion segregates people. Religious schools and religious dress in schools is a contributing factor to this.

In France, an act prohibiting the concealment of the face in public places was passed in 2010. This act received a great deal of criticism, as it prohibited women from wearing the Burqa (which covers the face) in public. There were two main reasons for this act. Firstly, the Burqa threatens security, as people wearing it cannot be identified, and can therefore commit a crime anonymously. Balaclavas, helmets and masks are also prohibited in public places in France for the same reason. Secondly, the Burqa is an obstacle to communication and integration in a society that depends on facial recognition and expression. The key French values translate as ‘Fraternity, Equality and Liberty’. The Burqa threatens two of these: Fraternity and Equality, whilst the prohibition of the Burqa threatens the third: Liberty. It was on this ground that large groups of Muslim women protested against the act, with slogans such as “It’s my liberty!” However, in France, protest was not the only reaction of women after the prohibition of the Burqa. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is a Muslim journalist for the Independent who is vehemently opposed to the veil. She interviewed hundreds of French, Muslim women after the prohibition, many of whom expressed “relief”. They had refused to wear the full veil despite the desires of their families, and after the ban they felt liberated, as they were no longer unilaterally opposing the patriarchal ideals of their family, but rather abiding by French law.

 I believe that the UK should pass a similar act, and ban headwear that covers the face in public places. It may seem like a restriction of freedom, though personally, I do not think this is the case. Liberty/ freedom should not mean that everyone is free to do as they please, but rather that the freedom of the individual is upheld, within the confines of a democratic law. If the Burqa threatens the liberty of women who are forced to wear it, and restricts the physical freedom of all women who wear it, whether they choose to or not, then arguments based on freedom can work both ways. There are a number of things that women simply cannot do if they are obliged to wear a Burqa in public. One of these is exercise, which is a requirement for good health and one that is not possible for many Muslim women. To those who argue that the Burqa is simply freedom of expression I ask what exactly is expressive about repression?

The Qur’an encourages women and men to “dress modestly”, though it does not explicitly state that women must wear the Burqa or any similar garment. This is a cultural development with religious roots rather than a purely religious one. British culture involves the promotion of equal rights for all citizens. Why should a minority group be able to override a principal that is so important, based on the terms of an outdated tradition? If integration is to take place in Britain, then it is modern British culture that should be pervasive. It is particularly important that the Burqa is banned in schools, places where communication between students and teachers is key. There are currently regular reports of schools banning the garment on these grounds, and later revoking the ban after complaints from parents and religious figures. To avoid this situation, the Government should make it quite clear that the Burqa is unacceptable in schools. The fact that young girls are prevented from communicating or integrating at school because their parents force them to wear a Burqa is, quite frankly, sick.

If nothing else, wearing the Burqa in public should be banned for security reasons. Earlier this year, three men conducted an armed robbery of the Selfridges Jewellery Department, dressed in Burqas, and events like this seem to be growing in frequency as criminals realise that they can exploit the libertarian sensibilities of the British public, who would rather allow inequality to continue than the branded a racist. The Burqa is no different to a balaclava in terms of threatening security, and this, whilst not the most important reason, is the most obvious reason why it should be banned in public places.

In conclusion, this country should become secular by separating the State from the Church. Ideally, it should also uphold secular values, which promote equality above all else and deny religious privileges. Education is the place where secularism is most important, as without it we will never have a truly integrated society, and religious minorities will continue to indoctrinate innocent children. This article devoted a large section to the reasons why the Burqa should be prohibited in public places. The reason for this is that it threatens equality, security and integration. 

By Romer Kitching