| Freedom of religion |
|---|
Concepts |
| Religion portal |
 | This article needs to beupdated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(January 2023) |
The right tofreedom of religion in the United Kingdom is provided for in allthree constituent legal systems, by devolved, national, European, and international law and treaty. Four constituent nations compose the United Kingdom, resulting in aninconsistent religious character, and there is no state church for the whole kingdom.
In 2023, the country was scored 4 out of 4 for religious freedom.[1]
TheECHR guarantees in Article 9 that subjects will have:
The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance[…]The freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and arenecessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
The right is given in the United Kingdom by s. 1 ss. (1)(a) of theHuman Rights Act 1998 (HRA), as the "right and fundamental freedom".[2]
In Article 18 of theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in resolution 2200A (XXI) on 16 December 1966, the UN resolved that:
Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice or teaching.
TheUnited Nations Human Rights Committee, a subsidiary body of the General Assembly, also affirmed in General Comment 22 on July 30, 1993, that the right to freedom of religion applies to unconventional or extra-institutional religions, as well as atheist or anti-clerical beliefs:
Article 18 [of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief. The terms belief and religion are to be broadly construed. Article 18 is not limited in its application to traditional religions or to religions and beliefs with institutional characteristics or practices analogous to those of traditional religions.
TheAct of Settlement 1701 decrees that the monarch of Great Britain (later the United Kingdom) "shall join in communion with the Church of England". This act was specifically designed to prevent a Catholic monarch from ascending to the throne, but in effect discriminates against all religions other thanProtestantism. Members of the royal family in line of succession who married a Roman Catholic (though not adherents of other denominations or faiths) were excluded from the succession. Under the provisions of theSuccession to the Crown Act 2013, marrying a Roman Catholic no longer disqualifies a person from succeeding to the Crown; however, the provision of the Act of Settlement requiring the monarch to be a Protestant continues unrepealed.[3]
In England, the state church is theChurch of England, and theSupreme Governor of the church is theBritish monarch. As already mentioned, the monarch is required to "join in communion with the Church of England". As part of thecoronation ceremony, the monarch swears anoath to "maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England" before being crowned by the senior cleric of the Church, theArchbishop of Canterbury. All clergy of the Church swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch before taking office.
Parliament has the authority to govern the Church of England, but since1919, it has generally delegated this authority to the Church'sGeneral Synod (formerly known as the Church Assembly). Parliament retains the ability to veto measures of the General Synod or Church Assembly; this rarely invoked power was used in 1927 and 1928 to prevent the adoption of arevised prayer book. Measures also requireroyal assent.[4]
Theappointment of bishops and archbishops of the Church falls under theroyal prerogative. In current practice, the Prime Minister makes the choice from two candidates submitted by a commission of prominent Church members, then passes his choice on to the monarch. The Prime Minister plays this role even though they themself are not required to be a member of the Church of England or even a Christian—for exampleClement Attlee was anagnostic who described himself as "incapable of religious feeling".[5]
Although it is an established church, the Church of England receives no state funding. Instead, the Church relies on donations, land and investments.
Since theChurch of Scotland Act 1921, the Church of Scotland has been independent from the state. The monarch does, however, take an oath to preserve the Church of Scotland at the meeting of the Privy Council immediately following his or her accession.[6] The monarch also has the right to attend the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, but usually sends a High Commissioner in his or her place.[6]
Since 1920, theChurch in Wales has been independent of the state. The church is, however, legally required to perform opposite-sex marriages where at least one of those being married has resided in one of itsparishes for six months (a similar requirement applies to the Church of England).[7]
TheEquality Act 2006[8] is equally applied to both religious-based and secular adoption agencies. The Catholic adoption agencies unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a compromise that would have included an exemption for religious-based agencies. This exemption would have allowed them to continue facilitating adoption exclusively for opposite-sex parents.
Several university student associations have implemented rules that mandate affiliated groups to allow "anybody, regardless of faith, ethnicity, or sexuality, to sit on their ruling committees and to address their meetings."[9] However, some Christian Unions argue that they should be permitted to require that their ruling committees share their beliefs.
In May 2008, Lillian Ladele, aregistrar fromIslington,London, took her employer,Islington London Borough Council, to the London CentralEmployment Tribunal, with the financial backing of theChristian Institute.[citation needed] Ladele had refused to conductcivil partnerships on religious grounds, and following complaints from other staff she was disciplined under the Council'sFairness for All policy. Ladele claimed she had been subject to direct and indirect discrimination, and harassment in the workplace, on grounds of her religion.[10] In July 2008, the tribunal found in Ladele's favour, however this ruling was overturned by theEmployment Appeal Tribunal in December, 2008.[11][12]
In 2011 a judge ruling on a bed and breakfast refusing to accommodate unmarried couples found in favour of a gay couple under theEquality Act 2010 but allowed an appeal, commenting that the ruling: 'does affect the human rights of the defendants to manifest their religion'.[1]
![[icon]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWiki_letter_w_cropped.svg) | This sectionneeds expansion. You can help byadding missing information.(March 2022) |
Due to the United Kingdom having been formed by theunion of previously independent states from 1707,[13][14][15] most of the largest religious groups do not have UK-wide organisational structures.
TheOath of Supremacy, originally imposed by KingHenry VIII of England through theAct of Supremacy 1534, required any person taking public or church office inEngland to swear allegiance to the monarch asSupreme Governor of theChurch of England. Roman Catholics who refused to take the Oath of Supremacy were indicted for treason on charges ofpraemunire.
TheFirst Declaration of Indulgence of 1672 was an attempt byCharles II to allow for more religious toleration by suspending the execution of penal laws againstnonconformists andrecusants. However, the Declaration was rejected byparliament and theTest Act of 1673 was issued in its place, which required anyone holding civil, military or religious office to takeoaths of supremacy andallegiance, denouncetransubstantiation and receiveanglican eucharist. This was extended to includepeers in1678.
TheSecond Declaration of Indulgence (1687) issued byJames II shortly allowed for full religious freedom until theGlorious Revolution. The subsequentToleration Act of 1688 granted freedom of worship only tononconformists who had pledged to the oaths ofallegiance andsupremacy and rejectedtransubstantiation, i.e., toProtestants who dissented from theChurch of England. The Act intentionally did not apply toRoman Catholics, Jews,nontrinitarians,[16] and atheists.[17]. In practice, it allowed forBaptists,Congregationalists andPresbyterians to function as tolerated religions while imposing some regulations to the way they are allowed to organise themselves.
TheNonconformist Relief Act 1779 allowed freedom of worship for all self-declaredProtestants who took the oaths of allegiance and supremacy.
TheDoctrine of the Trinity Act 1813 extended religious toleration toUnitarians.
Anti-Catholic sentiment slowly decreased over the years and in late 18th century, the process ofCatholic emancipation began. ThePapists Act 1778 allowedRoman Catholics to own property and to inherit land and theRoman Catholic Relief Act 1791 allowed them to worship, practice law, and establish Catholic schools. Finally, theRoman Catholic Relief Act 1829 allowed catholics to hold civil offices. The Roman Catholic Church officiallyreestablished dicoeses in England in 1850 andin Scotland in 1878.
The common law offence ofblasphemy was repealed in 2008. The last person to be imprisoned for blasphemy in the UK wasJohn William Gott in 1922, for comparingJesus Christ to aclown.[18] The next blasphemy case was in 1977, whenMary Whitehouse brought a private prosecution (Whitehouse v. Lemon) against the editor ofGay News for blasphemous libel after he published a poem byJames Kirkup called "The Love That Dares to Speak Its Name". Denis Lemon was given a nine-month suspended sentence and a £500 fine for publishing the "most scurrilous profanity" which portrayed the sexual love of a Roman centurion for the body of Christ on the cross.[19] The sentence was upheld on appeal.
In this appeal case,Lord Scarman held that the modern law of blasphemy was correctly formulated in Article 214 ofStephen's Digest of the Criminal Law, 9th edition (1950). This states as follows:
Every publication is said to be blasphemous which contains any contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus Christ or the Bible, or the formularies of theChurch of England as by law established. It is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions hostile to the Christian religion, or to deny the existence of God, if the publication is couched in decent and temperate language. The test to be applied is as to the manner in which the doctrines are advocated and not to the substance of the doctrines themselves.
In 1996 theEuropean Court of Human Rights (case #19/1995/525/611) upheld a ban onVisions of Ecstasy, an erotic video about a 16th-century nun, based on the video infringing on the blasphemy law.[19] The Court estimated that a limited ban on vulgar or obscene publications that would be offensive to believers, while keeping legal the criticism of religion, was compatible with the principles of a democratic society.
On May 8, 2008, the offence of blasphemy was abolished.[20] However, some acts that were once viewed as blasphemous may now be prosecutable under other legislation, such as thePublic Order Act 1986 as amended by theRacial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.[21]