The term 'secular' has different meanings.

But when I describe my own position as secular

I'm referring to a view encompassing two broad principles.

Firstly, the separation of religion from state leaves religious people free

to practice their religion, provided they don't infringe the freedoms of others

and allows the non-religious to live without the imposition of religion

through law, education, government, employment or health.

This promotes freedom of religion and from religion.

Secondly, the principle of equality before the law seeks to remove all privilege

or penalty for having or lacking religious faith;

to ensure that no belief, religious or otherwise

receives special protection from criticism;

and that inequalities which some support within their religion

won't be supported outside it.

Obviously, under this principle, blasphemy and apostasy are non-punishable.

When properly understood

secularism creates an environment of equality that benefits us all

which is why it's supported by theists and atheists

religious and non-religious people alike.

Until recently, many of Britain's Councils began meetings with religious prayer.

But in February this year, after informal requests for this to stop were ignored

the National Secular Society won a legal challenge

when the High Court declared the practice unlawful.

Some commentators and parts of the British media

were quick to portray this as 'militant secularism'.

But where was the injury here? Was religion criticized?

Were councillors told they must abandon their beliefs?

Or stop praying in their own time? No. All that was established was that prayer has

no place in formal proceedings.

As NSS Campaigns Manager Stephen Evans points out

the absence of prayers "simply creates a neutral space

and removes an unnecessary barrier to local democracy being equally welcoming

to all sections of society."

Prayer has never been part of any business meeting I've attended.

Nor have religious colleagues taken issue with that.

Even before the High Court ruling, many councils didn't open meetings with prayer.

The fact that some councils have traditionally done this in the past

does not justify them continuing to do so.

A history of doing X doesn't make it okay today.

It was once tradition for only men to vote.

Those who think prayer is a worthwhile use of their time can pray in their own time

but supernatural rituals will naturally fall by the wayside

as fewer and fewer people believe in the supernatural

so it's utterly misguided to try to preserve them as part of our heritage.

Just as I, as an atheist, would oppose inserting atheism into business meetings

bank note design or oaths of national allegiance

- no matter how many of the population are non-believers -

many theists recognize the inappropriateness of inserting theism in those contexts, too.

Of course, some don't...

Michael Langrish, bishop of Exeter, has claimed prayers said before council meetings

set its decisions in 'a wider moral context'

but acts of worship that exclude and alienate people at the outset

create an unnecessarily *narrow* context.

Also, religious rituals are not needed to set a moral context.

Gloucestershire council has replaced its original prayer

with, “May we find the wisdom to carry out our duties,

the humanity to listen to all, the courage to do what is right

and the generosity to treat each other with respect.”

Worthy sentiments, one might think, though eChristianNews reports this as 'shocking'.

Langrish says he finds it sad that what he calls "a tiny minority

are trying to ban a majority, who appreciate this activity".

Being in the majority is not a licence to ignore the impact

your activity has on everyone else.

And besides, Christianity is in dramatic decline in Britain.

Recent research by Ipsos MORI

indicates only just over half the population now identify as Christian.

More significantly, of the self-identifying Christians polled

over a third expressed no positive belief in the power of prayer.

The same number said they never or almost never pray from choice.

In fact, when asked why they identify as Christians

fewer than three in ten cited belief in Christian teachings as one of their reasons.

Far more said it was because they were christened

or baptised into the religion or that parents were Christian.

By reporting actual attitudes, rather than assuming them

this research undermines Langrish's assumption that those who identify as Christian

will share his perspective on council prayers, or indeed any other matter.

Andrew Copson of the British Humanist Association

draws attention to the way certain public figures and parts of the media

sensationally misrepresent religious news stories

so as to create a narrative of victimhood and persecution

as a cover for what's actually going on:

Christian lobby groups arguing for more influence.

Andrea Williams of Christian Concern, who warns of totalitarian secularism

reveals her motives by urging councils to "[B]e vocal and visible for the Lord Jesus

by continuing to keep prayers on their agenda."

Christian Concern's website currently states: "[W]e want to work

to infuse a biblical worldview into every aspect of society."

Like egocentric infants who've grabbed all the toys

then throw a tantrum when some are taken away to be distributed fairly

some behave as though it's unbearable

if their religion isn't given prominence or even dominance, regardless of setting.

While secularists seek to establish fairness and equality for all groups

these people seek to establish religious privilege for their own group.

Earlier this year, David Cameron pledged to legalize same-sex marriage.

Keith O'Brien, head of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland

condemned this as 'grotesque' and shameful.

Many would say that about O'Brien's views.

More people in the UK and US now express support for same-sex marriage

than opposition to it, and it's legal in more and more European countries.

But secularism defends O'Brien's freedom to express his view

no matter how shabby, insular and irrelevant it may seem

at first, second or forty-ninth glance.

However, Vincent Nichols and Peter Smith, two R C archbishops

took the extreme step of composing a letter to be read out at 2500 churches

urging parishioners to ensure that what they called the 'true meaning of marriage'

(a commitment between a man and woman) is not lost.

They gave several reasons for their definition of marriage.

They said it reflects our nature.

Clearly, if many want same-sex spouses, mixed marriage does not reflect 'our nature'.

They said the stability of marriage provides the best context

for the flourishing of relationships.

If that's true for mixed couples it's true for same-sex ones.

They said it recognizes the complementarity of the sexes.

Many women feel they complement each other, so do many men.

And surely it's the relationship of the two people involved that matters in marriage.

Self-indulgent musings on male/female harmony don't justify denying marriage equality.

Lastly, they said marriage is for creating and raising children

which is absurd off the bat.

The church has no problem marrying mixed couples who don't want or can't have children.

Also, if they say marriage helps people raise children

that's a reason to support marriage of same-sex couples, many of whom raise children.

So we can easily dismiss these feeble justifications.

But whatever reasons these two had given

trying to mobilize Britain's catholics against civil same-sex marriage

to bully government into enshrining a religious view in civil law

was wholly unacceptable.

However, in an even more extraordinary intervention

reported by the Guardian and BBC a month later

the Catholic Education Service contacted nearly

four hundred state-funded Catholic secondary schools in England and Wales

to promote the letter, and a petition against same-sex marriage, to pupils.

One pupil reported the bristling reaction in assembly as her head-teacher

explained parts of the letter and encouraged them to sign the petition.

Expressing her disgust, she added that the talk prompted some pupils

to buy 'Gay Pride' badges to pin to their uniforms.

Using children as political lobbying tools to prevent non-religious same-sex marriage

is a deeply unprincipled tactic that shows the depths to which these people will sink

to interfere in the freedoms of non-catholics.

Secularists don't seek to interfere in the internal squabbles of religion.

If some church leaders don't want same-sex couples to marry in their church

they're free to make that known

and individual Christians can judge for themselves whether that's acceptable to them.

Certainly, some bishops have spoken out

against the Church of England's so-called 'official' opposition to same-sex marriage.

As bishop of Buckingham Alan Wilson notes:

"There is a groundswell of opinion that says, 'this does not speak for us'.

There is a sea change going on."

And these sentiments have been echoed by Tim Ellis, bishop of Grantham.

Secular atheists and theists campaign on many issues.

They work to ensure public services are delivered in a neutral way

without religious discrimination, promotion of religion

or religious judgments that may deter people from making use of such services.

They seek to disestablish the Church of England as our state religion

which is as crucial to the church's autonomy as it is to the government's

to guard against mutual interference.

And as Church of England priest Giles Fraser points out

society is too diverse to sustain a state religion.

A secular state stops any single religion monopolizing power.

Secularists seek the removal of the twenty-six unelected bishops

from the House of Lords, who unfairly inflate Church of England representation

in this law-making body.

There's no evidence that bishops bring superior moral insight

as is sometimes argued to justify their presence in the House.

On the contrary, some may have unduly limited insight on certain key issues.

The current lack of female bishops in the UK

also creates automatic and total sexual inequality among the twenty six.

Another secular campaign highlights the unfairness of hospital chaplaincy services

which, despite being publicly funded, exclude patients

who don't share the chaplain's religion.

As the National Secular Society points out, the major religions have enormous wealth.

The Church of England has assets of billions of pounds.

If they want hospital chaplains, they should pay for them

especially as they also get special tax exemption

another example of unfair preferential treatment that should stop.

An NSS study has shown that our best-performing hospitals

tend to spend the lowest proportion on chaplaincy services

and that if all health Trusts brought their spending in line with the best ones

savings could pay for 1,000 nursing assistants a year.

Some of the biggest concerns secularists have regard religions' role in education.

Many agree there's value in teaching children about different religions.

A worldly understanding will naturally involve learning about

what different people believe; why some follow religion

and equally why others don't.

What is not acceptable is using a national education system

to segregate and indoctrinate children into particular religions.

Around a third of the UK's publicly funded schools are so-called 'faith schools'

which enjoy many unfair privileges.

They can discriminate in employment by denying jobs to teachers

who don't share the school faith.

They can also refuse to admit children whose parents don't share the school faith

or aren't 'religious enough'

often forcing them to travel much further for their education

when nearby faith schools won't take them.

In fact, a study commissioned by the Department of Education and Skills

found that the high academic performance of faith schools

often cited to justify their continuation

is actually due to their being able to pick and choose which children they admit

based on what they can observe about the children and their backgrounds.

In other words, their success is due to privileges of selection, not religion.

Many faith schools supplement science classes with religious lessons

that are not subject to the inspection required in other schools.

We end up with schools claiming to teach science while guiding children to reject it;

incompetent science teachers stumped by elementary questions;

and children academically hobbled

because some adults, not content with having their own beliefs

insist on injecting their religious dogma into others' education.

What too often gets lost is any genuine consideration of the child's interests.

Leaving aside all the high talk

about parents' rights to do this or that with their children

what about the child's freedom to make their own balanced assessment of religion?

Children are not their parents' property.

Parents are temporary guardians of children.

Parenthood doesn't authorize one to disfigure another person's body for religious reasons

or fill impressionable minds with beliefs that may hinder their subsequent education.

Parents have no right to expect their children to carry on their religion

any more than they have a right to dictate their career choices or expect grandchildren.