Choosing humanism’s battles: priorities and limits

By Jeremy Rodell

What should humanist organisations campaign on – and, just as importantly, what should they not? In this wide-ranging article, Jeremy Rodell takes a close look at the realities of humanist campaigning, from assisted dying and education to climate change and culture wars. Along the way, he challenges assumptions about mission creep, public support, and the future role of organised humanism in a plural society.

Jeremy is Co-Chair of South West London Humanists, a school speaker, and a volunteer Dialogue Officer for Humanists UK. He is a former trustee of Humanists UK and writes here in a personal capacity.

Organised humanism is known for its campaigning work, and it is in that context, I suspect, that the idea of a ‘great debate’ taking place about the ‘future of humanism’ originated. Given that free thinking is a humanist characteristic, there are always going to be differing views on the priorities for humanist organisations, including campaigning. But personally speaking, I have not seen evidence that significant numbers of British humanists have a problem with Humanists UK’s campaign priorities, and its record numbers of members and supporters rather suggest the opposite. Nevertheless, it is worth exploring the background.

Organised humanism in the UK is centred around Humanists UK and its affiliates, along with Humanist Society Scotland (HSS). Both have strong links to Humanists International which is based in Washington DC and Glasgow. Humanists UK was founded in 1896 as the Union of Ethical Societies. According to its 2024 accounts, apart from celebrant work (on which it makes a loss), almost all of its income comes from supporters. As a registered charity it is legally obliged to use its funds in line with its ‘charity objects’:

‘The advancement of Humanism, namely a non-religious ethical life stance, the essential elements of which are a commitment to human wellbeing and a reliance on reason, experience and a naturalistic view of the world; the advancement of education and in particular the study of and the dissemination of knowledge about Humanism and about the arts and science as they relate to Humanism; the promotion of equality and non-discrimination and the protection of human rights as defined in international instruments to which the United Kingdom is party, in each case in particular as relates to religion and belief; the promotion of understanding between people holding religious and non-religious beliefs so as to advance harmonious cooperation in society.’

On its website, it classifies its campaigning work under the headings of schools and education, human rights and equality, secularism, and public ethical issues – plus its contribution to international campaigns.

Limited funding, of course, puts a constraint on the number of campaigns that can be fought. I am not privy to the thinking of the current Humanists UK Board and senior managers, but I imagine the criteria they apply when deciding priorities, in addition to whether they are in line with the charity objects and strategy, include: whether they are likely to be broadly acceptable to people who choose to give money to this organisation rather than to others; whether they are currently relevant; whether they are within the organisation’s capabilities; and whether they address topics which have limited support from other sources.

High on the list must be issues that are actually being decided by government and/or Parliament. Assisted dying, with the Assisted Dying Bill currently before Parliament and Humanists UK being a primary campaigner, is obviously a high priority. With House of Lords reform in the air, the continued presence of the 26 bishops, and their role in votes on assisted dying, remains a live issue. Schools and education have always been a core element in humanist campaigning and rightly remain so, especially while we have state-funded faith schools which are able to discriminate in their admissions policies on religious grounds. There is also an important opportunity to incorporate what is currently called ‘Religious Education’ in England into the national curriculum, with humanism included as a distinct component. Even the long-standing, though to my mind less critical, issue of legalising humanist marriage in England and Wales may also merit priority, given that the current government has promised to act and could do so without further legislation, meaning a small push could take it over the line.

Supporting this work is the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group (APPG), which, after many years of sustained parliamentary campaigning, is now the second largest of the hundreds of APPGs. In addition to proactive campaigns, reactive capability is also essential. Free speech needs to be defended against the threat of back-door ‘blasphemy’ laws. Claims such as ‘church attendance has risen by 50% over the past six years’ (Bible Society, April 2025) need to be examined and, if false (as this one was), countered. More significantly, well-funded attempts to export American Christian Nationalism to the UK must be exposed – a new and important battle line.

Disagreement sometimes arises over whether limited resources should be diverted from current campaigns to issues that, on the face of it, appear to be of far greater significance. Climate change is the clearest example. It is probably the most important issue facing humanity, and one where we are clearly not acting fast enough. Surely, the argument goes, Humanists UK should give this a high priority. Well, no. Anyone wanting to support environmental campaigning could donate to one of the dedicated environmental charities, such as Greenpeace (UK turnover £27m) or Friends of the Earth (£12m), not Humanists UK (£3.5m, of which £1.1m is spent on all ‘public affairs and policy’ activities, and another £1.0m on ‘education and public awareness’). Every campaign group has to guard against ‘mission creep’. Just as we would not expect Greenpeace to campaign on faith schools, there would be little added value in Humanists UK, which has no special expertise in the area, prioritising environmental issues at the expense of work on topics for which it is specially qualified. That does not mean that these issues are not hugely important. The existence and support for Humanist Climate Action (HCA) reflects their salience to many humanists, with HCA supporting them in making their most effective contribution, and environmental topics often feature at the annual Humanists UK Covention/Festival, as well as at local group level.

Similar considerations apply to other major challenges we face as a society, including the impact of AI, conspiracy theories and misinformation, political polarisation, inequality and poverty, resource depletion, the housing crisis, the next pandemic, economic stagnation, or the threat of war with Russia. I imagine many of us are concerned about some or all of these, and support other charities, pressure groups or political parties working on them.

Looking to the future, Humanists UK will be affected by political developments and other externalities, including the extent to which it is hit by the reduction in giving and volunteering that is affecting the charity sector as a whole. If the size of the financial pie changes, the question then is how that would be reflected in its capabilities, and the split between campaigning and its wide range of other activities across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. These include schools, education and dialogue; non-religious pastoral support; local humanist groups; ‘Faith to Faithless’ support for people leaving high-control religions; and celebrant training and accreditation.

The future is worryingly uncertain. But, as organised humanism plays in the ‘faith or belief’ space, I think we can be fairly confident on a couple of medium term predictions.

Firstly, although at least half of the non-religious cannot really be considered as humanists, organised humanism is likely to remain the only player with a coherent, specifically non-religious worldview offering not only campaigning, but also advocacy, support and other services.

Secondly, there is unlikely to be the sort of major change in the British religion and belief landscape that we have seen in the past 40-50 years. In the UK outside Northern Ireland, about half the population currently has no religious identity and the other half is mainly Christian (a little under 40%), with Islam second (around 7% and rising), followed by Hindus, Sikhs and then many others. There is likely to be some further growth in the non-religious as the continued decline of the Church of England is not fully offset by growth in British born Muslim, Hindu and Sikh populations, with immigration – a recent driver of religious growth – likely to fall. There is great diversity in almost every group, including the non-religious, and a large area of common ground between most of them. But religion and religious organisations will remain a significant factor in society.

Humanist campaigning is therefore still likely to face the sort of faith-related opposition on some ethical issues we have seen on assisted dying, though it will also continue to find itself fighting alongside faith groups on other issues, such as freedom of religion or belief, or attempts to achieve illiberal political ends by appropriating the symbols of faith.

It also means that humanism will remain the non-religious standard-bearer in education and in pastoral support. In ceremonies, on the other hand, alongside accredited humanists, there are already multiple non-religious providers. Sadly, there is little sign of high-control religions making life easier for those leaving, so the need for Faith to Faithless may increase as more people become aware of its services.

Growing religious hatred and polarisation underline the importance of dialogue and the establishment of personal relationships across divisions. While there are no simple solutions, if we as humanists want to see a peaceful, plural secular society, we should continue to look for ways to help bring it about. We will need more understanding, not less.