Introduction
The religious foundations of Christianity have shaped personal beliefs and institutional practices in the UK since the 4th century – influencing English culture, values, and laws (English Heritage, n.d.). Over time, these foundations spread throughout the UK, contributing to its reputation as a predominantly Christian country.However, as government institutions have become increasingly secularised, debates have arisen about whether this change has been limited to social and personal beliefs, or whether it is also reflected in English law. In this article, the term secularisation will refer both to the social decline in Christian belief and practice as well as the decreasing presence of religious influence within the state. By examining patterns of religious decline alongside case law and legislation, this article will assess academic and sociological perspectives on the relationship between religion and law. Ultimately, this analysis aims to clarify misconceptions, promote understanding of the legal system, and critically evaluate the potential harms and benefits of religious influence.
Historical Foundations of Christianity in UK Law
Traditionally, the UK’s legal system openly and predominately shaped by religion through ecclesiastical courts, trial by ordeal, and other religiously informed legal practices. Ecclesiastical courts, run by the Church rather than the independent state, dealt with heresy, marriage, and clergy discipline, and were particularly powerful during the medieval era. They applied canon law – a system that held citizens accountable not only to the king but also to the Church under spiritual and moral obligations. This authority directly influenced the legal system by framing crimes from a religious perspective and incorporating divine judgment in determining guilt or innocence (Outhwaite, 2006). For example, “trials by ordeal” aimed to reveal God’s will: in the trial by hot iron, a defendant’s hand was burned; rapid healing was seen as divine innocence, while blistering or infection signified guilt. These trials relied entirely on faith, as they believed only God could determine the outcome (Kerr, 1992). From as early as 1000 AD, religion was not merely a personal belief system but a framework dictating daily life, with people expected to attend Mass or face fines, bishops acting as both spiritual and political authorities advising the king, and monasteries serving as centres of learning and education (Brown, 2003).
Understanding the historical centrality of Christianity allows one to see why it continues to influence aspects of society and law: for much of history, moral values and influential religious principles have been closely intertwined, and even under a modern democratic system, Christian ethics naturally persist in public judgment and legislative attitudes. Consequently, despite the gradual decline of formal state and religious control, it is unsurprising that religious influence has not fully disappeared, reflecting the enduring strength of the social and moral foundations Christianity has embedded in the country.
Social and State Secularisation
The extent of secularisation of Christianity in recent years has been debated by academics, with some arguing that religious influences still heavily persist in modern society. Brewitt-Taylor (2021) critiques the simplistic definition of secularisation as merely a decline in religion, instead proposing a post-secular approach that frames secularisation as an ideological culture (rather than the total absence of religion). Socially, this perspective is reflected in decreasing worship attendance, personal practice, and belief, yet historical moral codes (embedded as social norms) often masquerade as tradition. Brewitt-Taylor argues that while the UK may appear secular on the surface, deeper ethical influences continue to shape public policy and moral responsibility. In contrast, Flatt (1996) contends that society has undergone complete secularisation, as social institutions such as education, law, and politics have become increasingly specialised, with curricula changes promoting individualism over traditional moral codes. According to Flatt, this modernisation erodes the monopoly of religious institutions over ethical norms, shifting cultural and societal values towards secular ideologies. This distinction highlights the usefulness of differentiating between social secularisation (decline in individual practice and belief) and institutional secularisation (the diminishing authority of religion within state structures). What either perspective makes clear, however, is how religious legacies may persist subtly, often disguised within modern norms and ethical frameworks.
Modern Religious Influence in Law
Within contemporary UK society, the intersections of law and religion remain highly visible, particularly through Sunday trading restrictions, the Assisted Dying Bill, and the continued presence of bishops in the House of Lords. Christianity has traditionally regarded Sunday as a day of rest, worship, and reflection (Vaida, n.d.), a principle embedded in law through the Sunday Trading Act 1994. This act restricts retail opening to six consecutive hours and mandates closure on Christmas Day and Easter Sunday (GOV.UK, 1994). Such provisions demonstrate how religious practice has been institutionalised, transforming a cultural norm into a statutory obligation and reflecting the historical entrenchment of Christian values in legal frameworks. The presence of bishops in the House of Lords further illustrates institutionalised religious influence, allowing Church of England representatives to shape debates on social and moral issues (Russell, 2013). Their formal role highlights not only the legacy of Christianity in law-making but also the continuing channels through which religious values are rooted in policy.
Religious influence, however, is not confined to these formal mechanisms. It also operates indirectly through societal norms and moral reasoning that inform legislative decisions. During the 2025 euthanasia debate (Rough et al., 2024), opposition to assisted dying frequently drew upon Christian moral principles, particularly the prohibition of suicide and the sanctity of life. Politicians explicitly referenced these ethical frameworks when arguing against the bill, demonstrating how societal adherence to Christian values continues to shape parliamentary deliberation (Gomez-Virseda et al., 2025). Although the Assisted Dying Bill ultimately passed, the narrow margin of approval underscores the enduring sway of religiously informed moral perspectives in determining legal outcomes. This case exemplifies the subtler, indirect ways in which Christianity continues to inform the law: values embedded within society, derived from religious tradition, are enacted through political processes without requiring formal Church intervention.
Judicial decisions further illustrate the differences in accommodation of religions within UK law. In Eweida and Others v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 37, the European Court of Human Rights held that preventing an employee from wearing a cross necklace violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. They argued that the interference with religious manifestation was disproportionate to the employer’s interests. By contrast, in R (Begum) v Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15, a Muslim student’s request to wear a jilbab instead of the prescribed school uniform was denied, with the court upholding the school’s policy as a proportionate limitation on the manifestation of religious belief. Some scholars argue that these contrasting outcomes are rooted in contextual differences – for example, a necklace being perceived as a minor accessory compared with a jilbab’s departure from a full school uniform policy. Nevertheless, others contend that such reasoning reflects a broader cultural familiarity with Christianity, which may subtly shape judicial attitudes toward proportionality.
These cases illustrate the nuanced manner in which law mediates competing rights: while the UK legal system formally applies proportionality to all religions, historical and institutional factors arguably make Christian practices more readily accommodated in practice. Collectively, these examples reveal the depth and persistence of Christian influence within UK law, demonstrating that both formal and informal mechanisms – through statute, parliamentary debate, and judicial interpretation – sustain the interplay between religion and legal authority. While the normative value of such Christian principles as sources of law will be discussed later, the extent of their influence is already clear.
Religious Protections and Separation of Religion from the Law
Where religion once shaped the legal framework directly, in the modern era it is principally protected through rights-based legislation. An acknowledgment within the legal system remains necessary, as religion must be safeguarded against discrimination and prejudice. Through Article 9 (Human Rights Act 1998), individuals are granted the right to hold and manifest religious beliefs. This indicates that religion is legally recognised, but framed as an individual right rather than as a national legal identity. Some historians argue that, analytically, this demonstrates secularisation in the law: law no longer privileges one religion, but regulates all religions under universal human rights. Importantly, this framework applies to all faiths, not just Christianity. The Equality Act 2010 promotes nine protected characteristics, including religion and belief. By prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of religion, modern rights-based legislation signals the legal system’s role in protecting diversity rather than enforcing Christian norms (Equality Act 2010). In this sense, law functions in a secular manner, safeguarding pluralism rather than upholding a single faith.
José Casanova theorises that religion has privatised from public institutions into the domestic sphere – a phenomenon he calls the privatisation of religion. Put simply, religion retreats from shaping political and legal institutions and is instead treated as a personal or household concern. However, Casanova also argues that through “deprivatisation,” religion can re-enter public life when social or political conditions allow – for example, in Poland, where the Catholic Church became central in opposition to communism. He emphasises that the twentieth century’s trend toward privatisation is neither final nor inevitable; society can fluctuate between traditional modes of religious influence and more secular arrangements (Casanova, 1994). Baroness Hale, in a 2015 lecture on equality and human rights, directly comments on both the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act as attempts to protect freedom of religion. She argues that judges must apply these rights in a secular, neutral framework without giving priority to some religions over others. This illustrates a clear attempt at impartiality; in practice, however, this ideal is not always achieved. Therefore, the protection of religion within contemporary law demonstrates that religion is now recognised as an independent right rather than as an essential component of the UK legal system. Consequently, the UK legal system demonstrates both secularisation and continuity: it treats religion neutrally in principle, yet the historical imprint of Christian norms remains evident in how rights and protections are interpreted.
Despite the historical influence of Christianity on UK law, there is substantial evidence that the legal system increasingly operates independently of religious doctrine, applying secular principles in legislation and judicial decision-making. For example, under the Marriage Act 1836 and the Civil Partnership Act 2004, marriages and partnerships are legally recognised equally without requiring a religious ceremony (Marriage Act 1836) (Civil Partnership Act 2004). Furthermore, in cases where public order and safety outweigh religious practice, courts have ruled against religious objections. In McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 880, a Christian relationship counsellor was dismissed for refusing to provide sex therapy to same-sex couples on the basis of his religious beliefs. The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the dismissal, stating that his refusal was a failure to comply with professional obligations rather than a legitimate manifestation of religion. This illustrates that while religious beliefs are recognised, secular principles take precedence when individual faith conflicts with legal or societal responsibilities, confirming the law’s independence from religious doctrine. However, this independence is not absolute: while the law itself no longer privileges Christianity as a direct source of authority, Christian values embedded in public opinion and moral reasoning continue to shape legislative debates and outcomes in more indirect ways.
Why is there a Misconception?
Despite evidence that Christianity continues to influence aspects of UK law, sociologists and legal scholars note that public perceptions often assume religion has diminished entirely, creating widespread misconceptions about secularisation. Philosopher Charles Taylor explores the lens of misconception, where people mistake religion being less visible for it being gone. In A Secular Age, he points out that there has been a shift in the conditions of belief. In pre-modern societies, religion was almost assumed, as society itself supported belief and shared spiritual frameworks. However, in modern society, belief is just one option among many, alongside frameworks such as science and rationalism. Thus, religion is still present in private and public life, but it is not as dominant. Taylor calls this the “immanent frame” – the default lens for interpreting the world, where people view it largely in secular terms. The “immanent frame” makes law and institutions appear secular, but subtle influences still remain (Taylor, 2007). Misconceptions arise when this lack of visibility is mistaken for absence.
Misconceptions can also reinforced through media representation of the UK justice system. Media coverage often highlights instances where religious influence appears to diminish, reinforcing the belief that religion is losing its role in law, even when evidence suggests otherwise. For example, debates on same-sex marriage or abortion frequently emphasise secular arguments, potentially downplaying religious perspectives that covertly inform legal decisions (Dolezal, 2024). Surveys and studies also indicate that the public often believes religion has little to no influence on law, overlooking the subtle ways in which religious values continue to shape legal frameworks (Hjelm, 2018). Recognising these misconceptions is essential for accurately assessing the role of religion in law and for informing public discourse. Ultimately, this analysis demonstrates that while religion may appear less visible in legal contexts, its influence persists in nuanced and sometimes indirect ways, challenging the simplistic notion of a fully secular UK legal system.
Evaluating the Practical and Ethical implications of Religious Influence within Law
Whilst we have assessed Christian influence within the UK justice system, it is also important to critically evaluate the functions of Christian values within law. Exploring both the benefits and harms of such influence allows a deeper understanding of its practical implications. Theologian John Milbank suggests that the overlap of Christianity and law is beneficial due to the moral principles it provides. These principles establish ethical foundations that promote justice, compassion, and social cohesion. He argues that laws influenced by Christian ethics, such as those framing human rights or prohibiting murder, provide a stable moral baseline for legislation and judicial reasoning (Milbank, 1990). It can also be argued that these moral baselines have been embedded in British values and norms over time, meaning that without this ethical foundation, the system would lack a coherent line of judgment. While these religious influences are often indirect and subtle, they remain pivotal to the functioning of the legal system.
John Finnis expands on this by applying the concept of natural law and natural rights. From his perspective, Christian-influenced natural law offers a moral framework for legal decisions, guiding judges in areas such as family law and moral law where secular legislation alone may not provide sufficient clarity (Finnis, 1980). This raises a wider debate, however, about whether natural law is inherently religious or whether it simply codifies moral values that might otherwise be considered innate to human reasoning. If one accepts Finnis’s view, Christian moral principles act as guidance when standardised procedures are insufficient, shaping judicial reasoning and influencing the outcomes of cases. Consequently, the traditional moral foundations of Christianity can be seen as continuing to underpin the UK legal system in a profound and enduring manner.
However, scholars also examine the potential drawbacks of religious influence in law. Kevin Flatt notes that over-reliance on Christian norms risks bias against non-Christians and undermines legal neutrality. This can result in unequal treatment in areas such as assisted dying or marriage, creating legal uncertainty or discrimination (Flatt, 1996). By privileging one religious framework, laws risk institutionalising prejudice and compromising the impartiality of the judicial process. Similarly, Andrew McGowan argues that religious influence may impede social progress by prioritising Christian moral positions over secular public interest. Such influence can act as a barrier to reform, delaying legislative responsiveness to contemporary societal values (McGowan, 2014). In a secular, pluralistic society, the dominance of Christian-informed moral opinions may conflict with broader public opinion and the principle of equality before the law.
Overall, while Christian moral principles provide an ethical framework that can stabilise and guide the legal system, their influence also carries the risk of bias and social conservatism. This dual impact illustrates the need for careful balancing: ensuring that religion can inform law without undermining secular neutrality or the rights of those from other beliefs.
Several measures could help achieve this balance. One possibility is reforming the House of Lords by either abolishing the automatic presence of bishops or expanding religious representation to include leaders from a wider range of faiths, thereby reflecting the UK’s pluralistic society. Another option is to strengthen judicial guidance on proportionality tests in cases involving religious rights, ensuring that no single tradition receives disproportionate protection. More broadly, fostering dialogue between legal institutions and diverse faith communities may allow religious perspectives to contribute to moral debate without dominating the legislative process. Such reforms would preserve the ethical contributions of religion while safeguarding the secular neutrality essential to a fair and inclusive legal system.
Conclusion
Overall, it is clear that the perception that religion—particularly Christianity—has been completely eradicated from the UK justice system is a misconception. Subtle and indirect religious influences remain evident through legislation, legal proceedings, and case law, where Christian teachings have informed legal principles or shaped moral reasoning. However, while society has become more secular and the legal system has significantly reduced its formal dependence on religion, Christian influence persists, reflecting what Charles Taylor described the ongoing “deprivatisation” of religion. Through this process, society fluctuates between secularism, Christianity, and pluralism, meaning that Christian morals and traditional norms continue to inform public discourse and democratic decision-making.
Although concerns exist regarding potential biases, the influence of Christianity does not appear to cause direct harm to the legal system. Instead, it may require careful moderation to ensure that no single religion is favoured and that trial proceedings remain impartial. Complete removal of religious influence would be both impractical and disproportionate, as the moral foundations of the justice system – concepts of good, evil, and fairness – have been ethically shaped by Christian thought. Furthermore, a significant proportion of society remains Christian, so eradicating religious influence entirely would undermine democratic representation and societal values.
Therefore, while the UK legal system has undergone a clear process of secularisation, this is neither absolute nor irreversible. Recognising the continued, nuanced role of Christianity allows us to identify potential biases, understand the ethical foundations of law, and appreciate the balance between secular principles and historical religious influence in shaping a just and democratic legal system.
Bibliography
Brewitt-Taylor, S. (2021). Notes toward a Postsecular History of Modern British Secularization. Journal of British Studies, 60(2) [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/jbr.2020.243 [Accessed: 7 September 2025].
Brown, A. (2003). Church and society in England, 1000–1500. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Casanova, J. (1994). Public religions in the modern world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Online]. Available at: https://archive.org/details/publicreligionsi0000casa [Accessed: 6 September 2025].
Civil Partnership Act 2004. [Online]. London: The Stationery Office. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/33/contents [Accessed: 8 September 2025].
Dolezal, K. (2024). Irritating the secular: on Peter Berger and Charles Taylor’s theological projects. Politics, Religion & Ideology, 25(3). [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/21567689.2024.2379342 [Accessed: 8 September 2025].
English Heritage (n.d.). Early Medieval: Religion. Story of England. English Heritage. [Online]. Available at: https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/learn/story-of-england/early-medieval/religion/ [Accessed: 4 September 2025].
Equality Act 2010, c. 15. [Online]. London: The Stationery Office. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/2/chapter/1 [Accessed: 8 September 2025].
Eweida and Others v UK [2013] ECHR 37.
Finnis, J. (1980). Natural law and natural rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Flatt, K. (1996). Secularisation in the UK legal system. London: Routledge.
Gomez-Virseda, C. and Gastmans, C. (2025). Conscientious objection in euthanasia and assisted suicide: A systematic review. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326142 [Accessed: 8 September 2025].
UK Government (2022). Trading hours for retailers: The law. [Online]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/trading-hours-for-retailers-the-law [Accessed: 7 September 2025].
Hale of Richmond, B. (2015). Secular judges and Christian law. Ecclesiastical Law Journal, 17(2). [Online]. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ecclesiastical-law-journal/article/secular-judges-and-christian-law/63287F64CDE68427A118DC097DE7A68F [Accessed: 6 September 2025].
Hjelm, T. (2018). Peter L. Berger and the sociology of religion. In T. Hjelm (Ed.), Peter L. Berger and the Sociology of Religion: 50 Years After The Sacred Canopy. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Human Rights Act 1998, c. 42. [Online]. London: The Stationery Office. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/8 [Accessed: 8 September 2025].
Kerr, M. H. (1992). Cold water and hot iron: Trial by ordeal in England. The Journal of Legal History, 13(2). [Online]. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/205237 [Accessed: 4 September 2025].
Marriage Act 1836. [Online]. London: The Stationery Office. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/6-7/85 [Accessed: 8 September 2025].
McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 880.
McGowan, A. (2014). Law and religion: Rights, responsibilities and public policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Milbank, J. (1990). Theology and social theory: Beyond secular reason. Oxford: Blackwell.
Outhwaite, R. B. (2006). The rise and fall of the English ecclesiastical courts, 1500–1860. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
R (Begum) v Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15.
Rough, E., Dawson, J. and Lipscombe, S. (2024). The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024–25. House of Commons Library. [Online]. Available at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10123/ [Accessed: 7 September 2025].
Russell, M. (2013). The contemporary House of Lords: Westminster bicameralism revived. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, C. (2007). A secular age. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Vaida, C. (n.d.). Origin, theological meaning of Sunday and its celebration in the early church. Revista Teologica. [Online]. Available at: https://www.revistateologica.ro/wp-content/uploads/Origin-theological-meaning-of-Sunday-and-its-celebration-in-the-Early-Church.pdf [Accessed: 7 September 2025].
Leave a Reply