Germany, a federal parliamentary republic and a nation of 83.2 million, has a federal constitution and consists of 16 constituent states.
|Constitution and government||Education and children’s rights||Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals||Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values|
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
Countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brunei Darussalam, Comoros, Croatia, Egypt, Eritrea, Ghana, Iran, Iraq, Kenya, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zimbabwe
Countries: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belgium, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Congo, Republic of the, Djibouti, Ecuador, France, Gabon, Honduras, Iceland, India, Japan, Korea, Republic of, Mali, Mexico, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, São Tomé and Príncipe, South Africa, Sweden, Taiwan, United States of America, Uruguay
Countries: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Congo, Republic of the, Dominica, Ecuador, Estonia, France, Ghana, Guatemala, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Republic of, Kosovo, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Micronesia, Monaco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, São Tomé and Príncipe, Sweden, Taiwan, Uruguay, Venezuela
Countries: Austria, Bhutan, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Lithuania, Mongolia, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Saint Lucia, Seychelles, South Africa, South Sudan, Suriname, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam
Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition
Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition
This condition is unusual in that it is applied in cases where there is some social discrimination, but it is not pervasive or nationwide. This condition is applied when there is sufficient background evidence to warrant the assertion that discrimination is not anomalous but widespread, and this condition may be applied for example even where if there is no legislative discrimination or where the non-religious may have legal recourse against such discrimination. However, societal discrimination (i.e. discrimination by peers, as opposed to state or legal discrimination) is not easily measured, and for this reason the Report does not currently have similar more severe boundary conditions to capture higher levels of social discrimination per se. In principle these may be introduced in future. However, we consider that countries with actual higher levels of social discrimination against the non-religious will generally already meet other higher level (more severe) boundary conditions under this thematic strand.
Applied when overriding acts of oppression by the State are extreme, to the extent that the question of freedom of thought and expression is almost redundant, because all human rights and freedoms are quashed by authorities.
Countries: North Korea
Countries: Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Belize, Botswana, Brazil, Cambodia, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Latvia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malta, Moldova, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Togo, Tunisia, United Kingdom, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Countries: Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Belize, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Fiji, Finland, Gambia, Germany, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Kosovo, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Micronesia, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Switzerland, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zimbabwe
Countries: Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Fiji, Finland, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Italy, Kiribati, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, New Zealand, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela
Countries: Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brazil, Burundi, Central African Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Guinea, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Laos, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Philippines, Russia, Rwanda, Samoa, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Countries: Armenia, Benin, Bhutan, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chad, Congo, Republic of the, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Myanmar (Burma), Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Poland, Singapore, South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Togo, Turkey, Uganda
Countries: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bangladesh, Belize, Bolivia, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kiribati, Korea, Republic of, Kosovo, Kuwait, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, Vanuatu
This condition is applied where there are miscellaneous indicators that organs of the state offer various forms of support for a religion, or to religion in general over non-religious worldviews, suggesting a preference for those beliefs, or that the organs of that religion are privileged.
Countries: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zimbabwe
Countries: Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Djibouti, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, Germany, Guatemala, Guyana, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Kiribati, Korea, Republic of, Laos, Latvia, Liberia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Singapore, Swaziland, Tanzania, Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States of America, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe
This condition highlights countries where schools subject children to fundamentalist religious instruction with no real opportunity to question fundamentalist tenets, or where lessons routinely encourage hatred (for example religious or ethnic hatred). The wording “significant number of schools” is not given a rigid quantification (sometimes the worst-offending schools are unregistered, illegal, or otherwise uncounted); however the condition is not applied in cases where only a small number of schools meet the description and may be anomalous, as opposed to being indicative of a widespread problem.
Countries: Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gambia, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Nigeria, Oman, Palestine, Paraguay, Qatar, Russia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zimbabwe
Countries: Angola, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Congo, Republic of the, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ethiopia, Germany, Ghana, Haiti, Hungary, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, North Korea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Serbia, Singapore, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia
Countries: Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Finland, Georgia, Haiti, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Monaco, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Tunisia, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Yemen, Zambia
Countries: Argentina, Armenia, Belize, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, China, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Guinea, Haiti, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Palestine, Peru, Philippines, Samoa, Swaziland, Switzerland, Thailand, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Togo, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom, Zambia
Countries: Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kiribati, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Moldova, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Nigeria, Oman, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Thailand, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tonga, Tunisia, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Countries: Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Comoros, Cyprus, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Gambia, Germany, Grenada, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Poland, Qatar, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Singapore, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Tanzania, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Countries: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Denmark, Eritrea, Germany, Haiti, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, Switzerland, Tunisia, United Kingdom
Countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Gambia, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Macedonia, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
This condition may apply if specifically religious education, religious materials, or specific religious denominations are so tightly controlled that children are in fact over-protected from exposure to religion and are likely unable to explore or construct their own worldview in accordance with their evolving capacities. This condition helps us to classify states (perhaps with secular constitutions) which have criminalized specifically religious beliefs or practices. This condition is not applied if the restricted beliefs or practices are found to be outlawed due to their being of an extremist variety. While this condition does not directly reflect discrimination against non-religious persons or non-religious ideas, it does represent an overall threat to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief; such restrictions could spill over to affect non-religious beliefs later; and they pose a risk of backlash against over-zealous secular authorities or even against non-religious individuals by association.
Countries: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bhutan, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, El Salvador, Finland, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Korea, Republic of, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Montenegro, Myanmar (Burma), Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zimbabwe
The Constitution (Grundgesetz, the Basic Law) and other laws and policies both protect and respect freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as well as freedom of expression, assembly and association. A third of Germany’s population does not belong to any religious community.1https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/life/religions-in-germany-facts-and-figures
Although the Grundgesetz is supposed to ensure state neutrality towards religious institutions, in reality Christian religious institutions are privileged in the social and political spheres. The situation has changed slightly within the last two decades through the inclusion and participation of other religious communities, mainly the Islamic minority, but there have been no groundbreaking changes.
Relevant sections of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Grundgesetz, GG)2https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf include:
Although the German constitution says that there shall be no state church, some religious communities and especially the two official churches, the Roman Catholic Church and the Evangelical Church in Germany, benefit from a broad range of privileges and advantages.
The Basic Law does not establish a strict separation between state and religion but a model of “partnership” between the State and religious groups with “public law corporation” (PLC) status or groups which are recognized officially in another way, e.g. by special agreements (state treaties).
PLC status can be acquired by any religious group, through an application to the state government. Should a group be granted PLC status, they can levy tithes on members (averaging nine percent of income tax) that each state collects on its behalf, separately from income taxes, but through the state’s tax collection process. PLC status also allows for tax exemptions (larger than those given to groups with nonprofit status), representation on supervisory boards of public television and radio stations, and the right to special labor regulations, for example, requiring employees in hospitals, kindergartens, or NGOs run by a religious group to be members of that group.4https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/GERMANY-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf
The German Basic Law and the constitutions of seven out of 16 states do have a preamble saying that these constitutions have been adopted “before god and man”. These words in preambles are usually used to justify religious privileges and to emphasize the role of religion in public life.
In regard to religion, Germany is a much-divided society. Especially the population in the states of the former GDR is mostly secular, in a way that lets them be unaware of the presence of religious groups in politics and media and in consequence of the systemic discrimination of non-religious citizens or members of religious minorities through privileges for other religious groups. This lack of awareness is a result of a wide exclusion of religion and religious groups from public life, media and education during the decades of GDR government.
The government provides subsidies (payment of salaries, maintenance and equipment for facilities and tax exemptions) for certain religious or belief groups with PLC status. The funding for the Roman Catholic Church is partly based on concordats and compensation regulations for secularization acts (so-called “historische Staatsleistungen”) at the beginning of the 18th century.
Other religious groups and a few small humanist communities receive state funding based on state-treaties concluded on the principle of equal treatment. The amount of state funding for the different groups varies widely. Despite a century-old law that stopped the payments to the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches, the amount of compensation entitled to these two official churches for secularization acts added up to more than half a billion Euros in 2019. Since 1949 almost 20 billion euros has been shared with the two principal churches in Germany.5staatsleistungen.de/881/
The German authorities are responsible for collecting a church tax (Kirchensteuer) for the official churches. The church tax is drawn directly from the salary and is in the range of 8 to 9 percent of the annual tax bill. To make the tax collection by the authorities possible, the denomination of citizens is officially registered, e.g. on the income tax card of an employee. Consequently, citizens must reveal their religious identity to the authorities and employers. Religious authorities may demand from the tax authorities the taxation data of their members to calculate the contributions. In 2018, the Church tax contributed € 538 million Euros to the Catholic and Protestant Churches.
To leave a church or an officially registered religious group, authorities in almost all states demand citizens to pay an administrative fee between €30 and €60. It is not possible to leave an officially registered religion (and to end the tax duty on the income) by just declaring the rejection of the belief to this religious group. As of 2017, 71% of the German population said they paid the Church Tax, while tax authorities said only a quarter paid the tax. In 2017, 11% had stopped paying it and 18% never paid it, and a further 21% said they were likely to stop paying the church tax in the future.6https://www.dailysabah.com/europe/2019/02/08/german-churches-collected-record-610m-in-religious-tax-in-2018-survey-shows#:~:text=According%20to%20FAZ%2C%20these%20religious,despite%20great%20dips%20in%20church
The separation of church and state in Germany as outlined in Article 140 of the GG allows areas of cooperation, such as religious education. Religious education (RE) is mandatory in most states and there is no adequate substitute for unaffiliated children.
RE is the only subject in school that is guaranteed by the Basic Law of Germany. Art. 7.3 states:
Religious education is an ordinary subject in public schools […]. Regardless of the regulatory law of the state, RE will be taught according to the principles of the religious communities.
However, the law also states that no teacher is obliged to teach the subject against their will.
RE in Germany is seen as res mixta: a joint project of state authorities and religious communities. Under this mechanism, the state provides the framework for imparting education while religious bodies collaborate on the curriculum, schoolbooks and teacher training.7Rothgangel, M. & Ziebertz, H.-G. (2016) ‘Religious Education at Schools in Germany’ (in cooperation with Philipp Klutz). In: Rothgangel, M., Jäggle, M. & Schlag, T. (Eds.), Religious Education at Schools in Europe. Part 1: Central Europe. Göttingen: V&R unipress, 115-148
Though RE is a “mandatory” subject by law, parents can unsubscribe their children from it. Students can opt out themselves when they are 14 years or older. However, school headmasters and teachers often do not give adequate information on the right to unsubscribe from RE. Administrative regulations hinder the possibility to unsubscribe from RE at any time in a school year. In many states only small time frames exist to formally unsubscribe from RE.
In some states there is a subject “ethics” for secondary schools, which often lacks equal equipment in resources and qualification standards. Non-religious life stance subjects as an alternative to religious education in public schools are not allowed in almost all states. Only in the states of Berlin and Brandenburg, where participation in religious education is not mandatory, a non-religious life stance subject (“Humanistische Lebenskunde”) is allowed.
Free religious schools (almost fully state funded) are allowed to reject children and employees of other or without a religious affiliation (based on exemptions in labour and anti-discrimination laws).
In two states, North Rhine Westphalia and Lower-Saxony, there are (public) “denominational schools” run by the state, which are allowed to reject and discriminate employees (based on exemptions in labour and anti-discrimination laws).
Many public universities do have state funded faculties for Christian theology. Catholic bishops in the state of Bavaria have the power of veto in philosophical faculties to prevent an unwanted professor.
In Baden-Wurttemberg, Bavaria, North Rhine Westphalia, Rhineland Palatinate and the Saarland, ‘Fear of God’ is named as a top goal in education. These legal requirements are in clear contrast to the model of an ideologically neutral state. In some schools creationism is taught to this day, especially in religious education classes which are taught from the first class onwards. Despite the fact that the theory of evolution is scientifically uncontested, teaching of evolution is found only in higher level classes and fewer hours are dedicated to it in the timetable.8glaeserne-waende.de
As of 2019, 38.8% of Germany’s population had no religious affiliation or was a member of any unrecorded religious group. A 2018 survey found that 80% of young people found that they could live without a religious faith.9https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/life/religions-in-germany-facts-and-figures
A majority of citizens with no religious affiliation and non-religious views live in the eastern and northern part of the country.
The recognised groups include the Roman Catholic Church, the Evangelical Church in Germany (Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, EKD) and several other Protestant denominations, Anglicanism, Orthodox churches (Greek and Russian), the Jewish Community in Germany, several Muslim communities, smaller religious groups and, in a few states, secular humanism. Unrecognised groups may worship freely and openly.
Social and cultural services in Germany are built upon the subsidiarity principle. This means that these services are only run by the state if there is no other local organization which is able or willing to provide them, or if there are special reasons that they should only be run by the state. This is the fundament for the existence of a vast range of big and small charitable organizations which are providing the various services. The work of the institutions offering social services is largely state funded, organizations receive 80 – 100 % of the necessary expenditures from the state.
Both official churches are strongly engaged in this field. Their charitable organizations are the biggest employers in the labour market apart from the public service, with about 1.3 million employees. Diakonie, the social welfare organization of Germany’s protestant Churches, and Caritas, the Catholic Church’s welfare organization, employ some 1.05 million people, then there are also interns, apprentices and other employees to take into account. The Catholic and Protestant churches and their respective charitable organizations form the fourth largest employer in Germany after companies in the metal and electronics industries, the civil service and the retail sector. 60 per cent of all job positions in the social sector are with Church-affiliated charitable organizations and, in light of these statistics, it’s clear that these organizations do not only dominate professions in social care, but also that the volume of employment in social welfare for the whole national economy is highly significant. Disadvantages in this sector therefore hit particularly hard. Church employers have a monopoly in the social care sector; this applies to both provision of services and job vacancies. They are most active in hospices and retirement homes, child care and social care.10glaeserne-waende.de
In some parts of Germany there is a strong presence of Church-affiliated agencies in the healthcare system, so they have built up quasi-monopolies in medical service. Here women in particular experience discrimination in the form of restrictions of their right to sexual self-determination, as they are unable to access services to end pregnancies in Catholic-run institutions. This also applies to emergency cases and rape victims.11glaeserne-waende.de
Different to the non-denominational organizations, the denominational organizations profit from several exemptions in the law allowing them to exclude the right to strike for their employees and to exclude employees with a different or without a religious affiliation. This results in systemic discrimination against employees of other beliefs and unaffiliated employees, but also non-heterosexual or remarried employees in Catholic institutions.
Public schools and kindergartens in states with higher religious affiliation of its population are holding masses, forcing sometimes even unaffiliated children to participate.
There are Catholic and Protestant chaplains in the German defence forces but no chaplains for unaffiliated soldiers.
There are different forms of tax exemptions for religious groups. Officially registered groups profit from the exclusion from administrative fees.
Religious broadcast programmes are fostered through laws and are partly state-funded. There is a broad presence of the official churches in the national public broadcasting programmes and representation on supervisory boards of public television and radio stations.
In some states, crucifixes and Christian crosses are used as official symbols in public schools and courts. In some states, events which include dancing and music are forbidden on certain Christian holidays.
Freedom of speech and the press is guaranteed by the constitution and generally respected by the government. Internet access is unrestricted. Germans have access to numerous private media outlets. The concentration of newspaper ownership has increased in recent decades, leaving most of the country’s papers in the hands of a few corporations.
The law on “Defamation of religions” is potentially very broad in application and punishable with a prison sentence. 166 of the criminal code still contains a “blasphemy” law which shields particular religious as well as other philosophical views from criticism or defamation:
Defamation of religions, religious and ideological associations
(1) Whosoever publicly or through dissemination of written materials (section 11(3)) defames the religion or ideology of others in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years or a fine.
(2) Whosoever publicly or through dissemination of written materials (section 11(3)) defames a church or other religious or ideological association within Germany, or their institutions or customs in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, shall incur the same penalty.
Though all cast in terms of “disturbing the public peace”, this is much broader than, for example “incitement to hatred or violence” and is in tension with the EU Guidelines on Freedom of Religion or Belief, which delineate expressions that are intentionally inciting violence against persons, from expressions which may happen to lead to violence because someone hearing those expressions responds violently. The former is legitimately restricted, but the latter, which could fall under the broad description “capable of disturbing the public peace”, means that the law can be used to suppress merely critical or ridiculing speech acts.12end-blasphemy-laws.org/countries/europe/germany/
Humanists have been campaigning for the repeal of the “Defamation of religions” law.13epetitionen.bundestag.de/content/petitionen/_2015/_01/_08/Petition_56759.html
Public remembrance and memorials often include representatives of the official churches, representatives of non-religious people are almost always missing.
Humanist holidays such as 21st June (World Humanist Day), 24th November (Evolution day) and 10th December (Human Rights Day) are not legally recognised in any of the federal states. Only schools in Berlin have acknowledged World Humanist Day as a holiday equal to All Saints’ Day, Yom Kippur and Eid al-Fitr, therefore pupils in Berlin who ascribe to the Humanist belief system can apply for a day off to celebrate their beliefs in the same way Christians, Jews and Muslims celebrate religious holidays.14glaeserne-waende.de
Anna Ignatius, Doctor of Philosophy and non-religious mother of three from the state of Baden-Württemberg, was denied the right to an ethical education for her sons in their schools. In 2007 she formally asked for the establishment of the school subject “ethics”. She did so on the legal grounds that non-affiliated parents and students (should) have the same right to get an ethical education as religiously affiliated people have the right to get their religious education. In 2014, the Federal Administrative Court of Germany ruled that she has no right to claim the establishment of the wanted school subject for non-religious children. The court explained that the basic law privileges religious education.15bverwg.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/pressemitteilung.php?jahr=2014&nr=28
In 2013, an administrative court in Berlin ruled that a son of Beate Turner does not have the right to claim equal treatment to a law privileging religious holidays. A year ago, Beater Turner informed the teacher of a school class her son was visiting that he wouldn’t attend school on 21st June, World Humanist Day. She referred to an administrative provision which allows children of several religious groups to be exempted from compulsory schooling on religious holidays. At the end of the year there was a day of unexcused absence marked in her son’s school report.16spiegel.de/schulspiegel/urteil-in-berlin-schulpflicht-gilt-auch-am-welthumanistentag-a-894912.html
The head of a nursery run by the Catholic Church, Bernadette Knecht, was dismissed in 2012 after a divorce and moving in withher new partner, although the nursery was 100 % funded by the state.17spiegel.de/karriere/berufsleben/katholische-kirche-kuendigt-kindergaertnerin-kommune-kuendigt-kirche-a-823317.html
The nursery-school teacher Isa K. was dismissed after 13 years when it became known in 2012 that she was living in a lesbian relationship.18spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/katholische-kirche-schliesst-vergleich-mit-lesbischer-erzieherin-a-860106.html
In 2012, a 25-year old woman was turned away by two Church-run clinics when she sought help after waking up on a park bench in the city, having been drugged. She walked into the first centre on the morning of December 15th 2012 and stated she believed she had been sedated with a date rape drug and sexually assaulted. The doctor she spoke to called St Vincent’s hospital, run by the Catholic Foundation of the Cellites, to arrange a gynaecological examination but doctors at the hospital refused the request. The doctor who treated the patient alleged that the hospital’s ethics committee had decided not to carry out examinations of sexual assault victims following a consultation with the Archbishop of Cologne Joachim Meisner in order to avoid being pressured into issuing the morning-after pill, which is forbidden by the Catholic Church. Another hospital managed by the same organization refused to see the patient. The case was widely reported and caused outrage in Germany, having resulted in the discrimination of a traumatised and vulnerable individual on religious grounds. The organization responsible later labelled the incident as a ‘misunderstanding’.19glaeserne-waende.de
|↑3, ↑8, ↑10, ↑11, ↑14, ↑19||glaeserne-waende.de|
|↑7||Rothgangel, M. & Ziebertz, H.-G. (2016) ‘Religious Education at Schools in Germany’ (in cooperation with Philipp Klutz). In: Rothgangel, M., Jäggle, M. & Schlag, T. (Eds.), Religious Education at Schools in Europe. Part 1: Central Europe. Göttingen: V&R unipress, 115-148|