Talk:Freedom of religion in Germany

POV tag
I put the POV tag because this article is totally biased and violates wikipedia's NPOV rule. The Islam-section, but also part of the legal section are biased and even factually incorrect, I believe. Where is a source proving that all the religious groups that aren't Catholic or Protestant are sects? That would mean that Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism and other religions would be considered sects in Germany, which is certainly not the case. Luis rib 12:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The term Sekte is a valid term in German legal documents, and there's an almost general consensus what a Sekte is. A great deal of religious movements carrying various philosophies come along as Sekten, and the fact that a certain philosophy isn't totalitarian doesn't preclude that an many organizations that spread it in Germany do this in a totalitarian manner.


 * http://www.agpf.de/Begriff.htm -- About the term Sekte in German
 * The German Administration Office about Sogenannte Jugendsekten und Psychogruppen http://www.bva.bund.de/aufgaben/jugendsekten_psychogruppen/
 * Adresses of state-appointed and Church-related Sekten referees in Saxony: http://www.sekten-sachsen.de/adressen-sachsen.htm

Daddysmutantkid 15:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know perfectly well that Sekte is a common German word (and a legal word, according to your first link). That wasn't my point at all. The article claims that all religious groups that are not catholic or protestant are considered Sekten - and that is certainly wrong! It it were right, it would mean that Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism would also be considered Sekten - but they are not. Also, the paragraph on Islam is totally POV. Luis rib 15:20, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not claim it. I merely explain the claim someone else makes (the Kirchen), and that is rather important for the gov and public opinion in Germany. As for islam, nobody hinders you to re-write it. I'm not a Muslim, me.--Daddysmutantkid 15:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hinduism is not a Sekte in Germany, but Hare Krishna is. As most Hinduism in Germany is presented in the form of Hare Krishna, and the "Churches" have a great influence on public opinion, terms may become blurred. --Daddysmutantkid 15:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * What s the source that "the Churches" have major influence in Germany? I watch German TV constantly (I'm not German, BTW, and don't live in Germany), but I'm not aware of such a major influence. Rather, it seems that Sekten in Germany refers to religious groups which have too great a degree of control on their faithful (see the first link you provided, under Kurz gefasst:Was ist eine Sekte). It is the same kind of definition as the French word secte, and in France there is no influence of "the Churches".
 * Still, the current article gives the impression that anything that isn't "the Churches" is considered a sect - which is not the case, and also doesn't seem to be the general belief. Luis rib 15:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you should make your impressioon on what the country is like rather on real life than on television. As explained in the article, the "Churches" (and now, JW) are bodies of public law what makes them de facto a part of the state. They function under public law and have authority to fulfill certain tasks that normally only the state shall fulfill. There is even a section of German public law called Staatskirchenrecht, law dealing with the "Churches" as parts of the public law. All other religious organizations are private organizations, and function under private law. For example, a body of public law does have the constitutionally guaranteed right to hold mass on TV, to have contributions collected by the state, to reach religious education as an obligatory class in schools. Others, like Buddhists, Mormons, Freikirchen  etc., who are private, do not have that constitutionally guaranteed privilege. Or have you ever seen a Mormon, Buddhist, Hare Krishna ... service on Sunday morning on German state TV? On the contrary, German state TV is full of "educational" broadcast in which highschool students are warned against entering a "Sekte". If you haven't seen it then you probably watch private channels, or do not watch discerningly. Private radio and TV stations also provide clips which have been prodiced "in corporation with Roman Catholic and Lutheran Churches" (F. E. RTL brings the "Bible clip" each Sunday at 18.25). RTL has never brought a Koran clip, or a Book of Mormon clip etc., in any way. Preaching shows are forbidden. VOX (private) broadcasts Hour of Power at 8.00 on Sunday morning, which legally violates the treaty on public broadcasting, but I guess there's just nobody who bothers to raise a lawsuit against it. TV adverts for Power for Living by Jamie Buckingham, a book which promotes a view of Christianity different from the concept of the Roman Catholic and Lutheran Churches (I think it's called "new born Christians") got banned because of the the treaty on public broadcasting, which gives the "Churches" influence on what runs on TV. (I think they got scared that people might convert away from the "Churches" and start believing in Jamie Buckingham ... )

Here is a publication issued by the Evangelic Lutheran Church of Berlin, where you can have a look yourself on what and how the "Churches" consider as Sekten: http://www.religio.de/dialog/dialog.html "the current article gives the impression that anything that isn't "the Churches" is considered a sect -" it is supposed to give that belief, because that's the way the majority of German public opinion believes it. German public opinion is strongly anticult, which may even cover "free-churches". Most of the anticult is "Church" agenda. The fact that there 'are members of free-churches and cults and that they live in peace does not preclude the strong public opinion that holds against them. This "Church" agenda shaping of public opinion is supported and funded by the state as the state considers "Churches" a part of itself and necessary to keep up social stability. Thats why the state funds and promotes the "Churches" and the way they shape public opinion.


 * Sorry, but that's just bullsh*t. The churches play a diminutive role in shaping public opinion in Germany. As the article states, only about 6% of the Germans regularly attend Sunday mass, so how would the churches have any ::kind of influence anymore. By the general public, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and other "global players" are considered religions. Sekte is a derogative word used only in conjuction with either repressive and/or small sects and cults. --hanszarkow 16:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Recently (2005) young Muslim girls who want to live like "Germans" are being killed by their brothers for the sake of "family honour". Would you call this a valid exercice of freedom of religion? --Daddysmutantkid 15:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)



This happens in ghettos, but I wouldn't call thirty dead young Muslim girls (officially reported) last year peanuts, as the tendency is increasing. Also the phenomenom must be seen in context as most muslims do live in ghettos and are instrumentalized by their imams, who want them to claim that significant parts of the German law (like equality, religious neutrality of the state) do not apply to them. Of course, there are also "Westernized" moderate muslims, who do not think like that, but the majority intends to found a "separate culture". You probably should go to a banlieue or a Muslim ghetto to see for yourself. There's a struggle about philosophy and power, which expresses in "symptoms" like the right to wear headscarves or the right to take the kids out of school (in Germany, kids cannot be taken off a school. They must go to a public shool or a private school which has been recognized by the state). In any case, the "clash of cultures" with Islam is a phenomenmon which occurs in most Europen countries. There is no way helping against a phenomenon by saying it does not exist.

''these minority muslim beliefs are more related to traditions (for instance in rural Turkey) than with actual religious obligations. Indeed, the Koran has absolutely no indication that women should be killed if they behave in a Western fashion. So don't mix up religion and tradition. Luis rib 15:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)''

Many Muslims do not distinguish the way you claim they do. They claim that "the Koran" requires them to do this or that. As a non-Muslim, I can't say whether this is "true", but neither I nor the courts have to say it. The Grundgesetz does not give courts the right or duty to interpret beliefs or scriptures for their believers, but leaves that to the faithful themselves. The Grundgesetz generally protects all beliefs, also odd ones, and does not evaluate them. For example, if you claim that the Bible or your personal conscience commands you to wear green tennis socks on your head, and you're able to somehow justify that, the courts won't say that your belief is worthless but they will mostly say that it is to be respected and covered by the field of protection of art. 4 GG. --Daddysmutantkid 10:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Being aware that this article may need further proof-reading I still remove the "neutrality" tag because I feel that writing an article about religion and conflicts between religions "neutrally" is impossible because one always encounters the risk that somebody may be a member of said religion and feel treaded on his toes. I described the conflict fields of freedom of religion as they're currently perceived by Germans in Germany, and I gave references to the statements. I feel that further "objectivity" in the field of religion is simply an impossibility as religion by nature is not an objective matter. --Daddysmutantkid 13:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is true that in Germany churches are quite active, more than in other countries, in disseminating information about cults, sects, new religious movements and Sekten. Andries 07:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Doubtful statements, references please
Please give refrences for the following statements that I find doubtful or too generalizing.
 * 1. "When classifying religious groups, the Roman Catholic and the Evangelical Lutheran Church use a three-step of "Churches", "free-churches" and Sekten [4]"
 * I do not read this in the German Wikipedia that is used as reference. Besides it is my impression that there are some scholars like Christian scholars Reinhart Hummel who worked for the EZW that do not make such crude distinctions. Andries


 * 2."The German government also provides information about Sekten. The official term here is sogenannte Jugendsekten [5] (http://www.cesnur.org/testi/endber/KA1.HTM), as the relevant religious groups are claimed to be especially appealing to the youth."
 * I think the CESNUR link talks not about information by the government but a report by a commission to the government. Andries 07:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Besides I read on the website of the "EZW" that the term "Jugendsekte" (youth cult) is obsolete since the 1990s. Andries 08:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that a merger with religion in Germany is better
We cannot and should not merge this article in the section Separation_of_church_and_state because that article is already far above the limit of 32k. Instead, I propose to merge this article with religion in Germany. Andries 17:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree and no one has acted on it in four months. It is part of a series. I am removing the notice. CalJW 16:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Testament challenge - change of religion
This sounds to me like blatant nonsense: anyone is allowed to revoke his testament, to tear it up, or to write a new one which supersedes the old one without any ceremony or permission, only condition is, that the testament is written by one's own hand (source: de:Testament (Recht) Para can be reinstated, if source and context is given (who had to give the permission?) --Irmgard 10:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * in 1981, a woman was allowed to revoke her testament, as it was established that her nephew was likely to give the money to the Hare Krishna organization

I looked it up. A was a devout churchgoer. All of her family but her nephew B had "left the church". Shortly before A's death, B leaves the church and joins the Krishnas. A doesn't know this. After her death, her son C who had inherited nothing challenges the testament stating A had made a legally substantial error by leaving everything to C under the [unwritten] assumption that C would always be a member of his church. B wins. (BGH, 08.05.1985 - IVa ZR 230/83) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafflesiapricei (talk • contribs) 00:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"Power for living", public opinion, and the scope of this article
This article discusses freedom of religion i.e. according to Wikipedia
 * "Freedom of religion and belief is a guarantee by a government for freedom of belief for individuals and freedom of worship for individuals and groups. It is considered by many to be a fundamental human right. Freedom of religion must also include the freedom to practice no religion (agnosticism) or the belief that there exists no deity "

This means that negative public sentiments about a certain group and the influence of mainstream churches on public opinion that have no legal consequences have no place here and should possisbly be moved to religion in Germany. Andries 17:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

In Germany, broadcasting is under the jurisdiction of the states (Länder), which passed a state treaty on broadcasting (Rundfunkstaatsvertrag). This treaty bans ads for religions and world-views in its § 7 section 8. Power for Living TV ads did fall under this rule, and hence, were legally banned. --Rafflesiapricei (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sexual education, evolution
Quote from the text: "In Germany, high school students are not excused from classes on sexual education and evolution theory on the basis of religion"

OF COURSE they are NOT, school education is compulsory for everyone. Why would this be an infringement of religious freedom??? I don't think you can opt out of your biology class in the U.S., citing religious reasons...

not everywhere, but you can sometimes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.210.235 (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, if parents opt to remove a student from an obligatory class, such as sexual education and evolution parts of Biology classes for religious reasons, it's allowed by the school or state in the US. I know for a fact that Canadian schools allow sexual education to be optional for parental concerns (it's a small subject compared to the entire health education class), but I've never heard of someone opting out of a Biology class for religious reasons, and frankly, I don't think it's allowed here. But you're right, it's not an infringement on religious freedom, because the school has the right to teach whatever they want. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  23:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Seperation of State and Church
A few things about the seperation of state and church in Germany:
 * Church tax (or membership fees, if you will) are collected by the state along with all other taxes. Recognised churches are granted certain legal benefits other organisations are not.
 * The public broadcasting stations (funded with compulsory fees on all broadcasting equipment) have a weekly Christian (Catholic/Protestant) commentary every Sunday as well as, as of lately, a Muslim viewpoint every Friday. This fueled discussions about a Jewish programme every Saturday, hilarity ensued.
 * Church membership (for recognised churches) is recorded on a citizen's ID, terminating one's membership costs (depending on regional law) a processing fee of up to EUR 30 (approximately USD 40 plus change - quite a bit of money for a student) and personal appeal to court, even if one became a member via one's parents while below the age of consent.

Yeah, we're probably better than the Yoo-Ass of Ey, when it comes to seperating state and church, but we're still a long way from the laizism our constitution would suggest.


 * Seperation of church and state is not the same as Laizism. Seperation only means that the state doesn't meddle in church affairs and vice versa. Crucifixes in classrooms or teachers wearing headscarves in state schools is still appropriate as are tv masses. Just as long as neither is ordered by the state. Laizism is about abolishing anything religious from official realms, so no religious insignia in any state buildings or worn by state employees while on duty etc... While I as an atheist wouldn't mind Laizism, the German constituion says nothing about it. --hanszarkow 16:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the missing military service section: religious reasons are a valid option for getting out of the military draft and into the civil service, but so are any credible ethical reasons (these days, pre-written statements easily found on the Internet fully suffice, although they wouldn't pass a thorough inspection). Also many religious organisations will reject self-proclaimed atheists (though this practice could be blown with a single trip to the court) even if they employ Christians of other confessions or Jews, Muslims, etc. - at least that's what fellow draftees have experienced when trying to apply and stating their lack of faith. -- 62.143.91.113 14:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Germany to "look for possibilities to bring the religious convictions of the family into line..."
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53457

Germany has a legal duty to attend schools. You can send your kids to a denominational school.--Rafflesiapricei (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality, Citations
Introduction: Please proof the tagged sentences, some of them seem dubious. Wispanow (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You surely don't expect me to provide a reference for the fact that Germany has a church tax whereas France and the USA don't, or do you? Of course, if there is a church tax collected by the state in a country, that country's concept of separation of church and state must be weaker than that of a country which doesn't have a church tax. I'll see if I can find a wikilink to an article on German history, though. Zara1709 (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Tagged for missing citations. Large swathes of text are unsourced and give the impression of having been written from personal knowledge and belief, rather than source-based research. -- JN  466  12:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not neutral to call a concept of separation of the Church and the State "weaker" than another because it includes the possibility of an agreement between the Two (as is the collection of the church tax) for reciprocal profit (Church: no need of offices, State: a percentage of the income). --91.34.221.236 (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit
Completed a copy edit, removed a few excessively NPOV-infringing sentences, added a tag, and a few other things. As an atheist and antitheist, I really like seeing that Germany has an open mind to everyone's rights, while taking down those who infringe on others (for example, Scientology). Nice material, but add sources to back them up. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  23:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Murderous Satanists and neo-Pagans
"as this religion requires the killing of humans. Problem fields of this are the Satanistic and neo-Pagan religions."

I'd like to see sources on Satanists or (even more so) neo-Pagans requiring the killing of Humans (that doesn't come from a fundamentalist Christian). This is just utter nonsense.

80.171.41.26 (talk) 08:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It has since been removed. Angr (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Jewish shops
Why are Jewish shops in Germany closed on both Saturday and Sunday? --84.61.188.59 (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Because the law on shop closing times (Ladenschlussgesetz) says shops must be closed on Sundays. --Rafflesiapricei (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

unhelpful reference
In the aricle, the reference to http://www.bfg-muenchen.de/cruzifix.htm does not mention the case. Am I missing something? Ideally, a pointer to the official court decision or contemporary reports of the decision should be there. --Javaweb (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
 * The reference has been removed. Angr (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Right to silence
"pastors [of religious corporate bodies under public law] are protected by confidentiality (the priest-penitent privilege); as a result, they may refuse to divulge information in court statements, which are entrusted to them by parishioners."

Wrong. Priest-penitent privilege extends to all ministers as long as they act "in pastoral care" – right to silence of a Yazidi minister – BGH, Urteil vom 15.04.2010 – 4 StR 650/09 (LG Münster, 18.06.2009); in: NStZ 2010, 646 ff. Link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafflesiapricei (talk • contribs) 23:53, 13 September 2011

Exemption from military service
The exemption from military service is based on conscience not religion. While religion may or may not play a role in that, depending on the individual, German law clearly uses the words "gegen sein Gewissen" (against his conscience). This is different than in the US, where conscientious objection must be based on religion. It comes under "freedom of religion" in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which does not mention anything about military conscription. If the German Constitution wanted it narrowly based on religion, it would have mentioned explicitly. Bostoner (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Freedom of religion in Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110906021058/http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/organisation/vb_merkblatt.html to http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/organisation/vb_merkblatt.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305161053/http://www.bundestag.de/wissen/analysen/2007/rechtliche_fragen_zu_religions-_und_weltanschauungsgemeinschaften.pdf to http://www.bundestag.de/wissen/analysen/2007/rechtliche_fragen_zu_religions-_und_weltanschauungsgemeinschaften.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121007125140/http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country%2C%2C%2C%2CDEU%2C%2C48d5cbdac%2C0.html to http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country%2C%2C%2C%2CDEU%2C%2C48d5cbdac%2C0.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)