Disregarding the redemption requirement is unconstitutional

“With their decision, the members of the Interior Committee of the German Bundestag have sent a clear signal to all non-denominational and secular-minded people in our country”, said Frieder Otto Wolf, President of the Humanist Association of Germany, today in Berlin on the rejection of a draft bill to replace the historical state contributions to the churches. “Because they illustrate a frightening unwillingness to stand up for the unambiguous demands of our Basic Law.” On Wednesday, a majority of the members of the Committee on Internal Affairs spoke out against the bill proposed by DIE LINKE (Drs. 17/8791), which refers to the replacement of the annual payments to the churches, which have been constitutionally required for over 90 years in Article 140 GG in conjunction with Article 138 WRV. Article 138 of the German Constitution (WRV). The holding of a public hearing was also rejected. “From the perspective of our Basic Law and from our point of view, it is still right and welcome that this bill has been brought into parliamentary deliberation,” continued Frieder Otto Wolf. The members of the parliamentary groups that had rejected the Left Party’s bill were now all the more obliged to submit their own proposals in order to comply with the replacement requirement in the Basic Law. “Disregarding this requirement is unconstitutional,” emphasized Wolf. For this reason alone, but also because of the growing number of non-denominational people and a new religious and ideological plurality in Germany, politicians must accept it as essential that the replacement requirement is implemented. A modern legal framework for state support of the contribution of religious and ideological organizations to public culture is long overdue. Wolf went on to say: “Continuing to adhere to the current benefits not only disregards the constitutional requirements and the will of many non-denominational people, but also represents a betrayal of the will of the mothers and fathers of our Basic Law that cannot be overlooked.” MPs therefore not only have a duty to finally take effective action here, Frieder Otto Wolf concluded. “Even in future votes, it must not be left to factional coercion to decide whether and how this demand is implemented. It must be implemented and if the fundamental right to freedom of religion is really taken seriously in our country, the freedom of conscience of MPs must also take precedence.”