Classification
In the run-up to the Bundestag elections on February 23, we interviewed Alliance 90/The Greens, CDU/CSU, The Left Party, FDP and SPD on eight key topics: children’s rights, climate protection, abortion, assisted suicide and self-determination, equality of the humanist sponsorship of gifted children, humanist military chaplaincy, World Humanist Day and the Interstate Treaty on the Media.
With the election touchstone, we want to help voters make an informed choice. We also draw the parties’ attention to our own program, which we expect to be taken into account in upcoming coalition negotiations. The political positions are transparently compared and can be understood in detail.
As a non-partisan ideological association, we do not recommend any particular party for election. However, the election touchstone is intended to provide information on which parties credibly represent humanist values and the interests of non-denominational voters.
Above all, however, we call on people to go to the polls. Our democracy needs commitment. Those who do not vote leave the decision to others. Use your right to vote, go to the polls!
BelowBelow you will find the parties’ responses (in alphabetical order) to our election test questions.
Topic 1: Children's rights
30 years after the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child came into force, the Bundestag has once again failed to include children's rights in the German Basic Law. Will you advocate for children's rights in the Basic Law in a separate paragraph, without a direct link to parental rights?
Response from BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN
We have long been calling for children’s rights to be enshrined in the Basic Law in line with the fundamental principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
We believe it is crucial to further strengthen the emancipatory participation rights of children and young people when it comes to the specific form and location of children’s rights in the Basic Law.
We are also focusing on shaping the relationship between the parent-child state: The state’s responsibility includes protecting the child from danger. The state is also obliged to ensure that parents can meet their child-rearing responsibilities regardless of their economic and social situation.
Strong children’s rights in the Basic Law will improve the living conditions of children in their families and provide impetus for the right to participation and involvement of all children and young people in socio-political life.
Response from CDU/CSU
Like all people and all age groups, children are already comprehensively protected in the Basic Law. Whenever we include additional statements about children, we must ensure that we do not damage the intelligent balance between the parental task of raising children and the state’s duty of guardianship.
The CDU and CSU attach great importance to respecting and protecting the constitutional rights of children, including their right to develop into independent personalities, and to taking appropriate account of the child’s welfare. At the same time, it must be clear that the primary responsibility of parents remains unaffected and that the rights of parents are safeguarded in the best possible way. Parents are and remain the bearers of the right to raise their children. The state should only have a supplementary and subordinate function, which only comes into play in exceptional cases where the parents fail to raise the child or where the child’s welfare is at risk.
Response from DIE LINKE
Yes, the Left Party has campaigned in the past for the full implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and will continue to do so. Anchoring independent children’s rights in the Basic Law would make the commitment to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the principle of the best interests of the child (“best interests”) more binding in all state decisions. Children’s rights must apply without discrimination and regardless of the will and material possibilities of the parents. It goes without saying that the responsible authorities and institutions must be equipped accordingly in order to implement this right effectively.
Response from the FDP
We want to explicitly incorporate children’s rights such as the right of the child to promote its development into an independent personality and to school education into the Basic Law without restricting the parents’ right to raise their children.
Response from the SPD
We want to expressly enshrine strong children’s rights in the Basic Law in order to ensure protection, participation and support. In doing so, we are guided by the provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Our conceptual considerations do not currently envisage locating the corresponding provision within the framework of parental rights in Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Basic Law – instead, we favor a new, separate paragraph 1b for children’s rights in Article 6 of the Basic Law. However, irrespective of this, the triangle of children – parents – state must always be taken into account when considering the question of anchoring children’s rights.
Topic 2: Climate protection
The efforts made so far to avert catastrophic climate change have been too little. The 1.5 degree target has been missed. What efforts do you want to make to prevent dramatic changes to our living conditions?
Response from BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN
For years, the grand coalitions had no plan and no measures to achieve the climate targets. As the Greens, we have now made renewable energies the leading source of electricity in three years. The share of renewable energies in the electricity mix is now around 60 percent. The expansion and approval of solar and wind energy has reached a record pace. Germany is thus on course to achieve its own climate targets for the first time. We are sticking to our goal of climate neutrality by 2045 against all odds so that Germany can do its part to avert the worst effects of the climate crisis, such as the loss of habitats. In doing so, we are focusing on implementing the energy transition, giving clear priority to the expansion of environmentally friendly transportation, climate-friendly construction, environmentally friendly agriculture and the restoration of natural habitats. We therefore want to further strengthen natural climate protection in the next electoral term.
Response from CDU/CSU
Climate protection is only possible globally and together with the people. Climate protection needs a strong economy. We see it as our responsibility to preserve creation and therefore want to meet the Paris climate targets. We have our sights firmly set on climate neutrality by 2045. It is imperative that we combine this goal with maintaining the competitiveness of our economy and the need for social sustainability. This is the only way to ensure people’s acceptance and opportunities for economic growth. In doing so, we rely on technology and knowledge transfer with innovations “Made in Germany” and emissions trading. Properly implemented, it is a market-based instrument capable of efficiently limiting emissions and protecting the climate in the best possible way. We are expanding carbon pricing into the lead instrument in the instrument mix and returning its revenues to consumers and the economy.
Response from DIE LINKE
The Left Party wants to strengthen climate protection again and make it socially just. The traffic light government abolished the sector targets in the Climate Protection Act and used taxpayers’ money to promote climate-damaging liquefied natural gas (LNG). This has weakened climate protection. We want to restore the sector targets: Germany is to become climate-neutral by 2040. In the EU, emissions must be reduced by 70% by 2030. There should be binding CO2 budgets for each member state to achieve this. We want to invest massively: in a genuine energy transition with socially staggered prices, a socially just heating transition and a transport transition towards more and affordable public and rail transport. We are setting up an investment fund of 200 billion euros for the social-ecological restructuring of industry. We are offsetting additional costs for citizens due to rising CO2 prices with a social climate money of 320 euros. This is fair and creates acceptance for climate protection again.
Response from the FDP
We Free Democrats want to organize climate protection in a way that is truly effective: globally. Special national approaches have no real added value for climate protection, but are a burden for citizens and businesses. We will therefore work at European level to ensure that the EU focuses more on international cooperation to achieve climate targets in the future. Our goal is a global emissions trading system. Instead of bans, we are focusing on openness to technology. After all, if politicians and officials dictate which technologies are used and which are banned, this will slow down companies’ innovative strength and make climate protection unnecessarily expensive.
Response from the SPD
Despite a temporary overshoot, we must and will stick to the 1.5 degree target. To this end, we have massively advanced renewable energies under Olaf Scholz and will continue to work on this. In addition to reducing emissions, we must ensure that everyone can afford to live a climate-neutral life, regardless of their wallet or place of residence. We can do this by
prioritizing community climate solutions over individual adaptation obligations: expanding heating networks and ensuring fair prices for district heating. Social heat pump leasing for homeowners with low incomes. In the transport sector, the switch to e-mobility must become more attractive, i.e. more affordable, more quickly: With purchase premiums for e-cars, leasing models for small
incomes, incentives for more electric company cars. Here, too, a collective solution is needed in parallel: better public transport and a permanently secured, affordable Germany ticket.
Topic 3: Abortion
In 2024, the Commission on Reproductive Self-Determination and Reproductive Medicine recommended a fundamental reform of Section 218 of the German Criminal Code. Will you work to ensure that abortions requested by pregnant women in the first months of pregnancy are legal?
Response from BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN
Self-determination over one’s own body is a fundamental right that must apply to everyone. This includes the right to access safe and legal abortions. We want self-determined abortions to be regulated outside of criminal law. We advocate ensuring that the necessary counseling is guaranteed by a secure range of counseling centers in a variety of sponsorships. In addition, there must be sufficient facilities that perform the procedure using the desired method, as the number of abortions available has halved in recent years. The costs should be covered by health insurance companies and telemedical support should be expanded. Self-determination over one’s own body requires a gender-equitable healthcare system: research, training and medical practice must take gender-specific aspects into account in order to improve women’s health.
Response from CDU/CSU
We are committed to maintaining the current, long fought for cross-party social compromise in the form of a mandatory, but neutral and open-ended counseling solution that prevents a hasty decision to terminate a pregnancy. It ensures the free decision of the pregnant woman, but also a minimum level of protection for the unborn child.
Response from DIE LINKE
Yes, because physical and sexual self-determination are key prerequisites for personal life and family planning. The Left is committed to self-determined abortion outside of the penal code. § Section 218 of the Criminal Code must be abolished. It criminalizes pregnant women and endangers their health. We want to re-regulate abortion as a medical procedure and abortions and their aftercare must be covered by statutory health insurance and be an integral part of doctors’ studies, training and further education. In addition to legalization, we want to destigmatize abortions. Doctors who perform abortions must no longer be harassed. Midwives should also be able to perform abortions. The care situation for unintentionally pregnant women must be improved. Non-denominational counseling centers must be expanded and better funded.
Response from the FDP
We want to help unwanted pregnant women in the best possible way and improve the inadequate care situation. Prospective gynaecologists in all federal states should be familiarized with this sensitive topic. We want to enable all women to have the costs of abortion covered. We want to make existing options for medical abortion methods more accessible to pregnant women and enable them to be accompanied by medical staff and midwives. A reform of the regulations on abortion (§§218, 218a StGB) is to be discussed in the next Bundestag by means of so-called cross-party group motions with freedom of conscience for every member of parliament.
Response from the SPD
Women have a right to reproductive self-determination and a right to make their own decisions about their bodies, family planning and sex life. We advocate an alternative regulation of abortions outside of the criminal code with a better protection concept for unborn life. For us, pregnancy conflicts do not belong in criminal law. We want to decriminalize them and regulate them outside of criminal law. This excludes cases in which they (should) take place against or without the will of the pregnant woman. Termination of pregnancy after the end of the 12th week should remain illegal. We stand for a legal right to rights-based and psychosocial counseling on all aspects of pregnancy and pregnancy conflict. We want to make abortions part of basic medical care and improve the provision of contraceptives, for example.
Topic 4: Assisted suicide and self-determination
Over 80 percent of the German population is in favor of assisted suicide. Legal certainty and clarity for doctors in the case of assisted suicide must be improved. Will you campaign for this and for nationwide suicide counseling centers?
Response from BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN
Living with dignity also includes dying with dignity. According to the Federal Constitutional Court, the right to a self-determined life includes a self-determined death free from pressure. Our aim is to ensure that this ruling can be implemented in practice.
Response from CDU/CSU
The CDU and CSU will expand hospice and palliative care services to enable people to end their lives with dignity. We reject active euthanasia. We will pass a comprehensive suicide prevention law to ensure effective protection of life.
Response from DIE LINKE
Yes, we want people to be able to decide to commit suicide if the only other option is palliative pain treatment with severe impairment. Another prerequisite should be that people can visit non-commercial counseling centers where they can receive open-ended advice. Medical, psychological and palliative care options must be discussed openly and those affected must be given the opportunity to make a truly informed decision. Once such counseling has taken place and people decide to commit suicide, doctors must enjoy legal certainty if they provide assistance. It is also important to us that people can make such a decision truly freely – this includes not only ensuring that no external pressure is exerted, for example by the family, but that the healthcare system is equipped in such a way that suicide is not the alternative to an inadequate and undignified care situation.
Response from the FDP
A life in freedom also includes self-determination at the end of life. This includes the possibility of making use of euthanasia. In order to create legal certainty for those affected, relatives and doctors, we want to set out the framework conditions for assisted suicide in law. At the same time, no one should be obliged to assist in a suicide. In addition, the state must extend a helping hand to anyone who has suicidal thoughts. We therefore want to significantly expand suicide prevention in Germany.
Response from the SPD
The SPD takes the issue of assisted suicide very seriously. Our position is based on the principle of human dignity and self-determination, on the principle of prevention and counseling and on the principle of legal certainty for doctors. We therefore respect the personal freedom of choice of people in existential life situations, want comprehensive, professional and low-threshold counseling to precede every suicide decision and demand that medical staff must be legally protected and supported.
We therefore advocate the creation of a legal framework that gives doctors legal certainty, the expansion of nationwide, free suicide counseling centers, the strengthening of psychosocial support services and the improvement of mental health care. Our aim is to help people in extreme situations while respecting their dignity and self-determination.
Topic 5: Equality of humanistic support for gifted children
The BMBF supports four religious, but no ideological funding organizations. The humanist Bertha-von-Suttner Studienwerk is denied funding. Do you support the structural equal treatment and equality of non-religious/humanist people in the promotion of gifted students?
Response from BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN
A state-neutral attitude towards religions and different world views is important to us. Among the state-funded organizations for the promotion of gifted students, in addition to the religiously oriented ones, there are already other funding organizations that are ideologically neutral and therefore also open to non-religious and humanistic scholarship holders.
Response from CDU/CSU
As an investment in the future innovation and performance of our society, the organizations for the promotion of gifted students have the task of supporting students and doctoral candidates whose talent and personality indicate special achievements in their studies and careers or a special contribution to research. The plurality of talents is taken into account by the different focus of the 13 supported organizations for the promotion of gifted students. One of the largest organizations for the promotion of gifted students, the Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes, represents the entire spectrum of political, religious and ideological attitudes within the framework of democratic values. With its financial and non-material support, the Studienstiftung strengthens these young people in their academic and social commitment. Against the backdrop of scarce budgetary resources, further funding schemes should be thoroughly examined.
Response from DIE LINKE
Yes, non-religious and humanist students and doctoral candidates must not simply be referred to the other study organizations that award scholarships as part of their support for gifted students. As long as religious belief is recognized as a qualification for a scholarship alongside special talent, there must be alternatives for people with a humanistic world view.
Response from the FDP
We Free Democrats want to promote excellence in academic and vocational education. That is why we have expanded talent promotion with the Vocational Education Excellence Initiative by establishing and expanding scholarship programs. With the advancement scholarship, for example, we have expanded the promotion of talented young people in vocational training and thus also in higher education. We are also focusing on promoting talent. The choice of study should not depend on one’s parental home or background. We therefore want to develop BAföG into a parent-independent modular system. We want to strengthen and expand the educational loan program in the short term.
Response from the SPD
The SPD is firmly committed to equal rights and equal opportunities in our society. Our position on the promotion of talent is based on the principles of religious freedom and ideological neutrality of the state. We stand for the non-discriminatory promotion of talent, regardless of religious or ideological convictions. We stand for non-discriminatory access to talent promotion. Our goal is to realize equal opportunities and ideological diversity in the promotion of education. This is in line with our understanding of justice and the German constitution.
Topic 6: Humanistic military chaplaincy
In addition to religious military chaplaincy, do you support the establishment of humanistic military chaplaincy for the benefit of non-denominational members of the Bundeswehr?
Response from BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN
Freedom of religion and belief naturally also applies to members of the Bundeswehr. In this respect, a pluralistic range of pastoral care in the Bundeswehr is to be welcomed, which can also include a humanistic branch. It remains important – as with the already established forms of religious pastoral care – that the personnel deployed are qualified and suitable for this task.
Response from CDU/CSU
According to the Soldiers Act, soldiers are entitled to pastoral care and the undisturbed practice of their religion. The Protestant and Catholic churches and the Central Council of Jews in Germany make an indispensable contribution to the pastoral care of soldiers and their families through the contractually agreed military chaplaincy. The military chaplaincy
offers its support in daily service, but also during exercises and deployments, whether in Germany or at locations abroad. It is a place of encounter, conversation, help and inner reflection. People who do not wish to profess a religious denomination can turn to the family support centers, the social services and the psychological services of the Bundeswehr.
Response from DIE LINKE
We want to abolish the church’s military chaplaincy in its current form. It leads to a close interlocking of the military and the church and ultimately ties religious military chaplaincy to a military purpose of maintaining the soldiers’ ability to fight, even if they have ethical doubts about their actions. We want to replace this system with chaplaincy contracts between the Bundeswehr and religious and ideological communities that ensure all soldiers have access to chaplaincy that meets their needs.
Response from the FDP
The psychosocial support network provides well-developed psychological care for servicewomen and men, offering advice and support to all members of the Bundeswehr and their families. Non-denominational soldiers can also find contact points for care and support services here. Religious military chaplaincy supplements this network with components of the respective religious convictions. This means that the Bundeswehr’s military chaplaincy network is broadly based.
Response from the SPD
The SPD is committed to a modern and inclusive Bundeswehr that reflects the diversity of our society. In our understanding, this means respecting and supporting all soldiers, regardless of their ideological orientation.
We are fundamentally in favor of pluralistic support in the Bundeswehr. This means that we value members of different world views and denominations equally. The current religious military chaplaincy is an established system that we consider important for the spiritual care of our soldiers.
Topic 7: World Humanist Day
Every year, either the Church/Catholic Day is celebrated in a city in Germany and is also subsidized by the federal government, among others. Would you advocate for the World Humanist Day on June 21 in a German city to be subsidized in the same way?
Response from BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN
Alliance 90/The Greens are committed to the equal treatment of religious and ideological communities provided for in the Basic Law and to the state’s partial friendly cooperation with them. If they do comparable things, they must be treated comparably.
This also applies to the organization of World Humanist Days. Insofar as this is comparable to church or Catholic conferences in terms of topics, openness to society as a whole and co-financing by organizers, participants and other public sponsors, a federal subsidy on a comparable scale to religious events – naturally adjusted to the number of participants – can be considered.
Response from CDU/CSU
The public subsidy for Church and Catholic Days is made up of funds from the respective municipality, the federal state and a federal share. Whether and to what extent such funding can also be organized for the World Humanist Day can ultimately only be determined through concrete discussions between these three levels.
Response from DIE LINKE
Yes, if the state subsidizes major religious events over and above the funding already available to churches, such funding must also be available to large ideological humanist associations.
Response from the FDP
We Free Democrats are committed to a religious and ideological policy based on equality that respects the diversity of religious and non-religious beliefs. The prerequisite for public funding – whether religious or ideological – is always transparency and a focus on the common good. We consider it a priority to base funding decisions more strongly on clear, transparent and competitive criteria.
Response from the SPD
The SPD is committed to an open and pluralistic society in which different world views and lifestyles are respected. We are fundamentally committed to supporting various civil society events that strengthen democratic cohesion.
Topic 8: Interstate Media Treaty
§Section 68 of the MStV grants the Protestant and Catholic churches and Jewish communities broadcasting time for religious programs. Do you support the demand that this should also be made possible for ideological communities, as has already been regulated in some RStVs, for example?
Response from BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN
The offerings of public broadcasters should represent the broadest possible range of topics and opinions. This also includes the positions of religious and ideological communities as important players in social discourse.
The public service remit is defined in state treaties by the federal states, which is where the legal competence lies. Where there is unequal treatment between religious and ideological communities, we want to break this down. For example, other religious and ideological communities could be granted broadcasting slots in which they would also receive professional advice and support from the public broadcasters.
Response from CDU/CSU
From a constitutional point of view and from the perspective of state-church law, ideological communities should be granted the same rights as churches and religious communities. However, media policy is the responsibility of the federal states and the constant exchange between the federal states on individual questions of media policy and media legislation is indispensable. This issue should therefore be discussed within the framework of the Broadcasting Commission of the federal states, which has proven itself as a forum for discussion and a decision-making body.
Response from DIE LINKE
Yes, the Left stands for the equal treatment of religious and ideological associations. A growing proportion of the population is no longer represented by religious communities and no longer feels addressed by their offerings. In a religiously and ideologically diverse society, all religious and ideological communities should have the same right to representation and citizens should have the opportunity to engage with the different views.
Response from the FDP
We Free Democrats stand for a free, pluralistic and independent media landscape. The decision to grant so-called “broadcasting time for third parties” to ideological communities is not a federal policy issue. Media policy is a matter for the federal states. The federal states decide jointly on the Interstate Media Treaty.
Response from the SPD
The SPD attaches great importance to freedom of religion and belief. Our position is based on our fundamental understanding of an open and pluralistic society. In our government program for the 2025 federal elections, we have made a clear commitment to interreligious dialogue and the protection of freedom of religion and belief. We promote a society in which different worldviews can coexist on an equal footing and with respect.
We are committed to a fair and inclusive media landscape in which
worldview communities should always be given the opportunity to present their perspectives.
