In his view, a prerequisite for respect for religious commitment is the complete renunciation of attempts to win followers through the use of violence or social pressure.
In the recently published issue “Religion and Modernity” of Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, Nikolaus Schneider, Chairman of the Council of the Protestant Church in Germany, philosopher Wilfried Hinsch and Catholic church law expert Stefan Mückl were among those who expressed their views. Frieder Otto Wolf, President of the Humanist Association of Germany, pleaded for a renewal of the system of state-church law. The upheavals since the 1970s have shaken the foundations of the existing regulations to such an extent that this renewal seems unavoidable. Only then would it be possible to meaningfully discuss fundamental concepts in the area of religion and ideology. An important prerequisite for respecting the fact of religious commitment, which he sees as a differentia specifica when considering questions in the system of world views and religions, is that the religion in question completely refrains from “making adherents of other faiths through pressure or bribery.” Forms of propagation using coercion can be observed, for example, where representatives of a religion use violence or a certain amount of social pressure is exerted. Religion cannot be considered inviolable and “the individuals or organizations representing it must be challenged at the latest when they act contrary to the human dignity of the individual.” Furthermore, institutionalizations such as “religious education, which is still without alternative in many parts of Germany, or provisions of church labour law, for example, which bind employees to the worldview of their sponsors in their personal morals and religious decisions, even where they are not active as ideological representatives, must be overcome.” In a modern state, religions and worldviews should be seen as offers to be freely accepted in a fair competition, and the possibility of terminating membership must always be ensured – then the imposition of duties by a community, such as celibacy, gestures of humility or other moral rules, should not be criticized as a violation of the right to self-determination. In conclusion, Frieder Otto Wolf emphasized: “Religious freedom remains limited by human rights, and criticism of religion must accept the inner core of religious commitment as such, despite all its severity. In this field of religions and worldviews, this is obviously the simple thing that is so difficult to do.” Further information:
APuZ at bpb.de: “Religion and Modernity”
