KEEP GOD OUT OF THE GERMAN

CONSTITUTION

A step to create a new constitution for the German Federal Republic and the individual states includes a preamble referring to God. In the case of Lower Saxony the wording begins: 'Aware of its responsibility to God and humankind the people of Lower Saxony have made this constitution.' The IHEU has strongly criticised this attempt to link the German constitutions with God.

Reunification has led to the need to create a new constitution in Germany. A heated debate has taken place as to whether the new constitutions should contain a reference to God. In addition to protests from IHEU, German humanist groups, such as the Humanisticher Verband Deutschlands (Berlin) and the Freie Humanisten Niedersachsen (Hanover) have protested vigorously.

The IHEU believes that linking the constitution to a belief in God contravenes human rights declarations and implies that nonreligious people are in some way inferior. IHEU has also expressed its outrage at attempts to link the horrors of Nazism with the morality of non-religious people.

In an official statement, IHEU said that the linking of Nazism to non-religious views revealed a 'terrible misunderstanding of the lessons of history'. IHEU has suggested that one of the vital lessons to be drawn from the Nazi period is the importance of basing the state on human rights and the principle that all people are of equal value. To link the state to one particular world-view, which a large minority rejects, contradicts this principle.

Furthermore, IHEU has pointed out, referring to God in the constitution violates the separation of church and state and undermines the rights of dissenters and the non-religious. Therefore the proposal contradicts the essential principles of tolerance and freedom of conscience.

IHEU made clear that the European humanist movement was formed in the aftermath of World War II, partly in response to the horrors of totalitarianism.

IHEU spokesperson Matt Cherry commented, 'This issue is of enormous symbolic importance. The horror of the Third Reich poses the most profound questions about morality and society. It is admirable that Germany is addressing these questions, but we are appalled that so many people reach an answer that excludes and blames a large section of society.

Many of the great moral responses to the horrors of Nazism were non-religious. Survivors such as Primo Levi and Jacob Brownowski emphasised the need to base moral and social principles on humanity rather than on any ‘higher’ authority, whether religious belief or totalitarian dogma. Increasingly, this humanist belief is under threat from fundamentalist religion. We hope Germany will resist this threat.'

IHEU is supporting its German members in this debate and has made the following points:

1. During their deliberations the German Parliaments are requested to pay heed to the UN declaration for the elimination of all forms of intolerance and discrimination on the basis of religion and belief. In the view of IHEU the proposed reference to God in the constitution, like every other religious connection in the constitution, is contrary to articles 2 and 3 of the UN Declaration.

2. By linking state legislation to an exclusively religious belief, the superiority of religious beliefs over non-religious beliefs is implied. IHEU not only rejects this implication as being untrue, but believes that it is wrong for the state to judge upon its truth. Such an evaluation is outside the competence of the state.

3. Politicians have argued that the immorality of the Third Reich shows the need for the constitution to have a religious basis. This attempted justification reveals a terrible misunderstanding of the lessons of history. It is totally false to blame Nazism on non-religious people, and a disturbing and dangerous vilification of the large minority of the population who are not religious.

4. An important lesson drawn from the Third Reich was the need to incorporate human rights into the constitution, thereby providing the basic framework for an open, democratic society. It is essential for such a society that the state treats all its citizens as equal before the law and that it respects the principles of freedom of conscious and toleration of dissenting viewpoints. If it is to fulfil these functions the constitution must not favour the ideology, religion or world-view of some of the state’s citizens over the world-view of others. Nor should it seek to establish a religion, thus violating the separation of church and state. It is therefore totally wrong to use the terrible nature of the Third Reich as an argument for linking the state to a particular world-view, and in so doing contravening human rights.

Matt Cherry, the IHEU spokesperson, said that ‘Humanists are not arguing for their viewpoint to be given precedence over religion – we are saying that the state should be neutral in its treatment of these differing viewpoints. The constitution must encourage people to live together in harmony. We hope that religious people will support us in trying to bring this about.’