Bremen clause

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article 141 of the German Basic Law is referred to as the Bremen Clause . It restricts the scope of the constitutional regulations on religious instruction and thus enables other types of instruction in some areas of Germany . A well-known example is the “ Biblical History Lessons ” in Bremen. It is not a religious instruction in the sense of the Basic Law, because a religious community is not responsible for its content , so it is not a "common matter" ( res mixta ) .

Normalization

Art. 141 GG reads:

Article 7, Paragraph 3, Clause 1 does not apply in a Land in which another Land law regulation existed on January 1, 1949 .

In the regulation referred to it says: "Religious instruction is a regular subject in public schools with the exception of non-denominational schools ."

Historical background

The designation as “Bremen” clause is not mentioned in the legal text. It stems from the fact that the exception was included in the Basic Law, particularly with regard to the Free Hanseatic City of Bremen . Biblical history was taught there in accordance with tradition and in overcoming the separation between Reformed and Lutheran faiths on a general Christian basis and thus without denial.

History of origin

In its second reading, the Parliamentary Council (Main Committee) was confronted with a motion by the Bremen MP Adolf Ehlers (SPD) to delete the provisions of the Basic Law on religious education. These contradict the "teaching of biblical history on a generally Christian basis" as provided for by the Bremen constitution . The Hamburg MP and Vice President of the Parliamentary Council, Adolph Schönfelder (also SPD), joined in on behalf of the Hamburg School Authority. Because the main committee did not agree with the request, the committee of five recommended a compromise solution that was similar to the current formulation of Art. 141 GG. The SPD and FDP endorsed the draft, while the CDU and the center rejected it on the grounds that state-controlled religious instruction was an encroachment on the religious sphere by the state. The main committee adopted the wording with 12 votes to 6; in the fourth reading the clause was given its current version. However, no agreement was reached on the exact country to which the clause should apply.

In the second reading in the plenum , the Center and the German Party put forward motions for the deletion of Article 141 of the Basic Law because it restricts religious instruction that is guaranteed by fundamental rights. Despite this, the Parliamentary Council adopted today's version of the “Bremen Clause” by a majority.

Relationship to international law

The Bremen clause may be seen as a contradiction to the school law provisions of Article 21 of the Reich Concordat and thus a violation of the Federal Republic's obligations under international law . As part of the constitution, the Bremen clause is still effective domestically.

Types of lessons allowed

The Bremen Clause enables classes that are not religious classes in the sense of the Basic Law.

Bremen

Art. 32 para. 1 of the state constitution of the Free Hanseatic City of Bremen reads “The general education public schools are community schools with non-denominational teaching in Biblical history on a generally Christian basis.” On October 23, 1965, the Bremen State Court decided that “Biblical history lessons ” were not to be given on a Protestant, but on a generally Christian basis. The constitutional complaint lodged against this with the Federal Constitutional Court was unsuccessful.

other areas

In addition to Bremen, the clause is also applicable to Berlin and to certain types of schools in some of the old federal states , because a different legal regulation existed there on January 1, 1949.

Dispute over validity in the new federal states

After reunification , in view of the lower religious affiliation of the population of the new federal states, the question arose whether religious instruction should be given there. While the other states introduced religious instruction , Brandenburg instead offered the subject “ Lifestyle-Ethics-Religious Studies ” (LER) and cited that there was no encroachment on the fundamental rights under Article 7 of the Basic Law, as the “Bremen Clause” applies to Brandenburg Find application. Whether this argument is correct is very controversial. A different regulation existed there on the reporting date, but - so the counter-argument - the states in the GDR were dissolved and only rebuilt in the Land Introduction Act of July 22, 1990, so that Art. 141 GG would therefore not be applicable.

The Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) has so far evaded a decision on this issue. Parents, schoolchildren, Roman Catholic dioceses and the Evangelical Church in Berlin-Brandenburg raised constitutional complaints, and numerous members of the Bundestag submitted norm review requests against the Brandenburg regulation. Exceptionally, however, the court submitted a settlement proposal on December 11, 2001, whereupon the applicants and several complainants concluded a corresponding agreement with the State of Brandenburg, which in particular provided for the possibility of exemption from participation in the subject of lifestyle, ethics and religion (LER) .

The court thereupon discontinued these proceedings by order of October 31, 2002 and rejected the other constitutional complaints with reference to the new regulation. In its decision of January 8, 2004, the court did not accept renewed constitutional complaints, now directed against the new regulations themselves. The applicability of Art. 141 GG was not discussed in both cases, so that a decision of the highest court on the issue is still pending.

Berlin

In Berlin , according to Section 13 of the Berlin Schools Act of June 26, 1948, religious instruction is a matter for the religious and ideological communities ( Berlin school model ). According to the Federal Administrative Court, the Bremen clause applies to Berlin ; it states that Art. 7 para. 3 GG does not apply in a country in which on January 1, 1949 a different regulation was in force. Religious instruction here is currently (2004) still given by people with the qualification for a teaching post and an examination in the subject of religious studies or by people who have completed a specialist degree at a university or a comparable training. You have to register for religious education, so it is an elective; the grading is not relevant to the transfer; alternative elective subjects have so far been: Muslim religious instruction or life science instruction (an ideological instruction given by the Humanist Association of Germany (HVD) ). Problems arise in the care of those students who have not registered for any of these electives. Due to the frequent relocation of religious education to the fringe hours or simultaneous leisure activities ( all-day schools ), there is an increased risk of “de-registration”. In addition, there is a changed population structure due to the immigration of people of different faiths as well as church resignations. On the other hand, life science and religion classes are experienced by the students as being “free of fear and stress” precisely because of their voluntary nature and non-relocation relevance. He can help to collect and discuss your everyday problems.

On March 23, 2006, the Berlin House of Representatives decided with the votes of the SPD and PDS as well as part of the Greens that ethics should become part of the compulsory education for all pupils from the 2006/2007 school year for lower secondary level. In view of the lack of teachers, this ethics lesson was initially only given in the 7th grade and will then gradually be taught in the higher grades in the following years. Religious instruction can still be attended voluntarily. The Protestant Church, in particular Regional Bishop Wolfgang Huber , criticized the fact that denominational religious instruction at this school level, parallel to the compulsory subject ethics, hardly had a chance of being noticed by the students. The chairman of the SPD parliamentary group in the Berlin House of Representatives , Müller , suggested using the funds that had become free because of the then unrequested religious instruction to establish ethics instruction in primary schools. At the same time, the religious communities advocated ethics lessons for all non-denominational students within the framework of a compulsory elective, i.e. H. the students should then, as in most other federal states, choose either ethics or religion classes.

With the rejection of a constitutional complaint , the Federal Constitutional Court ruled on March 15, 2007 that compulsory ethics classes do not violate parents or students in their fundamental rights.

In September 2008, the Pro Reli initiative launched a referendum to bring about a referendum on an elective religion. According to this, the school subject status of religious education as part of a compulsory elective area would then be on a par with that of ethics teaching, i.e. H. Pupils and parents have the duty to choose one of the subjects offered in this area, but have the option of choosing between ethics lessons and religious instruction from one of the various religious communities . The referendum on April 26, 2009 failed, however, because the required quorum of 25% of the eligible voters did not come about and a majority of 51% voted against it.

Brandenburg

At the beginning of the 1990s, a three-year LER ( Lifestyle, Ethics and Religious Studies ) pilot scheme was launched in 44 schools, which was rated as successful by the SPD state government. In the meantime, lessons are spread over the entire school year with a total of two hours a week available and divided into an integration phase and a differentiation phase. The integration phase includes “non-denominational” lessons in lifestyle, ethics, religious studies / religious studies. In the orientation phase, religious education is offered as a regular subject , in the differentiation phase based on the Basic Law “in accordance with the principles of the churches”. A performance evaluation through grades has only been taking place since 2005. All students in Brandenburg are obliged to take part in LER (Lifestyle-Ethics-Religious Studies) and have so far expressly had to cancel it in order to instead be able to take part in the religious instruction offered by the Christian churches. The constitutionality is also controversial insofar as it is unclear whether the "Bremen Clause" applies to Brandenburg, because although a different regulation actually applied in 1949 in the post-war state of Brandenburg, which was founded in 1947, this old Brandenburg was dissolved by the GDR in 1952 and only again in 1990 founded. If the Bremen clause would not apply, there would be a violation of Article 7 of the Basic Law. However, a Federal Constitutional Court judgment on this question is no longer to be expected after the complainants have responded to a settlement proposal and the Federal Constitutional Court therefore declared the proceedings to be ended in a decision of October 31, 2002.

Since the 2007/2008 school year, ideological life studies lessons have also been offered in schools in the state of Brandenburg - not as an alternative to LER, but as an alternative to church religious instruction. The Brandenburg Constitutional Court paved the way for this in December 2005. It declared that it was incompatible with the constitution that the state school law granted the churches alone the right to confessional teaching.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Manfred Spieß, What is religious instruction in Bremen? The "Biblical History Lesson" between yesterday and tomorrow ( Memento from August 3, 2011 in the Internet Archive )
  2. ↑ Klaus-Berto von Doemming, Rudolf Werner Füsslein, Werner Matz (editor): History of the creation of the articles of the Basic Law. In: Gerhard Leibholz / Hermann von Mangoldt (Hrsg.): Yearbook of the public law of the present . New series Volume 1, Tübingen 1951, p. 907 f.
  3. ↑ Klaus-Berto von Doemming, Rudolf Werner Füsslein, Werner Matz (editor): History of the creation of the articles of the Basic Law. In: Gerhard Leibholz / Hermann von Mangoldt (Hrsg.): Yearbook of the public law of the present. New series Volume 1, Tübingen 1951, p. 908.
  4. ↑ Klaus-Berto von Doemming, Rudolf Werner Füsslein, Werner Matz (editor): History of the creation of the articles of the Basic Law. In: Gerhard Leibholz / Hermann von Mangoldt (Hrsg.): Yearbook of the public law of the present. New series Volume 1, Tübingen 1951, p. 908 f.
  5. ↑ Klaus-Berto von Doemming, Rudolf Werner Füsslein, Werner Matz (editor): History of the creation of the articles of the Basic Law. In: Gerhard Leibholz / Hermann von Mangoldt (Hrsg.): Yearbook of the public law of the present. New series Volume 1, Tübingen 1951, p. 910.
  6. ↑ St 2, 4/1964; 1/1965 - Lessons in Biblical History ( Memento of the original from March 5, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www2.bremen.de
  7. ↑ Cf. BVerfGE 30, 112 - Lessons in Biblical History
  8. ↑ BVerfGE 104, 305
  9. ^ Decision of October 31, 2002, Az. 1 BvF 1/96 u. a.
  10. ↑ Decision of January 8, 2004, Az. 1 BvR 1406/02
  11. ↑ Judgment of February 23, 2000, Az. 6 C 5.99 , BVerwGE 110, 326
  12. ↑ See also Katechet in Berlin for religious instruction
  13. ↑ 1 BvR 2780/06
  14. ↑ site Humanist Lebenskunde the HVD : Life Skills in Brandenburg
  15. ^ The daily newspaper : Church loses privilege . December 16, 2005

Web links

literature

  • Manfred Spieß: religious instruction or not? Biblical history lessons in the state of Bremen . In: Jürgen Lott (Ed.): Religion - why and what for in school? Weinheim 1992, p. 81-102 .