Jump to content

Institute for Secular Law

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Institute for Secular Law (German: Institut für Weltanschauungsrecht – ifw) is a non-governmental organisation founded in Oberwesel (Germany) in 2017, that promotes the principles of secularism, separation of state and religion, and the neutrality of the state as referred to in the Basic Law.

Organisation

[edit]

The institute was established as part of the Giordano Bruno Foundation (gbs) in Oberwesel in 2017, and is stated to have emerged from the gbs legal aid fund, a private donation from the retired head of strategy at the German Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA), Ernst-Heinrich Ahlf, who serves on the ifw advisory board.[1] Current expenditures of ifw are covered and reported annually by gbs.

The board of directors is led by Jörg Scheinfeld (since 2022), previously by Jacqueline Neumann (2017-2022), and the advisory board consists of Seyran Ateş, Ninon Colneric, Eric Hilgendorf, Ingrid Matthäus-Maier, Reinhard Merkel, Ludwig A. Minelli, Holm Putzke, Rolf Schwanitz, among others.[2]

Activities

[edit]

The institute promotes the principles of secularism, separation of state and religion, and the neutrality of the state as referred to in the Basic Law. It conducts legal analyses and organizes support for affected persons, groups and organisations in those legal cases where it considers that human rights, the freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion in Germany, and the rule of law have been violated by religious politics or practices. It states to operate politically independent, non-partisan and not commercially oriented, and to cooperate with all persons and organisations irrespective of their religious and non-religious preconceptions, provided they pursue rationally justified, evidence-based, neutral and fair legal norms.[3]

It publishes the edition "Schriften zum Weltanschauungsrecht" at Nomos Verlag.[4] It offers the largest publicly accessible commented collection of judgements of the Federal Constitutional Court in this legal field (in German). The variety of topics covered by the institute include the constitutional roots of the secular state, freedom of belief and non-belief, medically assisted suicide, sexual self-determination, abortion, genital mutilation, criminal prosecution in religious organisations and networks (e. g. in the Catholic Church's sex abuse and cover-up system in Germany), the collection of church taxes by the state based on baptisms of infants and minors, the collection of special church fees from atheists and Muslims by the state, church labour law and religious exceptions from EU and German Anti-discrimination law, 'blasphemy paragraph' of the German Criminal Code, the use of religious symbols (e. g. crucifixes, Islamic veils) in state schools, the justice system or further public institutions, among others.[5][6]

The institute criticized the promotion of fundamental Islamic organisations by German government and state sponsoring of interests of Islamic religious groups on several occasions where it noted anti-constitutional objectives and an undermining of universal human rights. In 2020, by way of depicting the German Chancellor, the Minister of Justice and the Chair of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany it issued 'seven constitutional reminder cards'.[7][8] Furthermore, it supports the right to freedom of expression against blocking, bans and cancel culture on social media platforms (e. g. Flensburg court case of ex-Muslim activist Amed Sherwan vs. Facebook Ireland Ltd.).[9][10]

Notable activities that received broader media coverage include the pushing of criminal charges against sexual offenders and officials of the Catholic Church by the state attorneys at the seats of all 27 dioceses in Germany (2018),[11][12][13] the case of a non-denominational French[14] and a non-denominational ex-GDR citizen[15] that were requested to pay church tax (2019),[16][17][18] criminal charges of defamation and incitement of hatred in the case of the fundamental Christian anti-abortionist 'babykaust'-platform operator (2021),[19][20] and the appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court to declare paragraph 219a of Germany's criminal code ('advertisement of medical abortion services') unconstitutional and void (2021).[21][22]

Some of the legal disputes and court cases are said to have a "disastrous" public effect on the image of the churches, as stated from the perspective of the Catholic Church.[23]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Chronik". weltanschauungsrecht.de (in German). 22 January 2017. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  2. ^ "Team". weltanschauungsrecht.de (in German). 7 February 2017. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  3. ^ "Leitbild". weltanschauungsrecht.de (in German). 22 January 2017. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  4. ^ "Schriften zum Weltanschauungsrecht". www.nomos.de. 2019-07-25. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  5. ^ "Dokumente". weltanschauungsrecht.de (in German). 29 September 2019. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  6. ^ "Abolish the Blasphemy Paragraph Now!". www.giordano-bruno-stiftung.de. 9 November 2020. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  7. ^ "Politischer Totalschaden". hpd.de (in German). 6 December 2019. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  8. ^ "Nichts sehen, nichts hören, nichts sagen!". www.giordano-bruno-stiftung.de. 26 May 2020. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  9. ^ Kurz, Constanze (2020-07-06). "Interview zu Social-Media-Accounts von Amtsträgern und Behörden - Die Willkür muss ein Ende haben". netzpolitik.org (in German). Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  10. ^ Germany, Stuttgarter Zeitung, Stuttgart. "Amed Sherwan gegen Facebook: So kämpft ein Islamkritiker für Meinungsfreiheit im Netz". stuttgarter-zeitung.de (in German). Retrieved 2021-03-14.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. ^ SPIEGEL, Ann-Katrin Müller, Christoph Koopmann, Melanie Amann, DER (26 October 2018). "Wie die katholische Kirche die Strafverfolgung behindert". Der Spiegel (in German). Retrieved 2021-03-14.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  12. ^ LTO. "Missbrauchsskandal: Jura-Profs erstatten Strafanzeige". Legal Tribune Online (in German). Retrieved 2021-03-15.
  13. ^ Löbbert, Raoul (2018-11-09). "Missbrauchsskandal: Ein Fall für den Staatsanwalt". www.zeit.de. Retrieved 2021-03-15.
  14. ^ "Warum ein konfessionsfreier Franzose in Deutschland Kirchensteuer zahlt: Der Fall Herr B gegen das Erzbistum Berlin". weltanschauungsrecht.de (in German). April 2020. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  15. ^ "Untergang der Kirchensteuerpflichtigkeit mit dem Untergang der DDR? Der Fall Frau X gegen die Evangelische Kirche Berlin-Brandenburg". weltanschauungsrecht.de (in German). August 2020. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  16. ^ "Erfolgreicher Kampf gegen Kirchensteuer". hpd.de (in German). 2 March 2020. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  17. ^ SPIEGEL, Dietmar Hipp, DER. "Streit um Kirchensteuer: "Denen geht es um nichts anderes als Geld"". www.spiegel.de (in German). Retrieved 2021-03-14.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  18. ^ Brinkmann, Björn. "Kirchensteuer: Babytaufe: Kirche darf kassieren". Die Tageszeitung: taz (in German). ISSN 0931-9085. Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  19. ^ Doctorsforchoice (2021-02-13). "Strafanzeige gegen Klaus Günter Annen". Doctors for Choice Germany (in German). Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  20. ^ SPIEGEL, DER (12 February 2021). "Institut und Kristina Hänel gehen gegen radikalen Abtreibungsgegner vor". Der Spiegel (in German). Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  21. ^ Tagespost, Die (2021-01-30). "Die Tagespost". die-tagespost.de (in German). Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  22. ^ "§ 219a StGB und Aufklärung über die ärztliche Dienstleistung des Schwangerschaftsabbruchs: Der Fall der Ärztin Kristina Hänel". weltanschauungsrecht.de (in German). Retrieved 2021-03-14.
  23. ^ Neumann, Felix (2019-11-18). "Wie die Kirche mit unsinnigen Rechtsstreitigkeiten ihr Image ruiniert". katholisch.de (in German). Retrieved 2021-03-14.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Institute_for_Secular_Law&oldid=1222037275"