• English Site
• >Germany
• >Muslims in Europe
• >

  Religious Tradition or Political Symbol?: Muslim Headscarves Test the Limits of German Tolerance

Religious Tradition or Political Symbol? Muslim Headscarves Test the Limits of German Tolerance

By Thomas Darnstädt

Part 3: Freedom for the Enemies of Freedom

His predecessor, John Paul II, expressed it with a bit more urbi et orbi. "In a modern state it must be possible for every religious community to live its faith freely and also to express it in public life."

Does the same apply with regard to German teachers? Aren't they supposed to set examples for their students, including in the self-confident and open expression of their faith and personality? Yes -- moderately, and in a considerate way, given that they are subject to the provisions of the German Civil Service Act.

This may have the ring of heresy now in German public life, but it's the sort of opinion that streams every day from constitutional law expert (and active Catholic) Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde. In lectures and essays, the former Constitutional Court justice regularly calls for tolerance toward headscarves in school.

And What About Beards?

But what if the headscarf is seen as a signal against emancipation, and a consequent danger to students? Böckenförde: "Every headscarf-wearing Muslim teacher who works independently and responsibly in her profession disproves through her very existence the cliché of a woman oppressed by Islam."

And what if the teacher is involved in intrigues, instead of integration? What if she's a remote-controlled Islamist who wants to indoctrinate children? What if she wants to make subservience to men and medieval values an example for modern girls?

In that case she would be as unsuited for teaching as any other ideologue, Christian fundamentalist, political radical or corrupter of children, says Böckenförde. After all, isn't that why we have our bloated school administration with lots of bureaucrats and laws, to filter candidates of this kind out from among the applicants for teaching positions? Or -- if they are not identified until much later -- to take harsh disciplinary action?

Perhaps it has nothing to do with headscarves per se. When the school system starts judging the aptitude of its teachers on the basis of outward, religious appearances, then the next group that is likely to run into trouble is teachers with beards. Former Constitutional Court Justice Bertold Sommer noted several years ago that no one ever asked "about the full beards of Muslim men."

It is difficult for a politician to make clear-cut statements on this topic, since no provision is made for it in the German constitution. It would seem that there is no constitutional guarantee of freedom that would make the right to wear or ban a headscarf absolute. It's not just the pope, it is also Article 4 of the German constitution that guarantees freedom of religion, whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim. As the school administration in Düsseldorf is probably aware, Article 4 is one of the few fundamental rights without any provisos -- even under the section on the wearing of caps contained in the Schools Act of the state of North Rhine-Westphalia.

Freedom for the Enemies of Freedom

And still the feeling of unease remains. It was Ernst Wolfgang-Böckenförde, the most respected constitutional scholar in the Christian camp, who very carefully thought through the "dilemma" posed by the more than 3 million Muslims in Germany for their Christian fellow citizens. "Can the government guarantee full freedom of religion without the cultural base on which it rests becoming increasingly divided, with an accompanying loss of cohesion?" What would then become of the peaceful nature of this constitutional society?

In the course of history, conflicts deriving from religious differences have frequently led to long and bloody wars. The secularization of the state and the development of its own power independent of the church is, not least of all, a result of the fact that secular leaders at some point became sick and tired of fighting religious wars for the church.

This is why strongly secular states, such as France, systematically separate themselves from religious matters. Religion is not a public matter. In France's public schools, headscarves are strictly prohibited -- as are prominent symbols of the Christian faith.

The French are lucky, in a way: Their revolution cemented nation and state so powerfully that no additional bond is needed to give its society a cultural identity. The glorious history of la Grande Nation doesn't require the assistance of gods: The French are sufficient unto themselves.

Constitutional patriots have a harder time of it. Countries like Germany or the United States are not based on a firmly established national identity. They are the expression of a joint project. The basis of their existence is a piece of paper, their constitution. It is doubtful whether that, in itself, can provide sufficient cohesion.

What holds German society together is what Böckenförde refers to as its "cultural base." That foundation does not only consist of the literature of Goethe and the school system established by Wilhelm von Humboldt, however -- it also, so the argument goes, includes Christian values and their secular implementation in the form of human rights and constitutional principles.

From this point of view, the crucifix is nearer the constitution that the headscarf. So it wouldn't be a violation of the secular principle to protect certain religious elements by law, e.g., Sunday as a Christian day of worship, Easter as a holiday and Christmas' receiving the chancellor's blessing. "Even in its secular forms, our culture is -- at least for now -- influenced by Christianity in many ways," Böckenförde notes.

The matter is not made easier by the fact that the Christian faith includes recognition of religious freedom for others. The pope and constitutional law scholars are in agreement that freedom of religion includes the existence of this same freedom for others.

But what if the others see things quite differently? This question arose during the Cold War, in the threat posed by militant communists to German institutions. How much freedom do you grant to the enemies of freedom? It's no different with respect to intolerant Muslims: How much freedom can the secular state afford to give the followers of a different religion who are suspected of wanting to ruin our cultural foundations with their beliefs, or even call into question the separation of church and state? How much tolerance can we afford to show them?

For Böckenförde, the answer is clear: None -- because giving them freedom would post a threat to the very foundations of the constitutional state.

But this apparently radical answer shifts the limits of the acceptable in favor of immigrants. How much assimilation has to be demanded of them so our country will continue to function as a free society? Only the absolute bare minimum that is necessary to ensure its functioning.

It would constitute a violation of religious freedom and the principle of tolerance that is part and parcel of our society to demand that immigrants become like Germans and adopt their beliefs. It would be much too much to demand a commitment to the values of our constitution. It's enough if they agree to respect these values.

It would be nonsense to introduce rules that apply to everyone if they were only intended to prevent individual instances of abuse. Using the same logic applied in cases where total prohibitions of headscarves have been imposed, it would be possible to silence all church bells.

No one can be freed from the requirement to obey the law -- not even for religious reasons. But German law must be made in the spirit of a tolerant Christian society that grants religious freedom to others. The law must apply to everyone, without exception.

If it was possible to introduce a regulation in the Prussian school system that ensured tests were never given on Saturdays out of respect for Jewish pupils, then it ought to be possible for us under our constitution today to organize swimming classes in a way that no one, including Muslim girls, should feel embarrassed to take part.

If there is no objection to school teachers wearing a small cross around their neck, then it should also be possible for every woman who wants to cover her hair with a headscarf to do so.