4 ms·

>That's true in theory, but the Supreme Court has taken upon itself to impose uniform standards for the whole nation. As I recall, the German Constitutional Cou

by iSnow 6y ago

>That's true in theory, but the Supreme Court has taken upon itself to impose uniform standards for the whole nation. As I recall, the German Constitutional Court upheld the practice in general, reasoning that it was an expression of Germany's heritage as a Christian nation. It then balanced that principle against the potential burden on religious minorities, to fashion that compromise. It's more difficult and I really, really won't go into details because there are several conflicting legislations (state vs. federal), court cases and I honestly don't understand law deeply. The salient point that the ECHR ruling overrode the German Constitutional Court in that regard. If its ruling would still stand, it would overrule Bavarian legislation. >In the United States, we're not allowed to acknowledge the country's heritage as a Christian country. Confusing, as your nation's claim seems to be "In God we trust" if I am not wrong? For a country that claims separation of church and state, that's pretty Christian, in fact I wonder what US atheists have to say about that. I'd like to point out the following: Germany has - contrary to how US Americans both from the left and right use it as a space for projection - traditionally been a socially conservative country, one of the more conservative ones in Western Europe, and I am not even talking about the time before 1945. That's why the incomplete separation of church and state in Bavaria, the call for traditional German values as the cultural mold by politicians from Merkel's party or the abortion laws are totally not surprising. You might also be unaware of that, but civil liberties have to a great extend been forced down the throats of German politicians and conservative voters alike by the German Constitutional Court. E.g. - gay marriage, - equal rights for non-married couples and for kids conceived out of wedlock, - (some) equal rights for women, - freedom of speech, - freedom of the press, - the high rank of privacy laws - restriction on out of area operations for Bundeswehr (requires Bundestag vote) - disallowing the cross in schools (as mentioned, overturned by the ECHR) - giving up the Mark for the Euro - enshrining a lower bound for welfare payments that is binding to all of Germany. This is no longer a privilege but a right on the level of constitutional rights. Likewise, the liberals had to swallow some unpopular rulings, e.g. the one forbidding abortion but decriminalizing it in the first 12w, essentially something conservatives won (the contested law allowed up to 24w). I can't believe that the US Supreme Court has not sided with conservatives at times. The difference in Germany is that the political role of the Constitutional Court is widely accepted and politicians handle the issue responsibly. Bashing of the court system because of decisions that go against own beliefs is rare and frowned upon. The only party that questions that consensus is the extreme right (historically also the Marxists but those don't play a role anymore, and the rest of the far left has made peace with the court). But then, we are in the sunset phase of the Merkel years, so maybe the CDU will do a GOP and let themselves held captive by the alt-right. But the conservative brand we got over here is able to see the value of compromises and after some time is able to move on, whereas in the USA it seems to me that moderate conservatives have died out and been replaced by what we consider extremists. And yet, they find voters because there is no moderate alternative.

rayiner 6y ago
> The salient point that the ECHR ruling overrode the German Constitutional Court in that regard. If its ruling would still stand, it would overrule Bavarian legislation. Which ECHR ruling are you referring to? My understanding of the ECHR precedent on this is that displaying a cross in schools is permissible under the 2011 Lautsi decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lautsi_v._Italy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lautsi_v._Italy > It granted that, "by prescribing the presence of crucifixes in State-schools classrooms – a sign which, whether or not it is accorded in addition a secular symbolic value, undoubtedly refers to Christianity – the regulations confer on the country's majority religion preponderant visibility in the school environment." But it declared: "That is not in itself sufficient, however, to denote a process of indoctrination on the respondent State's part and establish a breach of the requirements of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1". It added that "a crucifix on a wall is an essentially passive symbol and ... cannot be deemed to have an influence on pupils comparable to that of didactic speech or participation in religious activities". > Confusing, as your nation's claim seems to be "In God we trust" if I am not wrong? For a country that claims separation of church and state, that's pretty Christian, in fact I wonder what US atheists have to say about that. I'm pretty sure American Christians would happily take "in God we trust" off the currency in return for religious education in public schools, as is the case in the UK, Germany, Spain and Italy. > I'd like to point out the following: Germany has - contrary to how US Americans both from the left and right use it as a space for projection - traditionally been a socially conservative country, one of the more conservative ones in Western Europe I'm aware of that. My wife lived in Germany for a while. That's why I'm using Germany as an example, to illustrate how another socially conservative democracy works. The United States is even more conservative, more comparable to Poland or Turkey than Germany. > - gay marriage The German Constitutional Court decision on same-sex marriage, like the abortion decision, was precisely the opposite of what happened in the U.S. In the case of same-sex marriage, the Bundestag legalized it (over Merkel's objection). The Constitutional Court then held that the Constitution allowed for legalization of same-sex marriage. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/new-german-gay-partnership-law-is-fully-constitutional-court-decides-1.1088928 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/new-german-gay-partnership-l.... In the U.S., it was the opposite. The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution required legalization of same-sex marriage. > - disallowing the cross in schools (as mentioned, overturned by the ECHR) The mildness of the German Constitutional Court decision illustrates what I'm talking about. Germany required schools to remove the cross if someone complained. In the United States, the Supreme Court eliminated religion from schools completely, in a blanket fashion. (And it happened 70 years ago!) American public schools can't even offer religious instruction, while German schools are required to offer it (unless the parent opts out). - giving up the Mark for the Euro Again, this was a scenario where the German Constitutional Court deferred to the legislature. > I can't believe that the US Supreme Court has not sided with conservatives at times. On social issues, it consistently sides with liberals. This is due to the dynamics of the legal profession, where the conservatives tend to be what people call "coastal elites." They are economically conservative, but often relatively liberal socially. For example, while abortion remains technically illegal in Germany, I count only 3 votes to overturn Roe v. Wade (which would not make abortion illegal, but simply allow Americans to adopt an abortion law like Germany or France). > The difference in Germany is that the political role of the Constitutional Court is widely accepted and politicians handle the issue responsibly. Bashing of the court system because of decisions that go against own beliefs is rare and frowned upon. How much of that comes from the fact that the German Constitutional Court tends to be deferential to the society's conservatism?

by iSnow 6y ago

rayiner 6y ago

> The salient point that the ECHR ruling overrode the German Constitutional Court in that regard. If its ruling would still stand, it would overrule Bavarian legislation. Which ECHR ruling are you referring to? My understanding of the ECHR precedent on this is that displaying a cross in schools is permissible under the 2011 Lautsi decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lautsi_v._Italy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lautsi_v._Italy > It granted that, "by prescribing the presence of crucifixes in State-schools classrooms – a sign which, whether or not it is accorded in addition a secular symbolic value, undoubtedly refers to Christianity – the regulations confer on the country's majority religion preponderant visibility in the school environment." But it declared: "That is not in itself sufficient, however, to denote a process of indoctrination on the respondent State's part and establish a breach of the requirements of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1". It added that "a crucifix on a wall is an essentially passive symbol and ... cannot be deemed to have an influence on pupils comparable to that of didactic speech or participation in religious activities". > Confusing, as your nation's claim seems to be "In God we trust" if I am not wrong? For a country that claims separation of church and state, that's pretty Christian, in fact I wonder what US atheists have to say about that. I'm pretty sure American Christians would happily take "in God we trust" off the currency in return for religious education in public schools, as is the case in the UK, Germany, Spain and Italy. > I'd like to point out the following: Germany has - contrary to how US Americans both from the left and right use it as a space for projection - traditionally been a socially conservative country, one of the more conservative ones in Western Europe I'm aware of that. My wife lived in Germany for a while. That's why I'm using Germany as an example, to illustrate how another socially conservative democracy works. The United States is even more conservative, more comparable to Poland or Turkey than Germany. > - gay marriage The German Constitutional Court decision on same-sex marriage, like the abortion decision, was precisely the opposite of what happened in the U.S. In the case of same-sex marriage, the Bundestag legalized it (over Merkel's objection). The Constitutional Court then held that the Constitution allowed for legalization of same-sex marriage. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/new-german-gay-partnership-law-is-fully-constitutional-court-decides-1.1088928 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/new-german-gay-partnership-l.... In the U.S., it was the opposite. The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution required legalization of same-sex marriage. > - disallowing the cross in schools (as mentioned, overturned by the ECHR) The mildness of the German Constitutional Court decision illustrates what I'm talking about. Germany required schools to remove the cross if someone complained. In the United States, the Supreme Court eliminated religion from schools completely, in a blanket fashion. (And it happened 70 years ago!) American public schools can't even offer religious instruction, while German schools are required to offer it (unless the parent opts out). - giving up the Mark for the Euro Again, this was a scenario where the German Constitutional Court deferred to the legislature. > I can't believe that the US Supreme Court has not sided with conservatives at times. On social issues, it consistently sides with liberals. This is due to the dynamics of the legal profession, where the conservatives tend to be what people call "coastal elites." They are economically conservative, but often relatively liberal socially. For example, while abortion remains technically illegal in Germany, I count only 3 votes to overturn Roe v. Wade (which would not make abortion illegal, but simply allow Americans to adopt an abortion law like Germany or France). > The difference in Germany is that the political role of the Constitutional Court is widely accepted and politicians handle the issue responsibly. Bashing of the court system because of decisions that go against own beliefs is rare and frowned upon. How much of that comes from the fact that the German Constitutional Court tends to be deferential to the society's conservatism?