1 - 2004

Religious diversity in Germany

Taking our own convictions seriously

The head scarf promotes a cultural gender gap – not integration

by Wolfgang Huber

We live in a free society. Religious freedom is highly valued in our country. The plurality of lifestyles and of religious convictions demands our respect; tolerance must be practised even where it is uncomfortable for us. When we meet Muslim women with their heads covered in the street, we therefore accept it. For them, this is a way of expressing their cultural identity. But it is something else when they insist on wearing the head scarf as teachers.

To find that there is an important difference here is not to be lacking liberalism. A teacher in a public school is an official of the state. She represents our polity, and one of its principles is equal rights for men and women. This has been gained through enough of a struggle that it is now an obligation of our state officials to stand up for it. Is wearing a head scarf consistent with the duties of a state official? The Constitutional Court has left it to the states (Länder) to clarify this question. It would be desirable for the different states not all to go in different directions with their reactions.

I consider it perfectly defensible to forbid teachers to wear the head scarf. In my view it does not contradict their personal right to freedom of religion. In their role as officials of the state, adherents of every faith have to express their religious convictions in ways which are consistent with the basic constitutional values of our country. This is true for state officials independently of the fact that our constitution guarantees them unconditional freedom of religion.  The Muslim head scarf is an expression of a relationship between the sexes which does not fit with our culture and legal system. It indicates a gender gap. In this regard it is foreign to our polity, and not principally for religious reasons. For a teacher to wear it does not promote integration, but rather the opposite.

This is why the head scarf of a Muslim women is to be judged differently from the cross on the lapel of a pastor or a crucifix on the wall of a Bavarian classroom. The law now clearly says that the crucifix must be taken down even if only one pupil, or one pupil’s parents, feel that it is an imposition. But it is not outside the bounds of the cultural familiar, or of the recognised principles of our legal system.

This is even more true of a small cross on one’s lapel or hung around one’s neck. To throw all religious symbols out of the schools along with the head scarf would be to mix apples with oranges. No head scarf, then no cross either? This poster concept leads us down the wrong road. The legislation now being prepared by the states should have moderation as its precept. It is a precept for lawmakers as well as officials.

Furthermore, if Muslim women who aspire to be state officials would voluntarily observe moderation, no law would be necessary. What concerns me is whether the head scarf is a means of testing how far one can go. In the name of tolerance, indulgence is being demanded. But this is a false conclusion. Only those who take their own convictions seriously can be tolerant. This also goes for public polity, including equal rights.

This article appeared in the newspaper "Tagesspiegel” on October 9, 2003, when Dr. Wolfgang Huber was Bishop of the Evangelical Church of Berlin-Brandenburg. He is now Council President of the Evangelical Church in Germany.