Markus Söder Kreuzerlass produced bizarre photos – and disputes to this day. The Federal Administrative Court has now heard the matter. Exit open.
Munich/Leipzig – Since 2018, a crucifix has had to hang “clearly visible” in the entrance area of every state building in Bavaria. Criticism of this regulation has never stopped – there will soon be a final (for now) judge's ruling. On Thursday (December 14th) the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig on the controversial cross decree negotiated by Prime Minister Markus Söder (CSU). A decision on the future of the Bavarian official crosses should be made on Tuesday.
The religiously critical Association for Freedom of Thought (bfg) has filed a lawsuit against the regulation. He calls for the crosses to be removed. The argument goes that the state is obliged to be neutral when it comes to ideological issues. “What does a cross have to do with an official activity, with the issuing of a driving license (…)? Nothing!” said lawyer Hubert Heinhold in the oral hearing.
The Association for Freedom of Thought continues to sue against Söder's crucifixion decree – after defeat in Bavaria
In the summer of 2022, the bfg suffered a defeat before the Bavarian Administrative Court (VGH). The VGH classified the crosses as passive symbols “without proselytizing or indoctrinating effects”. This does not violate the plaintiff's fundamental rights to freedom of belief and belief or equal treatment. The Association for Freedom of Thought has lodged appeals against this. Now the case is in Leipzig.
The representatives of the Free State defended the Bavarian VGH's arguments there. “There is no religious content associated with these crosses, but rather they are a reference to our tradition of values,” said Attorney General Jörg Vogel. Paragraph 28 of the rules of procedure for the Free State authorities states that the crosses are to be understood “as an expression of the historical and cultural character of Bavaria”.
Söder himself had argued similarly – and thus received criticism. Theology professor Ursula Nothelle-Wildfeuer, for example, complained in an interview with the 2018 Deutschlandfunk an “instrumentalization of the cross”: Söder made it the “logo for Bavaria”. The churches also accused Söder of misusing the Christian symbol for election campaign purposes. It was more of a side note that Baden-Württemberg's Prime Minister Winfried Kretschmann (Greens), who was often quite friendly to Söder, was once reminded of “vampire films” during Söder's appearance on the Kreuzerdecision.
Cross-decree verdict is approaching: “The result did not seem to be certain yet”
The court raised a whole series of questions during the oral hearing – including whether freedom of religion offers the plaintiff protection against the Christian symbol that he does not share, to what extent the state has a certain right to self-expression on its own premises and when Attaching a cross crosses the threshold of favoring a particular religion.
Both the representatives of the Free State and the plaintiffs expressed confidence after the hearing. Plaintiff's lawyer Heinhold announced the next step in the event of another defeat: “If we don't get through here, there is still the Federal Constitutional Court.” Previous constitutional judges had recently put forward different views, again BR noted.
A reporter for the legal specialist portal Legal Tribune Online saw the question of the outcome of the trial open: “The result did not seem to be certain yet,” it said there.
Söder's cross decree in court: Judge is thinking about additional signs under the cross – Free State refuses
On its homepage, the bfg expressed massive doubts about the decision of the Bavarian VGH. In their reasoning for the judgment, the judges admitted, among other things, a “factually unfounded preference for the Christian symbol” – and that the cross was “a symbol of a certain religious belief and not just an expression of Western culture, which was influenced by Christianity”.
The chairwoman of the bfg Munich, Assunta Tammelleo, complained that “on the one hand, the BayVGH found a violation of ideological neutrality and a preference for the Christian religion, and on the other hand, the court then announced that there was no legal protection against an administrative regulation”. She called for Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law to be added instead: “Human dignity is inviolable. Respecting and protecting them is the obligation of all state authorities.”
According to Legal Tribune Online, one of the judges had a compromise proposal ready: an additional sign under each crucifix with the inscription “The history and culture of Bavaria have been shaped by Christianity over the centuries, and this cross is a reminder of that.” The bfg held out the prospect of approval – but the representatives of the Free State immediately rejected it. Such a step requires a “decision from the Council of Ministers”. Bavaria's Science Minister Markus Blume (CSU) defended himself BR the Crusader Decree: It is important “that a country can assure itself of its foundation of values,” he explained. (dpa/fn)
Also interesting: Strategist, realist or turncoat? Eight striking changes of opinion by Markus Söder
#Söder39s #controversial #cross #decree #court #compromise #idea #collapses