Germany has long been regarded as a bastion of constitutional democracy and a vocal defender of human rights on the international stage. Yet one discriminatory practice has persisted quietly within its borders for decades: the use of so-called “sect filters.” These declarations, demanded by certain public bodies and private employers, require individuals to disavow any connection to the Church of Scientology. Despite the language of neutrality, sect filters exclusively target Scientologists, creating a framework of exclusion that contravenes Germany’s constitutional protections, violates international law, and damages its moral authority.
Sect Filters: A Singular Target
Originally implemented in the 1990s amid a climate of suspicion toward new religious movements, particularly Scientology, sect filters are not broadly applied across religious groups. They are narrowly and exclusively directed against Scientologists, effectively institutionalizing discrimination against a single minority.
Individuals seeking public grants, contracts, or sometimes employment are asked to affirm that they do not use the teachings or methods associated with L. Ron Hubbard. This includes rejecting any “technology” related to Scientology’s management techniques. The explicit nature of the declarations leaves little doubt: Scientology is the only target.
Constitutional and Legal Incompatibility
Article 4 of Germany’s Basic Law guarantees freedom of faith, conscience, and religious practice. Article 3 mandates equality before the law and prohibits discrimination based on religious belief. The use of sect filters starkly violates both principles.
German courts have increasingly recognized this conflict. In 2022, the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) ruled against the city of Munich, which had denied an electric bicycle subsidy to a resident who refused to sign a sect filter. The court found that requiring a declaration of non-affiliation with Scientology as a condition for receiving public benefits was unconstitutional. It emphasized that the state must remain neutral toward religious communities and refrain from exerting coercion on individuals to renounce or conceal their beliefs.
This decision was confirming a previous decision from the Bavarian State Administrative Court of Appeal, which had struck down the use of the sect filter in 2021, finding it constituted unlawful religious discrimination1.
These decisions build on earlier jurisprudence, including a 2005 ruling by the Federal Administrative Court acknowledging that Scientologists, like all religious adherents, are entitled to the full protections of Article 42, and dozens of similar decision in the country.
International Legal Obligations
Germany is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), specifically Article 9, which protects freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. It is also a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits discrimination based on religion under Articles 2 and 26.
The continued use—or toleration—of sect filters places Germany in breach of these obligations. In condemning religious repression abroad while permitting discrimination against Scientologists at home, Germany risks undermining its credibility as a champion of human rights.
Philosophical Perspectives: The Warning of Georges Elia Sarfati
The discriminatory nature of sect filters has not gone unnoticed by international scholars. Franco-Israeli philosopher Georges Elia Sarfati offers a searing critique:
“Has Bavaria, once known for its strong pro-Nazi tradition, not overcome this shameful tradition of quarantining a minority? As a Franco-Israeli scholar, I wonder about the persistence of ways that defeat the idea of a Europe with tolerance and equality. So here I am in the role of Voltaire, ready to defend an opinion that is not his own: the banishment of a minority has always been a bad precursor for the vitality of a country where the defence of the rights of the individual should be now taken for granted. When the traits of a dictatorial policy are insinuated into the mentality, professional or civic, everyone is at risk of suffering this kind of attack one day.”3
Sarfati’s warning is crucial. Discriminatory practices that begin against one minority have a way of expanding. Tolerating injustice against an unpopular group sets a precedent that may later be applied more broadly, endangering the rights of all citizens.
Pre-Crime Logic: A Flawed Justification
Supporters of sect filters argue that they are preventive measures aimed at safeguarding democratic institutions from subversion. However, this rationale is deeply flawed. Democratic societies operate on the principle that individuals are presumed innocent until proven otherwise, and that legal action should be based on behavior, not belief.
Sect filters invert this logic, punishing individuals for presumed future misconduct based solely on their religious affiliation. This amounts to a form of “pre-crime” thinking that has no place in a legal system committed to individual rights.
Furthermore, if Scientologists—or members of any religious group—engage in illegal activity, Germany’s robust legal system provides appropriate mechanisms for prosecution. There is no justification for preemptively denying individuals their civil rights based on hypothetical fears.
Toward Full Compliance with Democratic Norms
Germany’s judiciary has begun the process of rectifying the injustices associated with sect filters. However, the burden of ensuring compliance with constitutional and international standards does not rest solely with the courts. Legislators, municipal authorities, and private institutions must also act.
First, all sect filters must be categorically abolished in public procurement, employment, and grant administration. Second, public education campaigns should be launched to confront and dismantle the stereotypes that have sustained these practices for decades. Third, Germany must reaffirm its commitment to religious pluralism by treating all faiths and worldviews equally—regardless of popularity or social acceptability.
Already on 5 July 2019, the Special Rapporteur on minority issues and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief had written to the German authorities the following the following in an official letter:
We would like to express our concern about the continued use of measures that explicitly prevent individuals from obtaining grants and employment opportunities otherwise extended to the general population, on the basis of religion or belief. Regardless of the official state position on the status of Scientology as a religious organisation, group, sect, or otherwise, religion or belief is a matter of personal conscience rather than government designation. Individuals identifying as Scientologists should not have to endure undue scrutiny nor disclose their beliefs unless a legitimate, substantiated reason can be provided, for which the burden of proof falls upon the State. By continuing to uphold measures that reinforce negative stereotypes about Scientologists, the State may cultivate an environment not fully conducive to the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion or belief particularly for religious minorities. By allegedly operating from a negative presumption as to the aims of the Church, these measures may also constitute a conflict with the State mandate of neutrality, which requires a fundamental attitude of tolerance and equitable treatment of all religious groups within the context and limits of public interest, and in conformity with the provisions of international human rights law.4
Germany has a profound historical responsibility to guard against the marginalization of minorities. Its Basic Law was designed precisely to prevent the repetition of the injustices of the past. The persistence of sect filters—targeting only Scientologists—stands in direct contradiction to these lessons.
In the words of Georges Elia Sarfati, “the banishment of a minority has always been a bad precursor for the vitality of a country.” If Germany is to remain faithful to its democratic ideals, it must ensure that no individual is excluded, marginalized, or silenced based on their belief system. The time to finally and fully abandon sect filters is now.
1. Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Bavarian Administrative Court of Appeal), Judgment of 2021, Case No. 4 B 20.3008. ↩
2. Bundesverwaltungsgericht, Judgment of 15 December 2005, Case No. 7 C 20.04. ↩
3. Georges Elia Sarfati, cited from his commentary on sect filters in New Europe, 2019.↩
4. AL DEU 2/2019, 5 July 20A9
———-
First published in this link of The European Times.
