On Wednesday, the state parliament of Saarland passed a new preamble for its state constitution with a clear majority. Until now, Saarland was the only German state without such a preamble. The joint draft by the SPD and CDU received 46 votes in favor and only three against. The AfD was the only parliamentary group to vote unanimously against it.
The new preamble begins with the words: "Conscious of its responsibility before God and humanity, on the basis of religious and humanistic heritage, Saarland has given itself this constitution through its freely elected parliament." CDU parliamentary group leader Stephan Toscani emphasized that this wording deliberately includes both believers and non-believers. Representatives of the world's major religions jointly contributed to this formulation during a parliamentary hearing.
God and Humanistic Heritage United
SPD parliamentary group leader Ulrich Commerçon, who describes himself as a Protestant Christian, stressed the inseparable connection between the reference to God and human rights. "For me as a Protestant Christian, it has always been clear: God and human rights belong together inseparably. My God also stands for standing up for human rights." This statement reflects a Christian conviction grounded in the Bible. In Psalm 82:3-4, it says: "Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked" (NIV).
The new preamble thus unites the religious dimension with the humanistic tradition. This is a remarkable step showing that Christian values and universal human rights are not mutually exclusive but can complement each other. The reference to God in the constitution is not a sign of exclusivity but a commitment to an ethical foundation that transcends the state.
Criticism from the FDP and Greens
However, there were also critical voices. FDP state chairwoman Angelika Hießerich-Peter stated that religion is a private matter and that the reference to God is therefore "completely out of place." Green politician Anne Lahoda called the mention of God "superfluous." Both parties are currently not represented in the parliament, but their criticism is no less weighty. The debate shows that the question of the role of religion in public space remains controversial.
The AfD submitted its own draft, which did not include a reference to God, but it was also rejected. It voted against all three constitutional amendments passed that day.
Other Constitutional Amendments: Combating Antisemitism and Protecting the Constitutional Court
In addition to the new preamble, two other important constitutional amendments were passed. The protection of Jewish life and culture, as well as the fight against antisemitism and antigypsyism, are now explicitly enshrined in the constitution. This is a strong signal against all forms of hatred and discrimination. The Bible reminds us: "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18, NIV). This love applies without exception to all people, regardless of their origin or religion.
The third amendment concerns the procedure for electing judges to the Constitutional Court. In the future, the court will be better protected against blockades by extremist or anti-democratic parties. This strengthens the independence of the judiciary, which is central to a rule-of-law state.
What Does This Step Mean for Christians?
For Christians in Saarland and beyond, this decision is an encouragement. It shows that faith in God still has a place in public life, even in an increasingly secular society. The reference to God in the constitution reminds us that our dignity and rights are not granted by the state but are based on a transcendent reality. At the same time, the connection to human rights makes clear that Christian faith is not a private retreat but a call to social responsibility. Saarland's decision can serve as a model for other states and countries seeking a balance between religious tradition and pluralistic modernity. It reminds us that faith and reason, religion and human rights need not be opposites but can enrich each other.
Comments