The end of federal monitoring raises questions about the legacy of a faulty policy that shaped institutional practices for decades.
by Massimo Introvigne
For years, observers of German religious policy have noted a peculiar tension between the country’s reputation for administrative rigor and the persistence of a surveillance program that had long ceased to produce meaningful results. Germany is known for its reliability. Sometimes this is impressive, as with its engineering or its meticulous archives. At other times, it produces situations that seem frozen in time. The decision of the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Germany’s domestic intelligence service) to quietly close the national Scientology monitoring file belongs to this second category. The announcement arrived without ceremony, almost like a door being closed with the hope that attention would move elsewhere. The official explanation referred to the need to concentrate resources on violent extremism, foreign intelligence operations, cyberattacks, and terrorism. These are areas where the agency’s mandate is undisputed. The idea that Scientologists going through their auditing in Munich were preparing an assault on the constitutional order had long belonged to a different era.
The origins of the surveillance lie in the 1990s, when reunification had unsettled political life and public debate was unusually receptive to alarming narratives about new religious movements. Scientology became a convenient target. The accusation that it pursued anti‑constitutional aims carried significant weight in Germany, where the concept is central to security law. Yet the evidence never emerged. What followed was a long sequence of reports, legal disputes, and administrative routines that continued even as the initial fears faded. Several Länder gradually stepped back from the practice. Baden‑Württemberg was among the most recent to conclude that the movement did not present a concrete threat. Lower Saxony and North Rhine‑Westphalia had already reached similar conclusions. The federal office has now aligned itself with this trend.
The human consequences of the policy were substantial. In Germany, being listed as an object of intelligence observation is not a symbolic gesture. It may affect employment, public contracts, and social reputation. Some Scientologists found themselves excluded from entire sectors. Courts were repeatedly asked to intervene, and their rulings were consistent. Article 4 of the Basic Law protects freedom of religion and belief, and this protection applies to Scientologists. Judges reminded authorities that restrictions require solid evidence of wrongdoing. After decades of monitoring, such evidence remained absent. The courts expressed this with increasing clarity, yet the surveillance apparatus continued to operate as if the next report might reveal something decisive.
The federal decision does not mean that all monitoring has ended. According to media report, the movement remains under observation in the city of Hamburg by the local Verfassungsschutz. It is not the only case.
The debate has also been shaped by international reactions. Scientology has emphasized these reactions in its own communications, and while such material reflects the organization’s perspective, the underlying facts are part of the historical record. Over the years, a variety of institutions raised concerns. In 1997, the Human Rights Centre of the University of Essex described a climate of discrimination against minority religions in Germany, with particular reference to Scientology. The U.S. State Department criticized practices that excluded individuals from public and professional life because of their beliefs. At the OSCE, questions were raised about the use of declarations requiring applicants to distance themselves from Scientology in order to access employment or public tenders. In 2019, United Nations Special Rapporteurs warned that these declarations forced individuals to renounce association with the movement to obtain benefits or contracts.
German courts also played a central role. In Berlin, a court prohibited the use of undercover agents after years of observation produced no justification for such methods. In Bavaria, a court struck down the use of a “sect filter,” requiring local citizens to state they were not Scientologists or believers in L. Ron Hubbard’s doctrines to access some services and subsidies. The case involved subsidies for an e‑bike, which illustrated how deeply the logic of exclusion had penetrated administrative practice.
These precedents form a coherent pattern. They show that the concerns expressed internationally were grounded in documented outcomes. Scientologists lost employment opportunities, businesses were affected, families experienced stigma, and children encountered hostility. The surveillance did not uncover a threat. It contributed to an environment in which ordinary believers were treated as potential risks because of their religious affiliation. This is the context in which the federal office’s decision must be understood. The issue is not only whether the surveillance should end at all local levels. The question is why it continued for so long after the absence of evidence had become a stable feature of the record.
The conclusion of the national program does not erase the past. It does, however, create space for a more balanced discussion of religious diversity in a democratic society. Scholars of new religious movements have long argued that security policy should be guided by demonstrable risks rather than inherited anxieties. The federal decision moves Germany closer to this principle. Local resistance, such as that expressed in Hamburg, shows that the process will be gradual. A policy that shaped public perceptions for almost thirty years has reached a turning point, and the implications will continue to unfold in the years ahead.
Massimo Introvigne (born June 14, 1955 in Rome) is an Italian sociologist of religions. He is the founder and managing director of the Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR), an international network of scholars who study new religious movements. Introvigne is the author of some 70 books and more than 100 articles in the field of sociology of religion. He was the main author of the Enciclopedia delle religioni in Italia (Encyclopedia of Religions in Italy). He is a member of the editorial board for the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion and of the executive board of University of California Press’ Nova Religio. From January 5 to December 31, 2011, he has served as the “Representative on combating racism, xenophobia and discrimination, with a special focus on discrimination against Christians and members of other religions” of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). From 2012 to 2015 he served as chairperson of the Observatory of Religious Liberty, instituted by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to monitor problems of religious liberty on a worldwide scale.
