Secular citizens, pious MPs: why German attitudes about genetic testing are much more permissive than German laws

Abstract

Germany has lifted its total ban on Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD, a form of genetic testing), but the new rules are still much stricter than those in other European countries. Results from a large-scale survey experiment show that the general population holds more permissive views on this bio-ethical question than lawmakers. In a country seen as a paradigm for the 'religious world' of morality politics, many citizens even support further liberalization along the lines of legislation in Belgium and the UK. Induced reflection on the arguments raised in parliament does not change this: arguments in favour of PGD are widely accepted by respondents, whereas many citizens reject the arguments against PGD. Citzens' and MPs' respective evaluations are affected strongly by religiosity, whose levels in the population are much lower than in parliament. Widespread secular views are not adequately represented in politics. This does not only concern the regulation of PGD but also other current and future bioethical issues. It is unlikely that this tension can be resolved through electoral politics. These findings have important ramifications not just for practical morality politics in Germany and other 'religious world' countries but also for the two worlds framework itself.

Where is the party? Explaining positions on same-sex marriage in Europe among would-be members of parliament

“…In most countries in Europe, these pressures are filtered through national parliaments, with some governments acting as leaders and others laggards compared to the state of national public opinion. One possible reason some parliaments were laggards is that their members tended to be more socially conservative on morality issues than the general public (Arzheimer 2020).…”

“…LGBT rights is that legislative voting on these issues is so-called "morality politics": a unique subset of policy areas where partisanship is far less likely to play a constraining and incentivizing role over legislators' preferences (Engeli, Green-Pedersen, and Larsen 2012). Policy concerns that have typically been tagged within the umbrella of morality concerns include, amongst others, embryo and stem-cell research (Arzheimer 2015(Arzheimer , 2020Banchoff 2011), reproductive rights, euthanasia (Adam, Knill, and Budde 2020;Engeli, Green-Pedersen, and Larsen 2013), and SSM rights (Adam, Knill, and Budde 2020). Morality issues are distinct from "bread and butter" politics in that public and legislators' views on these issues are more likely to be informed by a core set of fundamental values unique to the individual that makes them less amenable to partisan cues and whips (Engeli, Green-Pedersen, and Larsen 2012;Mooney 2001).…”

The links between basic human values and political secularism: Evidence from Germany

“…Since then, membership has further declined in the East, and disaffiliation began to speed up in the West. Even so, the constitutional position of the churches remains entrenched, and religious interests remain overrepresented in parliament (Arzheimer, 2020b).…”

“…In West European countries, (political) secularism has strong effects on policy preferences across the whole ART domain and related fields, on citizens' views on abortion and on support for marriage and adoption rights for same-sex couples (Arzheimer, 2020a(Arzheimer, , 2020bDi Marco et al, 2020Hichy et al, 2020Hichy et al, , 2015Magelssen et al, 2019). Similarly, Layman et al demonstrate that in the United States, secularism is strongly linked to positive views on same-sex relationships and homosexuals, to 'support for science and scientific approaches to societal issues' and to other attitudes that can be labelled as liberal in the American context (Layman et al 2021, p. 91; see also Beard et al 2013, p. 760).…”

“…In West European countries, (political) secularism has strong effects on policy preferences across the whole ART domain and related fields, on citizens’ views on abortion and on support for marriage and adoption rights for same‐sex couples (Arzheimer, 2020a, 2020b; Di Marco et al., 2020, 2018; Hichy et al., 2020, 2015; Magelssen et al., 2019). Similarly, Layman et al.…”