Abstract
The first part of this article analyzes how three religious communitiesâRoman Catholics, Protestants of the EKD, and Muslimsâand one worldview-related groupâanthroposophistsâhandled the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. The three research areas were discourses around health, illness, and science, relationships with governments and policymakers, and digital innovations. The focus lies on the positions of their leadership, their respective leading media outlets and public documents, and qualitative interviews with leaders and members.
In the second part, the article enters into the anthroposophical positions on the health measures. Anthroposophists were held responsible by the German media for antivaccination stances. Most anthroposophical public statements as well as interviewees, did not reject the vaccine or the health measures generally, but advocated for freedom of choice. Therefore, the analysis shows that media mainly focused on anthroposophists rejecting COVID-19 measures and ignored the range of anthroposophical positionings.
1 Introduction
This article is based on the âThe Changing Role of Religion in Societies Emerging from Covid-19â (RECOV-19) research project, which analyses the changing role of religion in societies emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic. This research investigates four national contextsâCanada, Germany, Ireland/Northern Ireland, and Polandâthrough a mixed-methods framework centered on three primary domains: discourse surrounding health, illness, and science; engagement with governments and policymakers; and digital innovation (Radde-Antweiler et al. 2026, 4). This article draws on the most relevant data sources from this project, including religious organizationsâ public documents, religious media, online questionnaires, and interviews. In Germany, the two largest religious groups (Roman Catholics and Protestants affiliated to the Evangelische Kirche Deutschland [EKD]), a smaller religious group (Muslims), and a fourth, nonreligious worldview group, the anthroposophists,1 were chosen for the research (for a detailed project overview and groupsâ selection criteria, see Radde-Antweiler et al. 2026).2
After a brief overview of the national context in Germany, the article examines the response of the four selected groups regarding the three main domains. The views of anthroposophists regarding the pandemic are then analyzed. While some German media has accused anthroposophists of promoting vaccine skepticism, opposition to COVID-19 measures, and even of being allied with right-wing groups during the pandemic, the analysis showed that the majority of our anthroposophical respondents neither rejected the vaccine in general nor were unwilling to take precautions, but rather emphasized respect for individual freedom of choice.
1.1 Timeline of the Pandemic
The first COVID-19 case in Germany was detected in January 2020 (Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, n.d.). While there were also nationwide measures during the pandemic, many of the regulations differed at the state level (for a detailed timeline, see Radde-Antweiler et al. 2026).3 On 13 March, the Zentralrat der Muslime in Deutschland (Central Council of Muslims in Germany) recommended stopping Friday prayers to âslow down the spreading of the virusâ (ZMD 2020). Some Roman Catholic dioceses and Protestant regional churches in Germany canceled their religious services (Vatican News 2020; evangelisch.de 2020). Following a press conference from Chancellor Merkel on 16 March 2020, many cultural and recreation institutions were closed, and public gatherings were forbidden (first lockdown), explicitly including religious assemblies (Bundesregierung 2020).
On 20Â March 2020, a joint declaration of the heads of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) Bishopsâ Conference, the council of the EKD, and the Orthodox Bishopsâ Conference announced that, since they wanted to ânaturally support this effort [to fight the virus]â and âcomply consistently with the requirements of the state,â the churches had âcanceled community events and widely closed churchesâ facilitiesâ (EKDÂ 2020).4 On Easter and Ramadan of 2020, no religious gatherings took place.
Only a few religious individuals and communities filed lawsuits against the rules, and if they did, they did not represent the official policy of the bigger religious groups (see Berkmann 2020, 185). By the end of April 2020, Saxony was the first federal state to allow religious services with strict hygiene measures, with other federal states following in May (Tagesschau 2020). After an easing of the measures in the summer of 2020, the figures for registered infections began to rise again in the autumn of 2020. That led to the âlockdown light,â which was strengthened by the government with resolution of 13Â December 2020, with some smaller exceptions for Christmas (Wirtschaftswoche 2022). When the German state governments and the federal states proposed that churches should remain closed at Easter of 2021, this appeal met with little approval from those responsible at the EKD and the RCC (Walter 2021). Ultimately, some congregations held in-person services, while others did not, as the final decision was left to regional church authorities (Deutsche Welle 2021).5
The second âhardâ lockdown ended in May of 2021 and was followed by the â2Gâ and â3Gâ rules that limited the access of persons to events and institutions according to their COVID-19 status: 2G meant vaccinated (Ger. geimpft) or recovered (Ger. genesen), while 3G meant vaccinated, recovered, or tested (Ger. getestet). By the end of 2021, unvaccinated individuals who also had no immune protection from a previous COVID-19 infection (that is, who did not meet the 2G or 3G requirements) were increasingly excluded from public life in most federal states, for example, from cultural and leisure facilities and activities, and in some federal states even from some shops and services (Tagesschau 2021). In the spring of 2022, the measures were partly eased. After more and more rules and hygiene measures had been lifted, the last governmental measures were ended on 7Â April 2023.
1.2 Religion in the National Context
In the analysis, we focus on the RCC, the EKD, Muslim umbrella organizations, and the Anthroposophical Society. In Germany, the freedom of religious and worldview beliefs and of religious practices are guaranteed by Article 4 of the constitution. In 2024, 45 percent of the German population (fowid 2025) belonged to the largest religious communities, the RCC (24 percent) and the EKD (22 percent). The RCC consists of twenty-seven dioceses and the Bishopsâ Conference as an umbrella organization. The EKD is an association of twenty regional Reformed, United, and Lutheran churches (Landeskirchen) with their own structure and leadership. In 1949, about 96 percent of the German population had been members of one of the two churches (Pickel 2020). Data suggest that Germany undergoes a constant process of secularization, since membership of the two biggest churches has been decreasing constantly in the last decades (Statista 2024a, 2024b). Still, the RCC and the EKD are linked to the German state via multiple forms of cooperation; for example, the state collects taxes for both churches directly, they hold the status of a public body (Körperschaft des Ãffentlichen Rechts),6 and they are responsible for many health care and educational institutions. Besides that, both receive compensation payments for former expropriations, paid by nearly all of the German federal states.
Roughly 3 percent of Germans are members of other Christian religions (fowid 2025) and an estimated 4 percent are Muslims (fowid 2025), however Muslims have no official membership registers. With some exceptions (for example, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat Deutschland), Muslim communities do not hold the status of public bodies, and there is no Muslim entity that represents all Muslims in Germany. Therefore, the most important Muslim umbrella organizations in Germany were selected (for the selection criteria, see Radde-Antweiler et al. 2026). The Anthroposophical Society in Germany (Anthroposophische Gesellschaft in Deutschland [AGiD]) was selected as the last group due to German media linking anthroposophy with COVID-19 vaccine skepticism and rejection of health measures. Anthroposophy defines itself as a worldview rather than a religious group, and the AGiD has only 12,000 members (AGiD n.d.). Nevertheless, anthroposophical positions carry a relevant weight in Germany, as they are strongly represented in public discourse, particularly through numerous institutions in education and medicine. Anthroposophy is a heterogeneous field, and many anthroposophists are not members of the AGiD. Therefore, the study has included a few anthroposophists who were not part of the Anthroposophical Society, but active in, for example, Waldorf schools, Demeter farms, and an anthroposophically influenced Christian denomination, such as the Christengemeinschaft.7 While the aim was not to explore differences in anthroposophical beliefs, expanding the interviewees selection to include non AGiD members was functional to a broad overview of anthroposophistsâ reactions, beyond the associationâs official position.
1.3 Literature Review on COVID-19 and Religion in Germany
Several studies analyzed transformations in religious faith and practices during the pandemic in Germany, but with quite diverse results (see Radde-Antweiler, this issue). This could be partly explained by the fact that the research had data from different phases of the pandemic available. Based on data from the early stages of the pandemic, Hillenbrand concluded that the pandemic situation had âstrengthenedâ the faith of persons who were already religious but âweakenedâ the faith of âthose non-belonging to a religionâ (2020, 5). Kanol and Michalowsky observed in a quantitative research in 2020 an increase of religiosity in persons who were âconcerned with the direct threat of the COVID-19 pandemic on respondentsâ health and job insecurityâ (2023, 304). Büssing et al. compared Catholics, Protestants and nonaffiliated people and found decreasing figures of âtrust in a supporting âHigher Sourceââ¯â and of personal faith with the start of the second wave from both Christian groups, correlating with a âdecline of wellbeingâ as well as decreasing religious practice (2022, 759) They also found that âsatisfaction with the support of their local religious/spiritual communitiesâ (751) was âconstantly declining during the next phases of the pandemicâ (758). In an empirical study, Hillenbrand and Pollack (2023, 23) found that religious practice (including prayer and meditation) increased only very slightly in most religious groups, with the exception of Buddhists, Evangelicals (not to be confused with mainstream Protestants), and Muslims, who showed a remarkable increase. However, statistics show a continuously dropping membership of the RCC and EKD in recent years, the COVID-19 period not being an exception (statista 2024a, 2024b).
Regarding health, illness, and science, Strulik and Yakubenko affirmed an efficacy of restrictions of religious gatherings and a correlation between a populationâs religiosity and COVID-19 figures: âthe association between religious affiliation and infections is larger for Catholic share than for Protestant share and it is particularly large for the share of Free Evangelicals and those affiliated with other religionsâ (2023, 282). Regarding (Roman) Catholics,8 the authors attributed correlation to more attendance at religious gatherings (286â¯f.). Another study stated for Western Germany that âa higher share of Catholics is positively associated with COVID-19 incidence, whereas the share of Protestants is not,â attributing the effect to âmore frequent social interaction, and stronger social and family tiesâ of Roman Catholics and persons living in Roman Catholic areas and thus influenced by the Roman Catholic âway of lifeâ (Laliotis and Minos 2022, 12). Delanghe et al. (2022), however, contradicted these results by attributing the differences to genetic factors.
As for relationships with governments and policymakers, some studies focused on the legal evaluation of restrictions on religious practice. Berkmann (2020) analyzed the COVID-19 measures of the RCC and the state, as well as their impact on religious freedom. Althaus stated that the restriction of religious gatherings was âconformant to the constitutionâ (2021, 286). In contrast to other countries, there has been less research on religion as a factor in (nonâ)compliance with measures. Borg and Hermann (2021) found that people for whom religion was important alongside other values were more likely to support the COVID-19 measures (and laws in general). Toscer-Angot (2024) reviewed the compliance of religious actors with the COVID-19 measures, concluding that the vast majority supported them.
A lot of research was also conducted in relation to digital innovations. Campbell has formulated general criteria for successful digital innovations, albeit not specifically for Germany. She states that, in order to be successful, digital religious offers have to meet certain needs of the participants and providers should be âtransformingâ and not merely âtransferringâ or translating their services from off- to online (2020 50â¯f.). In Germany, the CONTOC study analyzed questionnaires from 2020 with pastoral employees of the RCC and EKD in Germany, stating that a majority of RCC (72 percent) and Protestant (70 percent) pastoral staffers perceived online communication more as an opportunity than a risk (Rebenstorf and Schlag 2023, 73). Furthermore, a general openness toward digital media, a variety of digital religious services (74â¯ff.), and generally speaking, âsatisfaction with the forms of religious services and the effectsâ (82) could be observed. Fülling (2020) gives examples of digital religious practice during the first lockdown in German Catholic and Protestant Churches as well as in Muslim communities. Hörsch conducted research on digital offers in the EKD, concluding that a âboost of digitalizationâ had taken place (2020, 21).
2 Findings
This section outlines the key findings from our projectâs core research areas (for further details, see the introduction to this special issue).
2.1 Discourses around Health, Illness, and Science
When analyzing the coded segments for the topic health, illness, and science, it becomes obvious that the situation is perceived as a challenge for the groups themselves as well as for society as a whole.
Roman Catholic public documents most frequently address religious practices related to prayers for those affected by COVID-19, physical health, and mental health concerns when discussing health, illness, and science. In contrast to that, the Roman Catholic religious media use community as the most important code, both on a regional levelâfor example, support networks for vulnerable groups and personsâand on an international level, pointing to the precarious situation in less wealthy countries and calling for international solidarity.
The public documents of the RCC âemphasizes its role in health protection as a public institution,â which includes following health measures, and âphysical health and mental wellbeingâ are seen as âtightly connectedâ (Grünenthal 2023, 8). âLoneliness and anxietyâ are named as salient concerns (7). A quite similar tenor can be found in the Roman Catholic religious media, where loneliness is also an important topic.9 The nonrepresentative answers by eighty-four Roman Catholic leaders in the questionnaire also affirm these findings, since they named mental health problems as the biggest issue (74 percent) for their group members, followed by childcare and home-schooling as the second most important challenge. In the public documents, the RCC is seen as the linking point between the dimensions of health: âPhysical health, mental wellbeing, salvation and a functioning society all are linked and the church is the institution in which all of it comes togetherâ (7).
In relation to science, scientific medical facts are not questioned, neither in public documents nor in religious media articles. All discuss the vaccine not only as a health issue, but also as a moral one, pointing out the need for a fair distribution of vaccines around the world and urging Christians to get vaccinated, appealing to their charity and sense of responsibility (see Ganiel, this issue). The German Bishopsâ Conference stated: âIn this pandemic, vaccination is an obligation out of justice, solidarity and love of neighbor. Ethically seen, it is a moral obligationâ (Deutsche Bischofskonferenz 2021). The questionnaires show a more differentiated picture: Only 60 percent of the RCC leaders saw it as part of their role to relay messages from public authorities about the importance of getting vaccinated, and 55 percent agreed to the statement that people who refused to be vaccinated were putting the health of others at risk.
In the public documents of the mainline Protestant churches (EKD), the most important codes regarding health, illness, and science are religious practices, death, and theological arguments. Theological arguments are used to justify the restrictions and to comfort believers who miss religious gatherings. There are many announcements of COVID-19-related religious servicesâfor example, for victims of the pandemicâbut also references to alternatives to traditional religious live events. Besides that, the focus is on spiritual, but also general, wellbeing, or, at least, managing of the individual (Grünenthal 2023, 9). The EKD âsupports counseling and self-help-groups [sic], and is involved in regional networks to support relatives and mournersâ (9). Death is mentioned in the public documents, especially in connection with religious practices. Experiences of loneliness, illness, and death are topics also raised in different articles in the Protestant religious media. Accordingly, the role of communityâand also its absenceâis a recurring theme, as are groups that are particularly affected by the restrictions.
Protestant public documents and religious media articles advocate for vaccination, appealing to peopleâs responsibility. The question of inequality, in this case between countries, is raised again, this time regarding the distribution of vaccines. Also here, the questionnaires show a more nuanced picture: only 51 percent of the 230 EKD leaders who participated agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that it was part of their role as a leader to relay messages from public authorities about the importance of getting vaccinated. Only slightly more, 59 percent, agreed or strongly agreed that people who refused to get vaccinated were putting the health of others at risk.
Muslim public documents show a more theological communication (see Radde-Antweiler, this issue), stressing the importance of faith to manage the challenges of insecurity and social distancing. The necessity to protect another personâs life and health by abstaining from gatherings is theologically justified, and the vaccination endorsed. The documents emphasize the role of community: of religious fellowship despite social distancing and the necessary solidarity, regionally as well as internationally, with the most vulnerable groups (for example, the elderly and the poor, explicitly including non-Muslims). The charitable work of Muslim groups and persons helping those in need is often mentioned. A similar focus on internal and global solidarity can be found in the religious media, as well as theological discussions of the pandemic and faith-based comfort. Both public documents and the religious media address possible conflicts of religious duties with COVID-19-related measures (for example, vaccination during fasting or the impact of fasting on the immune system) from a theological perspective.
A similarly strong link between their arguments and teaching content is demonstrated by the publications of the Anthroposophical Society, embedding their perception of the virus into their general view on health. The approach toward diseases in conventional medicine (Schulmedizin) is viewed as unidimensional and contrasted with their holistic anthroposophical approach. The documents stress that diseases in general, but also the COVID-19 virus in particular are not to be (solely) blamed for the pandemic. On the one hand, because illnesses are not only caused by pathogens, but are also an expression of psychological and spiritual processes and of a dysfunctional relationship with the outer world; on the other hand, because diseases are seen as a chance, or, as interviewees often said, as a âlearning task.â âDiseases point us to the need to work on our soul,â stated a public document (Rüter 2020). Thus, vaccination and quarantine are viewed with certain ambivalence, because they can prevent the individual from experiencing personal transformations induced by diseases, and the latter can have harmful effects on mental health. Still, the individualâs freedom to choose or reject the vaccination is supported, as well as (especially) the vaccination of vulnerable groups.
2.2 Relationships with Governments and Policymakers
The official course of the RCC was one of endorsement and implementation of the governmental measures, and in some cases, the RCCâs measures went even further than state restrictions (Berkmann 2020). Nevertheless, the importance of their institution has sometimes been used by German RCC leaders to voice certain criticism or opposition to the ordinances, for example, in discussions about a ban on religious services during Easter 2021. Additionally, some Roman Catholic individuals, including former bishops and private citizens, publicly rejected the measures or even filed lawsuits against them. In general, however, compliance with the rules was the norm, as confirmed by religious media and public documents and consistent with other research findings: for example, the COSMO (COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring) study stressed that only 22 percent of Roman Catholics advocated that âthe basic right of free religious practice should remain unrestrictedly valid also in the Corona pandemicâ (Sinnemann 2021, 12). The RCC describes itself in the public documents as an organization that participates âin political coordination processes with the state governmentsâ regarding âthe development of protection and hygiene conceptsâ and âfundamental decisions on pandemic policyâ (Grünenthal 2023, 12). Antimeasure protests as well as conspiracy theories are strongly rejected, even though the difficulties of not being able to hold religious gatherings are mentioned.
The attitude of the mainline Protestant churches (EKD) toward government and the restrictions was also characterized by compliance and cooperation. For example, the chairman of the council of the EKD, Heinrich Bedford-Strohm stated âthat we follow the rules, is in my point of view a consequence of the double commandment of love: To love God and to love thy neighborâ (Süddeutsche Zeitung 2020). Only on very few occasions, Protestant church leaders questioned governmental decisions, for example, when it was suggested to hold services only online on Easter of 2022, or regarding the limitation of funeral attendants and access to pastoral care (see, for the criticism of the bishop of the regional church of Saxony, EVLKS 2022). When the Protestant minister and former president of the state of Thuringia, Christine Lieberknecht, criticized her church for âleaving alone hundreds of thousands of peopleâ (Welt 2020), Church officials rejected her criticism vehemently.
Similar to the RCC publications, the Protestant public documents and religious media supported the restrictions. In the latter case, however, some authors and interviewees also criticized the measures, for example, because of their impact on civil and religious liberties or vulnerable groups. âThe Evangelical Churchâs relations to government and policymakers is [sic] presented as that of an established societal institution. The church ⦠emphasizes its societal responsibilityâ (Grünenthal 2023, 14). Also, conspiracy theories or narratives are criticized in all publications. The questionnaire shows a similar picture, with 81 percent of the EKD leaders expressing their agreement or strong agreement with the statement that people who did not observe the health measures were putting the health of others at risk. Also in the COSMO study, only 20 percent of Protestants had advocated that âthe basic right of free religious practice should remain unrestrictedly valid also in the Corona pandemicâ (Sinnemann 2021, 12).
Similar to the two Christian groups, Muslim communities were mostly supportive of the restrictions.10 Right from the beginning, Muslim communities in Germany refrained from bigger gatherings and urged their members to follow the rules. For example, Aiman Mazyek, chairman of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany, stressed that âthis [fighting against the virus] is currently our trial, our jihad. That goes as far as to abstain from services in the mosque during Ramadan. We see that as our religious and at the same time civic dutyâ (Lehmann 2020). This attitude is also reflected in the Muslim public documents: âTo follow the restrictions is depicted as an act of Muslim civic responsibility as well as an act of faith. Both dimensions are narratively tightly connectedâ (Grünenthal 2023, 15). The same can be said about the religious media articles, which additionally take into account the social dimensions and the economic and psychological consequences of the restrictions.
In contrast, the anthroposophistsâ views differ considerably from those of the other groups. Their public publications focus on the impact of the pandemic and the restrictions on society and individuals. While conspiracy theories as well as right-wing stances are rejected, the questions of proportionality of measures and their impact on freedom are critically discussed, and the exclusion of nonvaccinated persons criticized. The unwillingness on both sides to understand people with different views on the measures and vaccination is lamented (Grünenthal 2023, 16).
2.3 Digital Innovations
The digital services provided by the RCC were seen by Roman Catholic public documents and religious media as an opportunity to practice religion despite social distancing, and were evaluated predominantly positively. Public documents in particular repeatedly refer to the diversity of offeringsâfrom live streams to a confession app. However, they also compared the limitations of digital offers compared to live ones, and sustainability is rarely mentioned. This corresponds to the questionnaire, in which nearly half (49 percent) of the eighty-four Roman Catholic leaders answered that they stopped digital offers immediately after, or some time after, the restrictions were ended. They also reported adjustment difficulties, especially among older members (church members in Germany tend to be older than the average of German population, statista 2023). Another reason might be infrastructure issues: the CONTOC study stressed that only 28 percent of Roman Catholic professionals felt that the IT support they received from their church had been âvery goodâ or âsufficientâ (Wagener 2023, 115).
In the public documents of the Protestant mainline churches (EKD), a variety of digital formats are mentioned, and the âbishops repeatedly praise the ânew and creative waysâ that were found to meet the crisisâ (Grünenthal 2023, 19). Accordingly, âthe attitudes towards digital technology are mainly positive,â and there is an expectation that many of the digital offers can and will be continued (19) A positive view of digital offers can also be found in religious media, although the difficulties of forgoing physical encounters are mentioned. However, from the answers of the leaders, it is not clear whether the digital formats are successful and sustained. Similar to the RCC, 43 percent of the 230 Protestant leaders who participated in the questionnaire rejected the continuation of online offers after the pandemic; although an earlier study found that 72 percent of Protestants had announced at the beginning of the pandemic that they wanted to continue their digital offers (Hörsch 2020, 22). The reason for this discrepancy could be time-related or because different groups participated in the study; Hörschâs survey was aimed not only at leaders. Similar to the Roman Catholic case, the age structure of church members (statista 2023) as well as the perceived lack of support has to be taken into account: only 34 percent of the Protestant pastoral professionals participating in the CONTOC study felt supported in a âvery goodâ or âsufficientâ way by their IT departments (Beck 2023, 174).
Digital innovations are rarely discussed in the Muslim public documents and religious media; at most, they mention their use in religious education for children and as a substitute for live events. In general, the publications make it clear that they cannot fully replace physical gatherings.
Also in the public documents and religious media by the Anthroposophical Society, a certain distance from digital media is usually noticeable, and the pandemic is no exception. Digitalization is rarely a topic, and if mentioned, it is mostly in a critical way. Therefore, there are only a few mentions of digital offers or meetings in the analyzed texts. The interviews confirm these findings.
3 Contradictory Discourses: The External and Self-Perception of Anthroposophists in Times of Pandemic
The anthroposophical worldview has been influential in the areas of education and health care for more than a hundred years. In general, the secular German media often take a critical stance toward anthroposophy, criticizing its alternative medical views and its critical attitude toward conventional medicine (including COVID-19 measures). During the pandemic, anthroposophy was linked by some media to âQuerdenkerâ groups, that is, persons protesting against COVID-19 restrictions. Since these demonstrations were reportedly at least partly right-wing and antisemitic, an implicit connection was made between anthroposophical and right-wing stances (for example, Henzler 2020).11 The Anthroposophical Society in Germany (AGiD) reacted quickly:
Following the âCorona demonstrationsâ organized by the âQuerdenkenâ initiative on August 29 in Berlin, several newspapers (e.g., Die Zeit, Die Süddeutsche Zeitung, and Der Spiegel) published articles linking anthroposophy in general, and thus also the activities of the Anthroposophical Society with right-wing extremist and racist groups. As the Anthroposophical Society in Germany we expressly and completely distance ourselves from all right-wing extremist, racist, and antisemitic groups and their thinking.
AGiDÂ 2020
Nevertheless, the suggestion of a connection between COVID-19 protests and anthroposophists has been further investigated not only by the media (for example, Düker 2021), but also by researchers. A qualitative survey concluded that âthe analysis of the alternative milieu and the anthroposophical milieu led to the assumption, that those, with some fundamental adaptations, can be viewed as important (although not only) sources of Querdenken in Baden-Württembergâ (Frei and Nachtwey 2021, 31). They concluded that âthere is a strong elective affinity between the anthroposophical way of thinking and the Corona criticism. The Corona protests are mostly dealing with issuesâbody and healthâwhich concern the anthroposophical milieu since their [sic] genesisâ (47). The study focuses more on protesters against the COVID-19 measures. Nevertheless, this study also provides evidence of the diversity within the anthroposophical milieu; for example, one of the managers of an anthroposophical clinic interviewed by the researchers reported a vaccination rate of 80 percent, which even exceeded that of other institutions in the federal state in question (41).
The chairman of the Anthroposophical Society advocated for differentiating between âCorona deniersâ and measure-critical persons and groups:
I see different qualities in the conspiracy theories ⦠âCorona deniers,â who do not see the reality of the virus, are not to be taken seriously on the basis of concrete infections, nor are conspiracy myths, as described above [Q-Anon and theories about the pharmaceutical industry plotting and implantations of chips]. âCorona measures critics,â provided they put forward well-founded arguments based on rational and factual foundations ⦠[should be taken seriously]. The decisive factor is always whether there is a willingness to engage in discourse ⦠In the âmainstreamâ of public opinion, however, the complexity of the situation leaves little room for a critical and factual debate. Society is currently divided and the fronts are hardening. The formation of oneâs own judgement is demanded.
Schmock 202112
Also, with regard to COVID-19 vaccination, many journalistic media outlets linked anthroposophy with vaccine skepticism. âNowhere in Western Europe is the vaccination rate as low as in the German-speaking area. This is also due to an influential group: the Anthroposophistsâ (Rapp 2021). Anthroposophists reacted to these accusations in several statements and emphasized the freedom of choice. However, at the same time, the vaccination of vulnerable persons was endorsed (for example, Schikarski 2021, or Dachverband Anthroposophische Medizin in Deutschland 2021). In its position paper on vaccinations, the member of the board of the Association of Anthroposophical Medicine in Germany, Schmidt-Trotschke, advocated for freedom of choice, nevertheless stressing that âto freedom also belongs responsibility,â referring to the protection both âof the health system of an overloadâ and âof other sick peopleâ by getting the vaccine (Dachverband Anthroposophische Medizin in Deutschland 2021). Furthermore, he urged vulnerable persons to get booster shots. However, many media continued to connect anthroposophism with vaccination reluctance and/or the Querdenker movement (for example: Holl and Holdt 2021; Böldt 2021; Brumlik 2021).
A scientific document by the German parliament concluded: âproofs for a collaboration of Anthroposophical institutions with right-wing extremist [groups] and groups which adhere to conspiracy theories are currently not knownâ (Wissenschaftliche Dienste Deutscher Bundestag 2022, 5). However, it referenced two regional reports of the Verfassungsschutz (German governmental institution responsible for the protecting of the constitution) in which anthroposophists are mentioned, together with other spiritual groups, as both a possible source for conspiracy theories as well as a possible target of âright-wing extremistsâ to establish connections to âother, non-extremist milieusâ (6). A study on the correlation between voting behavior in 2021, Waldorf schools, and alternative medicine practitioners found no correlation between the latter and the right-wing Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), but rather with the party critical of COVID-19 measures Basisdemokratische Partei Deutschland (dieBasis) (Weidmann 2023, 603). Nevertheless, the study stated that âthe overall magnitude of Corona-related criticism that can be attributed to esoteric beliefs remains modest, since the overall voting result for the dieBasis party is low at the national levelâ (617). It is debated if dieBasis is open to right-wing stances (for example, Sternberg and Husmann 2021), something which the party itself rejects (Nocon 2023).
In contrast to these studies, the positions of the persons interviewed for this project were more similar to the stances taken by the aforementioned anthroposophical leaders. In analyzed documents as well as in the interviews, most anthroposophists or people from the anthroposophical community advocated for freedom of choice, especially with regard to vaccination, and lamented a lack of dialogue and understanding between people with different views on COVID-19. For example, a person responsible for implementing the health measures in a Waldorf school stated: âActually it felt like one of the worst things ⦠that, um, that people were played off against each other like that. Thatâs how it felt. And were also apparently prepared to see other people as an enemy or an enemy of their own convictions.â Later on, she explained that âmany things would have gone differently, better, if they hadnât been morally charged,â something for which she blamed politicians. As an example, she said that the request to wear masks or get vaccinations should have been dealt with as appeals, and not as laws, by the government, without recriminations against those deciding against the vaccination (leader interview, anthroposophist).
A leading member of a Waldorf school criticized an overtly individualistic stance of some anthroposophists at school: âThe more dogmatic the people were about anthroposophy, the more they felt that they themselves should take responsibility and that it should really be their decision how to deal with it.â13 He also expressed zero tolerance for conspiracy narratives and lamented that these had been voiced by some anthroposophists and had also âtaken up a lot of spaceâ in the school environment, but at the same time added that this had also been the case in other contexts. Nevertheless, he reported that only a small number of persons had actually reacted, reproaching the school heads for implementing the state regulations (leader interview, anthroposophical environment).
An anthroposophist who had been subjected to many forms of private and public exclusions due to her nonvaccinated status, emphasized that her community respected individual decisions regarding vaccination: âEveryone decided and carried it out for themselves and there was no insistence. Regardless of whether you were friends or not. Everyone did it for themselves and it wasnât trumpeted and it was very, very loyal. So, it was simply accepted how the other person did it.â She also reported on the precaution measures taken in the event of infection, whereby the sick person informs the others online so that they could keep a distance (member interview, anthroposophist).
Respect not only for the decision to be vaccinated or not, but also for the needs of individuals was emphasized by one of her communityâs leaders:
And so, we did not formally position ourselves as a farm [community]. Not that. The controversial view became already clear at this first meeting and we nevertheless agreed that, out of consideration for the, the fearful, we would essentially stick to the regulations ⦠But there are some who need protection, who are afraid and then they get it [the protection]. In spite of the controversial views, even those who were clearly against the measures were of course, prepared to provide it [protection] out of consideration for those close to them who needed protection. Not on orders from above, but out of consideration for those ⦠they could see who needed it, of course.14
A member of the same group who had been vaccinated herself (although regretting it later), stated that the unvaccinated should not have been discriminated against at their workplace: âThere were enough [people] who were happy that there was a vaccination. And they can get it too. But those who donât want to be vaccinated for whatever reason [donât have to]. There you go. No harassment at workâ (member interview, anthroposophist).
The qualitative interviews in the project do not provide a representative overview of anthroposophical positions. The vast majority of the interviewees labeled themselves as anthroposophists, although a few of them did not consider themselves to be full-fledged anthroposophists, sometimes, because they were not formal members of the Anthroposophical Society (see for the differentiation of anthroposophical positions, Zander 2019, 10â13). However, the interviewees reflect the positions of leading anthroposophical institutions as reflected in their publications. They advocated dialogue between groups with different positions regarding COVID-19 and respect for individual freedom of choice, and were sometimes more willing to criticize certain measures. However, as in the official publications of the Anthroposophical Society, which reflect the official position, the vast majority neither rejected the vaccine generally nor were unwilling to take precautionary measures, out of respect for the concern of others. It is possible that those anthroposophists who most strongly opposed the measures are underrepresented in the sample. Persons who rejected measures and vaccination were seldom willing to participate in the interviews, independently from their belief system. The reluctance of anthroposophists to participate in the online questionnaires might also be caused by the fear of being judged or misrepresented; at least, that preoccupation was uttered before the qualitative interviews, which took place during the research. A differentiation of the discourse on anthroposophists and COVID-19 seems to be necessary, both in the media and in research.
4 Conclusions
Whereas all groups were affected by the pandemic, the project research results show similarities between the three religious communities regarding discourses around health, illness, and science, as well as relationships with governments and policymakers. Even if Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Muslims have in fact quite different organizational structures and positions in German society, their publications showed similarities: concern for mental health and the social consequences of the measures. Above all, in the Christian context, the debate over vaccination was morally charged, with publications strongly advocating for vaccination. The publications of the three religious communities emphasized good cooperation with the government and the health authorities, and expressed their approval and acceptance of government restrictions. Only the anthroposophical documents discussed the measures and the vaccine more critically. In the two mainline Christian churches, discussions on health guidelines were more driven by medical and scientific than religious arguments, in contrast to the Muslim and anthroposophical statements (see, for a detailed analysis of religious and nonreligious communication, Radde-Antweiler, this issue),15 in which religious and worldview arguments play a bigger role.
Digital innovations were not prominently featured in religious public documents and religious media. Roman Catholic and Protestant texts highlighted the use of digital media, mentioning various formats, ranging from live streams to online counseling. Still, it is not clear how many of them met Campbellâs (2020, 5) criteria for a successful implementation of digital offers. Questionnaires as well as interviews indicated that many of the digital offers were canceled after the pandemic,16 which contrasts with a somewhat more optimistic approach in the beginning of the pandemic (Rebenstorf and Schlag 2023, 108; for the EKD, Hörsch 2020, 22â¯f.; from a theological perspective, Von Stosch 2021), but corresponds with findings that online forms were not seen as a âlasting replacementâ for offline services (Rebenstorf and Schlag 2023, 83). The Muslim public documents mentioned digital innovations only rarely, but the public documents, the religious media, and the interviews show that digital replacements of live gatherings were offered. Anthroposophists, who are generally critical of digitalization, mostly canceled events and meetings.
The project has revealed similarities between the three religious communities, while the anthroposophists represented the smallest and the most divergent group in all three research areas. The qualitative interviews showed a bigger spectrum of opinions and stances toward COVID-19 than the analysis of religious media and publications,17 although most interviewees supported the measures. Still, the possible greater acceptance or at least compliance with the measures among religious people has to be taken into account (Borg and Hermann 2021). Nevertheless, when recruiting interview partners, opponents of the measures within the communities often did not want to participate, or only wanted to speak off the record. Generally, many interviewees also seemed to feel compelled to comply with (supposed) social expectations. Consequently, criticism of the measures was only voiced when explicitly asked. That is probably a consequence of dominant discourses not only in society, but also in religious organizationsâanother topic worth exploring further.
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my special thanks to Kerstin Radde-Antweiler for her feedback and suggestions. I would also like to thank the other researchers involved in the RECOV-19 project for their fruitful collaboration and input, as well as the reviewers.
For a detailed discussion of the definition of anthroposophy and of the Anthroposophical Society, see Zander 2019, 8, 17.
Regarding the analysis of religious publications and media, this article will partly rely on the research (especially the coding) done by Hannah Grünenthal.
The Federal Republic of Germany consists of sixteen federal states, and had in 2023 a total of 84,669,000 inhabitants (destatis, n.d. a).
Unless otherwise stated, all translations from German to English were made by the author.
Strulik and Yakubenko 2023, 289â¯f., analyzed the role of Easter 2021 services regarding the spread (or not) of infection.
âInstitutions which undertake tasks for the state as legal persons of public lawâ (BPDÂ 2016).
The Christengemeinschaft states that it is ânot the anthroposophistsâ church, although it is the only Christian community which recognizes Rudolf Steinerâs anthroposophy and adopted its decisive help for the broadening and renovation of theologyâ (Christengemeinschaft 2024).
Although the researchers do not specify the Catholic denomination, it can be deduced from the context that they refer to Roman Catholics.
That is supported by a word search and exploration throughout all the Catholic religious media articles: The most frequent word combinations involving âlonelyâ are âdying lonely,â âlonely people,â âlonely persons,â âto approach lonely people,â and âpeople dying alone.â The most frequent context words are âpeople,â âold,â âsick,â âweak,â and âdie.â Loneliness is closely connected to illness and death.
Even so-called extremist Muslims did accept the measures, as an explorative study pointed out: âThe danger of the virus and the measures by the central government and the Federal states are barely doubtedâ (Von Baeckmann et al. 2020).
Already before the pandemic, statements made by founder Rudolf Steiner had raised a media debate about possible racist and antisemitic stances in contemporary anthroposophy.
Trans. Hannah Grünenthal, revised by the author.
He was one of the few interviewees who did not claim the term âanthroposophistâ for themselves, but described himself as connected to the anthroposophical âway of knowledge.â
Leader interview, anthroposophist.
Both texts and qualitative interviews.
50 percent of Roman Catholic and 50 percent of Protestant leaders said that they stopped providing online opportunities, âimmediatelyâ or âafter some time.â
24 percent of Germany stayed unvaccinated (Bundesministerium für Gesundheit 2023), and 23 percent rejected the âQuerdenkerâ movement to be monitored by the Verfassungsschutz, the office for the protection of the constitution (statista 2021).
References
AGiD. n.d. âAufgaben und Ziele,â www.anthroposophische-gesellschaft.de/aufgaben-und-ziele.
AGiD. 2020. âAnthroposophie Gegen Rassismus, Rechtsextremismus und Antisemitismus,â 18 September. www.anthroposophische-gesellschaft.de/blog/anthroposophie-gegen-rassismus-rechtsextremismus-und-antisemitismus.
Althaus, Rüdiger. 2021. âDie Corona-Krise 2020 Kirchenrechtliche Schlaglichter,â Theologie und Glaube 110:3, 239â247.
Beck, Wolfgang. 2023. âInnerkirchliche Subsidiarität als Institutionelle Unterstützungsleistung in Deutschlandâaus Katholischer Perspektive Betrachtet,â in Thomas Schlag, Ilona Nord, Wolfgang Beck, Arnd Bünker, Georg Lämmlin, Sabrina Müller, Johann Pock, and Martin Rothgangel (eds.), Churches Online in Times of Corona: Die CONTOC-Studie: Empirische Einsichten, Interpretationen und Perspektiven, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 171â178.
Berkmann, Burkhard J. 2020. âThe Covid-19 Crisis and Religious Freedom,â Journal of Law, Religion and State 8, 179â200.
Böldt, Daniel. 2021. âAntroposophie und das Impfen: Der Zweifel Wächst Trotz Wissen,â Die Tageszeitung, 21 December. https://taz.de/Antroposophie-und-das-Impfen/!5818077/.
Borg, Ingwer, and Dieter Hermann. 2021. âDie Verortung von Corona-bezogenen Einstellungen, Compliance und Ãngsten im Werteraum,â Kriminologie: Das Online-Journal 4:3, 383â403.
BPD (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung). 2016. âKörperschaft des Ãffentlichen Rechts.â www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/lexika/lexikon-der-wirtschaft/19896/koerperschaft-des-oeffentlichen-rechts/.
Brumlik, Micha. 2021. âAnalyse der Coronaproteste: Virus Gegen Geschichtsbewusstsein,â Die Tageszeitung, 17 December. https://taz.de/Analyse-der-Coronaproteste/!5822361/.
Bundesministerium für Gesundheit. n.d. âCoronavirus-Pandemie: Was Geschah Wann?â www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/coronavirus/chronik-coronavirus.html
Bundesministerium für Gesundheit. 2023. âImpfstatus,â 8 April. www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/coronavirus/chronik-coronavirus.html.
Bundesregierung. 2020. âPressekonferenz von Bundeskanzlerin Merkel zu MaÃnahmen der Bundesregierung im Zusammenhang mit dem Coronavirus,â 17 March. www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/service/archiv/pressekonferenz-von-bundeskanzlerin-merkel-zu-massnahmen-der-bundesregierung-im-zusammenhang-mit-dem-coronavirus-1731022.
Büssing, Arndt, Klaus Baumann, and Janusz Surzykiewicz. 2022. âLoss of Faith and Decrease in Trust in a Higher Source During COVID-19 in Germany,â Journal of Religion and Health 61:1, 741â766.
Campbell, Heidi A. 2020. âWhat Religious Groups Need to Consider When Trying to Do Church Online,â in Heidi A. Campbell, (ed.), The Distanced Church: Reflections on Doing Church Online, College Station, TX: Digital Religion Publications, 49â52. https://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/187891.
Christengemeinschaft 2024. âHintergründe: Die Christengemeinschaft.â https://christengemeinschaft.de/hintergruende/die-christengemeinschaft
Dachverband Anthroposophische Medizin in Deutschland. 2021. âImpfen: Solidarisch entscheiden. Stellungnahme des Dachverbandes Anthroposophische Medizin zur COVID-Impfung,â 2 December. https://damid.de/presse/pressmitteilungen/1011-impfen-solidarisch-entscheiden.html.
Delanghe, Joris R., Marijn M. Speeckaert, and Marc L. de Buyzere. 2022. âCOVID-19 Related Mortality and Religious Denomination Vs. Genetics,â Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 60:7, 157â158.
Destatis. n.d. âBevölkerungsstand.â www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoelkerung/Bevoelkerungsstand/_inhalt.html.
Deutsche Bischofskonferenz. 2021. âStändiger Rat der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz Ruft zum Impfen auf,â 22 November. www.dbk.de/presse/aktuelles/meldung/staendiger-rat-der-deutschen-bischofskonferenz-ruft-zum-impfen-auf.
Deutsche Welle. 2021. âKeine Osterruhe: Kirchen Können Messen Feiern,â 25 March. www.dw.com/de/keine-osterruhe-trotz-corona-kirchen-k%C3%B6nnen-gottesdienste-feiern/a-56991871.
Düker, Ronald. 2021. âCorona-Proteste: Querdenken mit Rudolf Steiner,â Die Zeit, 5 February. www.zeit.de/2021/06/corona-proteste-querdenken-rudolf-steiner-waldorfpaedagogik-anthroposophie.
EKD. 2020. âEin Wort der katholischen, Evangelischen Und Orthodoxen Kirche in Deutschland: âBeistand, Trost und Hoffnung,ââ 20 March.www.ekd.de/gemeinsames-wort-der-kirchen-zur-corona-krise-54220.htm.
Evangelisch.de. 2020. âCoronavirus: Kirchen Verschieben Gottesdienste und Veranstaltungen,â 13 March. www.evangelisch.de/inhalte/167142/13-03-2020/coronavirus-kirchen-verschieben-gottesdienste-und-veranstaltungen.
EVLKS. 2022. âSeelsorge Muss für Jeden Menschen Zugänglich Sein,â 13 January. www.evlks.de/aktuelles/alle-nachrichten/nachricht/seelsorge-muss-fuer-jeden-menschen-zugaenglich-sein/.
fowid. 2025. âReligionszugehörigkeiten 2024,â Forschungsgruppe Weltanschauungen in Deutschland. https://fowid.de/meldung/religionszugehoerigkeiten-2024.
Fülling, Hanna. 2020. âDigitalisierungsschub für Das Religiöse Leben in der Corona-Krise,â in Jeannine Kunert (ed.), Corona und Religionen: Religiöse Praxis in Zeiten der Pandemie, Berlin: Evangelische Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen, 89â104. www.ezw-berlin.de/fileadmin/user_upload/ezw-berlin/PDF/EZW-Texte_PDF_Dateien/EZW-Texte_268_korrig._Fassung.pdf.
Frei, Nadine, and Oliver Nachtwey. 2021. Quellen Des âQuerdenkertumsâ: Eine Politische Soziologie Der Corona-Proteste In Baden-Württemberg, Basel: Institut für Soziologie.
Grünenthal, Hannah. 2023. âPublications by Religious Organisations During the Covid-19 Pandemic in Germany.â https://media.suub.uni-bremen.de/bitstream/elib/6956/3/TAP_shortreport_I_GER.pdf.
Henzler, Claudia. 2020. âCorona-Protest in Berlin: Reichsbürger Trifft Impfskeptiker,â Süddeutsche Zeitung, 31 August. www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/corona-berlin-reichsbuerger-rechtsextremismus-reichstag-1.5015643.
Hillenbrand, Carolin. 2020. âStudie Zu Religion Und Gesellschaftlichem Zusammenhalt in Zeiten Der Corona-Pandemie: Factsheet: Ergebnisse Für Den 1. Zeitraum Von Juli Bis Oktober 2020.â Unpublished manuscript, https://www.uni-muenster.de/imperia/md/content/religion_und_politik/aktuelles/2020/11_2020/factsheet__religion_und_gesellschaftlicher_zusammenhalt_in_zeiten_der_corona-pandemie.pdf.
Hillenbrand, Carolin, and Detlef Pollack. 2023. âReligiöse und spirituelle Ressourcen, Deutungsmuster und Bewältigungsstrategien,â in Carolin Hillenbrand, Detlef Pollack, and Yasemin El-Menouar (eds.), Religion als Ressource der Krisenbewältigung? Analysen am Beispiel der Coronapandemie, Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung, 15â49.
Holl, Thomas, and Rüdiger Holdt. 2021. âImpfgegner und Anthroposophie: Höhere Einsichten dank Rudolf Steiner?,â Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 4 December. www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/impfgegner-und-anthroposophie-hoehere-einsichten-dank-rudolf-steiner-17665933.html.
Hörsch, Daniel. 2020. âDigitale Verkündigungsformate Während der Corona-Krise: Eine Ad-hoc-Studie im Auftrag der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland.â www.mi-di.de/publikationen/digitale-verkuendigungsformate-waehrend-der-corona-krise.
Kanol, Eylem, and Ines Michalowski. 2023. âImpact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Religiosity: Evidence from Germany,â Scientific Study of Religion 62:2, 293â311.
Laliotis, Ioannis, and Dimitrios Minos. 2022. âReligion, Social Interactions, and COVID-19 Incidence in Western Germany,â European Economic Review 141, 1â22.
Lehmann, Timo. 2020. âViele Moscheen Stehen vor dem Bankrott,â Der Spiegel, 22 April. www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/aiman-mazyek-zu-corona-und-ramadan-viele-moscheen-stehen-vor-dem-bankrott-a-1b5da786-cf16-4c86-88a7-144eab0a1a80.
Nocon, Stefan. 2023. âWas ist Eigentlich Rechts?,â diebasis-partei.de, 10 July. https://diebasis-partei.de/2023/07/was-ist-eigentlich-rechts/.
Pickel, Gert. 2020. âKirchenbindung und Religiosität in Ost und West: Lange Wege der Deutschen Einheit,â bpb.de, 14 September. www.bpb.de/themen/deutsche-einheit/lange-wege-der-deutschen-einheit/47190/kirchenbindung-und-religiositaet-in-ost-und-west/.
Radde-Antweiler, Kerstin, Solange Lefebre, and Gladys Ganiel. 2026. âThe Changing Role of Religion in Societies Emerging from Covid-19. Research Project Methodology.â ZeMKI Working Papers 55. doi.org/10.26092/elib/5477.
Rapp, Tobias. 2021. âWaldorfschule und Impfgegner: In Steiners Sekte,â Der Spiegel, 15 November. www.spiegel.de/kultur/waldorfschule-und-impfgegner-in-steiners-sekte-a-8242889d-190f-479f-bf6d-a22ccab54013.
Rebenstorf, Hilke, and Thomas Schlag. 2023. âGrundauswertung der CONTOC-Studie,â in Thomas Schlag, Ilona Nord, Wolfgang Beck, Arnd Bünker, Georg Lämmlin, Sabrina Müller, Johann Pock, and Martin Rothgangel (eds.), Churches Online in Times of Corona: Die CONTOC-Studie: Empirische Einsichten, Interpretationen und Perspektiven, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 65â110.
Rüter, Christine. 2020. âGesundheit und Krankheit: Was Haben Sie mit Uns zu Tun?,â anthroposophische-gesellschaft.de, 15 May. www.anthroposophische-gesellschaft.de/blog/gesundheit-und-krankheit-was-haben-sie-mit-uns-zu-tun.
Schikarski, Christian. 2021. âPandemieâeine Menschheitliche Bedrohung,â 5 May, accessed 20 September 2024, https://www.anthroposophische-gesellschaft.de/blog/pandemie-eine-menschheitliche-bedrohung
Schmock, Michael. 2021. âCorona und die Folgen: Anthroposophen als âNährbodenâ für Verschwörungsnarrative?,â anthroposophische-gesellschaft.de, 19 February. www.anthroposophische-gesellschaft.de/blog/corona-und-die-folgen.
Sinnemann, Maria. 2021. âNeue Angebote, mehr Nachfrage? Empirische Ergebnisse zur individuellen Religiosität Während der Corona-Krise,â SI Kompakt 2. www.siekd.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2021-2_SI-KOMPAKT_Sinnemann_Religiositaet-Corona.pdf.
Süddeutsche Zeitung. 2020. âEKD-Ratsvorsitzender Unterstützt Gottesdienstverbot,â 8 April. www.sueddeutsche.de/gesundheit/muenchen-ekd-ratsvorsitzender-unterstuetzt-gottesdienstverbot-dpa.urn-newsml-dpa-com-20090101-200408-99-632850.
Statista. 2021. âBefürworten oder lehnen Sie es ab, dass Teile der âQuerdenkenâ: Bewegung nun auch bundesweit vom Verfassungsschutz beobachtet werden?,â April. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1238160/umfrage/meinung-zur-beobachtung-der-querdenken-bewegung-vom-verfassungsschutz/
Statista. 2023. âPersonen, die Mitglied in einer Kirche/Religionsgemeinschaft sind nach Alter im Vergleich mit der Bevölkerung in Deutschland im Jahr 2023,â June. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1037080/umfrage/alter-der-personen-die-mitglied-in-einer-kirche-religionsgemeinschaft-sind-2019/
Statista 2024a. âAnzahl der Katholiken in Deutschland von 1950 bis 2023,â June. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1226/umfrage/anzahl-der-katholiken-in-deutschland-seit-1965/.
Statista 2024b. âAnzahl der Mitglieder der evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland von 2003 bis 2023,â August. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1229/umfrage/anzahl-der-mitglieder-der-evangelischen-kirche-seit-2003/
Sternberg, Jan, and Felix Huesmann. 2021. âDie Neue Parteienliebe der Querdenker-Szeneâ, rnd.de, 19 March. www.rnd.de/politik/querdenker-parteien-kaum-glaubhafte-distanzierung-nach-rechts-UD2AKIWCZ5A7BKBLXZ7LCY3D3M.html.
Strulik, Holger, and Slava Yakubenko. 2023. âCorona and the Cross: Religious Affiliation, Church Bans, and Covid Infections,â German Economic Review 24:3, 271â304.
Tagesschau. 2020. âKirchgang ab Mai: vielerorts,â 24 April. www.tagesschau.de/inland/gottesdienste-103.html
Tagesschau. 2021. âIn Welchem Bundesland Gilt Was?,â 17 November. www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/coronavirus-regelungen-bundeslaender-103.html.
Toscer-Angot, Sylvie. 2024. âThe COVID-19 Pandemic and Religion in Germany,â in Brian Conway, Lene Kühle, Francesco Alicino, and Gabriel Bîrsan (eds), Religion, Law, and COVID-19 in Europe: A Comparative Analysis, Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 247â263.
Vatican News. 2020. âDeutschland: Kirche Setzt Erste MaÃnahmen zur Eindämmung des Virus,â 13 March. www.vaticannews.va/de/kirche/news/2020-03/deutschland-kirche-corona-virus-massnahmen.html.
Von Baeckmann, Kyra, Miron Maradin, and Georg Materna. 2020. âDie Coronakrise Zwischen Glaubensbewährung und âMeinungsdiktaturâ: Ein Qualitativer Vergleich von Videos zur Coronakrise auf Islamistischen und Rechtspopulistischen YouTube-Kanälen,â Rise, 21 July. https://rise-jugendkultur.de/artikel/die-coronakrise-zwischen-glaubenbewaehrung-und-meinungsdiktatur.
Von Stosch. 2021. âDie Corona-Krise als Lernfeld für Kirche und Systematische Theologie,â Theologie und Glaube 110:3, 239â247.
Walter, Teresa. 2021. âStreit um Präsenzgottesdienste an Ostern: So Reagiert das Netz,â katholisch.de, 23 March. www.katholisch.de/artikel/29196-streit-um-praesenzgottesdienste-an-ostern-so-reagiert-das-netz.
Wagener, Hermann-Josef. 2023. âWie Ticken die Deutschen Katholischen Akteur*innen in der Pastoral zu Coronazeiten?,â in Thomas Schlag, Ilona Nord, Wolfgang Beck, Arnd Bünker, Georg Lämmlin, Sabrina Müller, Johann Pock, and Martin Rothgangel (eds.), Churches Online in Times of Corona: Die CONTOC-Studie: Empirische Einsichten, Interpretationen und Perspektiven, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 113â126.
Weidmann, Nils B. 2023. âEsoteric Beliefs and Opposition to Corona Restrictions in Germany,â Politische Vierteljahresschrift 64, 603â620.
Welt. 2020. âCorona-Krise: Ex-Ministerpräsidentin attackiert Kirchen,â 18 May. www.welt.de/regionales/thueringen/article208070605/Corona-Krise-Ex-Ministerpraesidentin-attackiert-Kirchen.html.
Wirtschaftswoche. 2022. âSo ist der Zweite Lockdown in Deutschland Verlaufen,â 6 January. www.wiwo.de/politik/deutschland/corona-lockdown-so-ist-der-zweite-lockdown-in-deutschland-verlaufen/27076474.html.
Wissenschaftliche Dienste Deutscher Bundestag. 2022. âAnthroposophie und Corona-Proteste,â 26 October. www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/922376/a9712a4aca2c5e401f49a2649d29bb3a/WD-1-024-22-pdf-data.pdf.
Zentralrat der Muslime (ZMD). 2020. â13.03.2020 Bekanntgabe des ZMD: Freitagsgebet Wegen Coronavirus Aussetzen,â 13 March. https://zentralrat.de/32058.php
Zander, Helmut. 2019. Die Anthroposophie, Leiden: Brill | Schöningh.
