For the record, I'm not anti-Christian, I'm anti-religion.

I agree that the CDU itself is not in direct violation of the separation of church and state but Germany decidedly does not have a separation between church and state -- unlike the US. The absurdity of course being that Germany is religiously fairly moderate in comparison.

I'll also freely point out that most of the benefits religions (or Christianity in particular) receive in Germany[0] are not actually being justified with religious arguments but arguments from tradition or the will of the majority and so on.

My biggest gripe with the two big Christian churches in particular (the Catholic church of Germany and the federation of various Lutheran and other evangelical churches) is with the church-operated hospitals, kindergartens, schools and so on.

First of all, because these are operated by the church, the regular labour laws do not fully apply. Instead the church is allowed to apply ecclesiastical law. Aside from voiding various labour protection rights this also allows them to openly discriminate in accordance with religious laws -- e.g. against non-believers or (in the case of the Catholic church) gay or divorced couples.

Additionally, despite being granted this special status, in many cases the majority of the financial burden is actually carried by the state[1], in some cases covering up to 100%[2]. For all intents and purposes, these are public, state-funded institutions that are operated under church law for no discernible reason other than history. And while we're talking about accidents of history, Germany is also directly paying the church on top of all that[3][4].

As for the church tax: I'm sure that the position of the Christian churches is not unique -- if the Jewish council or a hypothetical unified Muslim church[5] was to levy such a tax I'm sure that would be collected just as well. But it's inconsistent to argue that it's fine for the government to collect church tax alongside actual taxes for the churches but not other mandatory fees (like the Rundfunkbeitrag -- the now universally mandatory fee that supports the public broadcasting channels). I'm aware of the argument about separating the state and the public media (because we're paranoid about state-controlled media for obvious reasons) of course, but the core point is that the tax agency is not a state-sanctioned collection agency for membership fees.

Oh, and of course there's little things like the fact that religious freedom of the parents trumps infant boys' right to bodily integrity[6]. But to be fair, that court decision was mostly based on not upsetting the Jewish community and we have good reason not to want to upset the Jewish community considering what we did to them less than a hundred years ago.

[0]: http://www.3sat.de/page/?source=/ard/sendung/176358/index.ht...

[1]: http://www1.wdr.de/fernsehen/aks/themen/kirchlichetraegersch...

[2]: http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/38/38390/1.html

[3]: http://www.taz.de/!5064407/

[4]: http://blog.handelsblatt.com/handelsblog/2013/10/11/warum-za...

[5]: The problem Muslims face with regard to being recognized at the same level as Christians and Jews is that Islam is not as well-structured in Germany at this point. Because Islam is still largely an immigrant religion (i.e. its members being an incredibly heterogeneous group coming from many different places), there isn't one Islam but several versions of it, much like the many different evangelical churches. Unlike the different evangelical churches they're not likely to unify any time soon. It took the evangelical churches until the early 20th century to unify in Germany.

[6]: http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/ein-jahr-beschneidungsges...