The religious practices in Germany and in Taiwan indicate that the historical background of religious development determines the characters of religious groups, their legal status as a secular institution in the nation's public life, and the nature of state legislation imposed on them; consequently, the protection for the individual freedom to religion in each of the two countries has evolved in a different way. The church in Germany, due to its tormenting experiences of the non-separation of state-and-church and religious persecutions, has continued to exist after being separated from the state, with its persistent organizational form, and with the guarantee of the specific legal status granted by the state law. The individual right to religious freedom is hence comprehensively (broadly and fully) protected on the level of the constitution, on the premises that the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) should reflect the history. These protections are in the form of fundamental rights, thus sustaining no possibility of under-protection, presumed that the authority responsible for the constitutional interpretation keeps loyal to the Constitution. In contrast to it, religious groups in Taiwan are lax with respect to their organizational form, because in their historical experiences they lack a concern of the separation of religious groups and state. The conflict between religious groups and state has seldom become a crucial issue, and the religious doctrine are relatively moderate. In addition, the state legislation on religious affairs are scarce. Due to these factors religious groups appear to have freedom to a certain extent, but they are rather in need of the kind of guarantee they deserve owing to the indefiniteness of their legal status. Under the status quo, the issues about the individual freedom to religion, and the rights and duties of religious group are dealt with simply by the concerned authority using expansive interpretation, which, practically, often means "judicial law-making; for the constitutional provisions are over-simplistic, while the relevant legislation amounts to nothing. "Judicial law-making," however, is not a proper means under the Rule of Law for its being at variance with the basic democratic principle of the separation of powers. If our constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights are to be maintained in a high quality, so as to make it somehow conform to the advanced practice of the basic rights protection in Germany, the state legislation on religion is necessary and urgent. It can thus serve to complement the inadequacy of the constitutional provisions wherever the authorities for constitutionenactment and the constitution-amendment are inactive.