Belgian Law mentions professional secrecy at different places. In recent years, professional secrecy has been nuanced or even eroded. It remains, however, an important item for certain professional groups, for some perhaps a privilege, for others a burden. Enough indications exist that ministers of the Protestant-Evangelical religion (pastors), even though they are not bound by priest-penitent privilege, are bound by professional secrecy. This makes it necessary to have a clear definition of ‘pastors’. Due to the relative ignorance about Protestantism in Belgium, this has taken some time. The article ends with the discussion of some practical aspects of the professional secrecy of pastors.

The notion of ‘sharia in the West’ is by now fairly well established, both in social, political and scientific circles, but both the terms ‘sharia’ and ‘West’ remain difficult to define. It is therefore striking that the combination of these two terms is used with such self-evidence. This article wants to answer the question: what exactly is the sharia that Western Muslims arguably want, and how is this sharia received in the West? To this end, a model is presented that provides a description of the complex interaction between sharia as practiced by Western Muslims on the one hand, and the conditions that the Western environment sets for it on the other. The model shows that ‘sharia’ cannot be compared to a law system, and that the Western environment has a major influence on the extent and ways in which Muslims apply sharia. From a Western perspective, the model shows that sharia issues are mainly discussed in legal terms, while most controversies are not of a legal nature, but rather a cultural one.

Restrictions imposed by the state on the exercise of religion are always the result of a weighing of interests by a judge, an administrative body or a legislator. This weighing of interests is strongly influenced by the context within the exercise of religion take place. In this article four different spheres are distinguished: the internal religious sphere, the public sphere, the sphere of private institutions and the government sphere. The particular relationship that these spheres have with neutrality characterizes the balancing of interests. This explains and justifies why wearing religious clothing may be restricted in some situations and not in others.

The Dutch social-liberal party D66 was founded in 1966, in the aftermath of the pillarisation (on religious grounds) of Dutch society. The founders of D66 wanted to ‘blow up’ the pillarised political system. They strongly took distance from religions that were in their views oppressing. A certain anti-religion attitude was a part of the DNA of the party. For decades it was ‘bon ton’ to criticise religion. A turning point has recently been observed by the writer. There is still a discomfort in relation to religion, but this discomfort is more related to not-knowing than being against. The writer pleads for going beyond the discomfort. Religion – in the broad sense of the word – has a lot to offer to society. We indeed can’t live without binding stories, places that are loaded with meaning and festivities that reminds ourselves of who we are and who we would want to be. Finally the modernity and religion can strengthen each other: where modernity is skilled in criticising religion, the Christian religion can make a contribution by criticising modernity.

In the ruling on Lachiri/Belgium, commentators discern a new development in the ECHR’s jurisprudence on the relationship between the headscarf and freedom of religion. According to the author, that is not the case: in fact, he observes a continued bias of the Court towards the headscarf.