Governmental authorities have to deal with religion on a daily basis: via individual citizens or religious organisations, in the framework of subsidy applications or measures against the radicalisation of believers. More than a year after publication of ‘Religion and the public domain, guidelines for municipalities’, a joint production of the Association of the Netherlands Municipalities and the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom relations, we discuss the room for cooperation between the government and religious organisations within the limits of the principle of separation between church and state. Both the legal framework and practical examples from different municipalities will be brought up. Three rules (of play) are exemplified in particular, namely that contacts between government and religious organisations or parties on an ideological basis do not lead to a substantive involvement with the faith itself, or with internal church matters, that the contacts serve to realise non-faith related public goals and that the government is held tot treat religious organisations or parties on an ideological basis equally. Having regard to those rules (of play) cooperation is very well possible.

Since the sixteenth century, Netherlands’ local councils uphold a tradition of Christian prayer at the opening and closure of their meetings. During the last decades, a two-fold development occurred: some councils abandon this custom, while others introduce neutral alternatives. In 2007, 45% of the municipality councils appear to open their meetings with a prayer or a comparable act. This study looks at the effects of this tradition as far as prescribed in the basic rules of the municipality councils, and concludes that the public prayer is not to be regarded as a religious act of the councillors, but as part of the protocol of the council.

The contract between the administration of Rotterdam and Tariq Ramadan January ended abruptly at august the 18th 2009 because of his connection with the Iranian satellite channel PressTV. Ramadans assignment in Rotterdam was challenged from the beginning and the accusation of cooperating with an oppressive regime overruled the voices that wanted him to stay. Bottom line of the ongoing dissension was the charge on Ramadan that his object was the islamization of Europe that would cause Western achievements like freedom and democracy to perish. The municipal government was blamed for offering him the stage and the facilities. The controversies were not limited to Rotterdam but also reported on by national and international media.In this article we will highlight the role of the Town Hall in the early end of the commitment of Tariq Ramadan in Rotterdam.

Pursuant to discussions on the application of Islamic family law in the Netherlands, for example by means of so-called sharia courts, this article will discuss the situation of religious family law and family courts in the Netherlands. Such ‘parallel’ legal systems have existed in the Dutch legal system for a long time, and have been accepted both legally and socially. The Islamic version of such a system – which apparently does not exist – would not be much different. Comparisons with England and Canada in this respect do not hold. However, the objections against the possible application of an Islamic legal system within the Netherlands are not only based on legal arguments, but are mostly of a social nature, such as integration of Muslims and the position of Muslim women.

MOVISIE Netherlands centre for social development researched the role of churches in the enforcement of the Social Support Act in the municipality of Utrecht. It showed that although the municipality does not charge the churches with the execution of the law, the churches themselves present a lot of activities that might be appointed as social support activities. Moreover a part of the churches are benevolent to increase their activities if the municipality would facilitate them. At the same time city council members as well as the responsible civil servants do not know the role churches play at the enforcement of the Act, so further cooperation between the municipality and the churches is required.

Five applicants were enrolled in various state schools for the year 2004-2005. On the first day of school, the girls, who are Muslims, arrived wearing a headscarf or kerchief. The boys were wearing an under-turban worn by Sikhs. For failure to comply with the French ban on all conspicuous religious symbols in all classes of state schools, they were expelled from school. According to the Court, the ban is based on the constitutional principle of secularism, which is consistent with the values protected by the Convention. The complaints under Article had to rejected as manifestly ill-founded.

The SGP (Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij) is a Dutch political party based on a religious denomination, a particular form of Reformed Christianity. The party has been represented in Parliament since 1918. As a result of its religious views, which extends to issues of male – female roles in society, it does not allow women to be elected in a general representative body on its behalf. This was challenged in court by a number of special interest organizations. The organizations were not successful in their suit against the SGP for reasons of inadmissibility. However, they were successful in terms of admissibility and of substance in their suit against the Dutch State. In April 2010, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that the Dutch State acted unlawfully by tolerating the fact that the SGP excludes women as candidates for elections on its behalf. The State was regarded as violating the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (the CEDAW), notably Article 7 under a and c. It ordered the State to take effective measures which, at the same time, restrict the SGP’s fundamental rights (freedom of religion and association)as least as possible. This contribution discusses the Supreme Court ruling.