The election defeat of the Christian coalition in 1905 is partly caused by contradictions in its own circle. Many orthodox members of the Dutch Reformed Church resented Prime Minister Abraham Kuyper for having legally regulated the position of the Free University at Amsterdam, but had done nothing for the rights of the Dutch Reformed Church in the theological faculties at the universities of the state. The reformed theologian Hoedemaker even aroused a preference for a liberal rather than an anti-revolutionary candidate. Kuyper’s party lost nine seats, the coalition lost three seats to the majority.

For liberals religion is a private matter. This does not mean that a citizen should leave his or her religion at home. It does mean that laws and public services should not be determined by religious beliefs. The article describes how liberals have looked upon religion in their programs of principles since mid 19th century. The educational arrangement in the Netherlands of 1917, favouring religious schools, did not satisfy them. What were the liberal proposals in order to safeguard the religiously neutral, publicly-maintained schools?

This article focuses on ‘culture’ as a concept currently dominating the approach towards Roma and Sinti, in policies and public opinion in the Netherlands and probably in Europe too. The author argues that a culture-sensitive approach is useful indeed, but a fixation on culture leads into a dead end street – especially in the static way in which it is (implicitly) conceptualised. Explaining some traditional Roma habits and values, the author describes examples of everyday life in Roman communities, as well as some lively debates among Roma and Sinti insiders. It is important that the complexity and dynamics of Roma culture are recognised and that outsiders stop defining what Roma culture ‘is’. Instead, recognising the differences between communities as well as the reality of changing norms and values will provide a breeding ground for finding a healthy balance between authenticity and adjustment.

In 2005 and 2006 three state-funded Islam- and imam training programs started at Amsterdam Free University, Leiden University and Hogeschool Inholland, after more than two decades of political and public debate. These confessional programs were to educate a Dutch ‘polder imam’. Recently however, the closure of two programs was announced.
This article places the establishment as well as the closure of these programs in a historical perspective. It explores two striking parallels between the motivations in favor of an imam training and the ways the Dutch state has dealt with the institutionalization of religious plurality in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

The Dutch Industrial Organisation is a public-law system of product boards and industrial boards, which are authorized to lay down general rules and impose levies on the companies under their jurisdiction. It was established in 1950 on a firm theoretical ground, where three principles coincide: the socialist principle of ‘functional decentralisation’, the protestant concept of ‘sovereignty within the communal spheres’ and the Roman Catholic concept of ‘subsidiarity’. The papal encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (1931) added greatly to the philosophical basis of this system and to the ‘collective bargaining economy’, which is so characteristic for the political culture of the Netherlands.

The citizen, understood in the classical republican sense as the political actor, is on occasion confronted with issues that concern the room for difference in politics. In the Netherlands, for example, the recent entrance of populist citizens in parliament is regarded as a problem by more deliberative citizens. Do populist citizens threaten ordinary politics or do ordinary citizens, on the contrary, restrict the space of politics too much? To prepare future research on this point, in this article three similar historical controversies in Dutch parliament are examined. In these cases citizens struggle with the problem how much room parliament ought to provide for the differences between them. In these cases citizens eventually grant each other the freedom to engage in politics in their own way, unless that way threatens the freedom of parliamentary politics itself. They defend the right to debate the widest range of issues in the sharpest way, for example, but prohibit making insults and endorsing illegal activities. Further research is needed to confirm and specify these still tentative conclusions.

A fundamental principle of a just society is autonomy of societal or communal spheres. This principle contributes to a society in which people develop their own lifestyles according to their own personal convictions. The author argues that such plurality of society will be disrupted if the principle of equality becomes the dominant principle thereby undermining the sovereignty of the communal spheres.

Provocative anti-religious articles and pictures in the communist newspaper De Tribune incited the Christian majority in the Netherlands’ Parliament in the early thirties of last century to penalizing blasphemy. Jan Donner, minister of Justice, convinced that legal proceedings in reference to blasphemy as such will not stand before court, introduced the crime of brutalizing believing people by mocking their God.