This article deals with recent developments in legislation and court rulings concerning churches. These developments are divergent in terms of the issues they concern and the outcome they show. The article sketches the background of each of these developments and analyses and explains them in the perspective of the principle of church autonomy. It concludes with recommendations to the legislature and the courts as well as churches themselves.

The judgment ‘NGK/Gort’ from the Supreme Court of the Netherlands (04-10-2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1531) gives an important explanation about the church-state relation in general and the ecclestiacal service law-position concerning the pastor in particular. The legal starting point is not in civil law, but in church law. This is the consequence of the right of selfregulation (autonomy) of the church and the non-interference from the state, as recognized by article 2:2 Dutch Civil Code and article 9 jo. 11 ECHR. This principle stands against normal civil mandatory law, for example labor law. It will only be overruled in exceptional cases by civil law of fundamental nature. Than a judicial consideration is necessary taking into account the fundamental rights of the church and the opposant.

Confessional secrecy is inviolable under Catholic canon law, and violations of it are severely sanctioned. Some people see this secret as an obstacle to the legal process in society and advocate a limitation in its use. This article argues that this form of confidentiality also can be defended in civil law because of the protection of spiritual care. Confessional secrecy is analyzed here and compared with forms of official secrecy that are recognized in society. Finally, there is a plea for a clear legal framework for the application of this confessional secret by Catholic priests.

Do religious motives result in greater freedom of action? This question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. First of all, a distinction must be made between conduct that falls within the scope of the right to freedom of religion as opposed to other conduct. This distinction in turn needs some qualification. The aforementioned right can, after all, be restricted. The conduct in question could moreover fall within the purview of another fundamental right, as a result of which persons without religious motives are entitled to invoke another fundamental right. All these distinctions will be reviewed in this article. Special attention will be given to religiously motivated statements condemning homosexuality and the religiously motivated refusal to have children vaccinated.

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.

Buddhism has very specific ideas about an idealized form of government in Asia. These ideas may be ancient but they very often play a part in the background of politics up to modernity. Even within republics where religious monarchy has long since disappeared, a certain supernatural foundation on the basis of which a government functions may still be present. Opposition to a government can often imply resistance to a world order that is actually of supranatural origin. This article focuses on historical dimensions of this phenomenon (the position of the Buddha, the origin of the monarchy and Emperor Ashoka), but also on modern forms (Sri Lanka, Thailand and Myanmar). Concerning Myanmar, the recent developments around the Rohingyas are placed in a cultural perspective.

A medical doctor in The Netherlands is not punishable under the law for assisting in a patient’s self-chosen death as long as (s)he has fulfilled the conditions of the Euthanasia Law of 2002. This law regards patients with unbearable and hopeless suffering who request an end to their life. This article will regard euthanasia from the perspective of Roman Catholic church law: if a Catholic doctor in The Netherlands ends the life of a patient in conformity with the Euthanasia Law, could this nevertheless be considered a crime of manslaughter as stipulated in Canon 1397 of the Code of Canon Law (1983)? And is that doctor then punishable under that law? It will be demonstrated that this is not the case, because the church law does not regard a crime similar to euthanasia under Dutch law, even though the killing of an innocent person is considered a sin. Against the background of the logic in church law, this article will make a comparison with the crime of abortion as stipulated in Canon 1398 of the ecclesiastical Code. It will be demonstrated that manslaughter and abortion share a different but illuminating history and topicality.

The question central to this article is whether ‘Islam’ and human rights are compatible and, if not, whether there might be room to come to a minimum standard of human rights that can be shared globally. This article will demonstrate that, from the perspective of Islamic orthodoxy, principles that are fundamental to human rights, like equality and freedom of religion, pose unsurmountable problems, and the adjustment of these principles is theologically nearly impossible. However, a growing number of Muslim intellectuals holds the opposite view, using new theological methods to argue that these Islamic principles and human rights are compatible. Although they are warmly welcomed by human rights lawyers and activists, their methods are not uncontroversial, and they are still very small in number.

Some religious persons refuse to undergo certain medical treatments such as vaccinations or blood transfusions. They refuse treatment not only for themselves but for their children as well. Many fundamental rights may be at stake here: freedom of religion, the right to physical integrity and respect for family life on the one hand, and the duty of public authorities to provide for health care and defend children’s rights on the other. The main topic of this contribution is the extent to which the government is allowed to make certain treatments compulsory.

In Europe, female circumcision has been considered a grave violation of human rights. However, many European countries fail to combat this illegal practice. This article answers the question why criminal law enforcement with regard to female circumcision seems to fail in various European states, with the exception of France. To answer this question, this article analyses various models of citizenship.

Current developments and recent research findings reveal that the Netherlands have to cope with the existence of child marriages. In this article it will be examined whether the modifications that were introduced by the Dutch marriage law that entered into force at the end of 2015, can be expected to contribute to the improvement of issues on child marriages.

What divides the ECtHR in religion cases? Study of dissenting opinions in religion cases of the ECtHR sheds a light on dividing lines within the ECtHR and deepens our understanding of the methods of reasoning of the ECtHR itself. Following an analysis of dissenting opinions in religion cases in the rulings of the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR, this article focuses on the Chamber. As in the previous analysis, a clear pattern in the dividing lines is brought to light. This article discusses and evaluates this finding.

What are the grounds to tolerate ritual male circumcision? This article elaborates on the legal and political assessment frameworks of male circumcision and answers the question whether and why ritual male circumcision should be tolerated in liberal democracies.

Certain radical public acts of expression, those which for instance incite hatred or recruit participants for armed conflict, are punishable under criminal law, even when these pronouncements are religiously motivated. This study examines which statements incur punishment, and the role freedom of religion and freedom of expression play when making this assessment.

According to the tenets of Judaism and Islam, animals must be slaughtered without any form of stunning. Stunning is often required to alleviate an animal’s suffering when it is killed. Legislation that requires stunning without exempting ritual slaughter leads to an interference with religious freedom that calls for closer justification. With reference to recent legislation in Denmark, this contribution analyses whether blanket stunning can be said to violate the right to freedom of religion in article 9 of the ECHR.

Recently there’s a lot of debate within the Netherlands about the criminality of assistance by someone who’s not a doctor towards the death of a loved one. In the Heringa lawsuit a son has helped his (step)mother who wished to no longer live (considered her life to be ‘completed’) to die at an age of 99. The helper non-doctor risks criminal pursuit and punishment. The central argument of the lobby to establish a more humane approach towards the persevered need is personal autonomy. This article aims to clarify the debate and to stimulate another way of thinking towards the situation of, mostly, elderly who want to decide and act independently regarding their death.

What freedom of speech do religious leaders have when their religious speech discriminates others? Freedom of religion and freedom of expression may collide with the right to equality (including the principle of non-discrimination). Religious plurality and social polarization in Dutch society induce conflict between these fundamental rights.
This article reviews two legal cases where an imam and a minister were accused of discrimination of homosexuals. From this jurisprudence the authors deduce three principles in judicial decisions weighing freedom of religion and freedom of speech against equality rights: interpretative reluctance, cautiousness and the position of the religious leader.