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.

In the 19th century in many Western states, the close relationship between Church and State came to an end and the Roman Catholic Church developed into a major and active player on social and educational level in society separate from the State.
This was due, on the one hand, to the constitutional changes in the Western states from the end of the 18th century, which led to the gradual introduction of the formal principle of separation of Church and State. On the other hand, it was a result of the search for a new position of the Roman Catholic Church in society that also influenced the theological reflection of the Church on society.
The ecclesiastical reflection on the ideal relationship between Church and State took shape in the course of this process in the Ius Publicum Ecclesiasticum. The ecclesiastical view on the relationship between believers/citizens, society and State simultaneously took shape in Catholic social doctrine, which today still offers a model for modern society. In Catholic social doctrine, the believer/citizen is the connecting element between Church and State in a secular society. The ‘state doctrine’ of the Catholic Church is presented in Catholic social doctrine as an ideal image of the democratic constitutional state in which man is central and forms the central link between Church, society and secular State.

Recently the Dutch parliament passed a law that provides the subsidy for religious and humanist education in state schools. The law on primary education gives to the parents the right to ask for it. Religious education in state schools exists in the Netherlands since the beginning of the 19th century, optional and taught by representatives of the church. So it is appropriate for the state school which wish to be a school for everyone. And public funding is appropriate in the Dutch education system.

Religion cases of the European Court of Human Rights are much commented on. A systematic analysis of dissenting opinions in religion cases, however, does not exist. Such analysis can shed light on dividing lines within the ECtHR and deepen our understanding of the methods of reasoning of the ECtHR itself. This article contains analysis of dissenting opinions in the rulings of the Grand Chamber in religion cases. The analysis shows a pattern in the dividing lines. Contrary to the prior expectation, the margin of appreciation as such forms no such dividing line. The article discusses and evaluates the findings.

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.

In 2008 the Party for the Animals in Dutch Parliament submitted a bill on the slaughter of animals without stunning. Initially this bill was formulated as a ban of slaughter without stunning. But then an amendment was included with the clause that this form of slaughter was allowed, provided it can be proven that animal welfare is not more affected than in regular slaughter. This would result in a de facto prohibition. Although the House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) voted in favor of this bill, it was rejected by the Senate (Eerste Kamer), much to the relief of the Jewish and Muslim communities in the Netherlands. Jews and Muslims must meet with several rules according to their faith while slaughtering animals. One of these rules is that animals are killed without prior stunning. This contribution focuses on arguments regarding animal welfare against and religious arguments for slaughter without stunning.

The battle over the school system is one of the liveliest chapters in Dutch constitutional history. It resulted, in 1848, in the constitutional acknowledgement of a dual system of education: education provided by public authority (‘public education’) and private education (practically synonymous with confessional education); and, in 1917, in the constitutional guarantee of public funding for the latter on the same footing as the former.
The battle over the school system is usually described as a battle for freedom of private, confessional education from the start. This article shows that prior to this, in the first stage of this battle, the concept of ‘private education’ itself had to be invented and that the concept of ‘public education’ had to develop a different meaning. Public education, the notion used in the Constitutions of 1814 and 1815, originally meant education in schools in contrast to house education. It was this broad concept of education that was entrusted to the care of government and, therefore, not free. This article focuses on the first half of the 19th century. On the basis of original sources it traces the fascinating process of the birth of these new categories, that determine the Dutch education system up to now.

In this paper I test the thesis that the different fortunes of the secular state in the predominantly Jewish, Christian and Muslim countries depend significantly, although not exclusively, on their different religious background and, in particular, on the conception of God’s law that developed in the theological and legal traditions of these three religions. My analysis will focus primarily on Sunni Islam, Orthodox Judaism and Roman Catholic Christianity. The model of the secular state appears to be connected to the Christian theological concept. It is not neutral and thus, it is futile to attempt to export this model to religious and legal traditions that do not meet the conditions for accepting it.

Dutch society is continually faced with conflicting interests in the context of religious expression by ethnic minorities in particular. In such instances, the constitutional freedom of religion clashes with other rights and interests, including other fundamental rights. This article provides a guideline for approaching such conflicts. It demonstrates the juridical need to seek compromise, as a means of overcoming the dilemma posed by conflicting interests. The article contains a moral call for an open mind and tolerance, as a favourable condition for achieving compromise.

It fits in with the objective of the oath that everybody is given the opportunity to swear an oath in compliance with his or her own faith. In The Netherlands this has already been legally possible since 1911. It is in agreement with the articles 1 and 6 of the Constitution and with tradition. After all, those who take the oath must fully realize the obligations they enter into. There is, however, some uncertainty about the scope and purport of the law of 1911. Therefore we are making three recommendations to clarify the rules.

This editorial offers an introduction to the current issue.

From the beginning of the 19th century until today, education in the Netherlands has been a prime battleground in the search for the right balance of church and state. This article discusses five parliamentary debates regarding the position of public and private (particularly religious) education. Although two of these debates took place a long time ago, they are anything but mere history: they laid the foundation for the current dual educational system of public and private education (in 1857) and the unique constitutional provision on the financial equality of public and private schools (in 1917). The three other debates concerned the religious neutrality of public schools and the freedom of education, and these topics are recurring topics of parliamentary debate. This debate is fed by changing societal circumstances and governmental principles regarding the quality of education. This is no surprise, concludes the author. These issues concern essential questions regarding educational policy on pluralism in education. Every time such a question arises, the legislator must justify its political explanation based on what the constitutional provision regarding education (Article 23) requires and allows on the separation of church and state.