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.

Whether homosexual teachers can work at an orthodox Protestant school in The Netherlands is regularly subject of societal debate. The Equal Treatment Law (1994) prohibits discrimination on the ground of homosexual orientation. How this works out in practice differs per denomination (type of school) and shifts over time in the direction of increasing acceptance. Within orthodox Protestant schools room is increasing to come out of the closet. Within certain schools there is increasing room for homosexual relationships, although opinions within these schools often differ and hence may also lead to conflict.

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.

Invoking the fundamental social right to assistance does not prevent the CRvB from also applying the traditional fundamental right to freedom of religion. This approach is in line with the current case-law of the ECHR. This also applies to the more subjective explanation of religion used by the CRvB. This can be justified by the doctrine of interpretative restraint and the importance of self-definition. In the light of these principles, it is unclear why the CRvB makes a distinction in the level of protection of different religious expressions when weighing up interests in the context of article 9 ECHR

The article examines and explains the relation of current Eastern Orthodox Theology to the concept of Human Rights. Putting the controversies into a larger historical and theological context, it seeks to highlight the conditions of a variety of Orthodox theological positions. Such positions, with their common features and strong differences, concern issues such as church and state, universalism or theological anthropology and human dignity. Considerations end with arguing, that much of the treasures of the Orthodox tradition still needs to be unearthed – to the benefit of Human Rights, and of all participants in current debates worldwide.

As a special employer, the church has an interest in shaping its own personnel policy in order to achieve the mission and objective. In part, the legislator has met this need. After all, various laws in the field of appointment, terms of employment and dismissal take account of the specific interests of the church as described before. The external border consists of fundamental human rights that are included in the ECHR and the European Directive on equal treatment. It is not always clear where the external border is exactly. The Dutch legislation regarding the battle of ‘church law’ and fundamental rights is not consistent. Moreover, there we notice a tension between national law and the European directive.

On 20 December 2017, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled that an extrajudicial unilateral divorce brought about in Syria does not come within the substantive scope of the European regulation on the law applicable to divorces (Rome III Regulation). In response to this decision, the inequality between men and women in the divorce law of Muslim countries, the developments that are going on in this area, as well as the role the non-discrimination-principle plays in the recognition policies in European states on Islamic repudiations, are discussed in this contribution.

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.

A foreign national can be granted asylum if he has made it plausible that he is persecuted in his country for reasons related to religion. In order to make his asylum motives plausible, an applicant must declare consistently and coherently. There cannot be any doubt as to his identity or his asylum motives. A claimed convert has to declare convincingly about his conversion and has to demonstrate a broad knowledge of his Faith. Often, pastors and churches write testimonies stating the conversion is genuine. These letters are important, but never a decisive factor.

This contribution discusses two forms in which spiritual care in the Netherlands can be organized: in terms of a (church) office which reflects the current form, or as liberal profession which is a form to be conceivably pursued as an alternative proper to the sociocultural and institutional developments that this text indicates. The historical Dutch context of pillarization is tributary to a form of spiritual care that seems less apt to deal with the challenges ahead. The conditions and requirements of a liberal model are presented, but also put into perspective of the limited opportunities of the professional association of spiritual care to manoeuvre in politics and policies.

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.

In this article, the question is raised which constitutional answer to immigration is most sustainable with a view to future multicultural societies. I focus on the constitutional answers to immigration in France, Italy and Canada. In France, in 2010, legislation was adopted prohibiting the wearing of face-covering clothing in public. With this ban, the French intended to enhance the equal participation of citizens in society and to protect the equality of the sexes. In Italy, a heated debate took place about the display of crucifixes in (public) schools, which resulted in a restoration of the predominance of the Catholic religion. Across the ocean, in the Canadian province of Québec, the National Assembly of Québec has been discussing a ‘Charter’, whose prevailing idea is to enhance the neutrality of the state, among others by prohibiting religious clothing in public institutions. The question is which of these approaches is best defensible to regulate a society, which will undoubtedly become even more diverse in the near future.

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.

If one listens to what the authorities say about matters such as female circumcision and terrorism, Islam has nothing to do with it. These authorities are supported in this opinion by the work of many scientists. A cross section of the Dutch scientific literature on female circumcision and terrorism is discussed here. The upshot is that, regarding female circumcision, the literature is plagued with factual inaccuracies while the question of Islamic terrorism is dealt with in a one-sided and over-simplified way. The article concludes with an alternative research agenda that would help fill the gaps in our knowledge about the role of Islam in the behaviour of Islamic terrorists.

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.