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.

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.

According to the Coalition Agreement 2017-2021, the Dutch government intends to develop policy to prevent religious communities from receiving support from abroad if this support comes from so-called ‘unfree countries’. In the article, the author argues that restrictive measures in this area touch upon the collective freedom of religion, which is protected by the ECHR, measures that can only be justified under strict conditions in the light of religious freedom as guaranteed in article 9 ECHR.

The future of catholic migrant communities in the Netherlands depends on the broader social trends and their impact on religious communities. Four trends are discussed in this paper: general secularization that affects especially the mainline churches, enlargement of scale of organization that diminishes the parish commitment of members, the bricolage of religious behavior that implies that believers make choices about their commitment to one or more religious traditions, and finally the general debates about religion in post-secular society. These trends provide threats and opportunities to migrant communities, but also pose these for dilemmas.

The article is a plea to reconsider the new impetus that the second Vatican council in the catholic church has brought about, and to give it shape in the ecclesiastical administration of the catholic church. After a period of strong renewal this movement seems to be evaporated in the Netherlands, whereas this council and the code of 1983 have a lot of opportunities to offer. On the basis of a number of concrete examples of administrative reforms that Pope Francis and some of the newly appointed bishops have realized, the author offers some concrete proposals.

This article investigates the role of ‘implicit religion’ in extremism, including those forms that do not explicitly call upon formal religion. Extremist quasi-religious narratives expose an exclusionary logic, which is mirrored by radical ways of thinking about counter-extremism. This unfailingly leads to more polarization. Extremism can only be countered by radical openness. Resilient democracy requires that citizens, politicians and professionals are willing and able to maintain open hearts and minds. Implicit religion can support this. Spiritual counselors and scientists of religion need to support the creation of spiritual narratives and rituals that strengthen democratic resilience.

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.

Recently the European Court of Human Rights issued its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Fernández Martínez versus Spain. This case shows the importance of a sound and justified approach of the collective dimension of religious freedom. It is argued that a perspective from individual autonomy falls short. Instead, an account is proposed which reflects on the nature of religious collectivities, and on the proper place of the state within society. In some aspects of the said judgment, elements of such an approach can be found, while other aspects show more affinity with a contrary approach. The judgment therefore suffers from incoherence, as it is argued.

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.

Religion-related stress is the product of a predominantly secular society in which people are confronted with diverse religious practices. The phenomenon occurs where public meets private. How can employers ensure compliance with conflicting religious and other commitments in the workplace? The concept of respectful pluralism as formulated by Douglas Hicks in his book Religion and the Workplace, may go a long way to negotiating a solution to the debate between conformity and diversity.

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.

This article states how in the Netherlands since the 1990s religious orthodoxy became the reference object for threat analysis within the security domain. Political Islam and Salafism are increasingly framed as security threats to the Dutch democratic order and social cohesion. The article uses the securitization-framework, developed by the Copenhagen School, to analyze how religion was put on the security agenda and how countervailing forces tried to desecuritize and countersecuritize this process. The article ends with the conclusion that orthodoxy as such is still framed predominantly in terms of violence and coercion, due to a culturalization of security politics as a whole. This narrows the perspective on religious orthodoxy and leaves little room for alternative sources of civil engagement in society.

How can a Christian be devoted to Jesus Christ and his kingdom, while being a good citizin of an earthly kingdom at the same time? Theologians like Bernhard Reitsma and John Howard Yoder argue that this is only possible when a Christian restrains from politics and power. Together with thinkers as Douglas J. Schuurman and John Calvin, this article has a more positive evaluation of the Christian impact on Western culture and encourages Christian responsibility. God does not leave his world alone, therefore Christians should also commit themselves to politics that wants to work on a peaceful society. It is the narrow way between apathy and lust for power.