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.

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.

The American philosopher Martha Nussbaum and the former Archbishop of the Anglican Church Rowan Williams both published a book three years ago pleading for room for religion in the public arena. Nussbaum makes use of, mainly, liberal arguments, whereas Williams has drenched his argument with Christian-social notions such as pluriformity, sovereignty and human connectedness. Nussbaum, on the one hand, argues that religious arguments must not be banished from the public arena. Williams, on the other hand, holds that religious arguments and stories must be heard in the public arena. Nussbaum offers clues for christian-social political parties to connect with secular parties that claim to liberal.

Some months after the German occupation of the Netherlands, the Reichskommissar inroduced a Germanlike system of collecting finances for the poor people, soon followd by an equal system of social work. These initiatives at the same time aimed at urge the national-socialistic ideology, as such dismissed by the society and the churches. The occupying authorities avoided a clash with the churches.

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.

The Netherlands has a unique educational system, based on freedom of education, that provides for public and denominational education both financed on equal terms by the state. Only schools belonging to formally recognized denominations are qualified for public finance. School education is one of the few policy fields in The Netherlands where a formal recognition of faith actually occurs.
A denomination is qualified for recognition when four formal conditions are met: (1) it is a fundamental orientation well founded on a specific faith or philosophy of life, (2) that is apparently entrenched in Dutch society, (3) distinguishable from other recognized denominations, and (4) implemented in the bye-laws that must safeguard the religious or philosophical character of the school. In the Roman Catholic denomination only the bishop is competent to recognize a school as Roman Catholic. This system is now under discussion in the political arena, where two alternatives are presented: extension as opposed to abolition of the concept of denomination. The present article concludes that denominational school education is rooted in the concept of civil society and argues the extension of the concept of denomination to include also pedagogical visions. But also in its extended application a connection with a shared contemplation of man should be put first and foremost.

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.

Ryan van Eijk reacts on a previously in this periodical published article on prison chaplaincy in the Netherlands. This article argued that the growing religious individualisation as well as a political rethinking of the role of religions institutions ask for system adaptations and that the denominational approach is subject to discussion. Van Eijk criticizes this thesis and presents arguments and reasons why the current model is a good one. According to Van Eijk prison chaplaincy cannot and should not be organized only from the right of the detainee, for also aspects like the task of the government and denominational organizations and the detention context have to be considered.

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.

Crematoria in the Netherlands develop from utility buildings to places where attention is paid to death rituals, commemoration and mourning. This trend is clearly visible in policy and subsequent activities of the Tilburg Crematorium (the Netherlands). This article describes this policy and positions it in the broader context of cultural and religious developments in the Netherlands.