The last decade the wearing of face hiding clothes has come up as a rather new phenomenon in the Netherlands and surrounding countries. Although not that many people wear them, a rather wide aversion exists against this phenomenon and is directed especially against the Islamic burqa. A rather intensive public and political debat is going on concerning the allowance of those clothes. In different countries, among which the Netherlands, France and Belgium, the legislator is drafting laws which aim to forbid the wearing of these clothes. This article gives an overview of the debate on this issue in especially the aforementioned countries and reflects upon it, with a special focus on the freedom of belief and religion.

A vast majority of 58% of the Dutch population belongs to a Christian or other denomination. However, if the question is phrased differently this figure drops to some 40%. Religion is an important characteristic in social statistics, and for defining social cohesion in particular. Overall, it reveals that Protestants show higher levels of social, civic and political participation, as well as social, institutional and political trust than Catholics, non-religious, and in particular Muslims. However, within the Protestants, there is a clear divide: the Calvinists and in particular the members of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands formed in 2004 show the highest levels of participation and trust, whereas the Dutch reformed only slightly differ from the Catholics and non-religious.

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.

The exclusion of women from being elected for an orthodox Christian political party (SGP) is declared discriminatory by the Supreme Court. It overlooked however the importance of the freedom of religion in a pluralistic society. Furthermore, not any woman concerned was prepared to start proceedings. The party was moreover not inspired by an idea of inferiority, but by religious views on the roles of men and women. The Court ignored the importance of a representation of non-dominant social currents.

Religion in the public domain has been a theme of remarkably current interest for a long time in our country as well as elsewhere in Europe. Not only in dialogue and debate, but primarily also via specific occasions, practices, and situations. One can think here of the position of the many redundant church buildings, the granting of permits for public religious manifestations, the ringing of church bells or public calls to prayer, the role (or abandonment of the role) of governments in rituals following disasters and accidents, the structure of citizenship rites and other forms of civic/civil ritual, the involvement of governments in religious celebrations in the public domain such as processions or Iftar meals, et cetera. This contribution explores the place of religion in the public domain in a specific way, i.e. on the basis of practices: its starting point lies in traceable manifestations of religion in our culture and society, in practices and rituals. After some conceptual orientation, this approach takes the form of a general panorama of religious-ritual presences and manifestations in that public domain and a further exploration of those via a model of so-called ritual-sacred fields.

Mister Aziz, orginally coming from Egypt, is a Coptic Christian who wears a long chain with a crucifix of about 5 centimeters high, in order to express his religion. He is chauffeur on an electric tram and has for some years been allowed to wear his chain at work. With the introduction of a new uniform however, Aziz is no longer allowed to do this. He claims this to be a discriminatory treatment, which he considers unjustified given the fact that Islamic women chauffeurs are allowed to wear headscarves, since (as his employer states) these have been incorporated into the uniform. According to the court of appeal, there is no unjustified discrimination of religion in this case. The regulation that chains may not be worn on top of the uniform is legitimate, appropriate and necessary. The headscarf has been incorporated into the uniform and is thus part of the ‘professional look’ of the employer. In the comment, some critical remarks about the case are being made. Are not different religions being treated differently, here?

France has recently introduced legislation prohibiting wearing the face-covering veil in public places. Similar legislative initiatives have been undertaken in Belgium, Netherlands and Spain, but have not resulted in law. This article presents an overview of the variety of arguments that are being used in the legislative proposals and bills why the face-covering veil ought to be prohibited in the public domain. It shows that the arguments are quite diverse, and not always consistent. In addition, an overview will be presented of the arguments made by the French and Dutch State Councils in their advise against such legislation.