In recent decades, the Netherlands’ struggle with multiculturalism has caused an upsurge in public interest in the relationship between state and religion.The Dutch political tradition... Show more In recent decades, the Netherlands’ struggle with multiculturalism has caused an upsurge in public interest in the relationship between state and religion.The Dutch political tradition plays a central role in this book because the Netherlands developed a unique method of bridging seemingly irreconcilable religious differences: pacification. since the Batavian Revolution, the development of the Dutch state has been focused on democracy, upholding fundamental rights, and the separation of church and state that was supposed to turn the Netherlands into a religiously neutral state. In the second half of the twentieth century, the appearance of new religions on the Dutch stage, most notably Islam, has had a significant impact on the Netherlands’ national identity.the Dutch are now asking, should this religious friction be dealt with? How absolute is freedom of expression? Can religious ideas be criticized without restriction? The ability to deal with criticism is a crucial component of liberal democracy and freedom of speech. In facing this new religious pressure, the Dutch, like the rest of Europe, must once again reach for the system that best protects these essential principles: the religiously neutral state. Show less
I investigate the intersection of two of the most important areas governing how modern society is organized: the law governing religion. I investigate whether the purportedly (or presumptively)... Show moreI investigate the intersection of two of the most important areas governing how modern society is organized: the law governing religion. I investigate whether the purportedly (or presumptively) secular Western legal understanding of the idea of “religion,” as it is understood in court judgments, reflects any religious presuppositions or bias. In other words, to what extent is the idea of “religion,” as it is understood by courts, sectarian rather than secular? If a bias exists, what should be done about it in order to bring our understanding, our definitions, and our approach to legal issues involving religion into conformity with broader legal norms concerning formal equality? To investigate whether such a bias exists I begin by examining two sets of court decisions: one from the United Kingdom and one from Israel, discussing the question “who is a Jew?” in a legal context. I then discuss what the implications of those findings are, with particular regard to how “religion” as a legal term of art should be interpreted by courts. How should judicial interpretation of fundamental guarantees of religious freedom take account of the Christian provenance of the criteria governing what it means to be a religion in the first place? Show less
