The changing relationship between state and church/religion in the Netherlands

Abstract

The Netherlands is part of the historic Northwest-Southeast multi-confessional culture belt according to the comparative framework of churchstate relations in Europe as recently developed by Madeley on the basis of Rokkan's conceptual map. The aim of this paper is to describe the development of the church-state relations in the Netherlands within this historic framework of state-formation and nationbuilding, and to interpret recent challenges of its historic state-church model, such as secularisation, the rise of immigrant religions, and general 'de-and re-territorialisation' tendencies. The Netherlands developed from a relatively very tolerant polity dominated by the Calvinist Church to a 'pillarised' society, in which the Rome-Reformation divide (which also had a strong geographical dimension) was institutionalised in the political system. After the 1960s, very strong secularisation put this 'pillarised' system under severe pressure, but the remnants of this system offered a favourable opportunity structure for religious newcomers (Muslims in particular), who could establish their mosques and Muslim schools relatively easily. However, while the main Protestant churches, and even Catholic and Protestant political parties have merged, failing integration of these newcomers in Dutch society and terrorist attacks at the global level as well as in the Netherlands encouraged a new divide between Muslims and non-Muslims. The metropolitan areas in particular became the scene of this new divide.

Training imams in the Netherlands: the failure of a post-secular endeavour

“…A number of scholars tried to trace the historical evolution of Dutch secularism and suggested different explanations for the reasons behind the changes the Dutch model has undergone in time (Harinck 2006;Knippenberg 2006;Lechner 1996). For example, Schuh, Burchardt, and Wohlrab-Sahr (2012, 352-353) argue that Dutch secularism evolved from a 'model of secularity for the sake of accommodating religious diversity' into 'secularity for the sake of individual liberties' or 'secularity for the sake of national integration and development'.…”

Accommodating religious claims in the Dutch workplace

“…Around 1800, the Netherlands was by and large Christian: 55% of the population belonged to the Calvinist Church, 38% to the Roman Catholic Church and 4.4% to one of the small Protestant minority churches. Just 1.8% of the population was Jewish (Knippenberg, 2006). In the years that followed, however, the influence of non-religious groups, such as liberals and socialists, came to rise dramatically in Dutch society.…”

“…This situation influenced specific ideas about state neutrality in the Netherlands, as Maussen argues, which was, from then on, to be understood as the state governing on an even-handed basis and respecting different religious and secular worldviews (Maussen, 2012). The constitution of 1917 helped cement these pluralistic principles by introducing general suffrage and proportional representation and by guaranteeing equal funding for all schools (a decision elaborated in the Primary Education Act of 1920) (Knippenberg, 2006). After 1945, the emerging welfare state also was organized and implemented according to the different pillarized, state-funded organizations serving their respective constituencies.…”

Religious governance in the Netherlands: Associative freedoms and non-discrimination after pillarization. The example of faith-based schools

“…) 2005; Doe 2011). This type of "modelling" has gained wider resonance by being embedded in neo-institutionalist theories seeking to show how (in a comparative perspective) distinctive societal and institutional patterns and church-state traditions have developed, and how they can be used to explain contemporary forms of government of religious diversity (see Knippenberg 2006;Madeley 2003;Bader 2007a: 50-62). Finally, in normative theory we have seen a spectacular revitalization of reflections on secularism and neutrality, and the ways liberal-democratic states should relate to (organized) religion (Habermas 2006;Laborde 2005;Bader 2003Bader , 2007Bader , 2009.…”

“…Notably VanRooden (1996),Harinck (2006),Knippenberg (2006),Kaplan (2007) and Selderhuis (ed.) (2010).…”