By: W. Shadid, 9-12-2008

Though the principle of separation of church and state in The Netherlands has been introduced in the eighteenth century, its content and scope are still not sharply defined. In a nutshell, this principle implies an agreement between church and state on various subjects such as their mutual autonomy and the financial obligations of the former towards the latter. However, this agreement has not been molded in specific juridical articles. In practice, its basic juridical status is deduced from articles 1 and 6 of the Dutch Constitution, which guarantee equality of citizens and Freedom of Religion.
The Netherlands is not unique in this respect. European countries show a wide range of principles in this regard. On the one hand France with its laicite, and on the other hand countries with a state church such as Denmark and the United Kingdom. In these two countries the Head of the State is also Head of the Church. Denmark for example where the Evangelical Lutheran Church is the state church has a special ministry for church affairs, for appointing religious leaders and handling a part of the financial costs of the church. Between these two extremes there are countries such as Germany and Spain which apply a so-called ‘cooperation principle’ in order to regulate there mutual relations.

Though in the public opinion Islam doesn’t differentiate between state and ‘Mosque’, the Muslim world shows nevertheless a wide range of principles in this regard. However, because the mosque does not have an organizational structure comparable with that of the Church, such differentiations are focused on the role the Sharia is allowed to play in their Constitutions. On the one hand there is Turkey with its ‘secularism principle’ and on the other hand Saudi Arabia and Iran where a specific form of Islamic law is the only allowed juridical basis. In between there are several countries where in their Constitutions one or more separation principles are emphasized. Some stipulate explicitly that Islam is the religion of the state and others sharply specified the role Islamic law can play in the country’s legislation. This means whether Sharia is the sole, the primary or simply on source of legislation. Moreover, in countries where a civil legislation based on western laws exists, it is stipulated whether or not this civil legislation may contain laws which contradicts Sharia laws.
It is striking that in the Netherlands the slogan of separation of church and state is mainly launched when Islam principles are concerned. Such an attitude leads irrevocably to inequality in the treatment of religions, in a country where the equality of religions is strongly defended. In this regard both government and Parliament directly interfere in specific Islamic religious matters without any reference to the separation principle. Recently measures have been taken in order to control the content of religious education at Islamic schools, to facilitate the founding of an institution for imams’ education and measures to impede the communities concerned to recruitment imams from their countries of origin. It is needless to say that because of the highly valued separation of state and church, such interferences are not conceivable in the mutual relations between the Dutch state and the Christian churches.
In the same context, a head scarf wish of a Muslim woman leads to a societal debate on the compatibility of Islam with secular western values, while wearing Christian and Jewish symbols in the public domain doe not lead to such a compatibility debate. Furthermore, the principle of separation of church and state is applied selectively. One the one hand a Muslim registrar and a police woman are not permitted to wear a headscarf while in office as it implies a violation of the neutrality principle of the state. On the other hand no comments are made when mayors combine a cross or a kipa with the chain of office during their official public performances.
Neglecting the limitations given by the principle of separation of church and state in relation to the interference of politicians in religious communities’ affairs is in the case of Islam caused by an ‘Islam hypochondria’ which arose in the last decade. A sickly fear strengthened by demagogical statements about the Islamisation of the Netherlands and motivated by the so-called fast growth of Islam in the country. Such statements deliberately present a distorted picture of reality. Migrants from Muslim countries to the Netherlands are added to the total number of Muslims in the country, while Christian migrants from countries such as Poland, Germany and the United states who in majority are Christians are not added to the total growth of Christian communities in the Netherlands. Besides, in order to exaggerate the fear for Islam, Muslims are presented as a homogeneous group and compared only to a Christian sub group while the former has more different ethnic and religious branches than the latter.
The effects of the demagogic use of the slogan of the separation of church and state are observable in the increase of the negative attitude of the population in general towards Islam. If this situation continues to exist, the appearance of the first ‘hidden Muslim’ and ‘hidden mosque’ comparable to the so-called ‘hidden church’ of the 17th century in the Netherlands’, will regrettably be only a matter of time.

Prof.dr. W. Shadid is professor of intercultural communication. For more info: see page “About”