zondag 11 oktober 2015

The Dutch Reformed Protestant Party, separation between church and state and John Rawls’ Idea of public reason revisited

Jan van der Mooren
Studentno 20080810

Philosophy

September 15, 2012

Democracy and religion, Erasmus Intensive Program, July 2 – July 14, 2012,
Middle East Technical University, Ankara

Dr. P. Loobuyck,
Department of Philosophy Antwerp University

Table of contents

Section
page


1. Introduction

3
Research question

5
2. The SGP: two actual political points of view and possibly underlying principles

5
3. Separation between church and state in the Netherlands

9
4. Rawls’ idea of public reason against the background of the American separation
    between church and state


12
5. Is the Dutch Reformed Protestant Party SGP non-democratic?

17
Bibliography
18

1. Introduction

This year on the 12th of April in the Dutch television programme De Vijfde Dag[1] there was talk of the Dutch Reformed political party SGP having a wish list they wanted to exchange for their support of the governing minority cabinet, by voting in parliament in favour of the latter’s additional austerity measures.

C. Dekker, chairman of the SGP in Middelburg took a camera crew along to a local mosque under construction. He explained that he felt that culturally and historically speaking only church towers belong to the Dutch landscape. According to him, Van der Staaij[2] would have to demand a maximum height of minarets in the negotiations, a previous law proposal of the SGP, at the time not supported by the current cabinet party

VVD.
Two others who had their say were a shopkeeper from Bergen op Zoom, who did not want  shops to open more often than the current single Sunday each month, and a nursing home physician who wanted to restrain ongoing liberalization of euthanasia legislation.
C. Dekker elucidated: ‘As Christians we must show that we are not interested in power or exploiting our position, but in promoting the Word of God in our society and the well-being of the society as a whole, for the honour of God’.

In the same program Bart Jan Spruyt[3] expressed his doubts about the employability of wish lists: “Van der Staaij understands that these kinds of demands, which fall under the head of ethics and religion, only make sense when your party is on (the way up)an upswing and in society things are kind and great for it. This is not the case”.[4]

Due to the premature fall of the cabinet we were not able to find out whether or not such an exchange could have been realized. But does evidence exist in recent Dutch parliamentary history, of SGP parliament members supporting policy of a cabinet to get elements of their political bill being inspired by their reformed belief to be accomplished?  The answer to this question is that I found only one suspicious event during the last two years. On May 21, 2011 the Volkskrant[5] wrote:

“The VVD[6] has taken away her signature from under a law proposal which she had submitted earlier together with D66[7] to no longer criminalize blasphemy. […] D66 is convinced that the VVD wants to satisfy the SGP in order to trade support for the coalition in the Senate. […] [On television] Gerrit Holdijk of the SGP acknowledged that if the cabinet postpones or disarranges these kinds of proposals it can count on the support of the SGP, ‘although not without cause or reason’.”[8]

All in all it remains obscure whether or not such a trade took place. At the same time exchanging or not isn’t the main point of my interest even though it is the final outcome of the question I’d like to discuss here. This question concerns the underlaying motivation of the SGP. In discussions and parliamentary debates, its representatives may use common accepted arguments, but what do they really want? Which lines of action are guiding, them which measures would they like to implement if they only had the opportunity? Are they wolves in sheep’s clothing? And if so, is their contribution to the parliamentary debate a violation of the principle of separation of church and state?

In order to operationalize my question I will only focus on two particular cases. The first is the one of maximum heights of minarets as described above, the second is one we haven’t seen before: on November 15, 2011 the Lower House of the Dutch Parliament passed a draft law in order to forbid public registrars to refuse marrying homosexual couples, since in the Netherlands homosexual marriage is a legally protected right. The Algemeen Dagblad quoted a comment of Van der Staaij, saying: “Sad. With the majority of the Lower House apparently neither the Jewish, nor the Christian tradition are in safe hands” [9] One week earlier the city council of The Hague dismissed a registrar who was an SGP member for refusing to marry homosexual couples.[10]

To begin with, in the second section of this essay I will briefly characterize the SGP, especially in relation to the cases mentioned above. It is necessary to examine the principle of separation of church and state, thus I will do so in the third section. I will give a short description of the development of the relation between church and state in Dutch history up to the present. Also in this section I intend to describe what is meant when one talks about the  separation of church and state in the Netherlands. This last question is important because of what follows in the fourth section.
In section four I’m planning to give an impression of the separation of church and state in the  United States of America (USA) and to discuss points of John Rawls’ article on public reason[11] which are relevant to this essay. I will do the latter emphatically in the context of the for this purpose given description of the situation regarding church and state in the USA. From there finally I hope to be able to connect the outcomes of my inquiry thus far with the topic of my research question in a separate column, accessible to read and understand by the average philosophy graduate student. In this column I will formulate my answer to the research question of this essay. The column, although readable as a standalone text, ought to be read as the conclusion from the preliminary research and I am planning to support it using briefly summarized answers to the sub questions as treated in the sections of this essay.

That having been said, I formulate my research question as follows:
Do SGP politicians in the Dutch Parliament – considering the main insights from The Idea of Public Reason Revisited of John Rawls – act contrary to the principle of separation between church and state when in the parliamentary debate they bring in points of view which are inspired by and based on their reformed belief?


2. The SGP: two actual political points of view and possibly underlying principles

In order to be able to give more concrete content to my research I chose two political points of view of the SGP, defended by them in the parliamentary debate[12], namely 1.) that minarets of mosques should have a maximum height and 2.) that public registrars are allowed to refuse to marry homosexual couples.

In this section I will mainly proceed from two sources of the SGP itself as to give a brief picture of their underlying principles and I’ll explain why I think that these principles cohere with their two points of view of my choice. From there I will be able to specify what I mean with the verb ‘to act’ in my research question, asking whether or not the SGP acts contrary to the principle of separation between church and state.

For a start the European Court of Human Rights gave an adequate introductory description of the SGP, which I gratefully accept:

“The SGP is an association under Dutch law [n]amed the Reformed Protestant Party (Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij), hereinafter “SGP” as per its acronym in Dutch), it functions as a political party.”[13]

“The SGP was founded in 1918 and has, since 1922, consistently held one to three seats in the Lower House (Tweede Kamer) of the Dutch Parliament. The SGP is a confessional political party firmly rooted in historical Dutch Reformed Protestantism.”[14]

The SGP derives her principles from what she calls ‘the infallible Word of God’, namely the Bible, consisting of the Old- and the New Testament. Besides the Christian bible, the party also draws from the “Three Forms of Unity”[15]. Her adherence to these three forms is particularly interesting in relation to the two points of view of her representatives discussed in this essay because of article 36 from the Belgic Confession.[16] The Parliamentary Documentation Center of the University of Leiden explains why this article is important to the SGP. It concerns the task of the overheid.[17] In 1905 the General Synod of Reformed Churches removed the following words from this article: “to avert and extirpate all idolatry and false religion, in order to overthrow the realm of the Antichrist[18]”. The overheid would tolerate the Catholic church by omitting this clause, which was beyond the pale for the founders of the SGP.[19]
The SGP strives for a governing of the Dutch people based on the Guidelines God has revealed in the Holy Scripture. One of the ends of the SGP is to reach greater acknowledgement for the principles of the
Word of God concerning politics. The overheid is a servant of God, subject to His word and law by which she will be judged. She has to organize society according to the revealed iWord of God. Legislation and administration have to further the preaching of the Gospel and to prevent it from being hinderedThe Church of Christ does not coincide with any union and has to be protected under its own law. Consequently propaganda of lack of faith, false religions and anti-Christian ideologies ought to be excluded from public life. To the overheid all God’s creatures are equal. This does not exclude recognition of differences in geaardheid [20], gifts, talents and calling in society. The overheid must protect the individual and the by God instituted bond of marriage. The overheid governs by the grace of God, so it does not borrow its power from the people. It does however perform its duty under the cooperation of the people, so the overheid ought to promote an organic suffrage, taking into account the family as the cell of society.[21]

In their 2012 election program[22] the SGP sees marriage as a lifelong alliance between man and woman, eventually blessed with children, set and meant by God as the basis of the family, important in the order of creation, according to which marriage between individuals of the same gender cannot be what is meant to be.[23] A distorted image of what a family is, is conveyed when the overheid perceives every way of living together of adults as a family, for example when children grow up with two parents of the same gender. Thus ‘homo marriage’ must no longer be possible and public registrars have full right to refuse to marry homosexual couples.[24]

The SGP doesn’t want to lump together all Muslims, although she warns to be cautious. We must prevent Islamic fundamentalism to grow in Netherlands society. Building of mosques and minarets must be restrained.[25]

The SGP sees two forces threatening our democratic constitutional state.[26] First there is lack of faith:

The Christian-historical thinking firstly clashes with the doctrines of seculars, who deform the classical concept of the relationship between church and state to a separation of belief and society. As if this assumption should be neutral. Neutrality doesn’t exist. Nobody has a neutral levensbeschouwing, [27]everybody has a view on the human race and society. The so called choices based on a neutral levensbeschouwing are choices based on a secular belief. That’s why one cannot enter into the public sphere without bringing along one’s belief and the concepts based on it.[28]

The problem the SGP focuses our attention on here is even more complex than it seems at first glance. Unfortunately there is no opportunity to elaborate on this due to the limited length of this paper, but the problem in question is related to, or even entangled with, the Dutch practice of political parties. Indeed our Parliament, Provincial States and County Councils are representative assemblies of which all members are chosen by the people, but at the same time the members we can vote for are mostly listed. It is possible to candidate for a seat in one of the assemblies as an independent, but practice shows that this is seldom done, especially when the national Parliament is involved. So candidates are listed as members of political parties and once they are chosen they represent their voters in the respective assembly as a member of this or that specific political party. Hence every political party has its own doctrines expressing its ideology, comprehensive doctrines (cf. infra) are present in the composition of the parliament itself[29].

Regarding the point of lack of faith it is also important to tell that the SGP notes that seculars react against religions out of concern of them violating the separation between church and state, often promoted by fear for the Islam – a “just” fear, according to the election program 2012 of the SGP. The following paragraph addresses what has been described as the second force we’ve got to resist: “The values of the Christian beliefs collide with the doctrine and horrific practices of radical Islam”. Furthermore the Islam is “alien in the Netherlands and Western culture and not seldom it is hostile towards Christians and Jews with hostility”. “An increasing visibility of Islam in the public sphere in the Netherlands fills us with concern.” [30]

What I am about to write now lacks hard evidence, but in my opinion it is clearly visible that there is coherence between the “Programme of principles” and the “Election programme” of the SGP on the one hand and two of their political points of view, defended by them in the parliamentary debate on the other hand. Namely 1.) that minarets of mosques should have a maximum height and 2.) that public registrars are allowed to refuse to marry homosexual couples.
1.) Regarding the minarets. No names of specific religions are mentioned when there is speech of idolatry and false religion. The latter ones as well as anti-christian ideologies should be repulsed from the public sphere. There is only one God and one political powerful holy book and society should be organized in accordance with it. At one time it was said that SGP does not want to lump together all Muslims. Several times she warns against fundamentalist and radical Islam. Fear for Islam is seen as “just”. Islam is related to intolerance towards Christians and Jews. The Christian (with article) values collide with radical and horrific Islam. I think do see here a claim for the “not institutional Christian church” of being unique, while at the same time Islam is alien in Western culture and mostly to be feared.
Conclusion: when an SGP council politician asserts that churches do and minarets do not belong in the countryside of the Netherlands, my presumption appears to be founded that this is a religious – more specifically speaking a ‘reformed church’ – point of view expressed in a common, generally accepted way of speaking.
2.) Regarding refusing public registrars. The SGP takes differences in geaardheid[31] into account without specifying what it means. The overheid must protect marriage between man and woman; it is instituted by God. Marriage between two individuals of the same gender cannot have been meant. Children who grow up with two parents of the same gender get a twisted view of family life.
Conclusion: it is a hardly hidden religious – again: ‘reformed church’ – point of view when giving a reaction to an obvious majority in the Lower House in favour of forbidding public registrars to refuse marrying homosexual couples SGP leader Van der Staaij asserts in the Lower House that it is sad that with the majority of the Lower House apparently neither the Jewish, nor the Christian tradition are in safe hands.

From here I can specify that with the verb ‘to act’ in my research question I mean first of all – in the parliamentary debate – expressing reformed church points of view in a common generally accepted way of speaking, and secondly – in the parliamentary debate – expressing points of view in semi- or full reformed church way of speaking. Both possibilities function in the debate in order to get ideas turned into policy.


3. Separation between church and state in the Netherlands

To be capable of answering the question whether or not the SGP acts contrary to the principle of separation of church and state, a description of what this principle means is required. It originated in the region which would later develop in the Republic Of The Seven United Provinces Of The Netherlands during the 80-years-war (1568-1648) against Spain. Since this is not a historical essay I will only mention some issues and events in what follows, without describing them. The purpose of these descriptions is to show that the relation between church and state in the Netherlands is a dynamic process. A principle of separation has grown which never became a dogma. When public officials, politicians or citizens refer to the principle of separation between church and state they do in fact refer to history until the very moment of referring rather than to a legal accomplished fact.

Within the Netherlands the development of relations was complex. First there was the struggle for power between the provinces and the central government (the States-General).
National theological synods were assembled, but every time there were provinces refusing to follow, totally or partly, the national decisions.

Besides that there was the pluralistic development of the religions. There were Baptists, Biblical inspired humanistic regents, during one period – mostly puritan – English refugees who later moved on to the USA, Jewish refugees from Spain and Portugal and from1648 also from Germany and Poland. There were orthodox Calvinists, Lutherans and inside the denominations occurring fierce disputes disturbing peace and agreement. In short, there was no concentration of power and no significant majority of one single Christian denomination.  Amongst all these religious groups the Reformed Church became the only one officially acknowledged and therefore privileged, but also controlled by the state(s). One third of the population was and remained Catholic. “The authorities were soon enough willing to tolerate it this way, whether or not being paid for it. The privileged church got annoyed; her theocratic ideal had yet to learn to digest tolerance.”[32]

After the war against Spain (1648) until 1848 (except for the 13 years of French occupation cf. infra) one reformed church remained that was privileged by the state and all the others were tolerated. The authorities financed inter alia restorations of church buildings and the construction of new ones. On the other hand they had ongoing say in for example appointments of clergymen and even in “for whom and in which sequence a preacher had to pray; for Orange, the States-General or one’s own provincial states”[33] In 1651 the States-General ordinated the Reformed religion had to be maintained in every province.[34]

“Around the year 1700 inside almost every group of believers schisms arose or at least contrapositions. In the privileged church the authorities tried to [appoint lecturers at universities and preachers in local communities] depending on which regent families were in charge at the city hall at that moment.”[35] Sometimes theological struggles ended up in disciplinary procedures accompanied by fierce agitation causing publications. The authorities often intervened with a prohibition of publication.[36] Still in 1773 “all the provinces together financed […] a new rhyming of the Psalms to be used in the ‘public’ church”[37].

During the occupation of the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands by French troops, “the new ‘Batavian Republic’ decided to separate church and state (1796). All inhabitants […] obtained civil rights. From then on every church had to exist by contribution from their members[38]. King Louis Napoleon “redistributed buildings and goods amongst the church denominations, [so] the ideal of separation was replaced by control and centralization[39].

After the French had left, King Willem I and his government took control over the churches which were dependent on government money. “It was a studious attempt to turn churches into models of quietude and tolerance for the whole people[40]”. Consequently, in 1836, when there was a segregation within the reformed church, “the government prohibited their gatherings, had them disturbed, punished with fees, custody and housing of soldiers[41]”. But the government had to give up its stubbornness. In fact this was the end of the license of the state to forbid gatherings of more than twenty people, preceding the later constitutional freedom of gathering.[42]

With the initiation of the new Constitution in 1848 churches for the most part were released from supervision of the state. In 1857 the so-called school struggle commenced when a school law was submitted in the parliament. It intended to make “the state school more neutral, but permitted founding of special (religious or non-religious) schools without interference f the state”[43]. The struggle lasted until 1917:

The pacificationof 1917 namely the passage of Article 23 establishing complete state funding for previously ‘private’ schools with a religious identity while safeguarding such schools’ freedom to determine their educational content was the result of long efforts on the part of orthodox Protestants and Roman Catholics to keep the state at a distance from a realm, education, that did not in the first instance belong to it, but to parents.[44]

A period of approximately fifty years after the new Constitution of 1848 was mainly one of institutional disentanglement.[45] In the first place this disentanglement was seen as a gaining of more freedom of the churches pertaining to the overheid, but in the same movement the overheid became more independent of its duties pertaining to the churches, for instance privileges were abolished and salaries of clergymen didn’t have to be paid anymore.

After the Second World War the welfare system was constructed. The overheid got involved in activities that hitherto had been for a big part the scope of religious and non-religious institutes and individuals, like education, healthcare and later on also media. Consequently the overheid and what had turned out to be their partners in these domains had to deliberate how to accommodate and divide miscellaneous matters.

Talking about separation between church and state, it is required to delineate both briefly.
The image of the ‘state’ (overheid) has always been one of the classical democratic constitutional state, which defines the formal frames for public decision making. This overheid is the focus and center of justice and policy. Due to social processes like internationalization, privatization and increasing pluralism this image is no longer appropriate. Norms are being brought about in deliberations on a number of levels between overheid and society. Likewise ‘church’ is no longer what it used to be. For example the ‘law on church associations’ from 1853 contained a list of church associations. Religion and church were well-arranged and transparent to the overheid. In 1988 this law was abolished. The overheid did no longer pay attention for a while to the content of traditional nor extraordinary or new beliefs. This lack of interest on behalf of the overheid changed, and nowadays it concerns public order. To illustrate this new kind of interest: the verdict of the Court in ‘s-Gravenhage in the case of the position and rights of women within the SGP, refers to the possibility of a precedence for other ‘parties’ to discriminate women on religious grounds. It states that the State can play a directing role in this.[46] Of course radicalization of religious beliefs in relation to eventual violence and even terrorism, and matters concerning social cohesion or unity in society as well, are within the reach of the attention of the overheid now.

An effect of this new kind of attention and interest of the overheid for religion is its “disposition of directing and restriction […] Freedom of religion becomes therewith a complex business, which goes past to simply letting free of individual religious convictions and giving room to the execution of rituals.[47]

There is no legal separation between church and state or with a more contemporary expression between religion and overheid on how far interference of the overheid can and may go, but also to what extent secular or religious motives can or may play a role in politics is not determined.

My conclusion of this little inquiry on the relationship between church and state in the Netherlands up until now is, that they were and still are, although in a different way, entangled. ‘Church’ should henceforward be understood as ‘religion’ and ‘state’ or ‘overheid’ does have a different position, most strikingly is that it can no longer be seen as an isolated institute overseeing and governing everything that goes on in society. Due to these significant changes it is no longer appropriate to analyze, interpret, philosophize about or to judge phenomenons in the Netherlands in terms of ‘separation of church and state’. The separation itself has no other meaning than that there are no institutional and/or financial connections whatsoever anymore. What then can be said in positive terms about the actual separation between church and state in the Netherlands? First of all it is not established in the Dutch Constitution nor in any other law or amendment. It is a principle resulting from three Constitutional articles[48]:

Article 1 and 3 concerning the principle of equality:

All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.

All Dutch nationals shall be equally eligible for appointment to public service.

Article 6 concerning freedom of religion:

Everyone shall have the right to profess freely his religion or belief, either individually or in community with others, without prejudice to his responsibility under the law.
Rules concerning the exercise of this right other than in buildings and enclosed places may be laid down by Act of Parliament for protection of health, in the interest of traffic and to combat or prevent disorders.

Article 9 concerning freedom of gathering
The right to assembly and demonstration shall be recognised, without prejudice to the responsibility of everyone under the law.
Rules to protect health, in the interest of traffic and to combat or prevent disorders may be laid down by Act of Parliament.
And furthermore: the overheid and religions both have freedom of establishment. In jurisdiction the principle of separation of church and state hardly plays a role.


4. Rawls’ idea of public reason against the background of the American separation

Rawls’ The Idea of Public Reason Revisited can be (and maybe should be) read in the light of the actual existence and historically grown Constitutional and legal reality of the United States of America (USA).

The First Amendment, added to the Constitution in 1791 as one of ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights, opens with the declaration that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.[49]

This First Amendment was meant to “explicitly guarantee both full religious freedom and the separation of church and state”[50]. There was and still is a pressing necessity to have this properly arranged in the USA:

We are a nation of many religious faiths, and many of us work for a government in some capacity. Is there any way that religion, and the religiousness of people, can be separated from government and the role of people in government? Can religion and government co-exist without crossing over each others' boundaries? What are those boundaries? What exactly is the separation of church and state?[51]

But […] the adoption of the First Amendment did not settle the matter. While unequivocally affirming liberty of conscience as a fundamental private right, it pronounced ambiguously on the separation of church and state and the relationship between religion and society. […] [T]o what extent could religious ideas and observances figure in the conduct of civic life?[52]

This last question has been slumbering ever since and periodically it wakes from its sleep when in society opposite interpretations of the First Amendment collide. Thus a series of causes occur and jurisprudence on the subject is developing to this day. In 1971 the ‘Lemon Test’ was established by the Court. It is comprised of three cumulative criteria:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion.[53]

“This three-pronged test has been used in many cases since it was first promulgated. Though the Lemon Test is not infallible, it has largely stood the test of time and is still in use today.”[54]
Whether or not the First Amendment and the jurisprudence thus established the “wall of separation between church and state”, the well known metaphor from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists[55] characterizes the background of Rawls’ Idea of public Reason.

I cannot escape the impression that Rawls is deploying this ‘wall’, because maintaining it seems to be impossible or maybe even contradictory in a constitutional democratic society where “citizens exercise ultimate political power as a collective body”[56] and in the meantime those citizens have “many religious faiths, and many of [them] work for a government in some capacity”[57] In the USA a variety of public functions are open for election, for example (variable from state to state and from county to county) those of sheriffs, mayors, school board members, attorney generals, comptrollers and judges. Some figures do speak of  500.000 chosen public officials. Beside Constitutional and legal separation between church and state this is another significant difference with the Netherlands, where we only vote for candidates on the level of legislative authorities; representatives in the Lower House, representatives in the Provincial States (and indirectly via the Provincial States the representatives in the Senate) and at last municipal councils.[58] So, in the USA entanglement of secular or religious comprehensive doctrines with – on the one hand - not only on the level of law makers, but also on the levels of the administration or the executives and on the level of the judiciary and – on the other hand - drafting, formulating and passing of laws, executing ordinations, regulations, laws and amendments and the administration of justice, is experienced as a serious threat.

When a state must keep itself substantively far from religion being a democracy in the mean time, with citizens who can be believers of secular or religious comprehensive doctrines having the opportunity both to candidate themselves for public (state) functions on the levels of legislation, execution and administration of justice as well as to vote for candidates for these public functions, how then to achieve an enduring functioning of the state free from recognizable influence of comprehensive doctrines?

Rawls does not speak in terms of ‘church and state’. In my opinion instead of ‘church’ he uses the term ‘comprehensive doctrines’ and he emphasizes that he understands both secular (non-religious) and religious doctrines by it.[59] He also speaks of “reasonable comprehensive doctrines, religious, philosophical and moral”.[60] However, when he discusses ‘the state’, he does so in terms of its “discourses”, summarizing those discourses with the term “the public political forum”[61]. And here we meet Rawls’ deployment, his organization of ‘Jefferson’s wall’. He proposes a special ‘language’, which he calls “public reason”. The public political forum has to be sterile from which expression of whatever doctrine and civilians have to help the public political forum keeping it this way by getting acquainted of what candidates for whom they are to vote mean when they express themselves in the for them one and only available and permitted language; public reason:

In a representative democracy citizens vote for representatives – chief executives. legislators, and the like – and not for particular laws[62]

But how can citizens who are not government officials realize the ideal of public reason?

[I]deally citizens are to think of themselves as if they were legislators and ask themselves what statutes, supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity[63] they would think it most reasonable to enact?[64]
These are the two components of what Rawls calls “the ideal of public reason”. Acting this way citizens do not seduce “judges in their decisions and especially the judges of the supreme court; government officials, especially chief executives and legislators; and candidates for public office and their campaign managers, especially in their public oratory, party platforms and political statements”[65] yet to use another reasoning than public reason. The purpose of this all seems to be preventing comprehensive doctrines to be expressed in laws, execution of laws and Court of justice. Neither religious nor non-religious citizens can and may expect doctrinal reasons from the state.

In American jurisprudence there is the ‘Lemon Test’ (cf. supra) to judge afterwards, amongst others, political behavior of ‘members’ of the public political forum whether he or she did violate the separation of church and state or not. Rawls hands American society an instrument to aid them beforehand deploying this separation which during two hundred years ‘Bill of Rights history’ turned out to be a stern objective.

In the first section Rawls designs the structure of the normative idea (idea and ideal) of public reason which applies to the entire state apparatus. In the second section he expands on the content, which is the third element of the structure of the idea of public reason “given by a family of reasonable political conceptions of justice”.[66] The content can differ but “the limiting features are equal and free citizens as well as the criterion of reciprocity.” [67] “Three main features characterize these conceptions. Here I summarize them as following: a list of basic rights, liberties and opportunities accompanied by priority to those rights and means for citizens to make effective use of their freedoms. There is a lot more to say about the ‘building’ Rawls establishes but that is beyond the scope of this essay. In any case he indicates a framework for political deliberation. One element though is important to mention. Rawls makes a distinction between political values and other ones like religious, secular and philosophical values. In the public political forum only political are allowed to discuss.[68] In my words this is because in this stadium on the route of values they are already involved in the process of legislation and the risk of transforming comprehensive doctrines directly into laws would be to big; non political values could pass the red line. Rawls provides the reader with a few examples which I will not depict here.[69] Nevertheless the underlying motivation or the basis of political values can be (and will be) found in comprehensive doctrines.

In the third section it becomes clear that what is depicted thus far is the clear and distinct  framework  Rawls has to offer. From this point he asks:

How it is possible – or is it -  for those of faith, as well as the nonreligious (secular), to endorse a constitutional regime even when their comprehensive doctrines may not prosper under it, and indeed may decline?[70]

Whether citizens for whom this question is relevant like it or not, the situation in the USA is how it is and Rawls’ framework – entirely, not only elements of it which fit someone well – is a way to deal with it, not to endorse it. Not just for the sake of stability; that alone is not enough and certainly not as long as this stability exists on the basis of wrong reasons. The only good reason for everybody is therefore “a firm allegiance to a democratic society’s political […] ideals and values”.[71] And moreover

[w]e must each give up forever the hope of changing the constitution so as to establish our religion’s hegemony […] To retain such hopes and aims would be inconsistent with the idea of equal basic liberties for all free and equal citizens.[72]

In section four finally follows Rawls’ vision on how secular and religious doctrines can be introduced into the public political discussion in a democracy. In his answer to this question he first distinguishes between the public political discussion and background culture. In background culture citizens can put forward secular and religious doctrines and discus them without any restriction, while in the public political discussion this is only possible to a certain extent, namely until the ‘proviso’ is met. The proviso is an injunction, an ‘until here and no further’, although it is not rigid and it is not regulable in advance. Where it is to be met, is depending on “the nature of the public political culture and calls for a good sense of understanding”[73]. Hence it is likely this can differ from democracy to democracy and it could pan out differently in the Netherlands where there is no constitutional determined and juridical developed separation of state and church like in the USA. In ‘the wide view of public political culture’ citizens have knowledge of the real motives, the more profound (non)religious roots of each other’s reasonable political conceptions. These are the “vital basis” of the respective doctrines, “giving them enduring strength and vigour”.[74] But the proviso has to be accepted and respected in the end. For Rawls the comprehensive doctrines in this stadium of a “well ordered constitutional democratic society”[75] function for citizens involved in the political discussions to be put at stake in order to demonstrate that these very comprehensive doctrines do not conflict with constitutional values but on the contrary – when understood correctly – support and endorse them. Without comprehensive doctrines there is no self supported underpinning of the constitutional democratic regime by the people. It comes down to rephrasing the comprehensive doctrines on the level of legislation, governing and Court of justice. However, when citizens do not have reasons they are committed to, reasons they live and have lived, from which they endorse and support the regime, reasons too from which they feel represented by the regime; as long as this is not the case stability is threatened. Complete and thorough consent with the regime is required and due to the fact that citizens give insight in each other’s comprehensive doctrines and how these doctrines endorse “constitutional essentials and matters of basic justice” these citizens can – in spite of their potentially opposing or even conflicting comprehensive doctrines yet “exercise ultimate political power as a collective body”[76].

5. Is the Dutch Reformed Protestant Party SGP non-democratic?

Does the Dutch Reformed Protestant political party SGP exceed the bounds of separation between church and state when its representatives attempt to realize religious ends using generally accepted or mere religious arguments in the parliamentary debate and to be more precise by trying to realize religious ends as such?

In his The Idea of Public Reason Revisited John Rawls discusses this problem where he calls  the ‘bounds’ the ‘proviso’, and in his terms religious ends can be based largely on ‘sources of not only religious but also secular non-political motives’ which he calls ‘comprehensive doctrines’ so let’s see if Rawls can cast light on the matter.

The SGP reasons that neutral debating doesn’t exist. One cannot enter into the public sphere without bringing along one’s belief and the conceptions based on it. Conversely Rawls is very keen on repulsing comprehensive doctrines from the public political forum.

Using the term ‘public sphere’ the SGP refers to the Dutch historically developed practice of negotiation, formally between church and state and contemporarily between religions, secular philosophies and the state. When a Dutch citizen appeals on the separation between church and state then he doesn’t refer to an accomplished legal fact but to good practice.

In the USA, where Rawls was writing, Jefferson’s ideal of a ‘wall of separation between church and state’ is supplemented over the years by jurisprudence on the subject. As if meant allegorically Rawls writes about an ‘ideal of public reason’. The public political forum has to be sterile from any expression of whatever doctrine.

Officially in the Netherlands comprehensive doctrines exclusively reach the legislative power because citizens – different from the USA – cannot vote for candidates for the other two powers. This seems easier to oversee but that is not the case due to party politics. Citizens choose candidates for Parliament who are listed as members of political parties and once they are chosen they represent their voters as members of that political party, having its own doctrines expressing its ideology, so comprehensive doctrines are present in the composition of the parliament itself.

On the contrary Rawls calls all three political powers the ‘public political forum’ distinguishing it from public sphere. Within the limiting values ‘equality and freedom of all citizens and deliberative reciprocity’ the proviso can permeate deeply into the parliamentary debate but of course has to be respected in the end. Legislation itself has to be performed in terms of public reason. However, thus a wide range is provided for (adherers of) comprehensive doctrines. Due to the fact that citizens give insight in each other’s comprehensive doctrines in deliberation as well as how these doctrines endorse ‘constitutional essentials and matters of basic justice’ these citizens can – in spite of their opposing comprehensive doctrines yet ‘exercise ultimate political power as a collective body’.

In the Netherlands the principle of separation between church and state actually refers to an accomplished fact of institutional separation. There are no bounds of legal separation between church and state which can be exceeded. Well, the SGP does strive for realization of religious ends using religious and common arguments but they are doing so in the traditional political practice of the Netherlands. So in the end the SGP does in Rome as the Romans do.

There is one fly in the ointment though. The SGP does violate a principle if you define democracy the way Rawls does: ‘the execution of ultimate political power by the people as a collective body’. The SGP on the contrary states that ‘ultimate power does not emanate from the people but from God’. If the SGP means this literally then, in the light of Rawls’ idea of public reason, it disqualifies itself as a democratic party.


Bibliography


Authors

De Jong, Otto, Geschiedenis der kerk, Nijkerk: Uitgeverij G.F. Callenbach bv, 1987, eleventh,
improved edition (first edition 1942), 411 p.

Habermas, Jürgen, Between Naturalism and Religion, translated by Jeremy Gaines,
Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006, 344 p, chapter 5 (original edition: Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2005).

Kennedy, James and Valenta, Markha,  “Religious pluralism and the Dutch state: reflections
on the future of article 23”, in: Van de Donk, W.B.H.J. - Jonkers, A.P. -. Kronjee, G.J – Plum, R.J.J.M. (eds.), Geloven in de publieke ruimte. Verkenningen van een dubbele transformatie, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006, p. 337–345.

Rawls, John, “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”, The university of Chicago Law Review
64 (1997) 3, p. 765-787.

Van Bijsterveld, Sophie, “scheiding van kerk en staat: een klassieke norm in een moderne
tijd”, ”, in: Van de Donk, W.B.H.J. - Jonkers, A.P. -. Kronjee, G.J – Plum, R.J.J.M. (eds.), Geloven in de publieke ruimte. Verkenningen van een dubbele transformatie, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006, p. 227-251.


Internet documents

Algemeen Dagblad , “Kamer steunt motie weigerambtenaren”, 

Algemeen Dagblad, “Haagse weigerambtenaar (SGP) zet strijd voort”,

Heyrman, Christine Leigh. “The Separation of Church and State from the American
Revolution to the Early Republic.” Divining America, TeacherServe©. National Humanities Center, http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/eighteen/ekeyinfo/sepchust.htm (accessed august 16, 2012).

De Volkskrant , “VVD steunt voorstel godslastering niet langer: D66 ziet geste aan SGP”,

Nederlandse Grondwet,


Parlement & Politiek, Staatkundig-Gereformeerde Partij (SGP),

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Politieke partijen, Algemene Vergadering van de Staatkundig
Gereformeerde Partij - Budding,  D.J, Ds., voorzitter - De Boer, A, secretaris, “Program van Beginselen”, http://www.rug.nl/dnpp/politiekePartijen/sgp/beginselProgrammas/prog00.pdf , (accessed on August 06, 2012).

SGP, “Program van Beginselen”,

SGP nieuws, SGP – Kolijn, W, algemeen voorzitter, “Daad bij het Woord. De SGP stáát
ervoor, http://www.sgpnieuws.sgp.nl/Home/Standpunten/Verk_Programma, p10,11 (accessed August 6, 2012).

SGPnieuws, “Tien speerpunten van de SGP”,

Walenta, Craig, “Constitutional Topic: The Constitution and Religion”, U.S. Constitution,


Television program

Knevel, Andries, SGP wensen in ruil voor politieke steun, NL2 De Vijfde Dag: 19 april 2012,
18 min.


Other sources

European Court of Human Rights, Third section. Decision. Application no58369/10.
Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij against the Netherlands. Sitting on 10 july 2012 as a chamber composed of Josep Casadevall, President, e.a., p.1.






[2] Kees van der Staaij is member of the Lower House (Tweede Kamer) of the Netherlands Parliament from May 19, 1998 and political leader of the SGP from March 27, 2010.
[3] Bart Jan Spruyt is a historian who at the moment the present television program was broadcasted worked as a columnist for the weekly magazine Elzevier.
[4] For the sake of readability I will deliver the original quotes in Dutch language in footnotes.
In the latter case Spruyt said: “Van der Staaij begrijpt dat dit soort eisen die vooral op ethisch en religieus vlak liggen pas zin hebben wanneer je als partij in de lift zit en maatschappelijk de wind mee hebt. Daar is geen sprake van.”
[5] A Dutch daily newspaper.
[6] A Dutch liberal political party.
[7] Another Dutch liberal political party.
[8] ANP/Redactie, “VVD steunt voorstel godslastering niet langer: D66 ziet geste aan SGP”, De Volkskrant May 21, 2011, http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2824/Politiek/article/detail/2435405/2011/05/21/VVD-steunt-voorstel-godslastering-niet-langer-D66-ziet-geste-aan-SGP.dhtml (accessed August 1, 2012).  “De VVD heeft haar handtekening weggehaald onder een wetsvoorstel dat zij eerder samen met D66 had ingediend om godslastering niet meer strafbaar te stellen. […] D66 is ervan overtuigd dat de liberalen hiermee de gunst van de SGP willen verwerven in ruil voor steun aan de coalitie in de Eerste Kamer. […] Gerrit Holdijk van de SGP erkende [op televisie] dat als het kabinet dit type voorstellen uitstelt of ongedaan maakt, het op de steun van de SGP kan rekenen, 'maar niet klakkeloos.'
[9] Redactie Algemeen Dagblad, “Kamer steunt motie weigerambtenaren”, Algemeen Dagblad November 15, 2011, http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1012/Nederland/article/detail/3034848/2011/11/15/Kamer-steunt-motie-weigerambtenaren.dhtml (accessed August 1, 2012). The original Dutch quote of Van der Staaij: 'Triest. Bij een Kamermeerderheid is kennelijk noch de joodse, noch de christelijke traditie in veilige handen'.
[10] Redactie Algemeen Dagblad, “Haagse weigerambtenaar (SGP) zet strijd voort”,  Algemeen Dagblad November 15, 2011, http://www.ad.nl/ad/nl/1040/Den-Haag/article/detail/3035121/2011/11/15/Haagse-weigerambtenaar-SGP-zet-strijd-voort.dhtml (accessed August 1, 2012)
[11] Rawls, John, “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”, The university of Chicago Law Review 64 (1997) 3, p. 765-787.
[12] Cf. section 1: Introduction.
[14] Ibid. p. 2.
[15] Loc. cit., where in a footnote is added: “The “Three Forms of Unity” were adopted as statements of doctrine by the Synod of Dordrecht in 1618-19. The Belgic Confession was originally written in 1561 and summarises the Reformed Protestant faith in terms of the teachings of the reformer John Calvin (1509-1564). The Heidelberg Catechism, which dates from 1563, is a Reformed Protestant catechism in question-and-answer form. The Canons of Dort (or Dordrecht) are a five-point statement of dogma laid down by the Synod itself in response to Arminian, or Remonstrant, teaching which is dismissed as heretical. All three remain to this day reference documents of churches of the Dutch Reformed tradition, in the Netherlands and elsewhere (e.g. in Germany, North America, South Africa).”
[16] The SGP Program van Beginselen (Program of Principles), article 1, written in the year 2000, states that the party does stand firm on this article 36 of the Belgic Contession. On the internet site of the SGP there is a link to the Program van Beginselen, but the link does not work. I was able to trace the program on the internet, directly on the site of the Rijks Universiteit Groningen and on the site of the same university, but via The Parliamentary Documentation Center of the University of Leiden. The link is: http://www.rug.nl/dnpp/politiekePartijen/sgp/beginselProgrammas/prog00.pdf (accessed August 2, 2012)
[17] There is no equivalent for this Dutch notion in English. Since it has an authentic meaning, differing from the meaning of words like ‘the state’, ‘the government’ and ‘politics’ for which Dutch language has its own words, I will use the original Dutch notion ‘overheid’. Here and now I define it shortly according to an online dictionary as ‘the state as an organization’, http://www.woorden.org/woord/overheid (accessed August 5, 2012).
[18] 'om te weren en uit te roeien alle afgoderij en valsen godsdienst, om het rijk des antichrists te gronde te werpen'.
[19] Parlement & Politiek, Staatkundig-Gereformeerde Partij (SGP), http://www.parlement.com/9291000/modulesf/g4xjflqu, (accessed August 5, 2012)
[20] This is the notion used in the original text, but it is not clear – even in Dutch – what is meant by it. It can refer to character, to nature and eventually also to sexual orientation.
De Boer, A, secretaris, “Program van Beginselen”, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Politieke partijen, http://www.rug.nl/dnpp/politiekePartijen/sgp/beginselProgrammas/prog00.pdf (accessed August 06, 2012). This is a translated and excerpted rendering of the articles 1,2,3,4,6 and 8 (a selection out of 32). One remark on the translation: ‘power’ in ‘the overheid does not borrow its ‘power’ from the people is a translation of the Dutch word ‘gezag’ which can also be translated as ‘authority’. In the context though ‘power seems to be more approptiate.
[22] SGP – Kolijn, W, algemeen voorzitter, “Daad bij het Woord. De SGP stáát ervoor!” SGP nieuws, http://www.sgpnieuws.sgp.nl/Home/Standpunten/Verk_Programma, p. 10,11, (accessed August 6, 2012).
[23] Ibid. p. 10.
[24] Loc. cit.
[25] Ibid. p. 31.
[26] Ibid. p. 5,6.
[27] Dutch untranslatable notion, meaning something like: ‘body of beliefs or principles belonging to an individual or group, providing existential and coherent thoughts, feelings, experiences and the like concerning the meaning of life’
 I translated for better and for worse: “Versus ongeloof het christelijk-historische denken botst allereerst op het denken van doctrinaire seculieren, die de klassieke opvatting over de verhouding van kerk en staat vervormen tot een scheiding van geloof en samenleving. Alsof deze opstelling neutraal is. Neutraliteit bestaat niet. Niemand heeft een neutrale levensbeschouwing, iedereen heeft een bepaalde visie op mens en samenleving. De zogenaamde keuzes op basis van een neutrale levensbeschouwing zijn keuzes op basis van een seculier geloof. Daarom kun je je niet in de publieke ruimte begeven zonder je geloof, levensovertuiging en de daarop gebaseerde opvattingen mee te nemen”.
[29] Not to mention other phenomenons: our prime minister who is not (directly) chosen as such but who is a political party member; political party member majors appointed by the queen; the same goes for judges of the Raad van Staten, our Court for State cases and last but not least non chosen party member ministers of the cabinet.
[30] Ibid. p. 5.
[31] cf. p. 6, (footnote 20).
[32] De Jong, Otto, Geschiedenis der kerk, Nijkerk: Uitgeverij G.F. Callenbach bv, 1987, eleventh, improved edition (first edition 1942), p.225.
[33] De Jong, Geschiedenis der kerk, p. 265.
[34] Ibid., p. 268.
[36] Ibid., p. 269.
[37] Ibid., p. 272.
[38] Ibid., p. 315.
[39] Ibid., p. 315, 316.
[40] Ibid., p. 316.
[41] Ibid., p. 218.
[42] Article 9 of the Netherlands Constitution is one of the three on which the principle of separation of church and state is founded. Cf. also p. 12 of this paper.
[43] De Jong, Geschiedenis der Kerk, p. 324.
[44] Kennedy, James and Valenta, Markha,  “Religious pluralism and the Dutch state: reflections on the future of article 23”, in: Van de Donk, W.B.H.J. - Jonkers, A.P. -. Kronjee, G.J – Plum, R.J.J.M. (eds.), Geloven in de publieke ruimte. Verkenningen van een dubbele transformatie, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006, p. 337–345.
[45] Van Bijsterveld, Sophie, “Scheiding van kerk en staat: een klassieke norm in een moderne tijd”, ”, in: Van de Donk, W.B.H.J. - Jonkers, A.P. -. Kronjee, G.J – Plum, R.J.J.M. (eds.), Geloven in de publieke ruimte. Verkenningen van een dubbele transformatie, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006, p. 227-251. Remark: In what follows about separation between church and state I render, but do not cite her text as far as it is relevant for this essay.
[46] Rechtbank ‘s-Gravenhage, uitspraak 7 september 2005, as cited by Van Bijsterveld, Scheiding van kerk en staat: een klassieke norm in een moderne tijd.
[47] Van Bijsterveld, Scheiding van kerk en staat: een klassieke norm in een moderne tijd, p. 244.
Original Dutch text: “Een neiging tot sturing en beperking komt dan mogelijk ook in beeld. Vrijheid van godsdienst wordt daarmee een complexe aangelegenheid, die aan het beeld van het eenvoudig vrijlaten van individuele religieuze overtuigingen en het bieden van ruimte voor het uitvoeren van rituelen voorbij gaat.”
[48] Nederlandse Grondwet, http://www.denederlandsegrondwet.nl/9353000/1/j9vvihlf299q0sr/vih9dp4hyqv1, (accessed August 16, 2012).
[49] Heyrman, Christine Leigh. “The Separation of Church and State from the American Revolution to the Early Republic.” Divining America, TeacherServe©. National Humanities Center, http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/eighteen/ekeyinfo/sepchust.htm (accessed August 16, 2012).
[50] Ibid.
Heyrman also writes: “Today those questions loom large in the United States, as controversies rage over prayer and the teaching of evolution in the public schools, the posting of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, and the launching of “faith-based initiatives” by the executive branch”.
[54] Ibid.
[55] Heyrman, The Separation of Church and State from the American Revolution to the Early Republic.
Interesting is to note what Heyrman writes about this letter: “[I]n 1998, an FBI laboratory analysis revealed what Jefferson had omitted from his first draft in the course of composing his final draft. Those now-recovered deletions have convinced some scholars that Jefferson’s main motive in writing to the Danbury Baptists was to outfox his Federalist political opponents, who charged him with being “a howling atheist,” rather than to articulate his intellectual convictions about the separation of church and state”, and also what she memorizes on the discussions related to the matter and its implications for the controversy among scholars, jurists, and politicians regarding the impregnability of this ‘wall’.
[57] Cited above: Walenta, Constitutional Topic: The Constitution and Religion.
[58] Also our representatives in the European Parliament, but in this context I leave the European context out of consideration. Another remark: there is one exception: in one occasion we do vote for non-legislative officials, namely the members of the Waterschappen, who are entrusted with water management.
[59] Rawls, The Idea of Public Reason Revisited, p. 776.
[60] Ibid. p. 766.
[61] Ibid. p. 767.
[62] Ibid. p. 769.
[63] On the criterion of reciprocity Rawls writes on page 770: it “requires that when (…) terms are proposed as the most reasonable terms of fair cooperation, those proposing them must also think it at least reasonable for others to accept them, as free and equal citizens, and not as dominated or manipulated, or under the pressure of an inferior political or social position”.
[64] Ibid. p. 769.
[65] Ibid. p. 767.
[66] Loc. cit.
[67] Ibid. p. 774. See also footnote 63.
[68] Ibid. p. 776, 777.
Rawls writes: “The political values of public reason are distinct from other values in that they are realized in and characterize political institutions. this does not mean that analogous values cannot characterize other social forms. The values of effectiveness and efficiency may characterize the social organization of teams and clubs, as well as the political institutions of the basic structure of society. But a value is properly political only when the social form is itself political: when it is realized, say, in parts of the basic structure and its political and social institutions.”
[69] Ibid. p. 778, 779, 780.
[70] Ibid. p. 781.
[71] Ibid. p. 781, the first example.
[72] Ibid. p. 782.
[73] Ibid. p. 784.
[74] Ibid. p. 785.
[75] Ibid. p. 765.
[76] Ibid. p. 770.

Geen opmerkingen: