This editorial offers an introduction to the current issue.

This editorial offers an introduction to the current issue.

Since the 1990s, in the Dutch public debate on the societal meaning of religion a discourse has emerged which does not only relate extremist forms of Islam to terrorism, but more broadly, religious orthodoxy in general to coercion and violence. In this contribution this emergency is described and analyzed. It is related – among other things – to two switches in the perception on orthodox religious groups of prominent opinion leaders, namely: firstly from groups which become less powerful towards groups which become more powerful, and secondly from groups which adapt to their secular and liberal environment towards groups which are characterized by revitalization and radicalization. The upshot of these changes is that religious orthodoxy is framed as a threat that has to be limited and sometimes fought.

In this contribution the author discusses the broad question whether religious commitment does – or does not – stimulate violent types of criminal behaviour. Based on a review of relevant literature (criminology and religious studies), it is first specified that religious commitment in many respects functions as a protective factor to prevent people from criminal behaviour. By contrast, many orthodox and fundamentalist groups consider defensive violence (self-defense) and punitive violence (retaliation) to be legitimate options. In the final section the author discusses some of the assumed relationships between crime, violence and muslim-radicalism in the Netherlands.

This articles describes fear of religion from the perspective of cultural psychology. Four manifestions of fear of religion are identified: fear of religion = religious awe; fear of religion = fear of a taboo; fear of religion = fear of Islam; fear of religion = fear of abuse. It is argued that the four manifestations at least partially share a common root in societal developments. In the Netherlands, we have created a world-view that centers around the individual, and attributed the individual a role that is independent and dominant in relation to the environment. Traditional religiosity contradicts this world-view, and therefore elicits fear. Religion invalidates our self-image.

In this article I propose an alternative framework for analyzing the Salafi movement by focusing on the practices of meaning-making by and within different networks of the movement. I will show that many practices of the Salafi movement are not problematic for integration per se, but that they produce an alternative vision of the world and re-arrange the daily lives of its participants in such a way that it competes with the state’s vision of good citizenship with its (since 9/11) increasing emphasis on secular and sexual liberties.

This article states how in the Netherlands since the 1990s religious orthodoxy became the reference object for threat analysis within the security domain. Political Islam and Salafism are increasingly framed as security threats to the Dutch democratic order and social cohesion. The article uses the securitization-framework, developed by the Copenhagen School, to analyze how religion was put on the security agenda and how countervailing forces tried to desecuritize and countersecuritize this process. The article ends with the conclusion that orthodoxy as such is still framed predominantly in terms of violence and coercion, due to a culturalization of security politics as a whole. This narrows the perspective on religious orthodoxy and leaves little room for alternative sources of civil engagement in society.

Which role do religious beliefs and practices play in radicalization processes of individuals and groups? In the Netherlands, the authorities are not entitled to interfere in religious content, given this content does not undermine democratic order. On the other hand religious orthodoxy is increasingly perceived as a source for violence and coercion in public discourse. Former minister of Justice Ernst Hirsch Ballin argued for a better understanding for the value of religion in society. ICCT-director Peter Knoope explained how the government can enable the development of counternarratives to violent jihadism within the civil society. James Kennedy criticised the fact that religion is increasingly problematized and politicized and argued for a more reluctant and relaxed view on religious radicalization.

The fact that religion is not disappearing but changing, is not necessarily reassuring. We are witnessing a shift towards religion as an identity marker and a lifestyle, leading to new tensions. Religious lifestyles are increasingly perceived as deviant from ‘normality’, and therefore as threatening. Thus, religion becomes object of securitization policies. This article argues that this calls for a double answer. Firstly, a realist assessment is required of whether so-called religious extremism is really threatening, or just unsettling to modern Western perception. Secondly, the whole idea of ‘security’ as policy goal has to be reconsidered, using the alternatives religions present.

According to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, the obligation to affix crucifixes to the wall of State schools in Italy cannot be considered an infringement of the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their religious and philosophical convictions.