Talk:History of religion in the Netherlands

''The television program 'God Bestaat Niet' (God doesn't exist) resulted in a protest from Christians in 2005. Religion was openly attacked in this program by anti-religious atheistic scientists accompanied by anti-religious sketches of a comedian. In particular a sketch with Allah and Jesus portrayed as dogs led to a lot of criticism. '''The present prime minister and minister of justice of the Netherlands are conservative Christians who want to make an end to this ridicule of religion. They use Islamic fundamentalism to defend their views.'

They use Islamic fundamentalism to defend their views

What is meant with this sentence? For what I am aware of, the Dutch prime minister (Jan-Peter Balkenende) nor the Secretary of Justice (Piet-Hein Donner) - who are both Reformed Christians - have used Islamic fundamentalism to justify their own view or to show their discontent with the television program 'God bestaat niet'.


 * Donner and Balkenende want to stop blasphemy in general. They have the opinion that religious people should be treated with respect, both muslims and christians. Some moderate secularsits, like Hans Wiegel and minister Brinkhorst agree with them. Others, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, me, Geert Wilders, many left-wing people disagree. I am of an opinion that everything can be said without punishment. Punishment should be given to those who retaliate with violence.--Daanschr 15:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not think Piet-Hein Donner and Jan-Peter Balkenende have ever said they want to stop blasphemy on a whole. I propose that the part on "They use Islamic fundamentalism to defend their views" to be deleted, because there is no proof given that they ever said that. Rick86 11:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the words 'on a whole'. I think you are right, allthough your words could imply the contrary. Leuk, nog een Nederlander.--Daanschr 15:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Jaja, nog een Nederlander! Ik was trouwens ook degene die de opmerking had gemaakt waarop jij in eerste instantie had gereageerd. Ik ben geen fan van het CDA (zie profiel), ook niet van onze Gereformeerde medemens uit de Bijbelgordel, maar toch ... vond de opmerking zwaar overtrokken (ligt er wel aan hoe je hem interpreteert). Switching back to English again - all the non-Dutch crowd: don't mind the jibberish ... Rick86 18:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Misschien ben ik iets te anti, inderdaad.--Daanschr 20:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Razzia?
What is razzia? Why is it mentioned in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.249.129 (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Biased and sometimes false
When the article begins to address the Reformation, it fails to take into account the various contributions that led to the radical successes of the Reformation in most of what was then the northern counties of the Netherlands. For example, Spanish oppression and anger at the Vatican for the edict demanding the deaths of all Dutch people caused a very significant backlash against Roman Catholicism.

The discussion on the Anabaptists is woefully one sided, as there were severe interactions between the Anabaptists, the most radical of the reformers, and the Lutherans and more moderate reformists.

Also, the Calvinists never 'conquered' the Netherlands, but were defending what was the Netherlands from the Spaniards at the time in the late 1500's. During this war, the primary reason Roman Catholocism declined was due to the anger against the Vatican for its edict calling for the execution of every Dutch person. There also was very little religious persecution in the Netherlands controlled by the Dutch forces because they disliked the persecution done against them by the Roman Catholic church, and so Judaism and Roman Catholocism were allowed.

I would ask an expert with more knowledge on the subject than I to please edit this article and make it conform to historical fact. The article doesn't begin to address some of the more intricate workings of the political climate of the time, and so cannot address the facts of religion within the Netherlands at the time.


 * I have never heard of this edict. Do you have a source on that?
 * The anabaptists inspired many common people in the countryside and the cities of the county of Holland and the lordship of Friesland. Lutheranism gained a foothold among rich merchants in Flanders and Antwerp. This means that the anabaptists and the Lutherans in the Habsburg Netherlands were seperated of eachother. I don't know what happened after the 1530s.--Daanschr 15:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with your warning about the neutrality of this article. I didn't use any sources in writing this articl, other then my memory.
 * Aditional questions are: The chapter about the Frankish Empire is questionable. Also, orthodoxy and liberalism in late medieval Netherlands.--Daanschr 16:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Charles was succeeded by his son Philip II of Spain. Unlike his father, who had been raised in Ghent (Belgium), Philip had little personal attachment to the Low Countries (where he had only stayed for four years), and thus was perceived as detached by the local nobility. A devout Catholic, Philip was appalled by the success of the Reformation in the Low Countries, which had led to an increasing number of Calvinists. "On February 16, 1568 a sentence of the Holy Office condemned all the inhabitants of the Netherlands to death as heretics. From this universal doom only a few persons, especially named, were acquitted. A proclamation of the king, dated ten days later, confirmed this decree of the Inquisition and ordered it to be carried out into instant execution without regard to age and sex. This is the most concise death warrant that had ever been framed. Three million people—men, women and children—were sentenced to the scaffold." (The Rise of the Dutch Republic, by John Lathrop Motley, Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 2, par. 12, p. 2.) His attempts to enforce religious persecution of the Protestants and his endeavours to centralise government, justice and taxes made him unpopular and led to a revolt. The Dutch fought for independence from Spain, leading to the Eighty Years' War (1568-1648). Seven rebellious provinces united in the Union of Utrecht in 1579 and formed the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (also known as the "United Provinces").


 * This article was taken from History of the Netherlands, subsection "Struggle for independence and the Golden Age, paragraph 2. Three million Dutch people were sentenced to death by the Holy See, and is one of the primary reasons for the decline of catholocism within the Netherlands at the time of the Eighty Year's War.


 * I read the article and searched for the book on internet. The book you refer to, has been published in 1856 according to amazon.com. I think we need another source as well. The Dutch independence struggle was the main subject in the 4th grade of the middelbare school in 1994 and 1995. I recall that the main reasons for the Dutch to revolt were: the rise of taxes, resentment against the inquisition and the harsh conduct of Spanish soldiers. This is the first time that i hear about this papal sentence.--Daanschr 14:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily think that just beacause the book was published in 1856 that we can throw out its legitimacy and demand another source, when most articles are supported by only one source anyway. Honestly, in a lower educational history class, typically it's hard to delve into the underlying meanings of every action.  Whole classes could be devoted to the Eighty Year's War, and I'm sure they exist.  Is there any particular reason you believe that only one source is not acceptable here, but acceptable elsewhere?


 * Honestly, just because a source is over a hundred and fifty years old doesn't mean that it is false. For example, we know that the Magna Carta is authentic, even though it's over five centuries old.  We know Roman history throughout most of Europe, even though there were only a couple historians whose accounts didn't necessarily coincide.


 * You may enter the data if you like. I will not delete it.--Daanschr 18:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree some of this sounds false. Is there a source clearly showing that there was a major inqusition in the netherlands. I was under the impression that that was mostly based in Spain and that it targeted moors and jews in the govenment and though Spain controled the Netherlands at this time, it seems unlikely that they would have had the same moorish problemes there as well. 24.137.78.34 21:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Together on the road churches?
This seems like a very twisted translation. I quote:

The Samen op weg Kerken ("Together on the road churches") wanted to create a Christian unity in the Netherlands.

"op weg" is certainly Dutch for "on the road", however, I doubt that this is what was meant in this case. A more accurate translation, in my opinion, is "on the way together". ("op weg" could also be translated to "on the way" in the sense of travelling.) Perhaps native Dutch wikipedians can verify this? If the translation used in the article is officially acknowledged, nevermind this notice. It just seemed incorrect to me. (I'm a native Dutch Wikipedian myself, but not sure about this issue) --Nin 10:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources?
The following is taken from the first part of Secularization


 * The extermination of the Dutch Jews became a contentious topic during the 1960s and 1970s. The younger generation blamed the older generation which had not resisted the Nazis and allowed the Jews to die. An ideology of resistance against all authority became very popular. Authority, religion and nationalism were despised by many until the elections of 2002. Freedom became the most important value. Dutch freedom means the freedom to do whatever the individual wants, and not being hindered by others. The consequences of this ideology became apparent during the 1990s, when violence increased. People began to realise that only the government can stop violence from other citizens. 

Especially the last sentence seems rather biased. Did violence increase? source please. Did 'we' (I'm dutch) began to realize we needed the goverment to help us with this increasing voilence in the 90's? To top this all of, this is all caused by us moving away from religion? I'm a liberal and an atheist and this section is blaming me and all who share my ideology, which is many, for creating a more violent society! I wanted to discus this before editing because as stated I'm a liberal and an atheist and I don't want my POV inserted just an 'as close as possible' approximation of the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ladon (talk • contribs) 13:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC).


 * My own POV is that many atheists and (true) liberals have a hihgly developed morality although not (necessarily) christian morality. IMHO it is the people who do not think about morals that are more likely to revert to violence. But then again I am also an atheist and a left-wing liberal so I will not edit here, for the same reason as Ladon (POV....) Arnoutf 13:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since there has been no other response i removed the following from the first part of the text as it seems to be a (religious) POV. If sources are available please include them and rewrite the removed part.


 * until the elections of 2002. Freedom became the most important value. Dutch freedom means the freedom to do whatever the individual wants, and not being hindered by others. The consequences of this ideology became apparent during the 1990s, when violence increased. People began to realise that only the government can stop violence from other citizens. Ladon 09:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Radical Revision
I've radically revised this article, because it was riddled with POV issues and was teeming with non-sense. I hope most of these issues have been solved. I would like to ask all authors who previously participated on this page to take a look at this new version and help adress language, reference and POV issues. C mon 15:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the gist of your revision, however a lot of work is still needed on the wording and details (e.g. was the situation during 12 yrs truce a civil war? Van Oldenbarneveld was only de facto leader never officially, as far as I recall William the Silent was raised Lutherian, then converted to Catholism at an early age (when he became heir of Orange) and stayed with that the rest of his life.). But as I siad above, I consider these details, that have no (or only marginal) impact on the storyline; good work. Arnoutf 16:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Inter-religious strife in the Netherlands of the pillarised period
I think there are some uncited assumptions in the last part of the '19th century till the Second War period' of this article. It mentions that Catholic and Protestant children were stopped from playing with one another by the police. I doubt this is true and unless sources are provided I think it should be scrapped. Of course Catholic parents frowned on their children playing with their Protestant peers, but interaction was discouraged by social control from the community one belonged to and by the Churches. The police were also supposed to be neutral and had presumably more important things on their minds than enforcing strict separation of the pillars (this wasn't part of their job description). There also is a contradiction. How can a Protestant have Roman Catholic friends (whose funerals he couldn't visit) when they couldn't even play with one another in their childhood?

I'm from a historically Catholic village, with a Protestant minority, in the Netherlands myself and for a school project I have interviewed inhabitants of my village (including older Catholics and Protestants) on their impression of pillarisation. None of them mention violence, let alone that Protestant homes were damaged by Catholics participating in a procession. Apart from the absence of intermarriage relationships were neutral, certainly not hostile. My impression from these interviews is that Catholics and Protestants just didn't understand each other very well, but they certainly didn't hate each other. Abraham Kuyper recognised his Catholic coalition partners as brothers in Christ. I won't outrightly dismiss these assumptions as wrong (and of course there were incidents, such as Catholics and Protestants engaging in riots at the 300th anniversary of the capture of Den Briel), but unless these assumptions are sourced they don't belong in a encyclopedia. 84.26.116.26 12:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The article reads like an essay, and lacks citations. &mdash; Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of religion in the Netherlands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121115144546/http://som.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/ to http://som.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merger

 * Both seem to be about the same thing, or at least it should be more clearly defined what the scope of history of Dutch religion is. SPQRobin (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge the current rather poor article, since the other really just deals with the north. A History of religion in the Low Countries would be nice to have though. Religion in Belgium is purely modern, & the history of religion in the south seems uncovered. Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)