Talk:History of religion in the Netherlands

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Razzia? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Together on the road churches? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Radical Revision

message: 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)
replies: text: The article reads like an essay, and lacks citations.  — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Inter-religious strife in the Netherlands of the pillarised period

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Proposed merger