Abstract

There is currently a public debate in the Netherlands about the desirability about article 23 of the Dutch constitution, on the freedom of education. This freedom has come under attack because it facilitates the foundation of Muslim schools, which are entitled to support from public finances. Critics argue that, as a result of this support, the state officially sponsors the spread of Muslim segregation in Dutch society. Moreover, some liberals are now inclined to openly argue that freedom of education is in contradiction with liberalism itself. This paper attempts ascertain whether freedom of education can be reconciled with liberalism. The structure of the proposed answer to this question is as follows. First, I will interpret the nature of liberalism, exploring two types of liberalism: Locke and Montesquieu. I will argue that these two liberalisms involve fundamentally different commitments: the one to autonomy and bourgeois interest, the other to liberty and civic virtue. Second, the two brands of liberalism are compared in their relation to the Enlightenment, which is a recurring theme in recent public discussions. In this section, I argue that the French Enlightenment, although not liberal in character, owes more to its own interpretation of Locke than to Montesquieu. Third, I relate the two brands of liberalism to the defense and attack of freedom of religion. The argument is that Montesquieu’s liberalism speaks to a defense of freedom of education in a pluralist state of selfgoverning citizens,while Locke’s liberalism endorses its rejection because it contradicts his vision of the bourgeois state, designed to pacify religious conflict and de-politicize cultural identities.