This book is a remarkable achievement. It summarises the law of all 27 EU member states, with occasional references to other European states, on a whole series of topics within the broad area of law and religion. It covers systems of Church–state relations, religious freedom, religious discrimination and hatred, the legal status of religious organisations, the autonomy of churches and their ministers, the protection of religion and worship, church property, religious education, religion and the family, and the substantive EU law on religion.
As Professor Doe makes clear, he draws heavily though not exclusively on the annual volumes produced by the European Consortium on Church and State Research. Those volumes usually consist of a series of national reports on a particular theme, for example financial support for the Churches by the state. They seldom contain much by way of synthesis: comparative analysis features in the discussions at the Consortium's annual gatherings but is seldom reduced to print. So this book not only gathers material from something like a dozen volumes published by the Consortium (and found, alas, in relatively few English libraries) but it adds an extraordinarily valuable layer of analysis, comparing and contrasting the approaches of national legal systems.
The full citations of case law from 25 of the EU member states (Latvia and Malta are the missing ones) and of legislation from all 27 does mean that the footnotes, although set in small type, sometimes occupy more space than the text. That is not a matter of complaint, as the text is clear and easy to read and the citation of authority impeccable. The depth of both analysis and citation distinguishes this book from useful but less detailed works such as Gerhard Robbers’ edited collection of national reports in Church and State in the European Union. Professor Doe is unduly modest in describing his book as introductory.
Of course, a reviewer is expected to offer a few carping criticisms. There are times when the comprehensive nature of the material cited in the footnotes makes for over-elaboration of the text: one sentence (at pp 50–51), supported by ten footnotes, lists elements of religious practice. The inclusion of ‘preaching’ is justified by a Bulgarian case in which a group of Jehovah's Witnesses were fined for acting without proper registration; ‘exhortations’ by a dictum in R v Secretary of State for Education ex parte Williamson that refers to preaching and public professions of faith. I suspect that there is a linguistic problem, not fully acknowledged, in that Consortium papers are mostly in English, the member writing a paper translating some but not all the terms used in his or her own country. One wonders if the distinctions drawn between the different types of body dealing with discrimination, ‘councils, boards, agencies and other authorities’ (each word with footnotes identifying one or more national example), are real or simply the product of different translations. I suspect that the differing translations of the titles of legislation found in different sources explains the absence of any table of legislation.
Two more substantial issues. Doe argues that what he prefers to call the co-operation model of Church–state relations is now dominant, through the provision by the state of a range of facilities for religious bodies. If one takes out of the picture concordats and similar formal agreements, a model in their own right, many of the facilities (a degree of protection, legal capacity including the right to own property, educational facilities, some state finance) are similar to those given to sports governing bodies or national learned societies. Yet the many constitutional provisions cited show that religion has a distinct status: the provision of facilities is not defining.
Finally, the book concludes with an Appendix listing 50 ‘Principles of religion law common to the states of Europe’. These are not elaborated in the text of the book and I find them puzzling. How are we meant to distinguish principles 9, 10 and 19: ‘Everyone may worship, teach, observe or practice religion publicly or privately’; ‘Everyone may worship, teach, observe or practice religion alone or in community’; and ‘A religious group may associate freely to manifest its beliefs’? Principle 31, ‘The media should respect religion in its coverage of religious affairs’, seems somewhat optimistic. Principle 45, ‘Religious symbols and dress may be freely displayed or worn in public to the extent permitted by law’, is undermined by its final words: the law allows you to do what the law allows.
