Religious symbols are loaded with meaning, not only for those who display them. They have generated controversy in many circles, be they religious or secular, public or private, and within or outside academia. Debate has taken place throughout Europe and beyond, at times leading to limitations or bans of religious symbols. While this debate might seem whimsical in occasional flare-ups, it merits closer scrutiny, precisely because it is part of a long-running debate, it crosses boundaries and because it touches upon larger underlying questions. The study singles out a particularly contentious issue: religious symbols in public functions and it focuses on the judiciary, the police and public education. It is often argued that public officials in these functions should be 'neutral' which consequently implies that they cannot display religious symbols. This book aims to unravel this line of thought to the core. The objective of the study is threefold and emanates from the reasons for this study. Firstly, the study aims at a detailed analysis of the issue religious symbols in public functions. This approach is inspired by Jan Smits' idea that the legal discipline is a science of 'competing arguments'. Accordingly, this discipline can contribute by identifying and assessing the arguments underlying viewpoints in a debate. This contribution can gain in strength by being embedded in theory. Therefore, the study also aims to explore and specify the theory of the two central concepts, state neutrality and religious freedom according to the main issue. Such an examination of the mutual interplay of these concepts in relation to religious symbols in pubic functions allows for finding more exact implications of these concepts. Thirdly, the study aims at an evaluative assessment of the various arguments in the debate. To this end, the study places the issue against the background of the ECHR, England and France. The first context is relevant for taking account of the minimum human rights norms as required according to the ...