THE RELIGIOUS ARGUMENT AS A PROMOTION OF LIBERAL, COMPREHENSIVE AND INCLUSIVE PUBLIC REASON

The theme of public reason is one of the non-negotiable starting points of contemporary liberal political theory. In this context, the greatest theoretician of this tradition, John Rawls, develops the idea of public reason, which can be analyzed in three phases: exclusionary, inclusive and broad. This distinction shows the potentially exclusionary character of political liberalism that would only house comprehensive liberal doctrines, excluding any others. Robert Audi, on the other hand, proposes a theory of separation between Church and State with three central principles (libertarian, equalitarian and neutrality), and the principle of neutrality leaves doubts about the possibility of its application, as it tends to an official anti-religious stance. From the reflection on these theories, this article aims to show that the religious argument presents the rational considerations of a relevant part of society, and is therefore not incompatible with democracy. The result is that religion is a fundamental human good in political society, and that the religious argument presents an alternative to subjective moral conceptions. Still, that excluding ideas do not point to the secular protection of citizens' freedom of conscience and belief, but to the exclusive admission of an anti-religious public stance.