The Rawls/Habermas debate in the relationship of state/religion in constitucional democratic societyy

Abstract

This paper discusses the theories of John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas on the state/religion relationship in the public sphere of a liberal democratic constitutional society, presenting the common and divergent points between the theories mentioned above. The aim of this paper is to discuss the idea of public justification (and public reason) in Rawls' thought and the possibility of religious arguments needing to be translated (proviso), questioning whether such an idea would not create too heavy a burden for religious citizens, as Habermas argues. It is believed that Habermas' and Rawls' views on the issue of religion are closer than one might imagine and that the differences are only apparent, since both aim to defend the secular state against the confessional or laicist state in a constitutional and liberal democratic society.