Is public reason self-standing (Ralws)? Can and should bring about a consensus on minimal rules? Or does religion challenge consensualism, as one of the main sources of (valuable) disagreement in contemporary societies? Authors such as Taylor and Mouffe have challenged some of the main premises of the public reason approach from soemtimes opposite perspectives on the role of religion in public life (i.. Taylor from the perspective of a different conception of translation than that of Habermas; and Mouffe from the perspective of a politics of passions).

My presentation aims to deal with these two challenges that, as I will argue, are only partly successful.