Abstract
The main purpose of this paper is to explore and understand the relationships between
secularism, pluralism, and the post-secular public sphere in the thought of Jürgen Habermas, Charles
Taylor, and William Connolly. The three authors develop a thorough critique of secularism which
implies a radical break with the dogmatic idea of removing religion from the public sphere. My main
objective is to show that this critique is related to a normative understanding of our post-secular
situation and requires a rethinking of the boundaries of the public sphere in relation to the predicament
of pluralism. Arguing against the post-metaphysical conception of secularism, Taylor develops
a critique of Habermas’s “institutional translation proviso”, and Connolly stresses the agonistic
dimension of the post-secular public sphere. I take these criticisms into account, while arguing
that Taylor and Connolly are unable to provide a sound basis for the legitimacy of our institutional
settings. In contrast to Taylor and Connolly, I propose a reading of Habermas’s theory based on
the internal relationship between universal justification and the everyday contexts of pre-political
solidarity. I conclude with a focus on the need to take into account the agonistic dimension of the
post-secular public sphere.