Abstract

This paper is about the place of religion in Alan Brudner’s Constitutional Goods. More generally, it offers some thoughts on the place of religion in constitutional theory and political philosophy today. This theologico-political question was central for many centuries, but gradually faded as our secular age affirmed itself. Recent political and social events at the European and at the global level have firmly turned the tide.Constitutional Goods as a modern natural law theory of liberal constitutionalism has a lot to say about religion, but crucially it does not say enough. In particular, it clearly shows how constitutional theory has shaped itself in relation to--if most of the time in opposition to--religion, but does not explain why political philosophy is mainly about the theologico-political question. Nor does it attempt to explain how that issue may characterize our future constitutional debates. However, it fails to directly address the question of the relation between religion and public reason. Does the inclusive conception provide a strictly secular conception of public reason or does it also include religious views? My impression is that the inclusive conception only brings together philosophical conceptions. By only doing so, it fails to engage with the more pressing social and political problems that we may face. And incidentally, it rides roughshod on the most important question of political philosophy. Under what conditions can public reason accommodate religious views? It is surprising that Constitutional Goods does not offer any substantive developments on these points. Modern secular states will face very difficult choices. We do not want to give up hope on the possibility of giving religion its due. But our constitutional theory and political philosophies have a lot of work to do before getting those problems right