本文探討建基於現代自由主義政治理論的公和私之間、以至於聖和俗之間的絕對分割，進而指出，自由民主政體以「公共理性的制約」要求人們在一個多元民主政體的參與中把自己的宗教信念和理想擱置起來，這種要求是不平等和不合理的。文明和相互尊重的基礎在於政治勸說和議會民主程序的正常運作，而不是共同的政治基礎。如果公共論域的政治辯論的最終目的是就當前事務達致共識，多元民主政體應該以相容的、較少限制的方式，容許所有公民在政治領域中更充分地表達自己以及自己最深層的價值觀。本文最後指出宗教和公共論域彼此都需要對方：容許宗教聲音進入公共論域，這對宗教和對公共論域來說都是獲益匪淺的。應該注意的是，本文部分內容雖涉及當代基督教神學視角，但容許 「宗教聲音進入公共論域」的論證並不偏袒基督宗教。

This essay explores the absolute private/public disjunction, together with the derived radical religious/secular dichotomy, which is the foundation of modern liberal political theory. It argues that in a pluralistic democracy, it does not seem equal or reasonable to ask people to bracket their religious convictions and ideals when engaging in liberal democracy, and substitute for them “the limits of public reason” advocated by political liberals. Civility and mutual respect are not based on a common political basis, but on the proper functioning of political persuasion and the democratic process of a legislative session. If the ultimate goal of political argument in the public forum is to come to agreement on the matter at hand, an inclusivist ideal by being less restrictive in a pluralistic democracy will allow all citizens to express themselves and their deepest values more fully in the political sphere. It finally argues that both religion and the public forum need each other and will greatly benefit from allowing religious voices in the public forum. The essay does not favour the Christian religion when arguing for religious voices in the public forum, even when it at times argues from specifically contemporary Christian theological perspectives.