ABSTRACT
This chapter examines objections to religious restraint. The integrity objection holds that restraint compels religious citizens to violate their integrity. Religious critics contend that the Public Justification Principle is refuted if the case for restraint is refuted. Respect-based arguments hold that citizens should speak primarily or solely in consensus terms because respect for persons requires the justification of coercion via public reasons; justificatory discussions must occur in terms of public reasons, with private reasons excluded. Religious objectors typically argue that restraint imposes morally significant integrity costs because it requires that religious citizens "split" their identities as persons of faith. To split an identity is to corner off the social space in which individuals can act in accord with their own judgments. The religious objectors are perfectly entitled to reject public reason liberalism, via restraint, based on egalitarian concerns. Public reason liberals might also reply to the fairness objection by arguing that its normative force derives entirely from the integrity objection.
