Chandler, J.2010-08-112010-08-112010Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 2010; 91(2):137-1520279-07501468-0114http://hdl.handle.net/2440/59683Most Liberals hold that public policies ought always be justifiable by reference to public reasons; that citizens should also refrain from advocacy in the absence of such reasons; and that exclusively religious reasons cannot be public reasons. This is challenged by Paul Weithman and Christopher Eberle. Both argue that basic liberal principles permit citizens in some circumstances to advance exclusively religious reasons, and in particular that Rawls’s notions of reasonableness (Weithman) and the strains of commitment (Eberle) can be used in defence of this position. I argue that neither makes out his case, and that no plausible case has been made against the standard Liberal view.en© 2010 The Author. Journal compilation © 2010 University of Southern California and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Journal article002009805110.1111/j.1468-0114.2010.01362.x0002783140000012-s2.0-7795319816734005