This essay critically assesses the central claim of Kevin Vallier’s Liberal Politics and Public Faith : that public religious faith and public reason liberalism can be reconciled, because the values underlying public reason liberalism should lead us to endorse the ‘convergence view,’ rather than the mainstream consensus view. The convergence view is friendlier to religious faith, because it jettisons the consensus view’s much-criticised ‘duty of restraint’. I present several challenges to Vallier’s claim. First, if Vallier is right to reject the duty of restraint then consensus theorists can also do so, and on the same grounds. Second, the independent force of the objections to the duty of restraint is unclear. Third, Vallier has not successfully identified desiderata that unite all public reason liberals and favour convergence over consensus. Finally, even if convergence is in some ways friendlier to religious faith, this does not show that it will be attractive to religious citizens.

中文翻译：

---

共识、趋同、约束和宗教

本文批判性地评估了凯文·瓦利尔 (Kevin Vallier) 的自由政治与公共信仰的核心主张：公共宗教信仰和公共理性自由主义可以调和，因为公共理性自由主义背后的价值观应该引导我们支持“趋同观”，而不是主流共识观点。趋同观点对宗教信仰更为友好，因为它抛弃了共识观点备受批评的“克制义务”。我对 Vallier 的主张提出了几个挑战。首先，如果 Vallier 拒绝克制义务是正确的，那么共识理论家也可以这样做，并且基于相同的理由。二是限制责任异议的独立效力不明确。第三，瓦利埃还没有成功地确定将所有公共理性自由主义者联合起来并赞成趋同而不是共识的渴望。