He proposes the vision of a “secular humanism”...

He proposes the vision of a “secular humanism”, which “rejects supernatural accounts of reality; but it seeks to optimise the fullness of human life in a naturalistic universe”[^3] and “holds that ethical values are relative to human experience and need not be derived from theological or metaphysical foundations”[^4] . I consider this activism to be on a wrong path, and that the classical separation between religion and the state must be questioned.

Not only did religion induce a positive moral sense in the actions of the overwhelming majority of people, by operating with the Divinity that divides justice, but, moreover, it can motivate some of the most democratic behaviours, probably the most democratic one Therefore, after considering the relationship between religion and the state from a historical point of view, I will indicate that the separation thesis is already encountering many difficulties, so much so that if, especially in religiously pluralistic societies, the abandonment of secularisation is not realistic, a new solution to the relationship between religion and the state must be found, however.

I will try to take the road towards such a solution. I would like to say, from the outset, that I take up the distinction between the politics-religion relation and the state-church relation[^5] , but I argue that the latter relationship can no longer be understood without considering the former. Religion is not apolitical, and the state cannot remain indifferent to the beliefs of its citizens anymore if it takes itself seriously as an organisation based on the recognition of citizens.…