Thus, no citizen - neither the secularised, nor the...

Thus, no citizen - neither the secularised, nor the religious one, neither the citizen who shares a religion, nor the one sharing a different one - is absolved of the duty to justify his statements and actions, in reasonable terms accepted by cohabitation in society, as the state based on individual liberties cannot legitimately stop the reasonable manifestation of any citizen, including under religious aspects.

Habermas was right to draw attention to the fact that a state’s expectations of its citizens “is in vain ( laufen ins Leere )” if the “reciprocity of expectations” is not ensured[^36] Any disregard for the rule of reciprocity is counterproductive.

“As long as the secularised citizen is convinced that religious traditions and religious communities are somewhat archaic, a relic which was transmitted from modern societies until the present day, they understand religious liberty only as a natural cultural protection pertaining to dying species. From their perspective, religion no longer has an inner righteousness.

At this point, the principle of separating religion from the state can only have the secular meaning of a satisfied lack of interest (schonenden)[^37] To get back to the rule of reciprocity, which is, explicitly or tacitly, contained in the very principles of the democratic construction of the liberal state as such, is today more necessary than ever. Can the state remain neutral in relation to the citizens’ conceptions?

It has been rightfully observed that the state has never been neutral towards the conceptions citizens have and cannot stay as such in any condition. Sometimes, the democratic state intended to be detached, it tolerated conceptions which destroyed it and it paid a high price for that “detachment”. Generally, the state cannot stay democratic unless it cares for every citizen, including minorities of any kind (political, ethnic etc.).

The state remains an advocate of tolerance, but it must tie that tolerance to the truth[^38] It would be advisable, on the other hand, to go back to the originary acceptation of “secularism” attributed to the state by the advocates of the separation between the state and religion. It should be said that “secularism” did not originally mean an a priori opposition to any religious conception, rather, at least at the dawn of modern age, the prejudice-free search for the “truth”.