Abstract

In response to Meilaender’s critique of my earlier work, I argue that Rawlsian and Augustinian ‘liberalisms’ are closer in spirit than Meilaender allows. Rawlsians and Augustinians can agree that the concern to preserve temporal peace under modern pluralistic conditions affords a warrant for political arrangements that require allegiance to no particular all-encompassing world view. This agreement on a certain kind of political neutrality extends to constitutional essentials but does not prohibit appeals to particular comprehensive visions in political debate so long as such appeals are consistent with maintaining the social peace that liberal institutions are designed to preserve.