The purpose of this study is to investigate how religious ethics, while retaining its identity, can contribute to political debate and to the understanding of justice. The inquiry addresses these issues by focusing on theological perspectives which challenge the solutions offered to these questions by the liberal paradigm. Three kinds of challenges are studied, each of which is represented by one thinker from the Islamic tradition and one from the Christian tradition, in order to enable a comparative perspective on the contributions of religious traditions. The thinkers studied are: 1) modified liberalism, represented by Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im and Duncan B. Forrester; 2) liberationism, represented by Ali Shariati and Gustavo Gutierrez; and 3) radical traditionalism, as developed by Tariq Ramadan and John Milbank. The study is organized around three main questions. First, how can innovative interpretations of religious tradition be plausibly justified? Second, what role should religious arguments and reasons play in the political sphere? Third, what can religious ethics and theological thought contribute to the understanding of social justice? The questions are engaged by means of a critical and reconstructive engagement with the six thinkers. The suggested solutions are assessed in terms of the criteria of authenticity, communicability, and potential for transformation. It is argued that a religious ethic can rely on a tradition without accepting conservative understandings of that tradition. Furthermore, it is argued that the coherence of religious ethics can be made available for public discourse but that the hospitability of the public forum to such contributions needs to be realized through a deepened democratic culture and a critique of power structures which condition perceptions of rationality. While religious ethics do not articulate complete alternative understandings of justice, they articulate contributions by relating justice to human sociality and to transcendence.

[pt] Ao se observar o espaço público brasileiro nas últimas décadas, é possível se identificar uma elevação constante do número de representantes religiosos, seja apenas como participantes nos debates sobre políticas públicas e direitos fundamentais, seja assumindo cargos políticos. Dentre eles destacam-se, principalmente, católicos e evangélicos. Com a iminência de se tornarem maioria no Congresso Nacional, torna-se necessário discutir sobre como, e, se seria sequer possível conciliar religião, democracia e laicidade, quando o uso fiel da razão pública democrática exige uma autocontenção para a utilização de argumentos baseados na razoabilidade e, contraditoriamente, parte dos participantes do debate público defendem verdades absolutas e dogmas inegociáveis. Na prática o que se tem observado é uma completa ausência de efetivo debate, o antagonismo entre as partes se exacerba, ocorrendo apenas destilações irracionais de ódio entre si. Os grupos minoritários e vulneráveis são os mais prejudicados aqui, pois veem suas demandas estagnadas ou rejeitadas. Nesse sentido, o presente trabalho buscará expor essa problemática, discutindo-a de forma direcionada às questões de gênero nessas circunstâncias, com foco nos direitos reprodutivos da mulher e um exame crítico e reflexivo apontado para a presença religiosa no espaço público, mais especificamente por meio de análise teórica e empírica sobre o uso de argumentos religiosos nas audiências públicas do Supremo Tribunal Federal nas ADPFs 54 e 442 que trataram, respectivamente, da descriminalização da antecipação terapêutica do parto no caso de fetos anencefálicos e da descriminalização da interrupção voluntária da gravidez até a 12ª semana de gestação. / [en] When observing the Brazilian public space in recent decades, it is possible to identify a constant increase in the number of religious representatives, whether as participants in debates on public policies and fundamental rights, or assuming political positions. Among them, Catholics and Evangelicals are the ones that stand out. With the imminence of becoming a majority in the National Congress, it becomes necessary to discuss how, and if it would even be possible to reconcile religion, democracy and secularism, when the faithful use of democratic public reason requires self-restraint in the use of arguments based on reasonableness and, contradictorily, at the same time, part of the participants in the public debate defend absolute truths and non-negotiable dogmas. In practice, what we have observed is a complete lack of effective debate, the antagonism between the parties is exacerbated, occurring only irrational distillations of hatred between them. Minority and vulnerable groups are the most affected here, as they see their demands stagnant or rejected. In this sense, the present work will seek to expose this problem, discussing it in a way directed to gender issues in these circumstances, focusing on women s reproductive rights and a critical and reflective exam aimed at the religious presence in the public space, more specifically through theoretical and empirical analysis on the use of religious arguments in public hearings in the Federal Supreme Court in ADPFs 54 and 442, which dealt, respectively, with the decriminalization of therapeutic anticipation of childbirth in the case of anencephalic fetuses and the decriminalization of voluntary interruption of pregnancy up to the 12th week of pregnancy.