Abstract

The article offers a set of distinctions between diverse kinds of neutrality and argues for their relevance for the contemporary discussion of the role and limits of the action of the State in liberal theory. The central claim is that, discussing tolerance and secularism, it is important to distinguish between three conceptually independent senses of neutrality - of effects, aim and justification - which are often ignored or kept separate in the wrong way, especially when it comes to the anti-liberal opponents of State neutrality.