Are religious and non-religious justifications of coercive laws qualitatively different?

In this article, I intend to examine whether religious justifications in practical reasoning are qualitatively different from non-religious ones. The issue dealt with in this article forms part of the broader debate on the role and moral admissibility of religious arguments supporting coercive laws in secular, liberal, and pluralistic states. This debate has often been referred to as the exclusivisminclusivism debate, with exclusivism arguing for the moral inappropriateness of religious justifications and inclusivism maintaining the exact opposite. [excerpt]