This paper assesses religious integrity objections to public reasoning requirements by interpreting and analyzing the religious-political rhetorical practice of prophetic witnessing. Such objections claim that public reasoning requirements conflict with citizens’ religious obligations. I argue that prophetic witnessing is coherent in a pluralistic liberal democracy and compatible with citizens’ obligation to support only publicly justifiable laws. Prophetic witnessing is thus a religious practice by which democratic citizens may permissibly integrate their religious and political commitments. This permissibility shows that the religious integrity objections are overblown; by bearing prophetic witness, citizens may simultaneously respect their fellow citizens and honor their religious commitments. Public reasoning requirements do not violate religious integrity.