As I see it, people confuse 'reason' with 'rationality'. 'Sound reasoning' is logical coherence. As noted in this article, we can reason soundly from non-rational premises, such as "There is a God;" "Humans are morally equal;" [This or that] person [or group of people] is inherently [superior or inferior];" "All humans have [these] Rights;" etc. When we reason thusly, however, the output is non-rational because the premise is non-rational.
It is most important to distinguish 'non-rational' from 'irrational'. We are all non-rational in our politics. "Irrational" refers to claims that contradict facts of material existence, such as 'Earth is flat;" "Climate change is a hoax;" "The election was stolen from President Trump;" etc.
So there is a certain connection between rationality and material existence. It is the capacity we must use to negotiate material existence successfully. I believe, as many do, that it was given to us by God, but that belief is not necessary to accept its status.
It would help if we had an ethic to govern the governance of society that did not depend on beliefs, but followed from a fact of material existence. Then the governance of society (a rule for how individuals in that society should treat one another and the structure and sanctioned functioning of the political process and the economy) could be strictly rational.
As it happens, I have found such an ethic: 'mutual respect in effecting choices'. It follows from the observation that human beings have no choice but to effect choices (i.e., choose among perceived alternatives and take action to bring that choice to fruition). [Warren J. Samuels all but defined "social power" as the ability to effect choices in "Welfare Economics, Property and Power" in Perspectives of Property, edited by Gene Wunderlich and W. L. Gibson (1972).]
That makes choosing integral to being human. We must therefore respect the capacity of other people to choose for themselves, beginning with choosing whether/how/to what extent to be involved whenever any choice is being effected.
That boils down to a handful of absolute prohibitions: no killing, harming, coercing, stealing, or manipulating (which includes lying, cheating, etc.) to get what we want. It applies to actions in effecting any choice, whether only for ourselves or in the political process (i.e., the process of effecting choices for the community as a whole) or on behalf of any other entity, whether another person or government or a business.
It is important that both the determiner of this ethic (that observation) and its referents (actions undertaken in effecting any choice that involve other people in any way) are located in material existence. That legitimately delegitimates going outside material existence (to any non-rational assertion of any kind) to deny the applicability of the ethic to any person or (pertinent) action.
A society governed by that ethic would have the maximum liberty that coexisting people can share simultaneously and a democratic political process. It could be applied to the existing economic system, thereby transforming the outcomes for society of that system.
In short, that ethic would take us "Beyond Liberalism."