This article is a reply to Matthew Clayton and David Stephens’s 2018 article ‘What is the point of religious education?’ I begin by problematising the ‘acceptability requirement’ used to justify the authors’ conclusions. I then disambiguate the key claim made in the article. If interpreted broadly, as an attack on curricula that teach about religions, then their claim is implausible, and not one that the authors themselves should endorse. However, if interpreted narrowly, as an attack on the prioritisation of religion at the expense of non-religious views, then their view is one that is already widely endorsed. I then clear up some relevant empirical considerations about current Religious Education policy and practice in England and Wales. I suggest that there are sufficiently weighty, non-partisan reasons for a curriculum subject not dissimilar to what is currently taught in schools. While Religious Education is in need of reform, it would be the wrong conclusion to draw from their paper that Religious Education should be abolished.

中文翻译：

---

宗教教育——改革，而不是废除：对马修克莱顿和大卫斯蒂芬斯的答复

本文是对 Matthew Clayton 和 David Stephens 2018 年文章“宗教教育的意义是什么？”的回复。我首先对用于证明作者结论的“可接受性要求”进行质疑。然后我消除了文章中提出的关键主张的歧义。如果从广义上解释，作为对宗教课程的攻击，那么他们的主张是不可信的，而不是作者自己应该认可的。然而，如果狭义地解释为以牺牲非宗教观点为代价对宗教优先排序的攻击，那么他们的观点已经得到广泛认可。然后，我澄清了有关英格兰和威尔士当前宗教教育政策和实践的一些相关实证考虑。我建议有足够的重量，课程主题的无党派原因与学校目前教授的内容不同。虽然宗教教育需要改革，但从他们的论文中得出应该废除宗教教育的结论是错误的。