This article is a reply to Matthew Clayton and David Stephens's 2018 article 'What is the point of religious education?' (see EJ1173708). 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.