This response to David Lewin states the purpose of my critique of some aspects of Liam Gearon's work. It clarifies my position on the aims of "inclusive" religious education, rejecting Gearon's view that REDCo researchers shared a common pluralistic theology, regarding religious education as having a single political aim. It reinforces Gearon's misrepresentation of the development of the "Toledo Guiding Principles." In addressing the concern that religious education serves political ends, I acknowledge that much educational discourse has a political dimension but, in the case of "inclusive" religious education, I argue that an approach based on John Rawls' view of political liberalism can facilitate understanding of religions. I respond to Lewin's assumption that my own view of religious language is entirely propositional and I compare the view of religious language expressed by Morimoto, quoted with approval by Lewin, with that of D. Z. Phillips, noting that its adoption implies that religious "insiders" and those with no religious commitments are incapable of mutual understanding. I introduce the interpretive approach as an impartial methodology for religious education. Finally, I invite Lewin to engage with empirical research informing European policy on religious education, relevant to issues of secularity and secularism. [For the article by David Lewin, "Who's Afraid of Secularisation? Reframing the Debate between Gearon and Jackson," see EJ1158804.]