In this article, I make a response to Lewin's insightful and judicious contribution to the Gearon-Jackson debate. I address the central and important arguments made by Lewin in relation to three aspects of my theoretical orientations on religion in education: (I) what Lewin rightly identifies as my 'propositional' interpretation of religion; (2) the politicisation of religion as secularisation; and (3) the securitisation of religion in education as a 'securitisation of the sacred'. I argue some theoretical framing for this is necessary and that an engagement with the (propositional) realities more helpful than their denial, and that precisely because religion is propositional it can be so used or directed to political and security purposes. In sum, to ensure there is no sense of equivocation in my response I greatly welcome Levin's intervention, but defend my propositional interpretation of religion and defend too my conceptualisation of the politicisation and securitisation of religion in education. Prompted by Jackson's critique and Lewin's subsequent intervention, this response is offered then as a bridge to facilitate further theorisation of the politicisation and securitisation of religion in education as an aspect of secularisation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I should like to thank the Arts and Humanities Research Council, the British Academy, the Leverhulme Trust, the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain and the Society for Educational Studies for respective funding of research grants which have over the past several years enabled and facilitated in often difficult to anticipate ways the interdisciplinary impacts of my work across the boundaries of religion, politics and education, and of late security and intelligence studies.
