In the Swedish curriculum there is uncertainty today, regarding the purpose of the subject of religious studies on a highschool level. A question exists whether students should merely be learning about religions or if they should, in addition, also learn from said religions. The origin of these two options to religious education can be traced back to at least to the writings of Michael Grimmitt, a British philosopher of religion, and to the debate he sparked in the 1980s. The Swedish curriculum does not use the language of Grimmitt and is rather vague when it takes a stance regarding these two possibilities, though it leans heavily on the idea that Swedish highschool students should just learn about religion. Due to the vagueness of the current curriculum, the document is unable to answer the presented question. This essay intends to find an answer between these two choices to religious education. This will be done through the methods of reflective equilibrium, as defined by the philosopher John Rawls. By looking at which of the two options is the most compatible with the curriculum as a whole, an answer will be presented as to which approach is to be preferred. The result of the study is that it is not enough for students to just learn about religion and changes should be done to the curriculum. How such a change should be designed remains, however, unanswered.