This Article engages with Ronald Dworkin’s final book, Religion without God, which proposes to shrink the size and importance of the fierce “culture wars” in the United States between believers and nonbelievers —theists and atheists— by separating out the “science” and “value” components of religion to show these groups that they share a “fundamental religious impulse.” Religion without God also calls for framing religious freedom as part of a general right to ethical independence rather than a “troublesome” special right for religious people. This article compares the argumentative strategy of Religion Without God with prior Dworkin works, such as Life’s Dominion and Is Democracy Possible Here?, which tackle a polarizing is sue where parties are at “war” —such as abortion rights or the place of religion in public life— and submits that, by dispelling intellectual confusion and offering a fresh understanding of what is really at issue, they may be able to have a ceasefire or, at least, a substantial reduction of hostility and conflict. The article also highlights how Religion without God, with its appeal to the aesthetic and the scientific and to the challenge of living well, incorporates characteristic features of Dworkin’s philosophy of ethical liberalism, articulated most fully in Justice for Hedgehogs but dating back at least to Foundations of Liberal Equality. Finally, the article asks how persuasive Dworkin is as a theologian or philosopher of religion and whether the new constitutional frame he offers will help to reduce conflicts over religious liberty. Or, as some critics assert, does Dworkin make religion safe for liberals and liberalism in a way that denudes or marginalizes it? Because the current controversy over same-sex marriage is a particularly significant test case, I compare Dworkin’s approach, centered on a right to ethical independence, with that of natural law theorist Robert P. George and his co-authors Ryan Anderson and Sherif Girgis. Resumen: Este articulo discute el ultimo libro de Dworkin, Religion sin Dios, el cual propone disminuir la importancia de la feroz “guerra cultural” en los Estados Unidos entre creyentes y no creyentes al separar el componente “cientifico” y de “valor” de la religion y demostrar que los involucrados en la guerra comparten un “impulso religioso fundamental”. En el libro Religion sin Dios Dworkin tambien sostiene la necesidad de ubicar la libertad religiosa como parte de un derecho general de independencia etica, mas que en un derecho especial para la gente religiosa, lo cual solo genera confusiones y problemas. Comparo la estrategia argumentativa de Dworkin en Religion sin Dios con trabajos previos como Life’s Dominion y Is Democracy Possible Here? en donde tambien se atienden debates entre gente polarizada en Guerra, debates como el aborto y la ubicacion de la religion en la vida publica, donde Dworkin de nuevo argumenta la necesidad de disipar confusiones intelectuales para saber de manera clara que esta realmente en discusion, para asi lograr un cese al fuego o por lo menos una reduccion de las hostilidades y el conflicto. Tambien en esta colaboracion resalto como Dworkin, en Religion sin Dios al apelar a lo es- tetico a lo cientifico y a los desafios de vivir bien, incorpora caracteristicas de su filosofia del liberalismo etico defendida mas claramente en Justicia para Erizos pero que data de Foundations of Liberal Equality. Finalmente me pregunto que tan exitosos son los argumentos de Dworkin como filosofo de la religion y si este nuevo marco constitucional que ofrece, real- mente disminuye los conflictos sobre la libertad religiosa. O como lo sostienen algunos criticos, me preguntare si Dworkin hace que la religion sea algo aceptable para los liberales y el liberalismo de una manera que la marginaliza o elimina sus rasgos principales. Dado que las discusiones contemporaneas sobre el matrimonio entre personas del mismo sexo constituyen una prueba importante, comparare el enfoque de Dworkin basado en el derecho a una independencia etica, con el de teoricos del derecho natural como Robert P. George y sus coautores Ryan Anderson y Sherif Girgis.