Of course it's a perfectly reasonable argument – if you're going to teach children all about comparative religion and belief, you should also teach them about humanism and non belief. Here's a snippet:
"What kinds of learning might be required? Young people should think about whether they live in a divine world or a godless one. This points to discussing the standard arguments for and against the existence of God and such questions as the likelihood of life after death. But they also need to discuss whether human lives can have any meaning or point outside a religious framework. And whether people can live a morally good life that is not dependent on religious belief. Historical perspectives are also important, especially the impact of non-religious ideas on intellectual and artistic life over the last 250 years."This is hardly likely to cause as much controversy as Reiss's creationism comments, but we're sure some Christians out there will be shocked to read a Church of England priest arguing for the teaching of non-belief. To me, it seems to reinforce the view that Reiss was treated a little harshly last year. His views on teaching atheism, alongside his comments on creationism, suggest that he is a firm advocate for the free exchange of ideas – free thinking, you might say.