Does he not realise that everybody has some religion or beliefs.
He calls himself an atheist, which means that his belief is that there is no God. So what he is proposing is that all schools should teach his "religion" - that there is no God.
His third point is equally absurd. He seems to think that taxpayers should be able to choose what their money is spent on. Does that mean that as a Christian I can object to my tax being spent on secular schools, which are gradually leading our society to a position of self-destruction?
Does it mean that if I don't wish to use rail transport I can choose not to have any of my taxes spent on the railways? I don't think so.
He quite rightly says that religion is "a private matter of choice", so surely we should all have the option to send our children to schools that give pupils a purpose in life, based on Christian or other beliefs.
29 Oakfields Bunopfield Newcastle-upon-Tyne