Nice points, all. By \”paving the way\” I meant that the discussion about his belief system is vital to starting the process of incorporating \”non-believers\” into government. Like you said, it\’s a baby step. Also, I do recall battles of this issue, pointed out to me during my years as a Religious Studies student. The Southern Baptists, in particular, seem to rally around the \’dominion\’ interpretation, if memory serves (which it may not). I agree with your assement, and have been posting on the topic of the necessity to incorporate Christians into the eco-battle. However, from time to time I think it\’s fun to poke a little fun at a (generalization, yes) overwhelmingly defensive bunch, especially as represented by the current administration - the type of religious belief that IS very anti-environmental and the type of religious belief that has been supported by 50% of the voting population. While it may not be reflective of the belief of these voters, they do endorse it nonetheless. Oh, nice \”ballpark\” comment. Heh.  Maybe I should have invoked Larry Doby instead, in deference to your point that Stark isn\’t a bonafide pioneer?
Charles -

My words reflect quite accurately the motivating power of millions of U.S. Christians. Christianity is, especially as represented by Catholocism, a fear-based religion. At one time, it was clearly based on LOVE and little more, but one will be hard pressed to find that reflected in the religious positions of those who have been voted into office as Christian representatives of our nation to the world. As for building bridges, I agree with you. However, as I stated above, the Stark news was just too juicy to resist needling the far-right Christians, who won\’t be coming \’round to the eco-table in this lifetime. The rest, well, they are secure enough in their faith to not be bothered whatsoever by my comments, as they look upon me, and the rest of the world, with nothing but love. For a true Christian to be turned off by my words is not at all possible - too many of Jesus\’ teachings must be denied for this to transpire. I don\’t mean this as a cynical statement, though I fear it will be interpreted as such. Further, given the whimsical nature of this blog, my regular readers understand that much of my \’venom\’ is utter nonsense. There are true bridge builders out there, and while I\’ve tried my hand at it, I discovered years ago that my hands are not those of a carpenter.
Oh, and it is worth repeating that our Founding Fathers were non-Christians. Not atheists, but not Christian. Their belief system can be accurately divined in Albert Pike\’s \”Morals and Dogma.\”

And I echo the first commenter — most environmentalists in this country are Christians. Duh. Can you think about that for a second? You should be trying to build bridges instead of insulting people.

1. Stark didn’t say he was an atheist, in fact he said he wasn’t. In a questionnaire submitted by the SCA, Stark answered “Yes” to the statement “I am a non-theist,” a term the questionnaire defined as “a humanist, atheist or other freethinker who does not believe in a supreme being or beings.”. He didn’t select “atheist” in the same questionnaire (which others did), so clearly he doesn’t self-identify as an atheist.

2. Stark didn’t pave the way for the election of other non-theists. He was already elected, having been in Congress for over 30 years, before “coming out”. If he wins re-election, he may make a tiny difference (he’s a super-incumbent, almost guaranteed to win unless he kills someone). Jackie Robinson didn’t hide the fact that he was black until after he made the team … for 30 years, so please don’t compare the two. They’re not even in the same ballpark ;).

3. Stark is not the first church-going Unitarian to be in Congress. He’s right there with many of the Founding Fathers in this. He isn’t the only non-theist either - there are several buddhists in the House.

So, I’m happy to hear this news, but let’s not get carried away here. It is miniscule progress.

I do have some other comments.

“Me, I’m going with the guy who does right because it’s the right thing to do, because the other guy is only doing right for personal reward.”

There are immoral believers and moral non-believers. Anyone who considers religious belief in chosing their representation is sorely misguided. That includes chosing non-believers just because they are non-believers. Whether or not one believes in a supreme being is entirely irrelevant to their voting behaviour.

” They don’t waste time parsing words, quibbling over “dominion” vs. “stewardship” issues. “

Pet peeve of mine: I’ve never read or seen a real discussion on “dominion versus stewardship” between believers. Have you? Aside from some crackpots, I don’t know any theist that would argue that the world is ours to do with as we please, without regard to how we leave it for future generations. Similarly, atheists could argue that the lack of a god means that we can do whatever we darn well want to without regard for others, or that it means that we should do what is best for humanity as a whole. But aside from some real crackpots (Objectivists, for instance), I don’t see many atheists arguing for utter selfishness and against altruism.

The environmentalist movement is largely christian, and it better be if it is to be of any importance to the US. Based on the ARIS data, there are about 2 million atheists, agnostics, humanists and secularists in the US, i.e. about 1% of the adult population. It should therefore be obvious that painting religious belief as anti-environmental is very, very counter-productive.