If religious freedom is truly free--if the freedom to believe is honestly one of conscience--then the freedom not to believe must be protected alongside it, not just in the law but in practice; not just in theory but in reality. As a Baptist who embraces the priesthood-of-the-believer principle, soul freedom, and the notion that we come to our religious views through free will and earnest personal decision, I honor the freedom that allows others a true choice to make different decisions -  to hold different religious beliefs, or to choose no faith. In short, it's only the freedom not to believe in God that gives religious liberty any real significant meaning.

The blogopshere reacted with some impassioned commentary:

Melissa Rogers:

The Los Angeles Times story says that "[a] USA Today/Gallup poll last month found that 45% of respondents said they would vote for a 'well qualified' presidential candidate who was an atheist," whereas "[n]inety-five percent said they would vote for a Catholic candidate, 92% a Jewish candidate and 72% a Mormon candidate."  As I've said on other occasions, I would encourage my fellow Americans to cast their ballots based on a candidate's character, record, values, vision, and policy positions rather than his or her religious beliefs or lack thereof.

Pastor Dan at Street Prophets, after noting that most polls place the non-theist population in America at about 10%, says this:

Those people deserve representation, and they deserve to be able to speak freely about their beliefs or not-beliefs. Unless we're going to toss 10% of the population out of office, then, it's an unqualified good for somebody like Stark to "come out." It normalizes a situation that should have been addressed a long time ago. . . .

I say that even and particularly as a Christian pastor. At best, my own United Church of Christ represents less than 1% of the population. With ten members of Congress split between the two houses, we're over-represented. So it's definitely in my best interests to stick up for someone like Stark because if he can be locked out of public office, so can I and members of many other small denominations. You bet your bippy I want him to be able to practice as he chooses. Keeps the option open for people like me.

Rob Boston at AU's The Wall

The U.S. Congress is increasingly diverse. This is a good thing because it means that body more accurately reflects the great diversity of our nation. This year, there are Buddhists in the ranks, as well as the first Muslim member. Stark is probably not the first non-believer in the House -- he's just the first to admit it.

"We hope that this will help break stereotypes that one needs to believe in a supreme being to lead an ethical and exemplary life," said Lori Lipman Brown, the Secular Coalition's director.

Here's hoping it will also remind people that there can be no religious test for public office in America. At the end of the day, all that should matter to the voters in California's 13th District is how well Rep. Stark is doing his job - not where and if he goes to religious services.

[Cross-posted from the Baptist Joint Committee Blog]