There is at least one conservative federal appellate judge who has publicly stated that he is atheist.
Here’s another story from the LA Times written by Sam Harris.
The subhead of the online article is “Moderate believers give cover to religious fanatics – and are every bit as delusional” reminds me of situations like **badchad **going after respected SDMB Christian moderate Polycarp.
I think part of the reason the people like badchad get so much grief is because they feel compelled to attack thoughtful, reasoned, and all-around pretty darn nice guys like Polycarp. But as utterly distasteful as these sort of attacks can be, I’m afraid they may be necessary. Yet I freely admit that I sure as hell don’t want to be the one doing the vicious vitriol volleying.
Perhaps these “attacks” could be handled with a little more grace, but I am not too sure about that. The time for the kid-gloves is over (I’m speaking in terms of the overall battle against the religious vise-grip on civilization, not in terms of Polycarp and** badchad**). Polite give-and-take such as: “it’s a personal thing–we all have our own beliefs and faith,” doesn’t cut it as long as policies and real-world situations (like people’s lives) are being affected by millennia-old bedtime stories.
IMO, there is a perfectly valid line of reasoning (see linked article) that the religious moderates must be forcefully challenged if we are to make any progress getting out from under the tremendous harm that religion is doing to our world.
To update, there have been three letters and one op-ed piece about this in the local paper. All three letters were positive, and one attacked a former state legislator who said he know longer could support Stark because of this. (This guy is a weasel anyway.) The opinion piece was by the UU minister.
I don’t watch the right wing loons on Fox - has there been any chatter about this, or is Pete considered so liberal they’re not surprised?
Well, if that’s not a perfect Doonsbury final frame response I don’t know what is 
One of our old UU jokes is, “Unitarians believe in, at most, one god.”
As a Christian moderate :
Gee, I’m sorry I’m getting in the way of your religious intolerance. Of course, practicing intolerance to ultimately foster a more tolerant world is okay, right? Like going to war to ensure peace. Makes perfect sense.
As to the article : pfeh. He asserts as fact items that philosophers have been debating for centuries, and without any kind of supporting argument whatsoever. And the rest is pure rant. It’s not any kind of valid line of reasoning - it’s a pretty theory that superficially coincides with the situation.
Makes me wish that 90% of the atheists I know weren’t so darn rational, so I could properly tar this one angry, irrational fellow. Oh, wait…
I don’t feel the least bit threatened by Polycarp or anyone like him. If there really is such a conflict, then I think it’s between fanatics and moderates, and it would be very unwise to force intelligent people off the “moderate” team. I think it’d be wise to leave the “he who is not with me is against me” stuff to the other side. 
I’m going to assume that, between a short deadline and the constraints of space in Op-Ed pieces, Sam was having a bad day.
I have read so many wonderful encomia regarding Harris’s most recent book on the SDMB in the last couple of months that I had been planning to pick up a copy and read it. However, if anyone notes that that particular polemic of spittle-flecked expression, bad history, and poor logic is a good example of his work, I’ll save myself the time and effort.