I suppose that it's a breakthrough, of sorts, that Representative Pete Stark (D-Calif., from Berkeley, of course) is the "first Congress member in history to acknowledge his nontheism ." While it's not a breakthrough in tolerance on the order of the first homosexual or African-American in Congress, it is something to be noted...
I'm not sure about the term "non-theism" however... I've never heard it before, and it definitely tries to define what it is by saying what it's not, which is usually not the best idea. I prefer "humanist" or "secular humanist" -- I don't like "bright" because of the implication that secular=smart (a.k.a. "he is a bright boy" vs. "he's a dim bulb" etc.) -- but it seems that Rep. Stark (unlike much of Congress) has a worldview similar to mine. In fact, he is a fellow Unitarian, which of course tells me little about his personal beliefs, but something about the religious community he has chosen.
I'm not sure about having secular humanists adopt the language of prejudice, like Herb Silverman does in the press release regarding Rep. Stark (for example, "The only way to counter the prejudice against nontheists is for more people to publicly identify as nontheists.") I do identify with Unitarianism but not with any purported Secular Coalition for America.
It seems to me the best approach is to continue to argue for a private approach to faith as opposed to one that mixes Church and State. Calling out atheism is, by definition, going to be confrontational. Thomas put it clearly back in the day: "Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine." (Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814.)