There IS a distinction between government action specifically designed to control the moral conduct of others and government action that serves other causes. People are allowed to pursue their own self-interest in trying to get favorable legislation enacted. But the separation of church and state means that the government shouldn't take a position in strictly moral matters. There's a difference between issues balancing economic against other important interests and those which strictly involve moral decisions.

You're quite right that I support legislation designed to protect the environment from destruction. This isn't because I'm a Christian but because I see my OWN interests as opposed to those you cite. In other words, like you, I am looking out for number one. I may not own extensive property, but I am stuck on this planet, like the other endangered species, and we have a compelling interest in not seeing it destroyed.

I mainly find it laughable that you weigh the interests of a few business people and property owners against the current species die-off and the destruction of the earth's environmental web, and find that those property interests trump everything else. It's not religion that causes me to oppose that view, but common sense and attention to what's happening. This isn't me being a Christian, but me looking out for what's best for me and my family. Not God, but the natural world, makes the risks clear of finding no compelling interest but the right to property.

I don't want to punish anyone for being successful, but I — selfishly rather than christian-ly — don't care to be punished for anyone else's success. That's what happens if they destroy the environment. I didn't sign up for that.

Talk about irrational faith…

So self-interest is the source of my liberalism. My religion requires me to leave other people to work out what they believe on moral subjects.

And the author is not averse to imposing his religious values upon others using the force of government. He would, for example, allow a greater level of coercive taxation than many Americans would be comfortable with, in order to fund welfare and re-distributionist plans.
He would intrude upon private property in the West and elsewhere, and cause economic suffering, in an effort to vigorously enforce the Endangered Species Act and other Environmentalist statutes. He would, in general, support an expanded tax and regulatory structure that punishes businesspeople and all individuals for the sin of being successful.

And why is Damozel so willing to impose his values upon us, by the force of government? Well, I guess he thinks he has direct access to the mind of God, and God has told Damozel that he wants things that way.