New Poll: Vast Majority of Republicans Don’t Believe President Obama is a Christian

president-obama-upsetRecently there’s been a fairly big deal made of Rudy Giuliani’s idiotic comments pertaining to President Obama and his belief that Obama doesn’t love America or Americans. Personally I’m not really sure what all the fuss has been about since the majority of Republicans have been trying to paint President Obama as “anti-American” or “not one of us” since before he ever even moved into the White House.


Hell, the entire birther movement was predicated on the belief that the president somehow managed to dastardly fake a birth announcement, two forms of his birth certificate, fool every government agency that would have validated his birth and somehow all of this went on without a single person coming forward to say they were part of the coverup. When you break down the stupidity of those who still believe that the president wasn’t born here, all of that is basically what they’re saying he’s managed to accomplish.

Even with the ISIS rhetoric Republicans have been pushing, the general tone seems to be “he’ll attack Christians, but not Muslims – why!?” It’s a clear insinuation that he’s harbors disdain for the United States. Hell, the GOP has routinely accused him for apologizing for America – even though he’s never actually said or done that.

And if a new poll conducted by the Washington Post as part of the 2014 Cooperative Congressional Election Study is any indication, it all but confirms that most Republicans don’t believe our president is actually a Christian. That’s an amazing belief considering there’s absolutely zero evidence to be found anywhere that would link the president to actively practicing Islam or any other religion aside from Christianity. In fact, one of the many conspiracy theories conservatives have pushed against him is that he’s a racist based upon his attendance at Jeremiah Wright’s church. So I’m not sure how he can be a racist for attending a Christian church for a number of years, while simultaneously being a Muslim.

But in this poll, 54 percent of Republicans said they believe President Obama is a Muslim. It should also be noted that another 19 percent of Republicans answered “I don’t know” when it came to the president’s faith.


So that means an astonishing 73 percent of Republicans either don’t believe President Obama is a Christian or aren’t sure if he is, despite all of the overwhelming evidence proving his Christianity.

And, of course, this belief that he’s a Muslim is also tied into their belief that “he’s not one of us” and he clearly “hates America.”

Which leads me to ask, are Giuliani’s remarks really all that “shocking”? If anything he just said what pretty much the entirety of the conservative media has been pushing for years. That is, the president hates Christians, he’s “not one of us” and he’s “anti-American.”

And this poll pretty much supports that belief among conservatives. When nearly three-fourths of Republicans don’t believe, or aren’t sure, if the president is a Christian (despite the fact he’s publicly stated several times that he is) that’s pretty much confirmation that many of them really don’t feel he’s a true American. Remember, in their eyes this is a “Christian nation.” So if they don’t think he’s a Christian, then they must not believe that he truly loves this country.




Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Jim Bean

    Its amusing how the Left hates Christianity and wants their governors to be divorced from it until some accuses Obama of not being one.

    • Victor Victoria

      Yep. Atheist Leftists are offended by Americans who doubt Obama’s faith in Christ. Try to figure that one out, Jim.

    • BobJThompson

      Keeping church and state separate isn’t hatred. Getting blowback for pushing your specific religion into the public square isn’t persecution. I’m sure you know what Jesus says about ostentatious displays of “faith”.

    • Andy Kinnard

      The Left does not hate Christianity. We don’t abide by religious persecution veiled as religious liberty, and we do value separation of Church and State. We don’t care much for Dominionism and other ideologically extreme religious manifestations (because it is predicated on establishment of State religion [among other evils]).

      We object to shrill accusations of the President’s being unAmerican, and his is part of that pattern (which also hopelessly conflates Christianity with citizenship).

      • Jim Bean

        I don’t know. It just seems that when Obama called Bush unpatriotic you forgave him and got over it in an instant.

      • allinfun

        Bush may or may not have been Unpatriotic; what he IS and should be prosecuted for is being a war criminal.

      • Jim Bean

        Right along with John Kerry (D), Hillary Clinton(D) , Harry Reid (D) , and Chuckie Schumer (D). But the (D) makes that problematic for folks with double standards, doesn’t it?

      • Andy Kinnard

        None of those people used sleazy, now discredited legal opinions, dishonest semantic games, and an executive decision to bypass the Geneva Convention and authorize torture.

      • Jim Bean

        Yeah, that would be Nancy. So you can’t sneak in that door either.

      • Andy Kinnard

        I see no previous mention of Nancy Pelosi in this thread; so, you’re moving goal posts. Never the less, how in the world would you claim she, “used sleazy, now discredited legal opinions, dishonest semantic games, and an executive decision to bypass the Geneva Convention and authorize torture.”?

      • Jim Bean

        If you’re in a position to stop something and you don’t then you are at least partly accountable for the fact that happened.

        http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/394628/former-cia-torture-head-nancy-pelosi-top-dems-knew-exactly-what-we-were-doing-brendan

      • Andy Kinnard

        I’ll review the article, but note you ignore my question entirely (because nobody but the Bush admin did those things). The point is that the Bush/Cheney Whitehouse orchestrated the whole thing based on a pack of lies and heavily manipulated press corp. To the degree the Legislative went along, that cannot, in any way, be characterized at the same egregious level of unpatriotic, illegal behavior.

      • Jim Bean

        I don’t know about the ‘deliberately manufactured lies’. I can’t see great Britain – who has their own intelligence mechanism – conspiring to be a part of this (though I’ll concede Israel might.)

        Furthermore, I was alive back than and know for a fact that the key trigger in the Iraq invasion was Saddam’s interference with the weapons inspectors.

        Even Liberals who know the inspectors were blocked from effective executing their mission will dismiss that and make the claim that Bush ‘knew with absolute certainty that Iraq had no WMD’s.’ That claim defies intelligent thought and doesn’t cut the mustard with any sensible, objective person.

      • allinfun

        no double standard at all. Bush’s actions and lies killed 4000 Americans and 150000 innocent Iraqis

      • Jim Bean

        Wouldn’t have happened w/o the consent of those I’ve named as well as many other Democrats.

      • allinfun

        again…they were lied to by Bush and Cheney…and the 9/11 attack happened on Bush/Cheney’s watch. Traitors lie. War Criminals lie. The reason? $39.5 billion in profits for Cheney’s company. War Criminals lie and War Criminals profited.

      • Andy Kinnard

        I’m pretty sure that comment was characterizing a Bush policy as running counter to the foundational principles of the country…accurately characterizing policy, not demonizing the person.

      • Jim Bean

        Ah, yes. The art and mysteries of Left-wing ‘nuance’

      • Andy Kinnard

        It’s not a nuance but a fundamental, definitive, existential distinction with a difference.

      • 2Lancet

        Bush and Cheney are war criminals and should be tried as such. Bush had the invasion of Iraq on his agenda even before he was elected. He lied to Congress to get us into that war. His actions reveal how profoundly ignorant he was of historical sectarian rivalries between Shia and Sunni. As a result, thousands of Iraqis and American were killed or injured needlessly and the power vacuum that resulted has led to the empowerment of ISIS.

      • Jim Bean

        First of all, you’re a clairvoyant only in your imagination. So for this discussion, we’re going to dismiss the idea that you knew what was going on in Bush’s head.

        Second, public support for the invasion at the time was over 70%. Changing your mind after the fact and then passing judgment on others while feigning self-righteousness yourselves only gets traction in the leftern-hemisphere.

        Third, there will be no trials for the invasion because you aren’t going to let Hillary, Kerry, and Reid swing.

        Finally, we there will be no retribution for enhanced interrogation because you’ll put all those unshakeable virtues aside to protect Nancy.

        And ISIS moved in when Obama moved out and promised not to resist.

      • 2Lancet

        Your insult aside, knowing “what was going on in Bush’s head” didn’t take clairvoyance: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1221.htm And yes, there was public (and Congressional) support for the war because Bush lied to us about WMD and about Al Qaeda in Iraq (when in fact Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden hated each other’s guts). Initial support for the war was between 47-60% not 70%. By 2007, after it was clear there were no weapons of mass destruction, 58% of poll participants declared the initial attack a mistake. New York Times and CBS News polls released similar results of a poll in which 61% of participants believed we should have stayed out of Iraq. Perhaps we wouldn’t have had to change our minds “after the fact” had we been told the truth in the first place. Clinton, Kerry and Reid were lied to also, which makes the arguments in your third and fourth paragraphs specious. As for ISIS, please read Graeme Wood’s in-depth article, “What ISIS Really Wants and How to Stop It,” in the March 2015 issue of Atlantic. Committing ground troops to a war against ISIS is exactly what those bastards want. Carl Jung said once that “The fanatical idealist is always potential traitor to his own cause,” and that is already proving to be the case with ISIS. Their extremism, with a little push here and there from us will bring about their demise. They want to invade Turkey, for God’s sake! And since they’re predominantly Sunni they have no friends in Iran either. The politics of the Middle East have always been a tar pit of irrationality and grief, and ISIS is the latest manifestation of same. We’d do well to steer a course away from all of it.

      • Andy Kinnard

        I wish I could up vote this comment more than once.

    • Mike Rubin

      Bean, you’re the master of the false equivalency as always. You can be counted on to provide evidence that “conservative scholarship” has become an oxymoron.

  • Jim Valley

    Today’s conservatism is clearly a form of mental illness, and should be diagnosed and treated as such.

    Obama Derangement Syndrome requires its sufferers to claim to believe that Obama is not an American, is not a Christian, and presumably is not fully human either. I find this form of projection to be highly ironic, given the explicitly un-American, un-Christian, and inhuman attitude that conservatives have toward anyone who is the tiniest bit different from them.

    • strayaway

      Jim, Your very human attitude toward conservatives is exemplary. I think that the president is probably Christian since he says so, he never lies, there is nothing strongly suggesting he is anything other than a secularist or nominal Christian, and his last known spiritual home was in (“God Damn America”) Jeremiah Wright’s church. He might still be there had he not been pressured to leave that fold.

      • Jim Valley

        I have to assume that this is your best attempt at humor. How sad for you.

      • strayaway

        Jim, My only attempts at humor were my first sentence and my suggestion that Obama wasn’t a liar. I’m glad you were able to catch the obvious. I can’t read hearts and don’t sit in judgment at the pearly gates so the the rest was my opinion. I thought I was being rather moderate and did not contradict your assertions that the president was American, Christian, or fully human.

      • Roy Jones

        What, if any, religion any candidate for public office adheres to is legally irrelevant. Read the Constitution and go find another dead horse to beat.

      • strayaway

        I agree with your first statement and never wrote nor implied otherwise. Either base your comment on what I actually wrote or work on your reading comprehension.

      • Andy Kinnard

        Since when has self identification been insufficient proof of one’s religious affiliation?

        Since when has it been Constitutional to have a religious test for public office (hmmm, that terminology seems familiar).

      • strayaway

        Andy, I suggested neither and didn’t even mention the Constitution. I suggested, instead, that Obama was probably a Christian of some sort. However, you point is well taken. He doesn’t pretend to be the kind of Christian who goes to church every week but can you fill us in in in how he became Christian? I’ve never read anything about that. Could it have been his grandparents or mother that read him Bible verses and took him to Sunday school, something he picked up in Indonesian or private school classrooms, a Billy Graham program on TV, …what? He did however somehow find his way to (“God Damn America”) Jeremiah Wright’s church. His pilgrim’s progress is, as far as I know, unreported.

      • Andy Kinnard

        You side stepped the central question (about the sufficiency of self identification), mischaracterized your own post (which clearly suggests the POTUS is a serial liar thereby making his claim to Christianity dubious [by your logic]), and moved the goalposts all the way to his needing to have a conversion story to satisfy your clearly unconstitutional demand for a religious test for office (of which, of course, you didn’t note — it undermines your argument; I did).

        This post is one of the most illegitimate and unpatriotic (because it undermines functioning governance to demonize elected officials) smears I’ve ever seen you make (which is saying something).

      • strayaway

        Andy, while I appreciate your imagination and obfuscation, I already responded that “I suggested neither (of the things you dreamed up) and didn’t even mention the Constitution” as you contended in your previous post. Neither did I write Obama was a “serial” liar although he has told his share. Try to avoid responding to words I never wrote even if it gives you something to argue about. I don’t “need” a conversion story either but I am interested. Curiosity might drive libertarians but I can understand why it isn’t tonic for authoritarians. Obama says he is a Christian. I have little reason to question him about that but I’m up for you or any progressives to fill in some details of how he came to be a Christian. It’s not a “need” but I am curious. Also, this again along the line of your imagination, where did I suggest a religious test for office? I am, of course, against such things because it would be contrary to the Constitution.

        Andy, your slavish devotion to authority is what is “unpatriotic” although I’m more comfortable with the more measurable concept of “unconstitutional” than your McCarthyite like reference to “patriotism”. I prefer elections based on free speech to your authoritarian strictures. I think governments and government officials work best when they are examined and criticized. Your word choice “demonize” makes you sound like a reincarnated lawyer from the “Holy Inquisition”. Nice touch though putting “unpatriotic” and “demonize” in the same sentence all though they are more the language of the Salem witch trials than of the Constitution.

      • Andy Kinnard

        Your personal religious test is unconstitutional.

        You have switched to attacking me? Wow, that is a despicable tactic. I honestly thought you were above this kind of gutter level misdirection.

      • strayaway

        Andy, I never suggested a “personal religious test”. For the third time, “where did I suggest a religious test for office as you previously phrased it? Have some coffee and chill out. Maybe your delusions will evaporate.

      • Andy Kinnard

        Religious test for poliical office: Your whole focus on his religious identity and continual moving of the goal posts every time someone points out your prior standard either has been satisfied or is grossly inappropriate. First, it’s irrelevant since there is explicit language in the Constitution about there being “no religious test.” To the extent that it’s anyone’s business at all, the President has answered more than sufficiently and in a way that meets the common standard met by every other politician who cares to declare, self identification. There are no more elements of this to discuss; you’re simply way off base.

        More personal attacks (designed to make me appear overwrought). Cut it out. Surely you’re better than that; act like it.

      • strayaway

        The article was focused on religious identity and titled “New Poll: Vast Majority of Republicans Don’t Believe President Obama is a Christian”. I wrote that Obama was “probably a Christian of some sort” and even mentioned that he had participated in Rev. “G-d- America” Wright’s Christian church which was very different from Republicans who link him to Muslims. Perhaps you are confusing the gist of the article with what I actually wrote. A second thing you take umbrage at is my asking questions about your authority figure. I did ask if anyone knew how Obama came to Christianity. It was off topic but something I realized I had not read about.

        I consider your repeated and incorrect claims that I suggested a personal religious test as an attack. As Goebbels is supposed to have said, “If you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth”. On the other hand, based on other encounters with you, I surmise a pattern of imaginative interpretation on your part so it could just be that. For instance, unable to cite anything I wrote supporting a “personal religious test” as you claimed, you instead resort to the nebulous fill in the blank term “whole focus”as a way of sidestepping with your answer.

    • christopher

      you could argue that for liberals as well…liberls are the most elitiest group going right now

      • Jim Valley

        Elitism is different from outright denial of objective reality.

  • wendy

    So tired of faith getting in the way of practically every aspect of life. How about let’s deal with tangible reality and keep personal beliefs where it belongs…personal! Fed up

  • wendy

    For those who believe god will provide, that’s great; for the rest of us who need to provide for ourselves, let’s get busy bettering the quality of life instead of arguing about how much tea is in China…

  • keJ

    Found in Article VI, paragraph 3, of the Constitution.

    “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

    Our founding fathers understood that religion was not required for governance, and only caused problems when applied.

    I don’t know how the seperation of church and state can be so blatantly clear but, somehow, conservatives pretend it doesn’t exist.

    They claim to know so much more about our constitution than anyone else and then ignore the parts of it that they dislike without fail.

    • gmartini

      They do the same thing with the BuyBull as well—pick and choose the parts they like then disregard regard the rest. Yeah, hypocrites the entire lot!

  • Fuzz T Was

    Matthew 7:16 – Ye shall know them by their fruits –
    Christ gives the test of a persons character and how to judge it. Don’t judge a tree by leaves, bark, or flowers, but by the fruit it bears. Flowers may be beautiful and fragrant, foliage thick and green; but these things are ornamental. It is the “fruit” it bears that is of service to man; and men will judge the nature and value of the tree by that fruit. The same applies to the profession of religion. The profession may be claimed; but the “conduct” – the fruit – is what determines the nature of ones ideology and values.

  • Kevin Smith

    How would they know? Most Republicans aren’t Christians.

  • Mike Rubin

    No surprises here, just more evidence of relentless rightwing sexual pathology. We see it everywhere that cultural rightwingers worship and legislate; in their attacks on masturbation, sex ed, contraception, “sodomy,” pornography, sex for the sake of orgasms and not conception, gay sex and marriage, and abortion; and we read the endless comments on the Internet about “keeping your legs together” and “I shouldn’t have to pay for your fun.” I am sure that “harmful” in other hands could cover a multitude of sins – rscism, totalitarianism, phony Christian – but, let’s not kid ourselves: Every one of us knows what this is about. God forbid that kids should get the idea that icky sex is good for anything other than procreation, and these people who hate the very idea of sexual pleasure in marriage or outside of it, are going to continue to work hard to ensure that no one has any.

    • Mike Rubin

      Sorry, folks this was intended for another article in another open tab, but, because I somehow posted as a guest, I can’t delete it – or even edit the typos. This was a comment on the proposed Kansas ban on “harmful books” and the criminalization of their distribution.

  • Marty Kirkpatrick

    So how do these naysayers defend his admission that he is muslim?