This is a teensy bit creepy. Make of it what you will.
The good news is that 36 percent of likely Republican primary voters in Mississippi said in a poll that they are not sure whether Pres. Obama is a Christian or a Muslim. The bad news is that 52 percent are sure — that Obama is a Muslim. That leaves 12 percent who said he is a Christian.
Alabamans scored a little higher in awareness of Obama’s religious affiliation: 14 percent of those polled said Obama is a Christian; 41 percent were unsure; so a mere plurality of 45 percent were sure that Obama is a Muslim.
In the cross-tabs, older folks, Tea Party followers and the very conservative were most likely to say that Obama was a Muslim.
The poll was by Public Policy Polling, which did not emphasize the is-Obama-a-Muslim question in its writeup.
Hat tip to Taegan Goddard, who did.
I believe him . . . .
when he says he is a Christian.
But on the other hand, why does it matter? We’re not voting for “Pastor-in-Chief”. His religion should matter not one little bit to his suitability for office.
(And yes – I know that’s not the way it is with voters in the real world. But it just annoys me every time this issue comes up.)
Does anyone out there remember the gnashing of teeth and wailing that accompanied the revelations of the sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright of the Trinity United Church of Christ? And the fact that Obama had been part of that church since the 1980’s?
No, of course not.
Hmmm
So does that mean that Obama supporters should REMIND voters of the Rev. Wright controversy as a way to emphasize his Christianity? Maybe not.
Hmmmm
Maybe so if those they were pointing this out to weren’t hypocrites.
Obama’s religion will be irrelevant
as long as the republican nominee’s religion stays irrelevant with the press. Remember that. But if people start ridiculing Mormonism or bad-mouthing Catholicism, all bets are off.
Is it pointless to point out how Romney’s Mormonism is the sub-rosa context of the Christian right participation in the primaries?
If Romney said (ala Santorum) that he wanted to structure the laws of the US in accordance with his deeply-held Mormon beliefs, what would many fundamentalist Christians do and say?
Ridiculing beliefs is silly. But examining how deeply-held beliefs will shape the direction the president wants to move the country is entirely within the bounds of the race, especially after Santorum up-chucked over Kennedy’s speech.
And besides, if religion didn’t matter, why is the Obama/Muslim trope kept alive by the right wing?
Not connected.
I don’t see the connection. Obama’s religion is a matter of fact. He is, indeed, a Christian, and it is incorrect to state otherwise.
This has nothing to do with whether or not someone’s religion is above ridicule, and as much as you’d like to make it a “private” matter, when the nominees for president seem to be drawing most of their policy-related inspiration from their faith, their religion becomes an open issue.
Not sure what the point is here
Romney actually is Mormon. Santorum and Gingrich actually are Catholic. Are you asserting that if the media brings up your favorite candidate’s religion then it is okay to assign whatever religion you like to the other side despite their actual beliefs?
It is interesting that right-wing evangelical protestants who use religion as a litmus test are having such a hard time finding a candidate to support because the only protestant in the race is Barack Obama. This seems to be so hard to process for them that they are unwilling to believe it.
Looking up wrong tree
Mr. Tester, the people questioning Romneys religion are Republican, not liberal. Many Catholics are disputing Santorum’s interpretation of Catholic dogma as well. And his apparent lack of concern for Constitutional separation.
Not to be outdone…
Many people in states that voted for Obama in ’08 believe it’s perfectly normal for two men to claim to be “married”.
Kooky people all over the place, I tells ya.
Yep
Many republicans don’t believe in science so it is a wierd year.
Same poll:On other issues,
Same poll:
On other issues, 60% of respondents in Alabama do not believe in evolution; that number jumps to 74% among evangelicals. Twenty one percent of all respondents believe interracial marriage should be illegal; 24% of evangelicals did.
Sixty-six percent of respondents in Mississippi do not believe in evolution; among evangelicals that number jumped to 74%. Of all the respondents, 29% believe interracial marriage should be illegal; among evangelicals that number was 33%.
Did the poll
measure the beliefs of Muslims and Jews too? Because, you know, it’d be instructive to see what those figures were. And if it didn’t measure those religions, why didn’t it?
The poll was of likely Republican primary voters in those states. I would be surprised if there were a significant number of Muslims or Jews in that group.
numbers
Because combined they make up less than two percent of the population of those states.
As Neal said, the poll was sampling politics, not religion (for some of us there is a difference), but the numbers of non Christians would be too small to be worth breaking out unless you had an academic interest in them (it has been done).
the difference, if you care
Obama’s religion is a matter of fact. Someone’s opinion on whether or not homosexuals should be able to marry is, well, an opinion. It helps discourse if you at least make an attempt to understand the difference, but I won’t hold my breath.
Well, they’re not intellectuals after all.
Why be knowledgeable when you know what you believe?
It’s called “faith” for a reason
You know, just like Global Warming.
Specifically with regards to the things already brought up . . .
on this page, in this particular discussion – which items are you proposing should be considered “matters of faith”?
Because the starting discussion point was Obama’s religious affiliation. And although it’s a matter of HIS faith, his stated religious affiliation is a matter of public FACT.
No
Faith is accepting something despite the facts;
science is accepting something because of them.
No faith required.There will
No faith required.
There will hard, irrefutable proof of global climate change sooner than there will be proof of the existence of God.
Of Course Obama’s Christian Denomination
The United Church of Christ, has been on record in support of gay marriage for quite some time, now. They’re also far more open to the wisdom contained in other faiths and in the secular world than are most other Christians (except, perhaps for Quakers).
Just because President Obama’s Christianity doesn’t agree with your own doesn’t mean he’s not a “Christian.” Neither did Jesus’ disagreement with religious leaders of First Century Judea make him any less a faithful member of that same faith at that time. Indeed, he was far more faithful to the God who inspired that faith than his detractors.
Of course some of our commenters, here, those who want never to experience any change in the tenets of the “faith” they grew up with and in which they continue to be comfortable, would much prefer to limit God’s and Jesus’ own influence and action in the world to the distant past, and would have been on the side of the chief priests, scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees in Jesus’ day.
Indeed, if Jesus were to return today into the midst of those who loudly claim to be his most ardent admirers and followers, he would challenge and question them (as he would all of us), they would conclude that he must surely be a tool of Satan, and crucify him all over again.
More than a “teensy bit creepy”
It’s more than a teensy bit creepy, Eric. Those voters are not only wrong about Obama’s religion, they can’t deal with the reality of evolution or interracial marriage (the *really* old-fashioned term is “miscegenation,” which even *sounds* like something from the 18th century). Though I expect they can add, subtract, multiply and divide, they seem otherwise knowledge-free. A populace that ignorant and gullible has many implications for public policy, none of them positive.
This is the society that people who call themselves “conservative” apparently would like to create and implement. The mind boggles…
Conservative
Means conserving (staying with) the current state of affairs rather than changing it.
Going back a century or two is reactionary, not conservative.
Sad Commentary
On just how willfully ignorant some voters are. Still, Obama became President without the votes of these folks. He may not need their votes in November to keep his job.
Willful ignorance
The thing that interesting is that this isn’t simply ignorance, it’s deliberate ignorance. You actually have to go out of your way to find the misinformation that informs these beliefs, and you have to deliberately ignore reliable sources and information. This isn’t a break down of information, it’s a break down of intellect on a massive scale.
It’s no secret that these states have public education systems that are in shambles, and it’s no secret that Republicans typically like their public education systems to be in shambles. Conservative hostility to education and especially public education goes all the back to the 2nd “Great Awakening”. The conservative mind can have difficulty with the notion that education isn’t about teaching people WHAT to think (or believe), but rather HOW to think. We don’t teach people that 3+3=6 for instance because that’s what we want them to believe. The conservative tendency to value revelation over reason places an emphasis belief rather than knowledge. You can see that principle on display frequently here in the comments. People like Santorum for instance don’t seem to understand the difference between education and indoctrination because they everything is doctrine in their minds, the product of revelation.
The question is whether or not these states where this conservative mindset and the fourth Great Awakening have dominated public policy have actually produced more ignorant populations? Maybe an even more interesting question is whether or not those ignorant populations were actually the political goal? In other words, were they deliberately created by Republican politicians?
A fact-resistant constituency is always the goal.
If the followers have internalized the denial of the obvious that is right before their own eyes, the leaders achieve any goal.
See history for numerous examples.
None of the Republican candidates say the believe in evolution
During the early Republican debates, when asked, none of the Republican presidential candidates said they believe in evolution, which is the best science that exists to explain all living things on the planet. In other words, all of the Republican candidates, despite their advanced college degrees, essentially ignore science in favor of “faith.” Faith, to me, is the same thing as Stephen Colbert’s “truthiness” – something you can’t prove, but you feel in your gut. I guess I wouldn’t mind that so much, but letting “faith” dictate national policy is the reason we HAVE Mississippi and Alabama – ignorant outposts in what should be the most educated country in the world. It was, after all, faith that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that got us into that war.