Obama a Muslim? New Survey Results

On August 18, 2010, The PEW  Research Center released a new poll: Growing Number of Americans Say Obama is a Muslim subtitled “Religion, Politics and the Presidents.” Here are selected findings from that study.

These data were collected between 21 July and 5 August, 2010
(Before the great controversy over building the Muslim Center near the 9/11 site)

Obama and Religion: Total Population Findings.
Looking at the entire US population there has been a decline in the Percentage of Americans who believe that President Obama is a Christian. The major decline came between March 2009 and August 2010. Just since March, 2009 the percentage who believe that Obama is a Christian has dropped by 14 percentage points from 47% to 34%. On the other hand, the percentage of the American population who believe that Obama is a Muslim has increased  by 7 points from 11% to 18%. Finally, The percentage of all Americans who “Don’t Know” what Obama’s religion is stands at43%, a 9 point increase. As of August, 2010 a plurality of Americans say they don’t know what Obama’s religion is.
Compared to George W. Bush (in 2004), Obama is felt to rely less (“Not very much  +15%) on his religious beliefs when making policy than Bush. In 2004, 24% of Americans thought that Bush mentioned his religious beliefs and prayer too much, while today only 10% feel that Obama mention his beliefs and prayer too much. However, when observing all the responses to these questions, it appears that, “…the public generally [48%] says that Obama relies on his religious beliefs the right amount when making policy decisions.
The approval or not of President Obama’s job performance is related to a person’s opinion of whether or not he is a Christian or Muslim. It seems much more likely that attitudes about job performance depends more on beliefs about his religion than the reverse. Fully 62% of those who believe that Obama is a Christian approve of his job performance, 67% of those who believe he is a Muslim disapprove of how the president is handling his job. This is a very strong correlation.
 
Which Sub-Groups are more likely to believe that the President is a Muslim?

Politics:
Those most likely to believe that Obama is a Muslim are his political opponents. One-third of Republicans (31%) and slightly more “Conservative Republicans” (34%) believe that the President is a Muslim. As stated in the Report, “The share of Republicans who said Obama is a Muslim has nearly doubled over the past year and a half – from 17% to 31%.” As mentioned above, 67% of those who disapprove of Obama’s job performance believe he is a Muslim.
Among Independents there has been an eight percentage point increase in those who believe that Obama is Muslim between 2009 (10%) and 2010 (18%). Among Democrats there has been virtually no change in the percentage between 2009 (7%) and 2010 (10%).
Race:
There is a significant racial gap in opinions about Obama’s religion. Among blacks there has been virtually no change in the number of blacks who believe that Obama is a Muslim between 2009 (6%) and 2010 (7%). However, the percentage of whites who now believe Obama is a Muslim has doubled between 2009 (11%) and 2010 (21%) Almost one-fifth of the white population now believes that the President is a Muslim. It is also true that the percentage of blacks and whites who believe that Obama is a Christian have decreased by 13% and 15% respectively.
Religion:
The major change here in belief about Obama’s religion is among white Catholics and white mainline Protestants that  the President is a Muslim. The percentage change between 2009 and 2010 for white Catholics was +13% and for white mainline Protestants +12%. These changes were somewhat higher even than among Evangelical Protestants (+9%). Currently, the percentage saying that Obama is a Christian are: white mainline Protestants (36%), white Catholics (35%), white Evangelicals (27%).
Those unaffiliated with any denomination are the most likely to say Obama is a Christian (38%) and the least likely to say that he is a Muslim (13%).
What is most notable, however, is the increase for all religious groups in the percentage who don’t know what the President’s religion is . Currently, except for liberal democrats (31%), forty percent or more of every religious group say they now don’t know what Obama’s religion is. The 2009-2010 change for all Catholics and all Protestants was +10%, but among white Catholics it was an increase of 14%.

Summary and Opinion:
There is no doubt that opinions about President Obama’s religion have changed significantly between 2009 and 2010. In October 2008 just over half (51%) of the American population said Obama was a Christian and 12% thought he was a Muslim. Today (August, 2010, before all the debate over the Muslim Community Center near the 9/11 site), only one-third (34%) say Obama is a Christian and nearly one-fifth (18%) say he is Muslim. Among the groups who have changed in this direction the most are: Republicans, especially conservative  Republicans; those who disapprove of how the President is handling the responsibilities of his office, Mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics. Evangelical Protestants couldn’t increase much because belief that Obama has always been high. In terms of race, whites are more likely than blacks to have moved to the idea the Obama is Muslim.
It is abundantly clear that the people’s opinions have changed in this short period of time. This says nothing, however, about whether the President is in fact a Christian or a Muslim. In the United States we usually accept a person’s claim to be a member of a particular faith. What real, demonstrative evidence is there that Obama is in deed  Muslim? Those who believe that he is Muslim should produce hard evidence showing he is Muslim.
However, as W. I. Thomas said long ago, “What people believe to be true is true in its consequences.” Thus, those who believe that Obama is a Muslim may very well oppose the President’s policy decisions and programs based on their fear or hatred of Muslims.
One explanation for such wide change in opinion in such a short time, notices that political and religious conservatives are the most likely to proclaim that Obama is a Muslim. These groups, as well as conservative media (Eg. FOX News) are thought to have been working to generate this unfounded opinion to influence political decisions (Eg. voting in the 2010 Congressional elections). The data here do not tell this story; it is a descriptive study. However, the data do make this a plausible argument. Another reason for change may exist in the fact that, for example, political and religious conservatives oppose abortion and gay marriage. Shifting attention to Obama’s religion may be an easier way to turn people against the President than broaching those issues where there is significant and vocal opposition.

NOTE:
The full report has additional sections on “Religion and Politics” and “Religion and the 2010 Elections.

Lutherans +/- Catholics +/- Anglicans Dialogue or Debate

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), the largest Lutheran denomination in the United States (4.6 million members), just approved and welcomed into the clergy, actively gay ordained ministers who are in committed relationships.

Recently the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (ACCC.   members) began the process of corporate union with the Roman Catholic Church as a “Personal Prelature.” 

Recently The Episcopal Church in the U.S. established a Committee to prepare  liturgical rites and resources to officially bless same-sex couples in an established relationship.

Because all three of these issues relate to homosexuality it would be appropriate to approach my commentary from that perspective. However, I have another interest for this post.

With Vatican II, the Catholic Church opened outward to engage in dialogue with other Churches and Christian “ecclesial communities.” For forty years theological discussions and cooperative activities grew and we saw ourselves as a growing mosaic of Christian communities in Christ. But I wonder how the different denominations will react to the kinds of events listed above, especially in light of recent moves in the Catholic Church to emphasize Catholic identity, increase boundary markers, and a theological focus on apologetics.

The Catholic Church is a central player in all of these issues. But there are serious internal stresses and strains within the Catholic Church and these other Christian communities.

As long as the current strong, centralized, even authoritarian, institutional structure of the Catholic Church maintains power, there is little likelihood that theological dialogue and advances will be made, for example in sexual ethics, women’s ordination  or the nature and suitability persons for ministry. In my state there are two Catholic and one ELCA dioceses. For a number of years the three bishops have publically affirmed a “Lutheran-Catholic Covenant” pledging continued dialogue and sharing (even facilities and some cooperative religious education programs). What is to happen now between the Church and the ELCA with approval of ordination and acceptance of active gays into the ministry? Will the “Covenant” be put on the back burner, shelved, or, less likely, become a key mechanism to maintain close fraternal relationships? It remains to be seen.

Perhaps the greatest hope  for continued ecumenical dialogue and cooperation rests on what happens at the congregational and parish level. Last evening the pastor of our parish and I attended a meeting called by the pastor of a Lutheran church (ELCA) in the city. Attending and participating were pastors and laity from the Episcopal, Methodist, Catholic, and, of course, the Lutheran churches. A Presbyterian pastor was not able to attend this meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to create a cooperative “College for Adults”  to develop, “…disciples through Christian educational opportunities that are: spiritually relevant, intellectually stimulating, and personally challenging”  and which assist Christian people to: understand their faith, live out their faith, and share their faith with others.

If the increasingly fragile fraternal relationships (I use this word because the power and leadership in these communities are dominated by males)  between the leadership of the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations / ecclesial communities  disintegrates there may be dire irreparable damage done well beyond the confines of these religious groups. Globalization of the world is increasing as a result of the rapid growth on new electronic, communication, and transportation systems. We used to say, “It takes a village to raise a child.” The whole world is rapidly becoming “the village.” Will there be any kind of “global ethic"?” Will the great religions of the world have any role in creating a world to assist in holding together the mosaic of cultures that will continue to exist? Or will the “ethic” be the crassest form of utilitarian ethics? God forbid, that we fall into a dog-eat-dog world or the “war of all against all.”

If Christians can realize they have more in common than the differences between them, they will be part of re-creating a renewed world. If Christians can reaffirm that those of “other faith traditions,” also seek to discover the Truth, there can be dialogue and cooperative action,especially regarding respect for each other and building a more peaceful world. We do have a common humanity and  a common search for the Ultimate.  All of us know only partially now;  and now only through many different perspectives or “faiths” in our search for Truth and purpose in life.  We have the opportunity, today, to live together in a more harmonious world. We no longer can allow differences to destroy the deeper realities of who we are together.

But for us here and now, we must maintain hope and openness to “the other” who can become our brothers and sisters, free to worship God by whatever name we give God and called to serve the world. So maybe in my case one beginning step to to help make this “College for Adults” a success. 

The Dalai Lama Gets It, Thomas Merton Got It, Will the Bishops Ever Get It?

Those who have read my blog posts will have noticed how frequently I have cried out for leaders in the Church to speak and act with compassion toward those who find themselves in difficult circumstances. No doubt some bishops are compassionate most or some of the time. But there have been too many public examples where leadership has not acted in a compassionate manner.

A recent reflection by the Dalai Lama reminds us of the centrality and importance of compassion.
He begins by recounting that as  youngster, “I felt that my own Buddhist religion must be the best--- and that other faiths were somehow inferior.” I too had a similar experience growing up in a predominantly Catholic town in a metropolitan area of over four million Catholics. We never fought with, or even said nasty things about “non-Catholics.” Because they were a minority we just lived as if they weren’t around. If, God forbid, we were invited to Sunday service, Bible school, or a wedding in a Protestant Church we proudly (or with eyes focused on the ground in embarrassment) replied, “I’m a Catholic, and we don’t (or can’t) go to other churches.

This highly defensive attitude began with the Council of Trent’s response to the Reformation and lasted until Vatican II attempted to renew our church by returning to our roots and engaging in a reality-based conversation with the modern world, including Protestants, the Orthodox Churches, and the major world religions.

As a sociologist, I fully understand any group, denomination or religion placing emphasis on its identity, marks showing who they are, and establishing group boundaries. This process, however, can lead to conflict and, “…dangerous extremes of religious intolerance”  between groups as well as to its opposite, mutual dialogue, understanding, and often acceptance and positive cooperation. The latter was the intent of the Vatican II Fathers. The Dalai Lama goes on to say,

Though intolerance may be as old as religion itself, we still see vigorous signs of its virulence. In Europe, there are intense debates about newcomers wearing veils or wanting to erect minarets (There is a recent example of this in the US. also) and episodes of violence against Muslim immigrants. Radical atheists issue blanket condemnations of those who hold religious beliefs. In the Middle East, the flames of war are fanned by hatred of those who adhere to a different faith.

The Dalai Lama goes on to say,

Such tensions are likely to increase as the world becomes more interconnected and cultures, peoples, and religions become ever more entwined. The pressure this creates tests more than our tolerance--- it demands that we promote peaceful  coexistence and understanding across boundaries…. While preserving faith towards one’s own tradition, one can respect, admire and appreciate other traditions. [Emphasis added]

I know what the Dalai Lama means. After years teaching at a Baptist college, I was finally asked to give the devotional at the fall faculty workshop. Although I was familiar with and could do a passingly decent job “praying Baptist Style,” mine had to be a little more “Catholic.” I began, “I’m the Pope!!! One of the pope’s titles is ‘pontiff’ which means “bridge-builder.” I consider myself a bridge-builder. I’m a Yankee in the South, I’m a city boy in a pretty rural area, and a Catholic in a Baptist community.” I then explained this a little, quoted some Scripture (using my "New International" version of the Bible), bowed my head and led us in a spontaneous prayer. After the meeting a faculty member who was a preacher and very anti-Catholic came up and hugged me, saying, “Seb, I always knew you were a good Christian.” That day I had affirmed what I had been learning over the years: we can move from antagonism to tolerance and from tolerance to respect and acceptance. That preacher remained Baptist till his death and I’m still a Catholic, but we took steps toward respect and acceptance. We learned to have compassion on each other.

The Dalai Lama recounts his meeting with Thomas Merton, an American Trappist Monk in 1968, shortly before Merton’s death. The two holy men confessed to each other how much they had learned and grown from deep encounters with each others' religion. One of the things they learned and experienced together was the centrality of compassion in all the great religious traditions.

Whether within our own Catholic tradition, between Protestants and Catholics, or between Christians and the other great religious traditions, why can’t we begin with what we hold in common? It reminds me of political liberals and conservatives who sit down and tear each other apart fighting over “midnight basketball” versus building more prisons as the best solution to street crime. If they could really agree on the fact that both want to have safe streets, there might be cooperation and compromise that would lead to workable solutions that both sides could whole-heartedly support.

Just before the Dalai Lama gives a number of examples of compassion he says, “The focus on compassion that Merton and I observed in our two religions strikes me as a strong unifying thread among all the major faiths And these days we need to highlight what unifies us.”

It seems to me that within the Catholic Church also we need to reassert compassion for the other, whether it is between so-called ‘liberals / progressives’ and ‘conservatives’ or between the clergy and the abused. As I have mentioned in some earlier posts, in recent times most situations that clearly called out for compassion within the Church are related in one way or another to sexuality:

• The early stone-walling by the bishops regarding the pedophilia crisis,
• The lack of reaching out to victims with deep pastoral concern for the abused,
• Neglecting the nine year old girl whose mother secured an abortion for her after she was raped by her step-father and was carrying twins (I speak at this moment not about the abortion itself, but the lack of compassion for the little girl),
• Insufficient attention to the homosexuals who may be executed in Uganda if the Anti-homosexuality law is passed.
• Lack of attention to the small girls who were expelled/not admitted to a Catholic school because they had “two moms" (The “Phoenix Case). But notice that in the Archdiocese in a similar case, diocesan Catholic School Administrators said they will accept all children).

Perhaps the hierarchy can learn how better to respond to these intra-church situations and to inter-religious affairs by reflecting on the words of the Dalai Lama on Compassion. Of course all of us must be more compassionate!

NYC PRIDE :- One Catholic's Reflections

Yesterday morning I saw a CNN Report showing a group of Catholics who are gay marching in the NYC Pride parade. Immediately startling was the fact that the banner those in the first line were carrying was completely blank.

Parishioners from St. Francis Xavier parish have marched in the Pride Day Celebration for years with the sign telling who they were. This year, however, the new Archbishop of New York, Timothy Dolan. "asked" the pastor to see to it that the Church's name not appear on the sign, lest it imply that the Catholic Church accepts promiscuous sex.

Everyone "in the know" understands how difficult it is for Catholics who are gay and  "out" to find a Catholic parish or other place to worship, meet socially and participate actively in ministries. As the parish pastor said, neither the parish nor the group of gay parishioners advocate or support promiscuous sex.

Although the official teaching of the Church is that same-sex sexual behavior of any kind is always gravely sinful because it is sex outside of marriage (NOTE: all sex outside marriage by anyone is always gravely sinful).This position is primarily based on philosophical analysis. Today there are a number of Catholic moral theologians who hold to a personalist-relational ethic, that allows for unmarried heterosexual and homosexual sex behavior in certain circumstances.  But serious, deep love (not infatuation) is always part of the equation for them. It might be interesting, apart from gay marriage as an "issue," to watch "Gary and Tony Have a Baby" and ponder whether the two men in the documentary love each other in a way that might justify sex between them.

The marchers said one reason for their march was a chance to let other gay Catholics know that there is a place in the Church where openly Gay people are welcomed and can find a place at the Table of the Lord. It's like a "Come Home" ministry. It seems to me that only "programs" that truly appreciate the feelings of alienation, anger, and hurt that many Gay Catholics have had or are experiencing now cannot be addressed, at least in the beginning, by "standard programs." Those best qualified to "welcome back" gays to the Church are Gay Catholics who have tread the same path earlier and who now live life in the context of an accepting community of Catholics.

Although I personally support the idea that gay love can be as deep and real as heterosexual love, that under the same circumstances as with heterosexuals, gays may share complete intimate love, and that gay marriage is a good and should be permitted by civil law and the Church, I will leave that discussion to a later time.

What concerns me today is the lack of understanding compassion toward "others" who are perceived (and most often mis- perceived) to be "different," and treated accordingly. A number instances where there has been no compassion shown by Church ministers have been recounted in some of my earlier posts.

It seems to me that in the Phoenix case there was an assumption that the two moms were having illegitimate sex, otherwise why such drastic action by the priest and Archbishop? I have never seen a priest refuse Communion to young teenage couple because they are presumed to be having sex regularly. Even though many gays, especially young  men, do engage in promiscuous  sex,  is it correct, honest and compassionate to assume that all gays live most of their lives in promiscuity? Any more than do heterosexuals?

I understand that the hierarchy as a general rule feels bound to state and support the official Church position as a principle. However there is no reason that the hierarchy  should avoid concrete pastoral approaches to gays, gay life and worship. For example, tacit approval and support for parish ministry to gays is very significant. acceptance and support of the presence of  DIGNITY USA and similar "programs" like them rather than COURAGE and other programs that seem to assume  that gay people can change and become heterosexual, which is out of step with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, (#s 357-2359).
 
And all this because of no "Catholic Sign" for Gay Catholics and supporters to carry in the NYC Gay PRIDE DAY march.