Alex Theodoridis, a political scientist at the University of
California, Merced, conducted a survey last fall of Americans’
understanding of President Obama’s religious beliefs. Remarkably, he
that
in response to the question, “Which of these do you think most likely
describes what Obama believes deep down? Muslim, Christian, atheist,
spiritual, or I don’t know,” 54 percent of Republicans said Obama is
Muslim. Only nine percent said he is Christian.
Previous
ruminations on the Obama-is-a-secret-Muslim theme have suggested
various sources for it: ignorance, Fox News, racism, too much
World Net Daily in your diet.
Theodoridis’
post was inspired by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s remarks that he
didn’t know whether Obama is a Christian. But do other elected
Republicans suggest that Obama is not only not a Christian, but a
Muslim? I ran a search in the Congressional Record for recent floor
speeches in which the word Islam or Islamic and the President appear.
This is snapshot, of course, and the number of constituents who actually
listen to these speeches is infinitesimal. But if elected Republicans
aren’t afraid to question Obama’s religious commitments for the
permanent record, think of what they might say to constituents in
smaller settings, or the well that they are drawing from when they make
remarks in Congressional sessions for which they receive no pushback,
and in fact receive encouragement.
Republicans drew
from recent conservative complaints that Obama refuses to say that
Islamic State and other terrorist groups are “Islamic,” that he doesn’t
take the threat of terrorism seriously, and he is insufficiently
protective of American exceptionalism.
On February 24, 2015, Rep.
Mark Walker (R-NC) said on the House floor that his constituents “shared
with me their frustration at the ambiguous language from this
administration in describing the evils of radical Islamist terrorism,”
and that he himself has “grown weary at the timidity” of Obama, who
“continues to be defensive, at best.” He went on:
At
first glance, the silence appears to be passive or poor leadership. But I
am inclined to believe that the President’s posture is not one of
weakness but, rather, an intentional directive in both rhetoric and
action. It appears that his promise to take our country in a
fundamentally new direction is being played out in realtime. Instead of
defending our liberty and our way of life, which is the most charitable
in the world, our President seems to scoff at the belief that our
country has been uniquely blessed by God.
I would be remiss today
if I did not pause and remember our Egyptian Christian brothers in the
recent barbaric attacks in Libya. ISIS murdered innocent husbands and
fathers who clearly died for their faith and their beliefs.
Just
this morning, we hear further reports out of Syria that Islamic State
militants have abducted dozens of Christians, including women and
children. Weeks prior, the President chastised the Christian community
for getting on their judgmental high horses. Yet, in describing our
martyred brothers from Egypt, the President refused to even utter the
word, “Christian.”
The undermining of our beliefs has become an issue with this President.
Contrary
to Walker’s statement, which echoes a claim circulating in conservative
circles that Obama did not identify the Coptic victims of the Islamic
State massacre as Christians, at last week’s summit on countering
religious extremism, Obama noted that that Islamic State’s “slaughter of
EgyptianChristians in Libya has shocked the world.” Notice, in Walker’s
speech, the juxtaposition of the statement that Obama “seems to scoff
at the belief that our country has been uniquely blessed by God” (i.e.,
he’s not a Christian) with his own remembrance of the murdered Egyptian
Christians “who clearly died for their faith and their beliefs.”
Some
of the floor statements come from ardent Christian supporters of
Israel, who contrast Obama negatively with Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu.
In a February 5, 2015
floor speech,
Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) called Netanyahu “one of the most prescient
voices that we have in the entire world to address some of the subjects
and some of the dangers that face the United States of America.” In
contrast, Franks claimed, Obama “chooses to listen to these mysterious
voices of those who did not vote in our Nation’s election,” yet “has
sought to go after and silence” Netanyahu. (He did not specify whose
“mysterious voices” were whispering in Obama’s ear.) Franks questioned
whether Obama is “so naive or, worse, so arrogant as to believe that we
can have any type of credible, diplomatic agreement” with Iran.
Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX), in February 2, 2015 floor remarks,
asked,
“this administration also refuses to say that we are at war with
radical Islam. There is so much sensitivity in the White House over its
statements that one is puzzled to wonder: Why are they sensitive about
calling terrorists ‘terrorists?’”
Hmm. Gotta wonder, right?
The next day in a
floor speech,
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), after describing atrocities committed by
terrorists, added, “I guess if you are part of this administration, you
shouldn’t consider that to be all that radical because this
administration, under their watch, with Commander in Chief Barack Obama,
had orders given to remove crosses from the chapels on our military
installations.” (Gohmert repeats this claim, despite it having been
debunked in 2013; the military,
according to FactCheck.org,
“has a longstanding policy against permanent religious symbols being
attached to military chapels.”) In the speech, two days before the
National Prayer Breakfast, Gohmert noted Obama’s upcoming appearance,
adding, “I am greatly appreciative of the President’s
espoused faith.” (emphasis mine).
In a January 14, 2015
stemwinder,
after laying out a litany of Obama’s alleged sins in failing to
recognizing “that radical Islam is a threat to our very existence and
way of life,” Gohmert delivered a brief lecture on how Christians are
supposed to act (and govern):
I have Christian friends
that say: Yes, but as Christians, we are supposed to turn the other
cheek. That is as individuals. Individual Christians should live out the
beatitudes as Christ gave them. But the government has a different
role. If you do evil, you should be afraid because the government,
within the bounds of Christianity–Romans 13:4–is supposed to punish the
evil, eliminate the evils, and protect your people. I don’t try to
convert anybody using my position in government, but for those who
misunderstand Christian teaching, you need to read Romans 13.
Romans
13 is about submission to governmental authority, and the particular
verse Gohmert cited reads: “For the one in authority is God’s servant
for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear
the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to
bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” In other words, Obama isn’t
punishing (purportedly Islamic) wrongdoers; he therefore doesn’t
understand what Gohmert believes to be biblical imperatives for
governing. Draw your own conclusions.
Of course Poe, Franks, and
Gohmert represent the far right flank of their party, but their fellow
Republicans don’t dispute them. As Theodoridis theorizes, Scott Walker
is a “moderate” on the spectrum of misrepresenting Obama’s
religion because he merely said he didn’t know whether Obama is a
Christian. But you could argue that Poe, Franks, and Gohmert never
explicitly said Obama is a Muslim. Yet according to Theodoridis’
research, a majority of Republicans think he is.
