Saturday, November 07, 2009 Last Update:07:14 pm ET

Society|Wed, Jul. 09 2008 12:08 PM EDT

Obama Backed by Less Religious Americans

By Jennifer Riley|Christian Post Reporter

Presidential candidate Barack Obama has stronger support among less religious Americans than rival John McCain, a survey revealed.

  • (Photo: AP/Jae C. Hong)
    Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill, left, shakes hands with supporters at a town hall style meeting in Powder Springs, Ga., Tuesday, July 8, 2008.

The survey, conducted by The Gallup Poll and released Tuesday, found 55 percent of Americans who say religion is not important in their life backed Obama, compared to 36 percent for McCain. The reverse was true for Americans who said religion was important in their life, with 50 percent to 40 percent preferring McCain over Obama.

This correlation is most clearly seen in the segment of Americans who are white and identify themselves as either Protestant or some other non-Catholic Christian tradition. Among these believers, McCain beats Obama by a 36-point margin, 63 percent to 27 percent. The two candidates were essentially tied among those in this group who say religion is not important in their life, with McCain at 46 percent and 45 percent for Obama.

But exceptions to the correlation between religiosity and support for Republican McCain occur among Hispanic Catholics and black non-Catholic Christians. Among white Hispanic Catholics, Obama beat McCain by a large margin even among those who said religion is important in their life.

Obama received 57 percent support among religious Hispanic Catholics, compared to McCain’s 31 percent. The Illinois senator, who is vying to be the first black U.S. president, won by an even larger margin among those that said religion is not important in their life, 63 percent to 30 percent.

Preference for Obama over McCain was even more dramatic among black non-Catholic Christians. Ninety percent of this group’s religious voters supported Obama, versus 4 percent for McCain. The number was slightly raised among the group’s non-religious voters, with 92 percent for Obama and four percent supporting McCain.

The finding that religious voters prefer a Republican candidate is not new. Evangelical Christians, who are viewed as highly religious, have traditionally been stalwart voters of the Republican Party – although that idea is being challenged this election year.

Younger and moderate evangelicals have been more open to Obama’s candidacy than in past elections towards a Democratic contender. Many find his emphasis on social justice issues such as poverty and Darfur appealing. The Obama campaign has also aggressively courted religious voters with initiatives explaining how Obama plans to put his faith into action.

Experts have predicted that Obama could gain as much as 30 to 40 percent of the evangelical vote this fall.

The Gallup poll for this survey questioned 95,000 registered voters from March through June of this year.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3
  • Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    hlerwin- It sounds like he was writing about Hitler.

    Still, what is obnoxious depends on the person drawing the conclusion. To the religious leaders Jesus was quite obnoxious when in fact they were the ones who were. The question would then be...who does God view as obnoxious?

  • Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    In the spirit of full disclosure, jester and others, I need to post something else Walker Percy wrote:

    "Question: Who is the most obnoxious, Protestants, Catholics or Jews? Answer: It depends on where you are and who you are talking to - though it is hard to conceive any one of the three consistently outdoing the other two in obnoxiousness. Yet, as obnoxious as are all three, none is as murderous as the autonomous self who, believing in nothing, can fall prey to ideology and kill millions of people - unwanted people, old people, sick people, useless people, unborn people, enemies of the state - and do so reasonably, without passion, even decently, certainly without the least obnoxiousness."

    That part of Percy is true, as well.

  • Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Barack has been talkng about his faith much more so than Senator McCain. Senator McCain didn't show up for the faith forum in PA, but Senator Clinton and Obama did. One thing that is striking about the Lord from reading the Bible is that He doesn't give weight to one sin over another except for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is when God intervenes directly in the life of people in the form of a miracle and someone tries to define the miracle as a Satanic occurrence. The Pharisees tried to do this to Jesus, and that is where you have the famous " a house divided against itself cannot stand." Matt 12:25 The Lord does give greater weight to a Christian virtue over all others and that is Love. Remember Luke 7:45-48 The women who wiped Christ's feet with her hair, Christ said " For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much." 1 Peter 4:8 says " Above all keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins." 1 John 4:8 " He that does not love has not come to know God, because God is love."

  • Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:21 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So, the less religious are less concerned about religion, including Obama's wavering faith.

    itsallaboutjesusnotme.blogspot.com

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Sounds like this individual has some very real issues. One can hope they get the help they need.

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ccccc (as known by numerous other aliases as well) is flagging me in retaliation for flagging him. He was posting comments that were inflammatory and using language that was not acceptable. So I flagged him, and contacted CP to inform them of his behavior. Apparently, they booted him, but he seems to be back under anothr alias.
    I told him that he could get his message across without using the remarks that he was, and all I wanted him to do was tone it down, but he continued on and even got worse.

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Daniel Paul

    The CP technical staff has known of this person for some time now. The introduction of his massive flagging came in the early part of March 08 where he went and flagged every comment on every page that appeared on the CP home page. He went by the names danny2, danny, first. They barred these three names and restored all comments and deleted all comments made by him. He continues to change his name. He has gone by dddd, cccccccc, God, xxxx, yyyy, Dwen, Howard, oldguy, asdfg, GeorgeXX, GeorgeX, ERVs, Jerry2, Jerry, danny2, danny, first, BobC, BobCu, and a bunch of other names that I don't remember right off hand. He is forever changing his name. CP apparently isn't queing off the right information to know that it is the same person. When you can register with CP they ask for a lot of personal information. All this can be falsified. You have to give an email address. You cannot use one that is already registered with CP. So giving a fake email addresses is the key. CP doesn't verify the email address and they let you sign on with the ID you want to use. Perhaps CP aught to first verify the email address before allowing someone to post.

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Perhaps it's time to let the webmaster know and that person can be blocked by IP address.

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    it looks like cccccccc (now dddd) is making good on his threat to delete all of star2's and Prophet's posts.

  • Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:18 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Whose the immature child who keeps flagging Prophet? Grow up!

  • igh »
    Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:09 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    walker percy didnt sound like he cared about anyone.

  • igh »
    Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:06 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    looks like flagging wars have begun again.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    about an hour before you SUPPOSE to go to bed...yah!

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    i know! thats the best time to drink it!
    yeah yeah yeah yeah

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    jester, a mountain dew man and a krispy kreme man all in one, you are truly a man of God, I keep trying to tell my wife that real Christian men only drink dew, but she tells me only if they stop drinking it before 6:00PM! I don't get what she means?

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    who was supposed to bring the donuts and why arent they here? i need my maple covered donut with little sprinkles on top. and a bottle of mountain dew to wash it down

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    i dont think there is a point.
    maybe that's the point.

    i think its time for a Bhudie call...

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Then what point are you trying to get across?

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Ok.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Besides, it's Percy's quote, not mine.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Not at all, Prophet. Walker Percy was a Christian.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Then, on the other hand, I could use a Krispy Kreme about now.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So, are you insulting dumb people, smart people, or everyone that considers themself a Christian?

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You, jester, and some others in these CP posts keep reminding me of Walker Percy, who grew up agnostic but died a Christian. When he pondered about "modern people" and their inability to accept God, he wrote:

    "It is theoretically possible, if practically extremely difficult, to...become an intact self through the...mode Kierkegaard described when he noted that 'the self can only become itself if it does so transparently before God.' This is in fact, according to both Kierkegaard and Pascal, the only viable mode [to completeness], the others being snares and delusions. There are at least two reasons, having to do with the nature of the age, why this option is so difficult. One is that from the abstracted perspective of the sciences and arts - an attitude of self-effacing objectivity which through the spectacular triumph of science has become the natural stance of the educated man - God, if he is taken to exist at all, is perforce understood as simply another item in the world which one duly observes, takes note of, and stands over against. The other reason is that the God-party, at least those who say 'Lord Lord' most often, are so ignorant and obnoxious that most educated people want no part of them. If they're for it then I can't go far wrong in being against it. It is true that both St. Paul and God are on record as preferring simple folk to the overeducated, especially philosophers. But media preachers have little reason to take comfort. Being uneducated is no guarantee against being obnoxious."

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wow, jester, you're everywhere tonight.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    i don't put much thought into my responses when it comes to you. i dont want to waste the effort

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I'm pro-Krispy Kreme Doughnuts! that's what i am.

    I just wanted to say the word "Bhudies". i like the way it rolls of my tongue. almost sacrilegious since it sound like "bootie" lol...

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    jester, does that mean you are pro-torture and pro-murder? I'm not sure what you are cheering for exactly.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Thoughtful response, jester.....

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    yay Bhudies!

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Check out the Buddhists who were martyred during Mao Zedong's great Cultural Revolution. Astounding!

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    igh,
    I understand, and agree with you. But Paul exhorts us in Romans 13 to be subject unto the government. But if you read my post at 1:37 am, you will see that I believe that if the government goes against the Word of God, then we, as Christians, are compelled to hold true to Him and Him alone....even to death.
    History shows the number of martyrs there are who stood firm in their faith in the midst of evil governments and their edicts.
    Yes, we must be careful to not relequinsh God-given freedoms. Even the smallest. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. You give up a small freedom here for "tolerance" sake, and another somewhere else, and another small freedom over here. Even the smallest surrenders add up, and before you know it, you are bound and gagged and being dragged to be martyred.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    igh, I am not trying to lead anyone anywhere. You can go wherever you want. Just let me go wherever I want, too. Still, I never want to live in a country where there are no rights, as you see them. You can ask the people who lived under the Taliban how they liked it.

    and, Daniel, "Our country was founded starting with the Declaration of Independence. It defined rights as being endowed by our creator. Thus, the creator being the one who endowes determines what is a right and what is not."

    European culture was "Christian" at the time of our founding. Only a few people were "Christians" of your narrow persuasion. Many were diests, Unitarians and casual Episcopalians. Everybody paid lip service to "God." Don't read too much into that phrase "endowed by our creator."

  • igh »
    Sat Jul 12, 2008 6:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    i dont believe in rights. i do Believe in Christ. you make a good point , to uphold all God has given us an be good stewards in all things.

    But the things of this world is what i was pointing to, i put no faith in them, mankind manipulates corrupts everything. I will not elevate them above my Lord. i.e. the constitution, court judgements, legislatures. Hlerwin is trying to lead many astray by saying we have rights of this and that so have to give gays what they want. Some fall into this trap and give up freedoms God has given us. Because they put Faith in the things that are soon to pass away above God's will. read his 9:36 a.m. post.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:42 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "One more thing the children of God dont believe in 'rights' "

    Actually we do. In fact, we have the responsibility to be good stewards of our rights given by our Creator. We are responsible for everything we have in stewardship.

  • igh »
    Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    hlerwin dont you know we are in a Spiritual war, good against evil even.
    the decisions show there willingness to serve God or rebel against him. all courts base decisions on what God says, either they agree with God or deny him. just that simple. I follow the Spirit and he is always true. One more thing the children of God dont believe in 'rights'

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:53 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Daniel,
    Amen! You are right on! People don't want to know the truth, they want to hear something that makes them feel good and that they are good people. Hence, the problem with the gay rights agenda.
    I was speaking on another article about who the real Church is. The Catholics believe that if you are simply a member of their church then you are automatically part of the Church spoken of by Jesus to Peter. But notice He said that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church. So far the Catholics have had a bad showing in that area.
    No, the Church is not a denomination. It's not a particular assembly in a certain town/city. It's a group of true Christians, worldwide, that will stand up for what is true and righteous. They will not bow to the idol of selfishness or religiousness. They bear no name or title other than Body of Christ. They will come from different denominations, but they will be wise in His ways and powerful through His Spirit. They will stand, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against them.
    There will be many who say "We are the Church", who fall by the wayside and drown in false teachings and the doctrines of devils. Many are called, but few are chosen.
    The Church will prove it's anointing, not by saying it is the Church, but by storming the gates of hell and being victorious.
    Note that gates do not move. They are defensive structures. That means in order for them to not prevail against the Church, the Church must be coming against it. Who is brave enough to face the gates of hell? Who is bold enough, through the power of His Spirit, to storm the very kingdom of hell and set the captives free? Who will be the Church?

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "When will CHRISTIANS wake-up and smell the coffee!!??

    Obama is baaad news!"

    As 'christians' want teachers who 'tickle their ears' they also want a President who does the same thing. Obama looks good and sounds good. That's what they want.

    However, Christians (note the difference in capitalization) want someone with correct Biblical morals and values which are clear in the Bible. Our courts had people who twist the Constitution to fit what they want. The liberals want the same in the White House.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "including me, pushing for full rights for every citizen."

    Our country was founded starting with the Declaration of Independence. It defined rights as being endowed by our creator. Thus, the creator being the one who endowes determines what is a right and what is not.

    Being gay is not a right anymore than the abuse of alchohol or drugs.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Our constitution is not based on the Bible."

    Well... yes and no. I post based on what the Bible says because I am a Christian even if I do not quote chapter and verse. Most who wrote the Constitution were Christians who knew and believed the Bible. Therefore, Biblical principle is written in throughout the document. The Declaration of Independence even talks about rights "endowed by their creator".

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:28 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    True. And the American government will fail us one day, and the United States will fall. But God will never leave us or forsake us.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:36 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, what you say ("If the higher power comes against the Word of God, or tries to force us to do something that is against the will of God, it is our responsiblity to obey God instead of man.") is also, true. You have every right, as a Bible-believing person, to operate in the maner you say. Many other Americans, however, cannot let any religious text trump our constitution. One recent issue comes to mind: the California supreme court ruling on marriage. I think many of the Republican appointees on the court probably are personally opposed to same-sex marriage. Still, when they look at the issue of civil rights, they voted NOT to deny fellow citizens any of the rights that heterosexual couples have. On the other hand, I was personally very sorry about the U.S. supreme courts decision on guns. But that decision came down the only way it could have. Our constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms. The conservatives get upset over one ruling; the liberals over another. Both sides scream, "Activist judges!" But, in fact, the courts are just doing their job as they see they must.

  • Sat Jul 12, 2008 1:37 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Holito,
    That is true. But let it be tempered with common sense. If the higher power comes against the Word of God, or tries to force us to do something that is against the will of God, it is our responsiblity to obey God instead of man.

    (That is for whoever flagged my last post)

  • Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:14 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    holito,
    Amen.
    But remember to temper that with common sense. If the higher power is forcing us to go against the Word of God, then we need to submit to God...not the government.

  • Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Our constitution is not based on the Bible. Sometimes it might be better if it were. But it's not.

    This shows you have a lack to bibical understanding.
    Romans 13
    Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

    2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

  • Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:45 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    One of the best aspects of the presidential election this year is that the Republicans do not HATE Obama, and the Democrats do not HATE McCain.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:05 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    hlerwin,
    I admit I was intrigued when Obama came on the national scene - someone who campaigned against all the stupidity, arrogance, and bureaucracy in Washington. Since then he has shown he's pretty much cut from the same cloth, ready to say whatever has to be said to get elected. Talk far left in the primaries, then jump to the center for the national election, and with such speed to give one whiplash.

    One of my problems is the other things Obama is against: banning the inhumane procedure called partial birth abortion. Another is rendering care to any baby who happens to survive an abortion. It is unconscionable to put such a baby on a shelf until it dies, but that is what Obama voted for.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:02 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Sorry....I have neither the time nor the patience to go through and "correct" all the little boxes that were (mostly, I think) quotation marks in the original. For those of you who will even bother to peruse at "NY Times" article, my apologies......

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:59 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Part 2, Collins

    A year and a half of campaigning and we still haven’t heard Obama’s penguins, either. It’s not his fault that we missed the message — although to be fair, he did make it sound as if getting rid of the “old politics” involved driving out the oil and pharmaceutical lobbyists rather than splitting the difference on federal wiretapping legislation. But if you look at the political fights he’s picked throughout his political career, the main theme is not any ideology. It’s that he hates stupidity. “I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war,” he said in 2002 in his big speech against the invasion of Iraq. He did not, you will notice, say he was against unilateral military action or pre-emptive attacks or nation-building. He was antidumb.

    Most of the things Obama’s taken heat for saying this summer fall into these two familiar patterns — attempts to find a rational common ground on controversial issues and dumb-avoidance.

    On the common-ground front, he’s called for giving more federal money to religious groups that run social programs, but only if the services they offer are secular. People can have guns for hunting and protection, but we should crack down on unscrupulous gun sellers. Putting some restrictions on the government’s ability to wiretap is better than nothing, even though he would rather have gone further.

    Dumb-avoidance would include his opposing the gas-tax holiday, backtracking on the anti-Nafta pandering he did during the primary and acknowledging that if one is planning to go all the way to Iraq to talk to the generals, one should actually pay attention to what the generals say.

    Touching both bases are Obama’s positions that 1) if people are going to ask him every day why he’s not wearing a flag pin, it’s easier to just wear the pin, for heaven’s sake, and 2) there’s nothing to be gained by getting into a fight over whether the death penalty can be imposed on child rapists.

    His decision to ditch public campaign financing, on the other hand, was nothing but a complete, total, purebred flip-flop. If you are a person who feels campaign finance reform is the most important issue facing America right now, you should either vote for John McCain or go home and put a pillow over your head. However, I believe I have met every single person in the country for whom campaign finance reform is the tiptop priority, and their numbers are not legion.

    Meanwhile, Obama has made it clear what issues he thinks all this cleverness and compromising are supposed to serve: national health care, a smart energy policy and getting American troops out of Iraq. He has tons of other concerns, but those seem to be the top three. There’s definitely a penguin in there somewhere.

  • Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:59 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Admittedly, this "NY Times" columnist was writing for a "liberal" readership. Still, her ideas bear posting here.

    The Audacity of Listening
    By Gail Collins
    July 10, 2008

    We have to have a talk about Barack Obama.
    I know, I know. You’re upset. You think the guy you fell in love with last spring is spending the summer flip-flopping his way to the right. Drifting to the center. Going all moderate on you. So you’re withholding the love. Also possibly the money.
    I feel your pain. I just don’t know what candidate you’re talking about.
    Think back. Why, exactly, did you prefer Obama over Hillary Clinton in the first place? Their policies were almost identical — except his health care proposal was more conservative. You liked Barack because you thought he could get us past the old brain-dead politics, right? He talked — and talked and talked — about how there were going to be no more red states and blue states, how he was going to bring Americans together, including Republicans and Democrats.
    Exactly where did everybody think this gathering was going to take place? Left field?
    When an extremely intelligent politician tells you over and over and over that he is tired of the take-no-prisoners politics of the last several decades, that he is going to get things done and build a “new consensus,” he is trying to explain that he is all about compromise. Even if he says it in that great Baracky way.
    Here’s a helpful story: Once upon a time, there was a woman searching for a guy who was ready to commit. One day, she met an attractive young man.
    “My name is Chuck,” he said, grinning an infectious grin. “I’m planning to devote my entire life to saving endangered wildlife in the Antarctic. In five weeks I leave for the South Pole, where I will live alone in a tent, trying to convince the penguins that I am part of their flock. In the meantime, would you like to go out?”
    “I have just met the man I’m going to marry,” she told her friends. She had been betrayed by poor listening skills, which skipped right over the South Pole and the tent. Of course, after five weeks of heavy dating, Chuck flew away and was never heard from again.

    See Part 2, above.)

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links