Browse By

Poll Reveals Many Republicans Want Religious Freedom Only For Christians

Our Irregular Times writer Jim has noted examples of Republican presidential candidates and voters deciding that religious liberty in the United States ought to be granted only to Christians, not to other Americans. This week, the existence of this attitude was confirmed by a survey conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

88 percent of Republican respondents to the poll said that it is important to protect the religious liberty of Christians, but only 60 of these same respondents said that protecting the religious liberty of Muslims or atheists is important. That means that 28 percent of Republican respondents supported religious liberty for Christians but not for Muslims and atheists. Add the 12 percent of Republican respondents who indicated that it isn’t important to protect the religious liberty of anybody, and you’ve got a large majority of the GOP that harbors animosity to religious freedom.

The sort of religious liberty these Republicans support is akin to the philosophy of aesthetic choice offered by Henry Ford, who told customers that they could buy a Model T in any color, “as long as it’s black”. Religious liberty that applies only to members of one religion is not religious liberty at all.

To be fair, we should point out that it’s not just Republicans who have a bad attitude toward religious liberty. The same poll shows that 16 percent of Democrats believe that while it’s important for Christians to have religious liberty, protecting religious liberty for Muslims and atheists doesn’t matter.

11 thoughts on “Poll Reveals Many Republicans Want Religious Freedom Only For Christians”

  1. ella says:

    “88 percent of Republican respondents to the poll said that it is important to protect the religious liberty of Christians, but only 60 of these same respondents said that protecting the religious liberty of Muslims or atheists is important. That means that 28 percent of Republican respondents supported religious liberty for Christians but not for Muslims and atheists. Add the 12 percent of Republican respondents who indicated that it isn’t important to protect the religious liberty of anybody, and you’ve got a large majority of the GOP that harbors animosity to religious freedom.”

    Peregrin Wood, 88% is a very large percentage of respondents to say that they support religious protections for any religion other than their own. And certainly, if asked, I doubt you would be as concerned about someone else’s religion being protected. Might care, but not as much. That is like saying you personally like sushi, but you do not care if someone else does. Everyone has the right to eat it, but not every one wants to. Just because someone is not personally and emotionally involved with someone else’s lifestyle does not mean they “harbor animosity” toward those people or decry their right to live that way.

    And fewer Democrats enjoy religion at all.

  2. J Clifford says:

    Ella, I don’t think that you understand what the poll shows. 88 percent of Republican respondents want to protect CHRISTIAN religious liberty – and most of those Republicans are Christian. They aren’t expressing support for someone else’s religion.

    Only 60 percent of Republicans – a few of whom are themselves Muslim or atheist, are willing to support religious liberty for Muslims or atheists.

    Do you catch the difference?

  3. ella says:

    Yes, I understood that 88% of respondents saying they are Christians, were surveyed, said they want to protect Christian Liberty. The rest must not have been Christians, as of course they too would have wanted to protect Christian liberties. Of the surveyed respondents, only 60% said they were Republican, partially Muslim and Atheists, also wish to support religious liberty. You did acknowledge that of the respondents, there were also those who said they were Democrats and of the same opinions. You are weighing the information to try to make a negative point. I have just removed the bias.

  4. Korky Day says:

    I am for religious liberty for people who are for my religious liberty. As Muslims oppose my religious liberty (as commanded by the Koran), I don’t support them in trying to destroy my liberty and my life.

    Maybe if they pass a lie detector which determines that they reject all the parts of the Koran and their religion that encourage them to kill non-threatening infidels like me, then I’ll feel safe around them. Relatively safe, that is, because there are no fool-proof lie detectors.

    1. J Clifford says:

      So, are you against religious liberty for Christians who believe that their religion commands them to follow the path of Inquisition, and kill all heretics?

      What government body do you think should have the power to decide whether someone’s beliefs about religion are legal?

      1. Korky Day says:

        That’s about right, J Clifford. When Christians thus declare war on us, their religious rights become moot as they and we fight a war and, ideally, negotiate peace. Sometimes such things can be contained by police and the courts without resorting to military.

        When Christians shoot up abortion clinics they cannot hide behind a religious shield, as I guess you would like to hand to them. ‘Oh, but they are breaking a law!’, I can almost hear you say. Yes, and so are those who, by adhering to the Koran, threaten to kill us (now or later) or encourage others to kill us. Maybe no new laws or government agencies are needed. All the defensive weapons we need probably are already in law in both Canada and the USA. We just need leadership willing to defend us. Start with criminal charges against those who advocate killing us, hiding behind ‘religious freedom’, including in mosques. We already have police and prosecuting attorneys. Why would we need new government agencies or policies?

        I’ve already answered your similar question with my comment herein (below) which begins ‘Korky Day January 2, 2016 at 8:50 pm · Reply → No, J Clifford, I will not . . .’

        I remember the Red hunts of the 1950s. Those commies merely wanted to spread the wealth and end poverty and religious domination. They didn’t want to kill all non-Communists. Koran-believing Muslims want to kill all non-Muslims. Let them tell a judge or jury that they don’t really believe what’s in their holy book. In some cases they will persuade a judge or jury, in some cases they won’t.

  5. Leroy says:

    J,C. C.,

    More specifically, I would think that your question should be: what government body in CANADA should have that power?

    Fortunately, I have also found that simply NOT reading Ella’s replies has caused a lot of my severe headaches to go away. I start to, but then the WTH pounding in the head starts so I just skip it.

    1. ella says:

      Leroy, you are a Diva.

  6. Korky Day says:

    No, J Clifford, I will not hand a loaded revolver to a Christian who’s sworn to kill me because I lost my Christian faith in 1965.

    As far as government bodies, I’m not sure, J and Leroy.
    The laws and/or courts of Germany, I think, have determined that Scientology is an illegal cult, not a religion.
    Maybe we can try that and other sanctions in Canada and the USA against intolerant terrorist Muslims.

    Also, there is a federal law here in Canada against threatening.
    If I tell someone that I’m going to kill or injure them, that’s a crime, even if I do nothing more. A justified limitation on freedom of speech. Maybe that could apply to people who adhere to the Koran. Of course, the Bible has commands which are almost as bad as those which are in the Koran.

    So maybe the Communist Revolution of 1917 was right in wanting to overthrow religion in Russia. Next year is the centenary.

    Right after the church was overthrown then as a ruling body of Russia, people all rushed out to the lakes and streams of Russia to skinny dip in the spring. Will Rogers wrote about it. What a great celebration that must have been!

    If you don’t go nude among family and friends nowadays, maybe you’re still a bit brain-washed by religion, even if you think that you are red-blooded atheist.

    1. J Clifford says:

      A cult is a religion you don’t like. So, who gets to decide what’s an illegal cult and what’s an approved, legal religion?

      How about we let the law deal with people according to what they do, not what they believe? If someone’s threatening someone else, doing harassment, arrest them for that, not for the religious beliefs that lead them to conduct the harassment.

      1. Korky Day says:

        Then we mostly agree. See my earlier comments above.

        A temporary moratorium on new Muslims, though, could give us time to rearrange our defences.

        The question remains, though, why is our political leadership not prosecuting more people who threaten terror? Who preach the Koran? Because of cowardice and knowing that a fearful, panicky electorate is not such a bad thing when you want to rob the poor to pay the rich. I advocate calmly stopping those who threaten us.

        If there were a Christian preacher today advocating [As allowed by the Lord,] ‘they are gathering and dividing the plunder—a girl or two for each man to rape!’ —Holy Bible, Judges 5:30 and
        ‘Slaves, submit with all fear to your masters, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.’ —Holy Bible, 1 Peter 2:18, I’d say we should prosecute those preachers, too.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!