How Church Attendance Affects American Attitudes toward Israel

What role does religion play in American attitudes towards Israel? An analysis by Frank Newport, the editor-in-‎chief of Gallup Inc., reviews 14 annual Gallup polls from 2001 to 2014, in which respondents answer the same ‎question: “In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with the Israelis or more with the ‎Palestinians?” The numbers offer insights different from what one might expect. ‎

The study starts with two basic facts: First, looking at the whole sample of about 14,000 American adults, 59 ‎percent answer that they have more sympathy for Israelis and 16 percent say they have more sympathy for ‎Palestinians, a ratio of almost 4-to-1. Second, Newport finds that “religious Americans are significantly more ‎likely than less religious Americans to be sympathetic to the Israelis,” confirming what common sense already ‎tells us. ‎

That said, his numbers contain several noteworthy subtleties: ‎

  • A near-linear relationship exists between church attendance and outlook (see image 2, above): 66 percent of weekly or almost-‎weekly church-goers favor Israel, as do 58 percent of monthly and seldom church-goers and 46 percent ‎of never church-goers. Conversely, sympathy toward the Palestinians is also near-linear: 13 percent, 16 ‎percent, and 23 percent, respectively.
  • In both cases, any church attendance at all makes Christians more alike to each other vs. those who never ‎attend, a difference that has somewhat widened recently.
  • When one looks at religious group (see image 3, above), Jews, Mormons, and non-Catholic Christians are the most pro-Israel; ‎Catholics match the national average; other religious groups and the non-religious are the least pro-Israel. ‎
  • Political views and religiosity both influence Americans’ view -- but as independent variables. ‎
  • Political views matter more than religiosity: “Nonreligious Republicans are more likely to sympathize with ‎Israelis than highly religious Democrats."‎
  • Church attendance has more of an impact on Republican views than on Democratic ones. ‎
  • Israel brings together two very politically dissimilar groups, church-attending Republican Christians and ‎Jewish Democrats.‎

Some reflections on these figures: ‎

  1. Although religiosity helps explain the difference between the United States and Europe, politics has more ‎importance: that even irreligious Americans favor Israel 2-to-1 marks them as very different from their European ‎counterparts. ‎
  2. Given the prominence of Jewish anti-Zionists in the academy, the media, and in Hollywood, the 93-to-2 ‎Jewish support for Israel comes as a surprise, suggesting that the most accomplished and articulate Jews tend to ‎be disproportionately hostile to Israel. Perhaps this is their way of fitting into the leftist institutions where they ‎work and hope to succeed?

  3. One wishes the “Protestant” category provided further details on the various denominations. How much do ‎the mainline churches differ from the evangelical ones? Do the adherents of anti-Israel churches follow their ‎leadership in this regard? Are there important changes over time? Gallup should inform us about this in the ‎future. ‎
  4. Muslims are lumped in with other non-Christians but have a unique profile. In Canada, whose Muslim ‎population differs substantially from the American Muslim community, pro-Israel Muslims number about 20 percent. I estimate ‎that pro-Israel American Muslims number half that percentage or less. Also of note: Religiosity among Muslims ‎has the opposite influence of religiosity among Christians, making them less pro-Israel. ‎

In conclusion, Israel benefits from the fact that Americans remain in large part a religious people. But declining ‎religiosity bodes ill for the Jewish state. ‎

Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum.

Daniel Pipes, a historian, has led the Middle East Forum since its founding in 1994. He taught at Chicago, Harvard, Pepperdine, and the U.S. Naval War College. He served in five U.S. administrations, received two presidential appointments, and testified before many congressional committees. The author of 16 books on the Middle East, Islam, and other topics, Mr. Pipes writes a column for the Washington Times and the Spectator; his work has been translated into 39 languages. DanielPipes.org contains an archive of his writings and media appearances; he tweets at @DanielPipes. He received both his A.B. and Ph.D. from Harvard. The Washington Post deems him “perhaps the most prominent U.S. scholar on radical Islam.” Al-Qaeda invited Mr. Pipes to convert and Edward Said called him an “Orientalist.”
See more from this Author
A Weaker U.S. May Compel Allies to Increase Strength
October 7 Changed Everything in Israel, They Said. But Did It?
The Array of Threats Facing Israel Make It Unlike Any Other Contemporary State
See more on this Topic
I recently witnessed something I haven’t seen in a long time. On Friday, August 16, 2024, a group of pro-Hamas activists packed up their signs and went home in the face of spirited and non-violent opposition from a coalition of pro-American Iranians and American Jews. The last time I saw anything like that happen was in 2006 or 2007, when I led a crowd of Israel supporters in chants in order to silence a heckler standing on the sidewalk near the town common in Amherst, Massachusetts. The ridicule was enough to prompt him and his fellow anti-Israel activists to walk away, as we cheered their departure. It was glorious.