As stated, Pop was an atheist.
2. His Indonesian step-father was a Muslim when he adopted him.
True, but of a brand of relaxed Islam that was till recently dominant in Indonesia. Not very focused on jihad.
3. He was registered as a Muslim in Indonesia, where he studied the Koran, attended mosque services, and spoke the prayers that make you a Muslim.
A child less than 10 years old repeats whatever he is told to repeat. This does not necessarily, or even usually, constitute an effective lifelong commitment as to religion. The paperwork of a small school cannot be considered valid evidence of anything in a man's beliefs 40 years later.
4. There is no baptismal certificate in evidence. He said he attended a “Christian church,” but has never said that he was baptized. And his “church” was in practical fact a Black Muslim church, run by a former Black Muslim minister, which publicly announced that Muslims could be members without being baptized or renouncing their faith.
Offhand, I can't recall any public figure producing a Baptismal Certificate to "prove" his Christianity. Can you? Don't you think there are a great many Christians who have no such certificate? I happen to be one of them. Am I therefore a Muslim?
And, no, Rev. Wright was never a Black Muslim. He's a really poor Christian, IMO, and friendly with BMs, because they also hate white people, but he's always been affiliated with "Christian" groups.
5. If he had abandoned his childhood Muslim faith, numerous fatwahs would have been issued against him, calling for his death. Nothing of the kind has ever happened. The only obvious explanation is that all those extremist Muslim clerics do not believe that he HAS abandoned their faith. He has quietly assured them that he is still a Muslim, while using with Takiya to fool the unbelievers in America.
Really, really silly "argument." How exactly would he get this claim out uniformly to millions of utterly disorganized Muslim groups, with all of them keeping the communication a secret from the rest of the world?
6. At every opportunity he has worked against Christianity and in favor of Islam, but at home and abroad.
Arguably true. Most, probably all, of this can be explained at least equally well by anti-Americanism or anti-Western Civ, not anti-Christianity.
Is this proof positive? Not quite. But I’d call it about 99.9999% certain. How else to explain all this?
I think each of your arguments either falls apart or is at best highly questionable when examined in detail. So there's no need to explain anything other than why some Americans want to project deep religious faith onto a politician who has never exhibited the slightest evidence he has any. He's a garden variety anti-American, anti-Western Civ liberal socialist.
His views are a great deal more anti than they are pro. IOW, he, in common with the vast majority of those who think like him, are a lot more clear on what they're against than on what they are in favor of. This is why they can shift so quickly from focusing on environmentalism to being feminists or OWS types. All of these are opposed to "America" as they see it, so that's all that matters.