Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Saturday, August 23, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments |

Document More Americans Question Religion's Role in Politics

by PewResearchCenter Publications

Re-posted from: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/930/religion-politics

More Americans Question Religion's Role in Politics
Some Social Conservative Disillusionment


Some Americans are having a change of heart about mixing religion and politics. A new survey finds a narrow majority of the public saying that churches and other houses of worship should keep out of political matters and not express their views on day-to-day social and political matters. For a decade, majorities of Americans had voiced support for religious institutions speaking out on such issues.

The new national survey by the Pew Research Center reveals that most of the reconsideration of the desirability of religious involvement in politics has occurred among conservatives. Four years ago, just 30% of conservatives believed that churches and other houses of worship should stay out of politics. Today, 50% of conservatives express this view.

As a result, conservatives' views on this issue are much more in line with the views of moderates and liberals than was previously the case. Similarly, the sharp divisions between Republicans and Democrats that previously existed on this issue have disappeared.

There are other signs in the new poll about a potential change in the climate of opinion about mixing religion and politics. First, the survey finds a small but significant increase since 2004 in the percentage of respondents saying that they are uncomfortable when they hear politicians talk about how religious they are -- from 40% to 46%. Again, the increase in negative sentiment about religion and politics is much more apparent among Republicans than among Democrats.

Second, while the Republican Party is most often seen as the party friendly toward religion, the Democratic Party has made gains in this area. Nearly four-in-ten (38%) now say the Democratic Party is generally friendly toward religion, up from just 26% two years ago. Nevertheless, considerably more people (52%) continue to view the GOP as friendly toward religion.

The poll by Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life finds increasing numbers of Americans believing that religiously-defined ideological groups have too much control over the parties themselves. Nearly half (48%) say religious conservatives have too much influence over the Republican Party, up from 43% in August 2007. At the same time, more people say that liberals who are not religious have too much sway over the Democrats than did so last year (43% today vs. 37% then).

Social Conservatives' Discontents

In addition to somewhat greater worries about the way religious and non-religious groups are influencing the parties, the survey suggests that frustration and disillusionment among social conservatives may be a part of the reason why a greater number now think that religious institutions should keep out of politics. However, there is little to suggest that social conservatives want religion to be a less important element in American politics.

The greatest increases since 2004 in the view that churches and other houses of worship should not express themselves on political matters have occurred among less educated Republicans and people who say that social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage will be important to their vote. For example, among people who rate gay marriage as a top voting issue, the percentage saying that churches should stay out of politics soared from 25% in 2004 to 50% currently; there was little change over this period on this question among people who do not view same-sex marriage as a very important issue.

Another indication that disillusionment may be in play in increased opposition to the mixing of religion and politics is seen in the fact that this sentiment has increased most among people who rate the major parties as unfriendly toward religion. The views of citizens who see the parties as neutral or friendly toward religion have been more stable on the question of whether churches and other houses of worship should speak out on political issues.

In short, the change of mind about the role of religious institutions in politics is most apparent among people who are most concerned about the very issues that churches and other houses of worship have focused on, and among those who fault the parties for their friendliness toward religion.

Changes in views about the role of churches in politics notwithstanding, many of the contours of American public opinion relating to broad questions of religion and politics remain largely unchanged. Two-thirds of the public (66%) say that churches and other houses of worship should not endorse one candidate over another, which is unchanged since 2004 (65%). And while most say it is important for presidents to have strong religious beliefs, they are divided about whether there currently is too much, or too little, in the way of expressions of faith by contemporary political leaders. Roughly comparable numbers say political leaders express their religious beliefs too much (29%), too little (36%) or the right amount (28%).

Despite their increased reluctance to see religious institutions speaking out on politics, conservatives and Republicans continue to express very strong support for a religious president and relatively high levels of support for expressions of religious faith and prayer by political leaders.

Soft Support Among Social Conservatives for McCain

While some social conservatives are expressing changed views about religion and politics, there is little indication that they are changing their voting preferences: John McCain has about as large a lead over Barack Obama among conservatives and white evangelicals as George Bush did at this stage in the campaign four years ago.

However, as has been the case since June, the current survey shows much more tepid support for McCain among white evangelical Protestants and conservatives generally than Bush enjoyed in August 2004. Just 28% of white evangelical Protestants say they are strong backers of the Arizona senator. Four years ago, 57% of white evangelicals described themselves as strong backers of President Bush.

As was the case in previous presidential elections, the voting inclinations of Catholic voters -- especially white non-Hispanic Catholics -- remain fluid. Four years ago at this time John Kerry held a slight edge over Bush among white non-Hispanic Catholics; but he lost that lead by the election. In the current poll, this group, which accounts for 18% of the electorate, is divided almost evenly: 45% support McCain, while 44% favor Obama.
Other Findings

The survey was conducted by telephone -- both landline phones and cell phones -- from July 31-Aug. 10 among a national sample of 2,905 adults. It finds that as the Democratic Party's advantage in party identification has grown, there have been some notable changes in party affiliation within key religious groups. In 2008, about half of registered voters (51%) identify themselves as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party, while just 38% identify as Republicans or Republican leaners. In 2004, Democrats held only a slight, three-point advantage in party affiliation (47% to 44%).

While white non-Hispanic Catholics are divided in their presidential choices, they are increasingly identifying as Democrats. In surveys conducted this year, 49% of white non-Hispanic Catholics either affiliate with or lean toward the Democratic Party, while 40% identify with the GOP. In 2004, 47% of white non-Hispanic Catholics identified with the GOP while 45% affiliated with the Democratic Party.

The survey finds that the economy continues to dominate the concerns of voters. Nearly nine-in-ten (87%) say the economy will be very important to their vote this fall, up from 78% in October 2004. Energy has surged among voters' concerns: 77% view energy as very important, compared with only 54% in the closing weeks of the last campaign.

For the most part, the issues that are important to the public as a whole are also important to particular religious groups. However, social issues, such as same-sex marriage, continue to be more important for white evangelicals than for other registered voters. Currently, 46% of white evangelicals say same-sex marriage will be a very important voting issue, compared with 28% of all voters. That is only somewhat less than the percentage of white evangelical voters who viewed same-sex marriage as very important in October 2004 (49%).

Read the full report at people-press.org
http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/445.pdf

Comments 1 - 13 of 13 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #235697 by NewEnglandBob on August 23, 2008 at 12:08 pm

 avatar
In addition to somewhat greater worries about the way religious and non-religious groups are influencing the parties, the survey suggests that frustration and disillusionment among social conservatives may be a part of the reason why a greater number now think that religious institutions should keep out of politics. However, there is little to suggest that social conservatives want religion to be a less important element in American politics.


This sentence contradicts itself.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

2. Comment #235748 by Quine on August 23, 2008 at 1:26 pm

 avatarIt would be good news if it were the result of a desire for strengthening the separation of church and state, but I could not tell if they checked for how much was the desire for someone else's religion to stay out of politics. (As in, "someone from my religion is not speaking from faith, he or she is, after all, just speaking the truth.")

Other Comments by Quine

3. Comment #235835 by newandrew on August 23, 2008 at 5:55 pm

 avatarBe careful of inconclusive polls. In fact, a healthy amount of skepticism regarding polling techniques is incredibly important. If we apply the rigorous standards of scientific methodology to polling, more questions regarding the validity of the polling arise than do meaningful answers (in the case of this Pew poll).

I've seen no evidence to suggest that a poll of 2,905 can accurately characterize the actual positions of tens of millions of registered American voters. Nobody ever talks about this. I'm not a statistician, but the overblown assumptions we draw from such polls seems obvious.

I DO know that campaign consultants spend an inordinate amount of time and donor money massaging and packaging such inconclusive data as Pew is famous for producing. That doesn't mean the data is worth a dime.

Other Comments by newandrew

4. Comment #236052 by FXR on August 24, 2008 at 5:11 am

 avatarPolls are just hints and allegations..

Other Comments by FXR

5. Comment #236059 by Ygern on August 24, 2008 at 5:33 am

 avatarI'm not sure what this means, if anything. The headlines sound promising, but the article seems to contradict itself, as NewEnglandBob pointed out.

The only thing I can identify here is that hardcore Evangelicals haven't quite decided whether McCain is on their side yet.

That's neither here nor there when it comes to separating Church & State.

Other Comments by Ygern

6. Comment #236082 by Logicel on August 24, 2008 at 6:57 am

 avatarWondering if the egregious behavior of some evangelicals and the bad press they have received, is making the religites embarrassed enough to be disgruntled about such bad press, but not because they question their own non-evidential beliefs, but because such bad press is robbing them of the respect they so much crave and demand.

Other Comments by Logicel

7. Comment #236085 by Vaal on August 24, 2008 at 7:07 am

 avatarAh, see the antics of Donohue of the Catholic league and his ilk are coming home to roost.

Good job, the more they spout their crazed nonsense, the better job they do for us.

Of course, they are too stupid to realise that, but they are definitely an asset to rationality, and the fight against such blinkered stupidity.

George Bush has done a great job as well telling the American electorate that God speaks to him. No wonder they are nervous. I certainly am!

Other Comments by Vaal

8. Comment #236132 by Double Bass Atheist on August 24, 2008 at 9:34 am

 avatarThis news is a long time coming.
Slowly, ever so slowly, secular progress is being made.

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

9. Comment #236161 by rod-the-farmer on August 24, 2008 at 10:18 am

 avatarRe Comment 6 by Ygern

The only thing I can identify here is that hardcore Evangelicals haven't quite decided whether McCain is on their side yet.

There is a silver lining here. IF repeat IF these fundies decide they cannot vote for McCain, AND they choose not to hold their noses and vote for Obama, then that leaves them with no chance of affecting the election. So no matter which one gets in, he will not feel accountable to fundies who voted for him. Sounds like progress to me. Self-marginalisation.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

10. Comment #236261 by capacitor76 on August 24, 2008 at 12:14 pm

I've seen no evidence to suggest that a poll of 2,905 can accurately characterize the actual positions of tens of millions of registered American voters. Nobody ever talks about this. I'm not a statistician, but the overblown assumptions we draw from such polls seems obvious.


If my memory serves, a random sample of 3,000 out of 200 million is around 95 per cent likely to be representative of the total, and when you ask yes/no questions, there's nothing ambiguous about the replies, either. Election prognoses in the U.S. are usually based on polls of 30,000 or so individuals, giving 99 per cent probability of accuracy. The polls done using this method on the election day itself have always proven to be very close to the actual result, so that would be empirical evidence (not needed, though, since it can be proven mathematically anyway).

The question has to asked, however, whether Pew's criteria for sample selection actually produce a random sample. In one of their recent surveys (the one with 1.6 per cent atheists, part of whom strongly believed in God) things seemed to be pretty messed up.

Other Comments by capacitor76

11. Comment #236300 by esuther on August 24, 2008 at 1:01 pm

I find myself agreeing with newandrew. 3,000 can't possible give a good picture of such a widely diverse population as the entire United States.
How did they make sure the respondents were truly random? WHO did they poll?
If it was a telephone poll, it would be tilted toward the people who tend to be at home during the day: that is, women without jobs. If an internet poll, it would query more of the young. Or the politically engaged who would bother to respond.
So I want to know: Did they poll the full spectrum of ages? Of economic classes? Of educational levels? Was it truly nation-wide?
In all, 3,000 seems like nothing to me. I lived in Manhattan with that many people on my BLOCK, for Jeebus' sake.

Other Comments by esuther

12. Comment #236346 by Lucas on August 24, 2008 at 2:16 pm

 avatarnewanderw and esuther - I've said it before, I'll say it again, I'll say it a million times: Pew study = crap. I am getting really sick of bad journalism basing itself on bad social science.

Other Comments by Lucas

13. Comment #236730 by ICONIC FREEDOM on August 25, 2008 at 8:08 am

 avatarAnd all this time Democrats have been railing against Republicans as though they cornered the market on religion, its influence and manipulations:

Democrats Faith Convention

Other Comments by ICONIC FREEDOM
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: