The ever useful Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has released a new survey. The focus falls on attitudes toward the recent push by the Catholic Bishops to highlight the threats posed to religious liberty.
Results aren’t too surprising. If you’re a Catholic and have heard about the concerns surrounding the HHS contraceptive mandate, you’re more likely to agree with the bishops (56%) than if you’re an atheist (8%). If you go to Mass frequently, you’re more likely to agree (68%) than if you don’t go frequently (49%). If you’re a Catholic who agrees with the bishops that there are threats to religious liberty in current policies, then you’re likely to support Romney (60% to 34% for Obama), and if you don’t you’re in Obama’s camp (78% to 19%).
In sum: if you’re going to church regularly, the bishops’ message resonates. This includes Evangelicals (55% of those who heard of the bishops’ protests agree, while 31% disagree). Meanwhile, if you don’t go to church or are a liberal Protestant—or if you’re inclined to support Obama in any case, you are much less likely to be troubled.
As I said, not surprising. However there are some interesting nuances. First, 41% of Catholics who call themselves Democrats agree with the bishops about threats to religious liberty. That’s a much higher percentage than Democrats more generally (only 28% of all Democrats agree with the bishops). There is a less dramatic but significant margin among Catholic independents (54% agree with the bishops as compared to 40% of all independents). Whether this will move the needle one or two percentage points in the tally in November is an interesting question. This survey suggests that it won’t.
There is another interesting set of results. Concerns about religious liberty have become a partisan issue. Republicans largely agree with the bishops’ protest (62% to 23%), while Democrats are mirror opposites, largely disagreeing (62% to 28%). This fits with a larger trend that I have been following. The Democratic Party is becoming the secular party, while the Republican Party, although less pure, is increasingly the religious party. Douglas Laycock, a prominent liberal defender of religious liberty, has expressed concern about this trend. He worries that as religion become associated with one party, our robust constitutional protections of religious liberty will be threatened. The Left will treat the churches the way the Right has come to treat the universities: as partian institutions to be attacked. That’s a legitimate worry that I also share.
Finally, the survey asks respondents about their views of the leadership of the Catholic Church. Good news here. In 2002, in the wake of the sex scandals, 51% of Catholics said that they were very satisfied or satisfied with the leadership of American bishops. This poll reports that 70% answer in the affirmative today.
August 1st, 2012 | 3:53 pm
Greg Sisk on Mirror of Justice said the following in a comment recently:
The paper mentioned, although rather far above my head (especially when it came to statistical analysis), was fascinating, and my feeling was that at last we had some actual empirical evidence on the differences between Republicans and Democrats on religious liberty issues.
August 1st, 2012 | 4:11 pm
This suggests that appointments to the federal judiciary and to SCOTUS may well prove the most enduring part of a president’s legacy.
August 1st, 2012 | 5:17 pm
Fascinating numbers. If I may I’d like to throw in my two cents on the religious liberty issue, which is at http://traditium.com/2012/07/18/on-religious-freedom/. Perhaps a few more folks can be persuaded as to the importance of this issue.
JD
August 2nd, 2012 | 10:36 am
I am also concerned about the Republican party becoming the de facto “religious” party. But what can one do? Like many people brought up as Democrats, I have had to leave the party as it progressively became both aggressively secular and downright hostile to religion. I tried to be a “Democrat for Life” and all the rest, but the leadership of the party has no sympathy with these subgroups and people, all of which/whom have abandoned their principles. Remember Casey Jr’s disgraceful speech at the DNC, at which it became clear that the Democrats would allow members to hold pro-life viewpoints but not to do anything about them? The parties have shifted before, and it looks as if this is going to be an enduring shift we will just have to deal with.
August 2nd, 2012 | 11:01 am
[...] Catholics and Religious Liberty R.R. Reno, First Things The ever useful Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has released a new survey. The focus falls on attitudes toward the recent push by the Catholic Bishops to highlight the threats posed to religious liberty. [...]
August 2nd, 2012 | 11:13 am
Concerns about religious liberty have become a partisan issue.
This isn’t surprising, given that one political party – and only one – is now claiming that some ideas (beliefs, thoughts) are so important that there is no right to question them.
There is only one acceptable way to believe about birth control, abortion, gay marriage, etc. and this is more important than any outdated old Constitution.
August 2nd, 2012 | 12:12 pm
[...] question we hear a lot is “isn’t the accumulation of wealth wrong?” In a word, no.Catholics and Religious Liberty R.R. Reno, First ThingsThe ever useful Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has released a new [...]
August 2nd, 2012 | 3:30 pm
“Democratic-appointed judges were predicted to uphold Establishment Clause challenges at a 57.3 percent rate, while the predicted probability of success fell to 25.4 percent before Republican-appointed judges.”
Let us keep in mind that the “establishment” clause is different from the “free-exercise” clause. Among other things, the “Establishment” clause is used to strike down religious displays (e.g. nativity scenes, posting of ten commandments) and government efforts to aid religious instutitions (e.g. government support of parochial schools). It is the “free exercise” clause that is implicated by the contraceptive mandate.
That being said, there are certainly many conservative jurists and scholars who take a narrow view of the “free-exercise” clause based upon “originalists” constitutional jurisprudence. Two prominent Catholics who come to mind are Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court and Professor Gerard Bradley, a professor at Notre Dame’s law school. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith case, which created a furor by adopting a narrow interpretation of the free exersice clause. Professor Bradley, is a strong opponent of the contraceptive mandate, but agrees generally with Scalia’s views on the “free exercise” clause and doubts that the mandate can be properly struck down on constitutional grounds.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact