New York City -- As public officials continue to wrestle with hot-button issues rangingfrom abortion to gay rights to the death penalty, they may find thinner ranks ofAmericans supporting compromise, although slim majorities still do.

Those are some of the findings from a national survey by the nonprofit, nonpartisanresearch organization Public Agenda that compares how Americans' views of religion inpublic life have changed between the years 2000 and 2004. The survey (conducted beforethe November election) found a smaller number of Americans who believe that deeplyreligious elected officials sometimes have to compromise in the political arena, withmajor decreases among those who attend religious services weekly.
For example, in 2000, 84% of Americans overall said Even elected officials who aredeeply religious sometimes have to make compromises and set their convictions aside to get results while in government. In 2004, that number had dropped to 74%, with evensharper drops among weekly service attenders (82% in 2000 vs. 63% in 2004) andEvangelicals (79% in 2000 vs. 63% in 2004).

On abortion, gay rights and the death penalty, the majority of Americans who attendservices weekly now say that deeply religious politicians should stick to their ownreligious beliefs rather than be willing to compromise.
Compromise has a long and important history in American politics, said Ruth A.Wooden, President of Public Agenda. But in 2004, there were more Americans whowanted elected officials to keep their religious principles in mind when they vote on issues like abortion and gay rights. We found double-digit decreases in support forcompromise on these issues among those who attend services weekly and amongCatholics. The changes are really quite dramatic.

Thinning Support for Compromise

While a majority of Americans still want their elected officials to compromise, theirranks are dissipating significantly among certain groups.

When asked if they agree with the statement, Even elected officials who are deeplyreligious sometimes have to make compromises and set their convictions aside to getresults while in government, Americans said:

Abortion, Gay Rights and the Death Penalty

Support for compromise on specific issues such as abortion, gay rights and the deathpenalty has dropped to fairly slim majorities. When asked if deeply religious electedofficials should vote based on their own religious views or if they should be willing tocompromise, Americans said:

General Public:

Those who attend services at least once a week or who identify themselves as Catholicsshowed dramatic shifts in outlook.

Attend Religious Services Once a Week:

Catholics:

Time to Talk About Compromise

For many, compromise is essential in a diverse society, Ms. Wooden noted about theimplications of the study. But others see compromise as a retreat from core values andbeliefs. What this research suggests is that this nation is still struggling with thechallenges and benefits of compromising on difficult issues and working through the roleof religion in public life.

The System Can Handle It, but Growing Concern Among the Non-Religious

Remaining unchanged since 2000 is Americans' belief that the U.S. political system canhandle greater interaction between religion and politics. Moving away from the topic ofpolitical leaders and looking at the role of religious leaders (such as ministers, rabbis and priests), the research asked Americans whether the system would be threatened ifreligious leaders and groups got a lot more involved in politics. 63% of Americans in2000 and 61% in 2004 believed that the political system could easily handle this. A third of Americans, however (31% in 2000 and 33% in 2004) continue to believe the system would be threatened.

Not surprisingly, Americans who are non-religious and those who never attend services are far more likely to say the political system would be threatened by religious leaders and groups getting a lot more involved (56% of non-religious Americans in 2000 and 47% of them in 2004; 49% of those who never attend church services agreed in 2000 and 47% of them agreed in 2004). But from 2000 to 2004, there was a significant 6-point increase (22% to 28%) in the number of Americans who think it is a negative forreligious leaders to take public positions on legislation and to encourage congregations toadopt certain points of view.

Avoiding Offending Others vs. Spreading the Word of God

Elected officials and clergy aside, in 2000, 18% of Americans said that deeply religiouspeople should keep their faith private and 46% said people should be very careful aboutspreading the word of God so as not to offend others for a 64% majority. Thatcombined number has dropped to 57%. Meanwhile, the percentage of people who said that the deeply religious should spread the word of God whenever they can is up 6 points (from 35% to 41%).

Summary

This research indicates that in the past four years there has been an across-the-boarddecline in support for political compromise on some controversial issues, with the declineespecially strong among those who attend religious services weekly and those who are Catholic.

Methodology

This analysis is based on two national telephone surveys of randomly selected adults aged 18 and older. The baseline survey, which was published in a 2000 Public Agenda report entitled For Goodness' Sake: Why So ManyWant Religion to Play a Greater Role in American Life, included 1,507 adults and was conducted between November 4 and November 25, 2000; it averaged 30 minutes in length. The tracking survey included 1,004 adults and included 359 Catholics, 208 individuals who identify themselves as non-religious, 444 non-Evangelical Protestants, and 368Evangelicals. Of those surveyed, 230 attend religious services more than once per week, 333 attend once a week, and 194 never attend services. The survey was conducted between July 28 and August 2, 2004; it averaged 13 minutes in length. The margin of error for both surveys is plus or minus three percentage points; it is higher when comparing percentages across subgroups.

The sample was selected through a standard, random-digit-dialing technology whereby every household in the 48 contiguous states had an equal chance of being contacted, including those with unlisted numbers. The surveys werefielded by Robinson and Muenster Associates, Inc., and sample was provided by Survey Sampling, Inc.

The questionnaire was designed by Public Agenda, and Public Agenda is responsible for all interpretation of the data reflected in this analysis. As in all surveys, question order and other non-sampling sources of error can sometimes affect results. Steps were taken to minimize these, including pre-testing the survey instruments and randomizing the order in which some questions and answer categories were read.

The 2004 survey data were weighted by age to ensure that the demographic characteristics of the sample closely approximate the demographic characteristics of the national population of adults. The weighting parameters were derived using Census 2000 data. For a comparison of the weighted and unweighted data, please refer to the CompleteSurvey Results -- Religion and Public Life 2000-2004.

Public Agenda is a nonprofit organization dedicated to nonpartisan public policy research. Founded in 1975 by former U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and Daniel Yankelovich, the social scientist and author, Public Agenda is well respected for its influential public opinion surveys and balanced citizen education materials. Its mission is to inject the public's voice into crucial policy debates. Public Agenda seeks to inform leaders about the public's views and to engage citizens in discussing complex policy issues.