Mayor George Washburn of Nevada, Missouri, released a statement on December 21, 1993, complying with a request by the Freedom From Religion Foundation that he rescind his proclamation declaring 1994 to be "A Year of Bible Reading."
The Foundation made the request on behalf of a Nevada, Missouri Foundation member, after being sent a copy of the November proclamation. The proclamation called for "renewing knowledge and faith in God through Holy Scripture reading," called the bible "the Word of God," and concluded:
"Now therefore, I, George Washburn, Mayor of Nevada, Missouri, in conjunction with Christians Together, the Saints of God, and a host of others, do hereby proclaim the year 1994 as 'A Year of Bible Reading' in Nevada, Missouri and urge all Saints to study the Holy Scriptures and apply their teachings in all your actions and interactions."
On December 3, Foundation staff member Annie Laurie Gaylor wrote to protest the Mayor's misuse of office to proselytize:
"As President Thomas Jefferson noted, in refusing to make any religious or thanksgiving proclamations during his eight-year tenure: 'civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.' "
Gaylor alerted Mayor Washburn to the Foundation's successful lawsuit against the Mayor of Denver in November, 1993, when he proclaimed a single "Day of Prayer." Mayor Washburn was sent documentation of the action on Nov. 13, 1993, by Dist. Judge John McMullen enjoining the Mayor of Denver from promoting, endorsing, or sponsoring, in his official capacity, a "Day of Prayer."
"We trust you will rescind your equally improper proclamation prior to 1994 to correct this First Amendment violation."
Mayor Washburn noted, in his public retraction:
"As indicated in the complaint, I have misused the official capacity of this office by urging citizens, as stated in the proclamation, to 'study the Holy Scriptures,' which appears to be in violation of the concept of the separation of church and state.
"Therefore, due to my error, I will rescind this proclamation which was issued in November of 1993. I apologize to the Christian Together Organization for any embarrassment this action may cause."
Gaylor called the Dec. 21 rescission "a nice Winter Solstice present--to have a mayor not only understand the importance of government neutrality but to be willing to rescind an inappropriate proclamation, and offer an abject apology, is remarkably refreshing!"
Wisconsin feminists could not have chosen a more appropriate date on which to pay tribute to Anne Gaylor, president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, for her more than 30 years of abortion rights activism.
The Wisconsin chapter of the National Organization for Women and 140 friends and colleagues honored Anne at a banquet in Madison, Wisconsin, on Jan. 22, 1994, the 21st anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The event was marked by a front-page story in The Capital Times.
"Anne has a long history of helping women in crisis," commented Margaret McMurray, president of Wisconsin NOW.
Anne has been volunteer administrator of the Women's Medical Fund, helping more than 5,500 needy women in the midwest pay for abortions since 1972. The Women's Medical Fund, a tax-exempt charity, is believed to be the oldest continuously operating charity of its kind.
As editor of an award-winning suburban newspaper in the sixties, Anne wrote the first editorial in Wisconsin advocating abortion law reform, catapulting her into abortion rights activism.
As Hania W. Ris, M.D. recalled in her tribute that night, "In her referral work, Ms. Gaylor's phone rang day and night. Her compassion and patience never faltered, even with post-midnight calls which were not a rarity."
Anne served as Vice President Central of the National Abortion Rights Action League from 1972-1978, and founded the Zero Population Growth Abortion Referral Service, with her home phone number publicized nationally. With Prof. Robert and Peg West, she then founded the Women's Medical Fund charity, predicated on the conviction that any woman, rich or poor, should be able to exercise her constitutional right to safe and legal abortion. In 1989, under the auspices of the Women's Medical Fund, Anne successfully sued Wisconsin Attorney General Donald Hanaway, forcing him to remove Wisconsin's name from an improper friend of the court brief seeking to overturn legal abortion. She has written a book, Abortion Is A Blessing, about the fight to overturn criminal abortion laws in Wisconsin, as well as a booklet published last year, Why Abortion? The Myth of Choice for Women Who Are Poor. She has received national awards from Zero Population Growth and the Feminist Caucus of the American Humanist Association.
As Anne told The Capital Times, her work to co-found the Freedom From Religion Foundation and to help needy women pay for abortions are entirely compatible.
"The Catholic church was a major impediment of women's right to vote and the right to have and practice birth control. All of these things that benefit women and concern women directly were fought by religion," she told The Capital Times.
Her freethought views were amply acknowledged at the awards dinner, with State Senator Fred Risser recalling how he was named in a suit by the Foundation against paid prayers to open the Senate. After praising her activities, Risser quipped: "There is not enough time to tell you about the time she sued me!"
He presented her with a plaque, a Citation by the Wisconsin Senate, which was adopted by a motion by Risser and State Rep. Rebecca Young. Among the activities she was cited by the Senate for was co-founding "in 1976 the Freedom From Religion Foundation, an organization working for compliance with the U.S. Constitution's separation of church and state statutes, and has been its President since it became a national group in 1978."
Rep. Rebecca Young toasted Anne for "bravely taking on the shibboleths of our time," including her work to ensure that motherhood is voluntary, and that freedom is respected through separation of church and state. Young noted Anne's "quiet devotion to the cause of these unhappy women" who contact the Women's Medical Fund, "whom our government turns away."
"It is the Anne Gaylors of the world who move us on the road to women's equality," Young said.
Noting that Anne was born in Tomah, Wisconsin, "just a stone throw from Elroy, Wisconsin" (birthplace of Wisconsin's arch-conservative Gov. Tommy Thompson), Young provoked the loudest laughter of the evening when she asked: "How is it possible in this small corner to have spawned two individuals who are so completely opposite?" Young ended by thanking Anne for her "courage, heroism, integrity, humanity and vision."
Remarks were also made by Foundation members Profs. Michael Hakeem (see page 4) and Robert West, who called Anne "the person in Madison that I admire the most."
Liz Karlin, M.D., a previous "Feminist of the Year" recipient in recognition of her work to keep abortion accessible as owner and medical doctor of an abortion clinic, saluted Anne as "right up there with the most wonderful people," noting the "hardest part is listening to stories of despair."
Dr. Hania Ris, a longtime friend, colleague and agnostic, told Anne: "Although one of your gifts is to fire up people, you are a truly gentle woman."
Connie Threinen, a well-known Wisconsin feminist and member of the Foundation, sent a letter to be read in absentia.
Wisconsin NOW president Margaret McMurray quipped: "The village board members from Waunakee sent their regrets. They were busy taking down their Christmas--oops, I mean their 'liberty' display," a reference to the suit funded by the Foundation, challenging a creche in a public park.
Barbara Pennington of the Reproductive Rights Taskforce presented Anne with a plaque, a commemorative mug and a feminist T-shirt, asking the audience "to honor Anne and her Freedom From Religion roots," and "to honor Anne by being an activist every day."
Dan Barker provided musical entertainment, singing the feminist anthem "Bread and Roses," and Kristin Lems' "Days of the Theocracy." Many Foundation members and supporters were in attendance.
The Feminist of the Year event is an annual fundraiser for Wisconsin NOW. Fourteen "benefactors" signed on to endorse the award, along with 49 sponsors. An encouraging sign of the times was the prominence of politicians not afraid to salute a nationally known freethought spokeswoman, an uncommon phenomenon since the days of Robert Ingersoll. Among them were U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, State Senators Chuck Chvala and Fred Risser, and State Reps. Becky Young and Tammy Baldwin. Several local politicians, including the county executive, were also sponsors. Additionally, six Wisconsin legislators placed salutary ads in the NOW programme.
Anne thanks Wisconsin NOW and "all the many kind participants," including longtime Foundation member Charlotte Siverling, from rural Wisconsin, "who sent the lovely roses."
Oral arguments were heard in Pat and Joseph King v. Village of Waunakee before the aWiasconsin State Supreme Court on January 7, 1993. Representing the Kings in the Foundation-funded suit was Bronson LaFollette, former attorney general of Wisconsin. Representing the Village of Waunakee was Craig Parshall, an attorney with the conservative Christian Rutherford Institute.
LaFollette argued that the case could be decided on state constitutional issues: "Federal constitutional issues should be avoided if the case can be decided on state constitutional grounds."a
LaFollette cited Article I, Section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution, which provides that "the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any person be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, without consent; nor shall any control of, or interference with, the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship; nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or religious or theological seminaries."
The Village of Waunakee, he noted, spends $500-$600 a year to maintain a nativity scene.
He cited as analogous the successful suit against the maintenance of Desert Christ Park in California by a county, in which "the California Supreme Court held that maintenance of a religious display in a county park violated that provision of the state constitution."
He noted that since there is no state precedent on a challenge of a religious display, "it is proper and necessary for the court to refer to federal constitutional cases involving direct expenditure," citing Weiss v. District Board which struck the purchase of bibles for use in Wisconsin public schools. He quoted Judge J. Cassoday from Weiss:
" . . .Wisconsin, as one of the later states admitted into the Union, having before it the experience of others, and probably in view of its heterogeneous population . . . has, in her organic law, probably furnished a more complete bar to any preference for, or discrimination against, any religious sect, organization, or society than any other state in the Union." (1890)
A key issue in the lawsuit is the Village's contention that it "got around the law" by hastily erecting a so-called "salute to liberty," and adding lights to the evergreens growing in the park.
The sign reads as follows:
"During The
Holiday Season
The Village of Waunakee
Salutes Liberty
Let These Festive Lights & Times
Remind Us That We Are The Keepers
Of The Flame of Liberty And Our
Legacy of Freedom. Whatever Your
Religion Or Beliefs,
Enjoy The Holidays."
--Waunakee Village Board
LaFollette noted: "The village board has erected this display for the last 40 years without any adornment whatsoever" until a lawsuit was threatened.
The first argument in favor of the village-maintained nativity scene made by Craig Parshall was to mention "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency. The Chief Justice also alluded to the Latin crosses on a mural in the Supreme Court chambers showing "members of clergy," as well as the huge lighted Christmas tree visible from the room that was still in the Capitol rotunda at the time of the hearing.
Parshall quoted a former Supreme Court Justice saying: "We are a religious people." He said the Lynch decision required "avoiding an absolutist view" of the Establishment Clause.
When Justice Shirley Abrahamson asked him if a creche by itself, without the added disclaimer and lights, would be unconstitutional, Parshall hedged, saying it would be inappropriate in a nonholiday context or if it were a permanent feature, or in a building. The Waunakee creche, he argued, is acceptable since it is in a public park, "not a core government building," during the holiday seasons and is a "temporary fixture."
"I don't think this display is an endorsement of Christianity," Parshall added.
Parshall called it a "passive symbol, not a government activity," saying a "free exchange of ideas" can be made in a public park or forum "without saying this is the official state view." He called the $500-$600 a year a "minimal expenditure--not every benefit to religion is unconstitutional if indirect or remote." He also said Christmas has "attained cultural status," again noting the minting of "In God We Trust" on money as another example.
Justice Abrahamson noted that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled a crucifix in an Indiana park unconstitutional. Before that could be discussed, the Chief Justice praised the Village of Waunakee for trying "to conform" to the 1989 Allegheny decision (which ruled a creche on courthouse grounds improper, but said a menorah by a Christmas tree with a disclaimer was okay). The Chief Justice said the village "handled it in an even-handed way," adopting language in the disclaimer "more inclusive than Allegheny."
Parshall then claimed the three lighted evergreens growing in the park "dwarf the Nativity scene." Abraham quickly noted the Christmas trees were not cut, but merely represented natural trees with lights on them, and asked if the lights on them are visible during the day. Parshall responded, "Without the sign and decorations, under Allegheny, the court would be without much guidance."
Parshall downplayed the three-pronged Lemon test, urging the Supreme Court to use the "more forgiving" test of "coercion" here.
In his rebuttal, Bronson LaFollette said that the Allegheny case "does not permit the display in Waunakee." He noted that the majority and concurrence determined that the Christmas tree and menorah were two secular symbols, representing pluralism, with a sign "simply revealing what the display showed."
"In Waunakee we don't have two secular displays," but a display of the "predominant religion."
"The sign can't reveal what the display does not show." He further objected to the addition of language with a "religious connotation," namely, "Whatever your religion or beliefs, enjoy the holidays."
He also cited Doe v. Small wherein a federal Illinois court had ruled that distance from city hall does "not diminish" the impact of entanglement.
A decision is expected by the conservative, elected court in June.
Freethought Today reported (Dec. '93) the Foundation's victory in Denver district court last November, enjoining the Mayor of Denver from using his office to proclaim and support a "Day of Prayer." Below is the judge's written decision. At the time the lawsuit was filed by Robert Tiernan, attorney for the Foundation, the mayor had offered rent-free use of the Colorado Convention Center for the "Day of Prayer" rally, prompting Tiernan to seek an injunction against not only the Mayor's participation, but the entire Day of Prayer.
After the suit was filed, the city changed its mind about the waiver of rent, and city ministers paid $4,400 in rent as a result. The judge did not mention the history of the rental in Point 13 of his decision.
District Court, City and County of Denver
Case No. 93 CV 6056
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., a Wisconsin nonprofit corporation; The Colorado Chapter of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc; Robert H. Fenn; and Lee Whitfield, Plaintiffs,
v.
City and County of Denver Colorado, Wellington Webb, Mayor of the City and County of Denver, Colorado, Defendants.
The court, having considered Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the briefs of the parties, the evidence presented at the hearing, the court file and relevant authorities, and being sufficiently advised in the premises, finds, concludes and orders as follows:
1. Plaintiffs move for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from promoting, endorsing, or sponsoring, in their official capacities as public servants, a Day of Prayer against Violence (also referred to as the "event") set for Sunday, December 5, 1993 at the Colorado Convention Center. The Court grants the injunction in part and denies it in part.
2. Plaintiff, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. ("Foundation"), is a non-profit corporation existing under the laws of the State of Wisconsin and is qualified to do business in the State of Colorado. One of the Foundation's primary objectives is to promote constitutional principle of separation of church and state and to guard against infractions of that principle.
3. The individual plaintiffs are residents and taxpayers of the State of Colorado, and the City and County of Denver, and are members of the Colorado chapter of the Foundation. Plaintiff Whitfield testified that he felt insulted, outraged, and belittled by their City's participation in the Day of Prayer because he, as a non-religious person, feels left out and feels that the City's participation violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
4. Defendant, Wellington Webb, is the mayor of the City and County of Denver and its chief executive officer.
5. In the past year the problem of gang and youth violence in the City and County of Denver has escalated substantially and has become a matter of great public concern. This concern was heightened dramatically by the shooting death of 18-year old Carl Banks this past Halloween evening in the 1900 block of Cherry Street in Denver, Colorado.
6. On Sunday, November 7, 1993 a vigil was held in the 1900 block of Cherry Street in response to the Banks' shooting. The vigil was organized by several ministers and citizens in that area of the City and was attended by approximately 300 people including Mayor Webb. The people at the vigil, including Mayor Webb, engaged in prayer and expressed remorse at the death of Carl Banks as well as concern for the increasing problem of youth violence.
7. In a five-minute, impromptu meeting after the vigil Reverends Boyd and Peters, both of whom are Christian ministers as well as community leaders and acquaintances of Mayor Webb, discussed with him the possibility of a city-wide day of prayer as another step that might be taken to deal with the problem of youth violence. The Mayor was receptive to the idea, but no specific plans were made at that time.
8. The day after the vigil Reverends Boyd and Peters contacted several minsters to set up a Day of Prayer against Violence for December 5, 1993. Reverend Boyd chaired an ad hoc committee of ministers that actually organized the event and selected the day. The purpose of the Day of Prayer was to mobilize concern for, and seek solutions to youth violence problems and to do so in a prayerful setting. There is no evidence that Mayor Webb or other city officials participated in organizing the event.
9. On November 9, 1993 during normal business hours Mayor Webb held a press conference with several of the ministers who organized the Day of Prayer. At that time he issued a press release, Exhibit 1, which stated in part that: "Mayor Wellington Webb and members of Denver's clergy designates Sunday, December 5 as a citywide Day of Prayer against violence." The press release, which was issued on the Mayor's official stationery, announced the date, time and place of the event and included a statement by the Mayor to the effect that guns, drugs and violence were tearing at the community's spiritual fabric. The release also contained the clergy's acknowledgment that prayer was just one component of the overall strategy to solve violence. The release listed, as a contact person, Charlotte Stephens, a city employee.
10. In addition to issuing a press release, Mayor Webb said at the press conference that he wanted everyone to get the event on their calendar and that he had formed an Inter-faith Religious Coordinating Committee to work on the event. The Mayor further said that he was working on getting non-Christian faiths involved on the Committee.
11. The press release and press conference were reported in the Denver Post. See Appendix A to plaintiffs' Brief.
12. The day after the press conference Charlotte Stephen ceased to be the contact person for the event. That function was taken over by non-governmental persons who were promoting the event. There is no evidence of any involvement in the planning, organizing or promoting of the event by the Mayor or other City or governmental employees other than at the November 9, 1993 press conference.
Since prayer is exclusively a religious act, the endorsement of a Day of Prayer would logically be interpreted by a reasonable person as an endorsement of religion.
13. The City has leased the Colorado Convention Center to the organizers of the event. The lease was handled in the same manner the City would handle any other lease of the Convention Center. The Colorado Council of Churches has paid the full rent of $4,400.00. The City does not discriminate against religious organizations or events in leasing its facilities, including the Convention Center.
14. There is no evidence that any tax money has been spent on the event other than that involved in holding the November 9, 1993 press conference and issuing the press release.
15. Mayor Webb's intent in holding the press conference and issuing the press release was to bring people together for prayer and the discussion of solutions to youth violence.
16. Mayor Webb testified at the hearing that he believes that the event is worthwhile and he approves of it and endorses it as another solution to youth violence. However, he candidly acknowledged that the press release and press conference may have been a mistake. He testified that he intends to participate in the event but does not know what form his participation may take.
17. Reverend Boyd testified that he believes that he could have achieved, and can achieve the attendance goal of 5,000 people for the event even if the Mayor had not held the press conference. Given the level of community concern for the problem of youth violence, and the fact that the event was organized and is being promoted by ministers who are also community leaders and has the support of the Colorado Council of Churches, the Court finds this testimony persuasive. Thus, the Court finds that the event could have, and can take place on substantially the same scale even without the Mayor's press release and press conference.
18. The Day of Prayer is open to persons of all faiths as well as persons who have no religious beliefs.
19. Mayor Webb, the ministers organizing the event and their congregations believe that their right to the free exercise of religion would be violated if they were not permitted to participate in the Day of Prayer on December 5, 1993.
20. The Court first addresses the issue of standing. Defendants have made a general challenge to plaintiffs' standing to bring this action. The Court concludes that the individual plaintiff, Lee Whitfield, and the Association plaintiff, The Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc., do have standing. Mr. Whitfield's testimony that he felt insulted, outraged, and belittled by the City's participation in the Day of Prayer because he believes it violates the Establishment Clause is sufficient injury-in-fact to assure that an actual controversy, appropriate for judicial resolution, exists. See Conrad v. City & County of Denver, 656 P.2d 662 (Colo. 1983). Therefore, plaintiff Whitfield has standing. See id. Since Whitfield is a member of The Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc., and that association is dedicated to promoting the constitutional principle of separation of church and state, the Court concludes that the Foundation also has standing. See Murray v. City of Austin, Texas, 947 F.2d 147 (5th Cir. 1991).
21. Before addressing the merits of this motion the Court addresses two preliminary matters. First, although this motion was filed as a motion for preliminary injunction it has been presented by the parties more in the form of a motion for permanent or final injunction. This appears to be appropriate because the evidence suggests that the Day of Prayer as presently structured and scheduled is more likely than not a one-time event. Thus, if the Court should order that the event itself be enjoined that order would have the same effect as a final injunction. Under these circumstances this motion is, in substance, a motion for a final injunction and the Court treats it as such. The foregoing is intended merely to advise the parties of the framework within which the Court resolves the motion. The result reached below does not differ because the Court is treating the motion as one for final injunctive relief. The second preliminary matter is that since the same values underlie both the federal and state constitutional provisions involved here, the Court does not treat plaintiffs' constitutional claims separately. Rather, it resolves the merits of both state and federal claims within the context of the United States Constitution. See Conrad, 656 P.2d at 670. The Court now turns to the merits of plaintiffs' claims.
22. Plaintiffs contend that the City's participation in the Day of Prayer, specifically Mayor Webb's November 9, 1993 press release and press conference, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as Article II, Section 4, of the Colorado Constitution. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin any further conduct on the part of Mayor Webb in his official capacity as well as the conduct of other City officials which tends to promote, endorse, support or sponsor the Day of Prayer. Plaintiffs also seek to enjoin the event itself. The Court grants the injunction to the extent of enjoining Mayor Webb and other City officials, acting in an official capacity, from promoting, endorsing or supporting the Day of Prayer, but denies plaintiffs' motion to the extent that it seeks to enjoin the event itself.
23. The First Amendment provides in part that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." As relevant here, the test applied to determine whether governmental conduct violates the Establishment Clause is whether the governmental action would be interpreted by a reasonable person as endorsement of religion. Freedom from Religion Foundation. Inc.. et al. v. State of Colorado. et al., _____ P.2d _____ (Colo. App. June 17, 1993). The challenged conduct here is Mayor Webb's press release and press conference endorsing the Day of Prayer. Since prayer is exclusively a religious act, the endorsement of a Day of Prayer would logically be interpreted by a reasonable person as an endorsement of religion. Because from all appearances Mayor Webb was acting in his official capacity in issuing the press release and conducting the press conference endorsing the Day of Prayer, the Court concludes that a reasonable person would interpret his conduct as a governmental endorsement of religion. As such, it violates the Establishment Clause. See id.
24. Accordingly, the Court orders that Mayor Webb and other City officials, while acting in an official capacity, be enjoined from any further endorsement, promotion, sponsorship or support of the Day of Prayer scheduled for December 5, 1993 at the Colorado Convention Center. This Order does not enjoin Mayor Webb, acting as a private citizen, from exercising his First Amendment rights to free speech and religion by discussing or participating in the Day of Prayer as long as his conduct would not be interpreted by a reasonable person as an official, government endorsement of religion. Depending upon the circumstances, this may require some type of disclaimer to dispel the impression of governmental support which his position as mayor may create. However, the Court does not believe it is necessary to enter any specific order in that regard. . . .
26. Plaintiffs' motion to enjoin the event involves issues of both the appropriateness of such an injunction under the law and the proper scope of injunctive relief. The Day of Prayer involves the use of a public forum, the Convention Center, for a religious event. As a general rule, a state may limit protected speech, including religious speech, in a public forum only upon the showing of a compelling state interest. See Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches, 508 U.S._____, 124 L.Ed.2d 352 (1993). A state's interest in avoiding an Establishment Clause violation may constitute such a compelling interest. See generally Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981). It follows then that the need to avoid an Establishment Clause violation may also be a sufficient basis for enjoining the use of a public forum for a religious event. Here, since the only evidence presented regarding any promotional publicity for the event was the Mayor's press conference and press release, which the Court found violative of the Establishment Clause, there is a sufficient basis to warrant enjoining the Day of Prayer absent some corrective action by the defendants. This leads to consideration of the proper scope of injunctive relief.
27. While a court has considerable latitude in fashioning appropriate injunctive relief, see Brennan v. Monson, 50 P.2d 534 (Colo. 1935), it should generally do so in terms no broader than is necessary to remedy the situation giving rise to the need for such relief in the first place. See Doe v. Small,964 F.2d 611, 620-622 (7th Cir. 1992). This principle is particularly applicable where, as here, an unnecessarily broad injunction may infringe upon the constitutional rights of others. See id.
28. With the above principles in mind, the Court orders that plaintiffs' motion to enjoin the Day of Prayer scheduled for December 5, 1993 is denied upon the express condition that prior to December 2, 1993 Mayor Webb issue a press release containing a sufficient disclaimer of his or the City's official sponsorship, endorsement or support of the Day of Prayer to substantially offset the impression created by is November 9, 1993 press release and press conference. The Court is not ordering any personal disclaimer of the event itself or disassociation from the event by Mayor Webb as a private citizen, but merely that it be made clear that this is a privately planned, organized and supported event, and not a City event.
Dated this 24 day of November, 1993.
By The Court:
John M. McMullen
District Court Judge
Many have suspected it, but now there's proof: Americans are not as religious as the polls report.
Only half of those who say they regularly attend church actually do!
According to the traditional polls, 40% of the United States population reports attending church regularly. This Þgure has held remarkably constant for decades. Responding to a 1992 Gallup poll asking, "Did you, yourself, happen to attend church or synagogue in the last seven days?" 42% of adult Americans said "Yes."
But a new study questions this prevailing wisdom. "What The Polls Don't Show: A Closer Look At U.S. Church Attendance" was published in the December 1993 American Sociological Review, casting serious doubt on the supposedly high rate of regular church attendance. The authors are C. Kirk Hadaway (United Church Board for Homeland Ministries and Adjunct Faculty at Hartford Seminary), Penny Long Marler (Assistant Professor of Religion at Samford University), and Mark Chaves (Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Notre Dame).
"In the sociological literature," the three scholars write, "this high participation rate [40%] is prominently and widely cited to bolster attacks against the secularization hypothesis." They give widespread examples of this "social fact" in sociology texts, history texts, and journalism.
But many observers have doubted this characterization of high American religiosity--it doesn't seem to square with reality. This is especially true among many "old-line" Protestant denominations that have experienced membership losses and slowing growth rates the past few decades.
"Consistently high levels of church attendance and a growing U.S. population suggest that most major denominations should be thriving and growing," the authors point out, "[y]et most are not. Claims that losses in old-line denominations are more than offset by gains in evangelical denominations . . . do not sufÞce. In addition to the fact that evangelical gains simply are not numerically large enough, Americans in declining denominations still claim high levels of membership and attendance."
Church members appear to be "over-reporting" (to phrase it politely) their attendance. It has long been known that people tend to make themselves look better than they are in surveys. Overreporting (or underreporting) is often due to "social desirability" factors. Many people, for example, tell pollsters that they vote regularly, although their names are absent from voting records. Many youths underreport deviant behavior, such as substance abuse.
Suspecting that poll respondents "substantially overstate actual church attendance," Hadaway, Marler, and Chaves hit upon a novel idea. First they did a poll, then they did a head count.
Then they compared the polls to the pews. Using a variety of data sources and strategies, they estimated count-based church rates among Protestants and Catholics in a rural Ohio county (Ashtabula) and among Catholics in 18 dioceses nationwide.
To be as accurate as possible, the authors located every single church in the county, driving the length of every road. They found 172 Christian churches, 44 more than the 128 listed for Ashtabula County in Churches and Church Membership in the United States 1990. Some congregations were counted physically, and average attendance counts were received from other churches through denominational yearbooks, telephone interviews, and letters. (It is not to be expected that churches would underreport their attendance.)
"The results are dramatic," they write. Church attendance rates "are approximately one-half the generally accepted levels."
Although 35.8% of Protestants said they regularly attend church, only 19.6% showed up. The 35.8% survey result is consistent with 1991 statewide and 1992 Cincinnati polls yielding 36%.
Only 25% of Catholics were counted in church, compared to 51% reported. The 51% survey result is similar to polls in New York (44.8%), Chicago (48.5%) and Cincinnati (59.3%).
One of the harshest attacks on this new study came from Catholic priest/sociologist Andrew Greeley, who called it "a sloppy piece of work," according to Christian Century. But Gerald Marwell, the review editor who decided to publish the study, said he was not surprised by Greeley's reaction: "To some extent he [Greeley] was one of the people who is argued against in the research." Marwell pointed out that the ASR study was reviewed before publication by a panel of noted sociologists.
"To generalize from a county in Ohio to all of Protestant America is irresponsible," said Greeley. Marwell responded that the burden of proof is on the critics to demonstrate how the county in this study is out of line with the rest of the nation.
Jay Demerath, professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, responded to the survey's conclusion that Americans have been inßating church attendance. He said: "I think the study needs to be taken very seriously indeed. . . . Gallup and other pollsters are aware of this. It's kind of a dirty little secret."
The implications are obvious. If church attendance reports are unreliable, what about other "facts" of American religiosity? What about belief in God?