Independence Hall

[Rob Weinberg]

Mark Scarberry wrote:

>Suppose that during the late 1700's a creche was placed in Independence Hall
>each December.  A desire on the part of the state to recreate the
Independence
>Hall scene with historical accuracy could constitute a secular purpose for
>allowing the creche now in 1997 and not allowing other displays.  Would a
>disclaimer (that the state doesn't endorse Christianity  but is simply
>recreating a historical venue) be necessary to avoid an Estab. Clause
>violation?  Would a disclaimer be sufficient?

In view of Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), a desire to recreate the
history of the building, even without a full-blown disclaimer, would
probably survive constitutional scrutiny.

The hypothetical does add an interesting wrinkle: what was the original
intent in the 1700's of the creche? Presumably it was purely religious and
would not survive the purpose prong of _Lemon_. Absent the avowed recent
secular purpose -- historical reenactment -- it would suggest a non-secular
purpose that would make it more subject to attack if all the town were
doing was reviving an ancient practice.



     * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    Rob Weinberg, Montgomery, AL
http://www.mindspring.com/~robertmw/