Independence Hall

[Harold Hallikainen]

On Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:29:00 -0600 Rob Weinberg <robertmw at MINDSPRING.COM>
writes:
>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.



        Interesting question...  If, in today's light, a previous
practice is unconstitutional, can it be continued for "historical
perspective?"  As I recall from the decision on the Mount Davidson Cross
in San Francisco, a long-standing violation doesn't make it less a
violation (it had been claimed that the cross was a historic landmark,
and indeed the original lighting of it was done by the President with a
special telegraph circuit).

Harold

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