You're both right (or wrong) wrote on Mar 31, 2008 7:20 AM:
" Facts is referring to the frieze on the east wall, which is the one the justices sit in front of. PackAttack is referring to the north and south walls, which are walls the justices don't sit in front of and which have different friezes. Figure it out now. "
PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 31, 2008 6:31 AM:
" to "supreme court 'facts'": Your misrepresentation of the 'facts' about the Supreme Court is abomibable, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Here is a link for ANYONE's reference to the FACTS from the US Supreme Court website: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf . According to this US SUPREME COURT site, the frieze DOES IN FACT depict both Moses AND the TEN COMMANDMENTS. If you wish to contradict this, maybe YOU should bring a REAL reference to support your UNTRUE statements. "
notme wrote on Mar 26, 2008 6:50 PM:
" Thank you, you GOT IT!!
That is the exact point I was trying to make they are hypocrites.
They want the WIDEST interpretation of the first amendment, stretched to the breaking point (just like "freedom of expression") but then they want the narrowest interpretation of the second.
That is why I can/will not support their cause, and why we must stand together for equal support of ALL rights. "
To notme wrote on Mar 26, 2008 3:55 PM:
" Because you have it wrong--backwards. The people who support removal of the cross are AGAINST First Amendment rights. The phrase separation of church and state is an invention they use to suppress the rights of others to express their faith. It only stands to reason that these people would also be against Second Amendment rights. "
notme wrote on Mar 20, 2008 8:09 PM:
" My point has always been, that many, not all, but many people who support first amendment rights, are opposed to second amendment rights. It is obvious that those who believe in their second amendment rights are also persecuted by society and face many of the same hurtles as those who don’t support religious symbols on government property.
My point on the second, which seems to be proven here, is that none, not one, of the posters here who supports removal of the cross has stepped up and said, "YES, all rights are equally important." For when I suggested Barnes, and those who support him, wear empty holsters as a way to support the second amendment right, I was ridiculed on the various Lee Enterprises blogs
Why is it OK to speak out in favor of separation of church and state but speak out in favor of gun ownership, and more directly, one’s right to self defense and even those who support the other rights ridicule you?
"
Beware of the pack wrote on Mar 18, 2008 5:38 PM:
" Has an agenda and apparently doesn't have his "Facts" straight. "
To: Supreme Court Facts wrote on Mar 18, 2008 4:46 PM:
" The wall right above where the Supreme Court judges sit is the east wall, on which is displayed a frieze designed by sculptor Adolph A Weinman. The frieze features two male figures who represent the majesty of Law and Power of Government, flanked on the left side by a group of figures representing WISDOM, and on the right side by a group of figures representing JUSTICE. In a letter on file in the archives of the Supreme Court, Adolph Weimann states that the tablet visible between the two central male figures, engraved with the Roman numerals I-X, represents NOT the 10 commandments but the 1st 10 amendments to the constitution known as the BILL OF RIGHTS. "
To:Hey Guys wrote on Mar 18, 2008 1:37 PM:
" It's SARCASM!!!!!!!!!!!! It's from Willie. Not too bright there in Holmen, are you... Willie would not be pleased. "
Hey Guys... wrote on Mar 18, 2008 12:59 PM:
" check out the LaCrosse Tribune comments on the Government offices closing on Good Friday. Someone said they weren't actually closing for Good Friday, but rather spring holiday(like by sheer coincidence it happened to fall on Good Friday)Anyway, one would normally assume it was sarcasm, but these days you never know. Hilarious comment either way. "
To:notme wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:26 AM:
" Are you the one who keeps shooting out the light bulbs on the cross? "
Movie rental wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:54 AM:
" Rent Jesuscamp...it's at Blockbuster "
To:notme wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:48 AM:
" Please...pretty please... "
notme wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:28 PM:
" Give up? I am certain Martin Luther King Jr. was told that many times. I am certain Gandhi was told that many times. I am certain the Nazi’s and the Japanese imperialists told our troops that many times. None of those I listed gave up; they fought, in many different ways, to protect ALL rights of ALL citizens.
It is my first amendment right to question the motives of any government entity, corporate entity, or individual. For you to suggest that I stop exercising my first amendment rights while you continue to exercise yours simply proves that you are one of those who only supports the “rights” you agree with, strengthening my resolve.
NO, I will not give up! I will continue to voice my opinion, question the establishment, and point out hypocrisy. I will continue until ALL American citizens are able to exercise ALL their constitutional rights without infringement or limitation.
"
To: Pack ATTACK wrote on Mar 17, 2008 2:52 PM:
" Do you know notme? You are everywhere!!! Maybe you're the same person! "
To:Pack attack wrote on Mar 17, 2008 2:41 PM:
" And what outside organization are you from? Looks like you have been the main person bringing the initials ffrr into this. What are your initials? Where are you from? Ditto: Propaganda "
Pack wrote on Mar 17, 2008 9:38 AM:
" I believe propaganda is your middle name. "
To:notme wrote on Mar 17, 2008 9:33 AM:
" Please, please, please, GIVE IT UP!!!! "
To:Mr Bright wrote on Mar 17, 2008 9:33 AM:
" Awesome...thank you. Mr Pack...I get the feeling from these posts and others on other Tribune sights that you are a "professional" proponent of religion. Meaning...you are not from the area...that I know and you most likely are very affiliated with a specific church and have an agenda. Much like FFRF who also are not from here. I am for separation of church and state but not pro FFRF. They should stay away AND SO SHOULD YOU... "
To Bill Bright wrote on Mar 16, 2008 10:35 PM:
" The fact they are tolerant is the very reason they are trying to make it so the cross stays. In an ideal world, the city would stand its ground and just declare that the cross stay. If they are sued, they would get Matt Staver and Liberty Council to defend the lawsuit-something Liberty Council is willing to do and had done successfully many times before-free of charge. But, the Lions are just trying to do a small part to preserve our religious liberty. "
PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 16, 2008 10:19 PM:
" Bill: You defended our rights - those rights include freedom OF religioun...not FROM as the ffrf and barnes promote. The misused 'seperation of church and state' means that no CHURCH will run the government of this great country, but it doesn't mean that we are without religious basis. The Supreme Court has stated plainly that our laws are based on Christian principles and beliefs. That doesn't mean that our laws prohibit other beliefs, just that if you are looking for a basis for their decisions they can be found within the Christian ideaology. You hacw defended ALL beliefs and served your community of varied beliefs, so please continue to do so until you have looked deeper than barnes' and ffrf's propaganda. "
PsckAttack2020 wrote on Mar 16, 2008 10:11 PM:
" Bill Bright: First, thank you SO much for your military service. Truly. Second, you have served the community through the Lion's Club for the past seven years, so you hsve also assisted with maintaining the cross and star? Why is it suddenly wrong? Whether you are Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, why is it suddenly wrong? Third, look at what barnes' skewing of the constitutions meaning has done to the community. he, along with the ffrf, have managed to divide a very friendly, cohesive, and polited community. he has also managed to potentially ruin something you have greatly enjoyed. Don't let him or the ffrf mislead you about what is truly right, and don't let them ruin your service and brotherhood over 'their' misinformation.
"
PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 16, 2008 9:49 PM:
" I see much written about the supposed "illegal nature" of the display on government land, but isn't it interesting that our Supreme Court Justices make their rulings while seated beneath a display featuring Moses AND the Ten Commandments? God's word on display in one THE most prestidgious of our government buildings, and the display is built in stone: now doesn't that say something about its 'legality' and 'constitutionality'? "
notme wrote on Mar 16, 2008 9:37 PM:
" Neither Mr. Barnes nor any of the other anti cross people has addressed why this one constitutional right is the only one that seems to matter. Why aren't all the anti cross people filing complaints concerning violations of other constitutional rights? "
Keep the Cross wrote on Mar 16, 2008 4:09 PM:
" I encourage everyone to send Eric Barnes an Easter Card with a polite and thoughtful note. You'll win more hearts with compassion than you will with sharp words.
If you give in and act like a secular progessive you'll only give them the ammunition they want.
Its time to demonstate what the cross symbolizes not just with words, but through real and meaningful action. "
TO: Mr Bright wrote on Mar 16, 2008 7:31 AM:
" I have read your post three times now. How refreshing to read one without constitution quotes, bible quotes, calls for anyone to leave the area, and name calling. Thank you. "
Wow... wrote on Mar 15, 2008 6:59 PM:
" Your comments are truly humbling... "
Courage wrote on Mar 15, 2008 6:42 PM:
" Mr. Bright,Thank you for your service and for your courage. Many of us feel as you do. It is unfortunate that it takes courage to speak out on this topic.
"
Bill Bright wrote on Mar 15, 2008 5:54 PM:
" I searched for a long time to find a secular organization through which I could contribute to my community and the world in some compassionate way. I found that in the Lion's Club where I've served for seven years now and have made a close friends. On our friendly cul de sac every male family head is a Lion -- six of us. However, if the cross becomes cause célèbre in the Lions of Wisconsin, I will, by force of conscience, have to leave my cherished Lion's Club. Our democracy means that much to me. I spent twenty years in the military offering my life to defend a democratic ideal which I can't now allow to be diminished by misguided sentimentality.
I implore the local Lions in Holmen to reject this religious cause and support the tolerant and secular nature of the organization to which they belong. The Club is by its international nature an all-inclusive organ and should attempt to remain so in order to embrace the good works of all Lions all over the world.
Thank you for letting a Holmen outsider have a say in your local matters. "
"The Religious" wrote on Mar 14, 2008 10:09 AM:
" You will all be happy to know that the Christians are out in force on the new blog site at the La Crosse Tribune...let the name calling begin! "
To High School Student wrote on Mar 14, 2008 8:48 AM:
" You seem to be a very thoughtful young person. However, I must correct you on a couple points. The cross's presence on public land is not Unconstitutional. Also, Liberty Council would have represented Holmen at no charge. Scroll through some previous postings. Oh, and anyone chosen to speak at your high school graduation can expect the same harrasment if they intend to mention their faith. People will also claim that is Unconstitutional. So, don't always take people at their word when they tell you something(me included). Check things out for yourself. "
To: Allen wrote on Mar 14, 2008 8:10 AM:
" Yes I have been to Arlington cemetary. Have you?? Did you notice that the fallen jewish troops have a star on there grave. Not a very good argument. "
Alright Already wrote on Mar 14, 2008 6:06 AM:
" Now that the cross issue is somewhat settled....seriously, could everyone please take down all the old, dirty, soggy Christmas decorations! "
Atheist wrote on Mar 13, 2008 9:49 PM:
" You hit the nail on the head. If you're not Christian, your atheist. Or better yet, you belong to FFRF. I do not want the cross lit and I am not atheist!!! For GOD'S sake...get an education! "
Ummm wrote on Mar 13, 2008 9:27 PM:
" P.S.: I'm a Lutheran, and so are my wife and my two teenage daughters. Not much for evangelizing, though, and not much for forcing my beliefs down other peoples' throats. Take down the cross, for Christ's sake. "
Ummm wrote on Mar 13, 2008 9:13 PM:
" You forgot Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Hare Krishna, Moonies, agnostics, Wiccans, secular humanists, progressive Chrisians and others who might not appreciate a giant symbol of oppression on the hill staring them in the face every night. Your comment is indiciative of your arrogance in thinking only athiests might not follow your God. Yours is not the only way, nor the only right way. "
High School Student wrote on Mar 13, 2008 8:34 PM:
" Im a high school senior and have lived in holmen my whole life, i personally feel that this is all rediculas, but i do understand the constitution. I hate to see people that are bashing at eachother because of their personal beliefs you, can chose to apporove or disapprove. I think the fact of the matter is the town board baught the land because of the fact they needed for the water reserve they recently built. I feel that an issue like this was overlooked at the time. I feel that it was a resonable mistake made by the board. I feel the most reasonable fix to this problem is to simply resell the land to the Lions club. That way it is not unconstitutional because it will be located on private properity just as it was for all thoes years. This is a symbol of our community, and always has been. I want it to stay for the historical aspect, i am not a avide church go'er. This issue just needs to be resolved befour it comes to a court room, and costs the tax payers of Holmen thousands and thousands in legal fee's. "
Allen wrote on Mar 13, 2008 6:42 PM:
" To all of you who want this one cross removed because of separation of church and state I have one question. Have you ever seen Arlington National Cemetary? One more question. Should all of those crosses be removed, also? When it comes to separation of church and state why is it that the only rights that matter are those of the atheists? Is this a democratic society? No one wants to answer that. And if we are when are we going to follow the majority? That is what a democracy does except ours. "
Proud Moment wrote on Mar 13, 2008 6:11 PM:
" And not a proud moment for the "religious" judging by the postings at the La Crosse Tribune. The name calling all seems to be the "religious" ones. I'm sure God would be proud. "
Quote wrote on Mar 13, 2008 5:37 PM:
" Regardless of where you stand on this, you have to love the quote in the new article about the cross by the original builder "Why are they objecting to the damn thing!" Classic! "
To 441 pm wrote on Mar 13, 2008 5:10 PM:
" It looks like Annie does a pretty good job of parodying herself in the article:"Theres all kinds of things being done wrong..." Priceless.
Lee Strobel used to do a show on saturday evening called "Faith on Trial". Annie was on and made a fool of herself when confronted with the evidence of what the Constitution actually says and when Matt Staver of Liberty Council debated her on Constitutional issues. Not a proud moment for her. "
To:4:07pm wrote on Mar 13, 2008 5:01 PM:
" 1)yes 2)yes 3)yes. I believe I will take the scientific opinion of Dr Menton over yours. "
To: It's a tad warmer today... wrote on Mar 13, 2008 4:41 PM:
" Hey...It's a tad warmer today...not doing your Anna Belle Gaylor imitation today? "
Josh McDowell wrote on Mar 13, 2008 4:39 PM:
" Quit trying to sell your book! "
re:Mar 13, 2008 2:57 PM wrote on Mar 13, 2008 4:07 PM:
" So you think man and dinasaurs walked the earth at the same time?? Have you ever heard of carbon dating. And this scientist you speak of that started crying are you sure it wasn't from laughing to hard. "
Re: my 2:44pm post wrote on Mar 13, 2008 4:01 PM:
" And, yes, before anyone else points it out-I do see the irony in talking about reading and comprehension, while misspelling the words "qualified" and "information". :) "
egg wrote on Mar 13, 2008 3:23 PM:
" Both, the star and the cross should stay and shine! Star Hill has been a very important place to me since I moved here and I guess a lot of other people like it, too. Waking your dog up there, hill training for cross country, enjoying a view over the village, meeting a secret friend , singing the national anthem...so many cool things to do...and it is even cooler do do all this while pretty lights are shining.
If you hate the cross change your perspective and look at it positively: After 40 days you will be twice as happy to see the beautiful star again:-)...P.S.:just let your dog pup in your own yard for the time you feel offended and dont want to walk up there. "
To To Judge wrote on Mar 13, 2008 3:01 PM:
" Regarding belief in the Bible, some reasons to believe off the top of my head are over 400 Old Testament prophecies fulfilled, eyewitness accounts of miracles-even by enemies of Christianity, accounts of people who saw Jesus alive after he was crucified, etc. For more, I recommend "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell. The only reason I can think of to NOT believe would be an anti-supernatural bias. And any bias will be a hindrance in an honest search for the truth. "
To 11:48am wrote on Mar 13, 2008 2:57 PM:
" It is a misconception that science and the Bible are in conflict. There is nothing in observational science that contradicts the Bible. For example, if there really was a global flood in Noahs time, you would expect to find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. Which is exactly what you do find. Anyway, a couple years ago Dr David Menton(google him for his credentials)did a little seminar at UWL regarding Creation and evolution in front of the biology professors and students. It was amazing how he used real science to refute evolution and confirm the Bible. During the Q&A, one evolutionist actually had a breakdown and started sobbing and screaming at Dr Menton, calling him a sell out. See, his faith in the religion of evolution was being seriously shaken, and he was having trouble coping. "
To : Judge wrote on Mar 13, 2008 2:44 PM:
" Well, judge, anyone who can read and comprehend at a high scool level is qualifiesd to interpret the Constitution. Ever hear of separation of powers? The legislature makes laws and the courts interpret it. The reason no other cases were cited is that we are discussing this specific case. If you do want some more infornmation on cases that Liberty Council and Matt Staver has successfully defended involving similar circumstances, I am sure you could find it on their website. "
No sense wrote on Mar 13, 2008 12:20 PM:
" It really makes no sense at all. I especially like the Ark story...come on people!! I don't think anyone knows the answer. But I do know what I don't believe. "
TO :Judge wrote on Mar 13, 2008 11:48 AM:
" The worl has changed a lot in the last 220 years. That is why it blows my mind that in this day and age there are people that still believe the bible. We now have books on real stuff like science, so why do people continue to believe these fairy tales that are in the bible. I also find it odd that the almighty would have his son die for our sins it's just silly.
"
Judge wrote on Mar 13, 2008 11:09 AM:
" I also get a kick out of all the people who think that if something isn't in the Constitution that it doesn't mean anything. The Constitution was just the framework on which we built our nation. Think of laws and legal precedent as the wallboard, siding, shingles and trim that completed the house that is the United States of America.
I mean, how could the founding fathers possibly have thought of everything. Think how different the world is now. You can't just go back and say the Constitution is the only thing that matters, pretending that the past 220 years of legal rulings mean nothing. "
oooohhh wrote on Mar 13, 2008 10:44 AM:
" Why are people getting so worked up about this? Everyone will always have a different view about everything. What you find wrong may be right to someone else.
Everyone and everything is different. There will never be a right or wrong for this issue. It's simply beliefs. "
michael pedrin wrote on Mar 13, 2008 10:40 AM:
" i think that you should just stop all this BS and just let it be up there and so what if it is getting payed for by the tax money it is just a cross that lights up and all this is getting started "
Froto wrote on Mar 13, 2008 10:40 AM:
" Well JUDGE baby, you are correct in that case law is what one is up againts in most litigations. We have the constitution which in certain cases is very very clear as written. ie: the "no establishment of religion" ect, whatever. The waters get muddied then by years of case law decisions. most do not want to overturn or rule againts past case law rather case law is used as vindication for new litigated decisions. Now if we could find some enterprising well heeled financialy, group to somehow attack and get something put on the books to set in concrete the original words of the constitution in this area then perhaps past case law in this area can be tossed out the window. "
YO MOMMA wrote on Mar 13, 2008 10:40 AM:
" This whole thing is retarded! All of the crosses anywhere other than at a church should be taken down and BURNED! "
Judge wrote on Mar 13, 2008 10:07 AM:
" I get a kick out of all the people who post on here who claim to know what the job of judging's all about. Judges might not be responsible for making laws, but they are responsible for making legal precedent, which has the force of law in deciding future cases.
I doubt if anybody posting on here is remotely qualified to understand the complexities of case law, let alone interpret the Constitution. If your legal arguments had any validity, you'd be citing cases instead of just repetitively saying "courts can't make law." "
Has anyone looked into this? wrote on Mar 13, 2008 8:44 AM:
" What about contacting Matt Staver of Liberty Council? This group has successfully defended many cities against lawsuits brought by FFRF and other such groups in cases like this. Best of all, they are free. Their mission is to protect religious liberty and make sure cities aren't bullied by these types of groups. And they have been very successful in doing so. "
To Spengler wrote on Mar 13, 2008 8:40 AM:
" I understand what you are saying. And if you put forth the arguement that it is unfair that a very small portion of your local tax dollars go to light the cross, I would probably point out that a lot of my tax money goes to things I find objectionable and that life is unfair....but we could have a good discussion. If you said you wanted to petition your elected representatives to pass a law making this illegal, you would be well within your right. People should always petition to have what they feel are unjust practices changed. BUT, to say it is unconstitutional when it is clearly not, or to say that judges are responsible for making laws causes your whole arguement to collapse. It causes people to not take your position seriously. "
Is God a he? wrote on Mar 13, 2008 7:17 AM:
" You really think of God as a man sitting up there? And a chariot pulls the sun across the sky everyday, right? "
spengler wrote on Mar 13, 2008 12:04 AM:
" once again... ok here goes - i usually try to address specific concerns, but with over 200 comments, well, i'll try to summarize. the constitution in its wisdom also said that some of my friends [and possibly yours] were only 3/5 of a person. but we saw the error of the founding fathers and fixed that. for a short time, we thought it a crime to have a beer, but we fixed that too. and after a while we thought it a good plan to let what must be the wiser sex [judging from many of these posts] have a say in the whole election process. the constitution is rather clear in the 1st amendment - "no law respecting an establishment of religion" the verbal equivalent of drawing a picture for those in need of remedial help. and for those of you who were quick to condemn WWJD, it seems you've no greater awareness of the new testament then you of the legal framework of our country. oh well, let's save public 'education' for another day. "
perfect life wrote on Mar 12, 2008 9:51 PM:
" Ahh, if everyone were as perfect and knowledgable as some of you. Some people just have better things to worry about. "
To:Allen wrote on Mar 12, 2008 9:48 PM:
" I know this debate isn't about whether God exists but I am curious. Who made God? And is he male? When did all of this begin? Why do scientists and geologists in particular disagree with you about how old the earth/universe is...Is there life in another universe..who is their God? Are the Jews wrong? Buddhists? Hindus? Don't you ever wonder about this? Is the Bible the word of God? And if someone never heard of your God, would they go to hell? "
WTF wrote on Mar 12, 2008 9:24 PM:
" Who says you can't believe in God and believe in not having taxpayers pay for a big old electric cross on a hill? You make a pretty big assumption there, pal, but it's nice of you to pray for those guys anyway. "
Allen Saunders wrote on Mar 12, 2008 8:32 PM:
" To you "Right" & "Polymath".If you people want to believe their is no God & that man is nothing more than an animal, then I will pray for you. If you want to take a fast train to hell, go right ahead. Once again I will still pray for you. That is what a Christian does. Whether you want to believe that God exists or not really doesn't matter. He knows he exists & so does the wise. If you dont want God to exist in your home fine. But dont deprive the rest of us that opportunity along with the next generation. Contrary to what you think our founding fathers would be appalled at all this nonsense of what you think "separation of church and state" means. Study some of these men and you will find they were God fearing men who believed in the importance of God, the Bible & Christianity. In other words they were wise. Separation of Church and state means the government cannot adopt an official religion. It has nothing to do with saying a prayer,the pledge of allegiance & most definetly the displaying of a lighted cross on a hill in a park. Without God & our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ we are ALL nothing. Things like peace, faith, love, hope, & freedom ALL come from God, so what is wrong with showing it? I'm sure you believe in democracy, right? Well the majority in Holmen want that cross to remain, so by rights it has to stay. Also you'll notice I'm not afraid to include my name. "
James Wiccan wrote on Mar 12, 2008 5:31 PM:
" I salute the people of Holmen for the balance and fairness they show with the cross AND the five-pointed star, or pentagram of the Wicca Religion. I have had many friends from outside the state comment on how refreshing it is to see such tolerance displayed on a hill. I say keep them both. As it says in our Rede: "And ye harm none, do what ye will..." "
To To UMMMMM wrote on Mar 12, 2008 4:57 PM:
" Did you read any of the previous posts? Case law is irrelevant. Judges don't get to make laws. The village is not violating the Constitution by displaying the cross. Read the Constitution and get back to us. People, when discussing Constitutionality, you can't ignore the Constitution itself. "
Right wrote on Mar 12, 2008 4:33 PM:
" The village is fully to blame because village officials were fully aware when they bought the property five years ago that it could be an issue. All they had to do was look at La Crosse and the 10 commandments controversy. The village should have been proactive and taken care of the situation then, but no, they let it slide, just like they let the water rates slide! "
Back atacha.... wrote on Mar 12, 2008 4:16 PM:
" Really, do we think that the Village set out to create this controversy intentionally? It's brought to their attention, they will deal with it, there is a resolution. People are so dramatic. "
To: Listen to yourselves wrote on Mar 12, 2008 4:13 PM:
" You don't sound like a good christian to me. And the point is I don't want to pay for your religious symbols I am not offended by the cross I just don't want to pay for it. And oh yeah don't you think the money spent on the cross would be better spent on these hungry abused children you speak of.
SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
Long live the Frisbeetarians. "
God wrote on Mar 12, 2008 4:04 PM:
" I think the tax dollars should go to Holmen schools to educated all you morons! "
To UMMMM wrote on Mar 12, 2008 3:54 PM:
" Where does it say in the Constitution that the village of Holmen has the right to ignore established case law by using taxpayer money to display a religious symbol? "
Ummm??? wrote on Mar 12, 2008 3:46 PM:
" To: Annabelle Gaylor
Where does it say in the constitution that we have the right to not be offended? Seriously. I honestly don't think it should be on government owned property, sell it so the community can keep what they are passionate about. But if we have the "right to not be offended", I think you should start making some complaints to your cable providers, radio stations, movie theatres, book & magazine publishers, etc. Or better yet, wear a blind fold & ear plugs. There are many things in the world that offend each of us. There should be some serious regulation if it is our constitutional right to not be offended. "
To: Church wrote on Mar 12, 2008 2:47 PM:
" Why do you refer "all you church people" to his questioning the "Cross"?....are you insinuating that just church people are fighting for this? Hmmm, aren't you stereotyping? "
To 12:26 wrote on Mar 12, 2008 1:30 PM:
" You suggest I do what; shut my mouth and NOT speak up or be thankful that I'm an American? "
Church wrote on Mar 12, 2008 1:22 PM:
" Wow...I think all of you church people ought to go to church once in awhile. And when you're done....travel somewhere...anywhere...get some perspective. And get a little love going on inside of you. He simply questioned the cross...that's it! "
TO: Listen to yourselves wrote on Mar 12, 2008 12:26 PM:
" I suggest you do that... "
To 11:07 and 11:12 wrote on Mar 12, 2008 12:17 PM:
" My taxes go to support a lot of things I don't approve of. If you were to say taxpayers paying for the cross is unfair, we could have a discussion. But, it is not unconstitutional. That is where you guys "lose" your audience. "
Interesting wrote on Mar 12, 2008 12:14 PM:
" The only people who actually care about what the Constitution says are the ones accused of doing something Unconstitutional. The ones who are crying about the cross being unconstitutional really have no interest in what the Constitution says. Shouldn't it be the other way around? I don't care what your beliefs are or what side you are on-that is just plain weird. "
Listen to yourselves wrote on Mar 12, 2008 12:07 PM:
" NO, Your missing the point!!! My tax dollars pay for an awful lot more than a lit cross on a hill! My tax dollars pay to keep thugs in prison (that prison I PAY FOR also pays for these thugs to attend religion classes, see Ministers/Priests & offers them to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior and have their SINS forgiven),lazy @*% people who don't want to work & support themselves and or their families...need I go on? THE POINT IS, IF MY $$ PAYS FOR CRAP THAT I AM OFFENDED WITH; THEN BY GOSH, IT CAN PAY THE FEW CENTS IT COSTS ME TO KEEP A CROSS LIT ON A HILL IN MY HOME TOWN FOR SEVERAL WEEKS A YEAR!!! HELL NO, I don't want to live in a country like IRAN, that's why it's so important to ME to stand up for what is right & what is wrong, SIMPLE! It's time people that share the beliefs I do, To speak up & tell people like you to SHUT YOUR MOUTHS & start focussing on abused children, the hungry, the poor & what we should Speak up about. IT'S A CROSS/PLUS SIGN WITH LIGHTS; GET OVER IT or perhaps look at the American Flag that sets above it & be thankful for your freedom!!! "
To:Right wrote on Mar 12, 2008 11:13 AM:
" I have no issue with the courts interpreting. I have an issue with them making up laws. Just like I have no issue with umpires in baseball calling someone safe or out after they slide into homeplate. But, I would have an issue with an umpire who decided to call someone out after two strikes. The court isn't allowed to make up laws, plain and simple. It doesn't matter what you or I or the courts say what the Constitution states. It matters what it actually DOES state. Go back and read it. You will see I am right here. "
To : Holmen residents wrote on Mar 12, 2008 11:12 AM:
" If you want your #@%^ cross on the hill. Just pay for it with donations and stop using tax dollars, if this is done then there is no more argument. Simple! Seperation of church and state period! what do you people want to live in a country like Iran. "
to: Listen to yourselves wrote on Mar 12, 2008 11:07 AM:
" You miss the whole point, put up your crosses everywhere just foot the bill. I don't want to pay for your religious symbol on the hill. Would you agree to have taxes pay for a giant budad on the hill. Tax dollars should not go to pay for anything related to religion (any religion). "
Right wrote on Mar 12, 2008 11:03 AM:
" Actually, I think what Earth is trying to say is it doesn't matter what YOU say the Constitution says. It matters what the courts say the Constitution says because it is the courts' job to interpret the law and Constitution. It's too bad if you don't like the way they interpret, you can't take that job away from them no matter how much you whine. "
To Kris wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:51 AM:
" RIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!!!! I hope these posts get sent to that clown. The only thing is sometimes these types of individuals thrive and live for this kind of attention. It is not just the people of Holmen but all people in the surrounding area. This has been a symbol for all, for many many years. It's too bad we the citizens have nothing to say about the use of our tax dollars to pay this (########'s) fat salary and benies. "
Observation wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:47 AM:
" It appears earth and WWJD are tring to put forth the argument that it doesn't matter what the Constitution says as we try to determine if something is Unconstitutional. My eyes are tearing up with laughter as I type this. "
Listen to yourselves wrote on Mar 12, 2008 10:09 AM:
" 1st & foremost; I am SICK & TIRED of people like Barnes, Polymath, Gaylor coming into our small communities & ruining our traits because THEY are offended!! All of a sudden a lit cross on a hill in the Village of Holmen is offensive to an over educated idiot who feels he NEEDS to exercise his personal rights. It's obvious that these people have nothing better to do than to shine light on their own lives and think of no one but themselves. Do they sincerely believe they are "representing" others like themselves & if so; I think it's time they look in the mirror & face reality. I am offended by their outrageous political comments,living in my community & making the minority the majority. That cross has been on that hill since I can remember & everytime I see it; it merely reminds me of the community I live in, how sacred life is and the pride I have that I now am raising my child here. I am offended quite often on many different issues & I've learned to keep quiet out of respect for others who feel differently OR I choose not to look at something that I find offensive or ill to my eye....again, becasue I don't want to offend. Our forefathers HAVE to be looking at these people in disgust becasue of their actions. My name is Kris & I am a 30 year resident of Holmen & I say thank you for having the cross on the hill; it makes me proud to not only be an American; but to live in a community that takes pride in our traits. "
To:Earth and WWJD wrote on Mar 12, 2008 8:25 AM:
" You are in denial. It is not the role of the judicial branch to make laws. It is the role of the legislature. At the end of the day, to determine whether something is Constitutional or not, you still need to go to the Constitution. "
Think of your fellow man.... wrote on Mar 12, 2008 6:48 AM:
" Think of your fellow man, lend him a helping hand, put a little LOVE in you heart.....How about a lit up heart? "
Earth wrote on Mar 11, 2008 11:11 PM:
" Actually, Individual Rights, Bill (of Rights?) did somewhat address your concern. The reason nobody else is addressing your concern is nobody else probably cares because it is off the topic. Sorry. Maybe you'd feel better if you went out back and fired off a few rounds.
And to WWJD, you confused me with Planet Stasiak and some other like-minded posters. I agree with you. "
Individual Rights wrote on Mar 11, 2008 10:59 PM:
" I notice not a single one of you "First Amendment" people chose to address the issue of my original question:
"To those who so passionately defend the first amendment, do you equally and as fervently support the right of all citizens to go armed when they will, where they will?"
After all, shouldn't we ALL defend the constitution in its' entirety? "
WWJD wrote on Mar 11, 2008 10:29 PM:
" I am so happy to see the diversity of Holmen and the mutual ease at which some of us - except for Earth - are able to say okay already. Earth - just because you say judges are irrelevant does not make it so just as the fact that case law and not the specific words of the constitution will drive what is done in this case. A person who knows they are wrong will constantly try to diminish rulings that may not be to their liking by dismissing them as mistake bu tin the end - case law will prevail. Have you said something nice today? "
Bucket's Cousin wrote on Mar 11, 2008 8:30 PM:
" Regardless of what side you are on. Could everyone please take down your Christmas decorations...spring is in the air and I'm tired of looking at old wreaths, snowmen and the like...Please don't replace them with crosses. Too much stuff in your yard looks tacky. "
Earth wrote on Mar 11, 2008 8:10 PM:
" What's funny is if he ever had to go before a judge and betrayed his disdain for the judicial branch, the judge would get all relevant on his a-s-s.
It's easy to call judges irrelevant when you're not in the courtroom. Did you know judges are in the Constitution, too. Look it up, you'll see it's true. "
To:3:18pm wrote on Mar 11, 2008 3:40 PM:
" I don't get why you think it would be funny when the poster has to go before a judge? His point is the judges decision in the first place was irrelevant. The worst that could happen is the judge he goes before would make another irrelevant decision. I find it boring. Not funny. "
To:Earth wrote on Mar 11, 2008 3:32 PM:
" Still, whether you like it or not, the role of the courts is not to make law. The cross's presence here or in other communities is not illegal. So, there is no illegality to point out. The reason Mr Barnes is on the receiving end of so much scorn is that, as a college professor, he is not able to read a simple document and decipher its meaning. Again, since there is disagreement, we need to go back to the Constitution itself-not some peoples opinion of such. "
Earth wrote on Mar 11, 2008 3:18 PM:
" The fact that the cross is there is proof that until now there has been nobody willing to endure the scorn of the community to point out its illegality.
I've heard about people like y'all, who think the courts have overstepped their bounds and have no power. It's going to be really funny when you have to go before a judge.
By the way, there are plenty of elected judges, including our state Supreme Court. "
To:Earth wrote on Mar 11, 2008 3:08 PM:
" No. Planet Stasiak is right on. The courts don't make laws. The legislature does. When the courts attempt to make laws, their rulings are irrelevant. Think about it. Would you rather have our elected representatives be in charge of making laws or some people "appointed" to the bench decide to take it upon themselves to do so? The fact the cross is there and this discussion is even taking place is proof that it is not "the law of the land". The village of Holmen, and many many other communities are treating erroneous case law as irrelevant. And that is how it should be. So, it looks like you are the one who is so wrong it's not even funny(well, maybe a little funny). "
To: Deepak Chopra wrote on Mar 11, 2008 2:51 PM:
" How about a little indian returant as well.mmm nanbread, chickentiki "
Deepak Chopra wrote on Mar 11, 2008 2:41 PM:
" I follow Deepak Chopra. Perhaps a statue of him? "
Rasta Mon wrote on Mar 11, 2008 2:34 PM:
" Long live da frisbeetarians. "
I have seen the light wrote on Mar 11, 2008 2:08 PM:
" Pastafarian's comment really shows that there is a tremendous diversity of beliefs in the community and it's unfair to represent only one belief system. As a nod to the Frisbeetarians, who believe your soul goes up on the roof when you die, I suggest we add a giant plastic flying disc to the spiritual shrine on Star Hill. "
Dear Pasta wrote on Mar 11, 2008 2:00 PM:
" I am into nature. I would like a lit up tree....right next to your volcano. "
Dakadudaka wrote on Mar 11, 2008 1:57 PM:
" Is it not humerous that a community of swingers and other questionable charactors would want a religious symbol on the hill. "
Pastafarian wrote on Mar 11, 2008 1:54 PM:
" I think the cross is OK. But to be fair a Beer Volcano should be installed also. In honor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
RAmon "
diamond man wrote on Mar 11, 2008 1:48 PM:
" is it wealy about religin or is it that you people don't weant to pay your taxes. Plus i thinck there shud be a bunny up there with the cross, to be more pacific lets put the bunny on the cross "
to: JJ wrote on Mar 11, 2008 1:41 PM:
" Come on how can you say the bible is a farce. That is nuts. Of course everything in the bible happened. Why would so many people follow the word of the bible if it was not true. So quit spreading your athiest propaganda and leave us good cristians alone. "
Ali-G wrote on Mar 11, 2008 1:35 PM:
" ey everyone da new profits is in da house and i be im so listun up yo. get rid of da cross and everyone join in a circle wiv me and rasta mon and we will pass dsome erbal remedy around and everythin will be irye. Peace be wiv you peoples "
Earth calling Planet Stasiak wrote on Mar 11, 2008 1:25 PM:
" Case law and legal precedent IS the law of the land, not matter how much you dislike it, and case law says you can't put up a big flaming cross on public land and pay for it with taxpayer money. When you can get the courts to see things your way, then you can be right. For now, though, you are so wrong it's not even funny. "
Lefty wrote on Mar 11, 2008 1:24 PM:
" Ali-G is a fake character who is really played by Borat(I saw it on TV-seriously). Don't believe what he says. He wouldn't care if there was a dollar sign lit up on the hill or if it was a picture of Allah.
I "
To : Planet Stasiak wrote on Mar 11, 2008 1:22 PM:
" These people will never get it. They talk about precedent and case law, but the point is that precedent and case law is wrong. Unless you think the Suprem Court is infallible, at the end of the day you still have to go to the Constitution itself. "
To JJ wrote on Mar 11, 2008 1:20 PM:
" But why should it go on private land? It has already been pointed out that the crosses presence on public land is not illegal or unconstitutional. "
To:Turn the other cheek wrote on Mar 11, 2008 1:19 PM:
" Mr Barnes is a brave man to not turn the other cheek. I keep my alternative religious beliefs to myself. Considering the posts on the Tribune website...it's a good thing I do. And the homosexuals around here think they've got it bad? Try having a different spiritual belief. It's really very shameful. Regardless of how anyone feels about the cross, the outpouring of hate from the "religious" crowd is shameful. "
To:JJ wrote on Mar 11, 2008 12:54 PM:
" No it is not. Please try to show more respect. If it was a farce, I highly doubt every single one of our Presidents and most of our other leaders would be sworn in on it. I recommend "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" by Josh McDowell. Someone recommended his book on another blog. No matter what your beliefs concerning Christianity and the Bible, it is an interesting look at the evidence for and against. McDowell doesn't shove anything down your throat either. He lays the evidence out and lets the reader draw his own conclusions. Anyway, this issue isn't about religion or the Bible. It is about the Constitution and the law. And, I am afraid the cross does not violate either. So, everything is good(unless the village caves like LaCrosse did with the 10 Commandments). "
Huh? wrote on Mar 11, 2008 12:46 PM:
" Obviously, high school has let out for lunch! But you are pretty funny! And not any more or less relevant than the poster on the La Crosse Tribune who sang,"This Little Light of Mine!" and followed up with pointing out the "irony" that this all comes up right before easter. No kidding, lady, that's when the cross is lit! Some irony. "
Ali-G wrote on Mar 11, 2008 12:06 PM:
" i dont get da problem it not like anyone is nailed to da cross. i mean jeez dat would be crazy. Yo Rasta mon weez should get to getha you no "
To: Mr. Barnes wrote on Mar 11, 2008 12:03 PM:
" You rock. There is no reason for tax money to pay for this cross. It's ludacris that the community of Holmen can't see this.
"
Go ask him wrote on Mar 11, 2008 12:00 PM:
" You guys is funny. Why don't anybodie just go to Mexico and aks him. I know there are lots of Jesuses ova dere. "
to:WWJD wrote on Mar 11, 2008 11:58 AM:
" You have no idea! One of these days you will see the negative effects you have for posting such crazy ideas. You can't go around saying what Jesus would do. Its WRONG WRONG WRONG! "
Rasta mon wrote on Mar 11, 2008 11:49 AM:
" My Jesus would invite Mr Barnes up to the hill to enjoy a spliff and talk about it. Ya mon. Peace out honkys "
Or ... wrote on Mar 11, 2008 11:45 AM:
" Sez you! "
To: WWJD wrote on Mar 11, 2008 11:43 AM:
" My Jesus would mow Mr Barnes lawn. "
JJ wrote on Mar 11, 2008 11:42 AM:
" Easy solution to you people that insist on keeping the cross: put it on private land and pay for it with private funds. Done no more issue. But no you christians feel the need to push your religion down other peoples throat. Get over it.
The Bible is a Farce "
Planet Stasiak to "Or" wrote on Mar 11, 2008 11:40 AM:
" You are missing the point. No one is sticking their head in the sand. The "precedent" and "case law" you refer to is the result of judges legislating from the bench, which is not their role. So, any judge can agree or disagree, look at it or not look at it, but it doesn't matter. It is irrelevant. "
To:Or wrote on Mar 11, 2008 11:29 AM:
" Truthfully, cases have gone both ways. It is hard to know what a judge will do. Some judges think their role is to make law but others know better. There is no need to go before a judge anyway. Why would I or why would the village? You're right-why waste the money? The judges ruling is irrelevant. The Constitution says what it says. No judge can change that. "
Or ... wrote on Mar 11, 2008 11:19 AM:
" Why don't you go tell that to the judge and see how far you get. You will lose. There is ample legal precedent for that prediction.
You can stick your head in the sand all you want, arguing that the Constitution doesn't say anything about it or the law doesn't say anything about it, but if there is precedent in case law, a judge will (and should) look at that.
Village officials know that, too, and are smart enough not to launch a money-wasting crusade. They live in the real world. "
To : Froto wrote on Mar 11, 2008 11:14 AM:
" The point you and others miss is the issue is not about religion. It is about the law and the Constitution. The Constitution does not address religious symbols on public property(see 9:04am post as well as yesterdays 4:59pm post). There is no law against it either. Your solution gives credence to the idea that the presence of the cross is unconstitutional. The LAW is black and white. It has to be. And the crosses presence is both legal and constitutional. "
Turn the other cheek. . . wrote on Mar 11, 2008 11:05 AM:
" Mr. Barnes - Turn the other cheek. Deal with it and get over it. "
Froto wrote on Mar 11, 2008 10:11 AM:
" Good vs. Evil; Black vs. White; Right vs. Wrong; Their is nothing like religion, except perhaps politics to rile up the populace. So many opinions in low and high places. Before the Village spends large sums of money for attorneys and courts, it seems to me that so far the best idea was to quick deed a small portion of the property to a non-profit non-tax funded organization and be done with it. Then put all this energy into getting the law changed. "
To : 5:11pm wrote on Mar 11, 2008 9:04 AM:
" The problem is, the Constitution doesn't even IMPLY that the Goverment can't acknowledge religion. If those who drafted the Constitution wished for this to be the case, they could have easily written it in there. They chose not to. Sorry if you and the courts disagree, but neither of you have the standing to change laws or make new laws. As another poster pointed out, that is the role of the legislature. And the legislature hasn't done so either, so you are SOL. "
To:WWJD wrote on Mar 11, 2008 8:59 AM:
" Nice sentiment, but I would have to disagree that Jesus would take the cross down. "
To:Whospeaksforarth wrote on Mar 11, 2008 8:27 AM:
" Again, I repeat-Try to keep up. The posts referenced address your point regarding courts of law. It is simply not their role to make up laws. That is the role of the legislature-our elected representatives. "
To:WWJD wrote on Mar 11, 2008 7:13 AM:
" Pro or Con....what a lovely comment. "
To: Michelle wrote on Mar 11, 2008 7:09 AM:
" Michelle-I have peace inside me. You know if you look at the Tribune blog regarding this issue and read the posts defending the cross, they are the ones filled with hate, anger, name calling, gay bashing, etc. I think it's an interesting study. I am sure that blogs get there fair share of whackos but it's so prevalent there...it's like 95%. 230+ entries and your side is overwhelmingly negative. If you were to try to establish a religious symbol on the public land behind my house, I would surely argue against it but would not fall to the level that some of the cross supporters have. And in the name of God. I am sure this kind of hatred is not taught at church, or is it? "
Michelle Sahlstrom wrote on Mar 11, 2008 4:18 AM:
" Anger over a cross. Thanks for noticing. There's so much toleration for other things being shoved down our throats that we can't think for ourselves or have our own opinions on anything. You have a right to your opinion. Why are you jumping on the bandwagon about this in particular? Why does THIS upset you so much? This is America, where we have and can see things representing anyone and anything. It must be the cross itself that upsets you, that you researched to find out who owned the land. The cross is religious. It is a symbol that Christ died for our sins, for yours too. You too, could know the peace that God can give you, and put away this bitterness inside you, this hatred. John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life." "
Thank You - Mr. Barnes wrote on Mar 10, 2008 11:41 PM:
" It may not be the intent of his complaints, but I appreciate the attention Lent and Christianity is recieving.
I find it an odd thing, how the Freedom From Religion group brings so much attention to Christianity, the thing they wish to be free of.
An oversite by the Village will be easily fixed with a quick deed to another group or individual. The traditional practice of lighting the star and cross will continue and Mr. Barnes will still be Mr. Barnes.
"
WWJD wrote on Mar 10, 2008 11:10 PM:
" My Jesus would take the cross down and scold those who resorted to name calling and threats in his name. He would put his arm around Mr. Barnes and congratulate him on his courage and welcome him into the promised land. That is what my Jesus would do. "
to Refocus: wrote on Mar 10, 2008 11:07 PM:
" You are absolutely right, how many times have we seen certain people complain because the school taxes are too high and yet some of those same people - hello Mr Yowell - are out here saying hey - go ahead spend my money. Look at the blogs about the charter school that got way off base about some student being transported from MN. Oh my, do NOT spend my taxes that way - but here - hey - go ahead - feel free to spend however you would like. A little consistency would be nice. "
Refocus our values wrote on Mar 10, 2008 8:26 PM:
" I really didn't know how I felt about this. Quite honestly I have been trying to get people this passionate about issue that really matter to us as families & citizens; but people seem more concerneed about Paris Hilton & Britney Spears.
After reading the personal attacks...it is frustrating to me we can't speak our minds and be respectful of others opinions or thoughts! I love God; but understand how the cross can be controversal to some. I am a little outraged about tax payers dollars being spent foolishly on this. I feel as a country we get more upset about tax payers dollars going to help single moms & her kids or the poor; but fine with perserving a tradition. What would Jesus want us to do....take care of his brothers & sisters...the less fortunate, the poor, the needy or fight over a symbol that is suppose to honor him...instead of honoring him by symbolizing what he stood for!!! "
Not so proud to live in Holmen right now wrote on Mar 10, 2008 5:51 PM:
" For all of you calling for Mr. Barnes to leave town, what does it say at the bottom of the Village's logo? "You're always welcome!" Having pointed that out, I can now envision all the posts pertaining to not allowing certain inviduals to move here, especially those w/ certain criminal records. The point is, Holmen should be a community welcoming to all. The idea of this is how it's always been does not promote forward thinking and makes Holmen look backwoods and unprogressive. The Village is growing by leaps and bounds and it is no longer the small town many of us remember. Soon the Village could be double the size it is now, w/ many new individuals moving here. Those new individuals will bring w/ them their cultures and ideas, and make Holmen a richer place for it. This is an idealistic view on my part, but there is truth to it, but only if the residents of Holmen are willing to open their minds and think bigger than is the case now. I feel Mr. Barnes has a valid point about the cross. There is too much legal precedent out there to prove him wrong. The star/cross structure and flag is already fenced off I believe, so it would be a pretty simple process to do as the City of LaCrosse did w/ the Ten Commandmanets. "
whospeaksforearth wrote on Mar 10, 2008 5:11 PM:
" i think a court of law would disagree, as the article stated, there has NEVER been a decision upholding a cross on public property
by the way, there are plenty of things that are today labeled "unconstitutional" that are not expressly stated in the constitution...fancy your right to privacy? how about your right to own a gun? those are not expressly stated in the constitution either; they are implied. "
To: Whospeaksforarth wrote on Mar 10, 2008 4:59 PM:
" Try to keep up. Many of the posts below addressed the issue you bring up. See todays posts at 12:36pm,1:05pm,1:14pm,2:12pm, and 2:17pm. The individual personal beliefs of the founding fathers are irrelevant. What is relevant is what they actually wrote down in the form of the Constitution. They didn't want Congress making a law establishing religion, and as far as I am aware, it hasn't done so. You might not like the cross-may not like that your tax dollars are being used to light it-you may think it is unfair. But, it is not unconstitutional. Nothing you, I, or even some men in black robes say can change that. It is what it is. "
Dear Village wrote on Mar 10, 2008 4:50 PM:
" Please place the small piece of land that actually contains the cross/star sit on up for sale. Perhaps the church congregations in the area could absorb the cost of lighting this. An appropriate solution I feel. "
whospeaksforearth wrote on Mar 10, 2008 4:16 PM:
" ATTENTION THOSE WHO BELIEVE THE FALLACY THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS WANTED A CHRISTIAN NATION
opening to the Treaty of Tripoli, drafted in 1796 under George Washington and signed by John Adams in 1797
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...
Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man"---Thomas Jefferson
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution"---James Madison
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved---the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
---John Adams "
whospeaksforearth wrote on Mar 10, 2008 4:15 PM:
" if you know anything about the constitution's establishment clause and the case precedents set in the past, this is clearly unconstitutional...but i would bet the majority of the people attacking Mr. Barnes don't know the first thing about church state issues "
The Real Issue wrote on Mar 10, 2008 2:17 PM:
" Let me bring it down for you a bit. Look at the Supreme Courts role as similar to that of an umpire in baseball. They are there to make the close calls-was the pitch a ball or strike, is the base runner safe, etc. Now, if an umpire attempted to change the rules to their liking and decided to call someone out after 2 strikes, or only play 7 innings, there is no way the players should stand for it. Nor should we as citizens tolerate the Supreme Court making up their own laws and rules. That job belongs to our elected representatives. It is too bad a professor does not understand this. "
To:1:21pm wrote on Mar 10, 2008 2:12 PM:
" We all need to vigilant in making sure our system of Government works how it is supposed to. When appointed judges attempt to make law as opposed to simply interpret it, it is our duty as citizens to reign them in. Part of that is not being afraid to acknowledge that the courts are not infallible, and that they can and do make errors. Sorry you don't understand that, and wish instead to resort to name calling. "
Right wrote on Mar 10, 2008 2:10 PM:
" Way to look on the bright side, Froto! "
Froto wrote on Mar 10, 2008 1:48 PM:
" Well the good news is that at least. so far anyway, our country has not converterd to Islam. We can still speak out, even with anger, about religion and state all views then continue to argue over them even into the courts. Should we ever go the way of Islam, the women would be relegated to a status worse than dogs and opposition to anything ends in heads being cut off, and the rest of them so petrified to say anything for fear of death.
"
The real, real issue ... wrote on Mar 10, 2008 1:21 PM:
" is you're probably one of those cranks who say there's nothing in the Constitution that allows a federal income tax, so you don't have to pay it. You need to go back to school, dude, and learn how our system of government REALLY works instead of getting it from your Posse Comitatus friends. "
Question wrote on Mar 10, 2008 1:17 PM:
" Does anyone have a fax machine that Mr Barnes can fax verification from UWL on December 25th that he is hard at work, grading papers or something? As a public employee, why should taxpayer funds be used to pay him to celebrate a religious holiday? "
The real issue wrote on Mar 10, 2008 1:14 PM:
" The point is, the court rulings are in error. Obviously, many community and city leaders agree the rulings are in error or these issues would not be coming up. You don't need a black robe to interpret the Constitution. Just do a little reading and thinking on your own. "
To:12:59pm wrote on Mar 10, 2008 1:05 PM:
" It appears the poster you are addressing is aware of the court rulings. His point is that the rulings are irrelevant as it is not the courts role or right or responsibility to make up laws. That is the role of the legislature. Perhaps you need to read up on separation of powers and the role of the 3 different branches of Government. "
The real, real issue ... wrote on Mar 10, 2008 12:59 PM:
" Is you need to expand your reading beyond the Constitution and get into some court rulings. You can read all the "rights" you want into the Constitution, but that doesn't make you right. "
Villager wrote on Mar 10, 2008 12:44 PM:
" I'm reading the Comments on the La Crosse Tribune site about this story.
I tried to register to post my comment there, but it wasn't working correctly.
Just wanted to point out to a poster there "Andy K" that it's a cross made up of light bulbs, not a burning cross of the KKK that he insists on telling everyone that it is.
If you're going to post, get your facts straight! "
The real issue wrote on Mar 10, 2008 12:36 PM:
" The real issue isn't how long ago he moved here or how long the cross was there and if the taxpayers paid anything toward it. The issue is whether it is a Constitutional issue. As pointed out, anyone with basic reading comprehension skills is capable of seeing it does not violate the Constitution. Now, my problem is having an educator at our public University system who lacks these basic reading comprehension skills educating our students, and that we pay him money to do so. This, and not his religious beliefs or lack thereof, is what we really need to be concerned about. "
re: Changes wrote on Mar 10, 2008 11:57 AM:
" Ah yes, the American Flag...
Now let's say an illegal immigrant or any other non-U.S. citizen moves to Holmen and objects to the American flag on top of the hill. Don't they have "rights" now too thanks to good 'ol George Bush? "
To:Changes wrote on Mar 10, 2008 11:52 AM:
" Because the cross was already there when the city bought it, that tells me there was no taxpayer expense involved. That negates Barnes whole arguement. Another thing that negates his whole argiuement is, as Planet Stasiak aptly pointed out, it is not a Constitutional issue. The Supreme Court has no more power to make new laws than you or I. Their opinion on this is irrelevant. As long as there is no law establishing religion-everything is good Constitutionality wise. The Constitution is not some obscure, mysterious document that we all have to wonder and guess about. It is very clear-for anyone who cares to read it. "
Changes wrote on Mar 10, 2008 11:17 AM:
" Stacy - just because it has always been there does not make it right - previously it was on private land - 5 years ago the village bought it - the cross should have come down then. I think the only appropriate thing there is the American flag - I love it being flown there and lit - and makes me feel proud to be a Holmenite. "
To:9:34am wrote on Mar 10, 2008 10:59 AM:
" The Supreme Court is not qualified to make new laws, which they attempted to do with this "interpretation" you speak of. Making new laws is the job of the legislature. Anyone who can read at a high school level is qualified to interpret the Constitution. The Constitution was written for the common man. "
Planet Stasiak to Earth wrote on Mar 10, 2008 10:30 AM:
" Yes, I am just as qualified to interpret the Constitution as anyone else. All you have to do is read it and understand the definition of the words. It is what it is. Sorry if you don't like it. "
stacy wrote on Mar 10, 2008 10:25 AM:
" I have lived in Holmen for 32 years (born and raised) The star and cross have been shining every Christmas and Easter for me since I was alive. I remember driving past it every year with my mom and dad. It was always very comforting for me. That is the way Holmen residents have always been to me friendly and comforting. That is the number one reason I have decided to raise my son in this town is to give him the reassurance of the "small" friendly community that Holmen has always been to me. How can some stranger of Holmen come and take that away from us? "
How ridiculous can this get? wrote on Mar 10, 2008 10:10 AM:
" Well, the star/cross is on public property and the electric bill paid for by the Village of Holmen... yep, it's gotta go.
So... what about all the lighted Christmas decorations that are put up on light poles? They have to go too... public property, village pays for the electricity. Can't have that!
Oh, and the Community Christmas "pageant" that's held over by the Holmen Meat Locker... it's gotta go, that's out in the public, very offensive I'm sure.
I could go on and on.
But one last thing... I'm Norwegian and the use of the Viking as Holmen's mascot is rather offensive to me and my ancestors. It has to be changed. So as not to offend anyone else, let's just change it to "Holmen"... no bird names, no warrior names, etc.
Please take these remarks as sarcastic. But think about things like this... what's this world coming to? "
New to the area wrote on Mar 10, 2008 10:07 AM:
" I've been reading the comments and I'm a little confused. Do people feel the cross should be left there because it has always been there or because of what it represents? I have not seen one person say that when they look at the cross during Lent it reminds them that Jesus died for their sins. If residents love this cross so much would they be happier to see it at another location like a church where it can burn 365 days/year? "
Earth calling Planet Stasiak wrote on Mar 10, 2008 9:34 AM:
" You are not qualified to interpret the Constitution, unless you are a Supreme Court justice, a highly specialized lawyer or a constitutional law professor. The high court has interpreted the Constitution to prohibit display of religious symbols such as this cross on public property. Maybe that news hasn't filtered down to your basement. "
Holmen - this is YOUR advertisement wrote on Mar 10, 2008 9:00 AM:
" I hope all the comments here will be posted at every public site Holmen offers for those who are considering moving to town. It's a great advertisement for the question, "where have all the bigots gone?" Now we know. Holmen. "
Planet Stasiak wrote on Mar 10, 2008 8:41 AM:
" Mr Barnes is completely missing the point. He may not LIKE his tax dollars being used for this, but there are many, many things I don't LIKE my tax dollars being used for. But, he and others are being intellectually dishonest when they say it is a Constitutional issue. It is not. The Constitution states Congress Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. This is not an act of Congress. There is no law. The Constitution says nothing about the Government acknowledging religion. He and others may wish it did. But it simply doesn't. "
Consistency wrote on Mar 10, 2008 8:32 AM:
" I presume, as the ACLU stated, Mr. Barnes is being consistent and would never allow tax dollars to be used to pay him his salary while he sits at home on Christmas(excuse me, December 25th)? I mean, fair is fair. He does work at a public university, and why should tax dollars be used to enable him to celebrate religious holidays? "
Advertisement 
Advertisement 