Newspaper Ads from the 7 Rivers Region Classifieds from the 7 Rivers Region Jobs in the 7 Rivers Region Cars in the 7 Rivers Region Homes for Sale in the 7 Rivers Region Rental PRoperties in the 7 Rivers Region & Rivers Region Website Directory Shopping in the 7 Rivers Region
 SPONSOR LINKS
spacer
spacer
 Home > News > Story
increase font size | email story | print story

Published - Monday, March 17, 2008

POST COMMENT | READ COMMENTS (149 comment(s))

Builder recalls 1960 origins of star, cross

   Advertisement   
Advertise Info. Website Directory
Holmen Village Board members recruited Art Moe to build the giant star on Star Hill back in 1960. It was his idea to make it double as a cross. The cross has been the subject of a complaint because the cross is on village-owned property and the electricity to light it is paid for by the village.
Photo by Randy Erickson

By RANDY ERICKSON | Editor

.
The Holmen Village Board gets credit for putting the lighted star on Star Hill. The cross was Art Moe’s idea, and at the time it went up, it wasn’t universally well received in the community.

In 1960, Moe was a successful builder who grew up in Holmen and was keeping plenty busy building homes and scout camps. In a phone interview from his home in Stone Lake, Wis., which is near Hayward, Moe recalled that members of the village board had seen a blufftop star up in Blair, Wis.

“They thought that’d be quite a thing to do,” said Moe, who is 80 years old. “We looked at it and I said, ‘Sure, we can do it, but it’s going to be expensive.’”

It didn’t turn out to be all that expensive, though, said Rector Wall, who was the village clerk at the time and remembered the star as being in Bangor instead of Blair. The cost for the project, Wall recalled, was split between the village and the Holmen Lions Club, which had just been formed.

“I think probably the village paid more because they had more money,” said Wall. He also noted it was a longstanding tradition for the fire department to help out with changing light bulbs, which sometimes didn’t have a long life, thanks to local boys and the BB guns.

Moe contacted Mississippi Power and Light, the electric utility back then, and talked the company out of some poles. Then he went to the lumber yard his grandfather started and got a bunch of 2x8s and 2x12s and laid them out on the concrete slab in front of his garage.

He drilled the holes and bolted everything together. “Then we took it all apart and put it together up on top,” Moe said.

To mount the star and cross on the poles, Moe borrowed a 40-foot ladder from the fire department and recruited Ralph Anderson to help. Anderson, he said, was the only guy in town with spiked shoes for pole climbing.

“We had quite a time. ... It wasn’t a pleasurable experience,” Moe recalled. “Damn, 40 foot was a long way up, and you were on top of a bluff to boot.”

The work was worth it, though, as the star was a big hit with the community, which at that time had only about 450 people, Moe said.

The cross, on the other hand, had a few detractors, he recalled, but the objections had nothing to do with separation of church and state. Moe took the dimensions for the cross from his Lutheran Bible, and he later got “static” from some Holmen Catholics.

“There was a little friction,” he said. “They said it was a Lutheran cross. It’s just one of those things — small people with big mouths.”

Moe is equally baffled about the controversy that arose last week after a Holmen resident, Eric Barnes, lodged an informal complaint with the village because the cross, which is lit during the 40 days of Lent, stands on property that the village bought five years ago.

“That don’t make sense,” said Moe. “Why are they objecting to the damn thing?”

A lot of area residents had the same question on their mind, judging from several interviews, a handful of letters to the editor and an unprecedented outpouring of reader commentary on the Holmen Courier Web site.

It doesn’t make sense to Gene Alberts, who was the village administrator and clerk five years ago when the village bought the property, largely because space was needed up there for a larger water reservoir. But then again, Alberts said he knew it was coming.

Members of the village board didn’t really discuss the potential for conflict or even a lawsuit over displaying a religious symbol on government-owned property, Alberts said, but they knew it could be an issue. At the time the property was purchased, La Crosse was in the heat of a legal battle over display of a 10 Commandments monument in a downtown city park.

“John (Chapman, village president) and I both knew somebody would eventually say something,” said Alberts, who is now assistant vice president of finance at Viterbo University in La Crosse.

“It’s just so silly that people get worked up over something like this,” Alberts said.

Barnes, the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse physics professor who raised the issue, said he expected there would be a negative reaction when he raised the issue.

“If you have a different opinion, you always hear the same things: ‘Why are you bucking the system,’” Barnes said.

He has received e-mails from people criticizing him for objecting to the Star Hill cross, but he also has received just as many e-mails applauding his stand. The criticism doesn’t bother him, he said.

“Everybody is entitled to their opinion,” he said.

As of midday Tuesday, Barnes still had not heard from anybody at the village regarding what the village was going to do about his concerns, if anything.

Barnes said he hopes Holmen’s solution doesn’t mimic La Crosse, which transferred to a civic group a small patch of park land that the 10 Commandments monument sits on, now with a double fence around it.

If Holmen transfers the land to a civic group, Barnes said he will ask the village to sell him a plot of land for the same price.

“If they’re giving away land, I’d like to have some, too,” he said. “I think that’s a pretty disingenous way of dealing with the problem.”

Contact Randy Erickson at randy.erickson@lee.net or (608) 786-6812.
.
   Advertisement   
 Tell us what you think...

 Comments »

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 24, 2008 10:11 PM:

" to "To Pack": You miss my point, which is that it is OBSESSIVE and VERY ODD for someone to attempt to find the "identity" of someone who posts on one of these sites. It could potentially lead to problems for one of the parties involved: wouldn't you agree? I believe that crosses some lines. Accurate or innaccurate, the fact that someone is attempting to find out WHO you are is alarming: I would think that no matter what your views on the issues that have been discussed on this site, you would have to agree that someone conducting internet searches to ATTEMPT to identify someone else on these posts would be seen as potentially agressive and potentially harmful. "

Seriously wrote on Mar 24, 2008 4:26 PM:

" How does 'The Wizard of Oz' fit into this? Just curious...

"

To:Truth wrote on Mar 24, 2008 4:16 PM:

" I think I understand where you are coming from. You say you actually are anti-religious. Regardless of the cross issue, do you not feel that this area is intolerant of other beliefs? You really feel that the community would 'welcome' all of the religions that you mentioned? If the citizens who did not want the cross removed had not resorted to all the name calling, cross in my yard, holier than thou attitude, I might believe that. Do you think it's just this forum group (particularly on the Tribune forum) that are behaving in this manner? "

Respectful wrote on Mar 24, 2008 4:08 PM:

" I believe the attitude went from condescending all the way to name calling. It certainly wasn't respectful. Wow...don't let anyone in Holmen know that you question anything. You must be a part of some group if you do. "

To Pack wrote on Mar 24, 2008 3:08 PM:

" You think these posts about religion and the Constitution have been respectful discussions? "

To Pack wrote on Mar 24, 2008 2:15 PM:

" You did a google search on yourself? What did you find? Sad...misguided...Sheesh! Where are you coming from? I think the people calling Barnes names are sad and misguided...maybe you should google that. "

Oops! wrote on Mar 24, 2008 1:10 PM:

" I was looking for 'notme'. Got some squirrels bothering my birdfeeders. Thought he might be able to help. Has anyone seen him? "

The tacky police wrote on Mar 24, 2008 12:55 PM:

" To: Truth...I hope you find it someday.

To: Pack...I hope you get a life someday.

To: ToTo...I hope you find Dorothy someday.

To: Everyone else-Please put your holiday decorations away for the year. Hopefully spring is on it's way! Green grass....and beautiful yards minus all the junk! "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 24, 2008 12:03 PM:

" PS - "To: To Pack" you should dig deeper than that google search...it MAY lead to misinformation...good try though...even you can see the ERROR of your search...flattered that you care so much to attempt a "stalking"...a little eerie though and obsessive, don't you think? I guess I would worry more about THAT if I were you rather than why someone would choose to post in certain places. S T A L K E R...hmmm, shoulc you seek help ToTo? "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 24, 2008 11:42 AM:

" wow..."smooth talker"...I always wanted to have someone call me "cool", but I will take "smooth talker" until I earn "cool"...gosh I feel like I am in with the COOL CROWD now. "Religious" discussion? I was discussing the Constitution and some US History, but I take it that YOU have been viewing this differently. Interesting and quite insightful. "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 24, 2008 11:33 AM:

" to "ToPack": Hate...interesting word that has never been associated with my post or my reference to barnes. Your words, not mine. In regard to NOT discussing your beliefs in regard to religion or politics, your perspective is a sad one, and I think it's misguided. I have rarely encountered a situation where respecful discussion of either of these issues resulted in a reason for fear, and I think it usually gives more understanding. "

To:Truth wrote on Mar 24, 2008 9:32 AM:

" False. "

To: To Pack wrote on Mar 22, 2008 3:05 PM:

" Pretty sad isn't it...And don't you just love the smooth talker from Rochester who spends all day on these religious discussion boards. Makes you wonder what that's all about. "

Truth wrote on Mar 22, 2008 12:55 PM:

" Wow...just read the post responding to Pack...you couldn't be more wrong. A Jewish person could move next door to anyone (or a Muslim, Hindu, maybe even worshipper of Satan) and get along with every single person. If they raised their voice and demanded a change to a long-standing tradition, then (and only then) would there be a problem. It's not that we don't like Barnes because he is not religious (I am not religious, maybe even anti-religious). It is that he came here, DEMANDS a change to something that has been around for about 50 years. You don't come to a small, midwestern, traditional community and start making demands unless you are prepared for outlash. I'm sure Barnes is a good guy, he needs to simply shut up though. "

To Pack wrote on Mar 22, 2008 11:50 AM:

" So you hate Barnes? How can you hate someone you don't know just because you disagree with them? Based on all the comments I read, it seems that parents in Holmen are teaching their children that name calling and hate are the appropriate response for someone you don't agree with. So, if I'm Jewish and don't like the star on the hill it's ok for everyone else to hate me. I now know to never discuss politics, religion, or the war with Holmen residents. I might disagree with their beliefs or views and be subjected to name calling or ridicule.
Thank you Holmen residents for showing what you're really like.
"

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 12:24 AM:

" "wrong": WOW...WalMart? Actually that would be kind of fun I think...the greeter! I will consider that, but I already have my heart set on being the fries guy at McDonald's when I want a bit of a break...those would be THE best fries you ever had. Oh well, it's all probably just a dream for me, but thanks for the positive motivation and the CAN DO encouragement.

Slavery: not mentioned in the constitution.

Womens voting rights: not mentioned in the constitution.

Obviously, the Constitution couldn't consider ALL advances specifically, so it has to be interpreted by our Justices to rule in a way to preserve its original intent. Is the coexistence of religious beliefs a new thing, or did that situation exist during the birth or the Constitution and the lives of the Founders? Since it already existed, I believe they had that one covered. "

Right wrote on Mar 21, 2008 11:04 PM:

" OK, how about this? So many people say if Barnes doesn't like the cross, he can just leave Holmen.

Well how about PackAttack and others who don't like the way the courts have interpreted the constitution and the law in the 21st century just go back to the 18th century.

I mean, come on, do you seriously think the founding fathers thought they had it all figured out? Get real! They thought slavery was a good idea. They didn't think women should have the right to vote (or the right to do much else).

If you want to live by the original constitution and throw out all the legal rulings that have taken place ever since, why don't you found yourself a new country. I'm sure you could get a job as a Wal-Mart greeter there too, eventually. "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 21, 2008 8:41 PM:

" to "wrong": I think it's funny that you want to argue that the constitution is law, yet you say those that knew the constitutions intent most closely and created EARLY precedent with their interpretations are LESS correct than those 200+ years removed from the founding fathers? In essence you are saying that those who wrote the constitution don't truly understand what the constitution truly represents and what it means? That's just crazy talk...you seriously mean that? The very defenition of "precedent" makes it OLDER than the current decisions that you refer to as "precedent"...precedent is used as a basis for new rulings to preserve continuity...so without older precedent newer rulings would be baseless...newer rulings have actually been ignoring precedent, so they are changing the meaning of the very Constitution you want to use in your argument...sounds like double talk to me...and I think that's just WRONG. By the way "wrong", Holmen WILL keep the Cross and you and barnes can have a cook out together...oops, you'll have to have a cook IN since barnes' neighbors don't like him anymore...and you can discuss how WRONG everyone else is...including those early law makers. "

Right wrote on Mar 21, 2008 7:18 PM:

" Well, Pack, the mistake you and a lot of other people seem to make is going back to old legal precedent. Newer rulings trump old precedent, and these kinds of cases don't go well for the side displaying religious symbols on public property.

Why do you think the village acted so quickly? I'll tell you why. Because the village knew it was in the wrong. And as far as I'm concerned, the village is still in the wrong. Keep the star up -- it is Star Hill after all -- but take down the cross.

Just because you like the older precedents better doesn't make them more valid. Get over it. "

Truth wrote on Mar 21, 2008 5:48 PM:

" The taxpayer money is lighting up that cross because 99.9% of local taxpayers are happy to have that community symbol and are willing to pay a penny a month to have something Holmen can be proud of.

.01% of the population has a problem with it. The .01% is supposed to have that much of a say??? Maybe in the textbook "Democracy for Dummies" but not in real life... "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 21, 2008 4:15 PM:

" PS..."right": My neighbor said he likes my analogy. In fact, we have agreed not to call the police or the ffrf about the Cross that public works spray painted in the street either. "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 21, 2008 4:04 PM:

" to "Right": WRONG...dig a little deeper than the RHETORIC that these groups circulate, and you will find that the earliest of ESTABLISHED legal precedent ruled in favor of such displays AND supported the rulings with such statements as "this is a Christian nation". The founding fathers simply wanted to prevent any church or religious organization from controlling the government The next time you use "quotations", use it after an actual quote of those you reference. Here are some historical references to assist you "Right": the Liberty Bell inscription, the Supreme Courthouse, and the Jefferson Memorial. Study up and then tell me how "illegal" that Cross really is. In regard to barnes: the guy reached out to "other communities and groups" to see what could be done to resolve the issue...hmmm...wonder what he meant by that? Was THAT his low key approach? "

To:Right wrote on Mar 21, 2008 2:19 PM:

" Of course it is ok to go against legal precedent if the legal precedent is wrong or irrelevant. As stated below "to changes", it is not up to the courts to make up laws, only to interpret. If that wasn't the case, Matt Staver and Liberty Council would not have successfully defended so many cities against these types of nuisance suits. "

To Changes wrote on Mar 21, 2008 2:16 PM:

" You misread. Smoking bans are the result of an act by the legislature-our elected representatives. This is how our system of Government is supposed to work. The courts function, on the other hand, is not to make law. So their rulings are irrelevant. If there was an actual law against public displays of faith, we could have a discussion. But there isn't. "

Right wrote on Mar 21, 2008 2:12 PM:

" A lot of you people seem to think that "majority rules" is the law of the land, but it isn't. It's the law that is the law of the land, and the founding fathers wanted it that way to protect us from the "tyranny of the majority."

Just because almost everybody thinks it's OK to go against established legal precedent and have tax dollars going to display a religious symbol doesn't mean it's right. You're all acting like the playground bully, throwing your weight around and getting your way just because you are bigger.

And PackAttack, your analogy of asking your neighbor's guest to move his car is just plain stupid. That person doesn't have as much invested in having his car stay put as people do with a religious icon.

And Barnes made his complaint in as low key a way as possible. He didn't threaten legal action, and he didn't go running to the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The FFRF has had no involvement in this situation, other than to comment on it in the first article written about it.

Barnes did the equivalent of going to his neighbor's house and politely asking to have the cross moved. And what did the cross owner do? He said, 'Hey, it's not my cross anymore!' "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 21, 2008 12:14 PM:

" to "Re-Pack Attack": do you mean bizarre? If you mean I attend BAZZARREs you are mistaken, and that would be an odd assumption. If you mean I am BIZARRE, in that I am different from the average, then aren't we all?

to "Changes": HOW did you associate these two issues? I believe that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness ARE guarantees, but when your actions compromise the LIFE and HAPPINESS of others your actions WILL be regulated (ie: see "murder"). I don't think the proposed law will prevent you from smoking yourself to death at home...enjoy it there, just don't share it with the rest of us. "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 21, 2008 12:04 PM:

" Truth: WELL STATED...and nicely concise!

Bottom line for me: It is against the law to park withing 4' of a driveway, yet my neighbors visitors periodically park with half their vehicle blocking my drive. I simply go next door, and ask them to move their vehicle: I don't call the police to have it towed. The latter is what barnes has done, so, whether it is or is not constitutional, barnes didn't behave as most of us would in allowing time for a resolution. He decided to draw attention to HIS cause. "

Truth wrote on Mar 21, 2008 11:04 AM:

" Spengler:

You think you read a post and know all about someone? How obtuse of you to make accusations of racism about someone you dont know! I am the least racist, most open person I know, but since I am firmly grounded on this planet earth, I am realistic. We can talk realistic, or fantasy. Since this is real life, I choose realism. Bottom line is Holmen, WI is a CHIRSTIAN area in terms of religion. There is no debate. It is historically Christian, presently Christian, and will always be overwhelmingly Christian. All I am saying is that if someone of a different religion moves here and creates a fuss about long standing traditions, they had better not expect cooperation. They can say anything they want to, but nothing is going to change becase they are outnumbered 5,000 to 1. So, they had better not waste their time complaining and arguing because there is no point. This is all pointless. Tone down your extremist accusations before you know all the facts. "

Changes wrote on Mar 21, 2008 10:17 AM:

" So, based on the arguments I have read here, it seems that the majority of the people are against a state wide smoking ban...
*It isn't written in the Constitution that government can tell me where I can and can't smoke.
*Restaurants and bars have always had smoking, why change it.
*If you don't want to be subjected to secondhand smoke, don't go out to eat.
Or have I misread people arguments for the cross? "

To Bill Bright wrote on Mar 21, 2008 8:40 AM:

" I must have misread, but did you actually say that Christmas was not solely a Christian holiday? "

Re-Pack attack wrote on Mar 21, 2008 8:00 AM:

" Borders on bazaar... "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 20, 2008 5:09 PM:

" Bill: So on the point of what you are saying is that you don't want to be involved with the maintenance of a Christian symbol, or are you against assisting with the maintenance of ANY religious symbol? I have to say that your 'interpretation' of the Cross' message is saddening to me and offensive: I believe it reveals the real issue behind your displeasure with the Lions. You paint the Cross as a symbol of aggression and hatred, yet Christians, Jews, Musslims, etc have lived side by side for years in the area with no problems. It seems that the problems arise when one group tells another group what to do or tries to exert control over the other group. THAT is what barnes and the ffrf have done. Coincidentally, I did a search for religiou, worship based locations in and around Holmen, and there were none that were NOT Christian based. I don't think that is because anyone has told people of other faiths to stay away. In the 18 months prior to barnes' attempt to take away a symbol in a town comprised of MOSTLY Christian followers, did barnes have any trouble with his beliefs? I would be curious to see how barnes' request would have proceeded had he asked to ALSO be represented on that hill: none of us can know for sure, but I think there would have been much more welcoming than there would have been bashing. Surely, there would have been some negativity, but I would guess THAT approach would have proceeded differently and with less division of the community.

PS: I only work for the government thru June, just like the rest of you. Have you not heard of the wireless workplace? Try it, you can accomplish SO much more than you can with that PC. "

Bill Bright wrote on Mar 20, 2008 3:10 PM:

" PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 19, 2008 2:17 PM:
" Bill: You mistook my intent: my point was that Lions Orgainzations DO participate in Christian related events, so I don't see what harm there is in YOUR participating with the Cross' maintenance. You seem concerned that ALL faiths have a chance to be represented, so why not offer a project to your Lion group that would assist another faith group in Holmen? I don't think you should leave the Lions because of this issue. I think it in no way shows preferrential treatment: if some other group requested your assistance and had been turned down, then I would see it as non-secular. My point was this: why would you leave a group and people you enjoy, when you haven't explored the secular opportunities you are looking for? Christmas is not, and never should be a dirty word, and it was mentioned in the article: relax and enjoy serving...and thank you for doing so...not enough people do. "

No, I didn't mistake what you were saying. I merely say that there is a lot of difference between the Christian members of a club giving out food during a holiday that not solely a Christian time and changing light bulbs on a highly-visible, patently-Christian symbol in order for the world to know that they eschew the infidel. I do NOT espouse putting more religious symbols out there, or in any other publicly owned place.

Now, are you actually doing some of that work you're so proud to tell us you're doing and not goofing off on the computer at work? "

Lots of posts wrote on Mar 20, 2008 2:47 PM:

" Must work at a government job to have all that time 500 comments...kind of like Barnes... "

TOTO wrote on Mar 20, 2008 1:55 PM:

" It's ToTo the dog from The Wizard of Oz...referring to the Pagan Oz, witches, etc. "

Toto wrote on Mar 20, 2008 12:40 PM:

" It's Toto...Rock band from the 70's "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 20, 2008 11:21 AM:

" ToTo: by the way...the hours that you see posts...I am working...I do work very long hours to be successful, and one of the breaks that I enjoy is exchanging ideas and thoughts with others. One of my observations / beliefs is that our country is in trouble as the misinterpretation of the rights guaranteed by the constitution continue to be perpetuated as TRUTHS: it has made open discussion of religion and the ideas exchanged to be taboo, and without those exchanges we miss opportunities to understand each other. When understanding and open discussion are halted, we are truly weakened as a nation. I enjoy the open exchange: respectful, honest, humane sharing of ideas and beliefs...I learn so much that way. If THAT "scares" you, that would be a shame. I actually did spend a significant portion of my life in the Holmen area, and I do still come back there several times each year (you may have missed my stating that earlier): not that it REALLY makes a difference on this issue. "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 20, 2008 11:10 AM:

" ToTo: Once this post disappears, whose weight will you be able to guess? ToTo, define for me what it means to be a Christian. You seem to believe that Christians should be ashamed just BECAUSE they are Christian. Being Christian does NOT require silence on issues. Defending my beliefs is NOT un-Christian. It does mean believing in God and HIS Word, and trying to live your life as close to Christ: part of God's Word tells Christians that we are imperfect...and I believe that applies to ALL of us. I pray to God daily...many times more often...that He forgive my imperfections...THAT is being Christian. I would be open to discussing views with barnes and to changing my opinion based upon what he has to say, but, at this point I see him as selfish: tell me how this is "un-Christian". I will say that YOU don't know barnes any better either, so for you to defend him as if ...hold it...are YOU barnes? Just kidding...you get my point, I hope. "

Court wrote on Mar 20, 2008 10:47 AM:

" I wish it would have gone to court too. Hopefully this has been an eye opener to everyone. We live in an area that is becoming quite diverse. There is room here for everyone. And good citizens surround you who are not necessarily Christian. Sadly, a few bad eggs turned this into a name calling session. Attempting to irritate a fellow man with religious symbols in your yard? Put there for that purpose alone? Amazing that you could even write some of these suggestions down and not see how wrong that would be. It's the 1st day of spring....let's enjoy this beautiful country and love our fellow man even if he believes differently than you do. "

Question wrote on Mar 20, 2008 10:08 AM:

" Who is To-to? How did Dorothy's dog get into this? "

To To Football Head wrote on Mar 20, 2008 10:04 AM:

" The irony, of course, is in your statements "All he did is challenge the legality of the cross" and "Is this still America?" I daresay, you hit the nail on the head without even realizing it. "

To 7:35am wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:12 AM:

" You are absolutely right. They should have fought it in court. I believe the Village attorney is in error-I don't think it is a given they would have lost. Matt Staver of Liberty Council has successfully defended many communities against nuisance suits such as this. Best of all, they do so free of charge. So, the city would have had nothing to lose. The worst that could happen is the courts would make another error in ruling, and the decision would be irrelevant anyway. "

To Spengler wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:07 AM:

" Except there is no yard sale of city property. They are selling one piece of land to one entity. That does not meet the definition of yard sale. Again, if you can't see the ridiculousness of not being able to sell a piece of property unless you make property available to anyone who requests it, yes, our education system has truly failed. "

To:FOOTBALL HEAD wrote on Mar 20, 2008 8:29 AM:

" You don't know that Mr Barnes is greedy or selfish! You know NOTHING about this man. NOTHING! He simply challenged the legality of the cross. That's what he did. Period. Is this still America? And you call yourself a Christian! You should be ashamed of yourself. I can't wait until this post disappears so I won't have to see Packattack anymore. "

To:Pack wrote on Mar 20, 2008 8:12 AM:

" You're NOT from Holmen and you know it. You're not from this area. Not that that doesn't entitle you to an opinion but it doesn't make you any different than other groups getting involved. The ones you so enjoy pointing to. You're up past midnight on this forum and up again in the early morning. Kind of obsessed? Kind of scary, if you ask me. I would say you aren't very solid with your spiritual side. Usually the case when someone wants to jam their opinion down your throat over and over again. Say it enough times and you might believe it yourself. "

To Pack (and others) wrote on Mar 20, 2008 7:35 AM:

" It seems like you are just as self-centered as you accuse Barnes of being. Everything is only from your point of view.

If you weren't so myopic, you'd see that Barnes doesn't really want land up on the hill. I mean, what a pain to drag a lawnmower up there twice a week.

He seeks fairness. And ultimately, he wants the cross down. I'm sure he sees this transfer of land to the Lions as an end run around the rules against government promotion of religion.

I'm not sure how a court would rule, but the whole deal leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Here the government paid more than half the cost to erect the thing, has paid all the costs of the electricity, has sent taxpayer-supported firetrucks up there to change bulbs and for the past five years also has owned the land.

The owning of the land is hardly the most damning evidence of the government promoting religion. The cross has been government sponsored since 1960.

In a way, I wish they would just fight this in court. The village attorney warned them they would lose, but I'd really like to see this put to the test, all the way to the Supreme Court (which would probably rule in favor of the cross, given the current lineup of justices).

OK, I've had my say. Go ahead and spew away.

"

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 20, 2008 6:46 AM:

" "Spengler" - Isn't it funny that barnes didn't seek EQUAL ACCESS until there was land for sale? He never asked for his belief to be represented also, all he could see was his own selfishness and inability to compromise or work with anyone. Now though, his greed and selfishness think that EQUAL ACCESS IS a great idea if he can grab some land out of it. "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 20, 2008 12:15 AM:

" ToTo: You're hearing voices now? You should get that checked...really. Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions...they certaily lead to some interesting judgements by you ToTo. Let's see, so far: I assumptively am NOT from the Holmen area and have Never lived there nor do I have any knowledge of the area; I assumptively am a "right winger, religious extremist"; I 'troll the internet' seeking religious causes; and I am younger than you. How much more do you need to make a guess at my height and weight? I feel like I am at the fair...I think I win a prize when you guess wrong, don't I CARNI? From ToTo to CARNI in one statement...nice. "

spengler wrote on Mar 19, 2008 11:20 PM:

" ok-- the last two posts are tragic examples of an educational system that has failed. first, "to solutions": your hands type but there is no communication with your brain. no one is inventing a law - mr Barnes, like myself, simply seeks equal access to star hill if there's going to be a yard sale of city property - seems fair no? and "truth": "better not raise their voice?" what a condescending, sanctimonious, self-righteous piece of tripe. let's be clear - were your ancestors aggrieved slave owners, possibly land barons who lost a treaty fight with the natives? "better not raise their voice?" i'll leave it to Sojourner Truth [a woman of color who raised her voice more than 150 years ago] to educate you on that score: "Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter. I think that 'twixt the negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the white men will be in a fix pretty soon. But what's all this here talking about?" in honor of folk like her, i will ALWAYS raise my voice against petty tyrants who think they have the "truth" "

Truth wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:20 PM:

" Yes, this nation is not wed to any particular religion, but certain people in certain areas have certain majority beliefs. The founders of this village were Christian, 99% of all people in this village (who are religious) are Christian, so this is a defacto "Christian Village". Sure, a Muslim, Jew, or someone of any religion could live peacefully and comfortably here...but they had better not raise their voice about lack of religious representation because they are out of their element. One person does not equal the views of 5,000 people. That might be what the book says about democracy, but its just simply not real life people. "

To Solutions wrote on Mar 19, 2008 4:19 PM:

" Mr Barnes just likes to complain. If the cross was never there, he would have found something else. I understand he was actually trying to invent a law that stated if someone sells a piece of land, they are required to make a similar piece of land available to anyone who requests it. Ridiculous. "

To:PackAttack wrote on Mar 19, 2008 4:01 PM:

" There's just something about your posts. I suspect you are younger than me. But it's possible that you have viewed the movie 2001:A Space Odyssey? The computer's name is Hal...when I see your posts, I hear his voice. Smooth, condescending... "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 19, 2008 2:25 PM:

" "Hello?" Were you asking me a question or someone else? I was confused by your post. "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 19, 2008 2:21 PM:

" Bill: In regard to your "are you a lion?" question - no, I am not...yet. I had been invited to a meeting several years ago, and I had joined, but I didn't participate (too young to realize what I was missing and what I could give). I have been looking for ways to further serve in my community, and I think THAT will be a group that I look into. Sitting on my couch? No...I may as well sell the thing...it doesn't even get used during Packer/Badger football games...I can't sit down for those. "

Solutions? wrote on Mar 19, 2008 2:21 PM:

" If Mr. Barnes wants to complain about the cross that is his right, however if he is going to judge the city of LaCrosse for their solution then he should have one of his own, beyond taking down the Cross. If you are going to take such a stance you should be willing to compromise and it appears he is not so willing, his desire to complain about the cross is worth no more than those who want to keep it and if he holds steadfast to the idea that it should be taken down that is selfish. Clearly in the midst of this there must be a compromise. The cross, which is one of the most widely recognized ancient symbols is identified with many organizations and religions across the world. Is it specifically the cross that is the problem or the time in which the cross is lit during the year that is the problem? This cross has no religious affiliation and the only ties to religion it has is in regard to when it is lit, perhaps it should be lit at a different time of the year? Or perhaps it should be lit multiple times throughout the year? Perhaps one of the local religious organizations or churches could take over maintenance of the cross. I think there are many options in which this could work as long as people are willing to compromise and not be selfish. "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 19, 2008 2:17 PM:

" Bill: You mistook my intent: my point was that Lions Orgainzations DO participate in Christian related events, so I don't see what harm there is in YOUR participating with the Cross' maintenance. You seem concerned that ALL faiths have a chance to be represented, so why not offer a project to your Lion group that would assist another faith group in Holmen? I don't think you should leave the Lions because of this issue. I think it in no way shows preferrential treatment: if some other group requested your assistance and had been turned down, then I would see it as non-secular. My point was this: why would you leave a group and people you enjoy, when you haven't explored the secular opportunities you are looking for? Christmas is not, and never should be a dirty word, and it was mentioned in the article: relax and enjoy serving...and thank you for doing so...not enough people do. "

Volunteer wrote on Mar 19, 2008 1:33 PM:

" I have been a volunteer in this area for 25 years. Girl scouts, boy scouts, baseball, soccer, 4-H, etc. I have been a board member of a few of these organizations and actually the 'president' of one. I am not Christian. I have no idea if anyone is aware of this or not. It would make me very uncomfortable if religion, especially a particular one, became the focus of any of these groups. I hope to continue to be a volunteer but would also resign if we start to affiliate or fundraise for a particular religion. "

Bill Bright wrote on Mar 19, 2008 12:23 PM:

" PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 16, 2008 10:44 PM:
" Bill: The following comes from the Lions Club's website - "Towanda Daily Review (Pennsylvania, USA) December 27, 2007--Towanda Lions distribute 79 Christmas baskets to deserving area residents in need. Club member Nick Hurley donates the fruit from his supermarket business." I don't think your group is attempting to serve one faith group or people of any one belief over another. Your service is needed... "

So you think that the Lions should be a Christian organization? Are you a Lion... or just lyin' around with nothing better to do? The organization attracts many of its members because they prefer a secular organization where they can contribute without religious falderal. If the organization becomes too religious we'll simply leave. We have better things to worry about, and better things to contribute our money and time for.

As to the guy giving food at Christmas... I applaud him for finding a reason to give it at any time of the year. Our own club takes calls from kids at Christmas. We don't regard it as a Christian holiday as much as an everybody holiday. We also have a Halloween party for the kids, but it doesn't make us a pagan organization. None of these things are likely to bring dissension among Lions as much as supporting an overt religious symbol on community property with money that could just as well bring sight to the blind, a new piece of equipment to an EMT squad, etc. "

Don't worry, 9:52am... wrote on Mar 19, 2008 11:51 AM:

" I am sure if he is a law-abiding citizen, he shouldn't have to worry about any of these things. I am sure the police officers in the area will make sure he is on the straight and narrow--they are probably a little nervous about any time off or holiday pay for Easter or Christmas disappearing due to Barnes misinterpretation of the First Amendment. I am sure the tax assesors and other city and county workers are not pleased either. "

Hello? wrote on Mar 19, 2008 11:51 AM:

" I think Pack became 'To Mr. Barnes-11:35AM' more pointing at FFRF...and to what organization do you belong? You never answered that. "

Re-professional blogger wrote on Mar 19, 2008 11:46 AM:

" I was being facetious. "

To Mr Barnes wrote on Mar 19, 2008 11:35 AM:

" The irony here is that Mr Barnes is not supportive of literal law. He has no idea what the constitution says, he probably just got the idea the cross's presence was unconstitutional in a dream or from his friends at FFRF. There is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution that would prohibit the presence of the cross. I know some of our courts have said different, but they are clearly wrong, so their opinions must be treated as irrelevant(which Holmen and many communities are indeed doing). "

To: Mr Barnes ( 9:52 am post) wrote on Mar 19, 2008 10:10 AM:

" Childish... "

Professional Blogger wrote on Mar 19, 2008 10:04 AM:

" More like someone with nothing better to do. 500 posts? "

Mr. Barnes wrote on Mar 19, 2008 9:52 AM:

" Since Mr. Barnes is so supportive of literal law and chooses to ignore any interpretation of the law we should take the letter of the law to Mr. Barnes to insure that his dog is licenced, he has the correct permits for any home improvements, he never cheats on his taxes, cars are registered and up to date. We should investigate his last few insurance claims. He should be stopped by the police for not coming to a complete stop, using a blinker, etc. and give an ticket for every law that has been broken.. to the letter... "

A professional blogger? wrote on Mar 19, 2008 9:45 AM:

" Funny. "

To: Pack's nephew wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:39 AM:

" Seek the truth, young man, the truth. "

To:packattack wrote on Mar 19, 2008 8:03 AM:

" I really haven't observed much at all from Barnes or FFRF, yet you say they lie. I have seen your information...and it is incorrect. And I believe it's more like 500 posts. If you say it enough times maybe it will become truth. I don't think so. "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:05 AM:

" Spengler: There seems to be much confusion here as to what is historical and what is faith. The proofs of each are different: the proof of history lies in verifiable facts, and the proof of faith lies in the hearts and minds. There is evidence of each, but historical proof must be solid, concrete, and verifiable: proof of faith is much less concrete although it no less valid and not without evidence. My personal faith was solidified as I watched my Grandmother pass away: the resolve, comfort, and peace that her faith and trust in God gave her was all that I needed to see and feel to know in my heart that God does exist. I will not tell you or anyone else that your faith based beliefs are wrong or that you can't believe and feel differently than I do. "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 19, 2008 6:25 AM:

" Spengler: I am not expressing my belief in regard to MY own faith. That would sound very different. I am arguing what our history says, what our constitution has stated, and what our supreme court has stated and ruled. There is a great deal of misinformation spread by people like barnes and the ffrf, and, unless others take time to disprove and point out the truths, then people like my nephew, who is a great young man, but doesn't take the time to look deeper than the news story yet, will believe people like barnes and the ffrf. I have neither spoken negatively about ANY religious group, nor have I placed them below another: I HAVE pointed out what our constitution, founding fathers, and supreme court have stated in regard to the issue. I do feel very strongly that THIS issue is greatly dividing our country, especially due to MISINFORMATION, and much of it intentional. "

To: Pack Attack wrote on Mar 19, 2008 4:46 AM:

" Over the past 10 days I have seen at least 100...could be 200 posts from you regarding this issue. On every forum you appear. A little weird? And you're not from around here? You don't know Barnes, you don't know Holmen...Your facts are skewed...Someone else had it right...You're either with an outside group or you're pretty strange. Are you a professional right wing blogger? If so, get your facts in order because you have been stomped on. I have this image of you jumping up and down screaming, "Admit this is a Christian nation!" "

spengler wrote on Mar 19, 2008 12:12 AM:

" packattack: let's be clear; as long as you have your brand of faith, you will be able to win any argument - because faith is NOT reason - sadly, for many like yourself, reason and faith don't play well with each other. you continue to ignore those parts of reasoned discourse that don't fit your rather narrow world view. it's not the currency, or the courthouse walls, or the cross on the hill that make up a christian - it's the love and knowledge of Christ in the heart of any man or woman. l re-read your posts; no charity or love to be found - just an unrelenting desire to reduce non-christians to a slightly lesser value. you call mr Barnes statements "lies" but only because he professes different beliefs - how strange that he seems so much more disposed towards tolerance than you. we are a nation with many christians true, but we are not a nation wedded to the acceptance of one religion at the expense of others. the display of the cross is ultimately rooted in faith-based arrogance. keep the star - it's special, but remains non-denominational. why work so hard to alienate any of our citizens? "

To: Spengler and all with the same "minority has a voice" rule... wrote on Mar 19, 2008 12:10 AM:

" Why don't we just elect everyone who runs for president? Even the minority's wants would then be satisfied. Obviously, with any sense of logic, the minority cannot be and will never be given an equal stand to the majority (especially the overwhelming majority). I don't know why you talk about it if it is impossible. You don't see me talking about how I am going to hit the Powerball 5 times in a row do you?? it is POINTLESS. And stupid... "

to PackAttack wrote on Mar 18, 2008 11:06 PM:

" The latest legal precedent takes precedence over the older legal precedent. That's why they're called precedents. You can go ahead and call it "political correctness" but our society is evolving and changes in how the courts rule is bound to happen. Oh, wait. You probably don't believe in evolution. "

To: Pack agenda wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:43 PM:

" Had you pegged right from the start, you had an agenda, you're not from here, you spin the facts... "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:41 PM:

" ToTo: Why don't you acknowledge that this IS a Christian Nation? That doesn't mean that other religions and beliefs are not accepted. That does, hoever, mean that we are based on Christian principles and ideas. You continue to attempt to deny God's place in our Nation and in our founding fathers' plans for our Nation. "Precedence" is the established interpretation, definition and ruling, yet much of the established precedence has been ignored and replaced by "political correctness". The same Justices that you claim PRECEDENcE of are also telling parents that their children have rights beyond their parents' rights to parent...allowing them to do virtually anything they wish, within the law. Interesting you would choose to call RECENT rulings Precedence where much earlier rulings cotradict many more recent rulings. "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:24 PM:

" from House Resolution 888: "Whereas the first act of America's first Congress in 1774 was to ask a minister to open with prayer and to lead Congress in the reading of 4 chapters of the Bible;
Whereas Congress regularly attended church and Divine service together en masse;
Whereas throughout the American Founding, Congress frequently appropriated money for missionaries and for religious instruction, a practice that Congress repeated for decades after the passage of the Constitution and the First Amendment;
Whereas in 1776, Congress approved the Declaration of Independence with its 4 direct religious acknowledgments referring to God as the Creator (`All people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'), the Lawgiver (`the laws of nature and nature's God'), the Judge (`appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world'), and the Protector (`with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence');
Whereas upon approving the Declaration of Independence, John Adams declared that the Fourth of July `ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty';


"

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:10 PM:

"

Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: \ˈgäd also ˈgȯd\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
Date: before 12th century
1capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe bChristian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

"

To Pack wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:24 PM:

" The Supreme Court referring to "God" in its opening in no way negates the fact that the court has ruled against government promotion of religion time and time again. They're not saying "Christ" or "Allah" or any other brand of God. They're giving a nod to some kind of deity, but it could be Ra, who rides across the sky every day on his chariot.

Why don't you consider some of the legal precedents before you draw any conclusions about the separation between church and state? "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:17 PM:

" My final statement on the fabled "seperation"... http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/procedures.pdf "Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having buiness before the Honorable, the SupremeCourt of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attentiona, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court!" This is the opening of each days court session as the Justices enter. "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 18, 2008 8:05 PM:

" ...and thus........"seperation of Church and State" as presented by barnes and the ffrf is a fallacy...a term defined by them for their own means. "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 18, 2008 7:58 PM:

" toto: Yes, I do, and so do you...have these facts...yours are no different than mine, other than you wish to define WHICH wall they are on...the point is this...they are there: God's Word and God's Messenger. So, to the argument, that the Cross on a small town's hill should be removed and is unconstitutional: THAT argument would seem to be contradicted by the portrayal of Moses AND THE Ten Commandments being displayed in the MOST PUBLIC of places now wouldn't it? Noboday has requested and been denied equal space on that small town hill, now have they? "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 18, 2008 7:46 PM:

" toto: visit the sites I have posted. There IS no further discussion on that topic after that. Next time you "quote" something and present it as a "fact" you should back it up with the appropriate reference: without it your supposed "quote" is just wasted space, meaningless, and baseless.

Agenda: here it is, I would like the TRUTH to be told rather than the lies that this group and people like barnes attempt to spread by using the intimidation of lawsuits and inferring their supposed "knowledge" on the subject of Constitutional Rights due to their position. barnes either knows little on the subject, or he is a liar.

Visit the site...you too barnes "

To PackAttack wrote on Mar 18, 2008 7:41 PM:

" The fact is, that frieze is not above where the justices sit. The frieze that depicts Moses is one of two on the north and south walls that show great secular lawgivers.

The friezes which adorn the north and south walls of the courtroom in the Supreme Court building (also designed by Adolph Weinman) depict a procession of 18 great lawgivers: Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and Octavian (south wall); Justinian, Mohammed, Charlemagne, King John, Louis IX, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall and Napoleon (north wall):

According to the Office of the Curator of the Supreme Court of the United States, these figures were selected as a representation of secular law:

Weinman's training emphasized a correlation between the sculptural subject and the function of the building and, because of this, [architect Cass] Gilbert relied on him to choose the subjects and figures that best reflected the function of the Supreme Court building.

Faithful to classical sources, Weinman designed for the Courtroom friezes a procession of "great lawgivers of history," from many civilizations, to portray the development of secular law.

Moses is not given any special emphasis in this depiction: his figure is not larger than the others, nor does it appear in a dominant position. Also, the writing on the tablet carried by Moses in this frieze includes portions of commandments 6 through 10 (in Hebrew), specifically chosen because they are not inherently religious. (Commandments 6 through 10 proscribe murder, adultery, theft, perjury, and covetousness.)

Thank you, Snopes.com. I think you have your answer now, PackAttack "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 18, 2008 7:37 PM:

" In regard to your "fact" sources "ha ha", www.snopes.com is an interesting site, but I found it fairly useless in regard to this. I have used about.com before as well. I often find, however, that the best information comes from the source itself. So I will trust the Supreme Court's site above anything on these 2 sites. Visit the site, you WILL find it most interesting. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
and http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 18, 2008 7:16 PM:

" Here are your facts, straight from the supreme court website (very righ -wing): http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf ....check it out, I think you'll be glad you did. Here is an excerpt:"...Beinman designed a procession of "reat lawgivers of history" for the south and north wall to prtrtay the development of law." "Moses is depicted in the frieze holding two overlapping tablets, written in Hebrew, representing the Ten Commandments. Partially visible from behind Moses' beard are Commandments six through ten."
Interesting that the US Supreme Court website plainly states that those are infact the Ten Commandments. "

To:Pack Attack wrote on Mar 18, 2008 5:40 PM:

" Busted... "

To: Ha-Ha wrote on Mar 18, 2008 5:35 PM:

" Have you not noticed that old Pack Attack has an agenda? He only presents the FACTS you know. Propaganda, propaganda, propaganda.... Thanks! "

Haha wrote on Mar 18, 2008 5:14 PM:

" So much for your facts, PackAttack. You must get a lot of right-wing chain e-mails or something. Do everyone a favor and check them out at www.snopes.com or www.about.com. You'll be glad you did. "

To: PackAttack wrote on Mar 18, 2008 5:11 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. "

SARCASM!!!!!!!!!!! wrote on Mar 18, 2008 1:47 PM:

" IT'S SARCASM! It's Willie!!!!!! "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 18, 2008 12:58 PM:

" ToTo: Busted? For speeding, shoplifting, pwi...? Busted, for posting well thought and fact backed ideas? About time you noticed TOTO. If I can be of further assistance in your development, let me know: there may be a fee associated with YOUR case though. "

Maybe... wrote on Mar 18, 2008 12:44 PM:

" I guess you can't really tell these days, can you? "

To: Hey guys wrote on Mar 18, 2008 12:24 PM:

" I believe you were looking at sarcasm. "

Hey guys, wrote on Mar 18, 2008 11:21 AM:

" someone check out the thread on the Tribune website regarding Government offices closing on Good Friday. Someone actually posited that they weren't closing for Good Friday, but rather for "Spring Holiday"(which, by sheer coincidence, occurs on Good Friday). Hilarious
"

Movie rental wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:55 AM:

" Rent Jesuscamp...available at Blockbuster "

To Spengler wrote on Mar 18, 2008 9:15 AM:

" How would keeping the star lit year round save the taxpayers money? What did you think of the article in the LaCrosse Tribune regarding Government offices being closed on Good Friday? I assume you are saying your tax monies paying to light the cross is unfair, but not unconstitutional-correct? "

To: PackAttack wrote on Mar 18, 2008 7:15 AM:

" Busted... "

move on.... wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:47 PM:

" I am sick of hearing about everyone's rights. How about we all worry about our responsibilities to our families and community. Please people ...get over it..it is done. "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:24 PM:

" Toto: Interesting that I HAVE to be from around the coulee region to have an opinion. Maybe the LaCrosse Tribune is just such a widely read publication that I stumbled on it at a coffee/internet shop? I have re-read your posts, thinking I had missed some sort of factual basis for your opinion, yet the only thing I have found is your opinion. Reply to this please: the Supreme Court Justices sit below a display featuring Moses AND The Ten Commandments...is this display unconstitutional? Why or why not? "

spengler wrote on Mar 17, 2008 9:44 PM:

" to truth: is it really possible that people like yourself still don't get it? it is not the presence of the cross, or Christianity, or your beliefs that are objectionable. it is the public support of ONE particular religion [however popular] that is the problem. possible solutions: offer any and all other groups the right to put up lighted displays; keep the star lit all 12 months; turn it off all together; pick one. but stop using the same rhetoric and logic that the tyranny of the majority has used for centuries to exercise unreasonable and in this case unconstitutional power over the citizenry. to name just a couple in whose footsteps you follow: the inquisition and the church fathers of Salem. if you look at the historical record you will quickly discover that their logic way too closely resembles yours. they also knew what was best for people and held a majority-supported point of view. hard to believe, but this isn't about you. it's about the rights of all holmen residents to practice, worship, observe, or stay home as they see fit. and not have their public monies support a single perspective - even one as popular as yours "

Truth wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:38 PM:

" I agree with OMG. People need to be concerned with FAR greater problems then a couple peices of wood nailed together with light bulbs. Nobody cared before one man opened his trap. It is a symbol of Holmen, and Holmenites are proud of it. Even to those who are not religious (the minority in Holmen)it is not offensive because its a community symbol. I am not being forced to accept Christianity just because my town had a religious symbol on a hill. "

To: attack wrote on Mar 17, 2008 7:00 PM:

" I am not confused at all. And it is you mixing other issues into the pot as well as pointing fingers at outside influences. You are an outside influence. I haven't seen any mention as to any history you may have in this area. Do you troll for religious conflicts? I detect an agenda...just as irritating as the other organization. "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 17, 2008 4:54 PM:

" "To: To..or Pack...I am confused"...yes you are...confused about the issues and confused about decency evidently. Have a bad personal experience did you? Get a therapist. What poor taste to mix the Holocaust, a human tragedy, with your personal agendas and vendettas. "

To:Tupac wrote on Mar 17, 2008 3:42 PM:

" Happy St Patrick's Day! "

To: To..or Pack...I am confused wrote on Mar 17, 2008 2:47 PM:

" Packattack-Did they meet with the Pope who pardoned all the pedophile priests? Maybe they shouldn't have met with the pope either. Two wrongs don't make a right. "

To: OK OK wrote on Mar 17, 2008 2:44 PM:

" Real Christian...yea, jam it down his throat...you are the kind of person that gives Holmen a bad name. Be a Christian, not an idiot. "

OK OK wrote on Mar 17, 2008 1:23 PM:

" So get this. Everyone in the neighborhood of this Barnes guy especially those who are in the line of sight of his house put up a lighted cross, 10 commandment sign with a light shinging on it, a large lit star, any and all religious symbols you want, just keep it with in the law of what you can put up, as a freedom of expression. Turn off the lights though at an appropriate time so he cannot take you to court for some other stupid reason.
surround this person with religious icons. "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:45 AM:

" to "TO": Back up your statement. Support it with some sort of factual basis. Otherwise I would propose you spend more time coming up with not-so- clever names with no meaning behind them. "

To: Pack wrote on Mar 17, 2008 9:35 AM:

" There truly is no support for what you believe. Instead of Pack, your name should be Slick. "

need a tissue wrote on Mar 17, 2008 9:10 AM:

" cry me a river mr. 2 face while you take the paid holidays and whine about the same religion your paid for to celebrate those holidays- so on those days you should be at work or refuse to be paid- then will talk about ethics and religion "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 17, 2008 7:25 AM:

" to Yawn: That's too bad...I find FACTS surrounding this issue to be very interesting...especially given the MISinformation that has been thrown at people as if it were TRUTH. Maybe you enjoy baseless statements, but I prefer to know that there is something supporting what I read and believe. Happy StPatrick's Day!! "

To:Pack wrote on Mar 17, 2008 5:21 AM:

" Yawn... "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 16, 2008 11:16 PM:

" On the grounds of the Nazi death camp Lions from Germany and Poland prayed. Then they softly sang a traditional Jewish song. The Israeli Lions hesitated for a moment and then joined in. “They started very still to sing and became louder and louder. We were surprised that our Israeli friends were mentally able to sing in a former concentration camp where a lot of them lost family members,” wrote Lion Manuela Lott of Sandersdorf, Germany, in an e-mail to The LION Magazine.
Last November the Lions from the three nations gathered again, this time in Rome, for fellowship and remembrance. They also met with Pope Benedict XVI. The core group will meet again this month in Nazareth in Israel to continue to build bridges of friendship and understanding. - from THE LION Magazine 11-07
"

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 16, 2008 10:44 PM:

" Bill: The following comes from the Lions Club's website - "Towanda Daily Review (Pennsylvania, USA) December 27, 2007--Towanda Lions distribute 79 Christmas baskets to deserving area residents in need. Club member Nick Hurley donates the fruit from his supermarket business." I don't think your group is attempting to serve one faith group or people of any one belief over another. Your service is needed... "

To Mr 93% wrote on Mar 16, 2008 10:28 PM:

" Yes, the courts are supposed to interpret the laws, as you say. The problem is, they did not interpret the 1st Amendment correctly. Anyone with a high school reading and comprehension level can see that. Regarding obscenity laws, those are the result of acts of the legislature, our elected representatives. If the legislature made a law prohibiting public displays of religious symbols, folks may not like it, but at least our system of Government would be working properly. Sorry, no matter what your personal feelings are, when the courts overstep, their rulings MUST be looked at as irrelevant. "

PackAttack2020 wrote on Mar 16, 2008 7:52 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'? "

Bill Bright wrote on Mar 16, 2008 4:55 PM:

" '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.' "

Movie.... wrote on Mar 16, 2008 7:33 AM:

" Sign up for the movie will be today at noon...under the cross. Bring your guns...unloaded, of course. "

It's me!! Mr. 93% wrote on Mar 15, 2008 10:30 PM:

" It's not about being offended. In fact, I don't think I've read anything about it. It's about a constitutional principle. That's a very cute attempt to diminish his argument, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Oh, and if "no one has the Constitutional right to not be offended"...I guess we can eliminate all those obscenity laws.

Lastly, the constitution also does not guarantee the right to privacy. Can you tell me where it mentions "Separation of Powers"? "

OMG wrote on Mar 15, 2008 10:25 PM:

" This really sucks how our professors, teachers, and parents,are behaving. You should be so much more worried about other things than wood and light bulbs up on a hill. Get real! Good for the Village for acting fast and getting rid of the problem, it is just an object it is not the most important thing in the world.Several people in Holmen have killed people in drunk driving accidents with less news coverage. Go home and read to your kids, or grandkids about Jesus,or do something worthwhile rather than arguing about nothing. I suggest to professor Barnes to follow suit, read to a child about anything he feels is worthwhile and quit worrying about wood and light bulbs on a hill. It is not worth causing this much awful discourse over, and deep down you all know it, but the truth is, you are enjoying it. Prove your christianity and stop this nonsense now, do something more worthwhile. Mr Barnes, fight with yourself from here on out. No one in Holmen believes you are acting on anyone's behalf other than your own personal agenda whatever that may be.
Mr. Barnes if you really are concerned about the 1st amendment, you should be happy with the fast results you got, and say good job to the Village, and not expect your own greed to intercede the outcome you got. I must tell you that I consider myself quite sensible and I have never found that when people used kindness and goodness to guide them that they ever veered far from the right path. Mr. Barnes please be sensible and accept the result you acheived and allow our Village to return to the midwestern peace that we knew 18 months ago. "

spengler wrote on Mar 15, 2008 10:23 PM:

" wow. "The separation of church and state isn't in the constitution," "majority rules" you guys haven't actually read any of the documents that our nation is founded on, have you? first, we are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. and for the very reason that the authors feared the tyranny of the majority, i.e. people like you. second, [once again] the existence of a past wrong does not justify its continued presence. kindly stop directing you anger towards mr. Barnes for your limited, narrow, provincial world view. and i promise you, as a citizen of holmen, if the village decides on the hope-nobody-notices-just-how-unaware-we-were-when-we-did-this approach of selling the land, i will be waiting in line with my checkbook to buy my piece of star hill as well. personally, i like the star, but as a taxpayer, i find it inappropriate that the village should spend ANY money on a symbol that denotes a specific religion; yours, mine, or anyone else's "

Movie wrote on Mar 15, 2008 7:32 PM:

" Ya'll might want to audition for a movie. You know the type...one with an uneducated crowd storming a jail cell...something like that. "

quiet wrote on Mar 15, 2008 4:17 PM:

" Maybe they sold it so quickly just so they didn't have listen or deal with the whining any longer. They have better things to do. "

Right wrote on Mar 15, 2008 1:19 PM:

" Yes, and nobody could say anything about such expression if it was on private property and paid for with private funds. But this is the government putting up a religious symbol and paying for its perennial expenses. The courts have been amply clear that this is not allowed. For proof, look no further than the village board's swift action to get the property that the cross stands on into private hands. "

CommonSense wrote on Mar 15, 2008 1:13 PM:

" Technically, the schools don't have 'Christmas' or 'Easter' break, they have winter and spring breaks. What people seem to miss in the whole separation of church and state argument is the second part. "Congress shall make no law establishing religion...OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEROF" (paraphrased). Freedom of expression is protected speech, just ask any activist homosexual, or flag-burning group. But just as a previous poster stated, we do not have a gurarantee of not being offended. It is a sad day when the Cross of Christ is offensive. "

Star wrote on Mar 15, 2008 12:45 PM:

" The seperation of church and state isnt in the constitution. I think it is in my opinion that the star and cross is what makes Holmen recognizable. I enjoy seeing it as I drive into town. It is like a bright representation of hope and happiness. Does a star have to have religeous meaning behind it? I'm not sure. Obviously the cross does. But, is that so bad? Maybe these people will stop celebrating Christmas and Easter, and every other religeous holiday , but the federal government recognizes these "holidays" and gives their workers days off accordingly at these times. My point is...what is next???? I dont know but I doubt if the school system will start taking away the Christmas break for the children because it represents a religeous time period in history? It's just silly. I'm glad the Lion's club is picking this land up. The they can protest the lion's club I guess. "

Mr. 93% wrote on Mar 15, 2008 9:06 AM:

" You are right, judges don't make law, but they do interpret the law and the meaning of the constitution as it pertains to law.

The courts have held for decades that the interpretation of the constitution that bans religious symbols on government property is the correct interpretation.

As for Barnes, I agree, the village should sell him a piece of land as well, right up there on that bluff. They should require him to fence it off, and because it is within the village, all the noxious weed ordinances apply.

In addition, Barnes has shown that is highly sought after land, after all several people have offered to buy it. The city will sell that "star" parcel to a non-profit and remove it from the tax rolls, but Barnes's parcel will be valued at $100K and taxed accordingly.

Let's see how he likes paying $3,500 a year in taxes. "

To 93% wrote on Mar 15, 2008 12:50 AM:

" Your analogy doesn't work. Of course women should have the right to vote, no matter what 93% of people say. On the other hand, no one has the Constitutional right to not be offended. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the cross's presence, no matter how hard you look. "

sense wrote on Mar 15, 2008 12:25 AM:

" So does this mean when i drive by a church that i dont agree with that it should be torn down? How is it fair to to offend the majority when more people are within that group..... I believe people these days are just finding ways to make the newspapers or just to get people ticked off because they enjoy the attention........way to go maybe people should just tear down schools because they dont believe in them "

now what wrote on Mar 14, 2008 10:28 PM:

" Mr. Barnes' actions had nothing to do with the star being on village property or them paying the electric bill. Now he wants the village to sell him a parcel of land for the same price. He clearly wants the star removed no matter who owns the property. Try coming to my house and telling me to remove the star from my window Mr. Barnes. See what happens. "

eyes wide shut wrote on Mar 14, 2008 7:55 PM:

" Mr. Barnes should have checked out the area before he moved here. If he was affended by something in the area, why did he buy a house here? Thats like buying a house next to the airport then wanting the airport torn down because of the planes flying overhead. Have some commen sense "Professer". May I suggest moving to Gilligans Island, or how about a cave. "

Makes no sense wrote on Mar 14, 2008 5:26 PM:

" I think you are probably wrong about his motivation. I mean, who wants the kind of attention you are lavishing on him. I think of him more as a guy who saw something that he thought was wrong (and he was right about that, as the Village Board's swift action on the matter proves) and he sacrificed his own good name to help the village avoid a lawsuit. I think you owe him an apology! "

CommonSense wrote on Mar 14, 2008 5:04 PM:

" If we were to put a symbol up to accurately reflect the religion of Mr. Barnes, it would have to be a picture of himself...as he is a narcissitic, secular humanist...and there are no symbols that 'represent' them, as they are all about themselves. I pity this man's kid's, if he has any. I am sure he didn't think of how this could affect them, just his selfish ways. Why doesn't he move so he doesn't have to look at it? Because he wants the ATTENTION! "

93%... wrote on Mar 14, 2008 4:39 PM:

" So, if 93% of the people in Holmen decided it that the women of Holmen shouldn't be able to vote in the next mayoral election, that makes it ok?

Gee, can't argue with that logic, can you?

Here's a little nugget about the Bill of Rights. It isn't there to protect the rights of the majority, it's there to protect the rights of the minority.

It would be a real shame if Christians started denying the cross...during lent. "

maybe wrote on Mar 14, 2008 2:57 PM:

" Maybe its not a religious symbol at all, perhaps it could be interpreted as a mathematical symbol (+) and an astrological symbol. "

To Holmen wrote on Mar 14, 2008 12:11 PM:

" Thats what america is all about.. Majority rules.. If 93% of the people in Holmen don't care, or support the cross. It stays.. end of story. I am tired of a very small majority of people dictating the majority what they can and can not do... I wonder if Mr. Barnes can be put under a microscope at his residence or his job and survive. Probably not.. "

To:Right wrote on Mar 14, 2008 8:36 AM:

" The courts are not responsible for making law. That is the responsibility of the legislature. Could Mr Barnes have made a case that taxpayers paying to light the cross 40 days of the year is unfair? I suppose, even considering the small amount. My taxes go to support things I find unfair. Life is often unfair. Having said that, I am not saying Mr Barnes should not try to have policies changed that he finds unfair. But, he is factually in error and loses all credibility when he says it is Unconstitutional. "

Think about it? wrote on Mar 14, 2008 7:22 AM:

" Is displaying a cross or a star on a hill REALLY considered the same as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"? I didn't hear that Holmen board passed an ordinance stating that "Lutheran" or "Catholic" was the official religion of the Village, did I? People need to get a grip on what the 1st Amendment REALLY means and what it was intended for! Thomas Jefferson, who drafted the Constituion, used to attend church service in the Capital Building!!!!! Do you think he intended this? "

TMK wrote on Mar 14, 2008 6:35 AM:

" To: They knew - you stated "If they thought they had a chance to win they would not sell it." I would think that the reason they're selling isn't that they wouldn't win but that they just don't want to go through the expensive hassle fighting with people like the ACLU. It's easier and less of a headache to just sell the land. I applaud them and hope the star and cross stay for many more years. When I grew up in Holmen and lived there for part of my adult life, I looked forward to seeing the star and cross as I came towards Holmen. It was my guiding light to home and always warmed my heart. "

buying land wrote on Mar 14, 2008 6:35 AM:

" I hope Holmen sells the land and then sells another plot of land to Mr. Barnes and then another one to somebody else... We could get a parc of symbols (star of David, cross, crescent etc.) startet and take entrace fees. "

They knew wrote on Mar 14, 2008 12:01 AM:

" Interesting that they are so open about knowing it was wrong but doing it anyway. They are doing the right thing by selling the land but this tells me something about Mr. Chapman and his leadership. A real sign of an ethical person is how they follow the rules when no one is watching. hmmmmm Sorry John but you failed on this one. If they thought they had a chance to win they would not sell it. "

? wrote on Mar 13, 2008 8:19 PM: