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

Published - Monday, April 28, 2008

POST COMMENT | READ COMMENTS (71 comment(s))

Lions have competition in Star Hill purchase

   Advertisement   
Advertise Info. Website Directory
.
An national organization has upped the ante for the parcel of land in Holmen known as Star Hill.

The village has received a written offer from Washington, D.C.-based American Humanist Association to purchase the land on which a star and cross have been erected for many years. The offer is now $1,000 — 10 times the appraised value.

The village had announced it would sell the small parcel to the Lions Club for the appraised value of $100 to avoid legal issues about the separation of church and state after Holmen resident Eric Barnes lodged an informal complaint with the village in March.

The star and cross have been on the hilltop for more than a half-century and have been maintained by the Lions Club. The symbol has been lit with village electricity. The Lions Club offered in a letter of intent to purchase the 30-by-30-foot parcel of land last month

On Tuesday, the village received a written proposal from the American Humanist Association, a national organization that advocates to protect the separation of church and state.

Holmen Village Attorney Alan P. Peterson contacted American Humanist Association Executive Director Roy Speckhardt Tuesday with the instruction that a written “offer to purchase” is required on an official village form and has to be received by the village no later than April 30. The American Humanist Association secured this form and was in the process of filling it out on Tuesday.

According Fred Edwords, spokesperson for the American Humanists, the village will consider offers submitted on that form at the Holmen Finance Committee meeting on May 6 at 6:30 p.m. The full board will then address the issue at its May 8 meeting at 7 p.m.

Neither Village President John Chapman nor village Administrator Catherine Schmit returned phone calls by press time to comment on American Humanists’ offer.

However, village Trustee Nancy Proctor said it would be unfair to not honor the Lions’ offer.

“They originally put it up, and they’ve maintained it for 30 years,” Proctor said. “It would be pretty dirty to say, ‘so and so is going to give us $100 more so we’re going to sell it to them.’”

Edwords said his organization is making the offer to bring awareness to the separation of church and state.

“We value the separation of church and state, and (we value) public land being religiously neutral, neither favoring nor disfavoring religion,” Edwords said. “We’re just saying public land is not where these public symbols belong.”

Edwords said the American Humanists believe the offer to sell the land to the Lions Club shows favoritism towards keeping the religious symbols up.

“Our concern has to do with general separation of church and state issues,” Edwords said. “If someone could purchase a postage size piece of land and if municipalities can sell off a small piece of land with religious monuments on it as a clever way of keeping those monuments in the same place, then this could be done all over America.

“If they sell it and it’s no longer on public land but it looks like public land, then for all intents and purposes, they are biased towards keeping the religious symbols up,” Edwords continued. “Why would you do such a thing if it wasn’t motivated by a desire to keep the religious symbols in the same place? Who are we kidding here?”

Edwords said the American Humanists are understanding of community pride and tradition, but he noted there needs to be a division between religion and government.

“We understand a vast majority of the local people might value those religious symbols, but the government is not supposed to show any favoritism towards any particular religion ...,” he said. “We support the rights of people to erect such monuments on their own property, not on what is perceived to be public land.”

He said the issue is currently being fought all over America and, as an example, said the federal government is embroiled in a debate in San Diego about selling a parcel of land which has a very tall cross on it that can be seen for miles.

The American Humanist Association has advocated in court for various cases involving separation of church and state. Edwords said they don’t have any briefs filed with the Supreme Court for the current term, but the high court will hear a separation of church and state case in the fall in which the Association will participate.

“We do plan to file amicus (friend of the court) briefs in select cases, such as Pleasant Grove City vs. Summum, which comes up this fall,” Edwords said.

Edwords said the organization believes the land sale should go through an open bidding process.

“(We’re offering) 10 times the assessed valuation — in any fair bidding process, we think the board should consider all offers,” Edwords said. “They seem to have this arrangement of just offering it to the Lions. That strikes us as unfair; they should have open bidding.”

Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association, said he believes the village will consider the group’s offer.

“We anticipate that the Holmen Village Board will make the decision that is in the best fiscal interests of the village,” Speckhardt said in a press release. “If there is no religious bias influencing the decision on who the site is (sold) to, and for how much, we will look forward to taking ownership soon.”

According to the press release, American Humanist Association was founded in 1941 and has more than 100 local chapters and affiliates across America.

La Crosse Tribune reporter Joe Orso contributed to this article.
.
   Advertisement   
 Tell us what you think...

 Comments »

couple points.. wrote on May 4, 2008 9:19 AM:

" 1. To refer to ones self as Thomas Jefferson with the weak arguments you have made is the heighth of arrogance or your birth name was not aptly chosen. 2. Thomas Jefferson finds statements "seditious" and disapproves? Sonny, you need to go back and start over. "

Kenneth W Krause to Thomas Jefferson wrote on Apr 30, 2008 4:39 PM:

" What you are ignoring is that if an umpire in baseball tried to change the rules by calling someone out after 2 strikes, or giving one team an extra out, the umpire would be ejected from the game, not the people who object to his changing of the rules. Same thing here. I agree with you that the land should not be sold and leave the ball in Barnes court. If Barnes sues, Holmen could get Liberty Council to defend the city free of charge. And if similar cases are any indication, the city will prevail and Barnes will be stuck with the court costs. "

Dinky Funderdoodle-Johnson wrote on Apr 30, 2008 2:33 PM:

" TJ, you rock! How you ever got stuck on the nickel and the $2 bill, I'll never know.
"

Thomas Jefferson wrote on Apr 30, 2008 2:33 PM:

" I am in full agreement with those who are opposed to the sale of this land. Why should the people sell their park land when there is a complaint regarding a monument? Either the monument, in this case a Cross, is legal and Constitutional, and should stay, or it is illegal and unConstitutional and it should be moved. To try to hand off this parcel-sized piece of land in order to either have the challenged monument maintained or removed for that specific purpose is a underhanded way of trying to accomplish a goal outside of the spirit of the law. I stand with those who stay keep the monument and let the courts decide, or recognize the problem with the monument and have it removed and placed elsewhere on unchallengeable private property. "

Thomas Jefferson wrote on Apr 30, 2008 12:21 PM:

" Kenneth,

The Supreme Court is the highest authority for determination of Constitutionality in the United States. Just like the umpire, if you do not like the call, believe it is wrong, and refuse to abide by it, you will be ejected from the game. That is the law.

In the United States, those that feel that they can decide the laws that they wish to abide by also shall be ejected; in this case, sent to jail for violating the law regardless of whether the individual feels the law is appropriate or just.

I am a patriotic American who respects the law and follows the law. I choose to work to change laws, change politicians, change policy; I never advocate disregarding the United States Supreme Court as you do. I find your discussion unAmerican and seditious. "

Kenneth W Krause to Thomas Jefferson wrote on Apr 30, 2008 8:28 AM:

" You conveniently skirt the very valid points made by myself and other posters. The Supreme Court has lawful authority to interpret the Constitution, not make new laws. Someone used the example of an umpire in baseball. Yes, we must put up with bad calls once in awhile. But, if an umpire tried to completely change the rules of the game, he would rightfully be ignored. Making sure the Supreme Court acts only within the scope of its authority is not treason. To NOT do so would be irresponsible. "

Thomas Jefferson wrote on Apr 30, 2008 5:18 AM:

" Jimbo,

The citizens of the United States of America have their right to practice religion unfettered by the government--you are correct. What is prohibited by the Constitution and as interpreted by the Constitution-given right as a part of the three-part division of our government---is the government having the right to celebrate holidays. Thus, the cross on the hill is a celebration of Christianity by government not a celebration by the people which as you correctly point out is protected.

In America legality changes with time. And the Supreme Court has the Constitution-given power to determine Constitutionality since the time of James Madison. We can have our own opinion about the correctness of their decision, but we do not have the right to ignore the law or advocate lawlessness as you have done repetitively on this blog.

We cannot pick and choose which laws to obey in America. "

Correction... wrote on Apr 29, 2008 6:27 PM:

" Adam Jones should be Adam James. Apparently I am suffering from poor sight as well. "

jimbo wrote on Apr 29, 2008 4:31 PM:

" this country was founded on the ideal that anyone can practice their religion however they choose, and no one can tell or force them not to.
To tell someone to take a cross down is telling them not to.
If the situation involved a David's Star or menora being taken down, that too would be telling them not to.
If a secular humanist wants to put up nothing, no one can tell him or her not to.
The whole point is that people can worship however they want. The people against the cross don't seem to realize that they, too, can continue to worship however they want if there is a star and cross on the hill...and so can everyone else. "

Suspects and Paying God wrote on Apr 29, 2008 4:24 PM:

" Adam Jones is probably clever enough to know he doesn't need to flatter himself, but those with the chutzpah to sling about "schmuck" might not.

You suspect wrong - I have encrypted a series of allusions, syntactical oddities and personal symbols within and connecting all of my postings - many (and perhaps all) of which have been glimpsed without registration or even a second thought in the minds of many an incapable reader.

I suspect these recurring gurgles of schoolyard quibbling are beginning to subject certain participants to severe indigestion.

And to someone suggesting their money goes to the real God - I hope that this real God is paying taxes too.
"

Reggie to Thomas Jefferson wrote on Apr 29, 2008 4:17 PM:

" What you assert is impossible. The Supreme Court can't determine Constitutionality. Only the Constitution itself can do that. The makeup and opinions of the Supreme Court change all the time. Something can't be Constitutional one year, unconstitutional the next, etc. It either is or it isn't. The Constitution itself remains constant. "

Thomas Jefferson wrote on Apr 29, 2008 4:15 PM:

" To those who recommend the wholesale disregard of laws in America, such as ignoring rulings of the United States Supreme court, I would like to refer you to a definition of the word "sedition":

(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sedition)

": incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority"

The United States Supreme Court is part of the "lawful authority" of the United States of America. True patriots do not advocate ignoring lawful authority. True patriots may work to change laws and authorities within the democratic framework of this country. The irresponsible comments by some on this blog recommending treasonous action is despicable and unAmerican!
"

To Thomas Jefferson wrote on Apr 29, 2008 3:42 PM:

" It is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with a ruling. It is making sure the Supreme Court acts within the scope, and only within the scope, of its authority. And, when they make up new laws, they aren't doing that. They are to be an equal partner, but when they legislate from the bench, that is when they must be ignored, and their rulings viewed as irrelevant. Again, this is what many communities have successfully done. "

to re Adam Jones Motions Sums. wrote on Apr 29, 2008 2:38 PM:

" I suspect you are Adam Jones. Schmuck "

re Adam Jones Motions Sums. wrote on Apr 29, 2008 1:24 PM:

" I second the motion of Adam Jones - we should organize a fundraising drive for the Lions Club to increase their offer. In this way, the offer can be respectable, legitimate, and bolstered by the efforts of the community.

I am not speaking about constitutional / unconstitutional, Christian or "anti-Christian" issues. I am suggesting we consider the consequences of closed meetings and $100 bids.

The new offer would no longer need to be "justified" by "no law to be broken, the village can sell the land for $100 because it can..." and the new offer would shred its shroud of shamefulness.

Inevitably, someone will reply that there is no shamefulness, because there is no law, and it has not been broken. You may believe what you will - but I will know with complete certainty that your bid will be ridiculed as laughable by a noticeable population.

Of course, we should consider law, consider the Constitution (in addition to historical context, and times which have changed...) but we should not rely on the opinions of others - Jefferson's letter was posted to illustrate this huge "separation" misconception which apparently originated from him, not the Consitution.

I remind you that you can take or leave the postings of an invisible compatriot, but I sincerely urge the lot of you to consider strongly the intelligent suggestion of Adam Jones.

I am slightly surprised and impressed to say that I like where this discussion is finally going. Perhaps an OPEN meeting should be called, where we could formally pose the fundraiser suggestion. Any volunteers? Adam Jones? "

To Complaints wrote on Apr 29, 2008 12:52 PM:

" Yes, but that doesn't mean every complainer is correct. Eric Barnes alleged a constitutional violation. That allegation has been shown to be false. "

Thomas Jefferson wrote on Apr 29, 2008 12:48 PM:

" There appears to be continued confusion about the role of the Supreme Court in the United States of America. Since Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court has the right to determine Constitutionality.
(http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/Supreme_Court/landmark/marbury.html)

"So, while the case limited the court's power in one sense, it greatly enhanced it in another by ultimately establishing the court's power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. Just as important, it emphasized that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that the Supreme Court is the arbiter and final authority of the Constitution. As a result of this court ruling, the Supreme Court became an equal partner in the government."

Citizens cannot ignore the Supreme Court just because they disagree with the ruling.

"

TO Adam James wrote on Apr 29, 2008 12:33 PM:

" Why don't you put up all the money? My money is going to the real god TSM. SCHMUCK "

TO Hollywood wrote on Apr 29, 2008 12:17 PM:

" It's silly people like you that mess up are good holsum Christian community. "

TSM wrote on Apr 29, 2008 12:17 PM:

" All of you sheep in Holmen need to get you heads out of your arses and follow the one and only god. THE SPAGETTIE MONSTER "

Complaints as Lifeblood of Democracy wrote on Apr 29, 2008 12:00 PM:

" Complaints are the lifeblood of democracy. Silencing "complaints" KILLS democracy! Please do not cause me to question your sense of sight!

I recall how someone brought up a Russian connection in this discussion, so I implore you to consider another one: murdering journalists murders democracy. Anna Politkovskaya "complained" about Chechnya. Anna Politkovskaya was brutally murdered. She was neither the first nor the last. Many Westerners are criticizing the Putin Administration's "crackdown" on freedom of speech.

It is not always possible for individuals with brilliant (and proper) ideas to be elected. Sometimes it's only possible to be elected if a certain Eccentric Authority has scrounged up enough money, printed enough propaganda, and sunken to a level of moral depravity deep enough to sell his (or her) soul to the devil, or at least, on eBay. "

Adam James wrote on Apr 29, 2008 11:52 AM:

" I say we all donate money to the Lions Club in a fundraising drive for them to up their offer. This will allow the village to sell to them both for historic reasons and financial. This will resist any future challenges "

To Funky and Doodlebug wrote on Apr 29, 2008 10:13 AM:

" You guys act like Kenneth Krause is the only one who feels this way. The fact is, many communities have been treating these erroneous Supreme Court rulings as irrelevant for years. And when these communities are sued, they usually win. Matt Staver and Liberty Council have successfully defended many of these cities, and they do so free of charge. So, what Kenneth Krause states is accurate, which is probably why no one actually wants to discuss the Constitution with him. "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Apr 29, 2008 9:50 AM:

" Let me be clear-I do not think I am more qualified than anyone else to interpret the Constitution. I just find it suspicious that when people allege something is unconstitutional, they avoid discussing the Constitution in favor of focusing on other peoples opinions. They are 2 different things: 1)The Constitution 2) Supreme Court Opinions. I have no problem with the Supreme Court doing their job and interpreting the Constitution. But, when they go beyond doing this and make new law, their decisions must be ignored. Making new law is the role of the legislature. "

Doodlebug Johnson-Beckham wrote on Apr 29, 2008 9:20 AM:

" Hey, Funky, I think Kenneth W. Krause is a pseudonym. He's probably really Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, or maybe he's that La Crosse dentist who thought he didn't have to pay income taxes because his interpretation of the constitution made such taxes unconstitutional. Pay no attention to him. He's kind of a crackpot (unless he really is Scalia, but he probably isn't or he would give more credence to the court's decision-making power). "

Funky Winkerbean wrote on Apr 29, 2008 9:14 AM:

" Dude, where in the Constitution does it say that Kenneth W. Krause or anybody but the Supreme Court gets to decide whether court rulings are in error. Your single-minded insistence that you know more about our legal system than judges is more than a little disturbing. "

Hollywood wrote on Apr 29, 2008 9:08 AM:

" We need to get rid of that ugly sunfish. Its on public property and is a religous symbol to the fishanites. I will not stand for this it must go!!! "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Apr 29, 2008 9:02 AM:

" Lets stick to the Constitution. I am perfectly aware of Supreme Court rulings. My point is that these rulings are in error. Since we are off topic, though, Thomas Jefferson did sanction church services in the Capitol building, recommended Congress provide money from the federal treasury to build churches, and authored a curriculuum using the Bible as the principle text. Do you really want to go with peoples personal opinions? Or, should we stick with the Constitution? "

Where were you wrote on Apr 29, 2008 8:55 AM:

" Based on what I've read it seems that many aren't happy with the way the board has chosen to handle this. I've also read a lot of comments about how things should have done. So, how come when I voted for the board there were only 4 people to choose from. If you have ideas and what them carried out don't complain, run for the village board or president!! If you think you know what is best for Holmen please make it happen. "

Re Thomas Jefferson wrote on Apr 29, 2008 8:31 AM:

" Again, this is one mans opinion. If anyone were to say the cross on public property goes against what Thomas Jefferson had in mind, we could have a discussion. But, we are discussing Constitutionality. So, we need to look at the Constitution itself. If the founding fathers had wished to prohibit religious symbols on public land, they could have easily done so. They chose not to. "

Re Everson vs Board of Education wrote on Apr 29, 2008 8:27 AM:

" This does not show the cross is unconstitutional. All it shows is the cross goes against the opinion of some Supreme Court justices. The opinion is in error. With this opinion, the Supreme Court overstepped their authority by making new law. Therefore, this opinion must be looked at as irrelevant. To determine if something is constitutional, cite the constitution itself. Not opinions which are in error. It is you who allege the cross violates the constitution. So, why are you so afraid to look at what the constitution says? "

Separation of Church and State and Thomas Jefferson wrote on Apr 28, 2008 9:32 PM:

" We can see clearly our modern (mis)conception is a consequence of cribbing "separation between church & state" from the context of Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Citation:

Jefferson, Thomas (1802-01-01). Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists. U.S. Library of Congress.

So there are now laws to be broken. Nevertheless, I think it would be shameful to sell the land for $100. Who has issued such an appraisal? Was this done behind closed doors? "

Thomas Jefferson wrote on Apr 28, 2008 9:11 PM:

" Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/330/1/case.html

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will, or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa."

The Cross is Unconstitutional. It cannot stay on public property in Holmen.
"

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Apr 28, 2008 2:34 PM:

" Re children...I believe this was done previously, but I will try again. Here is a quote specifically from the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The crosses presence does not violate this. There is no law, hence no violation. "

Children please... wrote on Apr 28, 2008 1:46 PM:

" Children, please... let's cast away any semblances of petty schoolyard bickering and take the discussion up to a civilized level. I challenge the lot of you to hit the books - go to the libraries, cite cases useful in the present predicament our Village finds itself in, and quote specifically from the Constitution.

Any vague "references" to "The Constitution" constitute only quackery, and we really ought to shy away from the laughable.

Would be brilliant to see some Villagers, wishing the cross to remain, stick it to the organizations by means of the same sources they thrust towards our general direction. Perhaps you lot could construct crosses of your own in your yards in the meantime, and demonstrate the prowess of your numbers. "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Apr 28, 2008 11:45 AM:

" Yabut, you crack me up. You quote the Constitution, but go on to say something completely different. It doesn't say "No establishment of religion." You must read the whole sentence. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." No law, no violation. Pretty simple. "

Yabut ... wrote on Apr 28, 2008 11:07 AM:

" By the way, Ken, you might want to check this Constitution thing that you're so familiar with. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It has nothing to do with the state "establishing a religion." It says "an establishment of religion," which this layman interprets to mean a church. Your interpretation seems to imply that the First Amendment may only be invoked when the state tries to establish a religion.

Maybe it's not so simple interpreting the Constitution after all, huh, Ken? Maybe that's why they created a Supreme Court and a judicial system to decide these things.

I'm certain that the framers of the Constitution would not have wanted it left up to Kenneth W. Krause to interpret the Constitution. "

To Yabut wrote on Apr 28, 2008 10:51 AM:

" You obviously don't understand how our Government works. The Supreme Court is not supposed to make law-our elected representatives are in charge of that. Congress Shall make no law establishing a religion. The cross is not a law. Why would you need a law degree to understand that? "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Apr 28, 2008 10:45 AM:

" I never stated I had a law degree. But, I can read and comprehend what I read. The Constitution was purposelly written so that it could be understood by laymen. "

Yabut ... wrote on Apr 28, 2008 10:25 AM:

" Thanks goodness for all of us, Ken, that we have you to decide when the Supreme Court of the United States is in error and to help us interpret the Constitution and all the related legal rulings that have come down the pike. Where did you get your law degree anyway? "

Kenneth W Krause to Yabut wrote on Apr 28, 2008 10:11 AM:

" I never stated the Constitution was dead. I simply stated that public displays of religious symbols do not violate the Constitution ,which they don't. If you stated they violate certain Supreme Court rulings, I would not argue(but, I would reiterate that the Supreme Court rulings are in error). But, they don't violate the Constitution. Sorry you don't like it, but that's how it is. "

Yabut ... wrote on Apr 28, 2008 9:45 AM:

" All the various personnae of Ken Krause are correct if you are an originalist like Scalia and believe in a dead Constitution. Believe it or not, Ken, there are some who believe the Constitution isn't dead, and the reality is that previous rulings cannot be undone. Even Scalia says so, and just because you don't like past rulings doesn't mean you can make them disappear by saying they don't live up to the original Constitution. "

Planet Stasiak to Thomas Jefferson wrote on Apr 28, 2008 8:42 AM:

" A few FYI's: Placing Christian symbols on public land does NOT violate the Constitution. The Government is NOT prohibited from taking sides in religious observations. Government IS allowed to display multiple, one, or zero religious views. Government IS prohibited from making a law establishing religion, which it has not done. You may wish your assertions were the case, but they simply are not. Unlike you, I will offer a source for my assertions: The Constitution itself. "

Re Casting Stones wrote on Apr 28, 2008 8:35 AM:

" This isn't a religious discussion, nor a discussion about how to best live the Christian lifestyle. It is a legal discussion, including Constitutional issues. There really has only been one side that has offered legal support for their position. The crosses presence does not violate the Constitution, and anyone selling land can sell to whomever they choose. They are not required to sell to the highest bidder. So, either of these options would be legally and Consitiutionally acceptable: 1) The city could do nothing and do what it has been doing. 2)The city could sell the land to whomever they choose for however much they choose. "

Reply to Whoaskedya wrote on Apr 27, 2008 6:50 PM:

" What brilliance radiates from your contribution to this discussion! Thank you for something positively interesting to consider! A new library would be an extraordinary improvement! It would be remarkable to build one from the spoils of a bidding war on the Hill. How excellent for all minds to encounter the full spectrum of Bibles and Theories among the same shelves! Bravo! "

Whoaskedya wrote on Apr 27, 2008 2:00 PM:

" Have the star hill property foreclosed and sold at sherriff's sale.Maybe the humanizers would bid so much Holmen could sell it to them and use the proceeds to build a library.Be interesting to see how much money could be raised if the Lions were seeking donations for a bidding war.Myself and a lot of Holmen residents would be glad to contribute. "

Casting Stones wrote on Apr 27, 2008 12:46 PM:

" How it is difficult, to take anyone seriously in this debate!

Let's be honest with ourselves - when is it possible to buy bluff-top land for $100 dollars? To those of you linking Russian persecution of Christians in the last century, do you really wish to demonstrate so boldly your own parallel with Soviet and Post-Soviet bureaucracy? Your offer of $100, let's face it, the bid has "loophole" not-so-cleverly scrawled upon it.

Consider, that if everyone who supports the cross and stars remaining, would contribute even FIFTY CENTS to this argument!

I hear so often complaints of your "high taxes" (which pale in comparison to those of European countries), I almost hate to ask this much more from you...

I challenge you to support with such a small additional gesture your own beliefs - because already, the bid by the American Humanists Association (which is, by the way, a different entity than Freedom From Religion Foundation) would be surpassed.

And God knows how you could clobber the stingy accusation and bid against your town, if only you could make the enormous sacrifice of ONE DOLLAR! Just make a second collection at your favorite worship / service / Mass, etc. You can hardly mail a letter these days, for $1. And we are talking about your faith, not mailing letters.

It is important to consider that neither the American Humanists Association nor the Freedom From Religion Foundation are so-called "anti-Christian" organizations. This is a misconception you have formed in your own minds. If a monument to the "flying spaghetti monster" were to be constructed on public land, I assure you that these organizations would also provide you with a take-down notice.

I think these accusations by American Humanists and Freedom From Religion Foundation resemble all too closely certain hunting parties of Salem's past. I once again find myself laughing not only at the shear quantity of accusations, but also the childish quality (on both sides) of the arguments made, and the stinginess of the support pro or contra.

I refuse to take sides in this "debate" which so far resembles nothing of a debate! Would you feel clean, if you sold the land for $100, by a loophole, no less? Would Jesus really want you casting stones? Better, to let the tables of the tax collectors be overturned, but not by your hands... the time will come.

If you really have ideals to defend, I encourage you to LIVE your Christian (or other) ideals, instead of bidding on them, by refraining from slanders, pointless name-calling, dubious loopholes...

I encourage you to turn your attention towards improving your community by honestly addressing binge drinking, by improving your libraries, community centers and schools (knowledge is power...) and working to build bridges between your neighbors. In this day and age, it is useless to make enemies.

Thank you for your open minds.


"

get it over with and move on wrote on Apr 27, 2008 10:39 AM:

" the logical thing would be to set a date, and whomever wants to bid, submit a SEALED bid. the winner owns the land and is free to do as they wish with it, pay taxes on it and keep it maintained. it's time for some of these groups AND individuals to put their money where their mouth is. "

Thomas Jefferson wrote on Apr 27, 2008 7:56 AM:

" The cross is a Christian symbol.
The land is owned by the public.
Placing Christian symbols on public land is part and parcel of violating the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. Government is prohibited from taking sides in religious observations. Government is allowed to display multiple views if all are welcome. Individuals are protected in the rights to celebrate religion. The cross on Star Hill has nothing to do with individual observance of religion, but everything to do with government establishing it. "

Diane wrote on Apr 26, 2008 10:26 PM:

" It is really very sad that Anti-Christian groups do not have other things to do with their time and money than to demand the cross and star be removed from the community of Holmen. I for one would contribute to buy this land the cross stands on. I also would like the Churches and Parishioners in the area to stand behind this issue and get involved. Or, make it a vote in the community whether the cross goes or stays. There are so many options Let's not let the minority overpower us. I also wonder if these so called "remove the cross and star people ever use money as the word God is on our coin and paper money"? "

Another idea wrote on Apr 26, 2008 2:08 PM:

" They should demand cash payment from the humanists to insure they can't stop payment on a check or money order. Then, when it is time to complete the transaction, they could say "Oops, sorry, we can't accept your money. You see, it says 'In God We Trust', and that is a clear violation of separation of church and state." "

Lions wrote on Apr 26, 2008 11:05 AM:

" Could a Lion please respond to the LaCrosse tribune comment forum regarding the sale of the cross? Is there not one who can form a sentence and respond? Or is everything so behind closed doors that you simply can't respond. Something fishy going on. "

Dumb idea wrote on Apr 26, 2008 7:52 AM:

" I think you'll find most historic designations have no teeth as far as modifications to the site. "

I like solutions Idea wrote on Apr 26, 2008 7:04 AM:

" Check out 'historical site'. "

solution wrote on Apr 25, 2008 10:10 PM:

" They should sell the property to the American Humanist Association, but then declare the site a Historic district and forbid them to modify the site because of its historic value to the community. "

Comrade Volkoff wrote on Apr 25, 2008 2:44 PM:

" Comrade Annie Gaynor and Comrade Fred Edwords will not rest until this matter is resolved. Other things on their agenda are students who dare to depict religious symbolism on their artwork as well as students who attempt to pray at graduation. This is a free country. You are free to do what we tell you to do. "

To who is the majority wrote on Apr 25, 2008 1:46 PM:

" Most people in Holmen want the cross to stay.
"

pbn wrote on Apr 25, 2008 1:31 PM:

" To "Who is the Majority" ~ there was an actual on-line pole taken and the majority did, in fact, want to keep the star/cross. So I guess Saddlebag Face knew what she was talking about! "

Who is the majority wrote on Apr 25, 2008 12:28 PM:

" Saddlehag, how do you know "MOST" people want it to stay, has there been a poll or a study only you have heard about or did at the sermon on Sunday? Religion in this whole country is a decline. Maybe you should just go to church and pray for it to stay, that should work! "

Re Fred Edwords wrote on Apr 25, 2008 11:38 AM:

" He states that the Government is not supposed to show "favortism" to any religion. First, where does he get that idea from? Certainly not the Constitution. Second, if all religious symbols are removed from public land, the Government IS showing favortism to his religion-that of secular humanism. Who does he think he's kidding? "

Saddlebag Face wrote on Apr 25, 2008 11:27 AM:

" Another perfectly valid reason for selling to the Lions as opposed to the highest bidder could be very simple--most people want to see the cross remain, and the Lions Club has indicated it would keep the cross there. A few may not like that reason, but it is valid nonetheless. Another valid option would be to do what Izzy Fabin suggested in his 8:56am post. "

To Hollywood wrote on Apr 25, 2008 9:38 AM:

" There is no separation of church and state. It is a term made up by the non-Constitution reading folks out there, of which you are one. You should make sure you have the facts before you start name-calling. "

I agree with Mr. Krause wrote on Apr 25, 2008 9:14 AM:

" Holmen can get 50 bids, but they will still sell to the Lions. They don't have to sell to the highest bidder and they won't. They don't have to give a reason either, but it's a simple one, the Lions Club is local and can maintain the land. The cross and star are here to stay. I think the bids are being made to prove a point. Persoanlly, I think some people and organizations got upset when Holmen and the Lions Club held a closed door meeting about selling the land.

I think this "issue" is no longer worth getting upset over. "

turbocharged wrote on Apr 25, 2008 9:10 AM:

" I posted this yesterday on lacrossetribune.com and I will post it here:
Any Lions club members who read this, you guys need to get together and come up with an event to raise money for this. I for one would easily donate 50-75 dollars to this cause and Im am sure many MANY others would as well. You could probably make enought money by having a "save the star" event to double the offer from the Humanist group and pay for its upkeep for years! If you guys are serious about keeping that star...I say its worth it! "

Izzy Fabin wrote on Apr 25, 2008 8:56 AM:

" Here is what should happen: The Village should say "Well, we were trying to accomodate those who didn't wish to foot the bill to light the cross. But, since you are trying to be difficult like petulant children, we are going to punish you by not removing the cross OR selling the land." Then, if someone tries to sue, get Matt Staver of Liberty Council to defend the village free of charge. This group has successfully defended other communities against these types of nuisance suits. Check out their website. "

Ronnie Gosset wrote on Apr 25, 2008 8:51 AM:

" The FFRF are trying to make atheism the official religion in this country. Christians may knock on your door and ask you if you know Jesus. The FFRF will ride into your town and demand that you appear as if you don't. "

Kenneth W Krause wrote on Apr 25, 2008 8:35 AM:

" There were some good points made on Jimmy Gilmans blog in the LaCrosse Tribune yesterday. The blog was regarding Russias assault on Christianity. There were definitely some interesting parallels. As pointed out by myself and others, the presence of the cross does not violate the Constitution, despite what the Supreme Court stated(their rulings were in error). Many communities have ignored the Supreme Court rulings, and prevailed in court when sued. Also, there is no law that if you are selling land, you must sell to the highest bidder. You can sell to whomever you choose for whatever price you wish. "

Hollywood wrote on Apr 25, 2008 8:24 AM:

" "anti- Christian rhetoric" this is about seperation of church and state not christians and state. Why dont you holmen hicks understand this. "

Friend for Star Hill wrote on Apr 25, 2008 8:21 AM:

" Okay Holmen residents. Let's raise whatever money it takes to out bid or defend against the attack of Freedom From Religon. This star & cross should stay where it is forever and let's insure that by raising money and donating to the Lion's Club to pay WHATEVER IT TAKES to secure this site to remain. To the Village Board have the backbone to sell this to the Lion's Club with an easement for access and power to be connected. I know the citizens of Holmen want this to stay! Ask your neighbor! "

Wally wrote on Apr 25, 2008 7:22 AM:

" Time to make a donation to the Lions Club I think to keep groups like this from destroying the American fabric. I agree with the principle our forefathers had in mind with the separation of church and state, but groups like this are taking it way too far.

I'm not very religious and live in Holmen. It doesn't offend me to see that or the Star of David or some other symbol. "

Avg. Joe wrote on Apr 24, 2008 6:54 PM:

" This issue of the Star which was on private property when it was erected. Would never have come to be a target for anti- Christian rhetoric had the village not taken advantage of the very cost effective natural logical location for a water reservoir. That being said should the public pay for the maintenance and electricity no.but I would say that the public should not have to pay to defend itself from the attacks by the Hate groups, from bigotry. Amen "


The comments above are from readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Holmen Courier.

 Post a comment »

(optional)
   
Thank you for your comments! Once your comments are approved, they will appear on the site.
About Us | Advertise Online | Contact Us | Disclaimer | F.A.Q. | Privacy Policy | Requests | RSS | Webmaster | Website Directory
Copyright © 2006 The Holmen Courier. All rights reserved.
Material from this site may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed. A Lee Enterprises subsidiary.