To Sad Situation wrote on May 15, 2008 9:28 AM:
" Well, no one "asked" that a cross be put on the hill. I think previous articles detailed how this came about. I found Holmen to be very welcoming to people with different beliefs, but when people of different beliefs start telling us what we can or can't do concerning our beliefs, our dander does get a little up. If you do hold a minority viewpoint,that is all fine and well. But, don't be shocked when you are exposed to the viewpoint of the majority. Its common sense. "
sad situation wrote on May 14, 2008 5:51 PM:
" Maybe I got the wrong impression of your community; maybe youre not as intolerant as some of the postings sound. I am not a fan of Annie Gaylor--- at least not up to this point. It is the tone of some of these posts that has me rethinking my position.
By gated community, I was not suggesting the equivalent of the Berlin Wall. And no way was I suggesting that Holmen was about to start executions of the non-conformists!
I was using gated community meaning one which strives to keep out unwanted (different) people.
I am not sad about nor do I begrudge your ability to express your beliefs. Obviously, not everyone seeing the cross on the hill would feel unwelcome.
What would happen if someone in the community asked for a different religious symbol to be lighted up next to the cross?
"
Bwaahahahahahahah wrote on May 14, 2008 3:09 PM:
" Sorry, I laugh when I see the words "Holmen" and "gated community" in the same sentence. Yes, Holmen is so very oppressive. Putting a cross on a hill takes me back to the days of Hitler and Nazi Germany. Oh, the humanity! "
To Sad Situation wrote on May 14, 2008 1:09 PM:
" It is sad that you think expressing your belief means you don't welcome others with different beliefs. I know people in Holmen who are non-Christian who feel very welcome in the community, and who think the whole controversy regarding the cross was a joke. They have even posted on these message boards. If you really wish to see what it is like to be unwelcome if you hold different beliefs, go to one of the countries in the Mideast and express your displeasure regarding public acknowledgment of the Muslim faith. See how that works out for you. "
sad situation wrote on May 14, 2008 11:40 AM:
" It seems to me Holmen intends to be a gated community. It is welcoming only those who hold a narrow view of christianity. Being so selective is rather un-American in the sense that America has in the past proudly proclaimed itself to be a melting pot.
I can only hope that the Lions Club chooses to rectify the situation by adding a point to the five-pointed star and inviting people of different beliefs to add their symbols to the hillside park. May I suggest that even Annies followers have beliefs and strive to live within their own set of morals? We wont all agree one hundred percent and some differences will be hard or impossible to swallow, but we all call America home.
"
To Concerned Holmen Citizen wrote on May 13, 2008 11:09 AM:
" Your concerns are addressed in the body of the article. Peace. "
A concerned Holmen citizen wrote on May 13, 2008 10:20 AM:
" Why is our board considering selling this land to the lowest bidder? As a taxpayer and citizen I plan on showing up at the board meeting to ask each member individually why they are turning down and additional $600, and why the Lions are getting favored treatment. "
Truth wrote on May 13, 2008 10:00 AM:
" I grew up in Holmen, and all that nonsense about Holmen being a Christian cult and home of rednecks is the biggest load of you know what I have ever heard. Of course there will be rednecks...what part of this area doesn't have those? And I am not religious, and I thrived in this community. The fact is, nobody cares what religion you are. Nobody is expected to be anything. Holmen is a family-orientated, accepting place. That is the bottom line. Trust me, I know. "
enuffalready wrote on May 11, 2008 8:28 PM:
" Annie:
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!! "
Wakeup wrote on May 9, 2008 6:15 PM:
" Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life! NO MAN COMES TO THE FATHER, BUT THROUGH HIM! "
Kenneth W Krause to Thomas Jefferson wrote on May 9, 2008 4:29 PM:
" Well, now we are getting somewhere. If this whole thing was a discussion of what should or shouldn't be done, we can have meaninful dialogue. I am a Libertarian, so I don't think taxpayer money should be spent for a great deal of things that it is spent on, including displays(religious or otherwise) in public parks. Having said that, my opinion or your opinion makkes no difference. They are irrelevant. The Supreme Court rulings are in error and must be considered irrelevant also, when they overstep their authority and attempt to make new law. If you or I wish to make a law declaring religious symbols in public places illegal, we need to do so properly-through our elected representatives. "
Thomas Jefferson wrote on May 9, 2008 2:16 PM:
" Civil Liberties are not a matter of "democracy" that the majority can determine. They are individual rights that should be respected.
Regarding the Constitutionality, your entire argument Ken assumes that we ignore the RULINGS of the United States Supreme Court. I will not ignore RULINGS and DECISIONS, as they carry the force of LAW in the United States.
But regardless of this, can't you see that having a Cross in a public place is a statement of affirmation of the Christian religion? That this is an endorsement of Christianity by the Village of Holmen? For you this may not be a matter that the Village isn't allowed to do this. I recognize your view (and kindly disagree). But don't you think this is something that the Village SHOULDN'T do?
Just hoping you might understand the idea that every American should be respected by his or her government in their belief or lack thereof in the Almighty.
"
To To Eric Barnes wrote on May 9, 2008 8:49 AM:
" I think you will find that most educated people(college degree or higher) anywhere in this country are Christians. So, good luck with your move. "
Kenneth W Krause to Thomas Jefferson wrote on May 9, 2008 8:47 AM:
" Thomas, we have been through this before. Displays of religious symbols on public land is NOT a violation of the First Amendment. Have you ever actually read the First Amendment since our previous discussion? The village could have ignored Barnes completely. Other similar cases defended by Liberty Council saw the communities prevail. In fact, that is what they should have done. But, since the city caved, this is the next best solution. "
To Eric Barnes wrote on May 9, 2008 6:41 AM:
" You did the right thing, but Holmen is a Christian cult and they will find a way to keep their false idols on their hill. So I moved out of that backwards hick little town. Long live the pastafarians! "
To Holmen wrote on May 9, 2008 6:38 AM:
" Home of homely women and redneck men. "
think about it wrote on May 9, 2008 5:53 AM:
" "Annie Laurie Gaylor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation had a different view. Its very jawdropping, she said. The purpose of this sale is to keep the cross where it is, and I think that is a very inappropriate purpose for a village to have."
So the opponents really are saying that Democracy is WRONG unless it follows the liberal agenda. This is yet another example of the wingnut-fringe of the democratic party behaving as children when they LOST and can't have thier way.
"
Thomas Jefferson wrote on May 9, 2008 5:24 AM:
" Congratulations to the Village of Holmen! They chose to sell a parcel of land to the third highest bidder when there wasn't even any need to sell the land! This decision will likely be upheld in court as the courts have ruled that divestiture of land parcels within park space is an adequate solution for the Church/State challenges. This was the solution in La Crosse and Marshfield for religious icons. A good observer would note that the sale specifically to the Lions was designed to insure that the Star/Cross in Holmen would continue to shine brightly on that site within the public property of the Village.
That action was designed to support Christianity and the action itself is what is contrary to the intent of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Regardless of our opinions on any individual religion, actions by our government officials to advance any religious agenda are prohibited by the 1st Amendment.
But the obvious has not been upheld by local courts; thus this likely will be a good fix for the Village. "
Brave Lions wrote on May 8, 2008 5:01 PM:
" Certainly not cowardly! Defending the purity of Americans drinking water. What could be more wholesome and good? What has Holmen done prior to this? Have they been drinking unpure water because the area wasn't fenced? Or is the water in jeopardy because the unclean have had a say in the Town's affairs? Hurrah! A fence for our woods and blufftop viewing pleasure. And a bonus of forever protected watershed! I shall quaff my thirst in Holmen and fear no evil. "
To WTF wrote on May 8, 2008 4:56 PM:
" There is no separation of church and state issue. See the first post. The lowly citizens dared to defy Queen Annie. They wanted the cross there. And there it shall be. "
WTF wrote on May 8, 2008 3:49 PM:
" What a bunch of crap. If the village was looking after the tax payers best interest they would have sold the land to the highest bidder. This is just a scam to get around the seperation of church and state issue. "
Re Annie Gaylor wrote on May 8, 2008 1:08 PM:
" "Its very jaw-dropping". What a ditz! Queen Annie is outraged that the citizens voices were heard. What is the world coming to? Well, I guess nothing can be said that hasn't been said already. Since the Village caved in order to avoid a possible lawsuit(which would have cost them nothing and they likely would have won), this is probably the next best thing. "
Advertisement 
Advertisement 
