Rochester Observer wrote on Jul 15, 2008 3:26 PM:
" I still don't see how anyone can claim ignorance about what the Village intended to do, or that they were kept in the dark. From the very beginning, before this meeting took place, there were several news stories regarding what the Village planned to do. Anyone claiming they were in the dark simply wasn't paying attention. "
To The Point wrote on Jul 15, 2008 11:42 AM:
" I understand your "point" (: , and I cant say I totally disagree. My point was the FFRF have no standing or cause regarding how the village conducts its meetings. It is the decision itself they are unhappy with, not how the decision was reached. If the village had, in this closed meeting, decided to remove the cross, we would be hearing nothing from the FFRF regarding how the meeting was conducted. "
The Point wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:49 AM:
" I don't care if the FFR is happy. Usually I'm happy when they aren't. :-) The point is if the village violated the closed door meeting statue. If they violate it on this occasion and the village people don't care or allow it, the village could try to violate it again on a more serious matter. "
To Open Meeting wrote on Jul 14, 2008 3:01 PM:
" To everyone upset that the citizens supposedly did not have their say: Do you honestly think the FFRF would have been satisfied if everyone did have their say and collectively decided to move forward with this same plan? Be honest. "
To Open Meeting wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:30 AM:
" I could not agree more. I still don't understand why they chose not to have an open meeting. Based on comments I had read it seemed that the board members already had their minds made up, I don't see how letting the village residents give their opinions would have made an difference. I hope the village board learns a lesson from this "
To nine eleven am wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:23 AM:
" Please give an example of anything illegal or unconstitutional. Also, see the first 2 posts. "
Mr. AM poster wrote on Jul 13, 2008 1:14 AM:
" The FFRF is an anti-Christian organization whose sole purpose is the persecution of Christians. That is why they ignored the State funded Muslim school ion MN. You are obviously DRUNK on their koolaid, as well. "
open meetings wrote on Jul 12, 2008 5:08 PM:
" While I agree with the decision the board made I do not appreciate the fact that they acted like they had something to hide in making the decision that they did by holding this meeting in closed session. I think they are going to find that they did not act in accordance to the law. In this case FFRF is actually attempting to enforce open dialogue and discussion which is the fundation of our government. It appears the village board did not have the courage to express their opinions publically as there is not other reason to meet in closed session in this case. "
The the Village Board wrote on Jul 12, 2008 9:11 AM:
" You morons need to be voted out and replaced ASAP. I warned you that lawsuits would be incoming if you prepetuated this illegal and unconstitutional support of Christianity by the governemnt. Apparently, your individual right to practice your religion however you choose is not enough, so you have to use the government to illegally cram your religion down our collective throats. You deserve whatever litigation you have coming. "
To John Henry wrote on Jul 8, 2008 3:54 PM:
" They don't want to eliminate public opinion. They don't even want to eliminate religious public opinion. They only want to eliminate Christian public opinion. Case in point: The FFRF was informed several months ago about a taxpayer funded charter school in Inver Grove Heights, MN that has forced Muslim prayer every Friday. They chose to remain silent and do nothing. What does that tell you? Also, everyone else knows what happened in those meetings. Its been all over the news. Is it that they don't know what happened-or that they are just unhappy with what happened? "
john henry wrote on Jul 8, 2008 11:16 AM:
" " The Fascist-like brown-shirts from the "Freedom From Religion" Foundation seem to be hell-bent on eliminating public opinion, bypassing democracy, and ignoring local opinion by pushing this issue further.
Holmen must put a its'collective foot down now.
The ultra-wacko, fringe groups of the "democratic" party must be dealt with--in this issue--via the constitution and the rights and opinions of the local citizenry.
The FFR Foundation wants to ignore Holmen's collective "comfort level" with the star's presence via political pressure that refuses to give any creedence to the opinions and beliefs of Holmen's religious community.
It is the FFR Foundation that is being hypocritical by refusing to be "sensitive" to the Christian community in Holmen. And that is a major contradiction to the Democrats idea of a "rainbow" and "all-inclusiveness" and DIVERSITY!??
It is in the best interests of Holmen (Western Wisconsin, the midwest, and America) to allow, what Martin Luther King's dream to continue to LIVE;that is, to "...let freedom ring".
Let freedom of public opinion of the Holmen people to ring loud and clear in order to squelch the hateful hypocrits of the FFR Foundation. " "
Advertisement 
Advertisement 
