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 
