Atheists do not have “more” say than religious people, we just don’t want government (public-owned) resources to be used to promote religion. Religious people already have tax-free churches; if you want statues and monuments, you can put them there. No one is demanding anyone “hide” their religious belongings – when you all put up those 10 commandments signs in your yards, did anyone complain? No, that’s your property. Put up whatever you want there. But government property is my property, so keep your backward magic superstition off my lawn.  [Emphasis in the original newspaper]

This logic, very common among evangelical atheists of the Dan Barker/Freedom from Religion type, is flawed at so many levels, paragraphs could be devoted to refuting each phrase.  For tonight, I’ll just settle on making the simple observation that government property, public land, is not only Kevin Hundt’s.  It is also mine.

Perhaps a refresher in the Constitution is in order:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Atheists make much of the establishment clause but apparently don’t read the rest of the amendment.  That, or they really think that my right to freely express my religion ends on public property.  Perhaps, too, we have freedom of speech- but only on private property… it ceases once we step onto ‘public land’ (which is Kevin’s property, actually).  Maybe our right to peaceably assemble is limited only to private party.  And perhaps we can only petition the Government on nonGovernmental property?

Of course, that is all absurd.  Interesting how atheists would never extend their logic to the rest of the 1st amendment, insisting that those rights can’t be exercised on Kevin’s property.  Somehow, only the part that explicitly says that the free exercise of religion shall not be prohibited is… prohibited:  on Kevin’s land.

It’s a darn shame that we can’t just hang such loosey-goosey logic on the necks of atheists, who after all can’t be blamed for their biased reading.  A century of forgetfulness by the courts that the 1st amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law…”

It’s amazing what has been allowed to pass as Congress making laws- even if its little city halls that simply want to display statues.  But I suppose a century of viewing the Constitution as a ‘living document’ tends to have the effect that the actual words of the thing don’t really matter.

But I digress.

I recently discussed the issue in this entry about the Holmen Cross and the most recent developments so I will just briefly comment now.

This whole move was done in order to mimic the route that La Crosse took.  In that incident, the FFRF sued on account of a 10 Commandment monument, and the town of La Crosse sold the piece of property it was on to a local private group.

The problem with that approach, as with Holmen adopting it, is that the residual issue still remains:  is it constitutional or not for a city to have on its property religious symbols or monuments?  Does it or does it not constitute an ‘establishment of religion’?  Is the most important thing really merely retaining the displays?  It may be a legal avenue to preserve the display to sell off 50 square sections of city parks and property but do we really want thousands of ‘free expression’ zones like tiny islands?

Here is the thing:  The FFRF and the AHA have both suggested that they might yet sue.  Perhaps the village of Holmen will win that suit.  Yet by dodging the issue, atheistic activists will continue to be able to harass cities and towns across the country.  If you’re going to get sued anyway, you may as well have taken a route which would have really achieved something substantial.  Will we continue to be a nation where atheists say ‘jump!’ and small governments reply, ‘How high?’

So now we shall see what comes of things.  Such irony it would be if the FFRF sues Holmen (on the grounds that declining the higher bid was poor stewardship of public resources, or something like that) and wins!  The star would come down after all on perfectly mundane legal grounds, with no precedent at all to show for it!  We shall see.

All my entries on the Holmen Star issue.

Oh, if only that would work.

A recent Holmen Courier article reports that several national atheistic organizations have taken an interest in the affair.

According to the article, the piece of property was appraised at $100.00 and the American Humanist Association and the Freedom From Religion Foundation have both placed bids higher than a $1,000.  The basic idea is to shame the village of Holmen if they consider offering the land to the Lions Club at its appraised value.  Additionally, the Lions Club might be forced to decide the cost is too high in order to avoid that shame.  But probably the real reason is legal.  The article reports that “Both Ritter [AHA] and Gaylor [FFRF] said litigation is a possibility if the Lions Club wins possession of the land with a lower bid.”

Indeed.

The Holmen village council had hoped to avoid controversy and turmoil by following in the footsteps of La Crosse, who after a bitter legal process successfully defeated the FFRF and managed to sell of a 10 Commandment monument in a La Crosse park to a private entity.   That was their hope, but it was misguided.  In seeking to avoid a lawsuit they will probably still end up in a lawsuit.  The only way to avoid a confrontation is to submit to the demands and remove the cross.  With Eric Barnes bringing to bear two national anti-religious organizations it is clear to me that the town of Holmen had better move quick to produce some allies of their own.

Now, some of my own thoughts.

That the AHA and FFRF would become involved in this controversy was completely predictable.  The FFRF lives to sue.  That is why it exists.  The La Crosse area detests controversy and if someone raised their voice in an argument they’d bend over backwards to make the problem go away.  In this instance you have the basic equivalent except the problem is not going to go away unless you decide to cow to the demands presented to it.

It boggles the minds of many to believe that the lighting of a cross for a week during Easter could be constituted an ‘establishment of religion.’  The fallaciousness of the argument is exposed by the fact that Eric Barnes didn’t look at the lighted Star and believe that Holmen was endorsing astrology.  Of course it isn’t.  The thought never crossed his mind.  Such thoughts don’t cross the minds of impartial and objective people.

We may be able to credit the FFRF with a certain measure of consistency:  they at least would bring the star down, too.  We are not told in the article why that is.  We can suppose that they at least do believe the star constitutes some sort of ‘endorsement of religion.’  Is this the nation we want to live in?  Where symbol after symbol must be taken down because it might resonate with the religious beliefs of some person some where?

My advice:  Holmen Village Council- DO NOT SELL THE PROPERTY AT ALL.  If you’re going to get sued anyway, you may as well take a stand in such a way that prevents organizations like the AHA and the FFRF from being able to bully numerous other towns for years to come.  If it goes to the Supreme Court, so be it.  Let us finally have the Supreme Court offer a clear ruling that remembers that the full statement does not stop at prohibiting the Congress from making a law respecting the establishment of religion, but continues on and says: “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

I say put the matter to a vote of the entire Holmen community.  Give us all the opportunity to decide what we want to do.  If we collectively decide to take it down, or to sell it, well at least the democratic process played out.  But if we decide to keep it… then let the ‘non-religious’ FFRF and AHA know that they may successfully purge yet another symbol, but it will be at the expense of the majority of Holmenites.  Their precious little offended consciences will be appeased… at the expense of democracy itself.  I don’t suppose they’ll have trouble sleeping.

For some of my other posts on this matter, including a letter I submitted to the editor, follow this link.

For myself, I have decided to explore legal options of my own.  There seems to me to be no reason to let national organizations array against the will of the people of Holmen without a fight.  We’ll see.

As the article explains, in a purchase for other purposes, the village of Holmen also acquired a cross positioned prominently on the same property, visible in many directions. Now, after decades of being a non-issue, after it was learned that it was now on public land, a certain Eric Barnes became offended and lodged an unofficial complaint. The village of Holmen plans to resolve the issue the same way that La Crosse (about 15 minutes away) did just a few years back: sell the land to a private entity which would then maintain the cross.

Honestly, I don’t have strong feelings about that cross being there, but I do have strong feelings about a single person having the capacity to make a whole community abide his thin-skinned whims. Skeptics and atheists wonder why they are not taken all too seriously by the Christian community and are offended when Christians don’t exhibit undying patience to atheistic demands. This is a case in point. It is extremely difficult to understand how a cross which was on a hill for decades caused no mental harm but the innocent transfer to public ownership now makes it a traumatic affair. One is left wondering if the cross had offended the individual(s) the whole time but only now can they do something about it.

That leads to the obvious concern that perhaps if they could get away with it they’d force all religious symbols out of public sight, and groups going by the name of ‘Freedom from Religion Foundation’ rather than, ‘Freedom from Religion in Public Venues Foundation’ would seem to suggest that they won’t actually be satisfied unless they have a complete purge.

What is at issue, of course, is the first amendment, the relevant portion of which reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

It says a lot about how bad literacy and interpretation has gotten over the last hundred years that by ‘Congress’ something like ‘Village of Holmen’ could be considered in the same class of things. However, if that bad reading (which in some measure has become the law of the land) applies, it should follow that just as the Congress/Village of Holmen can’t make a law respecting an establishment of religion, nor can it prohibit the free exercise of religion. Thus, a removal of the cross is actually a prohibition of the free exercise of religion.

Atheists (and some writing letters to the editor in local papers) consider the cross as obviously ‘prosyletizing’ and therefore a clear violation of an ‘establishment of religion.’ The notion that a cross on a hill, first on private land for 40 years and then on public land for just a couple of years, is evangelism and an establishment of religion is something that many people find positively absurd. It is not that people (like myself) necessarily feel compelled to defend the display of a cross at all costs, but rather we feel that people with silly and petty sensitivities should not be permitted to have their pet interpretations (eg, cross on hill=establishment of religion) carry the day.

As far as I’m concerned, I will argue that the Village of Holmen should not sell off this piece of land- at least not without a vote from the citizens of Holmen. Put the matter to a vote. If the majority says keep it, and the cross, then let it be a lesson to the minority in how democracies ought to work. If the minority makes compelling arguments and becomes the majority, great! That’s how democracies ought to work. And if it is decided that the cross ought to stay, let the ‘Freedom from Religion Expressed in Public Venue Foundation’ sue yet again.

Let’s handle the matter once and for all so that communities don’t have to continue to be enslaved to the tyranny of the minority. Push it to the Supreme Court and demand that they stop dancing around the matter and really issue some definitive statements on the matter.