jcain6

About a week ago I stumpled upon this guy's web journal:

http://centeruniverse.blogspot.com/

I read through it (I am warning you, you will be dumber after reading it) and stumbled upon a list of quotes by the founding fathers that proclaim them all to be Christian who support a non-secular government. So I sent him a few other quotes by the same people. Here is my email.

So then he replied with

So I emailed him back asking him whats up with the personal attacks and sent this:

Whatever right? I get the point...you're a dick. Anyway so I decided to let it go. Then I looked on his web journal and saw that he posted my email on his site, including my name and email address, and then talked shit about me. What a coward, he doesn't even have the balls to stand up to me. I sent him an email asking him to take my name and address off of his journal, telling him he could keep the letter on there. He refused and threatened to send it to my University to show how "uneducated I am". Whatever...why would my university care about some email that I sent to someone anyway.

Everyone should go to his blog, pick a entry that he wrote, and send him an email about how dumb it is. Please do this. He also is on the forum www.evolutionfairytale.com.

Here is his web journal again:

http://centeruniverse.blogspot.com/

trh

Not much to say about an asshole like this guy; I've dealt with a few. He seems like a real jackass, though based on the essays on his website, he definitely considers himself an intellectual writing things of real substance.

Personally I don't wish to send him emails about his stupid little blog because I prefer to spend my free time on things that are at least moderately constructive, and this guy is just a dick, and his essays consist entirely of typical, dime a dozen, pompous evangelical crap.

My advice, if you're interested: Find some more detailed historical sources for your quotes, send them off with a final goodbye, and perhaps comment that his prideful malice and rude arrogance were not what you expected when initiating an exchange with a man who calls himself a Christian, that it is now clearer to you what you're dealing with, and you are no more interested than he is in further discussion.

His threats about “unwanted email�?, and him being a police officer are a bit much from someone who posts evangelical essays along with his email address on a public web page. You may want to point out that if he is really shaken enough by unwanted email to invoke the law (and presumably go a step further and use his privileged status as a cop to ‘bring you down’, or something similarly ridiculous), he ought not to be publicly posting second rate polemics that bash your beliefs along with his contact information. That much said, it is fair for him to ask you not to contact him again, but if his request is accompanied by demeaning slander, it is not made in good faith: it begs for a reply. In further support of this point: if his concern was really to avoid further contact with you, he could simply have blocked your email address; instead he fancied himself the victim of harassment so he could flex his muscles and pick a fight. (Is this really the sort of person you want any additional dealings with? He probably lives for people like you; it gives him all he needs to turn himself into a sort of persecuted martyr.)

Furthermore, anyone who claims to be even marginally honest ought to be interested in factual problems with sweeping claims like: “Many atheists and atheist web sites try to claim that America was not founded by Christians because they so desperately wish it weren't.�? You were simply providing information that you thought would be of interest to him, on the (well intended, but obviously false) assumption that he is a man of intellectual integrity. This reply: "I'll tell you were they came from, ya pulled them out of ur' ass, where crap comes from. I know your non believers are so angry about the fact America was founded on Christian morals, read the facts and be mad or whatever ya wanna do" clarifies that one, though.

A final note: I’m not a moderator or even a frequent poster (though I am a frequent reader), but I thought I’d mention that while I don’t blame you or anyone else for getting pissed at guys like this and seeking advice or help, it is probably inappropriate to solicit emails against someone (especially a nobody like him) from people at this forum.

Ronin

Here is the exchange with Mr. Buren that I experienced:

~

Mr. Buren:

I recently came across your web-blog "centeruniverse" and found it contains some error.

It is my hope that you will post this full email offering on your website.

Doing so will allow for a more open analysis of the topic in question.

Thank you for any time and consideration you can offer.

---

U.S. Constitution was ordained by humans ~

In the perpetual attempt to infuse a particular religion (most often their own Christianity) with human governance, many letter writers continue to misinform the people regarding the basic rights empowered to them by the First Amendment.

Most often we are told that the Constitution provides for the "freedom of religion" and not the "freedom from religion."

It is not often pointed out, however, that the Constitution does not define "religion" nor does it promote the notion that our government should favor one, namely a monotheistic Christian "one," over all of the thousands of others.

If a person were to favor a particular ethical and moral worldview that involves no gods or goddesses, then that person also has the right to be "free from" the religion of others.

In like manner, a Christian is "free from" the having the religions of Wicca, Islam, Hinduism, etc., and their respective terminology, practices and icons imposed upon them.

In this light, it is now quite obvious that the First Amendment provides for the "freedom from religion" as well.

As representatives of government, public school teachers cannot impose these religions on students and judges cannot impose them on citizens in court. Teachers teach critical thinking skills and judges judge facts and circumstances "free from" religion.

As U.S. citizens, however, we cannot be "free from" our own government. Because of this, our government must remain secular in order for the First Amendment to apply or have any value for us at all.

The First "Commandment," on the other hand, is by its own immovable stance incompatible with our fine Constitution. It does not, in any way, provide that anyone can be free to practice any religion (have any other "gods") that they want. It directly prohibits the free exercise of religion.

Our Constitution derives power from "we, the people." Simply put, humans ordain our United States Constitution and our government, not any of the proposed gods.

----

Please feel free to post my identifying information and email address for anyone wishing to contact me with questions regarding my worldview which is secular and not theocratic.

The origins of this fine country came from a need to avoid state sponsored religious oppression and it is far better to maintain that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a core essential to government whether or not you believe in God(s)ess(es).

---

"My job is to make sure that, as President, people understand that in this country you can worship any way you choose. And I'll take that a step further. You can be a patriot if you don't believe in the Almighty. You can honor your country and be as patriotic as your neighbor." ~ President George W. Bush 2004

---

Thanks again for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,


Sgt. Steven T. Schlicht
[email protected]
Biloxi MS

* Gender: male
* Astrological Sign: Astrology is for the superstitious
* Industry: Law Enforcement / Security
* Occupation: Veteran Police Officer/Detective Sergeant Gulfport, MS
* Location: Mississippi : United States

About Me:

I am an atheist, married, father of three wonderful children ages 11, 8 and 4. I enjoy pro-actively refuting common misperceptions made against atheists and atheism and promoting Humanism as a valuable worldview to better serve the human condition. I also love traveling and exploring the natural beauty of our world with my friends and family. In a secularly governed free society, all people can be respected and thrive.

His email in return I will not post due to my own ethics regarding the posting of emails that are not my own without permission of the sender.

He did reject my views by assertion only and declined to post my email (unlike Jericho Cain's) based on the view that it is in "error". This excuse seems weak as he posted Cain's email and then claimed to point out the "errors" he found within it and so I see no reason why this already accepted practice he set by precedent on his private blog should not apply to my own email.

Here is my response to his rejection:

Mr. Buren:

Thanks for your time and consideration.

I thought that there would be a significant chance you would not want to post my email for others to review in the open marketplace of ideas.

I am disappointed in your decision to censor my analysis of your claims but respect your private web blog as your own property to profess whatever claims you want in the manner in which you want.

Still, it is too bad you will not open your site for us to post our respective views within the same concept the Founding Fathers promoted...that of the virtue of freedom of expression.

I do understand the basis and motivation of your need for such censorship.

Take care and stay safe.

Sincerely,

Det. Sgt Steven T. Schlicht

<eidted to add: It appears that Mr. Buren has now removed the jcain6 email he had posted on his web blog>

worm

I'm really interested in the psychology of such people. They are truly fascinating.

Gunnaheave

I would highly recommend that you report his conduct to his host server, specifically calling attention to his use of your email address. Ask them to take care of that problem for you.

Please do NOT stage a harrassment campaign aginst him from this forum.

Ronin

For what it's worth, I addressed the assertions found on Mr. Buren's web blog in an informative and polite manner and do not consider my particular email a part of a campaign of "harassment".

I do agree that jcain6 did seem to want to initiate such a campaign with his OP, however, with giving the suggestion that others should basically attack Mr. Buren's views as "dumb".

I do not consider them "dumb" and I find them rather common and simply incorrect for the reasons stated in my email.

As a matter of fact, I wrote the substantive contents quite a while ago in a letter to the editor addressing a local letter writer with similar assertions.

Regarding the contact I made with the blogger, it appeared as if Mr. Buren was open to posting opposing views (he certainly posted the jcain6 email) on his Blog when I sent my email to him.

Time and events have changed since that time and if the mods or admin of IIDB feel that it would be more appropriate to remove the chronology of my own posted participation in this exchange here in this thread I would respect that decision.

After all, Mr. Buren and I were able to exchange our views and let them stand and fall on their own merits.

I am content with that.