By: DAVID RICE To: ALL Re: Letter #06 Rev. Austin Miles Rev David Michael Rice, Esq. P.O.
By: DAVID RICE
Re: Letter #06
Rev. Austin Miles Rev David Michael Rice, Esq.
P.O. Box 685 ------------------------
Oakley, California Dana Point, California
October 15, 1995
Thank you once again for the "newsletter." It continues to be a
great source of amusement and amazement for me and my co-workers,
peers (and here you thought I was peerless), and my
cyber-parishioners. We especially enjoyed the comical claim that one
of your readers likened what passes for your wit as to Samuel L
Clemins--- if you think you are a wit, well, you're only half right.
But I did not write to castigate you, but to praise you. Well,
maybe just a little castigation. Since we both know of your complete
lack of scruples and honesty when it comes to writing your
"newsletter," I have instigated a WASIS search to collect data on the
story, so that I may compare the facts with your creative version. The
results have not yet come in. However:
My praise to you is for your squawk over the "kidnapping" of a sick
child by the state. The state has no right forcing a child to receive
medical treatment over the protests of the child's parents. There were
a great many cases in California where children were allowed to die in
unimaginable agony and misery because their parents were Christians
and did not believe in contemporary medical treatment. In every case
that I am aware of, parents in California (and Colorado, i.e. the
Davies) who were put on trail for allowing their children to die in a
horror of pain and suffering were acquitted. They are protected under
Section 270's "other treatment" clause (CAPTA 1974) and AB3843 (J.T.
Knox, 1976). I could cite a dozen cases where the state stood back and
did nothing while Christian parents, claiming religious exemptions,
watched their child suffer and die. Based upon precedent, the city of
Byron had no right to try and save the child. I sincerely commend you
for your moral outrage on this issue.
Now for the castigation part (and believe me, it's hard work being
your conscience and moral compass, so I hope you appreciate my efforts
on your behalf).
Your "newsletter" asserted that there is a "alternative treatment
for cancer including herb therapy which has been proved amazingly
effective." WHERE, exactly, is the evidence for this astonishing
discovery? Which peer- reviewed, refereed journals have published this
"amazing alternative?" What duplicated, double-blind studies have been
There is only one type of cancer that I am aware of that can be
treated (not cured) with "herbs:" a benign epidermal carcinoma. That
was clearly not the case in the Duarte incident.
Are you aware of the legal problems you may put yourself in by
making such a bizarre assertion? I eagerly await your references to
this "amazingly effective" herbal treatment.
On to more enlightening issues. When I read your creative,
fictionalized account of something called the "Institute for First
Amendment Studies," and one Skip Porteous, I knew I had to run out and
find these people. Judging by your past lies and deceptions, I knew
that anyone you complain and wail about is probably a decent person,
and it seems that this is true in the IFAS case. I have briefly
corresponded with mister Porteous, and he seems to be kind, decent,
intelligent, well-informed, a clear thinker, hard-working, and
dedicated to religious freedom--- maybe that's why you appear to
despised him so: opposites don't always attract, eh, Austin?
At any rate, I subscribed to the IFAS newsletters, and I have
received the back-issues (electronically), and have read them all.
Funny, but whereas you labeled his newsletter as "anti-Christian," I
have observed that it is anti-fascist and not in the least bit
"anti-Christian." Perhaps you have just confused fascism with
Christianity. Maybe in your mind the two are the same. I dunno. I'm
sure Skip et al. would thank you for telling me about them. I know I
On a lighter note. . . .
Tell me, friend Austin, does the Evangelical Press Association
require you to take an oath of honesty? Do they have a code of ethics?
If so, what do they think of the lies you publish in your newsletter?
Would you mind if I sent to them decisive, definitive proof that you
lied? Or would you rather I did not? Come on, Austin, this is your
conscience speaking. Be a good fellow and confess. It's good for your
soul (if you can get it back from Satan--- I have my doubts).
You're backslidin' again, Austin. Backslidin' into the Cult of Man;
backslidin' into the slime of Churchianity. You have surrendered to
Satan and call that a "victory." Since when has lying for the greater
glory of God been okay, Austin? Will it go well for you when God
By the way, you must have missed this somehow:
 But ye are forgers of lies, ye are all physicians of no
value.  O that ye would altogether hold your peace! and it
should be your wisdom.  Hear now my reasoning, and hearken to
the pleadings of my lips.  Will ye speak wickedly for God?
and talk deceitfully for him?  Will ye accept his person?
will ye contend for God?  Is it good that he should search
you out? or as one man mocketh another, do ye so mock him? 
He will surely reprove you, if ye do secretly accept persons.
 Shall not his excellency make you afraid? and his dread
fall upon you?  Your remembrances are like unto ashes, your
bodies to bodies of clay.
Repent, Austin. Repent, or I'll be forced to reconsider sending
another five cents to your ministry next year.
... Et itur ad astra.
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.4H1
* Origin: "And furthermore, 'Don't call me brother.'" (1:124/9005)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 837 890 943 1013 147/7 270/101 280/1 9 25 26 31 45
SEEN-BY: 280/115 135 333 378 396/1 3615/50
@PATH: 124/9005 1 396/1 280/1 102/2 752 943
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank