Rev. Austin Miles
P.O. Box 685
Oakley, California

February, 1995

Thank you for the copy of your second Connecting Link newsletter. Your generosity seems boundless.

Included in this letter is a check to subscribe. I've added an additional nickel as donation--- perhaps you can use it to purchase some more hate and vitriol to replace what you spewed in your newsletter. I subscribe to several dozen kooky cults' newsletters: yours will be a fine addition to the collection.

In your second issue, you took issue with my title of "Reverend" and my rank as "Esquire." I can only describe your rant as the churlish tantrum of an eight-year-old; your bitterness was a bit of a surprise. I became an ordained minister (call 1-504-927-4509 and ask) because I wished to perform weddings and funerals at sea (usually in that order). I hold the rank of Squire with the SCA and am looking forward to being Knighted at Pensic in a few years. In two years I will add Ph.D. to the title, as I am half-way through working on a degree in Philosophy in Religion. In four months I will also be certified as a skipper with the United States Coast Guard--- and may add "Captain" to the list.

I cannot imagine how anyone would take offense or object to what I choose to add to my name. The fact that I am well-educated, well-traveled, and achievement-oriented should not have intimidated you. As one of the greatest authors of this century put it, "Specialization is for insects," not humans.

What I find utterly incomprehensible is that you LIED in your second issue, when the truth would have served. That incomprehensibility was replaced with utter astonishment when you followed your lie on page two with the words on page four: "It is precisely this kind of 'Christian' conduct, bearing false witness and passing judgment on people they know absolutely nothing about. . . ." How can your mind handle the cognitive dissonance engendered by first bearing false witness on one page, and then denouncing false witness on another?

The Holy Spirit compels me to give you a warning. It is from the Holy Bible--- perhaps you've heard of this Book? It's a best seller.

JOB 13
[4] But ye are forgers of lies, ye are all physicians of no value.
[5] O that ye would altogether hold your peace! and it should be your wisdom.
[6] Hear now my reasoning, and hearken to the pleadings of my lips.
[7] Will ye speak wickedly for God? and talk deceitfully for him?
[8] Will ye accept his person? will ye contend for God?
[9] Is it good that he should search you out? or as one man mocketh another, do ye so mock him?
[10] He will surely reprove you, if ye do secretly accept persons.
[11] Shall not his excellency make you afraid? and his dread fall upon you?
[12] Your remembrances are like unto ashes, your bodies to bodies of clay.

I have also discovered that you LIED in your first issue as well. It is very sad and depressing to see someone backslide into the foul pit of cult Churchianity instead of rising to the light of Christianity. How will you explain your behavior when you face God?

Lie number one, in Issue One, relates to your letter to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The reason I stated I had no knowledge of the bill in question was because your reporting of the proposed guidelines was drastically different than reality. If you had stated it was house subcommittee bill 58 FR 51266 (October 1, 1993), I would have known immediately what you were referring to. If you had even stated that the chair was Howell Heflin (D-ALABAMA), I could have figured out what you were talking about.

Instead you offered a FALSE strawman of what the guidelines were supposed to be, and then you knocked it over. The guidelines in question bore no resemblance to what your letter to the EEOC stated and implied: is it any wonder that you would be questioned for your claims?

No where in the proposed guidelines was it stated, as you claim, that one may not speak the name of Jesus, God, or the Lord. The guidelines specified what a "reasonable man" considers religious harassment. Current jus gentium has already stipulated [Rogers v. EEOC, 454 F.2d 234 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 957 (1972), Rodgers v. Western-Southern Life Ins., 792 F.Supp. 628 (E.D. Wisc. 1992) aff'd, -- F.2d --, 63 FEP Cases 694 (7th Cir. 1993) Weiss v. United States, 595 F. Supp. 1050, 1056 Meritor Savings Banks v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65 (1986) Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., No. 92-1168 slip op. at 4 (Nov. 9, 1993); id. at 2 (Ginsburg, J., concurring)] that the incidence you whined and prattled about in your letter to the EEOC are NOT considered harassment, nor did the proposed guidelines stipulate such! You lied, Austin: be ashamed.

Your second newsletter lied when you quoted "me" to wit:

"'Everyone is BORN atheist, after all, and the behavior of Christians in NO WAY (his caps) affects or effects one's road to disbelief.'"

Satan must be so proud of you: lying for God is infernal work. Just how much is Satan paying you? Whatever it is, trust me when I tell you that it just isn't worth the cost of your soul. The truth is, I wrote:

Non-theists lack belief in Gods for the same reason they lack belief in Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus. The actions and bizarre behavior of Christians IN NO WAY addresses the existence or non-existence of Gods. It is NOT a Christian "credibility" issue: it is a deity credibility issue. Non-theists already think that people with imaginary best friends (Gods, Jesus, Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah, whomever) act oddly.

If you TRULY believed that the actions of Christians make people not have belief in Gods, you would not be bearing false witness.

You wrote that my Biblical scholarship was from "left field." I cannot imagine what you could be referring to, as it is concurrent and contemporary with many other Biblical scholars. Perhaps you would do well to subscribe to Biblical Archeology, and learn something about the Bible.

The truth of the matter is that I'm not in left field: I'm behind you at the plate, watching you swing at the truth with your Churchianity bat, while you methodically and pathetically strike out. I can back up with evidence every thing I stated in my letter.

To the issue: are you TRULY claiming that infants are not born atheist?! Do you really believe they have beliefs in Gods? Does that really sound sane to you?

Every human being on the planet is born lacking belief in Gods (i.e. atheists). This is the default. In order for people to believe in Gods, they must be told that Gods exist. If you never heard of elephants, you would lack all belief in elephants.

You then lied again when you wrote in Issue Two that I stated the ACLU had no such information. I said no such thing! (Satan must be real pleased with you.) I said that I had made the query, and had not YET received a reply.

The person I talked to said she would check and let me know, though I have not heard from her yet (that was Friday evening).

Tell me, oh mutterer of false witness, where did I state the ACLU had no knowledge of the proposed guidelines?

On the very same page, number two, you again repeated your lie:

"The attempt to remove any and all religious expression in the work place by the EOC was a highly publicized issue. . . ."

This event NEVER OCCURRED. The EEOC made no attempt to do so. They attempted to provide religious protection to Title VII guidelines. I have a Holy Bible on my desk at work, and religious certificates (religious studies diploma, ordination plaque, etc.) in my cubicle--- the EOC has already determined that these items DO NOT constitute religious harassment.

Later in your second issue of the newsletter you again repeated that the actions of Christians cause people to lack belief in Gods (i.e. become atheists). This is insane "reasoning." It lacks all critical thinking ability. For an example:

He said, "You could tell her I'm a photographer and let me take a few pictures at first, then bring her over again, Maybe she'd get more comfortable and watch us screw." [Debra Murphree referring to Jimmy Swaggart's interest in her nine year old daughter. (Penthouse magazine, July 1988)]

Do you believe this causes people to lack belief in Gods, or is it more reasonable to believe that it causes people to lack belief in Jimmy Swaggart?

On the first page of Issue Two you mentioned a Frank Kariglanis and his "eye opening" enlightenment concerning God creating animals (specifically carnivores in your first issue) vegetarian. Have you any idea how unlikely it is that lions and tigers evolved meat-eating morphological and physiological organs in so short a time (since the Creation)? Felines require tannin to remain healthy: the long-term experiment on feeding lions and tigers vegetarian food was performed during the Second World War, by British zoos: skin disease and neuromusculature disease ensued.

On page three you ponder the question of if I am aware that Ms. Elders was fired. Yes, I am.

Concerning your dismay at Doctor Anderson's anti-Claus clause *, I agree with you completely (provided you didn't also lie about what HE said).

On page five you mention Christmas, and equate this Pagan holiday with Christ. I consider Jesus to be "the Christ," not this holiday's sun Gods (Mithra, Zorastra, Horus, etc.).

Finally, let me again express my sadness and dismay at your eager embrace with all that you used to castigate and denounce. Your two books implied that you were stronger than that.

Go with God (for a change), Austin.

Go Back to Shy David's Austin Miles Page.