NWTRCC and Northern California War Tax Resistance are jointly paying for my flight so that I can attend the NWTRCC Spring Conference in Birmingham , for which I am grateful.
I hope I can be helpful there, and I will certainly report on any interesting developments I hear about here on The Picket Line.
This morning I leave for the NWTRCC Conference at the Birmingham Friends Meeting house in Birmingham, Alabama. While I’m away, assuming I can find an internet connection to work with, I’ll post some pre-prepared selections from the book I’m assembling — documents from the first two centuries of Quaker war tax resistance in America.
These excerpts can also be found in the book American Quaker War Tax Resistance.
James Logan was a close associate of William Penn who had, , many roles in the government of Pennsylvania, including Chief Justice. He was a successful businessman and negotiator, published scientific papers on various subjects, and mentored Benjamin Franklin in philosophy and science.
, having left political life, crippled by an accident and a stroke, he wrote a powerful critique of Quaker pacifism in the hopes of getting the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting to revisit its discipline in this regard. The Meeting more or less completely blew him off.
My Friends,— It is with no small Uneasiness that I find myself concerned to apply thus to this Meeting: but as I have been longer and more deeply engrossed in the Affairs of Government, and I believe I may safely say, have considered the Nature of it more closely than any Man besides in the Province: as I have also from my Infancy been educated in the Way that I have since walked in, and I hope without Blemish, to the Profession; I conceive and hope you will think I have a Right to lay before you the heavy Pressure of Mind that some late Transactions in this small Government of ours has given me; through an apprehension, that not only the Reputation of Friends as a People, but our Liberties and Privileges in general may be deeply affected by them.
But on this Head, I think fit to mention in the first Place, that when above , our late Proprietor proposed to me at Bristol, to come over with him as his Secretary, after I had agreeably to his Advice taken time to consider of it, which I did very closely before I engaged, I had no scruple to accept of that, or of any other Post I have since held: being sensible that as Government is absolutely necessary amongst Mankind, so, though all Government, as I had clearly seen long before, is founded on Force, there must be some proper Persons to administer it. I was therefore the more surprised, when I found my Master, on a particular occasion in our Voyage hither, though coming over to exercise the Powers of it in his own Person here, shewed his sentiments were otherwise:…
This is Logan’s oblique reference to an episode that is told more explicitly in Benjamin Franklin’s autobiography (see The Picket Line, ). as his secretary, at one point the people on the ship thought that they were being persued by an enemy vessel. The captain armed the crew and passengers and told them to await an attack, although he said he knew that it was Quaker policy not to take up arms. The Quakers, except for Logan who was already a dissenter when it came to pacifism, went below-deck to hope for the best. It turned out to be a false alarm. Penn then chastized Logan in front of the others for taking up arms, and Logan replied acidly, “I being your servant, why did you not order me to come down? But you were willing enough that I should stay and help to fight the ship when you thought there was danger.”
That jab aside, the important part of these introductory paragraphs is where Logan reminds his readers that “all government… is founded on force.” He will work this point as a way of showing the inherent contradiction of being a pacifist legislator, or in believing in government on the one hand and believing that no violence — not even defensive violence — is ever justified, on the other.
…but as I have ever endeavoured to think and act consistently myself, observing that Friends had laid it down as a Principle that bearing of Arms even for Self-Defence is unlawful, being of a different Opinion in this respect, though I have ever condemned Offensive War, I therefore in a great Measure declined that due Attendance on their Meetings of Business that I might otherwise have given. I must here nevertheless add further; that I propose not in offering this, to advance Arguments in Support of the lawfulness of Self-Defence, which amongst those who for Conscience Sake continue in a Condition to put strictly in Practice the Precepts of our Saviour, would be altogether needless; but wherever there is a Private Property, and Measures taken to increase it by amassing Wealth according to our Practice, to a Degree that may tempt others to invade it, it has always appeared to me to be full as Justifiable to use Means to defend it when got, as to acquire it: Notwithstanding which I am sensible our Friends have so openly and repeatedly professed their Principles on that Head to the Government, and they have thereupon been so much distinguished by their Favours as a peaceable People, from whom no Plots or Machinations of any kind are to be feared, that I shall consider this, as I have said to be their standing and avowed Principle, and only offer to your Consideration, what I conceive to be a clear Demonstration, that all Civil Government as well as Military is founded on Force; and therefore the Friends as such in the strictness of their Principles, ought in no manner to engage in it;…
Or, to summarize: I’m not going to try to convince you that using violent force for self defense or the defense of one’s property is justifiable, though it is, but I do think I can convince you that violent force is an essential and omnipresent part of government, and you cannot reject the one without rejecting the other.
He then reminds his readers that their colonial government is part of a larger system of governments in which there are some quasi-contractual reciprocal arrangements that rule out pacifism — the grant by which Pennsylvania was founded included — and that the benefits people hope to have from having a government (the ability to suppress violent crime, the just adjudication of civil disputes, the preservation of liberties against foreign despots, and so forth) all rely on the government having the ability to deploy violent force, even if only as a last resort.
…As also, that as We are a Subordinate Government, and therefore accountable to a Superior one for our Conduct, it is expected by that Superior, that this Province as well as all the other British Colonies shall make the best Defence against a Foreign Enemy in its Power, as it was required to do by the late Queen Anne in the last French War, upon which the then Governor raised a Militia of three Companies of Volunteers, but for Want of a Law for its support, it dropped in about two Years after — and the like Orders may undoubtedly be expected again, when another War with France breaks out which is said now to appear unavoidable. That it is of the greater Importance to Britain, as it is for other Reasons most assuredly to Ourselves that the country should be defended, as it lies in the Heart of the other British Colonies on the Main: And that it is well known in Europe that from the vast Conflux of People into it from Germany and Ireland, numbers who can bear Arms are not wanting for a Defence, were there a Law for it, as there is in all the other British Colonies, I think without an exception.
That all Government is founded on Force, and ours as well as others, will be indisputably evident from this — King Charles Ⅱ., in his Grant of this Province to our Proprietor, directed that the Laws of England for the Descent of Land and the Preservation of the Peace, should continue the same, till altered by the Legislative Authority: and our Government continues on the same Plan, with Judges, Justices, Sheriffs, Clerks, Coroners, Juries, &c., all of whom who act by Commissioners, have them from the governor in the English Form: the English Law is pleaded in all our Courts, and our Practitioners copy as near as they can after the Practice in Westminster Hall. By that Law, when the Peace is commanded even by a Constable, all Obedience to that Command manifestly arises from a Sense in the Person or Persons commanded that Resistance would be punished; and, therefore, they choose to avoid it: but in Civil Cases of more importance the Sheriff who is the principal acting Officer executes the Judgments of the Court upon those they were given against, which they are obliged to comply with, how much soever against their will, for here also they know Resistance would be in vain; or if they attempt any, the Sheriff is obliged by the Law, without any Manner of Excuse, to find a sufficient Force, if to be had in his County, to compel to a Compliance. And in the Pleas as the Crown, besides that he is obliged to put to Death such Criminals of by the Law have been condemned to it, He, as general Conservator of the Peace, is likewise invested by the same Law with proper Powers for suppressing all Tumults, Riots, Insurrections and Rebellions on whatsoever Occasion they may arise, as far as the Posse or whole Force of his County may enable him; and for this end he receives, together with his Commission, the King’s Writ of Assistance, requiring all Persons within his District, to be aiding to him in these and all other cases, by which if need be, they may freely use Fire Arms and all manner of destructive Weapons, and are not at all accountable by the Law for any Lives they may take of those in the Opposition, anymore than a man is on the High Road for killing another who attempts to rob him: And such as refuse to assist the Sheriff are by the same Law liable to Fine and Imprisonment, from whence ’tis evident there is no Difference in the last Resort, between Civil and Military Government, and that the Distinction that some affect to make between the Lawfulness of the one and the other is altogether groundless — as none are killed in the Field, so none are punished with their Good will; a superior Force is employed in the one case as well as in the other, and the only difference that I have ever been able to discover in their Essentials is, that the Sheriff being but one Person in his County cannot possibly assemble any very great number together on any regular Method or Order, as in case of any Insurrection in the city Philadelphia would soon appear: but on the contrary in a regular Militia every man knows his commanding officer, and whither to repair on a proper call — and from these Premises it certainly follows that whoever can find Freedom in himself to join in Assembly in making Laws, as particularly for holding of courts, is so far concerned in Self-Defence, and makes himself essentially as obnoxious to censure as those who directly vote for it.
In other words: If you take part in enacting laws, or relying on courts and law enforcement to protect you and your property, you are employing violent measures of self-defense by proxy. Anyone who has scruples against supporting the violent self-defense as practiced by the military ought to feel just as tender around the conscience when it comes to supporting the judiciary, the police, and the jails.
But further, it is alleged that King Charles Ⅱ. very well knew our Proprietor’s Principles : To which ’tis answered, that amongst the other Powers granted to the Proprietor and his Deputies, He is created by the charter a Captain General with ample powers to levy War against any Nation or People not in Amity with the Crown of England, which in case he were not free to do by himself he might by his Deputies: and if he is invested with Powers to make an Invasive War, much more is it to be expected that he should defend his country against all Invaders. And I am a Witness that in , or somewhat less, that the Proprietor took the Administration on himself when last here, He found himself so embarrassed between the indispensable Duties of Government on the one hand, and his Profession on the other, that he was determined if he had staid to act by Deputy.
If I understand the preceding passage correctly, Logan is saying that Penn, having realized that his government was going to have to participate in military action despite his own scruples about it, planned to appoint someone to act as a sort of ethical insulator — whom Penn would empower to make the necessary military decisions that Penn himself was unwilling to make.
It is further alleged by our Friends, that no other was expected than that this should be a Colony of Quakers, and it is so reputed to this day: that they are willing themselves to rely on the sole Protection of Divine Providence, and others who would not do the same should have kept out of it, for nobody called or invited them. But it is answered to this, That the King’s Charter gives free leave to all his subjects without Distinction to repair to the country and settle in it: and more particularly the Proprietor’s own Invitation was general and without exception: and by the Laws he had passed himself, no Country, no Profession whatever, provided they owned a God, were to be excluded. That ’tis true our Friends at first made a large Majority in the Province, but they are said now to make upon a moderate computation not above a Third of the Inhabitants: That although they allege they cannot for conscience sake bear Arms, as being contrary to the peaceable Doctrine of Jesus Christ, (whose own Disciples nevertheless are known to have carried Weapons,) Yet without Regard to others of Christ’s Precepts, full as express against laying up Treasure in this World, and not caring for Tomorrow, they are as intent as any others whatever, in amassing Riches, the great Bait and Temptation to our Enemies to come and plunder the Place: in which Friends would be very far from being the only sufferers, for their neighbors must equally partake with them, who therefore by all means desire a law for a Militia, in a regular Manner to defend themselves and the country as they have in the other Colonies.
A frequent argument used against Quaker pacifists exploited the fact that many of them were well-off. In this argument, the military was acting to protect their lives and property from pirates, Frenchmen, Hessians, Indians, and other such plunderers, for which they had every reason to be thankful, but they were nowhere to be found when it was time to join in and help out. In its crudest form, it’s just an appeal to envy designed to appeal to poorer frontier settlers and non-Quaker recent immigrants.
Logan’s superficially similar argument is more interesting. It has two branches:
But they don’t seem to take the same attitude toward a verse like this one:
Is this hypocritical?
The threat against the treasures Pennsylvanians have stored up on earth was not just in the abstract:
That in the last French War, Pennsylvania was but an inconsiderable Colony, but now, by its extended commerce, it has acquired a very great Reputation, and particularly that Philadelphia has the Name of a rich City, is known to have no manner of Fortification, and is, as has been said, a tempting Bait by Water from the Sea: and by Land the whole country lies exposed to the French, with whom a war is daily expected: That the French in their last War with England were so greatly distressed in Europe, by a current of yearly Losses, that they were glad to set quiet where they might, but now it is much otherwise, as they appear rather in a condition to give Laws to their Neighbors: That our Indians unhappily retiring Westward have opened a ready Road and Communication between this Province and Canada, by their settling at Allegheny, a branch of that great River Mississippi, which branch extending a thousand miles from its Mouth where it enters the said River, reaches even into this Province; and between its Waters, and the Western Branches of Susquelianua, there is but a small Land-carriage: That the French exceedingly want such a country as this to supply their Islands with provisions, and our Rivers for an easier Inlet into that vast country of Louisiana which they possess on Mississippi than they now have by the barred Mouth of it, that empties itself a great way within the shoal Bay of Mexico: and they have many large nations of Indians in Alliance with them, to facilitate their conquests: for all which Reasons our numerous back Inhabitants, as well as others, ought to be obliged to furnish themselves with arms, and to be disciplined as in other Colonies for their own proper Defence, which would be no Manner of charge to the Public, and but little to Particulars.
These, I think, are the principal Arguments adduced by those who plead for a Law for Self-Defence, to which I shall add these other weighty considerations, that may more particularly affect Friends as a People.
There’s another thing Logan would like to remind people of: if the Quaker-dominated legislature of Pennsylvania insists on dragging its feet in supporting the mother country’s military plans, the mother country may have second thoughts about holding up their end the charter under which Quakers in Pennsylvania have enjoyed unprecedented political liberties:
The Government, and particularly the Parliament of Britain, appear to have this War very much at Heart, in which they spare no charge in fitting out large Fleets with Land Forces, and expect that all their Colonies will in the same Manner exert themselves, as the Assemblies of all the others have in some measure done, ours excepted, not only in their Contributions, but they have also generally a regular Militia for their Defence.
Our Friends have recommended themselves to the Government not only by their peaceable Deportment, as has been already observed, but by complying with its Demands in cheerfully contributing by the payment of their Taxes towards every War. Yet they are admitted into no Offices of the Government above those of the respective Parishes where they live, except that some have undertaken to receive Public Money: and though tolerated in their Opinions as they interfere not with the Administration; yet these Opinions are far from being approved by the Government, that when they shall be urged as a Negative to putting so valuable a country as this, and situate as has been mentioned, in a proper Posture of Defence, those who plead their Privileges for such a Negative, may undoubtedly expect to be divested of them, either by act of Parliament, or a Quo-Warranto from the King against their charter, for it will be accounted equal to betraying it. And this, besides the irreparable Loss to ourselves, most prove a Reproach and vast Disadvantage to the Profession every where.
In other words, if we keep this up we may end up not just screwing ourselves, but Quakers back in England as well.
’Tis alleged the Governor made a false step last year, in encouraging or suffering our Servants to enlist, for which he has been abridged by the Assembly of the Salary for a year and a Half, that had for many years before been allowed to our Governors. But as this is interpreted by the Ministry as a Proof of his extraordinary Zeal for the King’s Service, his conduct herein, as also his Letter to the Board of Trade, however displeasing to us, will undoubtedly recommend him the more to the Regard of our Superiors, in whose Power we are, and accordingly we may expect to hear of it.
The episode Logan just described came up in Isaac Sharpless’s history of Pennsylvania that I reprinted here on . In short: indentured servants had been enrolled in a voluntary militia, which annoyed their masters. When the Legislature voted one of its £3,000 “for the King’s use” look-the-other-way grants, it attached a condition that the militia stop accepting these servants, and discharge those that were enrolled. The Governor got indignant, refused to accept the money and the attached conditions, and recommended that the crown come up with some way to ban Quakers from colonial legislatures. This pissed off the Quaker legislators, who responded by refusing to pay the Governor’s salary.
Our Province is now rent into Parties, and in a most Unchristian manner divided: Love and Charity, the grand characteristics of the Christian Religion, are in a great measure banished from among the People, and contention too generally prevails: But for the weighty Reasons that have been mentioned in this Paper, it is not to be doubted that those who are for a Law for Defence, if the War continues and the country be not ruined before, must in Time obtain it. It is therefore proposed to the serious and most Weighty consideration of this Meeting, Whether it may not at this Time be advisable, that all such, who for conscience sake cannot join in any Law for Self-Defence, should not only decline standing Candidates at the ensuing Election of Representatives themselves, but also advise all others who are equally scrupulous to do the same — and as Animosities and Faction have of late greatly prevailed amongst us, and at all times there prevails with too many, an ill-judged parsimonious Disposition, who for no other reason than to save their money, though probably on some other pretense, may vote for such as they may think by their opposition to the Governor, may most effectually answer that end: That such Friends should give out publicly before hand when they find they are named, that they will by no means stand or serve, though chosen: and accordingly — that the meeting recommend this to the Deputies from the several Monthly or Quarterly meetings in this Province — all which from the sincerest Zeal for the Public Good, Peace of the Country, and not only the Reputation, but the most Solid Interest of Friends as a People, is (I say again) most seriously recommended to your consideration by Your true Friend and Well wisher, James Logan.
The Philadelphia Yearly Meeting referred this letter to a committee, which looked it over and rejected it from consideration on the excuse that “the Letter containing matters of a Military and Geographical nature, it was by no means proper to be read to the general meeting.” One member of this committee objected. One account puts it this way:
Robert Strethill singly declared that considering that Letter came from one who was known to have had abundance of experience, was an old member, and had a sincere affection for the Welfare of the Society, he was apprehensive should this Letter be refused a reading in the Meeting, such a proceeding would not only disgust him but the Body of Friends in England, especially as it might be supposed to contain several things that were intended for the good of the Society at these fickle and precarious times — but John Bringhouse plucked him by the coat and told him with a sharp tone of voice, “Sit thee down Robert, Thou art single in thy opinion.”
So at the time, Logan’s plea landed with a thud, and seemed to have no effect. It was prophetic, however. In , the French did attack Pennsylvania, through their Indian proxies. Quakers from the mother country did put pressure on Pennsylvania legislators to take the pressure off. Quaker legislators did go further than before in bending the rules to vote for military requisitions. And , Quaker Meetings in which pacifist principles were still maintained did ask their members to resign their positions in the legislature.
I’m back from the NWTRCC Conference in Birmingham, Alabama, which I was able to attend thanks to the generosity of NWTRCC and Northern California War Tax Resistance.
The conference, a regularly-scheduled business & strategy meeting of NWTRCC, brought together about 20 dedicated members from across the country — some of whom have decades of experience with tax resistance — and also drew some curious locals who are just getting their feet wet. Our hosts did an incredible job of organizing beds, meals, and transportation, and making us feel comfortable and at home, so that we could keep our minds on a challenging agenda throughout .
, at the national gathering in Santa Rosa, I was the curious local getting my feet wet. , I was appointed to a term as an alternate on the national administrative committee.
I’d been reluctant to consider taking on a responsibility like this in the past, for one reason because we already had an AdCom member from Northern California, and for another because I thought I might not be sufficiently on-the-same-page with the group as a whole (for instance, not being much of a “progressive” and thinking the “Peace Tax Fund Act” is worse than worthless).
But then the AdCom member from our area resigned, and the more I thought about NWTRCC the more I realized that we’re a wildly diverse lot ideologically and we manage to comfortably fit on the “same page” anyway. For the most part, we’re pretty good at concentrating on the stuff we agree on and treating the diversity of perspectives on other issues as a strength rather than a nuisance.
During the conference, we heard reports of Tax Day actions and general status reports from local groups around the country. These varied a lot in tone, with some groups reporting a surge of interest and enthusiasm, while others were discouraged at diminishing membership and activity.
We spent a lot of time reviewing the War Tax Boycott — what worked, what didn’t work, and whether we should continue it in some form or change tactics. I have mixed feelings about the Boycott.
On the plus side, I think that it provided a good project for us to focus our energies on, and it was a good wedge for publicity and outreach. I think that it’s very likely that our project inspired, perhaps subliminally, the parallel war tax resistance projects that sprung up last year — Code Pink’s “Don’t Buy Bush’s War” campaign and Christian Peace Witness for Iraq’s “Pledge for Peace.”
Bill Ramsey at the War Tax Boycott press conference
However, these are largely side-effects. In terms of the goals we explicitly set for the Boycott — which seemed to me to involve creating and maintaining a large-scale mass resistance and redirection campaign — I think the Boycott was mostly a flop. It was unable to even reach a large percentage of current NWTRCC members to convince them to sign on. My feeling is that we could use our resources, time, and energy more productively in the future by pursuing more realistic goals or by partnering with other organizations that have the resources to lead the sort of campaign we have in mind.
However, mine was very much a minority position. And I heard enough about how useful the Boycott campaign had been to people in their local outreach that I became convinced that the campaign should continue in some form. At the meeting, we agreed to spend some time reassessing and restructuring it, but to commit to continue it for at least.
On , Bill Ramsey, who has been the main organizer behind the Boycott effort, organized a press conference to announce that $325,000 had been redirected by boycotters from the Pentagon to humanitarian projects.
Antor Odu Ndep, executive director of Common Ground Health Clinic, accepts redirected taxes
Antor Odu Ndep, executive director of the Common Ground Health Clinic in New Orleans, was on-hand to accept a check representing donations from tax boycotters and to talk about what the clinic has done and is doing to help people in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Najlaa al-Nashi of Direct Aid Iraq joined the press conference by an audio/video link to talk about how that organization will use the redirected funds to help provide medical care for refugees from the Iraq War.
Tax resister Joffre Stewart speaks with representatives of the Direct Aid Initiative on a videoconference from Jordan
The event was the lead story that evening on the local Fox news affiliate, which, believe it or not, played it no less fairly than the news media usually does.
The Birmingham News also had a reporter on site, who fired off a quick note afternoon, and then filed a more complete story for the edition, featuring local resister David Waters:
David Waters’ protest started .
The Vietnam veteran couldn’t support the United States’ first Gulf War, what he calls a “slaughter in the desert.” So he stopped paying his federal taxes.
“It just went against my conscience,” said Waters, a 61-year-old carpenter who lives in the Avondale community of Birmingham.
Today, he is one of more than 520 U.S. citizens from 44 states who refused to pay some or all of their federal taxes and pledged to redirect the money — more than $325,000 — to humanitarian causes.
On , a New Orleans health care clinic and an Iraqi refugee aid group accepted about $95,000 in gifts and pledges through the anti-war tax boycott.
The National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee, the organization that led the boycott, met in Birmingham to award some of the monetary gifts.
The Common Ground Health Clinic, a free clinic in New Orleans, received more than $50,000 in pledges. The Direct Aid Initiative, or Direct Aid Iraq, got more than $44,400 of the would-be taxes. Other “tax resisters” gave to local projects or humanitarian causes of their choosing, member Bill Ramsey said.
Najlaa al-Nashi, with the Iraqi refugee organization, said over teleconference afternoon from Jordan that her organization was grateful for the money.
Daniel Woodham put $300 on the table after al-Nashi spoke.
“I thank you so much for putting it to much better use than my government ever would,” said Woodham of Greensboro, N.C.
Woodham said he hasn’t paid his taxes , which he estimates amounts to about $15,000 before penalties.
The 43-year-old farmer and English language teacher files every year with a letter explaining where he is redirecting his money. Woodham said he questions why his federal taxes should go “to kill people.”
“I don’t think it increases our safety. I don’t think it increase our integrity around the world,” he said. “I’m a conscientious objector.”
After the press conference, we returned to the Quaker Meeting house and I facilitated a workshop on how to talk to people about war tax resistance. Mostly I was concerned with how we should respond when we’re promoting the tactic to activists who aren’t currently tax resisters, and then they throw up one of the dozen or so objections we’ve all heard before.
This was largely an extension of what I discussed here , with a focus on one-on-one communication as opposed to talking to and through the press.
After going on at some length about these theories of mine that I’m so proud of, I opened it up to the group by play-acting a potential resister who is raising excuses (in each of the needs / fears / values categories) as to why they don’t think tax resistance is right for them, and asking how the resisters present would answer the objections.
I thought it went well, provided a lot of food for thought, and could help to make us more persuasive as we go back home, away from the true believers, and have to respond to the old familiar objections again.
That evening we heard David Waters tell the gripping and fascinating story of the path he has taken in his life, from being an Army Special Forces volunteer in the Vietnam War, to being a “revenuer” for a liquor-law enforcement agency, to being a war tax resister.
I’ve left out a lot of nitty-gritty that occupied a lot of our time, but probably doesn’t have a whole lot of interest to those not already elbow-deep in the springs & gears of the organization.
I brought down six copies of We Won’t Pay!: A Tax Resistance Reader, figuring that if this wasn’t a good opportunity to find its audience nothing was. Of the six, I gave away one to our hosts and sold seven (that is to say, I had to place quick orders for two more to keep up with demand).
I can’t convey, but should certainly mention, one of the most important parts of the meeting, which is just to be able to meet face-to-face and share stories and outlooks and be together in a group where tax resistance isn’t a frightening fringe idea but is the center of discussion.
Today, some bits-and-pieces that have collected over the past weeks that I haven’t been able to fit in anywhere else:
How can we stop the war in Iraq? Soldiers can refuse to fight. Government leaders can de-fund the occupation. Taxpayers can stop paying for it.
This year I will not pay my federal income tax to the U.S. government. I will no longer support my country’s war-making by giving it my money.
In , out of every dollar the U.S. government spent, 5 cents was spent on education and 12 cents on food and housing assistance, while it spent 41 cents on war & preparations for war. This type of spending does not reflect my Christian values and therefore I will not support it.
Instead, I will redirect my tax dollars to two organizations working on life-giving initiatives: healthcare for the uninsured and aid for Iraqi refugees.
When Congress passes the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Bill (HR-1921), I will resume paying my income tax to the U.S. government.
I know that I will be breaking the law and I am prepared to accept the consequences, because when a country wages war there are consequences; ask a solider returning home or an Iraqi refugee being resettled in Philadelphia.
The edition of More Than a Paycheck, NWTRCC’s newsletter, is on-line now. Some of the highlights:
