Tax resistance in the “Peace Churches” →
Mennonites / Amish →
Daniel Hertzler
This is the twenty-third in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it
was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
Here’s how Larry Cornies of the Gospel Herald
reported on the negotiations between the General Conference Mennonite Church
and the
IRS
(the Mennonite Church, with which Gospel Herald was
associated, was supporting the General Conference action but from a bit of a
distance):
Representatives of the General Conference Mennonite Church and the Internal
Revenue Service failed to reach an 11th-hour
compromise at a meeting in Washington on
which would have averted a suit by the 63,000-member denomination against the
government agency.
IRS
officials at the meeting denied that there was any administrative solution to
the conference’s complaint that it must withhold the income taxes of its
employees, thereby acting as a tax collector for the state. The denomination
has argued, and will argue in a forthcoming judicial action, that the
IRS
requirement violates the concept of separation of church and state as embodied
in the First Amendment in the
U.S. Constitution.
“The 45-minute meeting was cordial, but unproductive,” said Vem Preheim,
general secretary for the conference. “We outlined our concerns about the
withholding issue as a historic peace church and described the problem which
the IRS
requirement poses for us.”
William Ball, the conference’s attorney in the matter, then formally asked
members of the
IRS’s
special working group on withholding issues whether there was any way to
exempt the General Conference from the problematic requirement.
Nancy Schuhmann, who chairs the special group, stated that the
IRS must
abide by its codes of operation and would not be able to offer an exemption on
tax withholding to the conference.
IRS
officials Susan Cunningham and Gail Libin were also present for the
discussions.
In light of the results of the
meeting, attorney Ball will complete the preparation of the conference
complaint and submit the brief to a
U.S. district court
after one last check to make sure all administrative possibilities have been
exhausted.
The General Conference’s General Board was authorized to initiate a judicial
action on the tax withholding question at an international gathering of the
conference membership at Estes Park,
Colo., in
.
More than a year earlier, on ,
delegates to a special midtriennium conference session instructed the General
Board to “use all legal, legislative, and administrative avenues for
achieving[”] conscientious objector exemption to the tax withholding
requirement.
John J. Hostetter, Jr. attacked
the new war tax resistance craze in a commentary titled “Render unto Caesar”:
In the , issue of the
Gospel Herald, the forms of protest on nuclear
weaponry advocated by
MCC,
Peace Section, include the following, “We call for acts of tax resistance to
be undertaken since our federal income taxes fuel the arms race. We suggest
giving funds denied for use in building nuclear weapons to groups working for
peace and disarmament, and to groups meeting human needs.”
Such statements are damaging and completely misleading. It gives the
impression to the uninformed that an option for taxpayers is withholding part
of their tax liability and sending it somewhere of their own choosing. Rather,
the choice is whether one pays his tax or whether he pays his tax plus penalty
and interest. The only other possibility at present is fraud for deliberately
not reporting income, which is even more serious.
Pick and choose from the budget? Most ethical and religious protestors
base their action on the notion that one can pick and choose in the budgetary
items of the government, as a shopper at a department store. It is implied
that taxes are a voluntary contribution to the government by its citizens and
therefore, if they don’t like the way the money is spent, they can withhold
the part of the contribution they don’t like.
The courts have long ago settled this also. There is a classic quotation from
Judge Learned Hand, “Over and over again courts have said that there is
nothing sinister in so arranging one’s affairs as to keep taxes as low as
possible. Everybody does so, rich and poor, and all do right, for nobody owes
any public duty to pay more than the law demands; taxes are enforced
exactions, not voluntary contributions.”
While one can so arrange his affairs to pay as little as possible within the
law, this does not imply the right to pay the part one likes and refuse the
rest any more than one can dictate how the groceryman uses the money paid for
groceries. Once the tax liability is assessed, it is no longer the taxpayer’s
money. Otherwise very few would pay any taxes since we all feel we have better
ways to spend money than the way the government spends it.
Some object to the defense budget, while others feel just as strongly about
the welfare program. Although far less than one tenth of one percent of church
people protest taxes to the point of refusing to voluntarily pay all of their
taxes without confiscation, yet probably a high percentage of Christians as
well as non-Christians would opt to send their tax money to a “Peace Fund”
were that option available. At present it is not. Perhaps in the future the
Congress may grant such an election in much the same way that taxpayers can
direct $1 of their taxes to the presidential election campaign. Even if such
were possible, it wouldn’t change the size of the budget for defense.
In the Waitzkin case of , the court said that
conscientious objectors couldn’t withhold 50 percent of their tax on the basis
of “war crimes” deduction. Neither religious beliefs nor international law
relieve citizens of tax liability. Tax is neutral on religious matters and is
imposed on all citizens, even though each may object to some specific
governmental expenditure on religious grounds.
Likewise in the McDade case, the “war crimes” deduction was disallowed. The
taxpayer’s belief that the government shouldn’t force its citizens to
participate in taking of lives didn’t relieve her of an obligation to pay tax.
In another case, the taxpayer’s deduction for “conscientious objection to
military expenditures” was denied and the negligence penalty imposed. Military
protest deduction wasn’t permitted under the code. Taxpayer lacked standing to
contest military expenditures of the government. (Reimer) In the Van Tol case,
the war tax credit was denied; sincerity of the taxpayer’s objection to war
didn’t excuse the tax liability.
The government gets the money. A few observations could be made. First,
such protestations, as sincere as they are, are not accomplishing what may be
the desire of the protest, in that the government ends up with more, not less,
money for undesirable purposes as a result of the protest. Not only will the
tax be collected, but penalty and interest as well. (The average increase is
$207 for penalty alone.)
Second, in the case of war or defense, not one cent less will be spent for
bullets, bombs, or battleships because of the protest. Tax money which we
might earmark for Cambodian Relief, as good as that might be, only means other
money out of the same treasury is used for what the Congress believes is
necessary for national defense, and if that is not enough, the government will
simply borrow what it needs. One who thinks that such a fund will change the
size of national defense has only a superficial method of salving his
conscience.
Third, Internal Revenue agents, with (against) whom I have worked, openly joke
at such protest tactics. Regardless of the agents’ own personal views on the
use of tax money, which all citizens agree leaves much to be desired, they as
public servants must go and collect the tax whether it is from an impoverished
taxpayer, a religious protestor, or a fraudulent evader. Thus all that is
accomplished is a reduction in efficiency and an increase in the cost of
collection in the tax system. The Revenue Service doesn’t make the laws;
Congress does. A much more valid approach is correspondence with those in
Congress responsible for the present law and who have the power to change it.
Certainly the revenue agents have no jurisdiction over setting up the national
budget.
Internal Revenue agents deserve our respect. They are, with some exceptions,
well trained and conscientious, doing a job necessary to insure compliance and
integrity in the tax system. (After all, Jesus selected one as one of his
disciples. While he wasn’t the star of the show, he certainly wasn’t the
villain either.)
It would be interesting to know what percentage of church people have ever
written to their congressman expressing their concern on militarism. The
percentage would probably increase if names and addresses of congressmen were
available on church bulletin boards with sample letters for those who want
some positive ways to express their concerns.
I cringe when reports come out in the paper of tax protestors who have been
convicted of tax evasion on religious grounds with a byline that they are
Mennonites, with the implied impression that this is a belief of such
churches. Mennonites do not believe that. Editors of newspapers and
periodicals should be corrected when it is implied. The vast majority of
Christians believe such a stance to be unscriptural teaching.
This prompted a series of letters to the editor in response:
Called Hotstetter’s commentary “a breath of fresh air” and said “the newer
viewpoint promoted so much presently is not the historical nor the
majority viewpoint of the Mennonite brotherhood.”
“I differ from his assessment that those in our churches who cannot in
Christian conscience pay war taxes are ‘simply being contrary.’ That seems
to me to be a judgment form the world rather than the Word. I believe
that, increasingly, those who have ears to hear will understand that,
while it may be contrary to the world, to resist payment of war taxes is
being faithful to the Word of God.”
The failure of the General Conference Mennonite Church to reach an agreement
with the Internal Revenue Service… should come as no surprise. Furthermore,
if the case goes to court the winner can be predicted with a considerable
degree of assurance. It will be Attorney Ball in collecting his fee. It is
to be hoped that our church does not emulate the unenviable position in
which that church now finds itself. It can hardly back down without
swallowing its pride and cannot push forward with any hope of success in the
untenable stance it is taking. The constituency should scream at using so
much funds on such a case.
The requirement of the service to withhold taxes and forward them to the
government is nothing new. It has been on the books for more than a
generation. If they had not signed the waiver on Social Security taxes, they
would have more of a leg to stand on. They can’t have it both ways.
Felt that even if Hostetter’s arguments were valid, “there is still the
conviction, scripturally based, that we must witness to Christ’s way of
peace. Our quiet support for the military as we pay our taxes each year is
not consistent with that witness.” Says Flickinger: “Christian war tax
resisters are basing their actions on Scripture, not on a desire to
attract persecution or publicity.”
The issue included an
editorial,
“As for taxes…”,
from Daniel Hertzler. There wasn’t much meat there. It talked around the
subject for the most part, though it did mention Hertzler’s own
dipping-his-toes-in: “For a time I resisted the telephone tax, but then I gave
up. Perhaps I was a little overly impressed by the threatening form letters
which began to come from the Internal Revenue Service. Also, tax refusal seemed
like a form of revolution. As an orderly Mennonite, revolution is not my
style.”
That prompted Art Landis to shoot back in the issue with
a letter to the editor
taking Hertzler to task for romanticizing earlier generations who “had no
compassion for the slave or the prisoner. I believe the state could have
constructed concentration camps and gas ovens next to their meetinghouses and
they would not have protested.”
Good statements can have a reverse and negative effect… The statement can
serve to immunize us and keep us from action. We have resolved our guilt by
preparing another statement. This statement calls for a radical change of
lifestyle. Guilt and inner conflict are not as easily laid aside as this
statement might indicate. Wrestling with the complex issues of peace does not
successfully reduce inner conflict. What would really happen if “the old self
that lives for self dies”? We call into judgment economic systems that keep
millions poor when we ourselves are very deeply rooted in that economic
system. We denounce wars, but no consensus can be reached regarding applying
the same biblical understanding to paying for the hardware of war as we have
for giving of our bodies for war.
[A]t Bowling Green when a brother expressed
his concern over the assembly’s failure to deal with the question of obedience
as it relates to payment of taxes for war. Even though long discussion
followed, business proceeded very much as usual…
The question that comes to my mind is whether we indeed should make statements
such as these when we know well enough that the very structures of our
institutions would be shattered if we attempted to live out the text of the
statement.
Responding to Seattle Catholic Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen’s call for a tax
revolt against the nuclear arms race, Lutheran pacifists have urged
co-religionists to join the protest, redirecting the money to the poor. “We
shall act on Bishop Hunthausen’s encouragement to resist a percentage of our
federal income tax that is symbolic of allocations made to the military,” said
the New York-based Lutheran Peace Fellowship, an independent intra-Lutheran
group which works with the International Fellowship of Reconciliation.
“We will no longer offer our tax dollars for a nuclear military that affronts
the lordship of Jesus. Instead, we choose to redirect resisted tax dollars to
the poor of our country and of our world.”
Conscientious tax resisters who were hoping the courts would find a place for
them in the U.S.
Constitution were disappointed (Levi Miller reporting):
Amish employers and employees cannot invoke their religious beliefs to avoid
paying Social Security and federal unemployment taxes, the Supreme Court ruled
on .
The unanimous decision overturned a western Pennsylvania judge’s ruling that
forcing the Amish to pay such taxes violates their freedom of religion.
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said, “The design of the [Social Security]
system requires support by mandatory contributions from covered employers and
employees.”
The controversy arose when the internal Revenue Service informed Edwin Lee, an
Old Order Amish carpenter from Lawrence County,
Pa., that he owed some
$27,000 in back taxes. Lee had not paid any Social Security taxes for himself
or his employees since . He also had not
withheld such taxes.
It was noted in the ruling that Congress has already provided for a tax
exemption that covers self-employed Amish, such as farmers. The Amish believe
that the church and the family should take care of the elderly and do not
withdraw the government funds at old age.
John A. Hostetler, a professor at Temple University and member of the Plains
Mennonite Church, commented on the ruling by saying that although “it is a
blow for religious liberty in general, in the long run it is better for the
Amish to pay it. If they were exempt, it would create jealousy.”
Hostetler said he did not know how many of these small shops would be
involved. “It will mean more paperwork for them,” he concluded.
A follow-up by Phil Shenk explained the consequences for war tax resisters:
The U.S. Supreme
Court indirectly referred to the issue of war tax resistance and the World
Peace Tax Fund in its
ruling, denying an Amish employer exemption from paying and collecting Social
Security taxes.
The unanimous decision, plus the arguments employed by the court, may also
have diminished the prospects for success in the General Conference Mennonite
Church’s case asking for an employer’s exemption from collecting
federal-military income taxes for the government.
In the Amish case, Amishman Edwin Lee had refused to withhold Social Security
taxes from his Amish employees’ paychecks and failed to pay the employer’s
share of their Social Security taxes, claiming that doing so would violate his
and his employees’ First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion.
Lee said the Amish believe it is sinful not to provide for their elderly and
needy themselves and therefore are opposed to the national social security
system.
Unlike the celebrated case, in which the
Supreme Court granted the Amish an exemption from Wisconsin’s compulsory
school-attendance law based on their free exercise of religion rights, the
Supreme Court here held that the government’s interest should overrule the
religious rights of the individual because it would be difficult for the
Social Security system to accommodate the “myriad exceptions flowing from a
wide variety of religious beliefs.”
In ruling that Amishman Lee’s First Amendment religious rights must “yield to
the common good,” the Supreme Court raised the issue of conscientious
objectors’ refusal to pay taxes that go for what the court called “war-related
activities.” The court said it could not see any difference between Lee’s
refusal to pay Social Security taxes and the position of one who refuses to
pay war taxes.
“If, for example, a religious adherent believes war is a sin, and if a certain
percentage of the federal budget can be identified as devoted to war-related
activities, such individuals would have a similarly valid claim to be exempt
from paying that percentage of the income tax.”
The problem with this, the court said, is that “[t]he tax system could not
function if denominations were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax
payments were spent in a manner that violates their religious belief.”
In a very broad statement that implicitly referred to religious conscientious
objection to federal-military income taxes as well as Social Security taxes,
the court revealed its basic rule: “Because the broad public interest in
maintaining a sound tax system is of such a high order, religious belief in
conflict with the payment of taxes affords no basis for resisting the tax.”
The court did recognize that Congress has passed a constitutionally sound law
that exempts Amish who are self-employed from paying Social Security taxes.
But it held that taxes imposed on employers “must be uniformly applicable to
all, except as Congress provides explicitly otherwise.” Because Congress has
not exempted Amish employers or their employees from Social Security taxes,
the court refused to honor their religious rights over the interests of the
nation as a whole.
Before Congress, in the proposed World Peace Tax Fund legislation, is explicit
language that would “exempt” conscientious objectors from paying war taxes and
instead divert their taxes to peaceful governmental activities. If passed,
this might provide the authority the court has implied it needs before it will
honor the rights of war tax objectors.
A Mennonite lawyer, John Yoder, is working as one of several assistants to
Chief Justice Burger, the author of the opinion striking down Amishman Lee’s
free exercise of religion rights. Burger’s Mennonite aide is originally from
Hesston, Kan.
The decision was so gratuitously dismissive of conscientious tax refusal that
the General Conference Mennonite Church decided to
halt its legal action,
on :
In the light of a negative judgment rendered by the
U.S. Supreme Court
against an Amish employer on ,
the General Conference’s judicial action committee has recommended to the
denomination’s General Board that a planned suit against the
IRS on
the issue of tax withholding “be put on indefinite hold.” The committee’s
decision came at the end of a
conference call with William Ball, who has been preparing the case
on behalf of the church group over the past year. During the telephone
meeting, Ball indicated that, considering the Supreme Court ruling in the case
IRS vs. Lee,
the General Conference would almost certainly lose its case.
In a cover story in the issue
Donald B. Kraybill proposed some ideas on
what to do about the threat of nuclear war.
Idea #10 was “Refuse to pay some of your federal income taxes as a witness to
your faith. If you’re scared, try a small amount like $7.77. If that’s too
scary, at least send a letter describing the difficulty of praying for peace
and paying for war. Those who pay taxes without sending such a letter are
quietly condoning and supporting the nuclear arms buildup.”
Raymond Hunthausen’s war tax resistance, which had been alluded to earlier, was
covered in a brief note:
Seattle Archbishop Raymond G. Hunthausen announced that he will withhold half
of his income tax to protest “our nation’s
continuing involvement in the race for nuclear arms supremacy.”
“As Christians imbued with the spirit of peacemaking expressed by the Lord in
the Sermon on the Mount, we must find ways to make known our objections to the
present concentration on further nuclear arms buildup,” the archbishop told
300 peace activists attending a meeting at Notre Dame University.
In the issue, Ivan H.
Stoltzfus felt compelled to write in to explain
“Why I pay taxes.”
The standard set of bible verses were deployed to explain that worldly goods
are at the disposal of worldly governments; Rome’s government was no better
than ours, so Paul’s advice in Romans 13 still holds; besides, it’s impossible
to determine what percentage of your taxes are objectionable, so you might as
well pay the whole thing. Still, Stoltzfus wrote, if there were a Peace Tax
Fund law, he’d go along with it.
A senate of priests in Iowa has voted to support a Catholic lay minister who
refuses to pay his federal income taxes as a protest against the nuclear arms
race.
The resolution approved by the representative group of priests in the Dubuque
Catholic archdiocese says they commend Tom Cordaro and
St. Thomas Aquinas parish at
Ames for their courageous stand relative to the payment of taxes for military
and nuclear armaments.
Mr. Cordaro, 27, has held back most of his income taxes
because he believes it would be a
sin to contribute money for nuclear weapons. The parish council at
St. Thomas Aquinas has refused
to honor an order by the Internal Revenue Service to turn over Mr. Cordaro’s
wages to satisfy the $828 tax debt.
Dan E. Hoellwarth made another attempt to defang Romans 13 in the
issue. According to him, the
description of government in that chapter should be seen as prescriptive, not
descriptive, and is meant to restrict which sorts of governments Christians owe
allegiance to: “what if the leaders are not acting in accordance with Scripture?”
“Obviously we should pay taxes… However…”
The Catholic war tax resisters were back again in the
issue:
The Catholic peace advocate Daniel Berrigan says he will take the church’s
anti-nuclear arms movement seriously “when we have a few bishops in jail.[”]
Berrigan, who is appealing a 3–10 year prison sentence for breaking into a
Pennsylvania nuclear plant, spoke to some 200 students and faculty members at
Fordham University.
The Jesuit priest said this “unparalleled threat to our survival” has made
civil disobedience — such as demonstrations and withholding federal income
taxes — a necessary component of the anti-nuclear movement.
He said he was encouraged by the fact that the American church hierarchy no
longer engages in “cold-war” rhetoric, and that the peace movement has made
some strides. But he added that the church, like the rest of the anti-nuclear
movement, has only “moved the diameter of a dime” toward serious opposition to
the arms race.
A Methodist pastor and wife in Portland, Oregon, withheld $1500 from their
U.S. income taxes.
They turned $1,000 of the money into $5 bills and gave them to persons they
found in line at the state of Oregon employment service.
According to the United Methodist John and Pat Schwiebert “clipped [a note] to
each $5 bill explaining that the couple was withholding a portion of their tax
‘because we cannot in good conscience do nothing while income we have earned
is used by our government to plan and carry out the killing of human beings…’ ”
After nearly a year in Laos, we feel a bit of fire brewing in our bones.
Surely, we think, the church can offer an alternative and a “no” to the
militarism and violence that is increasingly manifested around the world.
Surely we have a responsibility to end such suffering. Yet, as we turn to our
church papers (which we read avidly even though they arrive 4 to 5 months
late) we find that much of the discussion on peacemaking, including war-tax
resistance, seems to focus on the interpretation of certain biblical passages.
While it is important that these passages shape our thoughts and direct our
lives, it seems that too much time is spent fine-tuning favorite arguments in
comfortable, safe settings, far removed from the cries of those who suffer. We
wonder, for example, how well our arguments would stand up if the bombing
which occurred in many areas of Laos had instead destroyed our own communities
in Kansas, Ohio, or Manitoba.
The oil lamps burned late into the night when we visited the village. The day
before a Lao woman, the mother of 11 children, was killed when her hoe struck
a small anti-personnel bomblet that had buried itself under a root in her
garden. The bomblet, one of hundreds which still litter the soil, had been
dropped 10 to 15 years ago… Looking at the depression left in the soil by the
explosion, the hoe fragment, and the saddened eyes of the 10-year-old
daughter, we wondered who would own this family’s grief… who would answer for
this woman’s death?
The answer, we fear, is no one. Indeed the United States has created a
military system which can kill in such a way that no one need feel guilty.
Certainly no one in America, army general or taxpayer, will be accused of
plotting the death of this peasant woman. No international court will bring
bomb manufacturing companies to trial. Even to know which pilot dropped that
particular bomblet some ten years ago would be impossible. Thus we have
created death without a murderer.
Are we really so clever? Have we finally outwitted God, who would come and
ask, “Where is Abel, your brother?” Indeed, if God should come and ask, would
he not find us all guilty?
Of course, we as historic peace churches have often tried to separate
ourselves from our nation’s militaristic policies, to be a people with a
different identity. To some extent we have succeeded. The very fact that
Mennonite Central Committee is allowed to be in Laos is in large measure due
to the fact that we, as Mennonites, did not fight as
U.S. soldiers in
Indochina.
Nevertheless, how clean are we? Are our self-perceptions of innocence
realistic? Or have we been lured into a giant game of guilt evasion whose
players include Pentagon officials and common folk alike? While we ourselves
have not worn a soldier’s uniform, have not our taxes and our silence helped
to build weapons systems and to pay the salaries of those who fight? Though we
have espoused love and peace, could any of us stand before that peasant
woman’s family and state with assurance that we did not contribute to the
making of the weapon that killed her?
Thus, the presence of the shattered family in Muong Kham or the “cave
dwellers” in Sam Neua is disquieting to our spirits — the links between our
tax money and their suffering are too strong to ignore. The option of war tax
resistance then seems not like a matter for debate, but the next logical step
for all Christians who would work for peace in the world.
Perhaps many of you will disagree with us that withholding taxes is a faithful
part of peacemaking. May we plead however that before final judgments are
made, you listen to the voices of those hurt by our violence? Standing close
to them, we need to respond with compassion. What will we say? What will we
do?
A letter to the editor
from Robin Lowery followed: “They [the Peacheys] seem to base their conclusion
on the experience of those they dialogued with rather than on what God our
Father says to us through the Bible,” Lowery wrote. “It is a dangerous thing to
base our faith on experience and feelings.” We shouldn’t expect governments to
live up to Christian principles. Our worldly life is only temporary; we are
guests here and live under worldly rules temporarily. “War is a horrible thing,
but even more terrible is the judgment waiting for those who would oppose God
and what he has put in place.”
A
letter to the editor
from the Peacheys complained that their original article had been severely
edited:
As edited by Gospel Herald, our article seemed to
imply that all true peacemakers will engage in war-tax resistance. Certainly
we were urging Christians to seriously consider making some type of witness
with their tax return. Our original article acknowledged, however, that this
could take many forms. Some people may choose to live with an income below the
taxable level while others may wish to enclose a letter of concern with their
tax return. Some may withhold a symbolic amount while others withhold all of
their taxes.
Yet, none of these actions can be the whole of peacemaking. Rather, as we
stressed in our original submission, peacemaking is a total way of life which
embraces our troublesome next-door neighbor as well as those whom our country
defines as “enemy.” Further, as we seek to prevent suffering caused by North
American militarism, we must also turn to those in our communities who have
been cut off from help by our nation’s preoccupation with defense “needs.”
Finally, all of our actions must spring from our Christian faith. We cannot
work for peace out of guilt or a desire for personal innocence. Instead, what
we do, we do joyfully as a positive witness to life, to wholeness, and to our
faith in God who loves all people, irrespective of human barriers.
And Titus Peachey also wrote a follow-up article. Here is
an excerpt
that touches on war tax resistance:
The U.S.
asks neither for our consent or direct physical participation to send
weapons around the world such as the cluster bombs which were dropped in
Laos. It requires only our dollars and our silence. Can we continue to
give our government what it needs to make wars, and then serve the victims
of its violence with a clear conscience? Can we still claim to be
nonresistant if that violence was committed in defense of our way of life
in another part of the world?
Some of us felt that the shovels provided to Lao farmers in Xieng
Khouang should be purchased with money which Mennonites withheld from
their taxes, thereby making the connection between our nation’s militarism
and the victims of war. While some of the shovels were indeed purchased
with the Taxes for Peace Fund, many people cited legal, theological, and
practical problems with taking such an action.
From our vantage point in Laos, we admittedly worry more about the
theological, human, and practical problems of inaction. Can we
find common ground for a strong, unified, Mennonite peace witness which
deals more directly with our nation’s defense budget, arms sales, and
military aid?
MCC
has spent over $10,000 to purchase and ship about 1,200 shovels to Laos, and
$4,000 of that amount was allocated from
MCC’s
“Taxes for Peace” fund. This “Taxes for Peace” fund was established in
to receive contributions from church members
who had voluntarily withheld portions of their taxes as a symbolic protest
against the government’s excessive spending for military purposes.
“Since people withheld this money so that it could be used for peace instead
of war, we feel it especially appropriate that these dollars be used to help
clear the land of Laos of bomblets made and dropped by Americans,” explains
John Stoner, executive secretary of
MCC
U.S. Peace Section.
What is the meaning of conscientious objection to war in Canada today, and how
does this relate to the support of Canadian military industries and armed
forces activities? That is the focus of a task force on tax support of
Canadian military activities. A short document spelling out proposed goals and
research tasks of this group was mailed to each of the conferences earlier
this year asking for more guidance or support, perhaps after discussion at
their annual meetings. The initial work of this task force is being
coordinated by the Peace and Social Concerns office of
MCC
(Canada).
War tax resisters continued to have tough luck in
U.S. courts, as
this showed:
A Rhode Island couple who have refused to pay their federal income taxes
as a way of demonstrating their
opposition to military spending have lost their fight with the
U.S. Internal
Revenue Service. The United States Tax Court in Washington has not only
ordered Kevin and Linda Regan to pay $4,138 in back taxes and $206 in interest
for , but it has also slapped
the couple with a $500 fine for having “wasted” the government’s time and
money on “frivolous” actions. Although the decision was reached
, the
IRS
office here only announced it .
Keith Johnson, an
IRS
public affairs officer, said the agency was publicizing the Tax Court decision
because the Regans had been the subject of a long
Providence Journal-Bulletin story
in which the couple attempted to
justify their nonpayment of taxes on religious and moral grounds. In the
interview, the Regans argued that the arms race contradicted the Christian
belief against the taking of human life. “What we were presented with were
taxpayers who were saying they could withhold tax payments on moral grounds,”
Mr. Johnson said. “This is an argument that neither the
IRS,
nor the courts, accept.”
Finally, a
letter to the editor
from Weldon Nisly emphasized the parallel between conscientious objection to
the draft and conscientious objection to military taxation:
May we all have the faith and courage to stand with these young men of
conscience facing draft registration. It is indeed a difficult moment and
decision they and their families face. But it is not just they who face the
demands of the powers in our country and time. We all face a parallel decision
in a direct way with the demand for tax money to finance the Pentagon’s
headlong plunge toward death and destruction of all God’s creation and
creatures. The painful question of faith we ail face is will we contribute to
and cooperate with that demand of the powers or will we choose to place our
trust in God alone?
This is the twenty-fourth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it
was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal
of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
By war tax resistance had become commonplace
enough that I frequently saw incidental mention of it in articles about other
things. Here, I’ll stick to the mentions with more substance:
The issue included
an article on World Peace Tax Fund legislation lobbying efforts.
Apparently the Mennonite Central Committee’s
U.S. Peace Section
and D.C.
office were both busy lobbying for the bill, and the “historic peace church
taskforce on taxes” had hit on a lobbying method they called
dunamis which was described as “approach[ing] Congresspersons
in a spirit of compassion rather than confrontation.”
Forgive me; maybe I’ve been Mennonizing myself way too much lately and need to
back off for a while, but all this reminded me of William S. Burroughs’s
cynical description of weaponized Christian love (“Christ and the Museum of
Extinct Species”, Conjunctions
):
Let love squirt out like a fire hose of molasses. Give him the kiss of life.
Stick your tongue down his throat and taste what he has been eating and bless
his digestion, ooze down into his intestines and help him along with
his food. Let him know that you revere his rectum as part of an
ineffable whole. Make him know that you stand in naked awe of his
genitals as part of the Master Plan, life in all its rich variety.
Do not falter. Let your love enter in unto him and penetrate him with the
Divine Lubricant, makes K-Y and lanolin feel like sandpaper. It’s the most
mucilaginous, the slimiest, ooziest lubricant ever was or shall be, amen. It’s
known as the Greasy Ghost, will love you all over and inside out.
James Thomas, Lancaster,
Pa.; Brent Eash,
Middlebury, Ind.; and Edgar
Metzler were appointed as Mennonite Church representatives on the New Call to
Peacemaking Task Force on Taxes. The board encouraged Edgar to propose ways to
respond to current tax issues in the context of Bethlehem
, especially concerns raised at Bowling Green
. They also supported Edgar’s suggestions to
promote special prayer for peace and ways for congregations to share peace
concerns with neighboring churches.
The board endorsed the resolution proposed for consideration by the Bethlehem
General Assembly on “Conscientious Objection
to Military Taxes.” Edgar Metzler and MBCM
executive secretary Gordon Zook drafted the statement in consultation with the
members of the Council on Faith, Life, and Strategy and members of the General
Board.
About 30 marchers carried placards at the demonstration.
Clair Hochstetler wrote about a Good Friday demonstration that included some
creative war tax resistance activity, including some picturesque and
media-savvy (if somewhat haphazard) redirection:
“We are here as tax day approaches to announce our resistance to taxes which
are used for military purposes… We are here on
to commemorate the continuing
crucifixion of Jesus Christ — he is crucified again whenever individuals or
nations inflict violence on each other… We are here on
as a reminder of the
continuing foolishness of humanity — our leaders offer us the illusion of
security if we build yet another weapons system… We are offering an
alternative…”
Daryl Yoder-Bontrager, member of Community Mennonite Church, Harrisonburg,
Va., read a press statement
to a group assembled in front of the Internal Revenue Service building in
Staunton, Va. Approximately
30 “Christians for Peace” gathered for an unusual
public witness.
A festive atmosphere prevailed as three clowns danced their way among the
people and released five symbolic black helium-filled balloons. During the
service, they sporadically snipped the ribbons of other balloons tied to the
arms of the worshipers — lofting high into the bright sky, over $300 tied to
about 75 multicolored balloons.
Each balloon carried a five or ten dollar bill along with a signed and
addressed note from a participant who had withheld the money from his or her
federal income taxes. Over 15 members of Christians for Peace from the
Harrisonburg area contributed the symbolic cash.
The notes, written by Wendell Ressler, also of Community Mennonite Church,
read:
“About 60 percent of your income tax money this year will be used to pay for
our government’s military program. Because we are Christians who are trying to
follow the peaceful way of Jesus, we cannot support this country’s military
build-up. Instead we have chosen to waste our money in a more constructive
way.
“On we remember the
crucifixion of Jesus Christ each time one nation or individual inflicts
violence on another. On we release our money into the wind — it is not as foolish an act as
depending on weapons for our security.
“We are confident that you, the finder, will be able to use this money in a
better way than the Pentagon would have. Peace be with you![”] Signature and
address followed.
The group had gathered earlier in the day to train for appropriate responses
in case of hecklers and to ponder the message of both the foolishness and the
seriousness of their public act of resistance.
During the service, Ray Gingerich, professor at Eastern Mennonite College,
read from
Psalm 85:8–13 (the vision of a world without weapons),
Amos 5:4–15 (the plea for building a world without weapons),
and Matthew 6:24;
5:43–45;
5:3–9 (strategies for building a world without weapons).
The group, which included several children, carried thought-provoking placards
as they sang for peace. Statements included, “If you work for peace, why pay
for war?” The clowns passed out jelly beans as the balloons rose.
Barry Hart, member of Broad Street Mennonite Church, delivered a spirited
oration to the onlookers which included personnel from over a dozen
TV and radio stations.
Hart reiterated the protest against militarism while emphasizing the spirit
of hope and the sanctity of life.
“We are concerned not only for our personal survival, but for the survival of
our sisters and brothers everywhere,” he said. “We have so long been caught up
in the systematic plotting to destroy other systems that we have missed what
Christ has called us to — serving each other.”
Reporters and group members intermingled for over a half hour after the
service. Local
IRS
officials were not available for comment. Several policemen were on hand,
however, to ensure the peace and to protect the building. A group of young
hecklers had left earlier when the service began.
The idea for the witness was spawned from two Christians for Peace workshops
on war tax resistance by Yoder-Bontrager and Ressler
. Nathan and
Elaine Zook Barge contributed ideas from an earlier experience with a balloon
event in Colorado.
A secular war tax resistance organization, the National War Tax Resistance
Coordinating Committee, formed in . The
Center on Law and Pacifism was an important source of information for war tax
resisters around that time. From the issue:
New U.S. tax
legislation is making it increasingly risky for people to express their
opposition to war by refusing to pay their taxes, but more people are doing so
anyway, according to two Colorado “tax resistance” leaders.
William and Eugenia Durland, who run the Center on Law and Pacifism in
Colorado Springs, said that they have been “in touch” with some 10,000 “war tax
resisters” either through their own newsletter or through direct counseling.
The couple said there are at least twice that many who are refusing to pay
their taxes nationwide.
One indication that the figure is growing, they suggested, is the Internal
Revenue Service’s decision about a year ago to create a task force to combat
tax resisters. Added to that, they said, are new laws aimed specifically at
people who refuse to pay their taxes out of conscience.
The issue brought this news of
congregational resistance from the United Methodist Church:
A United Methodist congregation in New Haven,
Conn., backing their
pastor’s right to refuse paying federal taxes for military use, has declined
to turn over his salary to the Internal Revenue Service. Carl Lundborg, pastor
of First and Summerfield United Methodist Church, has withheld federal income
taxes in , telling the
IRS
his “obligations as a Christian and as a citizen are no longer reconcilable.
The 50 percent of my taxes that support the military I cannot pay.”
After Mr. Lundborg refused to pay
IRS the
$1,200 said to be owed for , the
IRS
served a levy on the Methodist congregations as his employer.
IRS
ordered the church to withhold the pastor’s salary until the amount was
paid. But church members voted on
to reject
IRS’s
demand in support of their pastor.
The General Conference Mennonite Church was still struggling to define its
corporate response to legal demands on one side and employees’ conscientious
objection to military taxation on the other. The Mennonite Church, and its
organ, Gospel Herald, had the luxury of being
spectators to the struggle, though they would have to deal with the same issue
soon enough.
Of more concern as issues are the less routine and less understandable
subjects… ¶ Among these one of the more troubling is the payment of taxes for
military purposes. Both the Council on Faith, Life, and Strategy and the Board
of Congregational Ministries have given attention to this issue and the
chairman of the council has acknowledged that “the Council itself reflected
the different viewpoints and could not recommend a single specific direction
for the church’s response.”
Among the resolutions for consideration by delegates at the General Conference
Mennonite Church Triennial Sessions, to be held
in Bethlehem, Pa., is a
formal action authorizing conference officers to stop withholding taxes from
the salaries of its employees as required by
U.S. law. It also
encourages Canadian Mennonites to obtain relief from the same requirement by
Revenue Canada.
The resolution is the product of more than four years of discussion about the
faithfulness and constitutionality of the church’s collecting taxes for the
state, especially in light of the use of a large portion of that money by the
state for armaments.
In at a special midtriennium conference
in Minneapolis, General Conference delegates voted in favor of urging their
General Board to “use all legal, legislative, and administrative avenues for
achieving a conscientious objector exemption from the legal requirement that
the conference withhold income taxes from the wages of its employees.” At
Estes Park, Colo., in
, a judicial test case on the issue was
okayed by a vote of 1,156 to 353.
, however, all three “avenues”
appear to have closed. A meeting with
IRS
officials in Washington in — the
administrative avenue — failed to produce any results. The World Peace Tax
Fund legislation pending in Congress — the legislative avenue — seems stalled
a long way from gaining enough support to get serious attention. The
preparation of a legal suit against the
IRS,
to be taken to the
U.S. Supreme Court,
if necessary, was put on hold when it appeared, judging from other high court
rulings, that the action would almost surely fail.
The conference’s General Board, therefore, will bring the “Resolution on
Faithful Action Toward Tax Withholding” to Bethlehem
delegates as their recommendation for
resolving the moral dilemma which church officials feel they are facing. If
approved, the resolution would take the conference one small but significant
step into the sphere of divine obedience/civil disobedience.
The Mennonite Church had its own conference, and its own war tax resistance
agenda item to deal with:
More unanimity and like-mindedness prevailed in consideration of three
resolutions before the
MC General
Assembly. In discussing them, reference was repeatedly made once again to
“what the other group is doing.”
This was particularly true in working through a resolution on “Conscientious
Objection to Military Taxes.” By the time the
MC delegates
considered the proposal, they were already aware that the General Conference
had passed by a 2-1 margin a much more radical statement authorizing
conference officers to refuse to serve as tax collectors for the
U.S. government in
cases where individual employees ask that their federal income taxes not be
withheld from their wages. This move caught the attention of the national
media and was being covered by newspapers and television by the time
MC delegates
considered their resolution.
It calls for continued study and discernment of the issue of war taxes,
pledging prayer, study, and caution in relating to the government and its
demands. The resolution asks governments to recognize peace tax funds as
alternates for conscientious objectors and affirms those “who conscientiously
withhold a portion of taxes destined for military use as one way to witness
against militarism.” Delegates passed the resolution after sending it back to
committee once for reworking.
Discussion of these resolutions was mostly affirmation, with little of the
controversy surrounding resolutions to the state characterizing some previous
General Assembly sessions. Not all were comfortable, however, with the
approach. James Hess, Lancaster,
Pa., noted these
resolutions had better be done as individuals rather than as a group since for
him this action violated the principle of the separation of church and state.
Even though we
GCs often
speak of “Old” Mennonites, I have tended to view
MCs
ahead of us in creative theologians and theological
discussion/writing; in preaching evangelists; in putting the church’s
evangelism statements to work; and in comprehensive programs for total
Christian life…
Imagine my surprise when I sensed the caution among
MCs about the
church giving up its role as a tax collector for the government.
This time we
GCs passed
good statements on tax withholding and justice. I pray we will implement them
among us.
The most intensive early discussion in these business sessions came with the
presentation of an issue which had been on the General Conference burner for
several triennials. The problem was precipitated by paid employees of the
General Conference in the
U.S. who asked that
their federal income taxes not be deducted by the conference to allow them to
deal directly with the government on taxes for war.
The discussion I heard came at the end of a long process and so I suppose it
was less impassioned than earlier in the study. The reason for the delay, I
learned, was to provide an opportunity to pursue all possible administrative
and legal avenues as solution to the problem. This had now been done with no
success and so the general board brought a resolution calling for “the
conference officers to test the constitutionality of the withholding
requirements in the United States and to assert the higher claim of Christ’s
law of love, by refusing to serve as tax collectors in cases where individual
employees have asked that their federal income taxes not be withheld from
their wages, in order that they may conscientiously refuse to pay for war
preparations.”
Duane Heffelbower, a Mennonite attorney from California, commented on the
proposal: “We could scarcely devise a softer ‘velvet glove’ to cast at the
feet of the
IRS. But
it shows in a powerful way our corporate willingness to stand with our people.
What might the government do? We don’t know.” But he observed the responses
could vary from a simple levy of the bank accounts to putting conference
officers in jail.
The resolution was discussed in a vigorous and orderly fashion. The arguments
for and against were scarcely new ones. In opposing the resolution John Voth
of Oklahoma noted that Jesus called upon us to love our enemy. Today the
government has become the enemy. Jesus, he observed, called for going the
second mile with a soldier. In support for the resolution, Lois Barrett of
Kansas asserted that in the
U.S. disobeying the
law is a time-honored way of changing the law.
After an hour’s debate, the resolution was brought to a ballot vote and passed
by approximately a 70 percent majority.
In the aftermath of the triennial, the General Conference began implementing
its war tax resistance resolution. On the General Conference stopped withholding taxes from the paychecks
of some resisting employees:
Acting on the basis of a resolution adopted by General Conference delegates at
Bethlehem ,
GC treasurer
Ted W. Stuckey on
issued the first paychecks on which federal income taxes were not withheld.
Seven employees of the denomination’s central offices made the request that
the taxes not be withheld, so that they can remit to the
IRS
personally the amount of federal taxes their consciences will allow. Several
others have indicated that they may be willing to take part in the action at a
later date.
Stuckey said that, beginning with the
paychecks, the seven will have state
and social security taxes deducted but be treated like self-employed persons
as far as federal income taxes are concerned. Under such a classification,
they would be required to submit quarterly estimated tax payments to the
IRS.
The seven plan to make a portion of those quarterly payments but put the
balance — the amount they feel they cannot voluntarily pay because of high
U.S. military
spending — into a special account at General Conference central offices.
Stuckey and general secretary Vern Preheim informed Commissioner Roscoe L.
Egger, Jr., at
IRS
headquarters in Washington by letter of the conference’s action. “We’re trying
to be completely open and above board with them about this matter,” Stuckey
said.
The pay period is the first
opportunity for the conference to implement the “Resolution on Faithful Action
Toward Tax Withholding” adopted by delegates to a churchwide convention in
Bethlehem, Pa., on
.
There, conferees voted 1,128 to 457 to “authorize the conference officers to
test the constitutionality of the withholding requirements in the United
States and to assert the higher claim of Christ’s law of love, by refusing to
serve as tax collectors in cases where individual employees have asked that
their federal income taxes not be withheld from their wages, in order that
they may conscientiously refuse to pay for war preparations.”
The statement concluded with a commitment to “surround with our prayers the
General Conference staff and government officials who will be involved in this
action and all those individuals who refuse in conscience to pay taxes for war
preparations, however costly their witness may be.”
The Bethlehem resolution is the result of
nearly eight years of work on the tax issue, and was passed only after all
legal attempts to solve the problem had been exhausted, including seeking a
simple administrative solution from the
IRS.
The Mennonite Church General Assembly
resolution on Conscientious Objection to Military Taxes includes six
“statements of intention” including praying, rendering to Caesar and to God,
obeying God rather than the state where claims conflict, appealing for legal
recognition of conscientious objection to paying taxes for the military,
affirming both conscientious payment and conscientious nonpayment of taxes for
military use, and pleading for constructive use of resources entrusted by God.
Copies are available from the Mennonite Board of Congregational Ministries…
The edition brought the
news of a war tax resister fighting back against the
IRS’s new
“frivolous filing” penalties:
A Roman Catholic pacifist has brought suit against a law under which the
U.S. Internal
Revenue Service
(IRS)
has fined her $500 for what is considered a “frivolous” request. Alice
Drefchinski, 53, a registered nurse, filed an income tax return for
under which she was to receive a $720
refund. With her return, she enclosed a letter requesting the
IRS to
deduct $1,000 from her taxes — roughly the amount that would go for defense
purposes — and give that money to humanitarian or peace groups.
Although Ms. Drefchinski did not withhold that amount from her taxes, or ask
that the money be refunded to her, the
IRS has
fined her $500 for what is considered to be a “frivolous” request.
While she would not have to pay the money, it would reduce the total of her
refund to $220. The Louisiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU)
has filed suit on Ms. Drefchinski’s behalf in
U.S. District Court
in Lafayette, asking the court to strike down the
law under which the penalty is being levied.
Martha Kregel, executive director of the organization, said the suit asks for
a finding that the law is unconstitutional because it violates due process and
does not contain a definition of “frivolous.”
In other cases, the
IRS has
refunded money directly to taxpayers who made similar requests, and later
assessed them a $500 penalty for making “frivolous” requests.
This description of Drefchinski’s action seems misleading. She took a war tax
deduction on her tax return which reduced the amount she owed; she didn’t
merely append a letter to her return asking the
IRS to
donate some portion of her taxes to charity. In
Drefchinski v. Regan (1984)
the court slapped down multiple arguments made by her attorneys against the
frivolous filing penalty, but concluded:
Many respected Americans have engaged in civil disobedience as a form of
protest against taxation for military spending. Henry David Thoreau, for
example, refused to pay taxes that would contribute to the funding of the
Mexican-American War. See H. Thoreau,
On the Duty of Civil Disobedience (1849). Yet this
mode of protest is not without its costs. Thoreau spent a night in the Concord
jail. Alice Drefchinski must pay a $500 civil penalty. Perhaps she can find
solace in the words written by Thoreau after his confinement: “It costs me
less in every sense to incur the penalty of disobedience to the State, than it
would to obey. I should feel as if I were worth less in that case.”
Finally, this note suggests that tax resistance was catching on as an idea in
Christian circles as a possible tactic that went beyond war tax resistance:
Evangelical Christian leaders have warned of mass tax-resistance by their
churches unless Congress amends the new Social Security law which requires
religious organizations to pay into the system. The church groups issued the
warnings at a
hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, called in response to a storm of
protest over the provision in the new Social Security rescue package, which
goes into effect .
The revised law repeals the exemption on nonprofit groups, including churches,
from withholding Social Security taxes for their employees.
Forest D. Montgomery, legal counsel to the National Association of
Evangelicals, which represents 38,000 churches, called on Congress “to act to
forestall an inevitable confrontation between church and state.” He added that
many churches will simply “refuse to pay (the tax) on the basis of religious
conviction.”
This is the thirty-first in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of Gospel Herald, journal of the (Old) Mennonite Church.
General Board Follies
So if you remember from our last episode, the board of the Mennonite Church was dragging its feet about supporting employees who did not want war taxes withheld from their paychecks.
Then the whole Church, in its General Assembly, forced their hand by voting to honor the requests of such employees.
But apparently the board still saw that as advisory and not binding, because
they kept right on dragging their feet:
After several years of study and discussion, the Mennonite Church General Board brought the military tax question to a vote — and tabled it.
Normal attenders will recall that a majority of General Assembly delegates voted to “support” the efforts of church board employees who do not wish their taxes deducted so that they can deal with the government in regard to military taxes.
The issue came back to the General Board as such issues will and it was given
extended attention at the spring meeting which convened at Kalona (Iowa)
Mennonite Church, .
An early straw vote strongly favored going ahead, but when decision time came,
a majority voted to table the motion.
As presented, the motion called for agreeing “in principle” to honor requests of employees who ask that their income tax not be withheld.
However, such approval was intended to be reviewed in the session of the board after a congregational study process which is now being initiated.
No taxes were to be withheld prior to .
Motion to table, it was suggested, was related to the pending congregational
study process. The board was concerned not to prejudice the case before the
study process. Also there was concern that the possible consequences of such
withholding be better understood. What action might the government take toward
board officers?
Moderator George Brunk Ⅲ and Executive Secretary James Lapp indicated that they were not unhappy about the motion to postpone action. “Some of us thought ‘in principle’ could be helpful in the study process,” said Brunk. “The board position has been in the direction of the proposed motion,” he continued. “But there are different ways to capture this.”
Yet another Military Tax Consultation was held to allow for more jaw-exercise and to cover for the delay:
Mennonite Church General Board is holding a Military Tax Consultation in response to actions taken by General Assembly at Normal .
It will be held at Goshen College.
Mennonite Church conferences are invited to send teams of persons to the event.
Since General Assembly called for “continued study of issues raised by taxation for military purposes,” General Board is currently preparing a study guide for use by congregations.
It is being prepared under the direction of Robert Hull and will be ready in time for the consultation.
The most controversial — and potentially illegal — action taken by General Assembly was its permission to denominational agencies and schools to honor the request of employees who don’t want taxes withheld from their paychecks so they can refuse to pay the portion (about half) that goes to the military.
More information about the consultation is available from General Board…
Ray Gingerich talks about tax resistance during the small-group discussion
time.
Daniel Hertzler reported on the consultation:
Wilma Gingerich (left) and Leanna Rhodes share their experiences in refusing
to pay the military portion of their taxes.
Some 30 people met at Goshen College, , for a “Consultation on Military Tax Withholding.” The military tax question has been on Mennonite Church agenda , General Board executive secretary James Lapp told the group.
But now it has become focused on the issue of “tax withholding” by church agencies for people who wish to deal with the Internal Revenue Service on their own.
Avowed purpose of the consultation was to introduce a study guide, “As
Conscience and the Church Shall Lead,” being prepared for use in
congregations. To this end Marlene Kropf of Mennonite Board of Congregational
Ministries led the group in an educational experience.
In the beginning, and alternatively throughout, there was story telling.
Military-tax resisters told how they got into it.
All referred to a variety of spiritual influences and life-changing experiences.
Seven persons told personal stories.
Among them was Dan Hunsberger of Hesston College, who worked one summer for a contractor without taxes withheld and got a tax bill for $1,700. “I considered this use of money wrong, not only from a peace standpoint, but also bad business.”
David Weaver, a teacher at Central Christian High School, grew up in a family
that eschewed political involvement. But in
he went on a student tour to the Middle East and spent some time on the West
Bank of the Jordan River, the home of persecuted Palestinians. Then, in
, he wrote a paper on the issue of war taxes
and in the same year he went to Nicaragua with Witness for Peace. “I saw the
Nicaraguan people and looked into their eyes,” he said. That year he decided
to withhold 55 percent of his income taxes.
“At the beginning I felt very heavy about this.
In November when they came and took money from my account, it was like a burden was lifted.
What really can they do to harm me?
We’re in the world for a short life.
There are little things we can do.
This doesn’t mean my hands are clean.
But it is a small action.”
Ray and Wilma Gingerich from Harrisonburg,
Va., gave a joint report
which recounted a decades-long, growing concern over the issue of war taxes.
When they first became aware of the issue, they had no income taxes to pay.
But by they finally had enough income to be
taxed and began to withhold 50 to 59 percent. “Our son Andre refused to
register under Carter,” they said. “We saw some relation between this and
middle-aged people not paying for war. We cannot continue to pay taxes while
applauding our young who resist the draft.”
Ray expressed concern that Mennonite Church leaders have not been more forthright about the issue. “We need to try to draw our leaders into the discussion.
Leaders generally get their authority from the people, not from the poor or the Bible.
In some respects, tax resisters must lead the leaders.”
Among the leaders present was Paul Gingrich, president of Mennonite Board of
Missions. He acknowledged that
MBM
first faced this issue , when
John and Sandra Drescher-Lehman asked that their taxes not be withheld. The
MBM
board of directors is divided. Some threaten to resign either way.
But Gingrich concludes that some corporate action needs to be taken as an object lesson, a parable so that younger Mennonites may learn firsthand about resisting militarism. “We have a generation that only hears the stories of those resisting World Wars Ⅰ and Ⅱ and the Korean conflict,” he said. “The institution can become a symbol.
In the action is a tremendous teaching moment.”
He continued, “In every generation we need to discover the issue on which we
will not compromise. For what will we be ready to die? Is this the place to
stand? Is this the way to stand? If an institution takes such an action, it
may be that the institution will not survive. But maybe that is not the most
important thing.”
No clear-cut answer to Gingrich came out of the consultation.
But from small-group settings a cautious consensus emerged.
Most groups encouraged church agencies to respect the consciences of persons who do not wish their taxes deducted by the agency, even though such honoring would involve the agency in illegal action.
Several groups pointed out, however, that there are ways for persons to gain
access to enough tax money to make a symbolic protest without implicating
their agency in illegal action. It was urged that they explore these first.
James Lapp, who called the consultation, and Marlene Kropf, director of the educational experience, both expressed satisfaction with the session. “We need to recognize that there is a complex set of issues here,” said Lapp. “Our goal is to help people to see that there is more than one way to be faithful.”
Although I have not been involved in the issue, I believe the issue of military tax deductions of church employees has been around for at least a decade.
I am concerned about the continued reluctance of General Board to implement the will of General Assembly to support church board employees who as a matter of conscience do not wish to have their taxes deducted.
As reported in “General Board Tables Military Tax Question”… the eagerness
with which the board embraces broad “visions” while avoiding concrete actions
is striking. Whatever the possible actions of the government toward board
officers if tax withholding is stopped, it would surely be mild in contrast to
the price paid by Mennonite leaders during World War Ⅰ who refused to
financially support the war effort. “A Pastor Pays a Price for Peace” in the
same issue of Gospel Herald is an illustration.
[See ♇ 1 September 2018]
Discussion of visions is fine, but no vision is more catching than one demonstrated through faithful action.
My sympathies are with the General Board employees who have patiently gone through the lengthy process required to have their concerns embraced by General Assembly, only to have the issue kicked back into a “study process” by General Board.
The board’s apparent relief at being able to postpone action on this issue
should be juxtaposed with Moderator George Brunk Ⅲ’s concern stated in his
“state of the Mennonite Church” address that “We are not facing conflict as a
people of God. The question of our faithfulness calls for eternal vigilance.”
Daniel Hertzler tried to put the whole thing in context with a editorial:
The issue of paying military taxes has been knocking about in the Mennonite Church for close to a generation.
At the “Consultation on Military Tax Withholding” (Goshen College, ) it was reported that John Howard Yoder was writing about this already in .
Perhaps these writings were not published. The earliest material on this
subject which I could find in the Gospel Herald was
“Dare We Pay Taxes for War?” by John Drescher ().
I found this editorial with help from Swartley and Dyck’s Annotated
Bibliography of Mennonite Writings on War and Peace:
(Herald Press,
). This book has 16 pages on the topic “War
Tax Resistance,” so the subject has clearly been one of concern among us. Some
of the references go back into , but
not in the Gospel Herald.
Drescher’s editorial indicates that concern about the issue arose during Mennonite General Conference and that “delegates asked for direction on the matter of paying taxes designated for war purposes.” A resolution was passed calling for “a fresh study of the biblical teaching”!
Has anything changed among us in 23 years?
At the Goshen consultation I listened to Willard Swartley declaim on Romans
13:1–7, and I suddenly got a clue as to why this issue keeps grinding on with
no resolution in sight. “Pay all of them their dues,” writes Paul, regarding
the authorities, “taxes to whom taxes are due…”
So there it is.
If Paul wrote to the Romans that they should pay their taxes, why do modern Mennonites sit around debating whether they may pay the military part of their taxes?
We are known as people of the Bible.
Isn’t the Bible plain enough?
Not so fast. At Goshen, Willard Swartley presented a 12-point outline entitled
“Method for Bible Study.” The first three points were entitled “Observation:
What does the Bible say?” The second five he captioned
“Meaning: What is the text saying?’ The final four he called
“Significance: What says the text?” Beyond these I think the most
important thing he said was that Romans 13:1–7 should be interpreted as part
of a longer unit in the letter (certainly a basic Bible study principle) and
that probably there was a local controversy in Rome over the payment of
specific taxes. Paul’s counsel to the Romans was to pay these specific taxes
and was not intended as a general principle, regarding all taxes in all times
and all places.
Willard pointed out that the New Testament has a number of normative texts on this subject.
He mentioned the following: Colossians 2:15; Ephesians 1:19–23; 3:10; 1 Peter 3:22; 1 Corinthians 15:24–26; Romans 8:35–39; Ephesians 6:12–20.
Romans 13, he said, should be interpreted in dialogue with this longer stream of texts.
In the end, said Willard, there is “ambiguity in the biblical tradition over the place of authorities: respect for their responsibility for order versus awareness that they represent evil.” In other words, by simply paying taxes without thinking, we may be selling out.
Two others at Goshen discussed the issue from a theoretical standpoint: ethics
professor J.R. Burkholder and Pastor John F. Murray. Murray proposed that the
answer to the war tax problem is to be found in generous giving to the church.
Since in the U.S.
one can contribute up to 50 percent of one’s income, or $50,000, he proposed
that reducing our income through contributions is a more effective response
than tax resistance. Further, he pointed out, anyone who saves money and puts
it in the bank is supporting the military just as much as the person who pays
taxes. “When we give only 5 percent of our income as a denomination, we are
not faithful.”
Burkholder stressed the reality of ambiguities. “We will have to learn to live with pluralism in the Mennonite Church,” he asserted. “We do not have the same position on war taxes.”
Clearly we do not. And as James Rhodes responded to Burkholder, “There is
danger in an emphasis on ambiguity of diluting our basic foundation of
biblical obedience.”
So it is important that we not give up just because we come with different perspectives on the issue.
It is urgent that those with different points of view listen to each other under God and under the Scriptures.
We have no other place to go.
In response to your editorial, “Why is it so Hard to Get to the Bottom of the War-Tax Question?”… and the news article piece on the war-tax consultation in the same issue, let me note the following: Why is it that the Mennonite Church can so easily reach clarity that homosexuality is a sin and ban any dialogue whatsoever with gay members of our community but yet find the war-tax issue “contains a complex set of issues” and that it is “filled with ambiguities”?
Why must we accept pluralism and ambiguity on this issue when we can so
easily reach apparent consensus on the gay question? Is this not rather
self-serving and hypocritical, for on the one hand our church fathers tell
us we must accept differing biblical interpretations, pluralism, and
ambiguity on war taxes but somehow the gay issue is crystal clear!
It seems to me that there is no ambiguity, for as you note, Romans 13 is not intended as a general principle that we must pay all taxes to government.
Further the whole text seems to make clear that we must clarify our loyalties and choose whom we serve, God or Caesar.
Further it seems clear that if we follow the way of peace, we can have no part in allowing our money to pay for killing and war.
If there is room for ambiguity I think it is more apparent on the gay question.
On war taxes it seems clear.
Perhaps our leaders wish to keep it plural, for only a minority can support
our historic peace witness these days, while they know that pluralism is
unacceptable for the gay question given the majority in our community who
are convinced that homosexuality is sin. Wake up, leaders, and be fair! You
can’t have it both ways. Either we seek clear standards and follow them or
we become Unitarians or Quakers, where everything is ambiguous.
Schultz started off with the typical Render-unto-Caesar / after all Rome
was a militaristic government / Jesus never complained about paying taxes
line. Then he finished off with the “silent majority” gambit:
I urge all of those conservative Mennonites who usually remain silent to “send the General Board a message” — mainly, not to be tempted into politicking with the liberal pacifist elements, and to remain within the boundaries of biblical nonresistance.
If there are those who want to withhold taxes, let them do it without having the actions of the General Board as a shield.
“Why Is It So Hard to Get to the Bottom of the War Tax Question?”… Maybe because there is no bottom — only a bottomless chasm between two irreconcilable views.
In my own imagination I see the story told in Matthew 22 in modem “dress.”
The Pharisee digs through the pockets of his custom-tailored suit. From a
jumble of temple contribution receipts and credit cards (Pharisee-controlled
banks) he produces a $50 bill.
“Whose portrait is on that bill?”
“General and President Ulysses S. Grant.”
“If you deal in portraits of deceased generals and presidents, you owe a commission to those who occupy their offices today.
But don’t forget that you owe even more to God.”
Again, we know that Caesar does not divide his tax collections between two
baskets labeled “war” and “peace.” It all goes into one basket, and then is
divided out as Caesar wishes. And so, if 50 percent (or whatever) goes for
“war,” then 50 percent of anything that an individual deposits into
the basket goes for “war.” The persons who pay 50 percent of their taxes are
in fact paying half of their “war” tax and half of their “peace” tax.
I admire those who for conscience’ sake voluntarily live at the “poverty” line so that they do not owe the tax that they object to paying.
They have adjusted their lifestyle to put their (lack of) money where their “mouth” is.
I’m not willing to do that — a character flaw, perhaps, but one that I seem to share with many others.
Is it wrong to want to share in at least part of the standard USA lifestyle without paying for Caesar’s expenses in maintaining conditions that promote this lifestyle?
Do we want a “free lunch”? And, of course, Caesar’s money can do God’s work,
or so we are told by those responsible for keeping church agencies and
institutions in the black. Those who have the spirit of generosity also need
something to be generous with. And Caesar pays a part of the gift.
If we deal in portraits of deceased generals and presidents, what do we owe to those who occupy their offices today?
Over a number of years I have read articles, pro and con, on the war-tax issue.
Your editorial on the same subject has rekindled my interest.
A large percentage of the arguments have been of a theological or theoretical nature.
However, I have not seen the following point of view mentioned.
Many of us in the Mennonite Church are no longer independent farmers and/or
businessmen or self-employed.
(At age 48 I have witnessed this transition.) Therefore, we have little or no control over the deductions from our pay checks.
No company, business, or public institution that I know of would seriously consider a request not to withhold a certain percent of taxes due.
Some firms that are operated by Christians may grant us their understanding and be sympathetic in attitude, but simply are not willing to get into the legal and business ramifications of a tax fight with the federal government.
Consequently, the war-tax issue, while perhaps valid, is to many simply a
moot point lingering in a gray mist on the edge of our consciousness. Could
this be why the General Assembly vote on
the General Board war-tax recommendation went 142 for and 100 against?
For me, if the federal government would institute a special, separate, extra-budget war tax (as done in the American Revolution, for example), that is a horse of a different color.
I would try to resist in some way as my ancestors collectively did in Lancaster County, Pa., in the Revolutionary times.
Having written my Indiana senators and representative on the war-tax issue, I see no change in federal tax regulations to be soon in coming.
The issue announced that if “continued study” was the order of the day, the Mennonite Church General Board was equipped:
Study guide on military tax withholding from Mennonite Publishing House.
Prepared at the request of Mennonite Church General Board, it is designed to facilitate discussion of the General Assembly request for “continued study of issues raised by taxation for military purposes.” It is entitled As Conscience and the Church Shall Lead.
A response form is provided so that Sunday school classes, small groups, and individuals may provide feedback.
Question was also raised about the Normal decision regarding war taxes.
Board members noted a lack of clarity on what the decision meant.
Slightly more than half the delegates had agreed that churchwide agencies need not withhold the military portion of taxes for employees who request this.
Moderator George Brunk Ⅲ noted the decision is valid but that it can be reconsidered following a churchwide study on war taxes currently underway.
[T]he Mennonite Church and the General Conference Mennonite Church General Boards take the following action:
That the General Boards express deep concern about and opposition to the
military buildup and the growing threat of war in the Persian Gulf, reaffirm
their biblical understanding that the will of God is for humankind to live in
peace and harmony and that war and militarism are counter to God’s intentions,
and call our congregations to the following:
To confess our own complicity and selfishness in utilizing more than our share of the world’s supply of oil and other resources and for our limited concern for long-standing injustices in the Middle East, and also to confess and reexamine our complicity in paying for the military buildup through our taxes.
They focused on the question of withholding war taxes for their employees. delegates to Mennonite General Assembly had authorized churchwide boards to honor requests of employees not to withhold the military portion of their income taxes; final decision was up to each board.
Though it had been previously discussed in several meetings, General Board had made no decision on the issue.
Nor did it come easy this time. Board members raised questions about their
financial liability. They acknowledged the burden of leadership: other
churchwide boards were awaiting the General Board decision for help with their
own.
In the end General Board agreed “to honor the request of an employee who for conscience’ sake requests that the military portion of his or her federal income tax not be withheld.” But they hedged.
They made the action subject “to development of acceptable policies for implementation approved by the board.”
Miscellany
There was also plenty of content around this time that wasn’t directly prompted by the Mennonite Church board’s inaction.
For example, there was a series of letters-to-the-editor
debating war tax resistance. Here are a pair of them, side-by-side:
Why I willingly pay my taxes
While paying taxes may be an economic burden to some, may be a question of
conscience to others, and may be an accounting nightmare for many more, I
willingly pay my taxes. Why?
It is a matter of submission.
“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no
authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.” ―Romans
13:1–2
I am called to not only submit to God and to submit to my church leaders
but also to submit to my civil authorities.
The only time that I can refuse to obey the governing authority is when God’s law requires me to
do otherwise.
It is a matter of conscience.
“You must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’
sake.
For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.
Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs,
fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.” ―Romans 13:5–7
For me the payment of taxes is not so much an attempt to avoid
penalties, court orders, or imprisonment but it is a matter of Christian
conscience.
It is a matter of integrity.
“ ‘Tell us, therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to
Caesar, or not?’ But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, ‘Why do you test Me, you hypocrites?
Show Me the tax money.’ So they brought Him a denarius.
And He said to them, ‘Whose image and inscription is this?’ They said to Him, ‘Caesar’s.’ And He said to them, ‘Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are
God’s.’ ” ―Matthew 22:17–21
I consider firstfruits tithing to be an important dimension of Christian
living.
However, should I render unto God the things that are God’s by tithing through my local church but fail to render to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar by paying my taxes, only one part of Jesus’ instruction would be fulfilled.
To be a person of integrity requires me
to both practice firstfruits tithing and to pay my taxes.
It is a matter of honesty.
“You shall not steal.” ―Exodus 20:15
To steal is to take that which belongs to someone.
The Israelites were told by the prophet Malachi that they had robbed God.
The problem was not a pilfering of the temple storehouse, but rather a withholding of tithes and offerings.
To keep back a portion of tax dollars that the Internal Revenue Service determines are due to my government would, in my opinion, be a form of stealing.
To be a person of honesty requires me
to pay my taxes in full.
It is a matter of credibility.
“Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s
sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.
For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men — as free, yet not using your liberty as a cloak for vice, but as servants of God.” ―1 Peter
2:13–16
Admittedly, I have concern about some aspects of the federal budget.
Reports of mismanagement, fraud, and excessive deficit spending are certainly not consistent with my understanding of fiscal responsibility.
However, should I withhold a portion of my taxes as a means of protest when the Scripture specifically calls for the payment of such would be to lose my credibility and Christian witness.
To have credibility in a world of many critics of the gospel, I must be careful to “do good” — in
this case, to pay my taxes in full.
―Robert D. Wengerd, Coshocton, Ohio
In response to “Why I Willingly Pay My Taxes”…, I feel I must prayerfully challenge the author’s unquestioning willingness to pay all taxes while he in no way addresses the tax issue as it pertains to the military budget.
In fact, the author’s own reasons for paying taxes are some of the same reasons I can no longer pay the portion of tax that finances the war machine.
The first point being a matter of submission, the author concludes that the
only time he can refuse to obey the governing authority is when God’s law
requires him to do otherwise. The law of God is that we love God with all
our heart, soul, and mind, and love our neighbor as ourselves. How can I
love my neighbor if I willingly pay for his murder? Hitler was able to do as
much evil as he did because so many Christians submitted to human authority
rather than God’s authority.
Second, it is a matter of conscience.
I willingly and conscientiously give taxes, customs, fear, and honor to whom they are due (Rom. 14:5–7), but only as I can do so with a clear conscience before God.
To willingly contribute to a system of oppression and murder under any nation’s flag is in conflict with what God calls me to do.
Third, it is a matter of integrity. To say that our firstfruits tithing goes
to God and our taxes go to Caesar is to miss the point of what Jesus says in
Matthew 22:17–21. Such an understanding puts God and Caesar on equal footing
as though each is due equal allegiance. To be a person of integrity, I must
offer all I have to God first, including my awareness of how my tax dollars
are spent. I cannot with integrity refuse to bodily take part in killing
another human made in God’s image, but be willing to pay someone else to do
so.
Fourth, it is a matter of honesty.
I don’t believe that refusing to pay for war is stealing from the government.
Indeed, we pay for war by stealing from the poor.
We have the choice to either help bring hope of a better life to our neighbors with needed services, housing, and education or take part in their oppression by buying weapons to protect us from them when they tire of watching their children starve to death.
Fifth, it is a matter of credibility. The author pays all taxes because he
wishes not to lose his credibility and Christian witness. Of what and to
whom are we witnesses? Are we credible witnesses to Jesus’ presence in our
hearts to our brothers and sisters in Central America, such as the priests
and church workers in El Salvador who were murdered by death squads trained
and armed by our tax dollars? I might be willing to pay all my taxes if
Congress passes the Peace Tax Fund bill which would allow those who are
conscientious objectors to have their taxes used for nonmilitary purposes.
But until that opportunity is available, I will no longer pay war taxes, but
instead will put that money to use where it will nurture life and not poison
it.
Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Peace Section is inviting contributions for the Taxes for Peace Fund.
The fund, established in , gives people who want to withhold war taxes a way to contribute their money toward peaceful purposes.
While contributing to this fund is a symbolic action and not a legal alternative to paying the tax, many people have found it a meaningful way to demonstrate their commitment to peace.
Last year, $5,750 in Taxes for Peace money was divided between the National
Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund and Christian Peacemaker Teams. This year’s
contributions will be divided the same way.
The National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund seeks to enact the U.S. Peace Tax Fund Bill, which would give those conscientiously opposed to war a way to pay 100 percent of their taxes by designating the military percentage to a separate fund for peace-enhancing programs.
Christian Peacemaker Teams is an initiative of North American Mennonite and related churches to develop and support more assertive peacemaking.
MCC
constituents have contributed more than $75,000 to the Taxes for Peace Fund.
Among other projects, the money has funded reconstruction efforts in
Indochina, aided victims of violence in Guatemala, and supported the
MCC
U.S. Peace Section.
The following excerpt is from one of several dozen letters sent to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in by contributors to the Taxes for Peace Fund: “We will sleep better tonight than if we would be helping to keep the murder machine going for the United States.
And hopefully, all the people of the world will sleep better when we can all stop financing their death threats and death squads.” (John and Sandra Drescher-Lehman, Richmond, Va.)
Checks for the Taxes for Peace Fund should be made payable to
“MCC,
Taxes for Peace.”…
An information packet on military-tax opposition is available for $3 from MCC U.S. Peace Section.
It contains varying theological positions on the war-tax issue and materials about tax laws and legal concerns for the tax resister.
Updated materials are available for those who purchased earlier editions of the packet.
The issue announced a “Standing Up for Peace” contest in which young people (ages 15–23) “are urged to interview someone who has refused to fight in war, pay war taxes, or build weapons and then write an essay or song, produce a video, or create a work of art.” The MCC (U.S.) Peace Section was one of the sponsors.
St. Louis (Mo.) Mennonite Fellowship has decided to stop paying its telephone tax as a form of protest against military spending.
Federal phone tax revenues, first collected in , contribute directly to the U.S. Armed Forces. “Though the biblical basis for such action has been debated, we wish to respect the convictions of our members and Anabaptist forebears and foremostly to be disciplined followers of Jesus Christ,” said Scott Neufeld, who coordinates the congregation’s peace witness.
The congregation will send its tax money instead to Mennonite Central Committee.
Five European Mennonite theologians are proposing changes in a World Council
of Churches statement that is being discussed at
WCC’s
Convocation on Justice, Peace, and the Integrity of Creation in Seoul, South
Korea, .
One of them, Andrea Lange of West Germany, took the proposed revisions to
Seoul as a representative of the Dutch Mennonite Church and the North German
Mennonite Church, both of which are
WCC
members. The Seoul statement grows out of an extended “conciliar” process by
WCC
member churches. The Mennonite revisions call for the rejection of force and
support for conscientious objectors to military service and those who refuse
to pay war taxes. The revision also calls for the full use of women’s gifts in
the church — and to “admit them to all church offices.”
The issue included an article on Mennonite martyrs of the World War Ⅰ period who were persecuted for refusing to buy war bonds (see ♇ 1 September 2018 for that article).
The issue of military tax withholding for MBCM employees was discussed at length.
However, no action was taken.
Since no MBCM employees are currently requesting that the military portion of their taxes not be withheld, the board agreed to wait for such a request before responding to the military tax withholding question.
In J. Lorne Peachey took over from Daniel Hertzler as editor.
We haven’t heard from Peachey yet so I don’t know if he took any position in the war tax resistance debates that might influence his editorial positions.
A letter to the editor from John F. Murray used the war tax resistance issue as a rhetorical hook in the course of trying to prompt readers into tithing more to the Church.
Another letter,
from Jim Leuba, in the
issue, gave taxpaying Christians a pointed edge:
In reference to your suggestion in your editorial that we spend a day praying for “Peace in the Persian Gulf”…, I feel the following is an appropriate prayer:
“Lord, today I am praying for peace in the Persian Gulf. I pray our armies do
not use the weapons I helped pay for with my tax dollars. Never mind. Lord,
that I could live at an income level that did not require paying war taxes.
And, Lord, a war will only increase the price of oil. I am so addicted to oil
that I can’t imagine life without it. Never mind. Lord, that I use at least 10
times more fossil energy than 75 percent of the earth’s human population.
Protect me. Lord; I am a North American Christian.”
The following syndicated news brief appeared in the issue:
A Philadelphia Quaker organization must garnish the wages of its employees who fail to pay income tax for religious reasons, a federal judge in Philadelphia ruled.
But Judge Norma Shapiro also said the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends cannot be penalized for failing to honor the levies imposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service.
The case involved the refusal of three Friends employees to pay the full amount of their taxes because part of it would go to the military, and that would violate their religious antiwar beliefs.
In her decision, Shapiro cited the
U.S. Supreme Court
decision last year in Employment
v. Smith, the
controversial Oregon peyote case. In denying unemployment benefits to two
residents, the high court ruled that since ingestion of peyote was a crime in
Oregon, “the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the
obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on
the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion
proscribes (or prescribes).”
Eastern Canada Conference of Mennonites was struggling with the same issue of tax resisting employees that had troubled the General Conference Mennonite Church and the Mennonite Church (Ron Rempel reporting, ):
Canadian conference responds to military tax objectors
Waterloo, Ont. (Mennonite Reporter) — Two Ontario Mennonite leaders have declared their conscientious objection to the payment of military taxes.
However, their employers have not yet decided whether or how to cooperate with the request to redirect military taxes for peaceful purposes.
Fred Martin, the student and young adult minister for Eastern Canada
Conference, first raised the issue in . Jean-Jacques Goulet, pastor of Wilmot Mennonite Church, took a
similar stand the week that the Persian Gulf War started. His church is
waiting to see how the conference will resolve the matter.
, at its fall delegate meeting, the conference gave notice of a recommendation that will be dealt with at the annual meeting .
That recommendation called on the conference to support Martin not forwarding to Revenue Canada the portion of his income tax used for military purposes.
Since the meeting, the executive board
of the conference has looked more closely at how to proceed if the
recommendation is accepted. The board has
prepared an alternative resolution, calling on the conference: (1) to
“withhold no income tax from the salary of any conference employee who
requests this on the basis of conscience”; (2) to inform Revenue Canada and
members of Parliament of the decision; (3) to ask the government to introduce
legislation recognizing conscientious objection to payment of military taxes
and to provide peaceful alternatives for use of these tax dollars; and (4) to
support other church boards, agencies, and congregations that may adopt
similar policies.
“As far as we know, no one in Canada has gone this route,” commented Sam Steiner, secretary of the conference.
Others who have asked for the cooperation of employers in not paying military taxes have become “contract employees,” or “self-employed contractors.”
Eastern Canada Conference, however, is proposing to treat military tax
objectors as full employees, and to continue all regular benefits and
deductions, except for income tax deductions. It would be left to the employee
to remit income taxes to Revenue Canada after redirecting the military
portion.
This procedure has been used by the General Conference Mennonite Church after that denomination decided in to support military tax objectors.
The Mennonite Church has made a similar commitment in principle, but has not yet decided on a procedure to use.
According to Steiner, the conference would technically be Hable for breaking
tax laws by deciding not to collect income taxes for the government.
Reporter Ron Rempel followed up on that report with this:
Baden, Ont. (Mennonite Reporter) — After a vigorous debate, delegates to the annual meeting of Eastern Canada Conference, , defeated a proposal calling on the conference not to deduct income tax from employees who want to redirect the military portion for peaceful purposes.
They also tabled an alternative resolution.
The conference executive board developed its proposal in response to a request
from its student and young adult minister, Fred Martin. He indicated in
that he objected on the
basis of conscience to paying military taxes. He asked the conference — which
is required by law to deduct all income taxes and remit them to Revenue
Canada — to help him find a way to express his conscience.
In the recent Gulf War, “my body was not being conscripted, but my money was,” commented Martin in a brief presentation before delegates. “How can I pray for peace but pay for war?”
In introducing the proposal, conference secretary Sam Steiner said the
executive board had not been unanimous. Some abstained from voting; others
were against the proposal. He also said the proposed action could make the
conference legally liable for breaking the Income Tax Act.
The legal question dominated the discussion by delegates.
For example.
Ken Musselman said military tax objectors should use other options, like increasing charitable donations or cutting back their overall income to reduce taxes.
A number of delegates said that individuals who want to redirect military taxes should assume the legal liability themselves — for example, as contract employees — rather than expect conference to bear it.
Others supported the proposal.
They cited historical precedents such as World War Ⅰ conscientious objectors choosing jail rather than the military uniform.
A number who lined up at the open mikes said they liked the second part of the
executive board’s proposal — to seek legislation recognizing conscientious
objections to payment of military taxes — but objected to the first
part — asking conference to defy current income tax laws.
The delegates then faced two choices: either table the executive board’s proposal or look at an alternative resolution.
The alternative, presented by Margot Fieguth, began with the second part of
the original proposal: an attempt to work through legislative and legal
avenues to secure recognition of conscientious objection to payment of
military taxes and to provide peaceful alternatives. This resolution also
suggested that conference offer Fred Martin a contract position, so that he,
rather than conference, would be responsible to make income tax payments.
Delegates decided not to table the original proposal.
But before they started debating the alternative, there were voices calling for a vote on the executive board’s proposal.
“I would like to hear the truth of where the conference stands on this issue,”
said Jean-Jacques Goulet, pastor of Wilmot
(Ont.) Mennonite Church.
During the Gulf War he had declared himself a conscientious objector to
military taxes. And his congregation was waiting to see how conference would
respond to Fred Martin.
In a ballot vote, the executive board’s proposal was defeated 159-48.
It was late in the evening.
The alternative resolution was on the floor.
But someone proposed that it be tabled till the next session of conference.
The motion carried.
The “Taxes for Peace” war tax redirection fund gave its annual report in the issue:
The Peace Section of Mennonite Central Committee U.S. is inviting contributions for the “Taxes for Peace” fund.
Established in , it gives people who want to withhold war taxes a way to contribute their money to peaceful purposes.
Donations last year totaled $3,700, and they were sent to the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund and to Christian Peacemaker Teams.
More information is available from MCC U.S. Peace Section…
Another General Assembly was held
, and
I’m sure the board of directors were on tenterhooks hoping that the Assembly
would let them off the hook about implementing the decision they’d made at
the previous General Assembly to begin refusing to withhold war taxes from the
salaries of objecting employees.
Delegates did look to themselves in reconsidering a statement on the Peace Tax Fund.
The statement had called on individual Mennonites to contribute to this fund.
Noting that less than one percent had done so, this time delegates took action to urge conferences and congregations to put the Peace Tax Fund in their budgets.
The Peace Tax Fund would allow conscientious objectors to pay their taxes by
diverting the military portion to a special trust fund. Efforts are currently
underway to have the Fund be considered by lawmakers in the
U.S.; a comparable
campaign is also being considered in Canada.
In Mennonite General Assembly went on record to encourage individuals to contribute to a peace tax fund campaign.
Less than one percent of us did.
So in Oregon delegates made their action stronger: they are now “urging” district conferences and local congregations to put the peace tax fund into their annual budgets.
So your congregation will need to make a decision about that “urging” some
time in the next two years. Will you give expression to your belief in peace
by supporting a congregational budget item to contribute to a peace tax fund?
The contribution will be used to help sponsor legislation in both Washington
and Ottawa to legitimatize a peace tax fund as an option for persons opposed
to having their tax money used for military purposes.
Some Seniors for Peace withhold the military portion of their income taxes and contribute it to a peace fund.
Many actively support lobbying for legislation for a peace tax fund to provide alternative service for tax dollars.
And finally, a letter to the editor from Tim Nafziger urged Mennonites not to stop, satisfied by redirecting their taxes to a peace tax fund. “The Mennonite Church is called to do more than be morally pure,” he wrote.
