Some historical and global examples of tax resistance → Japan → Conscientious Objection to Military Tax, 1974– → Susumu Ishitani

War tax resistance in the Friends Journal in 1976

I was a little too young to be much of an observer of the political scene, but I remember 1976 as being something of an orgy of innocent patriotism. America was sick of being cynical and wanted to go back to being stupid — besides, the Vietnam War was mostly over, at least for most Americans, and we’d given Nixon the heave-ho — and so there were plenty of red-white-and-blue commemorations of the bicentennial of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

The Friends Journal wasn’t quite so willing to get with the star-spangled program. In particular, it intensified its coverage of war tax resistance during the bicentennial year.

The 15 February issue was the Friends Journal’s first special issue devoted to war tax resistance.

It starts off with a couple of inspiring quotes on the subject from A.J. Muste and David Dellinger, then opens with a piece by Jennifer S. Tiffany on how she met the challenge of deciding whether to pay or to resist. Excerpts:

This fall was a time when I was grappling a great deal with the question of war tax resistance. To start with, I knew and had known for a long time that I could not be clear in paying taxes to any state which would use them to pay for war-making. Particularly, I could not contribute to the nuclear death race between this nation and the Soviet Union. Perhaps it goes back to the civil defense tests and simulated nuclear air-raids which had terrified and confused me when I was a child. Anyway, the imperative, the need to keep clear of war (to use Bruce Baechler’s words), had always been strong. I had been acting on it, in small ways, for a long while-avoiding earnings beyond the taxable minimum, for example, and claiming six “peace dependents” on my W-4 form when my income did exceed this minimum. I also corresponded with the IRS concerning my views and actions. However, a disclarity still existed regarding full resistance, with all the possible ramifications on my life and lifestyle. The question was, to me, was I strong enough and centered enough to maintain a taxable income level, restructure my life in such a way as to prevent eventual government levies, and go on with my resistance? Could I face creatively the possibility of putting a good deal of energy into court cases with the eventuality of prison? I came into meeting for worship one morning at the height of these grapplings.

As I settled in, I was astounded. Somehow the fears and conflicting leadings within me changed. They did not fade or diminish, but grew into context. The spirit of the meeting, the presence of loving Friends, who loved whether or not they agreed with one another’s approach, literally overwhelmed me. The presence of God wholly covered the gathering, and finally clearness came.

Our God, the Presence in our worship and acts of witness, is a gentle, healing, loving, empowering God, one who speaks strongly and softly from within us. At the same moment as making demands on our lives, this Presence says, “You need not fear; if you act on this I will sustain and strengthen you throughout the whole process. I am…” This was a moment of resolution for me. I was no longer entangled in a negative refusal to pay taxes, but was healed and sustained and led to a positive witness. I could go on.

It is in this context that tax resistance has its roots and life. War tax resistance, any resistance to war and to those authorities which bring about war, is not a negative presence: every no implies a yes, and this no to killing and death can be a yes to healing and life. Within tax resistance dwell seeds which can help a whole new order to grow — seeds which deny fear and powerlessness in the face of death; seeds which lead us to the creation of healing alternatives to structures which sustain death. As John Woolman puts it, “to turn all we possess into the channel of universal love becomes the whole business of our lives.”

I can speak only of my moment of resolution, the clearness and joy which is liberated in my life through a tax witness. As I see it, this issue of Friends Journal is not a coercive tool, saying “you must for these reasons refuse to pay your taxes or I will no longer judge you to be a good Friend.” The point of this issue is not to define terms for judgment, to draw lines of inclusion and exclusion. Our faith is an experiential one, and your experience of real clarity is as right and valid for you as mine is for me. The point is to lay ourselves open to what speaks truthfully in us, to really open ourselves to the spirit which utterly denies war, to really grapple with the questions this raises and the demands it makes on our lives. One of those questions has to do with tax resistance. This is an invitation to grapple with it, and a reaching out which says there is a great company of people, past and present, who have done so.

There is a process of empowerment, growth and the birth of community among people which can take root through tax resistance. First comes the knowledge that the authorities of death are not all-powerful, that the laws and structures which sustain any war machine are in fact quite weak. As Marion Bromley says in her article, “What can they take away that is of real value?” Second dawns the realization that alternatives are possible: through the flaws in the death order, we glimpse the order of life. And, although such consequences as possible imprisonment or loss of property, and the inward struggle with fear, are largely borne alone, the vision is shared by a growing company of sisters and brothers. Isolation is hard to feel when so many glimpse the possibility of a new order — an order beyond war. Finally and especially, tax resistance often grows as an act of ministry, an act of obedience to the loving and healing spirit. War tax resistance is one aspect of a community set on fire with the presence of a gentle, empowering God.

Bruce Baechler thought the question of whether Quakers should resist war taxes was a no-brainer. He wrote in from prison (where he was doing time for draft resistance) with this defense of war tax resistance. Excerpts:

Do Friends support war? At one time this could be answered with a “not at all.” These days, though, it seems to depend on how one defines support. Friends, generally, denounce war in the strongest terms. Indeed that’s all many people know about us. But for the most part Friends can no longer claim to renounce, or “utterly deny” war.

Friends today are not compelled to bear arms… instead of fighting with outward weapons ourselves, we are merely asked to buy the weapons through taxation, and leave the dirty work to others. And most of us do.

Yet we cling to our traditional peace testimony, often expressed as early Friends did in the Declaration of 1660:

We utterly deny all outward wars and strife, and fightings with outward weapons, for any end, or under any pretense whatsoever; this is our testimony to the whole world.

This is strong language. One cannot, without being hypocritical, utterly deny something and still give it material support. But most Friends do.

There are many reasons given for paying taxes. Most of these are quite valid, if one thinks of tax resistance as a protest. But I see a difference between various types of protests, such as vigils and letters to Congress, and nonsupport, or remaining clear of war, as by tax resistance.

In protesting, one makes her/his views known, but leaves it up to someone else (the government) to make the decision. Governments are not noted for their receptivity to the pacifist message, and it is unlikely they will be in the near future. I am not deriding protest — much has been accomplished through it. I am just saying that it is not enough.

Nonsupport, on the other hand, emphasizes individual responsibility. To refuse to pay one’s taxes is to accept responsibility for the way they would be spent, and to refuse to allow them to be spent for immoral purposes.

Tax resistance should not mean just withholding taxes from the government. An integral part of tax resistance is to redirect the money normally spent for taxes into life supporting channels. In many places this is done through Alternative Funds, where the resisters in a community band together to make most effective use of the money. Thus not only is money diverted from warmaking, but at the same time it is made available as a resource for peaceful activities.

Perhaps the biggest problem most Friends have with not paying for war is that it is illegal. One faces the prospect of prison for it, and this alone is enough to make most people give it only superficial consideration. Hopefully the World Peace Tax Fund, if established by Congress, will alleviate some of this problem in much the same way that the Conscientious Objector provisions in the draft laws gave a legal alternative to the army. But in the meantime the problem remains.

Friends have often suffered for their beliefs. Throughout our history large numbers of Friends have been imprisoned, tortured, and killed for preaching and practicing the message of the Inward Light. Would you stay away from a Meeting for Worship if to go meant certain arrest? Would you attend but not speak when moved, if that would be dangerous (a situation facing Korean Friends today)? Would you join the army to avoid prison? Kill to avoid being killed? The question is where to draw the line. When, to you, does the personal suffering involved in a course of action outweigh the reasons for taking that course? Each person must decide for her/himself.

Another response to the problem of imprisonment is that if any substantial number of Friends did engage in tax resistance, the likelihood of their being imprisoned would be small, and some provision in the law would probably be made for them, thus eliminating the problem and encouraging more people to resist.

Jack Cady shared his long, meandering letter to the Director of the IRS. Excerpts:

[O]ur first confrontation… will be the examination of my tax return. I expect the examination is prompted by my refusal last year to pay half of my income tax. I will refuse. to pay half of the tax again this year, although because of withholding, your agency already has most of the money. I refuse to pay half of the tax on various grounds, some of which are moral, some of which are legal. The refusal is prompted by the expenditure by our government of over fifty percent of tax monies on the maintenance and purchase and use of armies and weapons. Through its agency, Internal Revenue Service, the United States Government seeks my complicity in the violation of twenty centuries of moral teaching. The government is in further violation of the Constitution of the United States. It is also in violation of various international treaties and agreements, and is, in fact, engaged in crimes against peace and crimes against humanity.

In requiring that I pay taxes for the support of war, planning for war, offensive weapons and the maintenance of a standing armed force sufficient to engage combat on a worldwide scale, the U.S. Government through its agent IRS is in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees my religious freedom. I am a member of the Port Townsend meeting for worship of the Society of Friends (Quaker). The Quaker belief and effective detachment from war dates from the beginnings of the Society in the middle 1660s. The precedent of refusal to pay war taxes in America dates from 1755 when John Woolman, John Churchman, and Anthony Benezet refused to pay for the French and Indian wars. Nonviolence and refusal to pay or endorse either side in a combat dates in U.S. history from the revolution when Quakers who refused to kill were stoned or beaten under the brand of Tory. I claim my devout belief in God and the injunction that we may not kill as sufficient reason to refuse this tax. I would expect that opposition to this view would also have to overcome three hundred years of Quaker nonviolence and two hundred years of U.S. acceptance of Quaker attitudes that insist on nonviolence.

[I]n asking taxes, the U.S.A. through its agent IRS seeks my complicity in crimes against peace and crimes against humanity as defined by the Nuremberg Principles. These principles hold that citizens of a nation are guilty of crimes committed by that nation if they acquiesce to those crimes when, in fact. a moral choice is open to them.

In requiring that I pay taxes to support a war industry and armed forces capable of contending on a worldwide scale, the U.S. Government is threatening both my moral and my physical existence. I am not being protected, because the U.S. builds atomic weapons, B-1 bombers, atomic submarines, poison gas, lasers, rocketry, napalm and all of the other expensive paraphernalia of war. These do not protect me. They invoke the suspicion and fear of other nations, and they provoke among other nations the building and stockpiling of similar weapons.

[T]he U.S. now gives every indication that it is, in fact, not a nation of laws but a nation of men and corporations. This, despite the resignation from office of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew. I charge that the freedom of the citizen is largely illusory, and that the payment of taxes, the keeping of tax records, the invasion of privacy by IRS and other agencies of government, the making of rules by agencies (rules that have the force and effect of law but which are not to be challenged in courts), the maintenance of records or files on the political, religious, economic and moral statements and actions of the individual, the power to levy fines and licenses by agency rule, and the presumption by government that citizens are guilty of any agency charge and must therefore bear the burden of proof of their innocence; all of these show the citizens of the U.S. are no longer free.

I have two main intentions in this tax refusal. The first is quite clear. I do not intend to pay for the destruction of other human beings, nor endorse by word or deed the crimes of the United States. The second intent is a little more nebulous but it is just as strong. It is strong because I love my country.

In this refusal I intend that the United States will display by its action whether or not a citizen, raised to believe in U.S. principles of freedom, equality, protection under the laws; raised, in fact, under statements like, “With a proper regard for the opinions of mankind,” can indeed trust and believe in the way he has been raised. Either the Constitution is sound or it is not. The U.S. will either honor its national and international commitments or it will not. The courts will either face issues or the courts will duck them.

…If the rules of IRS are bigger than the Constitution, the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles and the Christian teaching of two thousand years, then I believe it is time that the U.S. acknowledge this…

The next article came from Marion Bromley. Excerpts:

Ernest and I began a tax refusers’ newsletter soon after our marriage in 1948. In all the time since, only a tiny proportion of Friends and other pacifists have become tax refusers, and we sometimes try to understand why. It has been, for us, more a personal imperative than a carefully reasoned political position, though we have done what we could to expound on all aspects of refusing to allow one’s labor to be taxed for war and weaponry.

Most people, whether they are pacifists or not, seem to respect our “right” to refuse taxes when we have a chance to explain how we feel about it. In turn we have to accept the “right” of others to continue to pay large sums in taxes, even though the U.S. budget continues to be overwhelmingly devoted to war and the war system.

Before 1800 taxes were levied largely for specific things such as bridges, schools, highways. A levy for war was as separate as the others. Quakers, Mennonites and a few others who had strong scruples against paying for the militia or for gunpowder refused to pay and sometimes suffered distraint of goods or imprisonment for their stand. When all these items began to be lumped together into one, general tax, it was no longer so simple an issue. Some, with a considerable feeling of relief, began to pay; others paid more out of frustration. And one of the most potent testimonies against war during the 1700s became lost.

Now, in 1975, probably no reasonable person believes that the billions to be spent for weapons research, deployment of armies and nuclear weapons, nuclear submarines prowling the ocean floor, planes carrying nuclear bombs, and intercontinental ballistic missiles will be in any sense a “defense” for anyone. Since such policies and practices will probably lead to a nuclear holocaust at some future time, maybe distant, maybe near, paying for these weapons comes close to being an evil act. It may be that the reason most Friends do not see it in that light is that they are conscientiously committed to liberalism — to the direction the federal government began in the 1930s and from which there is now no retreat. The federal government, in order to ease suffering and to maintain control over its own populace, began to assume some social responsibility. Possibly most Friends are in the same position as those who began paying the “mixed” taxes in the 1800s. But in the past ten years the whole world has witnessed the kind of horror that a powerful military state can unleash even without resort to the ultimate weapon.

…In an individual such behavior would be deemed madness. Would a mad individual be permitted to continue such activities because that individual was also performing some useful services?

Another aspect of liberalism that has probably influenced Friends greatly in the past fifty years is the commitment to law. I cannot explain why most Friends think it is almost a religious principle to honor the law and the courts, while I feel it is very low on my list of loyalties. My religious instincts are insulted when I observe a judge in the robes of a priest, high above others in the courtroom, the witnesses and observers in pews and the bailiff enforcing a hushed silence. My view is that this holy-appearing scene is for the purpose of defending the property and the power of the people who have those commodities. It is the same in a socialist or a capitalist state.

It is certainly an acceptable arrangement for people to agree on certain codes or laws, agreements about property. I would not disobey laws for frivolous reasons. But I have no qualms about disobeying laws which would force me to pay for murder and other crimes related to the war system.

Civil disobedience which requires long-term adherence, such as arranging to make one’s living without the withholding system, perhaps is considered impossibly difficult by many conscientious people. For many Friends, commitment to a service type vocation seems to require “fitting in” with a professional life style. The scale has not been invented which could balance service that is beneficial to others with the negative effects of supporting warmaking and possibly silencing one’s conscientious stirrings. The only contribution I can make to such considerations is my testimony that refusing to pay income taxes has proved to be a blessing in many ways. For one thing, it resulted in our “backing into” a simple life style, consuming less than we otherwise would. Friends who have valued simplicity know of its blessings — the simple life is more healthful, more joyful, more blessed in every way.

A new friend we met following seizure of Gano Peacemakers’ property, our home for 25 years, wrote us after moving from Cincinnati that he supposed we were having a very sad summer at Gano this year, knowing that we would be evicted in the fall. This notion was quite contrary to the way we felt. We were enjoying the time here more than ever before. The growing season seemed more productive than ever, and the surroundings more beautiful. We were working very hard, preparing leaflets, signs and press releases, corresponding, thinking of new ways to tell everyone who would listen that the IRS claims were fraudulent and politically motivated. We expected to be evicted but never had the feeling that we would “lose” in the struggle.

(The following paragraph, concerning the eventual IRS surrender in the Gano Peacemakers case, is largely obscured in the PDF.)

One of the pleasant feelings we have about the reversal of the sale (besides knowing that we can continue to live on these two acres) is that many people have told us they got a real lift when they heard that some “little people” had prevailed in the struggle with the IRS. We had the feeling that our daily leafleting and constant public statements during the seven months’ campaign had, at the least, the effect of showing that people need not fear this government agency. People do fear the IRS and that is an unworthy attitude. What can they take away that is of real value?

Jack Powelson struck a dissenting note, listing war tax resistance among a number of popular Quaker positions that he felt to be sentimentally motivated and economically naive. Excerpt:

Friends are concerned about paying taxes to a government that allocates a high proportion of its budget to the military. But we also know that if enough Friends refused to pay taxes so that the government was seriously impeded in its operations, the first items to be cut would be welfare and education, and the poor would suffer.

The Journal then quoted John A. Reiber on his vision for “a cultural revolution with political implications, not a political revolution with cultural implications.” Excerpt:

The most effective social changes are not going to come from within the system, but without it. We must realize that the vast, impersonal and powerful institutions are not intrinsic to our survival and well-being, but, in fact, extrinsic and harmful.

What we must do to achieve a cultural (r)evolution is to, first of all, withdraw our support of our unendurable, tyrannical and inefficient institution of the government. One way of doing this is through tax resistance. But tax resistance, by itself, is only a part of the solution. Money, time and energy should be channelled into alternatives to our technological mass consumption/ mass waste society, our irrelevant and oppressive educational institutions and our mass media which don’t meet our informational needs.

Craig Simpson next gave a report on war tax resistance as it was practiced internationally. Excerpts:

During the Peace Research and Peace Activists Conference in Holland in July, 1975, I met Susumu Ishitani, a member of the Japanese Conscientious Objectors to War Taxes Movement (COMIT). The group is the first of its kind in Japanese history and was started in November, 1974. It is made up of Christian pacifists — Mennonites, FOR members and Quakers — as well as non-church pacifists. The group apparently has been growing rather quickly. They have meetings all over Japan, print articles in newspapers, and hold press conferences. Their emphasis is on the refusal of the 6.5% of their taxes which goes for the so-called “Self-Defense Forces.” They have even written a “Song of 6.5% or 6.5% for a Peaceful World” protesting war taxes and expressing the need for money to stop death and the pollution of our environment. Susumu is a wonderful and gentle member of the group. Outside of his job as a university professor he is active as a member of the local Friends Meeting in Minato-ku (Tokyo). He also trains students in nonviolence and works to raise consciousness about the Japanese government’s involvement with the repressive South Korean government. He clearly sees the importance of not sending his money to the government for destructive purposes.

COMIT was still in operation at least as late as 2000, but I haven’t been able to find much about them on-line.

France… has a long tradition of resistance to war and the military. The tax refusal movement began in its present state in 1966 during the first French atomic tests in the South Pacific when a number of people decided to refuse the 20% of their taxes which would go to the war department. This money was redistributed to organizations working for peace and developing social alternatives. Groups soon were organizing in Orleans, Paris, Mulhouse, Lyon, and Tours and by 1970 were working in cooperation with one another. They then made a decision to broaden the movement by asking people to refuse only 3% of their income tax. They felt this way they would be able to attract more people because of the minimum of risk. Many of these people decided to redistribute their money to the peasant-worker struggle in Larzac.

Larzac is a plain in Southern France where a group of peasants, farmers and shepherds have been resisting the expansion of an army training base onto land where they have lived and worked for centuries. The Larzac struggle has become extremely important in France. It receives broad support from leftists, environmentalists, workers and antimilitarists. The peasants, who have come to believe strongly in nonviolent struggle, have used some very creative tactics to draw attention to their plight. For example, they drove their tractors from Southern France onto the streets of Paris. On the way, they were met in Orleans by 113 tax refusers who gave their tax money to the peasant struggle instead of to the military. This link between the peasant struggle against the military and the people who refused taxes solidified the movement and both benefited.…

By September, 1973, 400 French people had become tax refusers and at latest count as many as 4,000 are giving their money to Larzac instead of the government. Many farmers, workers and pacifists are involved now in the refusal of taxes to support the Larzac struggle. Most recently in France, pacifists are discussing and organizing for 100% refusal of their taxes as their non-cooperation with the military becomes more consistent with their lifestyles.

There were also several letters to the editor on the subject:

• Mary Bye wrote in to explain the rationale behind her tax resistance. “I believe that my tax dollars go to support a system which perpetuates misery and suffering in large parts of the world. Here at home we have set up a monstrous military budget while the programs for the poor, the minorities, the disadvantaged and the defenseless are being cut. I believe that the first step to moral health is to realize the callous role of oppressor we, as a nation, play abroad and at home. The second step is to act.” She said tax resistance works for her because “I know of no other way to introduce this concern into the courts, and… I want to commit my money to help meet human needs neglected by the government. I give voluntarily an amount equal to that computed by IRS regulations to help build a community of caring.”
• Ross Roby wrote in to promote the World Peace Tax Fund Act. “Essentially, this bill would provide conscientious objectors to war (male and female, young and old) an alternative to having their Federal tax payments used to finance government agencies that wage war and those that contribute to the waging of war by our government and by other governments of this world.” He complained that the proposal hadn’t gotten much Quaker support: “Are we unable to recognize a friendly hand when it does not come in Quaker garb? Or, has vocal pacifism fallen so irrevocably into the hands of radical resistants that a congressional bill which proposes accommodating conscientious objection to the realities of the Internal Revenue Service (and vice versa) is automatically dismissed?” He described the mechanism of the Act this way: “It sets up a Fund for Peace to which we, conscientious objectors to war, would automatically contribute as we paid our usual federal income tax. If the federal budget were determined, by an impartial authority, to contain sixty per cent for military purposes, then sixty cents of each dollar we pay would enhance the treasury of a fund that builds peace…”
• Jim Forest wrote about his decision to stop tax withholding from his paycheck by filing a new W-4 form. “We will be using these moneys for human needs that aren’t being adequately met in the present world: hunger, housing, resistance to militarism, various efforts for impoverished people, etc. We receive fund appeals each day which, had we the means, we would respond to, or respond to more generously. Now we will.”
• Donald Hultgren gave a report of Robin Harper’s talk about war tax resistance and charitable redirection at the Quaker Meeting in Cornwall, New York.
• Harold R. Regier, the Peace and Social Concerns secretary of the General Conference Mennonite church, wrote to thank the Journal for its “encouragement in our efforts to work at war tax payment/resistance issues.”

Harold R. Regier, the last letter writer I mentioned, said that: “One of our efforts along this line was to convene a war tax conference to look particularly at the theological and heritage bases for war tax resistance.” The Journal article that followed concerned this conference. A note at the top of that article said that “[o]ne hundred twenty persons registered” for a Mennonite/Brethren in Christ sponsored conference to seek theological and practical discernment on war tax issues.” That conference issued a summary statement, which the Journal reprinted. Excerpts:

After considering the New Testament texts which speak about the Christian’s payment of taxes, most of us are agreed that we do not have a clear word on the subject of paying taxes used for war. The New Testament statements on paying taxes (Mark 12:17, Romans 13:6–7) contain either ambiguity in meaning or qualifications on the texts that call the discerning community to decide in light of the life and teachings of Jesus.

Although those in the Anabaptist tradition were generally consistent in their historical stand against individual participation in war, they were not of one mind regarding the payment of taxes for war. Evidence suggests that most Anabaptists did pay all of their taxes willingly; however, there is the early case of the Hutterite Anabaptists, a sizable minority in the Anabaptist movement, who refused to pay war taxes.

In the later stages of Anabaptist history there is no clear-cut precedent on the question of war taxes. During the American Revolution most Mennonites did object to paying war taxes, yet in a joint statement with the Brethren they agreed to pay taxes in general to the colonial powers “that we may not offend them.”

The record continued to be mixed until the present day. Only a small minority chose to demonstrate their allegiance to Christ through a tax witness.

So far most discernment on the war tax issue has been done on an individual level as opposed to a church or congregational level. Although individuals struggling with the issue have been supported by similarly concerned brothers and sisters, wider church support has been lacking. While recognizing the need for a growing consensus in these matters, we know that not all in the Mennonite/Brethren in Christ fellowship are agreed on an understanding of scriptural teaching and a faithful response regarding war taxes. We are ready to acknowledge this disagreement and seek to continue discerning God’s will in this. But as a church community, we feel we should be conscious of the convictions and struggles of our sisters and brothers and supportive of the steps they have taken and are considering.

And all that’s just from one issue!

The 1 March issue included an article by Robin Harper about the Brandywine Alternative Fund, one of “a series of experiments [that] go by various names: fund for humanity, people’s life fund, life priorities fund, war tax resistance alternative fund.” Excerpts:

As many as forty sprang into existence in 1970, 1971, and 1972 as the country’s agony over Vietnam reached a crescendo.

Though each is organized and operated a bit differently, the basic concept is to pool federal war taxes (both telephone and income) conscientiously withheld from the IRS and redistribute them, by loans or grants, to community groups working for peace, social justice, and other areas of social change.

…the Brandywine Alternative Fund serves Delaware and Chester Counties just west of Philadelphia. Although the greater part of the Brandywine fund comes from “reallocated” federal taxes, we also encourage deposits of personal savings. This policy has not only enlarged the fund but has also broadened participation to include persons eager to help “reorder our nation’s priorities away from the military” who don’t choose to use the particular method of principled tax resistance. In addition, seven monthly meetings, churches and civic groups have made deposits or contributions to the alternative fund, following the precedent of London Grove Friends Meeting. This development of religious and other community groups investing in Brandywine is, I believe, a rather new departure for the alternative fund movement and offers an opportunity for sensitizing even larger numbers of people to issues of war preparations, civilian priorities and tax accountability.

Through the growth of our alternative fund, we have begun to take our central concern to the people of the communities in which we live; we are seeking creative ways to support financially some of those groups which are addressing a range of social and economic problems largely neglected by government; and we have undertaken the task of stripping the mask off one of our most powerful institutions — the IRS — as we portray its grim role in the betrayal of our society’s and world’s ultimate security.

The 1 June issue had some Revolutionary War-era history lessons. Nonviolence theorist Gene Sharp wrote an article on “The Power of Nonviolent Action” in which he pointed out (among other things) the usefulness of tax resistance in the struggle for American independence:

During the Townshend resistance, in January, 1769… for example, a London newspaper reported that because of the refusal of taxes and the refusal to import British goods, only 3,500 pounds sterling of revenue had been produced in the colonies. The American non-importation and non-consumption campaign was estimated by the same newspaper at that point to have cost British business not a mere 3,500 pounds but 7,250,000 pounds in lost income. Those figures may not have been accurate, but they are significant of the perceptions of the time. The attempt to collect the tax against that kind of opposition was not worth the effort, and the futility of trying eventually became apparent.

Finally, Lyle Tatum examined the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting’s activity around 1776. Excerpts:

Although the Yearly Meeting was clear that members should not participate in military activities or pay direct war taxes, some areas were more difficult to decide. Bills of credit, a form of negotiable instrument sanctioned by the colonies, were controversial. The use of them stood in a similar position to the payment of taxes today. To those Friends who were trying to get other Friends to stop using bills of credit, the Yearly Meeting minuted a bit of advice:

…we affectionately exhort those who have this religious Scruple, that they do not admit, nor indulge and Censure in their Minds against their Brethren who have not the same, carefully manifesting by the whole tenor of their Conduct, that nothing is done through Strife, or Contention, but by their Meekness, Humility and patient Suffering, that they are the Followers of the Prince of Peace.

Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of 1776 met in September, just a little more than two months after the original fourth of July. As we have seen, pressure on the peaceable testimony had been growing over the previous few years. In the face of this, the Yearly Meeting minuted:

…we cannot consistent with our Christian peaceable Testimony… be concerned in the promoting of War or Warlike Measures of any kind, we are united in Judgment that such who make religious Profession with us, & do either openly, or by Connivance, pay any Fine, Penalty, or Tax, in lieu of their personal Services for carrying on the War under the prevailing Commotions, or do consent to, and allow their Children, Apprentices, or Servants to act therein do thereby violate our Christian Testimony, and by so doing manifest that they are not in Religious Fellowship with us…

In spite of their many hardships, Friends were holding firm. Loyalty oaths were going strong in 1778. It was minuted:

…in some places Fines or Taxes are and have been imposed on those who from Conscientious Scruples, refuse or decline making such declaration of Allegiance and Abjuration, it is the united Sense and Judgment of this Meeting, that no Friend should pay any such Fine or Tax…

War tax resistance in the Friends Journal in 2004

In 2004, Quaker Meetings were still wrestling with whether to go on the record in support of war tax resistance, and, if so, whether to do so in an explicit, uncompromising way, or one that played it safe and left a lot of wiggle room.

In an op-ed in the April issue of the Friends Journal, Nadine Hoover urged Quaker Meetings to take a concrete stand opposing the payment of war taxes:

Should War Tax Resistance be a Corporate Testimony?

At New York Yearly Meeting in 1999, I was given a message: The Spirit calls Friends to claim a corporate testimony against the payment of war taxes and participation in war in any form. Of course, we have had a testimony against war since George Fox’s declaration to Charles Ⅱ in 1660:

Our principle is, and our practices have always been, to seek peace, and ensue it, and to follow after righteousness and the knowledge of God, seeking the good and welfare, and doing that which tends to the peace of all. All bloody principles and practices we do utterly deny, with all outward wars, and strife, and fightings with outward weapons, for any end, or under any pretense whatsoever, and this is our testimony to the whole world.

Yet there is what British Friends in Quaker Faith and Practice call “Dilemmas of the Pacifist Stand” (24.21–24.26), which opens with a quote from Isaac Penington, 1661:

I speak not against the magistrates or peoples defending themselves against foreign invasions; or making use of the sword to suppress the violent and evil-doers within our borders — for this the present estate of things may and doth require, and a great blessing will attend the sword where it is borne uprightly to that end and its use will be honourable — but yet there is a better state, which the Lord hath already brought some into, and which nations are to expect and to travel towards. There is to be a time when “nation shall not lift up sword against nation; neither shall they learn war any more.” When the power of the Gospel spreads over the whole earth, thus shall it be throughout the earth, and, where the power of the Spirit takes hold of and overcomes any heart at present, thus will it be at present with that heart. This blessed state, which shall be brought fotth [in society] at large in God’s season, must begin in the particulars [that is, in individuals].

New York Yearly Meeting’s Faith and Practice, under which I currently reside, advises (p. 60–61):

Friends are earnestly cautioned against the taking of arms against any person, since “all outward wars and strife and fighting with outward weapons” are contrary to our Christian testimony. Friends should beware of supporting preparations for war even indirectly, and should examine in this light such matters as noncombatant military service, cooperation with conscription, employment or investment in war industries, and voluntary payment of war taxes. When their actions are carefully considered, Friends must be prepared to accept the consequences of their convictions. Friends are advised to maintain our testimony against war by endeavoring to exert an influence in favor of peaceful principles and the settlement of all differences by peaceful methods. They should lend support to all that strengthens international friendship and understanding and give active help to movements that substitute cooperation and justice for force and intimidation.

NYYM corporately advises against taking up arms against another person, yet more vaguely warns to “beware of” voluntary payment of war taxes. The yearly meeting calls Friends to examine their own actions and “accept the consequences of their convictions” (emphasis is mine). This is about individual conviction, not the corporate conviction we have against bearing of arms. We are squarely in the Penington tradition of advising Friends to testify against war by “endeavoring to exert an influence in favor of peaceful principles.” We commit to the conversion of hearts and minds, one at a time, “seeking the good and welfare, and doing that which tends to the peace of all.” Patience and persistence are employed in our participation with government.

As late as the 1970s, it even seemed that our experiment would come to fruition. Larry Apsey of New York Yearly Meeting called out, “the time is at hand.” The Gandhian, civil rights, and women’s movements made it clear that patience and persistence were about to pay off; we were about to come into this blessed state, not just as a people, but as a nation. What a far cry we are from that now! Fruits of the Spirit are a significant test of discernment for Friends, a test that our path has failed. We cannot put new wine into old wine flasks. We cannot be in that blessed state and support a military for those who have not yet arrived. We are called to choose, we are called to choose now, and we are called to choose as a people.

When we get quiet, every Friend I know says that payment of war taxes violates their conscience. It’s been a long time since we acknowledged a new corporate testimony; this practice has fallen away. So let us remember. Friends experience a Living Presence among us and commit to being taught, guided, and shaped by the Living Spirit, placing great reliance on spiritual discernment. Meeting for business was organized to test the spiritual discernment of its members, affirm or suggest further laboring, and support those suffering for conscience’ sake. If a Friend’s testimony were affirmed, the question was, “Is this true for them alone, for others as well, or for all of us?” If it were true for everyone, then it was a corporate testimony.

If we are quiet and ask the question, “Does the payment of war taxes violate my conscience?” and the response is yes for all of us, then, Friends, this is no longer a personal act of conscience but rather a corporate testimony of the meeting. I am not suggesting we all do any particular thing. I am asking a question of faith. What we do about it will only be sought once we are clear on what we believe. We may pay in protest, become vocal, or resist payment, but whatever we do, we do, not only as an individual, but also as a religious body.

The Spirit is calling us to unite in the Power of the Living Spirit to give life, joy, peace, and prosperity in the world through love, integrity, and compassionate justice among people and to acknowledge that paying for war violates our religious conviction. It will be a long, hard, humble road, but it is the only road that promises a future for humanity. Life will go on with or without us. Let us stand up for our children and grandchildren and say we chose peace.

The response to Hoover’s plea — at least from the record of it we have in the Journal — was muted. There was a single letter-to-the-editor from William Ashworth (who describes himself as a former war tax refuser) in the June issue that began: “Friend Nadine Hoover asks us if war tax resistance should be a corporate testimony among Friends. The answer is ‘no.’ ” Ashworth argues that because taxes are mixed, and not specific war taxes, there’s no grounds for refusal to pay; furthermore if we did refuse to pay, Congress would probably cut beneficial spending before military spending; and in addition there’s the familiar slippery slope argument wherein other churches might apply the Quaker precedent to refuse to pay for “family planning, education, environmental protection, and a host of other government services that we value.”

A feature on Lillian Willoughby in the May issue mentioned her war tax resistance as follows:

By the time of [the] Vietnam [war], Lillian, a lifelong tax resister, had become well acquainted with the Internal Revenue Service; she liked to speak of herself as “educating the IRS.” In one celebrated incident, after the IRS seized the Willoughbys’ car, the couple raised sufficient funds to redeem it at auction. Indeed, they raised much more than enough, and so they could claim their car and a refund as well. Lillian had brought a cake and lemonade to the IRS offices on the day of the auction. Once their bid had been declared the winner, she staged a party outside the auction room; one or two of the agents shared refreshments with [PDF cuts off here].

When she was summoned to trial, she and another Quaker wrote a letter to the judge advising him that they would not rise at a judge’s entrance, although they meant no disrespect. The bailiff instructed everyone to remain seated when the court came into session and the judge seemed predisposed to leniency. When he asked Lillian to account for her actions, she gave what had become her standard statement, that “we [the United States] should not be making war on people, and we [Lillian and like-minded taxpayers] should not have to pay for it.” The judge levied a $250 fine; she announced that she had no intention of paying it; he gave her 30 days to think it over. As George put it many years later, “She’s still thinking about it.”

The article ends with Willoughby, at 89, facing trial for a civil disobedience action in protest of the Iraq War and contemplating how she would confront the system: “One thing was certain, she told her family as they sat in daughter Anita’s New York apartment the day after Christmas: she would not pay the fine. None of them seemed surprised.”

A review of Robert Turner Shaping Silence: A Life in Clay in that issue calls it “the story of a conscientious objector, a tax resister, a generous donor of his time, skills, and possessions,” among other things.

An obituary notice for Susumu Ishitani in the same issue noted that “[i]n 1974, Susumu introduced tax refusal into Japan, and was one of six plaintiffs who sued the Japanese government over the issue of military spending.… From 1974 to 2000, he was a member of Citizens Group of Conscientious Military Tax Refusers, sometimes serving as clerk.”

The May annual gathering of the Northern Yearly Meeting approved a minute giving its interpretation of the Peace Testimony, which included this statement:

We will continue to stand and work for peace and justice. We will continue to support those who for conscience’ sake refuse to participate in the military. We support those who, for conscience’ sake, refuse to pay taxes for war. We support those who are involved in nonviolent peacemaking.

A minute approved in August by the South Berkshire (Massachusetts) Meeting quoted from the New England Yearly Meeting’s “Advice on Peace and Reconciliation,” which said:

Friends are urged to support those who witness to their governments and take personal risks in the cause of peace, who choose not to participate in wars as soldiers nor to contribute to its preparedness with their taxes.

Though the context in which this was quoted did not concern taxes, but merely an expression of “appreciation” for those Canadian Quaker organizations who were helping Americans who had fled to Canada to avoid military service.

A retrospective on the Friends World Committee for Consultation’s Peace Conference the previous year — which had been entitled “Friends Peace Witness in a Time of Crisis” — mentioned “ ‘Conscience and War Tax Witness’ with Rosa Packard” in a long list of “Other workshops.”

The August issue included a review of Henry Climbs a Mountain — a children’s story based on Henry David Thoreau’s night in jail for tax refusal.

That issue also included an article about Mary Stone McDowell, who is the only person I know of who was a war tax resister through both World Wars (she was fired from her job as a teacher in part because she would not participate in urging her students to buy “Thrift Stamps” — a sort of junior version of the Liberty Bonds the U.S. government was using to fund its participation in World War Ⅰ). Unfortunately, the brief paragraph about her war tax resistance is cut off in the PDF in the archives, but it ends “…income taxes each year and, according to Vernon Martin [a conscientious objector McDowell had helped], the IRS dutifully ‘attached part of her pitifully small teacher’s pension, out of which she also gave to charity.’ ”

As I have noted before, the practice of war tax resistance in the Society of Friends has gone through waves. In some periods it has been fervently adhered to, advocated, and practiced; in others, it has been largely reduced to lip service and its remaining practitioners have stayed in the shadows.

In the United States, Quaker war tax resistance seems to have been strongest between the French & Indian War and the American Civil War, and then again during the Cold War, while it suffered from lulls between the Civil War and the end of World War Ⅱ and again in recent decades.

I am less familiar with the arc of war tax resistance in the Society of Friends in other countries, but here’s a data point. The Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends in Britain has recently released the fifth edition of its Quaker Faith and Practice book. Here’s what it has to say about taxes.

First, in Chapter 20, in a chapter devoted to “Living faithfully today” and a section on “Honesty and integrity: Conducting business” is given this general advice:

From its earliest days our Society has laid great stress on honesty and the payment in full of debts justly incurred.… [For example] When we have received goods or services, we shall be punctual in making payment of the price agreed on, and we shall not attempt to evade our proper obligations to the community by way of taxation.

Chapter 24 — “Our peace testimony” — handles the more specific case of war taxes, by means of quotes from a number of Quaker thinkers, while noting:

As a Society we have been faithful throughout in maintaining a corporate witness against all war and violence. However, in our personal lives we have continually to wrestle with the difficulty of finding ways to reconcile our faith with practical ways of living it out in the world. It is not surprising, therefore, that we have not always all reached the same conclusions when dealing with the daunting complexities and moral dilemmas of society and its government.

These are some of the quotes from this chapter that touch on war tax resistance:

One day in Tokyo Local Court, I had an opportunity to make a statement to witness why I felt it necessary to resist tax-payment for military expenditures, saying, “With military power we cannot protect our life nor keep our human dignity. Even if I should be killed, my way of living or dying to show my sympathy and forgiveness to my opponents, to point to the love of God shown by Jesus Christ on the cross and by his resurrection, will have a better chance to invite others to turn to walk rightly so that we humankind may live together peacefully.”

Susumu Ishitani, 1989

Yet there was in the deeps of my mind a scruple which I never could get over… I all along believed that there were some upright-hearted men who paid such taxes, but could not see that their example was a sufficient reason for me to do so, while I believed that the spirit of Truth required of me as an individual to suffer patiently the distress of goods rather than pay actively.

John Woolman, 1755

The action of withholding the military proportion of our taxes arose for us from our corporately held testimony that “the Spirit of Christ, which leads us into all truth, will never move us to fight and war against any man with outward weapons, neither for the kingdom of Christ, nor for the kingdoms of this world”. This testimony may at times lead to resisting the demands of the state, when a higher law (i.e. God’s inner law) makes its first claim on us. We also need to be conscious that, if we offend against accepted law, we may have to take the consequences of our action.

Arthur and Ursula Windsor, 1992

The Religious Society of Friends has, since its beginnings in the seventeenth century, borne witness against war and armed conflict as contrary to the spirit and teachings of Christ. We have sought to build institutions and relationships which make for peace and to resist military activity. The horrific nature of modern armaments makes our witness particularly urgent. The Gulf War involved the substantial use of expensive modern weapons and technology, demonstrating that today it is the conscription of our money rather than our bodies which makes war possible.

For many years members of the Religious Society of Friends have been exercised about how we might be true to our historic peace testimony while still obeying the laws of our country. You will know that we have appealed through the courts and ultimately to the European Commission of Human Rights for recognition of the right of conscientious objection to paying taxes for military purposes…

Since losing the appeal we have paid in full the income tax collected from our employees. In recent months we have considered whether we can continue to do this, but after very careful consideration have decided that for the time being we must do so. The acceptance of the rule of law is part of our witness, … for a just and peaceful world cannot come about without this. However we do wish to make it clear that we object to the way in which the PAYE system involves us in a process of collecting money, used in part to pay for military activity and war preparations, which takes away from the individual taxpayer the right to express their own conscientious objection. This involvement is incompatible with our work for peace.

London Yearly Meeting (letter to Inland Revenue), 1991

On my last appearance in court [for withholding war tax], having already sent in my defence on grounds of conscience, backed by the Genocide Act, Geneva Convention, etc., I felt I wanted to make a more general statement about the fact that we have not used the United Nations as we should to settle disputes, or given sufficient support to it and its … agencies. So I wrote a statement, gave copies to my faithful supporting Friends and other pacifists and handed a copy to the Judge, asking if I might read it. He listened attentively to what I read, as his comments afterwards showed, though of course his verdict was the usual refusal. It seems important to me to get the understanding of judges so that they will give serious consideration to our point of view and might eventually influence a change in the law, though they always say that is not their business.

Joan Hewitt, 1992

Finally, in Chapter 29 — “Leadings” — is the following section:

We are trustees of a long tradition which has sought to bring our religious convictions into the world “and so excite our endeavours to mend it”. We are trying to live in the virtue of that life and power that takes away the occasion of all wars.

Fundamentally, taxation for war purposes is not a political or a fiscal issue. We are convinced by the Spirit of God to say without any hesitation whatsoever that we must support the right of conscientious objection to paying taxes for war purposes. We realise that we live in a world where it is impossible to see clearly the final consequences of the actions we might initiate from this Meeting. Nevertheless we are impelled by our vision of a peaceful and loving society.

We ask Meeting for Sufferings to explore further and with urgency the role our religious society should corporately take in this concern and then to take such action as it sees necessary on our behalf. We know that this is only one further step in our witness to the Truth, to which we are continually summoned. We go forward in God’s strength.

London Yearly Meeting, 1987

At the upcoming national gathering of NWTRCC at Earlham College in Richmond, Indiana, I’m going to be presenting a summary of the history of war tax resistance in the Society of Friends (Quakers).

Today I’m going to try to coalesce some of the notes I’ve assembled about the renaissance of Quaker war tax resistance during the Cold War. Much of what I have assembled here comes from my close look at the archives of the Friends Journal, the only Quaker publication from this period I have reviewed thoroughly, and so whatever editorial biases that publication may have had may also bias my history of this phase.

There is a lot that happens in this short period of time, and in some places my narrative is going to be condensed into a bunch of bullet-point-like summaries of the rapid-fire events to try to keep up with it all.

The Renaissance (1959–1991)

The modern war tax resistance movement began in the wake of World War Ⅱ in the United States. There had been isolated war tax resisters here and there in other places in recent years, and there was a quiet war tax resistance tendency hiding under the surface of the Society of Friends, but things did not come out into the open in any organized and growing fashion until then.

Quakers were not in the forefront of this movement, but Quaker war tax resisters took courage from it, and it wasn’t long before they began trying to reestablish the war tax resistance traditions in the Society of Friends. The earliest mention of this that I have found from this period concerns Franklin Zahn of the Pacific Yearly Meeting, who was distributing a leaflet on war tax resistance as early as 1959.

A report on the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting that year noted that the subject of war taxes had come up and had led to what sounds like a long and earnest discussion:

Few present felt it right to refuse to pay, nor yet felt comfortable to pay. Varied suggestions were presented: Send an accompanying letter expressing one’s feeling about war; live so simply that income is below tax level; make no report, but once a year send a check for nonmilitary purposes; engage in peace walks and other minority demonstrations; follow Jesus’ example of rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; beware of taking for granted the evils deplored, such as riding on military planes; associate more closely with the Mennonites, who share Friends’ concerns; rise above one’s own shortcomings through personal devotion; work to unite with all Friends Yearly Meetings in refusal to pay taxes. Nothing can be done unless there is a willingness to suffer unto death.[!]

The blinders put on during the Great Forgetting period were still evident. An article in a 1960 issue of the Friends Journal described “refusal to pay taxes for support of war effort emerging as a new testimony” [my emphasis]. Another article from the same issue, titled “The Quaker Peace Testimony: Some Suggestions for Witness and Rededication” didn’t mention taxes at all.

By this time some Friends in Switzerland had been refusing to pay war taxes (I would guess, under the tutelage of Pierre Cérésole).

In 1961 some Quakers in the Pacific Yearly Meeting began to sketch out the initial drafts of a legislative “peace tax” proposal which they envisioned would be a way for conscientious objectors to pay their taxes into a fund that the government could only spend on non-military items. The idea that there might be a legislative solution that could make tax-paying no longer an act of complicity with war would bob up throughout this period, until, by the end of it, the temptation of lobbying instead of committing to direct action would contribute to the eventual decline of war tax resistance in the Society of Friends.

That year also, the Yellow Springs Monthly Meeting issued a statement of support for war tax resisters, the first example of new institutional support for war tax resistance in the Society of Friends that I could find from the 20^th century.

In 1962 there was a burst of excitement about war tax resistance in the Baltimore Yearly Meeting (yet a survey of 350 adults from that meeting found only two or three who were willing to consider actually becoming resisters; whereas almost half of those surveyed were totally unconcerned about their tax money going to the military).

A group of about twenty Quakers, organized by Clarence Pickett and Henry Cadbury, met at the 1963 Philadelphia Yearly Meeting to discuss war tax resistance, but they were unable to come up with a consensus statement. Quaker war tax resister Arthur Evans was imprisoned for three months that Fall for his tax refusal.

In 1964 the Friends Journal ended what strikes me as a policy of editorial embarrassment about Quakers and war tax resistance by publishing its first article devoted to the practice, and one that also full-throatedly advocated it. This started a debate in the letters-to-the-editor column and certainly caused more Quakers to confront the question, directly or indirectly.

By the mid-sixties the tide was shifting rapidly. Before this time, individual Quaker tax resisters are unusual enough to highlight individually as being on the cutting-edge; after this, Quaker war tax resistance becomes commonplace enough that individual resisters are exemplars of a larger trend. In 1966 the New York Yearly Meeting promoted war tax resistance in an official statement, and promised financial assistance for any Quakers in the Meeting who might be forced to change jobs or to suffer other financial hardship for their stand. The statement in part read:

We call upon Friends to examine their consciences concerning whether they cannot more fully dissociate themselves from the war machine by tax refusal or changing occupations.

That was the most concrete advocacy of war tax resistance by a Quaker institution in years.

That year also Franklin Zahn wrote a booklet on Early Friends and War Taxes to reintroduce Quakers to their own history and to further banish the Great Forgetting.

The support from Quaker institutions and publications at this point is often noncommittal and is usually vague about exactly how to go about war tax resistance, which taxes to resist, and how to deal with government reprisals. There is nothing like the specific, concrete discipline of earlier Quaker Meetings. This means that Quaker war tax resisters from this period are largely making it up as they go along, conferring with each other informally and organizing, when they are organizing, in groups like Peacemakers, the War Resisters League, and the Committee for Non-Violent Action — that is to say, with non-Quaker groups. (There was briefly something called the “Committee for Nonpayment of War Taxes” run out of Quaker war tax resister Margaret G. Bowman’s home in 1966, but I have not found much about it.)

Quakers were using a broad variety of tax resistance tactics. Arthur Evans and Neil Haworth refused to pay some or all of their income taxes or to cooperate with an IRS summons for their financial records. Johan Eliot redirected twice the amount of his taxes to the United Nations to promote international federalism as a world peace strategy. Clarissa & Samuel Cooper lowered their family income below the tax line. John L.P. Maynard and Robert W. Eaton took pay cuts that reduced their incomes to the maximum allowable before federal income tax withholding was mandatory. Lyle Snyder stopped withholding by declaring three million dependents on his W-4 forms. Alfred & Connie Andersen stopped filing income tax returns. Some Quakers fled to Canada as taxpatriates to join the draft evaders there. Others deposited their taxes into escrow accounts and invited the IRS to seize the accounts while refusing to pay voluntarily. Lloyd C. Shank advocated “the ‘sneaky’ way” of tax resistance — what many people would call tax evasion — saying “ ‘cheating’ is only an oppressive government’s name for a good man’s refusal to murder.” Phone tax resistance was beginning to become widespread, and many Quaker meetings began resisting this tax on their office phones (one meeting was unable to reach consensus on resisting the phone tax and compromised by dropping its phone service entirely). People too timid to resist, and meetings unable to reach consensus on resisting, might instead write their legislators to urge them to enact some form of legal conscientious objection to military taxation. The most timid groups, like the American Friends Service Committee, urged people to pay taxes “under protest” or to match their war tax payments with additional payments to the AFSC.

Robert E. Dickinson had perhaps the most creative tactic of the bunch. He designed and built a set of furniture for his home that was formed of interlocking sheets of plywood such that it could be quickly disassembled and hidden away. He called this “my tax refusal furniture” and meant it to frustrate IRS attempts to seize furnishings from him for back taxes.

Two Quaker employees of two groups within the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting asked their employers to stop withholding income tax from their paychecks, and that Meeting tried to come up with a good policy to follow in such cases.

The fourth Friends World Conference was held in the Summer of 1967. The “Protest and Direct Action group” there “called upon Friends in countries party to the [Vietnam] conflict to ‘go as far as conscience dictates in withholding support from their governments’ war-making machinery,’ first by direct communication with those against whom the protest is made, and then if necessary by public witness and individual action, including the possibility of refusal to pay taxes for war.”

U.S. President Johnson called for a 10% income tax surcharge explicitly to fund the Vietnam War. This would be the first explicit “war tax” (other than, arguably, the phone tax) since World War Ⅱ, and its announcement prompted renewed interest in war tax resistance inside and outside the Society of Friends. Quakers were, because of this tax, better-enabled to quote the discipline of early Quakers on refusal to pay explicit war taxes as a way of explaining their own stands.

In October 1968 203 delegates from “nineteen Yearly Meetings, eight Quaker colleges, fifteen Friends secondary schools, the American Friends Service Committee National Board and its twelve regional offices, and nine other peace or directly-related organizations” met in Richmond, Indiana, to draft a “Declaration on the Draft and Conscription.” Part of this declaration mentioned the war tax concern:

We call on Friends everywhere to recognize the oppressive burden of militarism and conscription. We acknowledge our complicity in these evils in ways sometimes silent and subtle, at times painfully apparent. We are under obligation as children of God and members of the Religious Society of Friends to break the yoke of that complicity.

We also recognize that the problem of paying war taxes has intensified; this compels us to find realistic ways to refuse to pay these taxes.

After only ten years of thaw, some seventy years of Great Forgetting have been melted away, and the Society of Friends has again reached a consensus that Quakers are compelled to refuse to pay war taxes.

President Johnson’s war surtax went into effect in 1969, adding a 7.5% surtax to the income tax returns for the 1968 tax year, and 10% for the following year (the tax would be extended at a reduced rate into 1970 and then abandoned).

Meetings all across the country were discussing and passing minutes on war tax resistance, though few would advocate it in specific and unreserved ways, most choosing instead to voice expressions of unspecified “approval and loving support” for Quakers who felt compelled to resist. In 1970, the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting passed a relatively strong minute stating:

Refusal to pay the military portion of taxes is an honorable testimony, fully in keeping with the history and practices of Friends… We warmly approve of people following their conscience, and openly approve civil disobedience in this matter under Divine compulsion. We ask all to consider carefully the implications of paying taxes that relate to war-making… Specifically, we offer encouragement and support to people caught up in the problem of seizure, and of payment against their will.

The New York Yearly Meeting decided to begin resisting corporately by refusing to honor liens on the salaries of tax resisting employees (though it could not reach consensus on a refusal to withhold income tax from such employees), and, the following year, by refusing to pay its own phone tax.

The American Friends Service Committee finally decided to do something concrete about the war tax question, but it was a little odd. They withheld and paid taxes from a war tax resisting employee and then sued the government for a refund. The strange structure of their process seems to have been a very deliberate way to structure a legal suit for maximum effectiveness, and it did (briefly) show some success. A court ruled in 1974, on First Amendment freedom-of-religion grounds, that the government could not force the organization to pay the taxes of an objecting employee — alas, the Supreme Court almost immediately, and overwhelmingly, overturned this.

Also in 1974, Susumu Ishitani, a Japanese Quaker, formed a war tax resistance group in Japan — the first example I am aware of from Asia.

By the mid-1970s, the Friends Journal’s coverage of war tax resistance is less occupied with advocacy, debate, and the presentation of individual exemplars, and is more concerned with the practical aspects of how Quakers are going about it. The editorial stance shifts again, to one of more forthright advocacy. It is assumed that Quakers want to avoid paying war taxes, and the question is how to do so well.

The ending of the U.S. war on Vietnam did not seem to slow the enthusiasm for war tax resistance. In 1976 the Friends Journal devoted an issue to the subject for the first time. In 1977 Robert Anthony began another attempt to get the courts to legalize conscientious objection to military taxation. It went nowhere, but notably, in a letter to the court, his monthly meeting wrote:

We assert that the free exercise of the Quaker religion entails the avoidance of any participation in war or financial contribution to that part of the national budget used by the military.

If not exaggerated for effect, this statement would be among the strongest yet articulated by a Quaker institution in this renaissance period — not simply expressing support for war tax resisters, or encouraging Friends to consider resisting, but asserting that to practice the Quaker religion necessarily meant to refuse to pay war taxes.

In 1978, Quakers met with their Brethren and Mennonite counterparts to draft a joint statement that encouraged war tax resistance — the “New Call to Peacemaking.” The Philadelphia Yearly Meeting asked its ongoing representative meeting to draft some formal guidance for Quaker war tax resisters for how they should go about it, and to set up an alternative fund to hold and redirect resisted taxes. (New England Yearly Meeting began its own alternative fund for resisted taxes the following year.)

By this time war tax resistance is a core part of any discussion of the Quaker peace testimony, and there are increasing calls for Meetings to resist taxes as an institution.

In 1979 the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting approved a minute on war tax resistance that pulled its punches a bit:

Our strength and our security are derived from our belief in the reality of a loving God and the oneness of that of God in all people. In order to say yes to this belief, we must seriously consider saying no to payment of war taxes.

This “seriously consider” compares poorly to discipline of times past (e.g. “a tax levied for the purchasing of drums, colors, or for other warlike uses, cannot be paid consistently with our Christian testimony” [Ohio Yearly Meeting, 1819]). It also, some Quakers point out, sometimes pales next to the more direct and certain advice from some meetings that young Quaker men resist the draft.

As more Quakers and Meetings feel the pressure to take a stand on war taxes, the more timid ones are increasingly desperate to find ways to do so without actually having to resist. Silly ideas, like writing “not for military spending” in the memo field of their tax payment checks, and “peace tax fund” ideas proliferate. By 1982, Quakers in Canada and Australia are floating their own peace tax fund legislation ideas.

Meanwhile, Quakers in England seem to have gotten the tax resisting bug. The Friends World Committee for Consultation and London Yearly Meeting stopped withholding income taxes from twenty-five war tax resisting employees in 1982, putting the money in escrow. (This resistance was short-lived; after losing a legal appeal in 1985, they went back to withholding.)

In 1983 war tax resistance, according to Friends Journal reports, was a “major preoccupation” of the London Yearly Meeting, and a “burning concern” at the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (where “unity could not be achieved”). Lake Erie Yearly Meeting encouraged its Monthly Meetings “to establish meetings for sufferings to aid war tax resisters.” Pacific Yearly Meeting started an alternative fund.

Smaller Monthly and Quarterly meetings around the country were beginning to take even stronger stands. The Minneapolis and Twin Cities Meetings approved a minute that asked “all members of our meetings to practice some form of war tax resistance”! The Davis (California) meeting passed a similar minute. Monthly Meetings are assembling “clearness committees” to help each other find responses to the war tax problem that are appropriate to their conscientious “leadings.”

That year also, the Friends General Conference promoted the idea of Quakers giving interest-free loans to them, a thinly-veiled (not explicitly stated) way of hiding assets from IRS:

…Friends loan money to F.G.C. at no interest, which F.G.C. invests to earn income which is used to support the varied programs of the Conference, such as publications, religious education curricula, and the ongoing nurture program. These loans provide regular dependable monthly income to the Conference, and reduce the interest income on which the lender must pay federal income taxes, while providing the lender with protection against unforeseen financial reversals. F.G.C. will repay the principal amount within 30 days after receiving a written request from the lender. All principal amounts are kept in insured investments.

In 1984 the Friends Journal, now edited by a war tax resister, devoted another issue to the subject. Non-resisting Quakers were now very much on the defensive. One complained that at the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting that year, taxpaying Quakers like him “were compared to the Quaker slaveholders of the 18^th century, and not a dissenting voice was raised,” but even he had to acknowledge that war tax resistance was “in the mainstream of Quaker thought, and therefore entitled to support from Quaker bodies.”

The meeting itself though could only agree to issue another minute that would “not urge” Friends to resist, but would “give strong support” to those who did.

In 1985, the Friends World Committee for Consultation held a war tax resistance conference in Washington, D.C., and formed a standing “Friends Committee on War Tax Concerns.” The following year, they held a conference for Quaker organizations that had war tax resisting employees. The conference was attended by 35 people, including representatives from 21 such organizations. They were united by an interest in supporting the war tax resistance of their employees in an open and honest fashion, in a way that included the redirection of the resisted taxes to beneficial causes, and that used the “clearness committee” process.

You definitely get the feeling that momentum is building and Quaker war tax resistance is having a vigorous revival. Unfortunately, though, it seems to me that this is the high-water mark. In surprisingly little time the tide will begin to recede. But there is still some forward progress to be made.

In 1987 the London Yearly Meeting declared:

We are convinced by the Spirit of God to say without any hesitation whatsoever that we must support the right of conscientious objection to paying taxes for war purposes… We ask Meeting for Sufferings to explore further and with urgency the role our religious society should corporately take in this concern and then to take such action as it sees necessary on our behalf.

The Friends United Meeting adopted a policy of not withholding taxes from resisting employees that year as well. The Philadelphia Yearly Meeting soon followed suit, and refused to withhold federal taxes from three war tax resisters on the payroll (after a legal battle, they would pay “under duress” a few years later). The Baltimore Yearly Meeting also adopted such a policy, in 1990.

In 1988 another conference for employers of tax resisting employees was held, this one expanded to include Mennonite and Church of the Brethren employers. The Friends Journal got an IRS levy on the salary of its editor, and it devoted a third issue to the topic of war tax resistance. Some Quakers begin using the tax resistance tactic in the service of other causes, such as opposition to capital punishment or nuclear power.

In an early sign of the receding of the war tax resistance tide, the Friends World Committee for Consultation retired its “Friends Committee on War Tax Concerns” in favor of a “Committee on Peace Concerns.” From here, sadly, it’s pretty much all downhill. In the next and final segment of this series on the history of Quaker war tax resistance, I’ll try to describe and explore the second “forgetting.”

This is the thirty-third in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of The Mennonite. Today we continue through the middle-1980s.

War tax resistance grew to be a front-and-center concern of the General Conference Mennonite Church in the 1970s, but by the mid-1980s interest in the topic began to suddenly decline. I noticed a similar thing when I looked at how war tax resistance rose and fell in the Society of Friends.

Perhaps the topic had been talked-out and people felt there was little more to add to the arguments that had already been made: everybody had the chance to learn about the issue and take their stand, and there wasn’t much left to talk about.

Or perhaps the topic had left the pages of The Mennonite for other publications — like God and Caesar (a specialty publication for war tax resisters put out by a Mennonite group), or the newsletter of the recently-founded National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee.

The energy Mennonites were putting into the fools’ errand of World Peace Tax Fund legislation was certainly a distraction. Certainly there were Mennonites who would have contemplated conscientious war tax resistance or argued for it, but who were instead content to lobby Congress to give them a box to check.

John R. Dyck wrote in with concern about this lapse of interest:

Thank you for picking up this important issue [military taxes] again (see March 10 issue) at a time when many of our people hoped it was a thing of the past. Must we look to other denominations or people than our own to take a bolder leadership position when it comes to dealing with governments? We have almost fallen asleep in the quietness and relative peace in our country, and the fairly consistent drop of dollars into our coffers has been an effective tranquilizer.

One of the articles in that March 10 issue was Edith Adamson (of Conscience Canada) and Marian Franz (of the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund) promoting the Peace Tax Fund law idea. Such a law, they said “would remove the agonizing dilemma that forces conscientious objectors to either disregard their deepest beliefs or disobey the laws of their country.” They claimed the proposed law would “rechannel[] some tax dollars away from the military and into human needs programs,” and would raise awareness of “nations’ misplaced priorities.”

The 10 March 1987 issue also brought this news:

The Tax Court of Canada, in a recent 28-page ruling, held that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not permit taxpayers to withhold the “military portion” of their taxes. Jerilyn Prior, a Vancouver physician of Quaker faith who brought the case, had withheld 10.5 percent of her 1982 taxes and sent them instead to a peace fund. The court concluded, “Even if the assessment were objectively and in reality an infringement upon the appellant’s freedom of conscience and religion… the Canadian tax system… would be a reasonable limit which must be imposed in a free and democratic society…”

1987 taxes for peace fund

Titus and Linda Peachey are directing a Pennsylvania project supported by Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Peace Section. Taxes for Peace is for those wishing to designate a portion of their 1987 tax dollars for a peaceful purpose. The section is also offering a packet of information about military tax opposition.

This year’s Taxes for Peace fund supports the Lancaster County Peacework Alternatives Project, addressing peace and militarism issues in Lancaster County, where 50 companies held prime military contracts worth $150 million with U.S. military agencies in fiscal year 1985.

The Peacheys hope to raise public awareness of the nature and extent of militarism in the Lancaster area and to work with local churches and groups about the theological and ethical questions of militarism. They also want to help defense employees deal with the ethical dilemmas posed by defense-related jobs and begin a dialogue with managers of local military-related industries.

Peace Section hopes that this one-year pilot project will serve as a model and inspiration for other peace groups interested in initiating similar projects in their communities.

In 1986 more than 40 people contributed $4,645.85 to the Taxes for Peace fund. This money was forwarded to a project in Guatemala that aided victims of violence.

European Mennonites: “as important as conscription”

Tubingen, West Germany (MCC)— Green party parliamentarian Petra Kelly called on governments to heed the example of Christian communities and churches during the opening address at the First International Conference of Military Tax Resisters and Peace Tax Campaigns held here Sept. 18–22, 1986. In particular she lauded the decision of the General Conference Mennonite Church not to force its employees to pay war taxes against their conscience.

Over 80 people representing most Western European countries, Australia, Japan, Canada and the United States attended.

Most of those at the conference were tax resisters. Some redirect the military part of their income tax to peace-making purposes, others live below a taxable income level, and others symbolically withhold some of their taxes.

In West Germany and the Netherlands, for example, many take a first step by redirecting 5.72 German marks or Dutch guilders as a sign of their opposition to the deployment of the 572 U.S. Pershing and cruise missiles in Western Europe. They believe that the conscription of their money is as important as the conscription of young men in preparing for and fighting war.

Several participants shared their experiences with tax resistance. Arthur Windsor, a white-haired and mild-mannered Quaker from Gloucester, England, told how he could not reconcile his faith in Christ with paying tax monies that built nuclear and traditional weapons for oppressive Third World regimes. He smiled when he remembered the remark of the constable who came to take him to jail, “The law is not the same as justice.”

Work groups met on Saturday to discuss “Law and Conscience,” “Symbolic Actions and Publicity” and “International Cooperation.” Susumu Ishitiani, a Quaker from Japan, preached the final sermon in the Stepahanus Church, which hosted the conference.

Sponsors of the event included the German Mennonite Peace Committee, the German Quaker Peace Committee and the German Branch of the International Fellowship of Reconciliation. Mennonite participants included Marian Franz, executive director of the U.S.-based National Campaign for a World Peace Tax fund, Wolfgang Krauss of the German Mennonite Peace Committee and Andre Gingerich of Mennonite Central Committee in West Germany.

In 1986 there had been something of a purge of gay Mennonites from leadership positions, after a resolution at the Saskatoon conference unambiguously condemned homosexuality. Robert Hull wondered why Mennonite institutions were being so selective about which sins they were going to condemn in this manner:

I… pointed out that the GC triennial sessions at Fresno, Calif. in 1971 declared that “all war and all that contributes to war is a sin.” Yet some GC congregations accept as members people who have served in the military and not publicly repented, who work in defense industries, who pay federal taxes.

The 9 June 1987 edition announced:

A new video program on war tax resistance is available for free loan from the Mennonite Central Committee Resource Library… War Tax Resistance Seminar includes a lecture and panel discussion presented in March 1986 in Lancaster County, Pa.

The General Assembly of the Mennonite Church (confusingly not the General Conference Mennonite Church) took place in July 1987. According to The Mennonite: “Nearly all 260 delegates representing 22 conferences in the United States and Canada encouraged the church’s governing body to find a way for church institutions to respond to the consciences of employees who object to paying that portion of their taxes destined for military use, even if such action involves civil disobedience.”

Marian Franz wrote in the 28 July 1987 edition that in her experience war tax resistance and work on peace tax fund lobbying was a good form of outreach for the anti-war message. Excerpts:

In the national capitals. When you in the local areas and we in Washington and Ottawa continue to press the issue of conscience, our single acts have widespread reverberations. Often members of government and their legislative assistants feel compelled to examine their consciences. In my experience, as we explain why people cannot pay the military portion of their taxes, the member of government or the aide feels compelled to explain why their conscience does not agree with ours (something we did not come there to ask) or to admit that our witness has caused them to listen to their conscience in a new way.

Among religious bodies. The fact that a sincere expression of conscientious conviction is infectious is demonstrated by the burgeoning examples of conscientious statements among religious bodies. In North America a new “peace church” is emerging that spans virtually every denomination, confession and constituency. Most of the major church bodies and bishops’ conferences have made statements, many surprisingly forceful, against nuclear weapons and the spiraling arms race. At the congregational and parish level, Bible study, prayer and discussion around the nuclear question is occurring across Canada and the United States. Old distinctions between pacifists and just-war proponents are breaking down. The threat of nuclear war has raised, for an increasing number of Christians, a crisis of conscience.

At the corporate level. Until now in our history, conscientious objection was considered only an individual matter. Conscientious objection to paying taxes for military force was a matter between the individual and God, the individual and conscience, the individual and the courts, the individual and revenue collection agencies. Now another dimension has been added to the picture. It is called corporate military tax resistance.

Even in the face of large maximum penalties ($25,000 fine for each person and/or 10 years in prison), religious bodies are beginning to ask if they as corporate entities can any longer in good conscience withhold taxes from the salaries of those employees who ask for reasons of conscience that they not be withheld. To date such corporate action has been taken only by small groups in historic peace churches (e.g. the General Conference Mennonite Church; Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, a six-state region of Quakers; and the Friends World Committee on Consultation). But that action is now under consideration by some of the largest denominations.

When we mention such corporate actions and considerations in Congressional offices, new interest is sparked. Conscientious objection as a matter of individual conscience is one thing, but when it occurs on a corporate level it draws a different quality of attention.

At an international level. The Canadian and U.S. Peace Tax Fund efforts are a small campaign as lobbies go. Yet small seeds continue to sprout and blossom. The exact wording of the U.S. Peace Tax Fund Bill now appears in legislation introduced in the parliaments of several nations. How could David Bassett, a Quaker physician from Ann Arbor, Mich., who drafted the U.S. peace tax legislation with law faculty, have dreamed that one day he would attend an international conference of peace tax campaigns?

After five years as executive director of the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund in the United States, I was thrilled to attend the first international conference of peace tax campaigns and war tax resisters in Tubingen last fall. One hundred participants from 15 countries gathered for the conference. They came together at the invitation of five German groups, including the Deutsches Mennonitisches Friedens Komitee (German Mennonite Peace Committee).

In workshops, panel discussions, and plenary sessions many participants expressed openly and in moving ways the Christian basis for their beliefs and actions. While the religious and political backgrounds of the participants varied, there was little diversity in their conviction of conscience. All found it a clear violation of conscience to pay the military portion of their taxes. All saw the connection between the 4 million people who starve each year and swollen military budgets. All noted that what the world spends in just 10 days for military expenditures could not only feed all the hungry on earth for a year but also provide them with clean water, housing and education. Even the setting for the conference was a reminder of why we had gathered. From the Tubingen church where we met, we could see a hospital for brain-damaged people from World War Ⅱ, now under conversion into a training center for the triage method of treating the victims of the next war.

I was struck by how many of the participants had known the trauma of war firsthand. The majority were Europeans and had lived under bombs and/or had grown up with family members missing because of World War Ⅱ.

Antje Spannenberg was one of the generation of children who had plagued their parents with the question, “How could you have allowed Hitler to come into and remain in power? Why didn’t you stop him?” Now Antje’s children are asking her, “How can you allow a world full of weapons so dreadful and dangerous?”

Ursula Windsor, a refugee from Nazi Germany now living in England and married to Britisher Arthur Windsor, admits, “I know if enough of us had resisted we could have stopped Hitler. For some it would not have been difficult; for others, a great sacrifice. Whether simple or difficult, there came a time when it was too late.”

Ursula knew that truth from experience. “I have watched my favorite possessions being taken out of my home as the British Inland Revenue Service claimed them in lieu of taxes we have not paid because we believe that Jesus forbids us to pay for war.”

Her husband, Arthur, went to prison for three weeks. On the day of Arthur’s release he was met at the prison gate by a member of the British Parliament who escorted him to the British House of Commons. With Arthur in the gallery, the member of Parliament introduced the British Peace Tax Fund into Parliament. On that day, for the first time, it received 10 minutes of official debate.

She also briefly profiled conference attendees Wolfgang Krauss of West Germany and Susumu Ishitani of Japan.

Military tax resistance. Are there conscientious objectors to taxes for military purposes in other countries, and do some refuse to pay the military portion of their taxes to their governments? Yes. Some withhold all, some the military portion and some a symbolic portion from their taxes. For some these actions are a political strategy; for many they are based on religious commitment.

Reports from the various countries echoed a refrain. In the Netherlands 5.72 guilders is a symbolic amount withheld by many. In Germany 5.72 Deutsche Marks is a symbolic amount. The number represents the 572 Pershing Ⅱ and cruise missiles on European soil and expresses abhorrence for the fact that they shorten the nuclear fuse to six minutes.

Legislative efforts. Has any country succeeded in passing peace tax legislation that would make it legal to have the military portion of their citizens’ taxes go into a separate fund? Not yet.

Countries working for legislation are the Federal Republic of Germany, Great Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Finland, Australia and the United States. Switzerland and Spain have no organized effort for legal recognition of conscientious objection to military taxes. France has a fund in which tax-resisted dollars are collected, as does Italy.

The Peace Tax campaigns of Canada and Japan, rather than promoting peace tax legislation, are challenging their governments in the courts based on constitutional guarantees of freedom of conscience (Canada) and constitutional stipulations that not more than 1 percent of the gross national product be used for military force (Japan).

Other judicial efforts. Attempts to establish through the courts the legal right to redirect taxes from military purposes have been pursued in many countries. Except in Italy, these efforts have been without success. The standard response of governments to non-payment of the military portion of taxes (if they respond at all) includes trials, confiscation of property, fines and interest fees, and — in rare instances — prison.

The standard response of the courts to tax resisters who are brought to trial is that the issues raised present a “political question” that the courts cannot address or that constitutional guarantees of freedom of conscience and/or religion do not outweigh the duty of a citizen to pay taxes.

The greatest success and surprise story was that de facto recognition of conscientious objection to military taxes exists in Italy. Fifty war tax resisters have been prosecuted in six legal cases and have been acquitted in every case. They based their case on the fact that freedom of conscience is guaranteed in the Italian constitution. Participants from Italy reported at Tubingen that four years ago they knew of only 20 who did not pay the military portion of their taxes for reasons of conscience. That number is now 3,500 and growing. War tax resisters are no longer prosecuted in Italy.

I listened with anticipation to the featured speaker, Petra Kelly, founder of the Green party, and member of the West German Bundestag (Parliament). Referring to the Hitler years, she said, “Because we can recall the painful experiences of fascism in this country, especially when it comes to military violence, we cannot retreat into obedience by our citizens in relation to the state. In the domain of conscience there is a higher duty. The special status of human conscience and the fundamental right not to kill is set apart from other issues. Therefore governments should make allowance for tax redirection that they would make in no other cases.”

Then came the surprise. Kelly said that in searching for signs of some way out of the dark morass of military expenditures, she finds an example in the Mennonites.

She said, “An example for me is the [General Conference] Mennonite Church. A group of members decided the following: ‘The employees of the church administration are given the power to be true to the high demands of Christ’s Law of Love, in that they can resist withholding taxes from employees that have requested it and therefore open up the possibility to resist for reasons of conscience to pay for the preparation of war.’ ”

She continued, “This example should give us all courage, but it is also a clear signal of that which happens in many Christian churches and can give us hope.”

I thought back to the long struggle of conscience that culminated in the 1983 conference decision cited by Kelly. At the time we were not thinking of what the rest of the world would think of us, but only whether our action was consistent with obedience to Christ. I certainly did not expect to hear it quoted three years later by a member of a foreign parliament, at a conference of 15 countries.

Conscience is contagious.

This is the seventeenth 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.

In January 1975 the Mennonite Church and General Conference Mennonite Church cosponsored a seminar on “Civil Religion: True and False Patriotism” According to the Gospel Herald coverage, “[a] number of special issue groups were formed in which persons struggled with questions raised during the seminar [such as l]egal implications of nonpayment of war taxes and other forms of resistance…”

The 25 February 1975 issue brought news of Mennonite-inspired war tax resistance sprouting in Japan:

Tax Resistance Movement in Japan Gains Support

A war tax resistance movement is beginning in Japan.

Started by Michio Ohno, a United Church of Christ in Japan pastor who attended Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminaries in Elkhart, Ind., 1962–65, an organization for “Conscientious Objection to Military Tax” was formed on Nov. 23 in Tokyo. About sixty people attended the first meeting, and a “general assembly” was planned on Jan. 15 at the Shinanomachi Church in Tokyo.

The objectives of the organization are (1) reduction and eventual abolition of Japan’s self-defense force (Japan’s constitution prohibits a military) and (2) encouraging nonpayment of the 6.4 percent of income taxes that support the self-defense force.

Mr. Ohno, who is now working with Mennonites and Brethren in Christ in the Tokyo area, started the movement out of his religious convictions. But support has now grown beyond Mennonites, the Society of Friends, and the Fellowship of Reconciliation to include other Japanese citizens who question the constitutionality of the self-defense force.

At the organizational meeting, speakers included Gan Sakakibara, principal of the Tokyo English Center, "The Historical Development of Conscientious Objection”; Yasusaburo Hoshino, professor at the Tokyo University of Liberal Arts, “How to Live Nonviolently — A Theory of Peaceful Tax-Paying”; and Shizuo Ito, a lawyer who sued the government for having unconstitutional armed forces, “Struggle for Peace — The World of Zero.”

Mr. Sakakibara told of the history of the Anabaptists and said that nonpayment of military tax has a long history. Mr. Ito remarked that “the nuclear reactor of the conscience is being lit today.” Mr. Hoshino compared the cost of food in social welfare institutions with the cost of the self-defense forces.

Mr. Ohno called Conscientious Objection to Military Tax the first organized movement of this kind in Japan.

“The time was ripe when we started the campaign,” he said. “We consulted several scholars of the constitution, and one of the professors said he himself had wanted to start a movement like this. Somebody else may well have started a movement like this anyway, even if we did not. We should not just sit back and wait for the peace to come, but be the peacemakers.”

Mr. Ohno said one of the decisive factors in his becoming involved in conscientious tax objection in March 1974 was an article in The Mennonite last year on the proposed World Peace Tax Fund legislation in the United States.

Deadline for filing taxes in Japan is in mid-March. “Then we will know how the tax officials respond to the objection,” Mr. Ohno said.

Another meeting for tax refusers is planned in February, and members of the steering committee were to itinerate in Kyushu and Okinawa in mid-February.

A followup in the 8 April 1975 edition read:

On Nov. 23, 1974, Japanese Christians founded a new movement of persons who refuse to pay that part of their taxes allotted for military purposes. Newspapers have since reported that an association of lawyers has promised to work with the group. Susami Ishitani, secretary of the Christian pacifists, wrote: “We have invited the cooperation of others who share with us the principle of nonviolence.” He also pointed out that the Japanese constitution contains articles which could provide the legal base for refusing to see a military or violent solution as any solution at all. ―Algemeen Doopsgezind Weekblad.

And a report on the “Third Anabaptist Seminar, Japan” (14–16 September 1975) noted:

Brother Ohno of Tokyo shared out of his conviction for peace and his current experience in nonpayment of the military tax portion of his personal income tax.

A letter to the editor from Titus I. Lehman in the 25 March 1975 edition addressed war tax resistance in a sort of scattershot way:

Our government’s “permanent war economy” policy should rank high among reasons peace-making Christians have for (1) finding simpler lifestyles, (2) telling their congressmen about their continuing opposition to military spending madness, (3) continuing to reduce their taxable income, (4) finding more ways to resist the war, (5) allowing the IRS to check individual deductions for contributions.

Join the club. If they check my deductions when my Federal tax is over $200, will they also check me when it falls under $200? They probably will. Time will tell.

Remember the stability and value of the U.S. dollar is related directly to how wisely or stupidly our Federal tax dollars are spent.

Allen R. Mohler, in a piece entitled “Caesar or God?” (8 April 1975) didn’t have much positive to say about war tax resistance, and introduced the “why stop at war tax resistance” line of attack:

If we refuse to pay our portion of taxes that go for military spending, we had better hold back the “murder tax” (whatever tax money is spent on abortions) and the immorality tax” (the tax money that is helping unwed persons live immorally without the responsibility of being parents).

When Jesus was asked the question about paying taxes to the Roman government. He asked whose image was on the coin? Answer: Caesar’s — and Caesar represented the political power and leadership of a pagan and militaristic government. Jesus then said, “Render… to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” I think we often miss the meaning of this last part of Jesus’ statement. What has the image of God is God’s — that is, you and I. The only object or thing created in God’s image is the human family.

As I understand the teachings of the Bible on taxes, it is to pay — the governments will ultimately be responsible, whether it is used right or wrong. To do otherwise is to get our images and rendering all turned around.

In the course of discussing a survey of Mennonite opinions, Jim Juhnke wrote (in a 13 May 1975 article) that “Hundreds of thousands of Mennonite tax dollars went to support the war in Vietnam, but Mennonites were more critical of war protesters than they were of official government lies.” It’s unclear from the context whether this is something learned from the survey or just Juhnke’s own independent impression.

The issue having only recently come to life, it was odd to see the following headline in the 17 June 1975 issue. I expect the end of the Vietnam War was probably what was being alluded to.

War Tax Issue Not Dead

In connection with his presentations of Mennonite history and principles throughout the church, Jan Gleysteen has been involved in a lot of study groups and discussions. He reported that one question which has recently come up with greater frequency and which has provided the reason for additional meetings and prayer sessions is the problem of war taxes.

Congregations or fellowships studying Anabaptist heritage this year are discovering the statements of Grebel, Riedemann, Felbinger, Simons, and others on this subject and are wondering what a Christian’s contemporary response to war taxes might be, especially since today’s technological armies need vast sums of money more than they need men. Individuals and small groups here and there are actively engaged in studying the issue, but not much help and information is as yet available from the denominational level. Yet in one congregation the statement was made: “How to deal with war taxes is an issue that affects far more of us than the issues of abortion or a study on the role of women.”

A bit of historical revisionism was at work in a note titled “Ancestor Worship?” by Wayne North (29 July 1975) that made much stronger claims for early Mennonite war tax resistance than I have been able to discern from the record:

If we are glorifying our ancestry… why do some modern-day Mennonites urge the payment of war taxes and advocate the death penalty when both were condemned by their early leaders?

Levi Keidel, in the 7 October 1975 issue, suggested there was a “Mennonite Credibility Gap” that expressed itself in the way Mennonites were approaching the war tax question:

Now with the proliferation of technological weaponry, the annual U.S. budget is dominated by a hydra-headed military appropriation. We Mennonites who have set our affection upon things of earth, relished the pleasures and conveniences of affluence, amassed material wealth like everyone else, now say that we will refuse to pay income tax as our peace witness to government. We are selecting to apply the principle of nonparticipation in violence, but not of self-imposed poverty for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.

Is a government official wrong in accusing Mennonites of accepting their historic principles which concern the state, but rejecting their historic principles which touch themselves? Is it proper for us to make a corporate witness to government against payment of income tax when there is little else which distinguishes us as citizens of another kingdom who give primary allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ? How can we justify the selective application of Anabaptist beliefs to our contemporary lives?

Helen Lapp responded, in a 11 November 1975 letter to the editor:

Levi Keidel makes a good point against selective discipleship… From what I observe, however, those who take seriously the idea of nonpayment of war taxes are often the same Christian disciples who are most conscientious about their lifestyles. How many affluent Mennonites consider war taxes to be at all inconsistent with a peace witness? Perhaps the worst “selective” problem we have is in letting a “select few” be our conscience on both these Anabaptist concerns. I am grateful for this minority voice which may help others of us to return to fuller application of the total biblical ethic.

“A war tax conference, sponsored by Mennonite and Brethren in Christ conferences and the Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section…” that would cover “theological and practical discernment on war tax issues” was held on 30 October 1975. Gospel Herald reported:

Speakers Selected for War Tax Conference

Speakers for an inter-Mennonite and Brethren in Christ conference on war taxes have been named.

The conference, sponsored by the General Conference Mennonite Church, Mennonite Church, Brethren in Christ Church, and Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section, is scheduled for Oct. 30 to Nov. 1 at First Mennonite Church, Kitchener, Ont.

Included among the speakers are:

• Colonel Edward King (ret.), director of the Coalition on National Priorities and Military Policy (U.S.), and Major General Fred Carpenter, Canadian armed forces, on “Militarism in Today’s Society.”
• Marlin Miller, president of Goshen Biblical Seminary, Elkhart, Ind., on “The Christian’s Relationship to the State and Civil Authority.”
• Walter Klaassen, associate professor of religious studies at Conrad Grebel College, Waterloo, Ont., and Donald Kaufman of Newton, Kan., author of What Belongs to Caesar? on "Anabaptism and Church-State Tax Issues.”
• Willard Swartley, chairman of the Bible and Philosophy Department, Eastern Mennonite College, Harrisonburg, Va., on “The Christian and Payment of War Taxes.”

Workshops are planned on such topics as “War Taxes and the Bible,” “The Christian and Civil Disobedience,” “World Peace Tax Fund Act,” "Forms of Resistance and Legal Consequences,” “Mennonite Institutions and the Withholding Dilemma, and “Voluntary Service and War Tax Options.”

The conference, intended for “theological and practical discernment on war tax issues,” is open to all who wish to attend.

Initiative for the conference came from a resolution passed by the triennial convention of the General Conference Mennonite Church in August 1974 in St. Catherines, Ont.

Those planning to attend the conference should register by Oct. 15…

Co-moderators of the conference are Peter Ediger of Arvada, Colo., and Vernon Leis of Elmira, Ont.

After the conference, Gospel Herald carried the following report:

War Tax Responsibilities Examined

Unlike in some Mennonite peace gatherings of the past decade, the under-thirty set did not predominate at Kitchener. Laborers, pastors, homemakers, and teachers shared their concerns. Students from as far as Swift Current Bible Institute and Eastern Mennonite College made the pilgrimage to First Mennonite.

Two retired military men gave background for the concern about war taxes at the first session. Col. Edward King, U.S. Army (retired), summarized the ludicrous contradictions between stated U.S. foreign policy and actual U.S. military practice, and tallied up the cost in tens of billions of dollars.

Major-General Fred Carpenter, Canadian Armed Forces (retired), who traces his martial ancestry to Napoleon, pointed out political and military differences between the U.S. and Canada. Stressing the dangers of nationalism, Carpenter called for a view of land resources which sees them as international property just as the ocean and the air.

Conference participants were characterized by a keen sense of urgency about the international arms race and felt some personal accountability for national policy in their respective countries, the United States and Canada. A basic cleavage of viewpoint became evident however over the degree of accountability which Christians have for the nuclear immorality of the governments under which they live.

The historical record of Anabaptists on war tax issues was reviewed by Walter Klaassen of Conrad Grebel College and Donald Kaufman of General Conference Home Ministries Personnel Services. The evidence suggests that most Anabaptists did pay all their taxes willingly; however, there is the early case of Hutterite Anabaptists who refused to pay war taxes that were to be used against the invading Turks.

During the American Revolution some Mennonites did object to paying war taxes; yet, in a joint statement with the Church of the Brethren (German Baptist Brethren) they agreed to pay taxes in general to the colonial powers “that we may not offend them.”

In a biblical/theological paper. Marlin Miller, president of Goshen Biblical Seminary, defined the relationship of the Christian to civil authorities as one of subordination rather than obedience or subjection. Subordination, he said, requires the exercise of discrimination regarding what is due the state (Rom. 13:7) within a basic stance that rejects rebellion and violent revolution.

In the second major biblical/theological paper of the conference, Willard Swartley of Conrad Grebel College examined the New Testament texts on taxes. “Scripture does not speak a clear word on the subject of paying taxes used for war. While taxes generally appear to be Caesar’s due, the statements on the subject contain either ambiguity in meaning (Mk. 12:17) or qualifications in the texts that call for discrimination in judgment,” he concluded.

Conference participants felt that the ethical directive as to whether to pay or not to pay must be found by the community of believers led by the Spirit to understand the imperative of the total revelation in Christ Jesus.

The summary statement of the conference issues an appeal to the churches and church institutions to “recognize the extent to which we are subject to the industrial-military complex” and to “pray for those in authority, that they will rule justly.” It calls on the church to “awaken a consciousness of the extent to which our lifestyles are affected by the standards of our consumer society, and extend a new call to the lordship of Christ in lifestyle issues.”

A response included a call to “bring taxable income below the taxable level by adjusting standard of living through earning less income, through donating up to the maximum allowable 50 percent of income to charitable causes, or through other types of deduction and/or dependent claiming which are legally allowable.”

Responses recommended for Canadians included to “call upon our government to legislate against the export of military weapons and systems” and to “affirm and support individuals who feel led to actions (actual or symbolic) that focus conscientious objection in particular ways.[”]

Conference planners Harold Regier and Peter Ediger, editors of God and Caesar, a war tax newsletter from Newton, Kan., and Ted Koontz of MCC Peace Section (U.S.) indicated plans to carry on efforts to raise consciousness about war tax and military issues.

And a follow-up added:

Cassettes of the proceedings at the War Tax Conference held at Kitchener… are now ready for circulation. The entire set includes six cassettes with presentations by Col. Edward King (ret.), Major General Fred Carpenter of the Canadian Armed Forces, Marlin Miller, Walter Klaassen, Donald Kaufman, and Willard Swartley. The discussions after the presentations are also included.…

A couple of history lessons followed. The 4 November 1975 issue reprinted the petition sent by Mennonites to their state Assembly in 1775 in which they begged for conscientious objection to military service, noted that they were dutiful taxpayers, and enclosed a “small gift” as protection money. And the 18 November 1975 issue told the story of the Funkite schism that happened around the same time:

“I’d as Soon Go into the War”

by Richard K. McMaster

Bicentennial reenactments usually emphasize powdered wigs and antique muskets to the exclusion of ideas, but a 200-year-old sermon repeated at First Presbyterian Church in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, this summer put a current issue in sharper focus.

Costumes and candlelight could not detract from the timeliness of the Reverend John Carmichael’s 1775 sermon, because the payment of war taxes is no less a problem for us than it was for 18th-century Mennonites. The Presbyterian pastor had little sympathy with those who questioned the morality of war, but his sermon tells us what Mennonites were doing about war taxes 200 years ago.

“Had our Lord been a Mennonist, He would have refused to pay tribute to support war, which shows the absurdity of these people’s conduct,” he said.

“In Romans 13, we are instructed the duty we owe to civil government, but if it was unlawful and anti-Christian and antiscriptural to support war, it would be unlawful to pay taxes. If it is unlawful to go to war, it is unlawful to pay another to do it.”

Lancaster County Mennonites refused to pay taxes for military purposes in 1775, according to the Presbyterian preacher, forcing the authorities to seize their property.

“What a foolish trick those people put on their consciences who, for the reasons already mentioned, will not pay their taxes and yet let others come and take their money.”

When the dispute between England and her American Colonies turned to bloodshed and farmers and storekeepers began drilling at every crossroads, Mennonites refused to join their neighbors in these “military associations” or to make contributions for the purchases of rifles and gunpowder.

Instead of helping the war effort, Quakers set up an elaborate system for distributing aid to war victims in besieged Boston. Mennonites also donated money for the relief of the poor of Boston. In July 1775 the Continental Congress recognized the rights of conscientious objectors and asked no more of them than voluntary contributions “for their distressed brethren.”

But the peace churches were not allowed to stand aloof. Patriot leaders wanted their contributions to be an acknowledged equivalent for military service, not a free gift to the poor. A letter from a Church of the Brethren pastor in Lancaster County tells how his congregation required the collector to sign a receipt that the money was intended “for the needy,” but he was afraid it would be used for military purposes.

When the Pennsylvania Assembly decided to put a direct tax on everyone who would not join a military unit, with the money appropriated for defense of the state, Quakers insisted that the tax violated the liberty of conscience guaranteed in William Penn’s charter. Mennonites and Brethren explained in their petition to the Assembly:

“The Advice to those who do not find Freedom of Conscience to take up arms, that they ought to be helpful to those who are in Need and distressed Circumstances, we receive with Chearfulness towards all Men of what Station they may be — it being our Principle to feed the Hungry and give the Thirsty Drink; — we have dedicated ourselves to serve all Men in every Thing that can be helpful to the Preservation of Men’s Lives, but we find no Freedom in giving, or doing, or assisting in any Thing by which Men’s Lives are destroyed or hurt. We beg the Patience of all those who believe we err in this Point.”

Mennonites of that generation saw no distinction between fighting in war and paying for the weapons of war. “I would as soon go into the war as pay the 3 pounds, 10 shillings, if I did not fear for my life,” Andrew Ziegler, bishop in the Skippack congregation, declares in 1776.

Since Mennonites, Quakers, and Brethren objected on conscientious grounds to paying war taxes, while making it a matter of conscience to pay other state and township taxes, as many documents make clear, forcing them to pay for war as an equivalent to military service was as much a violation of religious freedom as forcible induction into the army would be.

The 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution guaranteed the right of conscientious objectors to refuse military service, provided they made an equivalent contribution in money. But an equivalent of any kind of military service made exemption on conscientious grounds a sham. The Mennonite and Quaker refusal to pay war taxes during the American Revolution was thus an integral part of their refusal to participate in war. If they could be exempted from militia duty for this reason, it was illogical and a violation of liberty of conscience not to exempt them from paying war taxes.

The experience of an earlier generation need not be normative, but we would do well to ponder the witness of the Mennonite Church in the crisis of the American Revolution and its meaning for our generation.

In the 25 November 1975 issue, John E. Lapp summarized Romans 13 and in so doing showed how much the orthodoxy had shifted. Compare this to his remarks on the same subject in 1966 (see ♇ 7 September 2018)!

Paul… continued in [Romans] chapter 13 to call upon all Christians to be subject to the powers — not to resist the powers, to be subject for conscience’ sake, and to pay taxes cheerfully. Here we can see how the citizens of the other world maintain relationships with the nations of this world and continue their faithful loyalties to the King of kings. One parenthesis may be in order. (This does not mean that Christians who belong to the new order will unquestioningly pay war taxes. They may even determine what really is Caesar’s rightful portion and may even decide to withhold that portion which is designated for military purposes!)