Tax resistance in the “Peace Churches” →
Quakers →
20th–21st century Quakers →
Glenn S. Mallison
War tax resistance in the Friends Journal in
Some Quaker war tax resisters of the past and present made appearances in the Friends Journal in .
Another article on George and Lillian Willoughby, in the issue, mentioned how early American Quakers had been sensitive to the issue of war taxes:
In colonial America, tremendous pressure was exerted on Penn and other Quakers to support militias, to provision the British army, to pay taxes for unexplained uses that might well turn out to be military expeditions.
Governing a large colony (Pennsylvania) in which Quakers were a minority, and in which the majority wanted protection from Indian attacks, forced further compromises.
Only with the advent of John Woolman, who with others sent a letter to the Pennsylvania assembly concerning a royal levy, [a portion of the PDF is illegible at this point] -tion of Christ and Fox.
As reported by Peter Brock in his The Quaker Peace Testimony, , it states in part:
And being painfully apprehensive that the large sum granted by the… Assembly for the King’s use is principally intended for purposes inconsistent with our peaceable testimony, we therefore think that as we cannot be concerned in wars and fightings, so neither ought we to contribute thereto by paying the tax directly by the said act, though suffering be the consequence of our refusal.
Despite the influence of John Woolman and Anthony Benezet, Friends remained divided on the question of “rendering unto Caesar” that which “Caesar” claimed.
The Willoughbys, the article said, “have acted on their beliefs — through war tax refusal” and other means.
An obituary notice for Louis E. Jones in that issue noted that among the ways he “championed Friends causes” was by “for many years avoiding paying federal income tax, instead contributing to charitable causes.… He served as Downers Grove Meeting’s treasurer for many years, giving him the opportunity to witness against war taxes in the form of refusing war/excise tax for phone service.”
A retrospective on the life and work of the pacifist activist A.J. Muste in the issue noted:
Throughout , he often faced jail and prosecution for refusing to pay income taxes (he constantly followed the dictates of the Quaker John Woolman, who insisted that “The spirit of truth required of me as an individual to suffer patiently the distress of goods, rather than pay actively”)…
That same issue also noted that the Quaker Council for European Affairs planned to “present a resolution, under Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights on Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, to the Council of Europe” that would enshrine a “right for individual taxpayers to direct a portion of their taxes away from military uses and towards peace-building, international development, and other alternatives to war.”
The note mentioned the difficulties with the resolution: “1) the state’s need to maintain a uniform tax system is deemed more important than designing a tax system through which some taxes are diverted for conscientious objection, and 2) in the absence of legislation that allows for the diversion of taxes away from military purposes, the courts have no power to rule in favor of peace tax protestors.”
That issue also noted that the American Friends Service Committee had nominated Ghassan Andoni for the Nobel Peace Prize, and mentioned that “[d]uring the First Intifada, , Andoni was an active participant in Beit Sahour’s tax resistance.”
An obituary for Glenn S. Mallison in the issue noted that “[d]uring the Vietnam War, he refused entry to IRS agents who confronted [his] family’s refusal to pay phone taxes.”
The issue reported that “New York Yearly Meeting approved a statement against paying for war.”:
The following minute was approved at their Spring Business Sessions on : “The Living Spirit works to give joy, peace, and prosperity through love, integrity, and compassionate justice among people.
We are united in this Power.
We acknowledge that paying for war violates our religious conviction.
We will witness to this religious conviction in each of our communities.”
This statement reflects Quakers’ steadfast testimony that any participation in war, including payment of taxes for war, is a violation of our faith.
By compelling support of war-making through taxation, our government and political leaders have forced many people of faith to subordinate God’s Word to the dictates of the state.
The statement seeks to uphold a foundational principle of our nation that freedom to practice our religious faith is a matter of moral imperative, and is not dependent upon the grace of rights or privileges granted by the legislature.
For nearly 350 years, members of the Religious Society of Friends have upheld a testimony of peace and nonviolence that embodies the belief that God’s spirit, present in every person, empowers all of us to resolve disputes without resorting to the machinery of war.
Quakers, Mennonites, and people of other faiths came to the New World to escape persecutions in Europe for their religious convictions.
The work of these “peace churches” in the United States eventually led to the legal recognition of the right of all persons not to be forced into military service in violation of their conscience.
To date, however, the United States government has failed to respect the right of religious conscience, recognized by the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion, not to be compelled to support war through the collection of taxes.
The U.S. Congress has before it legislation introduced by Congressman John Lewis of Georgia and supported by 35 Representatives… (the “Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Bill”) that would provide conscientious objectors [subject] to military taxation with an option.
Individuals who establish a sincere religious objection would have their tax payments directed towards nonviolent and life-affirming means for protecting and promoting national security, consistent with their faith.
Until that time, many Quakers and others are being forced to choose between being faithful to their religious convictions and being in compliance with our federal tax laws.
“As a religious body, we cannot in good conscience support war, and we have borne that witness for over 350 years,” said Christopher Sarnmond, general secretary of New York Yearly Meeting.
“We are clear that violence only begets more violence, in a neverending cycle of horror that diminishes all humankind.
Being required to pay almost half our taxes to support war-making is a violation of our religious convictions, and we will be seeking ways to redress this, individually and corporately.”
In an op-ed in the issue, Stan Becker used his column inches to present the dilemma of Quakers paying for the Iraq War and other such militarism.
He asserted that “[V]ery few Friends have been able to conscientiously refuse to pay the military portion of their income tax and succeeded in doing so” because “[t]he Internal Revenue Service simply does what is necessary to get its monies.”
The option of “living below the taxable income level,” he insisted, “is nearly impossible as well.”
To the rescue is “the Peace Tax Fund legislation that would allow pacifists to have their taxes used only for nonmilitary purposes.”
Meanwhile, he suggested that Friends calculate how much of their time and money is going to pay for war and try to counterbalance this with some peace-minded donations.
Nadine Hoover had an article in the same issue in which she mentioned her frustrations at trying to forward the cause of war tax resistance in the New York Yearly Meeting:
In , a member of Peace Concerns Committee of New York Yearly Meeting approached me outside the auditorium at yearly meeting: “We were talking in committee today about how we are being prepared for something, something historic.
We don’t know what it is, but we feel ready!
We thought of asking people and your name came up.
What do you sense we are being prepared for?”
The answer was laid upon me in that instant.
I replied: “Don’t ask the question if you’re not prepared to yield.
Our dear Friend Sandra Cronk warned us of the dis-ease that settles in when we think we are ready but, when the Light comes, we refuse to yield.
You really do not want to know the answer.”
“Yes, yes!
We do.
We really do.
We’re ready.”
“Okay.”
I said, “It’s a corporate conviction against paying for war.”
He paled and said, “Oh, no.
That may be a bit too much.”
“Oh, I’m so sorry.
You wanted an historic action that would not change your life.
Well, let me see…”
He smiled.
That was the end of that conversation…
But…
Seven years after that conversation, New York Yearly Meeting approved a statement of faith testifying to the Power of the Living Spirit and acknowledging that paying for war violates our religious conviction.
This statement not only reaffirms our Peace Testimony, but shifts from supporting or encouraging individual acts of conscience to claiming a corporate testimony laid upon all of us.
U.S. courts have rejected cases on war tax resistance saying they cannot accommodate individuals, but the courts may not say no so easily to an entire religious body.
Here are some more tidbits I found in back issues of Friends Bulletin.
Two concerned Friends, Bob Vogel and David Walden, who are members of the staff of the Southern California Branch of the AFSC have sent to all meetings in the Pacific Yearly Meeting the following suggested “advice” for implementing our ancient testimony against all wars in terms of current issues.
Friends are exhorted to adhere faithfully to our ancient testimony against all wars and fightings, and in no way unite with any warlike measure, either offensive or defensive, to the end that we may convincingly demonstrate a more excellent way of settling conflicts — the way of Christian love, goodwill, and service to all men.
A living concern having been expressed that Friends[’] practices be consistent with their professions, Friends are urged (1) not to register for any conscription measure nor accept any alternative service for conscientious objectors under a compulsory conscription law; (2) to avoid engaging in any trade or business profession promotive of war or profiting from war activity; (3) to avoid the purchase of government war bonds or stock certificates in war industries; (4) to refuse to pay taxes for war purposes, paying only that percentage of the tax which supports the civil aspects of government; (5) to educate and counsel their children against the use of military toys and books and the attendance or participation in military drills, organizations, parades, or demonstrations.
Friends are urged to live in that life and power that takes away the occasion for war, to give deep attention to the causes of war and conflict, and to support those efforts of mediation and reconciliation which are consistent with our principles gained through Divine guidance.
The edition gave this transcript of a portion of the trial of James Otsuka over his war tax resistance:
Four Dollars and Fifty Cents
On Judge Robert Baltzell sentenced James Otsuka in Federal Court in Indianapolis to ninety days and a fine of $100. Otsuka, a member of Orange Grove Meeting (Pasadena), had refused to comply with an order given by Baltzell to pay to the government $4.50 in taxes which he owed, this being the amount of his taxes that he had determined from the Statemen’s Year Book and other sources would go to military purposes and which he had given instead to the American Friends Service Committee.
He was represented by Earl Robbins, an attorney from Centerville, Indiana.
An account of the dialogue heard in chambers where James Otsuka was sentenced indicated that Baltzell, who has been very rough with most c.o.’s appearing before him and rude to this defendant, was concerned with the issue.
There follows a part of Carolyn Mallison’s report of the dialogue between Baltzell and Robbins, the attorney, after the defendant had been sentenced and taken away:
Judge:
Do you understand this, Robbins?
Robbins:
I think so, your Honor.
Judge:
I hope not!
You are an American.
I hope you cannot understand such actions.
Robbins:
I do not condone it myself your Honor, but I can understand it.
It reminds me of the refusal of the early colonists to pay the Stamp Tax.
Judge:
You know what happened then.
You wouldn’t want that to happen…
I don’t see how you can represent him.
It is a terrible thing for a young fellow to take all the advantages of living here and then refuse to pay his taxes.
Robbins:
Of course the tax law is different from Selective Service, for instance.
Judge:
In what way?
Robbins:
Selective Service does provide for alternative service for those who are conscientiously opposed to war, whereas the tax law gives no alternative.
Immediately after the U.S. Marshal had departed with Otsuka a group of his friends were invited by Judge Baltzell into his chambers for a consultation on the decision just handed down.
Included in the group were Ernest Bromley (editor of News of Tax Refusal, from which this report is taken, Wilmington, Ohio), Lloyd Danzeison [sic] (Peacemaker, Yellow Springs, Ohio), Carfon Foltz, Mr. & Mrs. Glenn Mallison, Jean Olds, Perry Ostroff, Earl Robbins, Ralph Templin, and Caroline Urie.
Here again the issue was raised as how one changes a bad law with Judge Baltzell indicating that his job was to judge by existing laws and he would continue to do so until the people through Congress created new laws.
This note, from the edition, gives us a peek into the publicity tactics in play at the launch of the Peacemakers movement:
Ernest R. Bromley (General Delivery, Wilmington, Ohio) writes:
“The continuation committee of Peacemakers met in Chicago last week .
Among the things discussed was a plan to get widespread publicity on the tax refusal business just prior to .
At present there are about 35 people ready to announce their stand of refusal (some for this year, but all for next year, 1949 I mean).
I am writing, therefore, to several who have recently expressed considerable interest in the position in order to see if any of them are ready to join us and use our group as a medium for making their announcement, at least making it at that time.”
An article from the edition also gave some useful background on the “peace tax” law idea.
This came in the form of a proposed model bill that was being sent around for review by the Pacific Yearly Meeting to its Monthly Meetings, in the hopes of coming to “a decision on whether not an attempt should be made to enact this concept into law.”
The article says that the proposed bill was formulated in response to a presentation on the subject in by representatives of the Claremont Meeting at the Pacific Yearly Meeting that year.
The proposed legislation called itself the “Civilian Income Tax Act of ” and would have created a walled-off fund, governed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and destined “solely to UNICEF” that would receive federal income taxes from conscientious objectors who were willing to pay an extra 5% surtax for the privilege of not having to pay their taxes into the general fund and pay for military spending.
I also noted several mentions of Quakers discussing the idea of voluntarily taxing themselves a certain portion of their income to send to the United Nations as a way of promoting peace.
This continued long after the United Nations formally ratified the Korean War, so seems a bit blinkered to me, but there was clearly a lot of wishful thinking about the United Nations that had persisted through earlier generations in the peace movement and their daydreams about an international legal order that would subdue the frightful anarchy between nations.
Another early “thaw” example, a rare one from Canada, is found in the edition:
Calgary Friends… have written the Minister of Finance regarding non-payment of the defense portion of income taxes.
The Quarterly Meeting encouraged Friends to take what ever stand seemed right to them on the tax question as their consciences dictate, and asked the Monthly Meetings to consider the concern of Calgary Friends.
A problem has been raised in a letter from Irvin [sic] Hogenauer (310 East 170 St., Seattle 55, Washington), which has for many years troubled Friends and members of other peace-making groups.
It strikes at two basic testimonies of Friends: our conviction that war and preparation for war are contrary to the will of our Father, and our belief in the rightness of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
In our observation, this problem has not been solved by any group of our Society to the satisfaction of all.
Perhaps our Yearly Meeting, with its diverse, international background, would be able to add to the thinking of the Society and like-minded persons.
The Bulletin would welcome comments; please keep them brief.
―Editor
“In the Adult Study Group of University Meeting,” writes Irwin Hogenauer, “we are using Jospehine Benton’s pamphlet John Woolman, Most Modern of Ancient Friends.
In my further reading of The Basis of Quaker Political Concern, the speech by Henry J. Cadbury before the tenth anniversary dinner of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, Washington D.C., I came across another quotation from John Woolman: ‘I cannot form a concern, but when a concern comes I endeavor to be obedient.’…
[“]Farther on in the speech, Henry Cadbury quotes Woolman again: ‘To turn all the treasures we possess into channels of universal love becomes the business of our lives.’
Now I interpret the word ‘becomes’ two ways.
First, I suppose, one would say that for Quakers this action of which he speaks ‘will be’ the business of our lives.
But I also read that the right channeling of our treasures ‘is becoming to’ the business our our lives.
And the present tense means now.
“I have been burdened with a concern for many years.
I have not sought it out…
Try as I will, especially at the behest of friends and relatives, I can not throw it off, or dodge it, or whatever one does with a concern…
“Mailings from the F.C.N.L. continually remind me… that defense is the primary fiscal consideration of the United States government.
This means that the dollars we pay in income taxes are being spent largely for the military establishment, security measures, and related endeavours in the defense machinery.
“What has become of our peace testimony if we can allow the government to take our substance and put it to a use contrary to this testimony?…
Who is there who refuses military service who would not also refuse to pay for a bullet, a rifle, an atom or hydrogen bomb?…
“Some say we can not keep from paying it.
There are a number of ways if one would but investigate.
A result may be imprisonment, but what period in history has not seen some Quakers in prisons?…
“It is also contended that so many federal taxes that go for war purposes are on goods and services that we buy daily.
This may be true, but it should not automatically relieve us from thought and action on the tax which is levied directly and often withheld without consent of the earner.
With Henry Thoreau, we can not follow the use made of the dollar after we spend it for groceries, telephone services, gasoline, or a railroad ticket.
But does this relieve us of all responsibility in this area?
In any case we can do something about a tax levied directly on our wage, salary, or other income.”
The Friends peace testimony that Friends cannot support or prepare for war, implies that one can not pay others to prepare for or engage in war.
It is not true that one can’t avoid or refuse to pay federal income taxes.
To keep one’s income below the tax level is the most practical course.
I think — having done so for the last 5 years.
A change in employment may be necessary, but can a Friend properly hold a job that causes him to compromise with his testimonies?
If we follow the Richmond Statement, , “Conscientious objection must be complemented by conscientious projection of God’s spirit into affirmative action,” we will be involved in so much volunteer activity for peace that we won’t have time enough for money-making jobs to have a taxable income.
The important thing is to do all one is able for peace…
John Affolter
4004 13th Ave., South Seattle 8, Washington
(In another letter in the same issue, the writer said that tax resisters could expect to have their bank accounts seized unless “you have no job, raise your own food, and resort to primitive barter… a cumbersome way of moving towards non-participation in the war establishment.”
The writer suggested instead that concerned people “influence our legislators” in some unspecified way.)
