Tax resistance in the “Peace Churches” → Mennonites / Amish → John R. & Paula Dyck

This is the thirtieth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of The Mennonite. Today we continue to work through the early 1980s.

War tax resisters’ hour comes round at last in Bethlehem

In March 1983 the General Board of the General Conference Mennonite Church met.

On the ongoing issue of tax withholding, GB agreed to submit a resolution to delegates at Bethlehem ’83 to “authorize the officers [of the conference] to test the constitutionality of [the tax withholding] requirement… by refusing to serve as tax collectors in cases where individual employees have asked that their federal income taxes not be withheld from their wages, in order that they may conscientiously refuse to pay for war.”

Peter J. Ediger contributed another of his prophecy-poems to the 1 February 1983 issue, saying in part:

The church which seeks to save her security by following only “legal, legislative and judicial avenues” to salve its war tax conscience will lose her life; the church willing to lose her security in supporting non-registrants for the sake of Christ will find life.

A special edition prepared for the triennial conference summarized the progress of the Conference task force on the war tax issue:

At the 1980 triennial sessions, the conference authorized the General Board to initiate a judicial action seeking exemption for the General Conference Mennonite Church from withholding taxes from the income of its employees. James Gingerich, Duane Heffelbower, Larry Voth, Robert Hull, and Vern Preheim were appointed as a judicial action committee to implement the resolution. William Ball was engaged as legal counsel. In March 1982, Ball advised the conference that the general climate in the United States, the attitude of the present government administration, and the attitude of the Supreme Court as evidenced by some recent decisions dealing with religious conviction or conscience and taxes were such that the likelihood of the General Conference accomplishing its objectives through a judicial action was virtually nil. The committee recommended and the General Board concurred to put the judicial action on hold and to bring the matter once again to the conference for further discernment and decision. A more detailed report and a recommendation from the General Board to the conference that we honor the requests of employees to not withhold taxes on their wages will be sent to the congregations in advance of the triennial sessions.

Throughout the past three years, while pursuing judicial action, we also continued to encourage the enactment of World Peace Tax Fund legislation.

An editorial in the 21 June 1983 edition described the upcoming decision thusly:

At a special midtriennium conference in Minneapolis in 1979, GC delegates voted 1,218 to 134 in favor of urging their General Board to “use all legal, legislative and administrative avenues for achieving a conscientious objector exemption from the legal requirement that the conference withhold income taxes from the wages of its employees.” If no solution could be found within three years, the GB was to bring the matter back for further action. At Estes Park in 1980, a judicial test case on the issue was okayed by a vote of 1,156 to 353.

Bethlehem ’83 will bring GC delegates face to face with the fact that all three avenues, at present, look like dead ends. As a result, the GB is proposing that the conference stop withholding taxes from salaries of employees who request such action in order to “assert the higher claim of Christ’s law of love.”

If approved, the resolution would take the conference one small but significant step into the sphere of divine obedience/civil disobedience. It could become the most formidable — and challenging — business item for GCs, despite the fact that several other organizations have already taken the same action.

In advance of the Bethlehem gathering, the text of the proposed resolution was released in the pages of The Mennonite:

Bethlehem ’83 resolutions (1): tax withholding

Among the resolutions for consideration by delegates at the General Conference Mennonite Church Triennial Sessions… is a formal action authorizing conference officers to stop withholding taxes from the salaries of its employees as required by U.S. law. It also encourages Canadian Mennonites to obtain relief from the same requirement by Revenue Canada.

The conference’s General Board… will bring the "Resolution on Faithful Action Toward Tax Withholding" to Bethlehem ’83 delegates as their recommendation for resolving the moral dilemma which church officials feel they are facing. If approved, the resolution could take the conference into divine obedience/civil disobedience.

The following is the text of the resolution:

As Mennonite Christians we seek to be biblically obedient, submitting to such injunctions as Romans 13:7, “Pay taxes to whom taxes are due,” but also Romans 13:8, 10, “Owe no one anything except to love one another… love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” We accept our subordination to government and our obligation to pay taxes. However, we must witness to governments our conviction that war and preparation for war do wrong to our neighbors and are contrary to the will of God as revealed in the teachings of Jesus Christ and his death, resurrection and ascension to lordship.

Thus we urge our governments to sharply reduce military spending and use our resources for life-affirming purposes. Furthermore, just as conscientious objectors have received exemption from military service, we also seek legislation exempting conscientious objectors from paying taxes for military purposes. Thus we continue to work in the United States for passage for the World Peace Tax Fund Act and in Canada for the Peace Tax Fund, which would allow individuals to designate all of their federal taxes for peaceful purposes.

Both the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and Revenue Canada require the General Conference Mennonite Church to violate the consciences of its employees who are conscientious objectors to paying taxes for military purposes.

In the United States, we have thoroughly explored all legislative, administrative and judicial avenues for obtaining a conscientious objector exemption to these withholding requirements, as we resolved at the 1979 Minneapolis midtriennium conference. Our explorations have convinced us there is no likelihood of relief in the near future for conscientious objectors to military taxes. The time has come when, like Peter and the apostles, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

In Canada, equally thorough explorations of similar avenues for seeking a conscientious objection from withholding requirements have not yet been accomplished. We commend the “Resolution on Security and Disarmament” of the Canadian Mennonite Conference in 1982 and the work of the Canadian Tax Task Force under the sponsorship of MCC Canada Peace and Social Concerns. We encourage Canadian congregations to continue study of materials made available on the issue of military taxes.

As delegates to the 1983 triennial sessions of the General Conference Mennonite Church, we therefore:

1. Authorize the conference officers to test the constitutionality of the withholding requirements in the United States and to assert the higher claim of Christ’s law of love by refusing to serve as tax collectors in cases where individual employees have asked that their federal income taxes not be withheld from their wages in order that they may conscientiously refuse to pay for war preparations. These employees will be treated similarly to the way General Conference treats ordained ministers, i.e. as self-employed persons, in that their earnings will be reported to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, but no federal income tax withheld.
2. We request that the Conference of Mennonites in Canada consider means to obtain relief from Revenue Canada withholding requirements as these apply to General Conference Mennonite Church employees.
3. We shall inform the U.S. government of this act of conscientious objection to their withholding requirements. We shall again urge them to provide exemption from these requirements and exemption for people of peacemaking conscience from military use of their tax money.

At this moment of decision we commit ourselves to surround with our prayers the General Conference staff and government officials who will be involved in this action and all those individuals who refuse in conscience to pay taxes for war preparations, however costly their witness may be.

To cut to the chase: “The resolution was discussed in a vigorous and orderly fashion. The arguments for and against were scarcely new ones. After an hour’s debate, the resolution was brought to a ballot vote and passed by approximately a 70-percent majority.”

A more extensive report on the triennial put it this way:

Jim Gingerich of Moundridge, Kan., chairperson of the conference’s judicial action committee, reported that the suit against the IRS approved at Estes Park was, in the opinion of constitutional lawyer William Ball, almost certain to fail. Little progress was being made on the legislative or administrative fronts either. In light of this, the General Board was recommending that the conference honor the consciences of its employees who request that their full salaries be paid to them, allowing the employees themselves to remit to the IRS what their consciences would allow.

After Robert Hull, secretary for peace and justice, had reviewed the experiences of other groups which had attempted similar actions, Duane Heffelbower of Reedley, Calif., outlined the points of the resolution in detail and spoke of their possible ramifications. “We could scarcely devise a softer velvet glove to cast at the feet of the IRS,” he said. “But the action does show our corporate willingness to stand beside our employees. What will the government do? We don’t know.”

What followed was probably the most vigorous interchange of viewpoints by GC delegates of the entire week. Nearly two dozen speakers took their turns at the mikes before the vote was called for. Viewpoints on the resolution ran the gamut from disassociation with it to praising God for it.

“We believe that the Bible says we ought to pay our taxes. We want to be separated from and not have any part of this action,” said Paul Goossen, Wayland, Iowa.

“This resolution is creating an impossible situation for our government,” added John Voth of Meno, Okla. “We have emphasized that we love our enemy. I wonder whether the government has become our enemy. Have we adopted the same big-stick approach that we so often have criticized?”

Others, however, urged the conference to push ahead with the proposed action. “Mennonites took a stand against slavery even though it was unpopular,” said Mark Winslow, Allentown, Pa. “Today, the nuclear arms race is the primary social sin of our day. We should take a stand regardless of the fact that it may be unpopular.”

Lois Barrett, Wichita, Kan., observed that “in the U.S., disobeying the law is the time-honored way of changing the law,” noting that the cause of civil rights in the 1960s was advanced primarily through civil disobedience.

H.A. Fast of North Newton, Kan., prompted the only round of applause during the lengthy discussion. “We refuse our selves in service, but we say nothing about our taxes,” Fast said. “I have said to the government, ‘You can’t take my body to fight a war.’ I have said, ‘You can’t take my son.’ And now I am saying, ‘You can’t take my money, either.’ ”

When it was over and the ballots counted, the resolution passed by a 70 percent majority. [1,128 to 457]

One of the characteristic features of the discussion on tax withholding, as well as other debates during the week, was the sensitivity and willingness to listen with which delegates approached the microphones. Several told of how they had come to the convention ready to vote one way, but were now moved to vote another. Phrases such as “I want to respect your point of view…” or “I’m willing to learn more…” preceded many of the speeches. And the tough debates of Bethlehem, during which emotions ran high and convictions deep, never seemed to overshadow the determination by participants to celebrate their common identity, their peoplehood, their unity. After the convention, many attributed that prevailing unity to the moving of the Spirit.

Delegates at the conference were treated to a performance of The Plow and the Sword, a musical about American Mennonites during the Revolutionary War who disputed whether or not it was proper to pay taxes to the rebellious Continental Congress. “The play’s content was powerfully pertinent to the delegates meeting at Bethlehem who discussed present-day responses to war taxes.”

The Conference’s test cases began in September:

Non-withholding tax action begins, seven make request

Acting on the basis of a resolution adopted by General Conference delegates at Bethlehem ’83, conference treasurer Ted W. Stuckey on Sept. 22 issued the first paychecks on which federal income taxes were not withheld.

Seven employees of the denomination’s central offices made the request that the taxes not be withheld, so that they can remit to the IRS personally the amount of federal taxes their consciences will allow, given the U.S. government’s high rate of military spending.

Those making the request were Robert Hull, secretary for peace and justice; Lynn Keenan, Mennonite Voluntary Service associate director; Paula Diller Lehman, secretary for youth education; Fred Loganbill, assistant for peace and justice; John Sommer, overseas personnel secretary; Meribeth Sprunger, secretary for mission communications; and Elizabeth Yoder, general editor. Several others have indicated that they may be willing to take part in the action at a later date.

Stuckey said that, beginning with the September paychecks, the seven will have state and social security taxes deducted but be treated like self-employed persons as far as federal income taxes are concerned. Under such a classification, they would be required to submit quarterly estimated tax payments to the IRS.

The seven plan to make a portion of those quarterly payments but put the balance — the amount they feel they cannot voluntarily pay because of high U.S. military spending — into a special account at General Conference central offices.

Stuckey and general secretary Vern Preheim informed Commissioner Roscoe L. Egger, Jr., at IRS headquarters in Washington by letter of the conference’s action, the motivation of employees for requesting the procedure, the reasons for the church’s granting the requests, the identities of the seven employees and the location of the account to which the IRS may initiate collection procedures. “We’re trying to be completely open and above board with them about this matter,” he said. Copies of the letter were also sent to IRS offices in Wichita, Kan., and Austin, Texas, as well as to state and federal legislators.

The September pay period is the first opportunity for the conference to implement the “Resolution on Faithful Action Toward Tax Withholding” adopted by delegates to a churchwide convention in Bethlehem, Pa., on Aug. 2. There, conferees voted 1,128 to 457 to “authorize the conference officers to test the constitutionality of the withholding requirements in the United States and to assert the higher claim of Christ’s law of love, by refusing to serve as tax collectors in cases where individual employees have asked that their federal income taxes not be withheld from their wages, in order that they may conscientiously refuse to pay for war preparations.[”]

Miscellany

A note in the 4 January 1983 edition mentioned that the Historic Peace Church Task Force on Taxes had decided to go all-in on the World Peace Tax Fund bill, promoting “dunamis groups which approach congresspersons in a spirit of compassion rather than confrontation… to obtain a dozen more co-sponsors for the WPTF bill in the coming year.”

The 15 February edition noted that “MCC U.S. Peace Section has put together a War Tax Packet, designed to equip individuals and groups with a variety of resources for study on the question of paying taxes for war. Cost is $2.”

The 1 March edition included a profile of Cornelia “Nellie” Lehn, whose war tax resistance became the focus for much of the debate that overtook the General Conference Mennonite Church. It summarized this as follows:

Nellie was… dealing personally with the perplexing issue of war taxes. She liked to read Bible verses that say to pay your taxes, but began to wonder why she did not concentrate equally on those saying to love your enemies and put your sword away.

Finally she felt she could not pay that part of her taxes going to war purposes and asked the General Conference office not to withhold any of her salary for taxes. “The time comes when you have to cut through all the complexity and be obedient,” she says, reminiscent of her stand earlier in life.

At the 1977 triennium she stated her views. The conference continues to work on this issue even today.

I’m surprised I haven’t come across this amusing example of war tax resistance outreach before:

Mennonites in Harrisonburg, Va., gathered on Good Friday (April 1) to attach over $300 to about 75 helium-filled balloons. Each balloon, in addition to a five- or ten-dollar bill, carried a note from a participant explaining why he or she had withheld the money from current income taxes. “Because we are Christians who are trying to follow the peaceful way of Jesus, we cannot support this country’s military build-up,” said many of the notes. “Instead, we have chosen to ‘waste’ our money in a more constructive way.” Participants read Scripture, sang, danced, prayed, confessed their sins, and clowns passed out jelly beans as the balloons rose.

The shift of focus to “Peace Tax Fund” legislation would aggravate a decline in interest in real war tax resistance in the General Conference Mennonite Church that continues to the present day. Clearly, some Mennonites perceived this danger, as Robert Hull wrote an article to defend the push for such a law:

Is “peace tax” just a diversion of energies?

An argument by some war tax resisters is that any peace tax fund is a means for conscientious objectors to salve their conscience with regard to diverting their own taxes, and that this provision then will encourage such COs to be quiet and passively accept the warmaking of governments which will continue more efficiently without their dissent.

When I have explored this argument, I almost invariably discover that the war tax resister speaking is drawing upon an analogy made with the 20^th-century U.S./Canadian history of conscientious objection to military service.

The Civilian Public Service camps of World War Ⅱ by and large had this “quietistic” effect. However, it should be noted that the provision for COs in World War Ⅱ came about because the government remembered the difficulties it had encountered with historic peace church resisters in World War Ⅰ. Similar spokespersons on the eve of World War Ⅱ stated their convictions to “draw the line” again if acceptable provisions were not made.

But even during World War Ⅱ, the legal criteria for CO classification in the United States were broadened by the Supreme Court to include all religious objectors, then during the Vietnam War to include people holding a belief equivalent to that in a Supreme Being (Seeger, 1965), and later to all people morally, ethically or religiously opposed to all war (Welsh, 1970). In the draft registration debate in 1980–81, projections by the Selective Service of future CO claimants extended to 40 percent of all registrants. It seems reasonable to conclude that at least one cause for this large increase in the potential CO population is a result of the public visibility of thousands of young men performing alternative service during the Vietnam War.

The recent response of the U.S. Selective Service to its own projections has been to develop plans for CO alternative service which seek to once more “contain” the CO visibility by centralizing the program under direct Selective Service administration in order to meet military mobilization priorities. This policy is in turn quite likely to produce non-cooperators who will have registered but then find that such an alternative service program is unacceptable to their conscience. A significant number of such non-cooperators would increase the already more than 500,000 draft-eligible young men who have not registered.

Twentieth-century CO history has lodged anomalous laws within the government structures. That is, if these laws are interpreted by relatively tolerant regulations, the CO population may grow uncontrollably large; if the laws are interpreted by repressive regulations, the number of non-cooperators may grow uncontrollably.

Now let’s pursue this analogy with regard to peace tax legislation and war tax resistance. I am convinced that Parliament or Congress will never enact peace tax legislation until the war tax resistance movement grows so large that such laws come to be viewed as an expedient accommodation, as Civilian Public Service was viewed on the eve of World War Ⅱ.

But several differences between the two are significant. Bear in mind that peace tax legislation provides for the taxpayer to claim he or she is a CO and that the burden of the challenge and rebuttal lies upon the government. Additionally, peace tax legislation’s provision for income tax forms and information materials to describe the military proportion of the federal budget in some detail will ensure that a far greater percentage of the taxpayers become aware of the peace tax alternative than the percentage of draft-age men who were made aware by the government of the CO alternative from World War Ⅱ through Vietnam. Finally, the peace tax legislation provides for the diversion of CO taxpayers’ “military taxes” into a trust fund. This is intended to result in a direct drain out of the general treasury available for war preparations.

Thus the peace tax legislation further raises people’s consciousness. If peace trust funds in the United States and Canada are administered as the legislation intends, many millions of people will choose to support peacemaking alternatives to conflict rather than supporting warmaking preparations, and a “democracy of defense” may develop: those who rely on military weapons can pay for them without coercing the contributions of those who place their reliance upon other alternatives.

If the CO eligibility criteria are interpreted too restrictively, or inaccurate portrayals of the military proportion of the federal budget are published, or CO taxpayers’ funds are demonstrably rechanneled into the warmaking treasury, then increased numbers of informed citizens may respond with direct tax resistance.

The government will thus have on its hands another significant anomalous law, one by which millions of citizens can measure the government’s tendency to override their democratic rights in its clearing of the path toward war.

This then is the educational strategy behind the peace tax effort as I see it. The legislation will reach millions of people with the message that there are alternatives to paying for the war system. It will provide a step which millions of citizens can take, and whose aggregate pressure for peacemaking will be enormous, without overwhelming risk to the individual taxpayer. After all, it is at least in part the risk involved in war tax refusal which keeps it an infinitesimally small protest movement in the total population.

I hope that thousands of active peacemakers will heed the call to war tax refusal and that the pressure for peace upon the warmaking tendencies of government will grow. As it does, I believe it will prove disastrous if the peacemaking community has no legislative proposal to put forward which will secure as much of the “democracy of defense” goal as possible, and to which the government can turn as an accommodation.

The 2 August 1983 edition reported on the annual conference of the Church of the Brethren (Anabaptist cousins of the Mennonites). Among the notes:

The Church of the Brethren has long supported members who conscientiously object to the payment of war taxes. Some members wish to refuse to pay taxes but are unable to because the taxes are withheld by their employers. The delegates approved a paper that gives guidance to church institutions whose employees request, for reason of conscience, that their taxes not be withheld. The annual conference recommended that all legal possibilities be explored first but affirmed civil disobedience for both individuals and institutions when it is a matter of conscience.

This news comes from the 27 September 1983 edition:

A United Methodist congregation in New Haven, Conn., backing their pastor’s right to refuse paying federal taxes for military use, has declined to turn over his salary to the Internal Revenue Service. Carl Lundbord [sic], pastor of First and Summerfield United Methodist Church, has withheld federal income taxes in both 1981 and 1982, telling the IRS his “obligations as a Christian and as a citizen are no longer reconcilable. The 50 percent of my taxes that support the military I cannot pay.” IRS ordered the church to withhold the pastor’s salary until the amount was paid. But church members voted on July 10 to reject IRS’s demand.

An article in the 16 August 1983 edition:

“War tax” dilemma continues for many U.S. taxpayers

Our ancestors migrated to the United States so that they would not be forced to participate in European wars. Eventually this government respected their deeply held beliefs about peacemaking and granted them the right to register as conscientious objectors.

Today we find ourselves in a technological age in which our money is more useful to the military than our bodies. So we are being forced by law to participate financially in the preparation for war, which violates the biblical command to love our neighbors as ourselves. When Caesar’s demands conflict with God’s, we cannot blindly obey our government.

These words from John S. and Sara L. Wengerd’s April 14 letter to the Internal Revenue Service echo the convictions of nearly 60 individuals and families who chose to contribute to Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Peace Section in lieu of paying a portion of their income taxes that would have been used for military purposes.

For some, the contribution was a symbolic amount, such as $7.77. For others, it equaled the 36 to 54 percent of their tax dollars that would have financed military activity. That portion is commonly referred to as a “military tax” or a “war tax.” In another case, a couple’s taxes had already been withheld by the Internal Revenue Service, so they donated an amount equal to their military taxes, which they had already paid.

In all cases, these individuals felt that silent compliance with the tax collection process would be a violation of their consciences and religious convictions against killing and participating in war in any way. Many noted that their dilemma of conscience could be ameliorated by passage of the World Peace Tax Fund (WPTF) Act…

Meanwhile, the federal government is attempting to crack down on various types of tax protests. People who object to paying taxes for military purposes may face stiff penalties designed to deter those trying to evade tax collection or destroy the tax system.

The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 instituted an automatic $500 penalty for individuals filing “frivolous” tax returns. The penalty can apply to people who take unallowable deductions, credits or exemptions or give incomplete information on their tax returns.

Those taking “war tax” deductions or credits or claiming an excessive number of exemptions to reduce their tax liability could be subject to the new fine. Several conscientious military tax resisters have received notices from the Internal Revenue Service that the penalty has been imposed, according to the May–June issue of Center Peace, the news journal of the Center on Law and Pacifism.

Robert Hull, peace and justice secretary for the General Conference Mennonite Church, suggests that conscientious objectors to military taxation take steps to distinguish their non-payment of military taxes from secular tax protests and evasion schemes. If taxpayers correctly compute and report the amount owed and indicate in an attached letter that they cannot with a clear conscience pay the military-related portion, their tax returns will go directly to the Internal Revenue Service Collection Division instead of to the overloaded Audit Division.

Hull suggests that this action be accompanied with letters to legislators to communicate the religious and moral grounds for such action, and to demonstrate the need for remedial legislation such as the World Peace Tax Fund.

Bill Samuel, member of the WPTF steering committee, suggests that taxpayers write a contract on the back of their check to IRS stating that deposit of the check constitutes a legally binding agreement (contract) that the money will not be used for military purposes. Courts have held that contractual checks involving private parties are legally binding, but it is uncertain whether or not IRS would abide by the contract.

A 27 September 1983 article profiled Canadian war tax resister John R. Dyck. Excerpts:

Tax with­hold­ing is also a Can­a­di­an issue

All his life, John R. Dyck of Rosthern, Sask., has been a law-abiding citizen. He’s never been to court. But he expects that to change when Revenue Canada catches up with him for non-payment of taxes.

Dyck is one of a small but growing band of Canadians who are refusing to pay the portion of their income taxes they feel is designated for the military. Instead, they are calling for an alternative “peace tax fund” which would use their tax money for peaceful purposes.

Since that alternative does not exist and Dyck withheld 10.5 percent of his taxes for 1981 and for 1982, he expects a court order to arrive eventually.

John R. Dyck is not a young radical defying authority. Officially he is retired (though not willingly or inactively) and has given the better part of the past two decades to service with the Mennonite Central Committee, Mennonite Foundation and the MCC Food Bank. A sudden stroke forced him to slow down over a year ago, but he has recovered and calls it “a real miracle.” Now he can go on serving, and he places military tax resistance in that category.

The decision did not come easily or hastily. “I don’t know where it (a conviction) began,” he commented during an interview at this year’s annual meeting of MCC Canada in Saskatoon. He had come to listen to the discussion and spend time with his brother and fellow peace-seeker, Peter J. He remembers that “Cornelia Lehn made us sit up and think” in the late 1970s.

John began with his 1979 tax return, filed while the Dycks were in Jordan under MCC and able to observe firsthand the effects of military exploitation. He sent two checks to Revenue Canada, asking that the smaller one be used only for peaceful development work. He heard nothing further and assumed that both checks flowed into government coffers.

Along with his 1980 tax return he sent only a letter of concern. But with his 1981 return he again enclosed two checks, one for Revenue Canada and a second made out to the Peace Tax Fund. Revenue Canada replied that such a fund did not exist (legally) and demanded payment in full. Dyck then sent the check to the Victoria, B.C.-based Peace Tax Fund and began correspondence with government officials to explain why. “I want to do things correctly and openly,” he says.

Now Dyck is expecting a day in court. It is bound to come, since Revenue Canada wants his money and must obtain a court order before garnisheeing his account at the Rosthern Credit Union. The sooner the better, he adds, since it may help establish a right of conscience that would allow other people to divert their hard-earned tax money from bombs to working for peace. He also hopes to find a sympathetic lawyer to handle the case.

“I think a lot of people would rather not talk to me about it,” he says, summing up the reaction to his protest. So far, any criticism has been muted, though one friend told him, “I admire you for it, but you’re wrong.” Paula, his wife, is supportive, but most fellow members at Rosthern Mennonite Church are either uninformed or indifferent.

John R. Dyck firmly believes, “We don’t need the military.” The threat of nuclear war hanging over the world means Christians must resist militarism with renewed vigor. “I see this (nuclear holocaust) coming and we’re accountable. The handwriting is on the wall.”

Dyck adds that there is a growing network of people asking about the peace tax fund, though the actual number withholding taxes is still small. (Ernie Hildebrand, a teacher at the Swift Current (Sask.) Bible Institute, is another Mennonite who is doing so.) “But people must think this through carefully,” Dyck concludes. “You can’t legislate a thing like this… I’m glad the Lord led us to this position.”

As the General Conference pushed ahead with its support of war tax resisting employees, with the blessing of the majority of conferees, the U.S. “Peace Section” seemed more reluctant to take a stand, at its November meeting. From the 6 December 1983 edition:

While agreeing that the church has an important role to play in saying no to preparations for [nuclear war], the members struggled with the place of military tax resistance as a method of saying no.

Several members observed that the constituency is “not of one mind on this matter,” while Darrel Brubaker of Philadelphia, Brethren in Christ representative, urged that “here is one place we need to be leaders more than representatives.”

After the matter was tabled overnight for further reflection, the group affirmed a recommendation commending the General Conference for the serious attention it has given the issue and urging churches to work more diligently at the process of prayerful discernment of their response to this issue.

The resolution also strongly encouraged constituents to initiate further action in support of the World Peace Tax Fund bill, which would provide a legal alternative to the payment of taxes for military purposes.

War tax resister Don Schrader wrote in on 12 December to insist that Mennonites can best criticize revolutionary and other violence if they are careful not to support violence with their taxes:

Until our nonviolence becomes revolutionary, revolutions will be violent.

[A]s long as well-fed U.S. pacifists pay war taxes to support the imminent nuclear terror and mass murder of our planet and the dictatorial repression of Central America, what integrity do we have in questioning or condemning those peasants’ use of violence for survival.

To be peacemakers in this perilous age, we must refuse to pay war taxes, we must renounce all materialism which breeds militarism, and we must denounce foreign policy regardless of the risks for our community standing and employment.

Over four years ago I confronted the question “How can I speak for peace and pay for war,” and I became a war tax resister.

This is the thirty-first in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of The Mennonite. Today we reach 1984.

The magazine helpfully summed up the current state of war tax resistance, particularly among American Christians, in its 14 February 1984 edition:

Military taxes: a continuing agenda in 1984

“Were you able in 1983 to find the resources to support religious, charitable and peace efforts equal to the taxes you were required to pay for the military establishment?” The Friends Committee on National Legislation uses this question to encourage people to examine the consistency of their peace witness while filling out income tax forms.

In 1983 current military expenditures consumed 33 percent of federal appropriations, or 46 percent if the cost of past wars (interest on the national debt and veterans programs) is included, reports Delton Franz of Mennonite Central Committee Peace Section Washington Office.

During the fall of 1983 each Monthly Meeting (similar to an individual congregation) in the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (similar to a conference body) was asked to examine this question: Is the voluntary payment of war taxes consistent with the Quaker peace testimony? When the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting convenes its annual session in 1984, this question will be on the agenda.

Concern about “war taxes” is reaching beyond the traditional peace churches. The United Church of Christ and the United Methodist Church have adopted statements of support for members who conscientiously oppose payment of taxes for military purposes. The United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. has initiated a churchwide study on war tax resistance.

While the religious community in the United States has moved toward greater support for conscientious objection to paying taxes for military purposes, the Internal Revenue Service has beefed up its efforts to penalize tax “protests” of all kinds. An estimated 4,700 taxpayers were fined $500 each during the first eight months of 1983 for expressing their religious, moral or political views on their income tax forms. Congress enacted this automatic $500 fine as a provision of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. The Internal Revenue Service began enforcing the penalty soon after its passage by Congress.

At least 30 people, including those of Mennonite, Quaker, Catholic and other religious backgrounds, are challenging the constitutionality of this regulation in court. Lawyers believe that the penalty violates freedom of speech and that the expression of religious convictions on income tax forms is not “frivolous.” Courts are expected to issue summary judgments (decision made by a judge only, no jury) in a number of cases in the coming year.

Internal Revenue Service officials invited Mennonite representatives to meet with them in mid-December to discuss the application of the penalty for “frivolous” returns. IRS officials told U.S. Peace Section staff that the penalty is a processing penalty, designed to protect the efficiency of processing millions of tax returns. People who have filled their tax forms out correctly and have simply not paid the full amount of taxes owed are not subject to this penalty. However, taking a “war tax” credit or deduction or writing other comments on the tax form itself can result in a penalty.

The IRS officials agreed that the World Peace Tax Fund bill would be a solution if it were enacted. Abatement of the penalties already imposed is highly unlikely, but senators who helped formulate the legislation remain concerned about its application against Mennonites and Quakers in particular.

The Fellowship of Reconciliation group in North Manchester, Ind., has organized a Tax Resister’s Penalty Fund to ease the financial burden on conscientious tax resisters. People can submit a request for financial assistance to cover interest and penalty charges resulting from not paying military tax.

If the request is approved, an appeal letter is sent to all people who have expressed interest in contributing to the fund. In this way, the cost of a $500 penalty could be distributed among 200 people if each paid only $2.50. In August 1983, 250 people were on the Tax Resister’s Penalty Fund mailing list.

In 1981 MCC U.S. Peace Section approved guidelines for a “War Tax Witness Relief Fund.” This fund was established to provide financial assistance to people within the MCC constituency who face hardship from court cases resulting from a war tax witness.

People in financial straits because they contributed the military portion of their taxes to a charitable organization and then had to face an IRS levy, property seizure, or garnishment of wages would also be eligible for assistance.

To date, no money has been budgeted for the U.S. Peace Section War Tax Witness Relief Fund and the existence of the fund has not been publicized. U.S. Peace Section, however, will consider aiding those who are unable to acquire assistance from their congregation or conference.

U.S. Peace Section continues to accept contributions of redirected telephone and federal income tax money to its “Taxes for Peace” fund. Donations to this fund have supported special projects and the ongoing work of U.S. Peace Section.

War tax resistance had apparently also reached the Netherlands:

“The payment of taxes in the service of our common life is a necessary and a good thing. It is therefore unusual and inappropriate to refuse tax payment,” begins a declaration printed in several national daily newspapers in the Netherlands on April 3 and signed by 69 Amsterdam area ministers, including at least seven Mennonites. The statement, pointing out the Dutch government’s agreement to place nuclear weapons in the Netherlands, goes on to say, “In this critical phase we consider tax objection as a necessary means of protest. We wish tax monies no longer to be misused to continue along this dead-end road.”

The 10 April 1984 edition brought readers up to date on the story of John Dyck, a Canadian war tax resister whose story had been introduced the previous year:

He pays for war tax resistance

Like the rest of us, John R. Dyck of Rosthern, Sask., files his tax return.

But unlike most of us, he sends Revenue Canada a check for only 90 percent of his unpaid taxes. And he includes a letter informing the Canadian government that, for reasons of conscience, a check for the balance has been sent to the Peace Tax Fund in Victoria, B.C. The second check represents the estimated portion of Canadian taxes designated for the military.

This is the fifth year in a row that John and Paula Dyck quietly insisted on not having their taxes spent on bombs and guns. They believe that Christian non-resistance means more than simply refusing to fight in a war. It also means not paying others to arm and fight for you.

A small but growing number of Canadians are sending a portion of their taxes to be held in trust by the Peace Tax Fund. They are hoping that the Canadian government will recognize their conscientious objection to military taxes and provide an alternative.

As a retired pensioner, Dyck must calculate the taxes he owes and forward that amount with his income tax return. Every year he checks with Ernie Regehr at Project Ploughshares (a peace research group) on the exact percentage of Canada’s budget that goes to the Department of National Defense. Last year it was 10.5 percent. He subtracts the military percentage and encloses a letter informing Revenue Canada of his actions, his reasons and the number of his account at the Rosthern Credit Union.

“I tell them, ‘If you want it, take it.’ But I won’t send it myself.”

Consequences. Last year Dyck found out the hard way what happens when the government wants to collect unpaid taxes. He says he was prepared to accept the consequences of his actions, but not for the ruthless, impersonal way Revenue Canada operates.

One day the Credit Union manager showed him an official letter that had arrived that morning garnisheeing his account. His personal notice of the action did not arrive until a week later. And even though the credit union account held sufficient funds, a second bank account in Saskatoon was also garnisheed. Then, without notice, his two pension checks stopped coming.

The government ended up with $360 more than was due and Dyck has not heard from them since. Presumably his “credit” at Revenue Canada will be used to cover the taxes he won’t pay for 1983.

When Dyck visited the Revenue Canada office in Saskatoon to ask why he had not received a notice about the diversion of his pension checks, he was treated rudely. “The man used some pretty rough language. He gave me the impression that he would walk over anyone to get the money.”

Although he can recall the money in the Peace Tax Fund trust account if he wishes, he would prefer to have that money used in a hoped-for court challenge, based on the new Canadian Charter of Rights. “On principle, I don’t mind paying twice,” he says.

The Conscience Canada organization, an outgrowth of the Peace Tax Fund Committee, expects such a challenge to cost at least $50,000.

Dyck himself is not inclined to get involved in a court case. He has had trouble finding a lawyer who is sympathetic. Besides, “the court route should be taken by some organization that has enough money and can do it right.”

What is Caesar due? John R. Dyck is not a man to get up on a soapbox and trumpet his cause. But the word gets around. There are Mennonites in his hometown who don’t agree with him and others who ignore him.

His pastor chooses his words carefully when talking about the subject. “I don’t suppose he has a great deal of support in the church; people feel we should obey the government.”

Dyck is now 70 years old. When asked why he has taken such a stand when others rest in quiet retirement, he begins to talk about a lifetime spent in church-related service, of the example of his parents, about the books he has read and the years spent overseas with Mennonite Central Committee in Paraguay, India, Korea and Jordan, where he observed the effect of Western militarism. “They all left their mark on me.” He is committed to a vigorous, active faith based on a personal experience of God’s salvation and presence.

John doesn’t mind if people disagree with his stand. “I don’t have any corner on the truth. I know what it is for me at this moment. A person should stay true to one’s convictions.”

About his critics he adds, “People say, ‘What do you think you’re doing?’ I know that. I have no illusions that anyone in Ottawa is listening — at the moment. It has to start small, and I want to support this movement.”

But aren’t we supposed to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s?

“Sure. But does Caesar deserve all he asks for?”

A 2 May 1984 letter to Revenue Canada from Annie Janzen of Victoria, B.C., indicated that she was joining John Dyck in his protest. “I object on conscientious grounds to my taxes being used for war purposes… I have sent 12.2 percent (of income tax owed to Revenue Canada) of the net federal tax payable to Conscience Canada.”

The following brief note appeared in the 24 April 1984 edition:

“Form 1040 is the place where the Pentagon enters all our lives and asks un­think­ing co­op­er­a­tion with the idol of nu­cle­ar de­struc­tion. I think the teach­ing of Jesus tells us to rend­er to a nu­cle­ar-armed Caesar what that Caesar de­serves: tax re­sis­tance.” These are the words of Seat­tle Arch­bishop Ray­mond Hunt­hausen (right), who two years ago de­ci­ded to with­hold half of his fed­er­al in­come tax and there­by helped launch a re­li­gious “war tax” re­sis­tance move­ment that is grow­ing rapidly. According to the Internal Revenue Service, war tax resistance has increased nearly fivefold in the last three years. War tax resistance groups say that actual numbers are higher, that IRS tabulations miss many people, including those who simply don’t file or who don’t specify reasons for underpaying.

An article on the Church of the Brethren Annual Conference noted that it had “appointed a committee to study and recommend how Brethren should respond to the dilemma of paying for war through taxes.” And another note said that the Lutheran Peace Fellowship “issued a strong call to tax resistance by American Christians. LPF calls its action ‘a witness of faith against the false lordship of nuclear weapons and other instruments of mass destruction.’ ”

The 6 November 1984 edition gave an update on the Mennonite General Conference’s decision to stop withholding taxes from the paychecks of some war tax resisting employees. There wasn’t much new to report, except that the number of such employees had dropped from seven to five (“with some changes in personnel”).

In the 20 November 1984 edition, Donald E. Martin wrote about “sponsoring” children from war-torn areas, and noted that doing so “helped to cut down the amount of money we spent on ourselves and the amount of taxes we paid toward paying for war.”

There were also several passing mentions of war tax resistance here and there that I didn’t think were worth excerpting here.

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.