My Prolife Tax Strike Is Moral Justified
This is the question which all Prolife Tax Strikers and/or Christian clerics need to ask themselves in order to fullfill James 2: 14-17 and be heroically able to respond as Peter and the Apostles did by saying this: "We don't obey men, rather we obey God". Acts 5: 29.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
For over thirty (30) years now, the Federal and State governments fund abortion, contraception and sterilization through employee group health insurance ["GHI'], legitimizing the same for non-governmental employers as well, besides granting tax-exempt or tax-free status to entities who sponsor, or are associated in any way with, the above religiously offensive practices in question. Moreover, doing so is imminent to continue, regardlless of who is in the executive, legislative or judicial branch of government as a matter of law. Yet even assuming arguendo doing so stopped for a period of time due to political forces, which is not now foreseable, nevetheless, as a matter of principle, all taxpayers would have to accept the lawfulness of abortion, contraception and sterilization. On the other hand, morally speaking, as I mentioned elsewhere previously, Pope John Paul II made the following clear by declaring this: "[par. #74]...In order to shed light on this difficult question, it is necessary to recall the general principles concerning cooperation in evil actions. Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it. Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs; no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God himself (cf. Rom. 2:6; 14:1). To refuse to take part in committing an injustice is not only a moral duty; it is also a basic human right;...[par. #87]... our support of human life... must be accomplished through ... personal witness ... and political commitment [emphasis, added]...(Jas. 2:14-17)" in his Evangelium Vitae. Moreover, years beforehand, on November 18, 1974, Pope Paul VI declared this: "[par. #22] It must in any case be clearly understood that a Christian can never conform to a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity (that is, lawfulness, added) of abortion..." in his Declaration on Procured Abortion. It is written that "Faith without works is meaningless." James 2: 14-26. Finally, I repeat my Letter to Prospective Prolife Tax Strikers for Biblical references thereto so I need not repeat them again here.
ARGUMENT: From another perspective, the topic question above can be stated, as follows: Is it morally and/or lawful to pay taxes to today's government? First of all, Jesus never legitimized taxes per se, but rather divided the answer into two purposes for its justification, as follows: "Then Jesus told them, 'Give the Emperor what belongs to him and give God what belongs to God.'" Matthew 22: 21. As Christians we are called to do whatever Jesus would have done under the circumstances. This article deals mainly in moral arguments, whreas my book the legal as well.
Do you doubt that paying taxes coerces you to formally coopercate with evil? As stated above, again, Pope Paul VI declared this: "[par. #22] It must in any case be clearly understood that a Christian can never conform to a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity (that is, lawfulness, added) of abortion...", according to his Declaration on Procured Abortion. Here, does the Holy Father mean that "to pay taxes" is equivalent to "conform to a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity (that is, lawfulness, added) of abortion...", Id. Did Pope John Paul II imply that all Christians must join my Prolife Tax Strike as a matter of Christian Faith by declaring this: "Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it," at par. #73 in Evangelium Vitae, as mentioned above. [Return if you wish to Prolife Tax Strike and/or Breaking The Law To Achieve Justice For The Unborn by clicking, thereon]
FEEDBACK - PROLIFERS' ARGUMENTS AGAINST MY PROLIFE TAX STRIKE:
After I emailed her my 4 page PROLIFE TAX STRIKE ["PTS"] article, Karen emailed back: "I have to pay taxes because I can't afford to lose my properties or afford to be jailed for disobedience." In response, I wrote her the Letter to a proposed Prolife Tax Striker, addressing Karen's concerns just raised above. Yet actually that is what I am convinced I accomplished in the first place by writing that article on the web for free at prolifetaxstrike.blogspot.com, i.e., my article "Prolife Tax Strike", and this letter to a proposed Prolife Tax Striker, also on the web for free at: unbornjustice.blogspot.com, titled, "Breaking The Law To Achieve Justice For The Unborn". But then again that article addressed more the legal matters whereas the Lettter addressed more the moral matters, most of which I did not include in my book titled "HOW ABORTION WILL BECOME UNCONSTITUTIONAL - The Complete Guide For Prolife Activists" [copyrighted in 2004] (Send a self-addressed U. S. Post Office Priority Mail label, a $125.00 donation plus $6.00 S & H fee per copy requested to me Lawrence R. Rosano, P. O. Box 579, Franklin Square, New York 11010). For convenience sake, in fact, in order to email this above mentioned article and Letter for free to other proposed Prolife Tax Strikers with your own personal note attached, just click the arrow at the end of my article and/or Letter to start a Prolife Tax Striker chain.
On Wednesday, October 5, 2005, after sending Karen my Prolife Tax Strike article, and subsequently my Letter to a proposed Prolife Tax Striker, I sent both those emails to another Prolifer by the name of Rosemary who answered this:
Here is the answer. During the trial of Jesus before Pilate one of the lies used in accusation against him by His enemies was: "He opposes the payment of taxes by the people." Clearly He, though He did not owe any taxes He told Peter to catch a fish, open its mouth and in it were two coins, one for Him and one for Peter. That clearly states, that even though the government is oppressive and doing all sorts of bad things with our taxes (tax collectors were the most hated of people by the Jews as we know from Matthew), He still paid them and had Peter do so likewise. Your argument is deeply flawed. The lying witness and Our Lord's silence in rebuttal shows this. God bless you.
On Thursday, October 6, 2005, I sent my rebuttal by email, as follows:
As a background, in response to my article at prolifetaxstrike.blogspot.com titled “Prolife Tax Strike” and my Letter to a propopsed Prolife Tax Striker at unbornjustice.blogspot.com titled "Breaking The Law To Achieve Justice For The Unborn", consequently you rebutted my arguments for my calling a Prolife Tax Strike by email recited, above. In your rebuttal, Rosemary, all your arguments are flawed, although you brought up a few good arguments which I will address to you in this email. First of all, the Bible verse you raised is, as follows:
THE TEMPLE TAX
" When they had come to Capernaum, those who collected the didrachma coins came to Peter, and said, "Doesn't your teacher pay the didrachma?"  He said, "Yes." When he came into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth receive toll or tribute? From their children, or from strangers?"  Peter said to him, "From strangers." Jesus said to him, "Therefore the children are exempt.  But, lest we cause them to stumble, go to the sea, cast a hook, and take up the first fish that comes up. When you have opened its mouth, you will find a stater coin. Take that, and give it to them for me and you." Matthew 17:24-27.
Rosemary, here, there is a distinction between the “Temple" Tax just mentioned at Matthew 17: 24-27 and the "Tax" in Matthew 22: 15-22 which refers to “Taxes” for the Emperor or Caesar. But, before I get into that, first of all, you even misunderstood what Jesus said when you alleged “Clearly He, though He did not owe any taxes, He told Peter to catch a fish,....” In rebuttal, from Matthew 17: 24-25 above, note this: " .... those who collected the didrachma coins came to Peter, and said, 'Doesn't your teacher pay the didrachma?'  He said, 'Yes.'" Consequently, Rosemary, Jesus regularly paid the temple tax. Jesus mentioned his reason for doing so was this: “But lest we cause them to stumble", Matthew 17: 27. Yet, beforehand, he challenged the very rationale for “His” paying the "Temple" taxes, i.e., presumably the same rationale used by “kings of this earth”, on the basis of who should be taxed at Matthew 17: 25-26, not on what the money was used for. Get the point? On the other hand, however, Matthew at 22: 17-22 points out what Jesus’ teaching is on what the money is used for as criteria to answer “Whether Jews should pay it or not?” as follows:
GIVE TO THE EMPEROR WHAT BELONGS TO THE EMPEROR
“(17) ... Tell us what you think! Should we pay taxes to the Emperor or not?’ (18) Jesus knew their evil thoughts and said, ‘Why are you trying to test me? You show-offs! (19) Let me see one of the coins used for paying taxes.’ They brought him a silver coin, (20) and he asked, ‘Whose picture and name are on it?’ (21) ‘The Emperor’s’ they answered. Then, Jesus told them, ‘Give the Emperor what belongs to him and give God what belongs to God.’ (22) His answer surprised them so much that they walked away.”
ANALYSIS: Rosemary, you argued that Jesus did pay the tax, disguising the temple tax, as the tax for the Emperor since you stated “even though the government is oppressive and doing all sorts of bad things with our taxes (tax collectors were the most hated of people by the Jews as we know from Matthew), He still paid them and had Peter do so likewise.” Yet, to the contrary, Jesus did not challenge the "Tempe" tax for what it paid for, but did so for the taxes owed by the Jews to the Empepror at Matthew 22: 17-22.
QUESTION #1: Isn't challenging who should pay the tax an entirely different question than challenging what the funds from the taxes collected will eventually be used for?
QUESTION #2: Isn't the purpose of the temple tax which is exclusively used for the financial support of the Jewish Religion different from that of the tax the Emperor collects for the State?
Therefore, I think you are flat wrong, although Father Joseph who is 82 years old and spiritually directs many Catholics said the same to me only last week which makes him wrong too. In a prolife context, which after all is the one I am using, in my blog-article titled, “Prolife Tax Strike” on the web (by typing in your browser) at prolifetaxstrike.blogspot.com, as I indicated, above, consequently, would you feel morally at ease, Rosemary, if your employer paid “all” the premium to your employee group health insurance [“GHI”] plan which includes coverage for abortion and contraception instead of coercing you to pay for it in part? Or, would you feel morally at ease, Rosemary, if the government paid for the entire amount of GHI premium? Of course not! Whether Prolifers, or Pro-abortionists on behalf of Prolifers within a group health insurance plan, pay for abortion and/or contraception, nevertheless, an attack is being made on innocent unborn human life. First I’ll deal with GHI. Then, I'll deal with taxes which merely sponsor governmental GHI for the public, effectively. On page two (2) of my Letter to Prospective Prolife Tax Strikers at unbornjustice.blogspot.com, repeating what I recited above, note this: “On March 25, 1995 moreover Pope John Paul II declared this: ‘[par. #74]...In order to shed light on this difficult question, it is necessary to recall the general principles concerning cooperation in evil actions. Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed from the moral standpoint [emphasis, added], it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it. [emphasis, added]. Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs; no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God himself (cf. Rom. 2:6; 14:1). To refuse to take part in committing an injustice is not only a moral duty; it is also a basic human right;...[par. #87]... our support of human life... must be accomplished through ... personal witness ... and political commitment [emphasis, added]...(Jas. 2:14-17)’ in his Evangelium Vitae.” Think about that, Rosemary.
QUESTION #3: By joining a GHI plan which includes abortion and contraception coverage, consequently, are not all the “Prolife” GHI plan members paying for all the “Pro-abortionist” GHI plan members who carry out their abortions and use of contraception?
By reason, yes they are! Consequently, Roman Catholic Prolifers fit into the mold cast by Pope John Paul II when he declared, as above indicated, in the Gospel of Life. More specifically, Jesus never legalized taxes per se but gave his followers two criteria to use in order to determine whether the tax was legitimate or not. I first read what I included in my book, “How Abortion Will Become Unconstitutional”, that implication which is cited at page 48 at "The Gospels", in THE CATHOLIC STUDY BIBLE, NEW AMERICAN BIBLE [1990 ed. by Oxford University Press, Inc.], as follows: “See Romans, Chapter 13, Verses 1-7: ‘Paul must come to grips with the problem raised by a message that declares people free from the law [emphasis added]. How are they to relate to Roman authority? The problem was exacerbated by the fact that imperial protocol was interwoven with devotion to various deities. Paul builds on the traditional instruction exhibited in Wis 6, 1-3, according to which kings and magistrates rule by consent of God. From this perspective, then, believers who render obedience to the governing authorities are obeying the one who is highest in command. At the same time, it is recognized that Caesar has the responsibility to make just ordinances [emphasis added] and to commend uprightness; cf Wis 6, 4-21. That Caesar in not entitled to obedience when such ordinance would nullify God's prior claim to the believers' moral decision becomes clear in the light of the following [emphasis added] …’" Id., 246-7. Rosemary, I took the above passage from my book, page 90, footnote #87, where I also pointed out this: "’Peter and the apostles replied: We don't obey people. We obey God’, Acts 5: 29" which passage comes from Pope John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae at paragraph #73 [recited also on page 4 in unbornjustice.blogspot.com] where the Pope also points out this: "From the very beginnings of the church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom. 13: 1-7; 1 Pt. 2: 13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that ‘we must obey God rather than men' [Acts 5: 29] (emphasis added)". From the Bible and coming from Pope John Paul II, considering the Pope’s doing so is on a matter of faith and morals, the above is morally binding on all Roman Catholics. CONGRESSIONAL INTENTION, according to the Congressional Record [C.R.]– House IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES on Thursday, July 17, 1958 for the Code of Ethics For Government Service stated this: “those holding public office are not owners of authority but agents of public purpose” and “that constant emphasis must be given to the basic thought that those holding public office, as servants of the public, are not owners of authority but agents of public purpose (emphasis, added) on page 14173 [C.R.], and in my book on pages ix and xi. In addition, read my Letter at: unbornjustice.blogspot.com (on page 2) where I quoted St. Augustine who said this: "An unjust law is no law at all". Isn’t the question then this: "Whether the law that requires each citizen to pay taxes is an unjust law?"
At this point in my discussion, briefly, just to mention the legal grounds, based now on a free exercise of religion claim under my version thereof no less, the government is coercing Prolife taxpayers to consent to the temptation to violate religion in practice in order to enjoy all the non-offensive-to-religion benefits that the government provides. This is an "indirect" free exercise of religion claim. Yet, providing a "direct" free exercise of religion claim, the government forces Prolifers to pay for that portion of taxes which go to support and finance the Culture of Death thereby directly cooperating in evil in obedience to "men" who nevertheless lost their sovereign immunity [Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 239, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974)], yet in turn coercing Prolifers to disobey God by doing so. Consequently, Rosemary, how can you say Catholics must unconditionally pay taxes? Allow me to propose a situation which you will confront: What are you, some day, going to account for the blessings God has given you when you finally meet Him? You can not claim ignorance because after all you had Pope John Paul II and Pope Paul VI to guide you through it all. This reminds me of the Story of Lazarus who was poor and the rich man who constantly neglected him and his needs. It was only after the rich man died and he went to Hell and Lazarus to Heaven that the Gospel’s meaning developed. The rich man wanted to warn his relatives still living and asked to send them a message from Heaven. But "Abraham answered, ‘Your brothers can read what Moses and the prophets wrote. They should pay attention to that.’" Luke 16:29. If this were the last month of your life, what would you do? The kicker to my Prolife Tax Strike is that not only are you scripturally and religiously on solid ground, but you are legally on terra firma as well under my legal justification or necessity defense, as argued and explained in my book on pages 111-115. Also in my book I pointed out "what President John F. Kennedy established, as this: ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, but, rather ask, ‘What you can do for your country’", on page 23, footnote #12. Finally, the Code of Ethics For Government Service (CEFGS) compels any person in governmental service to put loyalty to his highest moral principles [at Matt: 6: 24 and 22:21] and to country [under the Free Exercise of Religion Clause under Sherbert] above loyalty to governmental department, such as the IRS.
Monday, October 9, 2005
Besides my above discussion rebutting your Wednesday, October 5, 2005 email in opposion to my Prolife Tax Strike, moreover, I included a good Biblical explanation at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bruce/twelve.xvii.iv.html in rebuttal thereof, a portion of which is the following: "Those who leave out of account the dispute by the way are not at the right point of view for seeing the incident at Capernaum in its natural light, and they fall inevitably into misunderstandings. They are forced, e.g., to regard Jesus as arguing seriously against payment of the temple tax, as something not legally obligatory [emphasis, added], or as lying out of the ordinary course of His humiliation as the Son of man." As applicable to your October 5, 2005 email to me, there you had mentioned that "Clearly He, though He did not owe any taxes". But, Rosemary, Jesus never said that He did not owe the Temple Tax, whereas Jesus left open the possability that the Jews were not obligated to pay the tax as tribute to the Emperor, yet only on condition that doing so would coerce the Jews not to render to God the things that are God's. Remember in context He answered that question by a Pharisee and you can be sure that the Pharisee would have hopped all over him had Jesus said anything to devalue their Jewish Religion in favor of upholding the Emperor's religious oppression, which position in fact you advocated Prolifers do, pursuant to your October 5, 2005 email. Therefore, Rosemary, perhaps that is why the Pharisees took Jesus out of context in order to seize the opportuity to spread a lie about what Jesus could have said. Clearly, the above discussion justifies morally my Prolife Tax Strike even had I not done so legally as well, as verified in my book.
In summary, all the dispute Jesus had with Peter before paying the "Temple" tax for Peter and Himself was to convey a special message, as explained in that above article on the web therein. But, to the contrary, in no way does His willingness to pay for the "Temple" tax justify Prolifers formally cooperating with the evil of abortion and/or contraception, no less the governmental funding thereof, by paying Federal, State and/or local "governmental" taxes thereby directly cooperating in an attack against innocent human life though GHI in question, tax-exempt or tax-free status for entities, such as Planned Parenthood, which promote abortion and/or contraception, etc. Note the presuppositon that the taxes the Jews had to pay to the Emperor is equivalent in nature to governmental taxes, and in no way resembles the "Temple" tax in any way whatsoever. Therefore, all your arguments are flawed, as thoroughly rebutted herein I might add. Yet, I am in gratitude because Karen's and your emails provided me a legal diving board to jump off of in order to fully support my Prolife Tax Strike by successfully rebutting both of your arguments made in sincere but erroneous opposition thereto, Biblicaly as well as legally! Moreover, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments support this result constitutionally as well.
CONCLUSION: Every Prolifer belongs engaged in my Prolife Tax Strike, immediately