Pro-life strike (abortion boycott) mission: To purify our prayers and other pro-life efforts, and to make a concrete difference, we refuse to fund the abortion industry. We boycott corporate abortion funding, and hold back abortion taxes. We pray for life; we will not pay for death!
The fourth and most troubling level of injustice cited in the previous post comes down to this: when pro-life American Christians willingly sign their 1040 form, they become willing accomplices to tax-funded murder, and cannot blame anyone else.
As noted on the "Manifesto" page, and in at least two blog posts below [1][2], the Scriptural mandate to "render to Caesar..." (Mt.22:21) cannot credibly be used as an excuse to docilely cooperate in the tax-funded holocaust.
We sing patriotic songs about our liberty, and we honor the rule of law enshrined in our Constitution. We proudly wave the flag and we pity the poor oppressed in other parts of the world. We are Americans; we are free.
The very act of signing the 1040 is indeed an act of freedom, a voluntary decision. No one forcing the signature, no gun to the head. And therein lies the problem.
Do we truly believe all the talk about freedom? Our Constitution says that we the people are Caesar, and the bureaucrats must answer to us. Then why continue to act as if the opposite were the case, and defer to the usurpers? Is this not abdication?
Now, I realize that active tax resistance is highly problematic and may be inadvisable for many folks, especially for those with young dependent children. But surely there must be at least a small percentage of pro-life people who can do this. A small percentage of millions is a few thousand. That would make a huge impact.
In its denial of conscientious tax resistance, the muddled legal opinion cited in the previous post contains this pivotal statement:
Otherwise, everyone who disagrees with government policies and the expenditure of public monies in furtherance of those policies would be entitled to abandon their obligation to bear their proportionate share of the national debt while continuing to receive no-cost public benefits such as Medicare.
While this reasoning is rather infantile, there is something in its logic for us to be wary of. In his entire statement, Justice Robertson never questions the no-cost public benefits; their necessity is a foregone conclusion.
From there he reasons that we ought to be humble, grateful and compliant taxpayers before such governmental largesse and beneficence. The lesson for us is this: The Socialist road - and government aid is Socialist - may lead inexorably to a deadly and tyrannical end.
For example, a frequent complaint from pro-aborts is that they don't want to be burdened with supporting more welfare babies. Better that the taxpayer pay for their murder than to pay for their expensive little lives. Given a Socialist premise, their dour pessimism and murderous sympathies contain a certain sad logic. In sharp contrast, pro-lifers want to be more generous toward both mother and child, and see the new baby as a priceless resource, not a burden. But if both camps accept without challenge that the government (i.e. taxpayers) must fund and control the expenditures, it will just be a tug-o-war over money.
Or take the recent saccharin eulogies for the late Edward Kennedy coming from the mouths and pens of Christian leaders. After all, the good Senator worked hard to open the public spigot and fill the public trough. Yes, there was his unfortunate blindness toward the pre-born, but generally, he helped poor people, and surely that is the Christian thing to do, right? It's a balancing act - some good, some not so good. But consider that government aid programs and tax-funded abortion most usually have the same champions. Perhaps this is no anomaly; perhaps it's not a balancing act at all, but two threads in the same ungodly tapestry.
The confusion for Christians may begin in equating government programs with Christian charity. Rather than the Church or individual Christians giving from their own pockets, the deep pockets of government are tapped. This is so much neater, and seems so generous. The docile Christian taxpayer can now excuse his share in tax-funded abortion by noting that his taxes also help the poor. It's the balancing act again. How neat.
When the state becomes god, it becomes Moloch.
It's also neater for the recipient of government aid, who needn't humble himself before his neighbor. In the process, he, too becomes docile toward the government, afraid to challenge the hand that gives.
Ascribing such paternalistic power to the state is not a good thing, even when the results seem to be beneficial. Looking to the state to meet our needs, we become its slave. The state becomes our master, perhaps even our god. But when the state becomes god, it becomes Moloch. Or, at best, an incompetent god. The state that feeds you will eventually exhaust its food supply and starve you. The state that provides medical care will end up taking your life. The state that cares for you will soon ask for your soul. And will you, grown wan and dependent, acquiesce?
The pagan Roman Empire had conquered the world and was ruling with an iron fist. Caesar was an arrogant autocrat who claimed divine authority. The Pharisees thought they had Jesus cornered with the question about paying the hateful Roman tax - a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" unanswerable conundrum. Jesus, recognizing their duplicity, told them to "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Matt. 22:15-22)
This passage has been invoked ad nauseum as an excuse to jettison all scruples over supporting human government, no matter how wicked and murderous. But is this a valid exegesis of the text? Ought this Gospel silence our conscience on the matter of tax funded abortion? Does Jesus really want us to docilely underwrite the abortion industry with our taxes?
I write as an American, and write now to fellow Americans. Who, precisely, is our 'Caesar'? What human authority do we live under in the United States? Is this not a Republic, established in lawful order by certain founding documents? Our Declaration of Independence, by which our founding Fathers created a new nation, contains these familiar words (emphasis added)...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
This is the legally binding contract upon which our government is based. With no need to comment upon the Roman Empire or other governments past or present, the above clearly indicates that the government of the United States exists to secure basic human rights, the right to Life being primary. Moreover, the legitimate authority of this government derives "from the consent of the governed". This, my friends, is our 'Caesar'. This is the human authority to which we owe allegiance.
Notice also that government officials are themselves bound by the terms of this contract. To the extent that they abrogate those terms, they are breaking the law. When bureaucratic measures conflict with the proper ends, it becomes the vigilant citizens' right and duty to oppose them. That's what the contract demands.
Surely the tax funded slaughter of innocent humans is a breach of the contract. Can anyone honestly deny this?
Therefore, Americans must stop paying the abortion tax for two reasons: Out of fear of God and obedience to God's Law (render to God), and also out of a patriotic duty to our Republic (our 'Caesar'). We must indeed render to Caesar, and that means we must oppose tax despotism and insist upon a lawful form of governance, which secures basic human rights.
As noted on the "Manifesto" page, and in at least two blog posts below [1] [2], the Scriptural mandate to "render to Caesar..." (Mt.22:21) cannot credibly be used as an excuse to docilely cooperate in the tax-funded holocaust.
