Agreed with most of the sentiment here but please, your voice is unique. Spend more time editing. You've got one sentence that's missing the first word. Also, a person can be a resister but a resistor is a machine part. Thanks
It's a free essay. It doesn't have to be perfect. Actually, I like a few clear mistakes. Proves that AI was not the author. I regularly disagree with Keturah (and I do disagree with her on almost all points on this one, but most vehemently about seatbelts!) But I read everything she writes because it's very good, very human, and very interesting. A missed word or a misspelling doesn't change the clarity of the writing.
Then when I got my Visa for the USA - I went from no bank acount no trace of me - to in all the Government files with photos and fingerprints in one day :(
I make a comment as a mother of a large family who spent 10 years living off the radar in one way or another while having babies and traveling the US. There are times when the effort to live this way as a family becomes so consuming it is difficult to focus on the rest of life. Each person needs to decide what is the greater moral failure - having a social security number and all that entails or constantly having to defend one's position on matters that are unrelated to the love and care of living out the Gospel.
I also was constantly anxious about someone calling CPS on us, which never happened, so perhaps my fears were unfounded, but they were real.
I found that by slipping back in to "normal" society my mind was cleared and I was more able to open my home and heart to those around me. Perhaps this is because I did not grow up like you, and you find it much easier because you did grow up that way.
As for filing taxes, the US government has set poverty levels so high that large families can easily live below this line and the government in turn supports life by giving money back - just offering another perspective.
I totally understand where you’re coming from! And this is a huge reason why I ever started the Girl Who Doesn’t Exist blog. Even though my family has been living this way much longer than you all did, we still hadn’t managed to find a lot of resources or community to help us live the way we’d chosen in a meaningful way. Through this blog I have connected with so many other like-minded folks and learned a lot of beneficial tips — for myself alone, this blog has been a tremendous support. However, I’ve also been able to connect others with one another thereby creating the community and making secreted resources available to everyone for free.
All that being said, there is still a right and wrong reason to do any of this. Whenever I travel and speak on this issue I always start out by telling people that what I’m about to share is NOT FOR YOU if you’re doing this out of fear of the government or CPS. This lifestyle doesn’t make you safer from them than anyone else. it also doesn’t need to be more dangerous, but I’ll only share that once I’ve established that none of this works if you’re motivated by fear or hatred of the government. I believe Dorothy Day herself was a success because she did not hide herself away, but had a greater calling than simply “evading taxes”. Because of that greater calling, and because it was serving others in a beautiful way, I believe God blessed her faith. We don’t see this in most anti-government circles in my opinion because most of those circles are too busy building their lives around bitter ideologies. It’s like someone who only becomes a Christian because they’re scared of hell, or someone who only wears dresses because they’re scared to make men stumble or get raped. We should follow Christ because we love Him, and if we wear dresses it should be because we love beauty, not because we fear condemnation. The same is true with living off-grid/ not having a SSN. There has to be a positive calling, a virtuous motivation. Without that it becomes obnoxious, counterproductive, and toxic for children raised in the environment. It also may inevitably lead to the thing one fears, as I’ve often seen happen in these circles with children being taken by CPS.
As to your final comment, I believe that’s mostly true for large families, however I know a lot of small, new families that are struggling because even with a couple kids their tax breaks aren’t significant enough nor do they get much of a return, and they are struggling as a result — they make “too much” too apply for medical care benefits, but too little to be able to afford to pay out of pocket for insurance. The system does reward those with many, many children. But then those families can also access benefits without a SSN, too. That being said, most unnumbered Americans I know (not all) refuse to apply for those benefits.
As the child of an army officer who currently works for the government doing building permits, and the wife of an employee of the state...
This way of life is so different from the one I live that I honestly am not sure I can fairly evaluate it. I'm going to have to mull this over for a bit.
The argument from America, as I will call it, discloses apparent ignorance of the concept and history. If you appealing to the United States as against taxes, then you have no foundation when you do so. The US set about enacting taxes immediately, especially to pay war debts including benefits owed to widows and children of those who had died fighting in the revolution. The US was never opposed to taxation- it was opposed to taxation that occurred without *some* standing in the parliament. It is very probable the revolution would have been avoided entirely if the UK parliament had simply agreed to create constituencies for the colonies in westminster. There is no part of US history where any legitimate authority was against the concept of taxation in general.
In terms of theological arguments and ethical arguments, they fall pretty flat as well. It is true that a Christian cannot do evil that good may come of it. But rendering income to the State is not intrinsically evil. Giving your money to the treasury in accordance with the lawful authorities that God has placed over you is a fairly morally neutral act. That the executive might use some portion of that to do evil, or that the legislature might appropriate some measure of it for an evil end, is very plainly *not* a direct entailment of your paying the tax. The most probable end destination of a middle class person's tax levy is service on debt, which certainly is not intrinsically evil. Its like trying to argue you are culpable for a murder if the $200 you gave your 18 year old nephew for Christmas is used by him to purchase a weapon he then uses to kill someone. Definitely not so. No official ever tells you how your tax is going to be allocated, and in fact that question is probably close to unanswerable. You are not on notice that any specific portion will go to any specific thing.
I would go back to Plato on this question. If you dont consent to the laws of Athens, you can surely leave Athens. But if you remain in Athens, you thereby consent to the law of Athens. If you want Athens to defend you when the Persians come, then you have to participate in public life and shared community to some degree. If you want Athens to replace the dislodged cobble stone, then you have to do your share as well. If you want the working men of Athens to build aqueducts, collect the waste, keep the water non-poisonous, and to light the lamps, and you surely cannot do all this yourself, then you should probably cooperate with the lawful authorities of Athens. A tax at the end of the day is a demand from the authority in your geographic location that you contribute to the common good from your resources. If you agree God has placed those in authority above you, then it is a duty in fact, to submit to them, unless they demand dereliction of faith or intrinsic evil. Would it be better if the State was more localized and decentralized? Sure, definitely more Christian. But if you in any measure at all benefit from the common treasury, it is utterly fitting, proper, and good that you contribute to it, if you have the means so to do.
I’m not necessarily opposed to taxes… I’m opposed to the money being used for immoral pursuits (abortion, war, etc). America is the result of “us having left Athens”. Here the government isn’t those who God put over those, but supposedly those who we’ve elected to represent us. Yes, I understand America rebelled against England not over taxes but over taxes without representation. However, that rebellion didn’t do much good if we’ve just turned ourselves into another country that taxes without representation.
The scripture doesn't draw a distinction between democratic and autocratic authorities. Some limited form of democracy, as we have, has never entailed that you dont end up with people who have political authority over you whose decisions you are morally opposed to. The original form of government in the US was vastly more autocratic than the one we have now- almost no one could vote, parties were much stronger, and fewer offices and laws had any public comment or input. Whether God causes authority to be over you thru a limited democratic process or thru a King, it is clear political hierarchy is from God and is to be generally obeyed as such, unless ->
Catholic tradition has always understood that you have a duty to resist the lawful authorities to the extent that they basically demand that you actively sin or renounce faith. From that POV, you would have to establish that simply paying the tax is equivalent to a heretical or sinful act, to justify willful disobedience of the authorities.
I dont think you have established that the payment of a tax under these circumstances is a sin or a renunciation of faith. Yes, our ancestors left Athens, but that has nothing to do with our personal moral responsibility now. We can leave America if we cannot tolerate our income being taxed because we cannot tolerate the possibility the authorities may use some portion of it for a bad purpose. If we dont leave, it seems unreasonable to collect, retain, and/or use money printed by the treasury, whose value is backed by the institutional weight of the lawful authorities, and to benefit directly from all the myriad public services that make life in 2026 much more tolerable than life was in these lands in 1026, but then not render any of it back to the State when lawfully demanded. If you legitimately dont use any public resources and dont trade currency whatsoever, I would have mad respect for you even if I dont agree with you. But I suspect you probably do trade currency and do at least sometimes engage with public goods and services. That seems basically unfair- to benefit from the printing of money and the systems that give that money actual value (military, courts, etc) but to then refuse to contribute to the maintaining of those systems.
It's a bit of a red herring to say the Bible didn't draw a distinction between democracies or authorities governments since democracies as we now know them did not yet exist. Certainly America is a unique country because we claim to prioritize representation in taxation and religious liberty, and we have engraved "In God We Trust" on our money.
The fact that Dorothy Day is currently considered a "Servant of God" and may potentially be declared a Saint undermines large parts of your argument. You may not be convinced that paying income taxes are immoral or support immoral practices, but the fact is many others do, and the State has recognized their beliefs as legitimate from people like Swarzentruber Amish to Catholic women like Dorothy Day.
Saints aren't without sin. The church can uplift someone as an example of morality and veneration without endorsing everything they did. In this case, Dorothy Day refusing to follow the laws of the authorities placed over her would directly contradict Catholic teaching on the subject.
Democracy had existed by the time the scriptures were written- Athens being the initial example. And the Athenian democracy was itself a major source of inspiration for the American founders. The Roman Republic also practiced a form of representative democracy before the reign of Julius Ceasar. So the writers of scripture would have known of the existence of it, and certainly Christ our God would have to. But he made no such distinction between different forms of government in discussing political authority and our duties to it.
Yes, it's true Saints weren't perfect. But this is a large part of what made Dorothy Day who she was and why she's being considered as a state. She spent her life publicly opposing the government when it was immoral, and encouraging us to do so.
If you truly believe what you're saying, you would denounce the American Revolution. By your logic the Boston Tea Party was immoral and we should've remained submitted to England like it or not.
Taxation has never been held by the Church to be immoral as such. Now a tax that was disproportionate to the person's means such that it caused material deprivation (inadequate food, shelter, safety) would be recognized by the Church as immoral and therefore liable to being disobeyed. But it sounds like her dispute was she disagreed with the potential uses of the tax by the State. Looking into it, she could have avoided the tax completely if she has simply applied for a religious exemption for her organization, which is seems she likely would have recieved. She refused because she claimed the state had no authority to tax any organization regardless of whether it was religious or not, where that organization did works of mercy. Her behavior demonstrates a general rejection of state authority basically any time it contradicted her personal conscience. That is definitely against the teaching of the church. Your conscience is not an adequate basis to disobey lawful authorities, authority is set above us by God. You have to be able to articulate why a specific exercise of authority requires denunciation of faith or sin, before you can disobey authority. Here, Ms. Day could not prove that her tax would actually be used at all to purchase or use weapons in the first place. That was merely possible. It was also possible that her refusal to pay tax deprived the State of funding to help farmers who had a crop failure; purchase food for a starving family; maintain roads to access hospitals and utilities, and provide retirement for government workers. She could not show that her payment of the tax would necessarily represent a direct sin or violate a precept of faith.
To your second point, yes, I dont think the formation of the US was ultimately a moral good. You seem to recognize the US political system has every capability to engage in moral evils, just like any government can. I would hold that when the colonists rebelled against the King and his parliament, they were sinning in fact, especially when they engaged in acts of violence, theft, public disorder and destruction of property. The church does not actually hold that taxation without representation is intrinsically immoral. Monarchy has been a sanctioned form of government. I think the colonists had every right to protest laws they felt were unjust, but that cant extend to violence and revolution unless the law requires sin or renouncing faith. The UK laws that provoked the revolution were made by lawful authority of parliament. Perhaps you could argue that when some of the taxes threatened the closure of New England businesses who relied on a certain profit margin, maybe they could have refused to pay such a tax that would cause them to hunger and lose their homes. But even that resistance could not entail violence, most likely.
I pay income tax. As a dual citizen I pay a lot to my adopted country, Israel, where I reside, and some to the Uncle Sam. I’m going to make the case for paying your taxes in a representative democracy. Then, in response to Ms Hickman’s arguments, I will make the case for paying taxes which fund war. Finally I will address a loaded, uncomfortable issue which keeps on popping up in these blogs.
I originally got interested in reading this blog as the product of a religious woman who was confident enough in her ways not to feel she had to compromise. The business of not having a social security number and living “off the grid” seemed to me quaint and neither rational nor necessary, but hey, different strokes for different folks, I wouldn’t claim everything I do is rational either. But now Ms Hickman has explained some of her rationale and I think she’s wrong – a harsh word but in my view appropriate here.
Let me start with something that appears at the end of “The Problem With Taxes.” It’s a poor argument for not paying taxes but significant as an example of Ms Hickman’s thinking. She claims that the United States is a Christian country as justification for withholding Caesar’s taxes. I’m not going to get into the question of whether the United States is or is not a Christian country. I believe that if Christianity among non-Jews were as accepted as it was in the post-1865 19th century, society would be better off, and I as a Jew would be better off. But Ms Hickman is saying, “the country ought to be like me, and insofar as it isn’t, then it’s illegitimate and its laws are illegitimate.” If everyone thought that way the country couldn’t survive, and in fact it is precisely Ms Hickman’s view that laws, and by extension cultures, that don’t suit her exact taste are illegitimate that is widespread and threatens the existence of the country. If Ms Hickman’s view of legitimacy – not her particular view, but her conviction that her views justify flouting the laws - were to lead to the demise of the United States, that would be a world-historical tragedy and lead to bloodshed and abuses compared to which the wars she presently objects to would be child’s play.
But why am I making this argument, when someone far wiser and more prudent than me made it 165 years ago, on March 4, 1861:
May Congress prohibit slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce the majority must, or government must cease . . . . If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which will, in turn, divide and ruin them.
Like Ms Hickman, I consider abortion a terrible tragedy, crime and mortal sin. But the question whether the constitutional protection of life and liberty extends to the not yet born is precisely the kind on which the constitution is silent and on which Americans divide into majorities and minorities.
In a previous blog Ms Hickman complained that radical doctrinal divisions among some Christians lead to congregations contracting to the scope of one family, and sometimes to divisions within the family. The Catholic church holds attraction for her because it is a community of faith with a doctrine. That’s a reasonable view. The question is, how far can we imagine our community as extending beyond those who share our exact convictions? If there is no positive answer to this question then there is no possibility of community, period.
Ms Hickman argues that “the history of noncompliance with war tax is woven tightly in the tapestry of the American ethos,” and cites the Boston tea party. But this is a misrepresentation. The Boston tea party was about representative government, not pacifism, and led to a just war. The American national community is about the liberty of the individual in private life and the rule of law, passed by majority rule, beyond it. To elevate the nonpayment of taxes into some kind of noble principle, as Ms Hickman attempts to do, is to elevate anarchy above lawful liberty.
My argument here is an argument of prudence. I will further argue that human society is possible only on the basis of such prudence, which inevitably requires compromise and a sense of when compromise is permissible, indeed necessary. It is actually the recognition of necessity for prudent compromise that represents moral maturity. I read more and more of some Christians, and especially Catholics, who shrink from such prudence. They would rather preserve their conscience pristine than accept the compromises necessary to the functioning of a free society. I think that’s a sin. People need to live in societies and G-d requires us to have the ethical maturity to sustain a society.
Now as to war. J.R.R. Tolkien, a devout Catholic and a veteran of the Somme, sums up the moral dilemma of war in his tale, Aldarion and Erendis. Meneldur, King of Numenor, receives a letter from the king of the Elves requesting his aid in an impending war against the Dark Lord, a figure whom both know is unquestionably evil. Meneldur is appalled. Tolkien puts these words in his mouth:
“I am in too great doubt to rule. To prepare or let be? To prepare for war, which is yet only guessed: to train craftsmen and tillers in the midst of peace for bloodspilling and battle; put iron in the hands of greedy captains who will love only conquest and count the slain as their glory? Will they say to [G-d], At least your enemies were among them? Or to fold hands, while friends die unjustly: let men live in peace, until the ravisher is at the gate? What then will they do? Match naked hands against iron and die in vain, or flee leaving the cries of women behind them? Will they say to [G-d]: At least I spilled no blood?”
In Tolkien’s telling, Meneldur chooses a typical contemporary Catholic cop-out: He abdicates his throne. But the kingship passes to his son Aldarion, who is made of sterner moral stuff and accepts the necessity of choice. He prepares an expeditionary force.
John Brown was a homicidal nut whose crimes made things worse not better. Yet at his sentencing he said words in court which are worth contemplating here:
“I see a book kissed which I suppose to be the Bible, or at least the New Testament, which teaches me that all things whatsoever I would that men should do unto me, I should do even to them. It teaches me further to remember those that are in bonds as bound up with them. I endeavored to act up to that instruction.”
In the spring of 1945 my mother and grandmother, after surviving the death march of the winter of 1944 in which most died, were enslaved in the German V-2 factory in Nordhausen. The American army arrived. The anonymous crew of a Sherman tank, crashing through the gates of Nordhausen after fighting their way through France and Germany, were doing to my mother and grandmother whatsoever they would that men should do unto them, and remembering those in bonds as bound up with them.
In the debate between Donald Trump and Pope Leo, there is no question that Trump is right.
And now I come to a point in Ms Hickman’s blog that I have noted before.
Is it fair, she asks, to compare taxpayers to the Hitler Youth, a group who were complicit in the alleged murder of six million Jews?
Alleged?
My father, mother, grandmother and surviving uncles and aunts wore the numbers tattood on their forearms till the end of their days. Museums exist in many countries, including the United States, documenting that there is nothing alleged about the Nazi murder of six million Jews and about a million other “subhumans.” What subterfuge are you perpetrating here, Ms Hickman, and why? You owe an answer, to yourself more than to me.
Last month a civilian investigative committee published a detailed report about the use of rape by Hamas terrorists as a deliberate war tactic on October 7th 2023. The report is backed by social media and videos broadcast by the terrorists themselves recording their crimes. They weren’t at all concerned to hide their crimes because publishing them, in their estimation, increased the terrorist effect.
Were these latest crimes against the Jewish people also alleged? I would appreciate reading Ms Hickman’s view. Would you have my sons and sons-in-law, trained military reservists who donned their country’s uniform, took up arms and went to war against such an enemy, “match naked hands against iron and die in vain, or flee leaving the cries of women behind them?” Never again, Ms Hickman, never again.
Do you believe in the Devil, Ms Hickman? One of the Devil’s favorite ploys is to dress up the flight from agency, the flight from choice, as a form of righteousness.
This is an argument against taxes. Loyal Americans shouldn't be giving money to Israel ... why would I want to see my money used by those who reject Jesus to make bombs to drop on Palestinian Christians?
Agreed with most of the sentiment here but please, your voice is unique. Spend more time editing. You've got one sentence that's missing the first word. Also, a person can be a resister but a resistor is a machine part. Thanks
It's a free essay. It doesn't have to be perfect. Actually, I like a few clear mistakes. Proves that AI was not the author. I regularly disagree with Keturah (and I do disagree with her on almost all points on this one, but most vehemently about seatbelts!) But I read everything she writes because it's very good, very human, and very interesting. A missed word or a misspelling doesn't change the clarity of the writing.
Believe it or not, I usually have several people proofread my essays! Things still slip through. Where is the missing word?
Wonderful.
I existed off the grid - a shadow - from 17 -26
Then when I got my Visa for the USA - I went from no bank acount no trace of me - to in all the Government files with photos and fingerprints in one day :(
I make a comment as a mother of a large family who spent 10 years living off the radar in one way or another while having babies and traveling the US. There are times when the effort to live this way as a family becomes so consuming it is difficult to focus on the rest of life. Each person needs to decide what is the greater moral failure - having a social security number and all that entails or constantly having to defend one's position on matters that are unrelated to the love and care of living out the Gospel.
I also was constantly anxious about someone calling CPS on us, which never happened, so perhaps my fears were unfounded, but they were real.
I found that by slipping back in to "normal" society my mind was cleared and I was more able to open my home and heart to those around me. Perhaps this is because I did not grow up like you, and you find it much easier because you did grow up that way.
As for filing taxes, the US government has set poverty levels so high that large families can easily live below this line and the government in turn supports life by giving money back - just offering another perspective.
I totally understand where you’re coming from! And this is a huge reason why I ever started the Girl Who Doesn’t Exist blog. Even though my family has been living this way much longer than you all did, we still hadn’t managed to find a lot of resources or community to help us live the way we’d chosen in a meaningful way. Through this blog I have connected with so many other like-minded folks and learned a lot of beneficial tips — for myself alone, this blog has been a tremendous support. However, I’ve also been able to connect others with one another thereby creating the community and making secreted resources available to everyone for free.
All that being said, there is still a right and wrong reason to do any of this. Whenever I travel and speak on this issue I always start out by telling people that what I’m about to share is NOT FOR YOU if you’re doing this out of fear of the government or CPS. This lifestyle doesn’t make you safer from them than anyone else. it also doesn’t need to be more dangerous, but I’ll only share that once I’ve established that none of this works if you’re motivated by fear or hatred of the government. I believe Dorothy Day herself was a success because she did not hide herself away, but had a greater calling than simply “evading taxes”. Because of that greater calling, and because it was serving others in a beautiful way, I believe God blessed her faith. We don’t see this in most anti-government circles in my opinion because most of those circles are too busy building their lives around bitter ideologies. It’s like someone who only becomes a Christian because they’re scared of hell, or someone who only wears dresses because they’re scared to make men stumble or get raped. We should follow Christ because we love Him, and if we wear dresses it should be because we love beauty, not because we fear condemnation. The same is true with living off-grid/ not having a SSN. There has to be a positive calling, a virtuous motivation. Without that it becomes obnoxious, counterproductive, and toxic for children raised in the environment. It also may inevitably lead to the thing one fears, as I’ve often seen happen in these circles with children being taken by CPS.
As to your final comment, I believe that’s mostly true for large families, however I know a lot of small, new families that are struggling because even with a couple kids their tax breaks aren’t significant enough nor do they get much of a return, and they are struggling as a result — they make “too much” too apply for medical care benefits, but too little to be able to afford to pay out of pocket for insurance. The system does reward those with many, many children. But then those families can also access benefits without a SSN, too. That being said, most unnumbered Americans I know (not all) refuse to apply for those benefits.
As the child of an army officer who currently works for the government doing building permits, and the wife of an employee of the state...
This way of life is so different from the one I live that I honestly am not sure I can fairly evaluate it. I'm going to have to mull this over for a bit.
The argument from America, as I will call it, discloses apparent ignorance of the concept and history. If you appealing to the United States as against taxes, then you have no foundation when you do so. The US set about enacting taxes immediately, especially to pay war debts including benefits owed to widows and children of those who had died fighting in the revolution. The US was never opposed to taxation- it was opposed to taxation that occurred without *some* standing in the parliament. It is very probable the revolution would have been avoided entirely if the UK parliament had simply agreed to create constituencies for the colonies in westminster. There is no part of US history where any legitimate authority was against the concept of taxation in general.
In terms of theological arguments and ethical arguments, they fall pretty flat as well. It is true that a Christian cannot do evil that good may come of it. But rendering income to the State is not intrinsically evil. Giving your money to the treasury in accordance with the lawful authorities that God has placed over you is a fairly morally neutral act. That the executive might use some portion of that to do evil, or that the legislature might appropriate some measure of it for an evil end, is very plainly *not* a direct entailment of your paying the tax. The most probable end destination of a middle class person's tax levy is service on debt, which certainly is not intrinsically evil. Its like trying to argue you are culpable for a murder if the $200 you gave your 18 year old nephew for Christmas is used by him to purchase a weapon he then uses to kill someone. Definitely not so. No official ever tells you how your tax is going to be allocated, and in fact that question is probably close to unanswerable. You are not on notice that any specific portion will go to any specific thing.
I would go back to Plato on this question. If you dont consent to the laws of Athens, you can surely leave Athens. But if you remain in Athens, you thereby consent to the law of Athens. If you want Athens to defend you when the Persians come, then you have to participate in public life and shared community to some degree. If you want Athens to replace the dislodged cobble stone, then you have to do your share as well. If you want the working men of Athens to build aqueducts, collect the waste, keep the water non-poisonous, and to light the lamps, and you surely cannot do all this yourself, then you should probably cooperate with the lawful authorities of Athens. A tax at the end of the day is a demand from the authority in your geographic location that you contribute to the common good from your resources. If you agree God has placed those in authority above you, then it is a duty in fact, to submit to them, unless they demand dereliction of faith or intrinsic evil. Would it be better if the State was more localized and decentralized? Sure, definitely more Christian. But if you in any measure at all benefit from the common treasury, it is utterly fitting, proper, and good that you contribute to it, if you have the means so to do.
I’m not necessarily opposed to taxes… I’m opposed to the money being used for immoral pursuits (abortion, war, etc). America is the result of “us having left Athens”. Here the government isn’t those who God put over those, but supposedly those who we’ve elected to represent us. Yes, I understand America rebelled against England not over taxes but over taxes without representation. However, that rebellion didn’t do much good if we’ve just turned ourselves into another country that taxes without representation.
The scripture doesn't draw a distinction between democratic and autocratic authorities. Some limited form of democracy, as we have, has never entailed that you dont end up with people who have political authority over you whose decisions you are morally opposed to. The original form of government in the US was vastly more autocratic than the one we have now- almost no one could vote, parties were much stronger, and fewer offices and laws had any public comment or input. Whether God causes authority to be over you thru a limited democratic process or thru a King, it is clear political hierarchy is from God and is to be generally obeyed as such, unless ->
Catholic tradition has always understood that you have a duty to resist the lawful authorities to the extent that they basically demand that you actively sin or renounce faith. From that POV, you would have to establish that simply paying the tax is equivalent to a heretical or sinful act, to justify willful disobedience of the authorities.
I dont think you have established that the payment of a tax under these circumstances is a sin or a renunciation of faith. Yes, our ancestors left Athens, but that has nothing to do with our personal moral responsibility now. We can leave America if we cannot tolerate our income being taxed because we cannot tolerate the possibility the authorities may use some portion of it for a bad purpose. If we dont leave, it seems unreasonable to collect, retain, and/or use money printed by the treasury, whose value is backed by the institutional weight of the lawful authorities, and to benefit directly from all the myriad public services that make life in 2026 much more tolerable than life was in these lands in 1026, but then not render any of it back to the State when lawfully demanded. If you legitimately dont use any public resources and dont trade currency whatsoever, I would have mad respect for you even if I dont agree with you. But I suspect you probably do trade currency and do at least sometimes engage with public goods and services. That seems basically unfair- to benefit from the printing of money and the systems that give that money actual value (military, courts, etc) but to then refuse to contribute to the maintaining of those systems.
It's a bit of a red herring to say the Bible didn't draw a distinction between democracies or authorities governments since democracies as we now know them did not yet exist. Certainly America is a unique country because we claim to prioritize representation in taxation and religious liberty, and we have engraved "In God We Trust" on our money.
The fact that Dorothy Day is currently considered a "Servant of God" and may potentially be declared a Saint undermines large parts of your argument. You may not be convinced that paying income taxes are immoral or support immoral practices, but the fact is many others do, and the State has recognized their beliefs as legitimate from people like Swarzentruber Amish to Catholic women like Dorothy Day.
Saints aren't without sin. The church can uplift someone as an example of morality and veneration without endorsing everything they did. In this case, Dorothy Day refusing to follow the laws of the authorities placed over her would directly contradict Catholic teaching on the subject.
Democracy had existed by the time the scriptures were written- Athens being the initial example. And the Athenian democracy was itself a major source of inspiration for the American founders. The Roman Republic also practiced a form of representative democracy before the reign of Julius Ceasar. So the writers of scripture would have known of the existence of it, and certainly Christ our God would have to. But he made no such distinction between different forms of government in discussing political authority and our duties to it.
Yes, it's true Saints weren't perfect. But this is a large part of what made Dorothy Day who she was and why she's being considered as a state. She spent her life publicly opposing the government when it was immoral, and encouraging us to do so.
If you truly believe what you're saying, you would denounce the American Revolution. By your logic the Boston Tea Party was immoral and we should've remained submitted to England like it or not.
Taxation has never been held by the Church to be immoral as such. Now a tax that was disproportionate to the person's means such that it caused material deprivation (inadequate food, shelter, safety) would be recognized by the Church as immoral and therefore liable to being disobeyed. But it sounds like her dispute was she disagreed with the potential uses of the tax by the State. Looking into it, she could have avoided the tax completely if she has simply applied for a religious exemption for her organization, which is seems she likely would have recieved. She refused because she claimed the state had no authority to tax any organization regardless of whether it was religious or not, where that organization did works of mercy. Her behavior demonstrates a general rejection of state authority basically any time it contradicted her personal conscience. That is definitely against the teaching of the church. Your conscience is not an adequate basis to disobey lawful authorities, authority is set above us by God. You have to be able to articulate why a specific exercise of authority requires denunciation of faith or sin, before you can disobey authority. Here, Ms. Day could not prove that her tax would actually be used at all to purchase or use weapons in the first place. That was merely possible. It was also possible that her refusal to pay tax deprived the State of funding to help farmers who had a crop failure; purchase food for a starving family; maintain roads to access hospitals and utilities, and provide retirement for government workers. She could not show that her payment of the tax would necessarily represent a direct sin or violate a precept of faith.
To your second point, yes, I dont think the formation of the US was ultimately a moral good. You seem to recognize the US political system has every capability to engage in moral evils, just like any government can. I would hold that when the colonists rebelled against the King and his parliament, they were sinning in fact, especially when they engaged in acts of violence, theft, public disorder and destruction of property. The church does not actually hold that taxation without representation is intrinsically immoral. Monarchy has been a sanctioned form of government. I think the colonists had every right to protest laws they felt were unjust, but that cant extend to violence and revolution unless the law requires sin or renouncing faith. The UK laws that provoked the revolution were made by lawful authority of parliament. Perhaps you could argue that when some of the taxes threatened the closure of New England businesses who relied on a certain profit margin, maybe they could have refused to pay such a tax that would cause them to hunger and lose their homes. But even that resistance could not entail violence, most likely.
The Case for Paying Taxes
I pay income tax. As a dual citizen I pay a lot to my adopted country, Israel, where I reside, and some to the Uncle Sam. I’m going to make the case for paying your taxes in a representative democracy. Then, in response to Ms Hickman’s arguments, I will make the case for paying taxes which fund war. Finally I will address a loaded, uncomfortable issue which keeps on popping up in these blogs.
I originally got interested in reading this blog as the product of a religious woman who was confident enough in her ways not to feel she had to compromise. The business of not having a social security number and living “off the grid” seemed to me quaint and neither rational nor necessary, but hey, different strokes for different folks, I wouldn’t claim everything I do is rational either. But now Ms Hickman has explained some of her rationale and I think she’s wrong – a harsh word but in my view appropriate here.
Let me start with something that appears at the end of “The Problem With Taxes.” It’s a poor argument for not paying taxes but significant as an example of Ms Hickman’s thinking. She claims that the United States is a Christian country as justification for withholding Caesar’s taxes. I’m not going to get into the question of whether the United States is or is not a Christian country. I believe that if Christianity among non-Jews were as accepted as it was in the post-1865 19th century, society would be better off, and I as a Jew would be better off. But Ms Hickman is saying, “the country ought to be like me, and insofar as it isn’t, then it’s illegitimate and its laws are illegitimate.” If everyone thought that way the country couldn’t survive, and in fact it is precisely Ms Hickman’s view that laws, and by extension cultures, that don’t suit her exact taste are illegitimate that is widespread and threatens the existence of the country. If Ms Hickman’s view of legitimacy – not her particular view, but her conviction that her views justify flouting the laws - were to lead to the demise of the United States, that would be a world-historical tragedy and lead to bloodshed and abuses compared to which the wars she presently objects to would be child’s play.
But why am I making this argument, when someone far wiser and more prudent than me made it 165 years ago, on March 4, 1861:
May Congress prohibit slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce the majority must, or government must cease . . . . If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which will, in turn, divide and ruin them.
Like Ms Hickman, I consider abortion a terrible tragedy, crime and mortal sin. But the question whether the constitutional protection of life and liberty extends to the not yet born is precisely the kind on which the constitution is silent and on which Americans divide into majorities and minorities.
In a previous blog Ms Hickman complained that radical doctrinal divisions among some Christians lead to congregations contracting to the scope of one family, and sometimes to divisions within the family. The Catholic church holds attraction for her because it is a community of faith with a doctrine. That’s a reasonable view. The question is, how far can we imagine our community as extending beyond those who share our exact convictions? If there is no positive answer to this question then there is no possibility of community, period.
Ms Hickman argues that “the history of noncompliance with war tax is woven tightly in the tapestry of the American ethos,” and cites the Boston tea party. But this is a misrepresentation. The Boston tea party was about representative government, not pacifism, and led to a just war. The American national community is about the liberty of the individual in private life and the rule of law, passed by majority rule, beyond it. To elevate the nonpayment of taxes into some kind of noble principle, as Ms Hickman attempts to do, is to elevate anarchy above lawful liberty.
My argument here is an argument of prudence. I will further argue that human society is possible only on the basis of such prudence, which inevitably requires compromise and a sense of when compromise is permissible, indeed necessary. It is actually the recognition of necessity for prudent compromise that represents moral maturity. I read more and more of some Christians, and especially Catholics, who shrink from such prudence. They would rather preserve their conscience pristine than accept the compromises necessary to the functioning of a free society. I think that’s a sin. People need to live in societies and G-d requires us to have the ethical maturity to sustain a society.
Now as to war. J.R.R. Tolkien, a devout Catholic and a veteran of the Somme, sums up the moral dilemma of war in his tale, Aldarion and Erendis. Meneldur, King of Numenor, receives a letter from the king of the Elves requesting his aid in an impending war against the Dark Lord, a figure whom both know is unquestionably evil. Meneldur is appalled. Tolkien puts these words in his mouth:
“I am in too great doubt to rule. To prepare or let be? To prepare for war, which is yet only guessed: to train craftsmen and tillers in the midst of peace for bloodspilling and battle; put iron in the hands of greedy captains who will love only conquest and count the slain as their glory? Will they say to [G-d], At least your enemies were among them? Or to fold hands, while friends die unjustly: let men live in peace, until the ravisher is at the gate? What then will they do? Match naked hands against iron and die in vain, or flee leaving the cries of women behind them? Will they say to [G-d]: At least I spilled no blood?”
In Tolkien’s telling, Meneldur chooses a typical contemporary Catholic cop-out: He abdicates his throne. But the kingship passes to his son Aldarion, who is made of sterner moral stuff and accepts the necessity of choice. He prepares an expeditionary force.
John Brown was a homicidal nut whose crimes made things worse not better. Yet at his sentencing he said words in court which are worth contemplating here:
“I see a book kissed which I suppose to be the Bible, or at least the New Testament, which teaches me that all things whatsoever I would that men should do unto me, I should do even to them. It teaches me further to remember those that are in bonds as bound up with them. I endeavored to act up to that instruction.”
In the spring of 1945 my mother and grandmother, after surviving the death march of the winter of 1944 in which most died, were enslaved in the German V-2 factory in Nordhausen. The American army arrived. The anonymous crew of a Sherman tank, crashing through the gates of Nordhausen after fighting their way through France and Germany, were doing to my mother and grandmother whatsoever they would that men should do unto them, and remembering those in bonds as bound up with them.
In the debate between Donald Trump and Pope Leo, there is no question that Trump is right.
And now I come to a point in Ms Hickman’s blog that I have noted before.
Is it fair, she asks, to compare taxpayers to the Hitler Youth, a group who were complicit in the alleged murder of six million Jews?
Alleged?
My father, mother, grandmother and surviving uncles and aunts wore the numbers tattood on their forearms till the end of their days. Museums exist in many countries, including the United States, documenting that there is nothing alleged about the Nazi murder of six million Jews and about a million other “subhumans.” What subterfuge are you perpetrating here, Ms Hickman, and why? You owe an answer, to yourself more than to me.
Last month a civilian investigative committee published a detailed report about the use of rape by Hamas terrorists as a deliberate war tactic on October 7th 2023. The report is backed by social media and videos broadcast by the terrorists themselves recording their crimes. They weren’t at all concerned to hide their crimes because publishing them, in their estimation, increased the terrorist effect.
Were these latest crimes against the Jewish people also alleged? I would appreciate reading Ms Hickman’s view. Would you have my sons and sons-in-law, trained military reservists who donned their country’s uniform, took up arms and went to war against such an enemy, “match naked hands against iron and die in vain, or flee leaving the cries of women behind them?” Never again, Ms Hickman, never again.
Do you believe in the Devil, Ms Hickman? One of the Devil’s favorite ploys is to dress up the flight from agency, the flight from choice, as a form of righteousness.
This is an argument against taxes. Loyal Americans shouldn't be giving money to Israel ... why would I want to see my money used by those who reject Jesus to make bombs to drop on Palestinian Christians?