Thanks Femmemomma, I love this. I'm thankful to Shane Claiborne for leading the way on new models of Christian life for our time. I'm hoping to see him at Rendez-vous 2011 youth event this summer.

http://www.rendez-vous2011.org/

It is unfortunate that he'll still have to pay the 30%, now with interest added on.

The idea of withholding taxes because we disagree with how the government spends is interesting, but does seem to contradict what both Jesus and Paul taught.

Matthew 22:21 - "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

Romans 13:7 - "If you owe taxes, pay taxes."

Both were speaking of paying taxes to the government of the Roman Empire - a government which was very militaristic, had to support huge armies of both conquest and occupation, and spent very frivolously in a lot of ways. Yet neither said, "pay only those portions of taxes that coincide with which priorities of the government you agree with."

Indeed, if we withhold our taxes because we don't agree with certain priorities of the government, we are in effect increasing the burden on those who do pay their taxes (including some who are not that well off) because the government will then spend the tax money they collect to collect our taxes. It's an interesting ethical discussion.

And 30% of what Shane did pay will still end up in the Pentagon's hands, so he hasn't really deprived them of much. Better to engage in democratic advocacy to reduce military spending and re-vision the role of the military. That can actually accomplish something if enough voices get behind it.

Mendalla

So true.

 There's a guy here who's refused for a few years to pay taxes because the government permits abortion. They banged him up last year.

But the CRA has now given up:

CBC NEWS:

The Canada Revenue Agency has given up on any further action against abortion protester David Little.

Little, who has spent the last few years moving back and forth between P.E.I. and New Brunswick, has refused to file tax returns since 2000 in protest of government-funded abortions. He was due in court in Fredericton this week to face a charge of refusing a court order to file them.

Little was found guilty in 2007 on three counts of failing to file, and eventually was sentenced to 66 days in jail for refusing to pay the $3,000 fine. He believes it's his religious right to refuse to pay taxes because he doesn't want his money funding abortions.

Federal prosecutor Keith Ward said there are no plans for future charges against Little.

"You can only beat a dead horse so long, and then the whip starts to fray," Ward told CBC News Monday.

Little's original convictions have already been rejected for appeal by the Supreme Court of Canada. Ward said Little has made it clear he'd rather rot in jail than pay any money to the federal government.

"Not only are the taxpayers of Canada insulted once by having to pay all this money to go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada on what is a lark of Mr. Little's, but now they're going to be faced with it again," said Ward.

Investigations also show Little doesn't have the money to pay the fines, and so would likely not even be required to pay taxes if he did file a return.

"If you've got no assets and no bank account you're going to have some difficulty collecting on it," said Ward.

Given that Little is 65, Ward said it is unlikely those circumstances will change. He said Little has been living off the charity of others, and all indications are this will continue.

It is an interesting debate. I think it's a protest more than anything. Obviously such a small amount isn't going to make difference to U.S. military spending. 

@RevStevenDavis - Does it count biblically if Shane is paying taxes, just not all of them? Christian conscientious objection also has biblical grounding - deeper I would say than a couple lines about paying taxes. Which directive should hold precedence? Also, couldn't it be argued that military spending is creating MUCH more of a burden on the poor by using funds that could be used for social programs? 

BTW @Beshpin, It's an older practice than Stranger than Fiction. When I was at Sojourners in the 90s many of us did exactly the same thing. There was a time (not sure if it continues) when Sojourners magazine itself withheld ~30% taxes because of military spending.

Nope.

The "couple of lines about paying taxes" are very, very clear. If you could provide me with what you think the equally clear biblical grounding for selectively withholding taxes owed is, I'd be happy to decide if your argument carries any weight with me. For now, I stand on the side of paying taxes. 

Of course it could. It's interesting that both Jesus and Paul made their respective comments in a society in which there was little opportunity for input into government policy. But in our governmental system we have the opportunity for input and choice. Become involved politically and put forth your point of view (speaking generically, not of you in particular.) Try to influence the outcome instead of wailing "it won't make any difference." And as for military spending, should we say that there should be NO military spending? None at all. Since any might create a burden on the poor. Maybe we shouldn't do road repairs - just give the money to the poor. Maybe we shouldn't have a police force - just give the money to the poor. Where does that end? What about people who have an ethical objection to abortion? Can they withhold portions of their taxes? What about those who believe that universal health care is unethical from a Christian perpsective? (I've heard that argument - I don't agree with it, but some believe it.) Can everybody withhold portions of their taxes based on anything?

I don't know, I guess I would start with loving your neighbour.

I'm not necessarily arguing people shouldn't pay taxes, but that there is a long tradition of Christian conscientious objection and civil disobience based on believers choosing to follow the law of God rather the law of the government. That may express itself as not paying war taxes, or in the jailing, torture, killing of Christians starting from day one, including Jesus. These people were choosing not to go along with the authorities and were willing to suffer the price for it.

Lots of people find all kinds of reasons not to pay taxes, but I think what's being objected to here is violence -- not policing, public works, health care, etc. 

But then, Aaron, we're making selective judgments about what should and should not provide legitimate ethical grounds for conscientious objection. Why should anti-militarism be legitimate, but anti-health care not be?

In the 60's, many in the US refused to pay a portion of their taxes. 1964, Joan Baez started her 10 years of defying the IRS. 

femmemomma,

yeah, brave guy :3

(I was flabbergasted at how much he had to pay, considering his TEENY income...sheesh)

Which is as it always has been; we are always involved with what we do :3

This reminds me of a time I went to check out an anti-Bush rally in Washington State.  They were a little group, huddled on a busy corner near the I-5.  They seemed to be having a fun time, they were in their 40's and older.  They had signs, every time the lights changed they would start chanting again.  So I'd go around to everyone and get to know them, chat with them.  I'd tell them aboot my experiences as a Canadian.

There was this one fellow, when I explained to him my marvelous and kinda scary experience with a Portland march, he reacted with "Oh well, they are taking away from our message..."  as if there some 'Activist Resource' that is tapped whenever someone uses something.  I've come across this before and I wonder if it is part of a social game or tribalism?

I guess what I am saying is that activists should stop trying to be everything and concentrate on an area that they can deal with.  Sure, some people can go the anti-health care route...

(I guess it also ties in with the 'sexiness' of the idea talked aboot -- 'the military' may be more sexy than heath care?)