There are many varieties of belief regarding War Tax Resistance, within and outside of Christianity.  It is ridiculously simplistic to quote a few lines of scripture and assume that this in any way typifies the beliefs of "all Christians". You might want to listen to interviews with 6 different war tax resisters with a variety of motivations and methods to their resistance - along with lots of other good interview on peace, justice and care for creation - on the Northern Spirit Radio program called Spirit In Action. This past spring there were 3 such hour-long programs, and here are links to those programs:

http://www.northernspiritradio.org/northernspiritradio/radioweb.exe/showinfo?showid=415194900769

http://www.northernspiritradio.org/northernspiritradio/radioweb.exe/showinfo?showid=415918246581

http://www.northernspiritradio.org/northernspiritradio/radioweb.exe/showinfo?showid=417962528880

Listen, enjoy and learn…

Rudy— Where I was in Fort Benning was basically on a “need to know basis”—but I do know that I was 11B. I think the cherry “picking” has to be discriminate—based on a sort of internal state of the art Zeitgeist heart (if that makes any sense). Both an authority from within, and/or a comparative authority from without (don't we often, as children, judge our elders by comparing them? (mom seems right on this, dad on that, etc.)). An example of tainted scholarship occurs with Martin Heidegger. I've written on Heidegger—and in some ways his advances in philosophy are undeniable—but I find that I prefer a more morally consistent philosopher like Derrida. What can you do with a writer that has so much to give, but has a streak that is evil? (The same with Nietzsche). My point is simply that some people have much to teach, but some things to be on guard against (especially in a whole history replete with more and less subtle misogyny, etc.)—if you can't trust yourself to recognize evil, who can you trust? (And even your own self can be unconsciously evil too). Most authority figures are fallible in some regard— but by comparing them, and cherry picking what is most consistently good, imo, is the best bet. Diversify your sources even if it's a single Truth you want. I think I've been following (or blazing) a path of diversion here too much, so forgive me if I don't respond again on this (Paul's!) blog.

Cyrano (& Keir)— I was thinking of the connection between your “it's the thieves making the rules” incite, and Keir's interesting post below (“War Tax everywhere”). Putting the two together posses quite the peak of negative criticality: Organized crime as governments and corporations fulfill the demands of a consumerist culture dead set on oil consumption (and ecological degradation). A sort of anarchy of the chaotic sort: always already anarchy, where governments are just institutions with militia hired by institutions with money to protect that money and just enough “bandages” and “entertainment” handed out to keep the revolution at bay. Questions for this view might be (1)- for who and why is money an issue? (and not survival) & (2)-how much of the “wage-slavery,” “war-murdering,” and eco-destruction is actually unconscious on the public's part? (and could that be the fault of the people in the know?). “Render unto Caesar” might be way of saying, “wash one's hands of money.” (I'm not traveling Jesus, or a Buddhist monk begging for rice though (mostly not), so I too would like my own house and a refrigerator, etc.). Maybe there's a little (spiritual) hypocrisy in “expectations” that are impossible for everyone to fulfill (we can't all be beggars, and stay in someone else's house).

JD - where in Fort Benning were you located? What was your MOS? With curiousities out of the way... Thinking Mein Kampf's 2 volumes look impressive is fundamentally different than thinking the theory espoused within is sound. Unlike socialism in all of its forms, Christianity is not fundamentally a political theory. It is a spiritual theory, or religion. The political entity that historically ruled Europe, including Russia, was the Church (Eastern and Westestern forms). When the inquisition began, it was to eliminate a now obscure sect in France that threatened the political authority of the Church, not its spiritual authority. The New Testament as a philosophical treaties cannot be viewed as a political theory either that dictates how society should be ruled. Therefore, attributing deaths to Christianity as a theory, is not analogous to deaths attributed to socialism. Besides, a quip, adage, or bon mot attributed to Shakespeare is hardly a theory. As Paul agreed, a YOUNG Karl Marx wrote that Jews are behind capitalism which is the cause of the world's ills. Marx's never refuted that statement in later writings. That means at the VERY BEGINING of Marx's theory - as it was formulated - was the tenant that Jews are essentially bad. As a building block the Marxian world view was the belief that Jews are behind the cause of the world's ills. If you want me to "cherry pick" Hitler, I can always say "Hitler only wanted a strong German people." Therefore I would say that cherry picking from many philosophies can lead to some very dangerous beliefs.

In other words, its the thiefs making the rules..

Helen K- Thanks— you're right… I might cite just about any work, but I'd definitely try to put it in an edifying context. Although not a Marxist in any way (I simply think he had some interesting analysis: Steinbeck's “The Grapes of Wrath” illustrates well what a competitive race to the lowest prices and wages without a social safety net can do)—I think I agree that policing national boundaries with militaries is less than ideal. I mentioned “human rights” not “rights of nations,” although I'm not so sure about groups lacking all rights—but “they” should be held accountable for their actions, imo. A problem is: Who is supposed to enforce human rights and international law? “Nations as governments” are highly integrated with their populace, and attacking a rogue government, that isn't widely resented by that populace, is most likely going to get the interventionist into a huge debacle. To compound problems, the other participants in the current state of the UN are often not neutral arbiters, but sometimes ruthlessly competitive.

I hope that you have had the opportunity to view this Aaron Russo Videro.

 

America Freedom to Fascism Authorized version

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=Freedom+to+fascism&hl=en

 AMERICA: Freedom To Fascism. Aaron Russo Interview.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3254488777215293198&q=Freedom+to+fascism&hl=en

Just one more note before I sign off. Since we are talking about Marx, it is fitting to point out that nation states and hence the notion of soverignty have no intrinsic legitimacy in the Marxist framework. States are but instruments of class oppression in Marx's formulation. It is odd that you bring up the rights of nations in this particular context.

 

Helen K

I didn't say all works of Marx should be treated as taboos, but "on the Jewish question" is problematic. I wonder if you would put that down in a citation if you have to make a formal bibliorgraphy. I know I wouldn't, if just to avoid distractions.

Human right records certainly have a bearing of the legitimacy of a government, not only in foreign affairs, but in its existence. People have rights, nations shouldn't, they are abstractions like corporations. Nations should only be accorded rights as a means to protrect individual citizens. Governments that abuse their own citizens on a mass scale forefeit their national rights morally already inspite of the letters of international law.

Helen K

Helen K— Providing an exaggerated counter-example is a pretty weak form of argument (there are always exceptions to the rule—it's the fact that there are consistencies that provides the ability to perceive and communicate). There is a difference between aphoristic poetic wisdom, and consistent logical argument. Do you have a coherent problem with my countering fundamentalism in general with open minded wisdom cherry picking? Good arguments, imo, often incorporate the best of other people's arguments and thoughts. Shakespeare said, “The devil can cite scripture for his purpose.” Is it possible to quote “the devil” for your own good purposes? Having seen a copy of Mein Kamf while going through army training at Fort Benning, Georgia—I must say the huge book looked quite impressive. I don't think that makes me a Nazi sympathizer. Hitler had much more of a hand in the atrocities associated with his writing than Marx did with his. But in each case, we see an extreme principled ideology that lead to millions of deaths. (Yet, not many people blame Jesus for the crusades and inquisitions). So I see your point, but do you really think that quoting Marx is like quoting Hitler? Do you think that certain authors should be taboo? I assume it's the rhetoric that you're concerned with and not the logic. Maybe quoting Marx is a bad rhetorical move, unless you're preaching to the “left” choir of a specific persuasion. There is a deeper logic at issue with your sweeping generalization of “the left,” and a complete failure, at least here, to distinguish nuanced views of various Znet bloggers, and commentators. I consider myself a radical moderate; but it doesn't take too much investigation to turn up that many at Znet are opposed to US military adventurism and foreign interventionism—at least as far and reckless as some believe it has been. It's not just US bashing, or even “self-critique”—but a legitimate problem with the US swinging a huge stick in a very crowded room. As far as polls are concerned, I understand that a US majority think that more money should go to social services or tax breaks, than to the military. The US military is not democratically directed. A “principle and ideology” here might have something to do with hoping that the US would relax its international posture: ask yourself this question—“if democracy and human rights are a universal goal, why does a minority OWN the majority of the global police?” Don't forget, this is a global police force with a US-serving agenda. And again, it's not even the populace of the US that is directing that huge war machine! (Or even the US congress!). But maybe your comment is an overflow from David Peterson's blog. I would agree, for example, that many people's basic rights are not respected in various locations on the globe. But Paul, for one, does concern himself with domestic issues—and thinks, if I understand him, that we need to get our own house in order, before we export our “American Dream.” To say we Americans have it all “together,” is to live in isolated and ignorant privilege: “let them eat cake” to misquote a Marie Antoinette. Maybe you're of the persuasion that “we” should metaphorically kick a little mid-east macho ass to combat, for example, misogyny. But even a propaganda war, not even close to military interventionism, would likely lead to reactionary resentment. Baywatch was a major US export for awhile. How's that for propaganda? Maybe that's a mote in our eye compared to the beam in other's eyes—but to establish a relationship of “master-pupil,” “inspector-inspected,” etc. is insulting: why can't Iran, or the UN, inspect the US nuclear facilities? (Maybe they do). Maybe you think a country's human rights record should determine their legitimacy in foreign affairs—but how often is it not simply “who has the money and the gun?” J.D. Casten

Rudy is diverting from the main point of the blog, but his question is not an illegitmate one. There are probably some cherries in mein kamf too, but you shouldn't be surprised at the reaction and the 'diversions' that ensue if you quote them to make a point.

 

Rudy, The left's stance against Israel is not due to anti-semitism. It is much simpler than that. If the U.S. were to turn against Israel it will instantly become the left's darling. There is no principle, no ideology here, the enemy of the U.S is my friend.

 

 

Helen K

Refusing to pay war taxes would be fine. But on the subject of paying for war, there's a perhaps more sinister issue. While paying (war) taxes might enable a criminal government to proceed, it is (obviously) the consumerist culture that demands that the same government proceed. And this isn't simply about Americans wanting cheap gas for their SUV's. Virtually all of our consumer and agricultural goods have some nasty connection to the oil that the US government is murdering countless people to maintain control of. I appreciate the topical posting (war tax resistance a week before tax day in the US), but I suppose what many Americans give to the Pentagon each year is a gift much greater than that 33 percent (or whatever it is)...they give their silent blessing. Keir The Hague

Rudy— I mentioned, “cherry picking” as a good thing. I think some people need to trust a little in their own (cultured) heart to find that they too can figure out the kernel of wisdom amongst the chaff. Do you hold every word and sentence of, say the Bible, equal with every other? It would take quite a charitable interpretation to get there, imo. Would you agree with everything someone else says and does, simply because THEY say and do it? (“THEY” being a government, a church, a parent, a prophet?). That's a sort of positive ad hominem approach to life, Rudy. Learning to distrust even the most trustworthy, at least enough to be your own person, can be meaningful. Respecting Moses, Mohamed, Jesus, etc., as much as I do, nonetheless, I wouldn't want to be anyone's clone!

Paul – Point well taken on using the word “masses”—Although I always liked the term “critical mass” in that context. I think it's high time (high noon for Nancy Pelosi's “there's a new congress in town”)—that democrats put a little more bite, to match some of the barking that's going on—especially in curtailing executive power (e.g.: the “"He is president of the United States, not king of the United States" comment by Harry Reid). I think your “positive action” shift is a good place to focus on; but I hope you don't feel restricted on your own blog—a “negativity amplification chamber” effect on the Znet blogs might be a “danger”—but an occasional diatribe would be welcome by me. I ordered a copy of your book, “Empire and Inequality: America and the World Since 9/11”— I'll have to see which approach you take there. A couple of general thoughts on activation: I think thought and words are a powerful form of motivation (as are also circumstances and images)—I think it is also important to know who your audience is, to try to expand that audience with accessibility and rhetorical/logical seduction, and to share with an audience the tools to “emancipate” themselves: Advertising and Public Relations for the spirit of authentic resistance, honest critical thinking, and general awakening from a reconciliation with the “everyday” that (1) may not be as good as it should be for you, (2) is definitely not good for many another. Strategies may differ, depending on what scale you're talking about—from helping change a few people's perspective, to fueling and helping “organize” a “massive” movement. (I put the word “organize” in quotes, as a truly massive democratic movement would be somewhat decentralized).

Paul, a few blog posts back, you asked for descency amongst posters. Now you insist on putting my name in quotes as to mock me. There is no need for this as evidenced by your past posts. And, for claiming to not want to engage me, you suspiciously took 5 paragraphs to explain why you won't. Hmmmm? May I remind everyone that Paul is the one who brought up Marx's "Jewish Question," not me. While Paul may innocently be questioning capitalism, he is referencing a text that explicitly blames the ills of capitalism on Jews. There is simply no argument against that other than an out right refusal to recognize Marx's words. As someone wrote, he is "cherry picking" his wisdom. Not a wise move. I would also like to reference a post of a few months ago. The post was about an article by a National Review writer who cited research that showed that Democrats and others "on the left" give less to charity and volunter less time with the needy than those on the right. Paul, if I remember, lamblasted the article saying he shouldn't have to spend his time and money - the government should be doing everything. In this thread, Paul says he is not willing to goto prison for not paying taxes. Unfortunately, central to civil disobedience is the willingness to pay the price for one's actions, i.e., go to prison if necessary. Therefore, when Paul asks "what can the left do?" the answer apparently is, "nothing."

No willingness to be in prison. I'd sit and listen to "Rudy" for a whole day before I'd go to prison. An overnight in city jail for antiwar march is one thing; actual incarceration...not into it,I readily admit. Would expatriate self first. One of the links via WRL documented that prison is very rare for tax resisters...though if I remember they do have a couple of resisters behind bars as we speak. For civil and financial penalties, the tolerance is higher but not great. One of the groups linked in my post works on legislation allowing you to earmark your taxes for social policy, not warfare - I suppport that of course. On WWJD if he were in Congress, see the Wills book: his claim (supported the NT text) is that Jesus (and I do not claim to be a Christian, I repeat) was totally opposed to people seeking authority over others via elections or other methods. Absolutely yes on reigning in imperial presidency's warmaking authorities. There are multiple strategies and ways to proceed and I never meant to seem to claim that War Tax Resistance was the only or the main way to go. Sad to see Congressional Dems so focused on the firing of 8 federal attorneys when the case of impeachment on monumental Iraq war crimes is overwhelming. I don't generally like the term "masses" or the "multitudes," which seem to have quasi-messianic and related vanguardist/Lenninist connotations. How to spark/encourage popular revolt is a book length topic and its about to become one of my major preoccupations It's a huge question. The opinion-action deficit (lurking behind the U.S. "democracy deficit" that Noam Chomsky talks so eloquently about) in the U.S. is huge and I am trying to get a sophisticated handle on it (good luck, some might say) so as to more effectively act againt it... and yes this qualifies my recently implied and perhaps overly strong (even somewhat false) dichotomy between thought and action, which was overstated perhaps to correct the imbalance towards pure thought on this blog and perhaps in blogs more generally.

Rudy— Your bringing up Marx's “On the Jewish Question” may be relevant, in a twisted way, to the remarks on Jesus' “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's”—as Marx was considering the abolition of religion in a “perfect” political society—but I think Paul might have liked a more direct discussion of his topic of tax-revolt. First, Rudy, although there May be some anti-Semitic branches to some left and right thinking—due to historical roots of such matters—this does not mean that self-conscious contemporary (left) thinkers are “rotten to the core”—and not perpetually trying to refine hateful prejudices from their way of thinking. Some Democratic/Capitalist theorists probably owned slaves. This too is relevant—but not completely damning of contemporary thought. You don't have to throw out the baby of a good idea, with the bathwater of prejudice. Philosophically, I prefer those who balance their Marx & Nietzsche (like those in the Frankfurt School, such as Adorno, Marcuse, and Horkheimer). But Paul isn't calling for abolition of religion. And although we may see some influence of Marx on Paul, I imagine he cherry-picks his wisdom too (like a good reader of the Bible should: all wisdom is not equal, imo). Dogmatic fundamentalism is a problem, (again, imo), regardless of your political or religious persuasion. I'm not sure how many lefties would abide by Marx's dogmatic statement at the end of Marx's work in question: “Only when the real, individual man re-absorbs in himself the abstract citizen, and as an individual human being has become a species-being in his everyday life, in his particular work, and in his particular situation, only when man has recognized and organized his “own powers” as social powers, and, consequently, no longer separates social power from himself in the shape of political power, only then will human emancipation have been accomplished.” A question for Paul, is how much time are you willing to spend, if not in Prison, at least dealing with all the fallout of being a tax evader? I think many people would like to pay 1/3 less taxes and drastically cut the military (I would)—and I think you are correct to point out that tax evasion should be targeted, when possible, so that people do not inadvertently cut their personal funding of all government services. But, how can the masses be enticed to revolt, if not in a convenient manner? (I'm not totally joking here!) But I think a real point is that the US Congress, as representatives, should seriously be looking at cutting the Presidents power to wage war, monetarily. How can we as citizens really send out this message? WWJD if he were a congressional? Or a president? (Nietzsche's “Caesar with the soul of Christ”). Paul seems to be talking about direct democracy, in a way—this may seem off topic, but here is a link to a Jaron Lanier essay, questioning Wikipedia-like-democracy: Digital Maoism

Is my tone disrespectful? If so then this is at least intellectually honest. I do my best to maintain a civil tone on the blog but I can't fake respect in this case - just can't pretend.

I quite honestly and unapologetically have zero intellectual respect for your opinions, "Rudy." 

I quite sincerely don't think you have the slightest idea what you are talking about. I honestly think you are caught up in a bizarre set of circular cognitions and denials that are just completely and hopelsessly silly at the end of the day. You've posted here before on numerous occasions and pretty much everything you ever say strikes me as just thoroughly idiotic.  

The notion that I need to engage ideas I find ridiculous is absurd. I don't. Once in downtown Chicago a madman came up to me and told me the world was going to end in four days and that my feet were on fire. He was wearing a poster board about aliens infilitrating American from Serbia. I did not engage him and I do not engage you "Rudy." 

I think I may create a sort of cybernetic version of the Time Out Corners that are so widely used in Day Care facilities - a place to cut and and paste in posts I perceive to be hopelessly diversionary, ill-informed and just plain ridiculous.  I'll just take an old post and designate it as the dumping ground for such material.  I'll give it a name like "Welcome to the Nuthouse" or something like that. 

Paul, I am maintaining a respectful tone in this discussion. Please do the same. I did not mention the Iraq war when loosely discussing Marx. Your response, however, is a perfect example of how Marx's hatred towards Jews, (dispite his father's upbringing,) has manifested itself into today's left (Israeli aggression, aparthied, etc). Marx viewed capitalism as the leading problem in the world. Capitalism was viewed as a tool of the Jews. Therefore, if you get rid of Jews, there will no longer be the world's ills brought about by capitalism. Unfortunately, Jews were already outsiders in society so it was very easy to simply "blame the Jews." This is reflected today when the left blames Israel for the problems in the middle east. It is the capitalism Jews have brought to the middle east, it is their aggression in the name of capitalism, etc. that is the true destabalizing force in the region. Therefore, Israel shouldn't exist (which is a very real position in the left) to Israel should be kept in check so they don't influence the region too much. Further, when there is a clear and distinct line of anti-semitism running through the roots of leftist philosophy (Hegal, Voltaire, and Marx), those roots cannot be discarded with the modern leftists. The same simply cannot be said of the roots of modern democratic/captialist theory, e.g. Locke. Don't forget that much of Arab nationalism is rooted in Marxists theory. Marxists from the east and west converge and the result is a "palatable" policy of "anti-Jewish/anti-Israel." To address your concerns of Iraq, you have yet to show a valid authority of why the Iraq war is "criminal" and "illegal." The transcrips of the Nuremburg trials that you (and David Peterson) posted a few weeks ago are simply not an authority. The UN resolutions dating back to the first Iraq war are proper authorities and they do authorize military action. If you disagree with the war on an emotional level, fine. But you simply cannot say the war is "illegal" when there is no legal authority to back up your position.

"Rudy," with all due respect, your comments are in my opinion just ridiculous. Your effort to link a young Marx writing (not anti-Semitic) from the 1840s (or was it before..late 30s; but really don't care) to your defense of 20th and 21st century Zionist aggression (sorry) and your at once infantile and paranoid conflation of opposition to (well) Israeli oppression/militarism/racism/apartheid (sorry) with anti-Semitism (no, wrong)are preposterous...childish really. No, you don't have to worry about (you actually and seriously believe) "anti-Semitic censorship," but yes your comments are a diversion in my opinion. U.S. imperial foreign policy in the ME is mainly and above all about oil, not religion. Anyone with a modest level of brain function and information should know this very well though the combined mechanisms of imperial ideology, bad information and cognitive dissonance (and more) tend to work against this in the U.S. People should resist the illegal,racist, mass-murderous oil occupation of Iraq, I happen to think. You think that's an "anti-Semitic" position, a judgement that I find looney. Now we are supposed to argue back and forth about different aspects of this thoroughly unbridgeable chasm of cognitions and values? Yes, right...I should bang away endlessly at the keyboard against your endlessly ridiculous opinions (my opinion on your record on this blog) instead of acting on my own opinions. On second thought, no. War tax resistance (please see the original post and links on why and how to resist war taxes and possible consequences etc.) is one way of resisting the war and should be pursued whatever people think young Karl Marx said more than 120 years prior to the Seven Days War.

Paul, it is not a diversion because it goes directly to the heart of the left's anti-Israel stance which all too often is also an anti-Jewish stance. When Marx equates the evils of capitalism, the suppressor of the world, with the nefarious Jew, it means central to the followers of Marx's ideology is an anti-Jewish disposition. As a result, Israel is not a valid country, Israel is the oppressor, Hamas and Hezbollah and the PLO are freedom fighters, Egypt, Syria, et al are fighting "Zionist aggression," and calls against Jews throughout the world are down played all under the guise of "if we just got rid of religion, there would be no oppression to begin with." It's all a ruse. The anti-semitism of Germany during the 1800s as reflected in Voltaire's, Hegal's, and Marx's philosophies is reflected in the attitudes of the left today. So Paul, it is not a diversion. I trust you will not remove this post.

This is exactly what I mean - precisely what I've been talking about: diversion and missing the point; choosing marginally relevant  debate over agency. And no I don't know anything about that big "controversy" (Gee, let me guess: some right-wing and/or liberal blowhards are claiming that Karl Marx was a big anti-Semite?)  Anyway, I think it would be good for people to think about resisting the war tax and then, better yet, to resist the war tax. I've written at length --- will not give all the links (it just gets exhausting)--- about King's radical Christianity, which included the requirement that people act against obviously illegal and immoral policies like the 1960s-70s U.S. assault on Indonichina and the currentl bloody imperial oil occupation of Iraq.   

MT Brad, What do you think the controversy is over? The controversy has nothing to do with Marx's father.

MT Brad, What do you think the controversy is over? The controversy has nothing to do with Marx's father.

There is no controversy over Marx's portrayal of Jews in "on the Jewish question" amongst anyone who has actually read it. Marx's father was Jewish.

Paul, as I'm sure you're aware, there is a controversy over Marx's portrayal of Jews in "On the Jewish Question."  It is odd, therefore I believe, that you quote from it.  Can you please explain you're interpretation of Marx's use of "the Jew" in this particular writing?

Paul, as I'm sure you're aware, there is a controversy over Marx's portrayal of Jews in "On the Jewish Question." It is odd, therefore I believe, that you quote from it. Can you please explain you're interpretation of Marx's use of "the Jew" in this particular writing?

Odd that nobody has pointed out yet the devout Christianity of MLK. See the Berger interview with Harding (about MLK's Riverside speech) on ZNet today. T

Excellent work and contribution Jason. I am also in the category of being non-Christian (personally atheist, in my case)  yet impressed by the eloquent radicalism of the historical character (real or fictional) called Jesus in the New Testament.  For treatment of left (in modern context) NT text, see the prolific and brilliant though Catholic Garry Wills, What Jesus Meant (2006). And for an interesting effort to provide historical-anthropological (as well as textual) basis for the notion of Jesus as essentially a radical-itinerant Mediterranian peasant revolutionary --- a sort of wandering charismatic IWW leader for his time ---  see John Dominc Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (1994). Wills adds radical opposition to hiearchy as such on earth.  

I am more concerned with advancing war tax resistance than leading a "historical Jesus" (apparently something of an academic sub-field) seminar and would only add that all the major religions have distant precapitalist and communalist origins and give voice to sentiments that are clearly opposed to class society and market/corporate rule.

And as a practical matter in daily activism, I would encourage atheist radicals to be somewhat tactically and publicly restrained in how upset you are over people believing in God and stuff like that; there's plenty enough progressive to work with in Christian texts and practice. 

I've been frustrated with the conservatism and/or bourgeois narcissism of plenty of atheists and inspired by the dedicated courageous radicalism of plenty of left Christians.  

I have a neighbor whose bumper sticker says "My Boss is a Jewish Carpenter." One of the interesting things about her claim to work only or at least ultimately for Jesus is that she seems to see a higher authority than her capitalist employer (imagine), not to mention the blood-soaked and (by the way) bipartisan Masters of Imperial Oil War in Washington DC.

To which I say, "okay, how can we work with that sort of sentiment in a leftward way"... around things like War Tax Resistance and more.    

You can work with left Christians and left Muslims and left Jews and left Wickens and left etc. to advance social change that will create conditions that will some day make religious and magical belief seem less necessary for many if not most people (Marx, "On the Jewish Question").

  

Paul,

Thanks for this post on war tax resistance. I think too few Americans realize the power they have to end war by simply refusing to pay for it. I wrote a short post on the subject (at my blog friendly/agitate), and discussed the recent New Yorker cover ("T-Day") as well as my own efforts at making art related to this topic.

Regarding the previous comment that expressed an incompatibility between Christianity and rebellion -- I am no Christian either, by far, but I've been reading Gandhi recently and thought I would offer up his thoughts on the matter (from a letter to an English friend, taken from Mahatma Gandhi, Selected Political Writings):

"... As I hold my conduct to be in utter agreement with universal religion and as I hold the New Testament teaching in great esteem, I should not like it to be justly said of me that I was going against the teaching of Jesus. "Render unto Caesar" was quoted against me before too. I have not read into the celebrated verse the meaning that my critics have sought to put into it. Jesus evaded the direct question put to him because it was a trap. He was in no way bound to answer it. He therefore asked to see the coin for taxes. And then said with withering scorn, "How can you who traffic in Caesar's coins and thus receive what to you are benefits of Caesar's rule refuse to pay taxes?" Jesus's whole preaching and practice point unmistakably to non-co-operation, which necessarily includes non-payment of taxes. Jesus never recognized man's authority as against God's. He who disregarded the whole host of priesthood, which was in those days superior to knighthood, would not have hesitated to defy the might of emperors had he found it necessary. And did he not treat with supreme disdain the whole of the farcical trial through which he was made to pass?"

Additions: (1) support the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee; (2) divert your phone tax refund from George Bush and Nancy Pelosi's war machine to social justice; see Amy Goodman's piece ("Hang Up on the War") on the telephone war tax and ite relation to war tax resistance today.

cyrano you can not put your hand on the ZNet however.  Please buy and spread the word about Empire and Inequality: America and the World Since 9/11 - something you can really put your hand on. It has the second best cover of any left book in recent years; content I'll leave judgements to others.

 

I prefer reading ZNet over the Bible. It's interesting that Street likes referencing King and makes some of us discover that what King said and critisized before he died is still ongoing today. Not paying taxes to the US and Canada is a matter of say. I'll try to buy products other than from the US..that's my tax burden on the U.S.

This is interesting in what it says about the culture of blogs. Commenters look for a way to pick at some aspect (often peripheral)  of the post they can concoct a way to feel pissed about and then make sure to sound snotty about it ("its complete BS") and often avoid the main point of the post.

This comment reminds me of the "Anonymous" who took my opening reference (a few posts back) to the use of lottery selection for some officeholders in ancient Athens to tell me that I was deficient in my ancient history. My own Athens reference was little more than a modest set up for a much larger point about the arrogance of politicians and the over-the-top narcissism of one of the leading U.S. presidential candidates.

The other thing is that so many people on the Internet want to have intellectual (often at a pretty low level) arguments instead of actually doing anything in accord with the beliefs they like to hammer away about at their keyboards. It's all about bitching and not acting.

One can argue endlessly about the bible, which certainly can be cited to validate numerous positions, but of course this post isn't really an argument mainly about the Bible or whether or not Christianity is "progressive" or "rebellious" is it? It's an action-related reference post for people thinking about refusing to pay War Taxes and I think if someone wants to make a substantive rather than peripheral criticism they would do best to engage the main point.

Better yet, consult some of the links and start working up some alternative uses for your tax dollars.

For what it's worth, I've met progressive Chrisitans and I've met reactionary Christians.  Same with Marxists and Buddhists and Muslims and atheists and so on.