hammer4nc wrote:
This situation could be approached on two levels, legal/illegal, or right/wrong. Let's not mix apples and oranges.
I respond:
I am not mixing apples and oranges. I carefully distinguish between the legal, moral and ethical. Rather than to approach this simplistically on the basis of two considerations, I am employing three.
hammer4nc wrote:
Legal/illegal: I'm not quite as quick as you seemingly are, to accept the IRS interpretation of regulations as "law", and simply dismiss dissenting arguments by saying "it doesn't matter". I take issue with your portrayal of the irs as the vigilant guardian against shams. Anyone who has dealt with this agency (and its appeal process) will tell of changing, contradictory opinions, presumption of guilt before innocence, and a vindictive/political agenda driving prosecutions. In that their job is to collect taxes, and the seminal event here was REVENUE NEUTRAL (the taxes were paid in full- the govt. got every cent it was due!), I'd expect any efficiency-minded agency would be able to find a way to post the payments. Spirit vs. the letter of the law. Not waste the time and money it has in a zero-tolerance vendetta over who made the payment. Thats what I mean by common sense. While the irs is enthusiastic in issuing overly complex rulings when it suits their agenda, similar point-by-point arguments made by lowly taxpayers are met with the response you put forward: "It doesn't matter what you say. Comply or we take everything you own and put you in jail".
I respond:
I am not accepting the IRS interpretations as “law” solely on the basis of what they have said. Perhaps you have not noted that every court has agreed with them. Perhaps you missed the fact that I have repeatedly said that I have agreed with the IRS AND all of the courts. The courts are the determining factor. As for the IRS, I do not assert that they are a perfect organization. As one who has dealt with them and their assumptions, I am indeed cognizant of their methodology. I again, as one who is intimately aware of the emphasis they put on rooting our sham “self-employment” schemes, reassert that they continually monitor this in the secular realm. This is simply a fact. I grant that the scheme concocted by the IBT was essentially REVENUE NEUTRAL. I haven’t argued that point. The sole point I have made is that it is illegal. I notice that you haven’t addressed that. Perhaps you will point out from the law how they have complied. The IRS did not of its own authority take possession of the IBT. The Federal Marshals were ordered to do so over three months ago by a Federal Judge after all appeals within the legal system had run out for IBT. As long as the appeals were proceeding, no action was taken. Does the IRS sometimes deal improperly with citizens? Yes. It makes me furious. They have dealt incorrectly with me. But, I followed the law and won.
hammer4nc wrote:
Right/wrong: From your post, I infer your agreement that there is SOME point at which civil disobedience is justified, on a moral level. (Correct me if I've assumed too much.) When to disobey a bad law. When to rebel. You may argue that until you are personally ordered by govt. to commit a heinous act, you must comply with lawful authority. I suspect that when that day comes, you would find a way to comply.
I respond:
You have correctly inferred that there is a point when an immoral order of a government must be disobeyed. You are incorrect in assuming that I would find a way to obey an immoral order. Never would I do so. When is the point of refusal to obey reached? As a Christian, I answer: “We must obey God, rather than man.” This means that if the order of the government is “legal”, in the sense that they followed established procedure to draft this law, and even if the law is “ethical”, in the sense that it conforms to community standards, that I must disobey a law that is “immoral”, that is, a law that would cause me to sin if I followed it.
hammer4nc wrote:
Others feel stongly enough about the erosion of liberty, and usurpations by our govt., that they can no longer fund these activities, participate in good conscience. While you blythely dismiss these fears as unfounded, remote, etc., for others they are important, real and present. IBT has suffered legal consequences, we can agree to disagree whether their actions are right or wrong. I think they are taking a courageous stand.
I respond:
I disagree with those who refuse to comply with the law on anything other than moral grounds. One must never sin against one’s conscience. However, one must also take great care to make certain that one’s position is tenable theologically if one happens to be a church. IBT has not done this. Their positions, for the most part, are contrary to Scripture, even thought they claim otherwise. I do not “blithely” dismiss their fears. You would do well to avoid such pejorative assertions. The fear that they would be ordered to preach certain doctrines is indeed “unfounded, remote”. If this belief was a precipitating factor in moving them toward their ultimate position, then that makes it all the more saddening. IBT’s actions were illegal, unethical, and immoral. Their stand is very courageous. I admire them for this. But it is just as foolish. I pity them for that. There is a very wise saying: “We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.” They burned the bridge when the enemy was not even in sight.
Some might question why the Marshals waited three months before acting. One of the reasons they waited so long to take possession of the building is this: immediately after the order was given, upwards of 250 church members and friends stayed in the building around the clock. That could have easily developed into a nasty situation. By waiting three months, the big crowds had dwindled to a handful. Little chance for confrontation to develop.
Pax,
viator
[Edited by viator on 02-14-2001 at 07:44 PM]
