Catholic Church Calls for Civil Disobedience.

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/wuerl_colson_christian/2009/11/21/289471.html

A formidable coalition of 150 Catholic, Orthodox, and evangelical leaders is calling on Christians in a new manifesto to reject secular authority â?? and even engage in civil disobedience â?? if laws force them to accept abortion, same-sex marriage, and other ideas that betray their religious beliefs.

On Friday, these leaders released a 4,700-word document, titled the “The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience,” which calls on Christians to engage in civil disobedience to defend their doctrines.

Those signing the document ranged from evangelical leader Chuck Colson to two of the leading Catholic prelates in the United States, Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., and Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York.

The document also blasts the Obama administration, saying that social ills have grown since the election of President Obama, an abortion rights advocate, along with an erosion of what it calls “marriage culture” with the rise of divorce, greater acceptance of infidelity, and the uncoupling of marriage from childbearing.

The project is aimed at instilling social conservative beliefs in a new generation of believers, Colson said.

“We argue that there is a hierarchy of issues,” he told The New York Times. “A lot of younger evangelicals say they’re all alike. We’re hoping to educate them that these are the three most important issues” â?? abortion, marriage, and religious liberty.

“We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them,” says the declaration, which was drafted by Colson, an evangelical, and Princeton University professor Robert P. George, a Roman Catholic.

The declaration lists the “fundamental truths” as the “sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and the rights of conscience and religious liberty.”

“Throughout the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required,” says the document, which cited civil rights icon Martin Luther King and his willingness to go to jail for his beliefs.

“Because we honor justice and the common good,” it states, “we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide or euthanasia or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family.”

George and other signers backed off from specifically defining what civil disobedience may entail. Wuerl’s office played down the civil disobedience wording, saying he wasn’t urging Catholics to “do anything specific,” his spokeswoman, Susan Gibbs, told The Washington Post. “That wasn’t something we had talked about.”

“We certainly hope it doesn’t come to that,” said George, who told The Washington Times that he has represented a West Virginia resident who has refused to pay a portion of her state income tax that funds abortions. “However, we see case after case of challenges to religious liberty,” such as compelling pharmacists to carry abortifacient drugs or healthcare workers to assist in abortions, he said.

“When the limits of conscience are reached and you cannot comply, it’s better to suffer a wrong than to do it,” he said.

Unveiling the declaration Friday, Wuerl appeared at a news conference in the District of Columbia even as the church was considering a city-proposed compromise on its same-sex marriage measure.

He and other church officials say the bill would require faith-based groups like Catholic Charities to extend benefits to married same-sex partners, thus forcing Christians to abandon their religious liberty. On Friday, Catholic Charities of Boston halted adoption services rather than comply with state law and allow children to be adopted by homosexual couples.

Other signatories to the document include Cardinal Justin Rigali, outgoing chairman of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activities; Pentecostal leader Harry Jackson, pastor of a Beltsville church; evangelical activist Tony Perkins; and National Association of Evangelicals President Leith Anderson.

Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told Newsweek the point of the Declaration is really to avoid mistakes of the past, such as when religious leaders did not stand up early enough against no-fault divorce, which he says led directly to the breakup of families and high divorce rates.

â??Iâ??m a former police officer, and I have hard time with civil disobedience, but if it comes to the point where our religious liberty is at risk, Iâ??d not only participate but would encourage people to resist.â??

The leaders are urging the public to sign the online document.

Read the full document here.

Sign the declaration here.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Does this mean something to the effect that if, say, public money goes to fund abortion, to stop paying taxes?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Does this mean something to the effect that if, say, public money goes to fund abortion, to stop paying taxes?[/quote]

IMO I would think with holding a small portion would be ok. You will probably have to go to court, and argue your First Amendment right to freedom of religion, but you will probably have to pay penalties and interest, but it would be a way to protest.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Does this mean something to the effect that if, say, public money goes to fund abortion, to stop paying taxes?

IMO I would think with holding a small portion would be ok. You will probably have to go to court, and argue your First Amendment right to freedom of religion, but you will probably have to pay penalties and interest, but it would be a way to protest.[/quote]

Not if a large percentage of the country does it. That’s how protesting works.

Iâ??ve had the idea recently of screwing the federal government up by withholding taxes without breaking the law.

Get everyone (or just a lot) of people to claim as many dependants as possible, and get as little withheld from paychecks as possible. Youâ??d still pay your taxes come april 15th, but youâ??d screw up federal tax revenues throughout the year.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Does this mean something to the effect that if, say, public money goes to fund abortion, to stop paying taxes?

IMO I would think with holding a small portion would be ok. You will probably have to go to court, and argue your First Amendment right to freedom of religion, but you will probably have to pay penalties and interest, but it would be a way to protest.

Not if a large percentage of the country does it. That’s how protesting works.

Iâ??ve had the idea recently of screwing the federal government up by withholding taxes without breaking the law.

Get everyone (or just a lot) of people to claim as many dependants as possible, and get as little withheld from paychecks as possible. Youâ??d still pay your taxes come april 15th, but youâ??d screw up federal tax revenues throughout the year.
[/quote]

I think that is a great idea, if you are able to put that money aside so you will have it on April 15th. With credit card issues and spending issues most people could not save that type of money.

It is up to about 57k signatures.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Does this mean something to the effect that if, say, public money goes to fund abortion, to stop paying taxes?

IMO I would think with holding a small portion would be ok. You will probably have to go to court, and argue your First Amendment right to freedom of religion, but you will probably have to pay penalties and interest, but it would be a way to protest.

Not if a large percentage of the country does it. That’s how protesting works.

I�¢??ve had the idea recently of screwing the federal government up by withholding taxes without breaking the law.

Get everyone (or just a lot) of people to claim as many dependants as possible, and get as little withheld from paychecks as possible. You�¢??d still pay your taxes come april 15th, but you�¢??d screw up federal tax revenues throughout the year.

I think that is a great idea, if you are able to put that money aside so you will have it on April 15th. With credit card issues and spending issues most people could not save that type of money.[/quote]

I’m not sure how you are doing the math. If people could pay the tax throughout the year, they could save enough. You just take the change in withholdings and put it in savings.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Does this mean something to the effect that if, say, public money goes to fund abortion, to stop paying taxes?

IMO I would think with holding a small portion would be ok. You will probably have to go to court, and argue your First Amendment right to freedom of religion, but you will probably have to pay penalties and interest, but it would be a way to protest.

Not if a large percentage of the country does it. That’s how protesting works.

I�?�¢??ve had the idea recently of screwing the federal government up by withholding taxes without breaking the law.

Get everyone (or just a lot) of people to claim as many dependants as possible, and get as little withheld from paychecks as possible. You�?�¢??d still pay your taxes come april 15th, but you�?�¢??d screw up federal tax revenues throughout the year.

I think that is a great idea, if you are able to put that money aside so you will have it on April 15th. With credit card issues and spending issues most people could not save that type of money.

I’m not sure how you are doing the math. If people could pay the tax throughout the year, they could save enough. You just take the change in withholdings and put it in savings.[/quote]

That is my point. How many people could actually put it into savings. Just imagine someone not used to have $2,000 or more in a savings acount, and they need a new water heater or air conditioner, or better yet all the new X-box 360 stuff that is out there. They will raid the savings account and no longer have the money. It is obvious you and I could do it, but not many people have that type of discipline.

Cool. So this means I can withhold my taxes to protest having them dumped into a couple of worthless holes in Middle East deserts?

I think it’s time for the IRS to re-evaluate the tax exempt status of some of these so called religious organizations.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Does this mean something to the effect that if, say, public money goes to fund abortion, to stop paying taxes?

IMO I would think with holding a small portion would be ok. You will probably have to go to court, and argue your First Amendment right to freedom of religion, but you will probably have to pay penalties and interest, but it would be a way to protest.

Not if a large percentage of the country does it. That’s how protesting works.

I�?�¢??ve had the idea recently of screwing the federal government up by withholding taxes without breaking the law.

Get everyone (or just a lot) of people to claim as many dependants as possible, and get as little withheld from paychecks as possible. You�?�¢??d still pay your taxes come april 15th, but you�?�¢??d screw up federal tax revenues throughout the year.

I think that is a great idea, if you are able to put that money aside so you will have it on April 15th. With credit card issues and spending issues most people could not save that type of money.

I’m not sure how you are doing the math. If people could pay the tax throughout the year, they could save enough. You just take the change in withholdings and put it in savings.[/quote]

Except that if you under report and don’t withhold enough the IRS can make you file quarterly estimated payments the following year. I’ve tried to do this before, because I’d much rather write a check for $2000 than get a $1000 refund, but that turned out to be a big pain in the ass.

[quote]tme wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Does this mean something to the effect that if, say, public money goes to fund abortion, to stop paying taxes?

IMO I would think with holding a small portion would be ok. You will probably have to go to court, and argue your First Amendment right to freedom of religion, but you will probably have to pay penalties and interest, but it would be a way to protest.

Not if a large percentage of the country does it. That’s how protesting works.

I�??�?�¢??ve had the idea recently of screwing the federal government up by withholding taxes without breaking the law.

Get everyone (or just a lot) of people to claim as many dependants as possible, and get as little withheld from paychecks as possible. You�??�?�¢??d still pay your taxes come april 15th, but you�??�?�¢??d screw up federal tax revenues throughout the year.

I think that is a great idea, if you are able to put that money aside so you will have it on April 15th. With credit card issues and spending issues most people could not save that type of money.

I’m not sure how you are doing the math. If people could pay the tax throughout the year, they could save enough. You just take the change in withholdings and put it in savings.

Except that if you under report and don’t withhold enough the IRS can make you file quarterly estimated payments the following year. I’ve tried to do this before, because I’d much rather write a check for $2000 than get a $1000 refund, but that turned out to be a big pain in the ass.

[/quote]

One year could be just enough time to cause a little pain. Make the government actually listen to the people instead of doing what they THINK is right.

[quote]tme wrote:
Cool. So this means I can withhold my taxes to protest having them dumped into a couple of worthless holes in Middle East deserts?

I think it’s time for the IRS to re-evaluate the tax exempt status of some of these so called religious organizations.

[/quote]

It doesn’t mean you or I can do anything. But yes, you could do that if you wanted.

tax exempt status has nothing to do with the organization staying out of politics.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

The first amendment protects the church from the state, not the other way around. Taxing a religious organizations could and would undoubtedly lead to preferential treatment of some in the tax code. They are absolutely entitled to be politically active. The government should not and is not intended to have protection from churches.

[quote]tme wrote:
Cool. So this means I can withhold my taxes to protest having them dumped into a couple of worthless holes in Middle East deserts?

I think it’s time for the IRS to re-evaluate the tax exempt status of some of these so called religious organizations.

[/quote]

I think that is an excellent idea!

Let us see wether the Anglo Saxon tradition of violent tax revolts is still alive.

Does anyone else see it as somewhat… awkward, for Christians to rally around the idea of marriage and traditional monogamy in a country with two wars currently ongoing? I mean, these individuals and organizations are free to choose what social ills to combat, but… doesn’t ‘death’ come before ‘taxes’?

[quote]Otep wrote:
Does anyone else see it as somewhat… awkward, for Christians to rally around the idea of marriage and traditional monogamy in a country with two wars currently ongoing? I mean, these individuals and organizations are free to choose what social ills to combat, but… doesn’t ‘death’ come before ‘taxes’?[/quote]

Not really, traditionally Christians believe that it is up to the government to wage war, or not to wage war. However, when it comes to moral issues such as abortion and homosexual marriage Christians feel (backed by scripture) that it is wrong to contribute to the moral ills of society.

However, with that sai, I recommend that Christians keep paying their taxes as it would be supremely stupid, criminal and also goes against scripture to withhold taxes from the government.

“Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. Render unto God that which is God’s.”

[quote]ZEB wrote:

“Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. Render unto God that which is God’s.”[/quote]

Unless of course “Caesar” is some black Muslim dude who conspired from birth to conceal his true identity so that he could some day take over America and turn it into a socialist country. Or something like that, anyway. Then it’s ok to tell Caesar to fuck off, and give his share to God.

[quote]tme wrote:
ZEB wrote:

“Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. Render unto God that which is God’s.”

Unless of course “Caesar” is some black Muslim dude who conspired from birth to conceal his true identity so that he could some day take over America and turn it into a socialist country. Or something like that, anyway. Then it’s ok to tell Caesar to fuck off, and give his share to God.

[/quote]

Caesar was a king of sorts, the American government is not, we have certain liberties that we all agree on and some people in politics choose not to see or more specifically choose to ignore these rights we have.

Yes, let’s tell women what to do with their body parts. And two consenting adults getting married is just a perversion.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Yes, let’s tell women what to do with their body parts. And two consenting adults getting married is just a perversion.[/quote]

If you are Catholic Marriage means more then just a license to the state. And the catholic church views that embryo as a life, you know like science supports.

But don’t bother yourself with facts.

[quote]John S. wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Yes, let’s tell women what to do with their body parts. And two consenting adults getting married is just a perversion.

If you are Catholic Marriage means more then just a license to the state. And the catholic church views that embryo as a life, you know like science supports.

But don’t bother yourself with facts.[/quote]

Again, her body, and other people.

I don’t give two shits what you think about marriage, you have no right stopping gay people getting married.

And your opposition to anything embryonic is not even close to scientific, at best your are misinformed.