Stand up to abortion and remain tax free!

[IsaacNewton]

"I don't want my taxes to go to paying for abortion" "By law they already don't" "Well my conspiracy theory group says..."

And thus batshittery is maintained across the land.

 

[Confounding]

"I don't want my taxes to go to paying for abortion" "By law they already don't" "Well my conspiracy theory group says..."

And thus batshittery is maintained across the land.

Apparently reality is even more subjective than I thought.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Render unto Ceaser....

I remember a lot of leftards doing that over military spending, Mr I live in a glass house.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“A woman has the right to choose, but apparently, the prosecutor feels I do not,” Michael Bowman told the court.

As Americans across the nation scramble to file their tax returns next week, one Oregon man is fighting that requirement in court, claiming his Christian beliefs about abortion bar him from paying his taxes.

Michael Bowman has refused to file a tax return or pay income tax since at least 1999 because he doesn’t want his tax dollars to go toward abortions, The Oregonian reports.

“I’m not a tax protester. I love my country. I have a duty to my country. I have a duty to my conscience,” Bowman told The Oregonian.

Federal law already prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest or to save a woman’s life. And courts have previously ruled that the government’s right to collect taxes supersedes individuals’ religious or anti-war objections to paying them.

More: Oregon Man Refuses To Pay Taxes Based On Religious Beliefs About Abortion



Just another religious loony trying to avoid taxes. Religion is already tax-exempt. What if we all tried to pick and choose what we pay taxes for? What do you think?

Well, answer me this! If California can refuse to obey federal law why can’t this citizen?

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Religious beliefs aren’t ‘justification’ for ignoring just and proper laws (Employment Division v. Smith (1990)).

California is appropriately and lawfully following the Constitution, which prohibits the Federal government from compelling states and local jurisdictions to enforce Federal laws (Printz v. United States (1997)), and consistent with the 10th Amendment, having nothing to do with religious belief.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The issue Bowman attempts to raise is not remotely new. One must conclude that Bowman simply hasn't studied history or is poor student of it.

[What follows is a piece of an unfinished essay written for a different discussion, but that seems useful here.]​

To wit, careful review of Medieval through Renaissance history reveals the tendency for practitioners and arbiters of ecclesiastical law to fit their arguments, actions and doctrinal proclamations into the patterns of prevailing temporal law, thus downplaying, whenever they could, the potential for conflict that existed between canon law. Even where they asserted their claims against the common law, they did so mostly by indirection. Whether ecclesiastical solicitors', or more aptly their clients', remarks/stances were the product of fear, conviction, or resignation be not entirely demonstrable, for too often civilians were not reflective enough, and the records they produced too inarticulate for the historian to be sure whether they ever felt the conflict between religious and secular obligation as keenly as Thomas Becket. Even if they did, the evidence is sufficiently clear to demonstrate that they did not regard the conflict as a call to take direct action against the King. There certainly was conflict between common law and canon law at all times between 1250 and 1640. But the dominant themes in the responses to it on the part of English ecclesiastical lawyers did not include defiance. Rather, they were accommodation and self-defense through means that avoided, rather than confronted, the common-law rules.


References:

• The Becket Dispute and the Criminous Clerks
• The Writ of Prohibition to Court Christian in the Thirteenth Century
  
• Act for the Submission of the Clergy and Restraint of Appeals,
  

  No canons, constitution, or ordinance shall be made or put in execution within this realm by authority of the Convocation of the Clergy which shall be contrariant or repugnant to the King's prerogative royal, or the customs, laws, or statutes of this realm; anything contained in this Act to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.

• A Companion To Philosophy In The Middle Ages
  
• ‘Dyvers kyndes of religion in sondry partes of the Ilande’: The Geography of Pastoral Care in Thirteenth-Century England
  
• The rise and fall of the High Commission

 

[Stormy Daniels]

He refuses to pay taxes because he opposes abortions. He just beat the feds in court

Apparently this works.

It's time to take the abortionists down, and get richer doing it!!!!

Did you actually read your own link? He had his indictment quashed because it was faulty. The courts didn't say he's excused from paying taxes just because he has a sad about women controlling their own bodies.

 

[fncceo]

“Michael Bowman has refused to file a tax return or pay income tax since at least 1999 because he doesn’t want his tax dollars to go toward abortions.”

Using this ‘reasoning’ one shouldn’t be compelled to pay Federal income tax because funding air strikes in Syria violates his religious beliefs.

Agreed... I believe that no person should be obligated to pay taxes for things with which he finds morally objectionable.

Defund federal government.

 

[WillowTree]

“A woman has the right to choose, but apparently, the prosecutor feels I do not,” Michael Bowman told the court.

As Americans across the nation scramble to file their tax returns next week, one Oregon man is fighting that requirement in court, claiming his Christian beliefs about abortion bar him from paying his taxes.

Michael Bowman has refused to file a tax return or pay income tax since at least 1999 because he doesn’t want his tax dollars to go toward abortions, The Oregonian reports.

“I’m not a tax protester. I love my country. I have a duty to my country. I have a duty to my conscience,” Bowman told The Oregonian.

Federal law already prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest or to save a woman’s life. And courts have previously ruled that the government’s right to collect taxes supersedes individuals’ religious or anti-war objections to paying them.

More: Oregon Man Refuses To Pay Taxes Based On Religious Beliefs About Abortion



Just another religious loony trying to avoid taxes. Religion is already tax-exempt. What if we all tried to pick and choose what we pay taxes for? What do you think?

Well, answer me this! If California can refuse to obey federal law why can’t this citizen?

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Religious beliefs aren’t ‘justification’ for ignoring just and proper laws (Employment Division v. Smith (1990)).

California is appropriately and lawfully following the Constitution, which prohibits the Federal government from compelling states and local jurisdictions to enforce Federal laws (Printz v. United States (1997)), and consistent with the 10th Amendment, having nothing to do with religious belief.

Horseshit. California is blatantly breaking federal law by offering sanctuary to criminal illegals. They provide them welfare, they provide them housing, they provide them ID and drivers license.