A view on filling out the census

[Tracy]

On the Census and the Constitution Revisisted

R.C. Sproul Jr. lays out the problem:

Romans 13 tells us that we are to submit to those who are in authority over us. Those in authority over us claim that the Constitution is the highest law of the land. They then proceed to ignore its most straightforward requirements, treating it as what it is, a dead letter. Which leaves us with this question- are we to submit to the state that falsely claims to be under the Constitution, or are we to submit to the Constitution itself (or more accurately, our own interpretation of the Constitution)? How we answer that question will likely answer how we answer the question of the census.

Then the solution:

My conviction, informed by the collective wisdom of almost every Reformed Bible commentator, is that Romans 13 calls us to submit not just to government as it ought to be, but as it is. That means governments whose authority is on shaky grounds, as well as governments whose activity is on shaky grounds, if they are the ones in power, are to be submitted to, unless or until they command us to do what God clearly forbids, or forbid us to do what God clearly commands. The census is a nuisance. It is not authorized by the Constitution. It is one more fruit of the state’s self-aggrandizement, one more affectation to demonstrate that it is God. And I will be filling mine out. I’ve read the whole Bible and no where does God tell us, “Whatever else you do, be sure not to tell the state how many toilets you have.”

And some practical counsel:

When we are in trouble, when the state is actively abusing us, rather than merely annoying us, and where it yet touts its own procedures, of course we may and should avail ourselves of those procedures [i.e., Paul demanding a trial]. When, however, we are being merely annoyed, wisdom encourages us to go the second mile, to live as much as is possible in peace and quietness with all men. If you want to pick a fight with the state, don’t do it over insignificant data. Don’t do it over how many federal reserve notes they take from us. Do it over something significant. Fussing over such things to a state that sanctions and protects nearly 4000 murders each day seems to demonstrate a rather odd set or priorities. If we would take all the energy we spend on this issue and instead pray for liberty and justice for all, then we might one day again live in the land of the free.

For a link to the full article, go to:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/jus ... evisisted/

[Full Quiver]

I'm told that no one has ever been arrested for not filling out the census. The IRS should already have a good head count and then beyond that they could get more accurate numbers by just counting all the crooks in govt. who haven't paid their taxes and add them to the number that the rest of us make up.

[dolfan]

The census is required by the Constitution. It requires an "actual enumeration". It also allows Congress to do so in whatever manner Congress decides. "Manner" is method, not asking questions beyond enumeration.

I know the SCOTUS has said that "manner" and the "necessary and proper clause" allow the other questions to be asked. Fine. Ask away. Don't compel my answers beyond what the Constitution requires.

I respect Sproul, truly. His opinion is wise, but I do disagree with his analysis of what matters. What matters is the scope of the powers of the federal government, however and wherever that manifests itself. The federal government may have an interest that the federal courts (part of the federal government, BTW) "weigh" as sufficient to compel me to comply. I simply disagree. The information is used against citizens, to create programs and an ever-growing that is deliberately bent on harming their interests. To that end, I am and remain sovereign in my own home and conscience, over and above even the United States Government. They already know who we are and where we live. Compelling my response to a written inquiry into matters that exceed the actual enumeration is for purposes that, while perhaps "necessary and proper" as the federal courts arbitrarily decide to balance interests, are purposes that I have determined are not in the interests of my family.
Census data is used to promote unjust practices in government. I will honor the Constitution's explicit requirement; I will not honor the far-later born "balancing tests" that courts now use to deem every government exercise as "necessary and proper" and which courts have substituted for what once was actual legal analysis that favored the rights of individuals to remain the most free from government action.

[Full Quiver]

My conviction, informed by the collective wisdom of almost every Reformed Bible commentator, is that Romans 13 calls us to submit not just to government as it ought to be, but as it is. That means governments whose authority is on shaky grounds, as well as governments whose activity is on shaky grounds, if they are the ones in power, are to be submitted to, unless or until they command us to do what God clearly forbids, or forbid us to do what God clearly commands.

Such a conviction would probably have prevented the overthrown of the King by the forefathers of our nation I'd suppose.

[dolfan]

I've been mulling over this view of Romans 13 that says Christians should submit to civil government as God's instrument of goodness to us. It just doesn't wash with everything else we see in the Bible.

It makes sense that we are to "follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord." Jesus' way is THE peaceful way, the only one in fact. It is the one that commands us to pray for our enemies, to love them, to bless the ones who use us with spite against us. That's plain and simple. Not easy, but simple and straightforward and non-negotiable.

When you read Romans 13 against the backdrop of those instances where Jesus speaks directly about our enemies, seems to me we have to decide if Jesus is serious about peace to the point that we do as writers such as Sproul suggest, or if Jesus' words in those instances really do not speak directly to what Paul was saying in Romans.

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:1, "Follow me as I follow Christ." Paul, the Christ-follower, escaped as a fugitive from civil government's view of justice, according to his own account at the end of 2 Corinthians 11. Peter, the Christ-follower, refused to quit preaching on the streets in Jerusalem.

I found an interesting comment by someone who I do not know, and I'll post here for your own mulling over:

In an apparent contradiction to Peter’s actions, the principle of submission to government is found many times throughout the New Testament. In Peter’s first epistle, he exhorts the Christians to “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake.”[3] Clearly, we are admonished to obey and submit ourselves. This is the will of God. Yet Peter’s response displays to us that the extent of our obedience is not always without limit.

We are assured that there is no doctrine of unlimited submission and passive obedience. Therefore, we must conclude that submission is not to all who bear the title of rules, “but only, to those who actually perform the duty of rulers, by exercising a reasonable and just authority, for the good of human society.”[4] If rulers are a terror to good works and not evil; If they only care about the gratification of their own lust; If they issue commands that are counter to the commandments of God, then it is plan that Scripture teaches us that we ought to obey God rather than men. However, in all other cases, we are to submit to the higher powers for they are ordained of God.

http://www.cantrell-family.com/?p=29 The footnotes are on the page linked to here.

So, as far as I can honestly see it, our government does not actually perform the duty of rulers by exercising reasonable and just authority nor for our good. Where it does, I submit.

I'll give you an example. Earlier this week, I was not paying attention to my speed immediately after the limit drops from 40 to 30 in a particular neighborhood. A police officer was standing on the corner with a radar gun, and my first awareness of a problem was when he vigorously pointed for me to park. He walked up to my window and said, "You were doing 41 in a 30." I said, ashamed, "Really?" and handed him my license and registration. I also wasn't wearing my seatbelt --- a very bad habit of mine. As I sat there, I thought to myself, "You KNOW this is a 30 mph zone. You KNOW where the sign chaning the speed limit is. You KNOW you lecture Charlcie that a car is as dangerous as a loaded gun. But, you were listening to the radio." The officer kindly brought me a warning ticket (whew) on the speeding and a real ticket for no seat belt (that makes 3 in 5 years for that -- $10 each). I told the officer, "You know, I deserve a ticket for distracted driving if for nothing else. There's a school zone up ahead, and as you can see [pointing to the booster seat in my back seat] I have a child that I just dropped off." The speeding law is a law for good, it is just and it is reasonable. I submitted. (I confess I'll probably not wear my seat belt regularly enough, though.) When I picked up my daughter later in the day, I even told her what had happened and how it is important to .... and she actually finished my sentence .... "always pay attention because a car is a dangerous as a gun with bullets in it."

But, most of our laws, and most particularly federal laws, are not just, not reasonable, and are not for the good of my family or any of yours. To put a fine point to it, the census enumeration requirement is explicitly part of the Constitution and it makes sense for the existence of the U.S. Government. Any other requirement by law that would compel the provision of information to the Government through the tool of the census is used for harmful, malevolent purposes, and are "terrors to good works" even if they are also terrors to evil ones. I simply do not see it any other way.

[deb]

I think I'll fill mine in...

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/how/questions.php

For the question, "Do I have to fill the form in?"

Title 13

Sec. 221. Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers

(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not more than $100.

(b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a) of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

[dolfan]

Not that I think it would help, but I sincerely believe it is wrong for me to complete the form with the information asked for. The federal government wishes to and does do harm to us. It is absolutely wrong for me to aid anyone in harming my family. I have a moral duty to them, and I have a duty to resist the evil power of the federal government, however inocucously that power may present itself in the census form. It would have been sin for Jesus to turn stone into bread at the temptation of Satan, but not sin for him to do so for himself at his own bidding. In my honest conviction, our government is as evil as Satan. While it may not be a sin to answer a question, it is --- to me and in my honest view --- a moral wrong to answer questions that aid the government in doing its evil work. If I wasn't convinced that our government is evil, I wouldn't spend so much mental energy being mad about being subject to it.