Ned Netterville Makes Appearance on Forbes!

[Paths of the Sea]

Because Ned seems to have been a topic of discussion earlier here, I thought I would note his appearance (at least it looks and sounds like the same Ned) on Forbes in case some here might want to make their appearance on Forbes and respond.

Ned's is the latest readers' comment on page 5:

-------------------------------------------------------

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreill ... tion-case/

From: Ned Netterville
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2013
Time: About 5:00 PM MT

The judge doesn’t understand the meaning of the quotation he used from the Gospel of Matthew (Ch. 22), which is also found in Mark (Ch. 12) and Luke (Ch. 22). As it says in Luke, (all quotes are from the NIV Bible, which may be found at http://www.biblegateway.com/, “Keeping a close watch on him, they [the chief priests] sent spies, who pretended to be sincere. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said, so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor.” Pilate as governor (prefect, procurator) was responsible to Rome (Caesar) for tax collections in Judea and would obviously not brook any tax resistance. Knowing Jesus’ aversion to taxes, they first flattered Jesus, then asked, (Mark): “Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”

Jesus’ answer, which the judge quoted, was completely ambiguous, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” But what did he mean. He obviously didn’t say pay your taxes, which he could have without any adverse consequence, for that would have endeared him to Pilate rather than earn him a death sentence.

We can only know the answer if we know what Jesus though belongs to God and Caesar respectively. Since Jesus consistently and repeatedly justified himself and his teaching based on the authority of sacred Jewish Scripture, we can be confident that Scripture’s division of property between God and Caesar is what Jesus had in mind when he gave his ambiguous answer, which so befuddled the stupid spies who the chief priests had sent to trap him. And Scripture declares in at least five passages, but most explicitly in Psalm 24, verse 1, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it.” That, of course, leaves absolutely nothing for poor old Caesar, and nothing is what Jesus would have his followers give that plundering, murdering usurper of his Father’s prerogative as man’s law maker. The usurper’s coin, by the way, declared that he, Tiberius, was son of the divine Augustus. Jesus would hardly approve of paying taxes to a phoney son of a phoney god.

Of course when those befuddled spies returned to their bosses and told them how Jesus had answered the questions, the chief priests, learned in Scripture, knew exactly what Jesus meant. So they sent their police thugs to arrest Jesus at Gethsemane, dragged him before Pilate, and told Pilate (Luke 23:2-5), “We have found this man subverting our nation. [Rome] He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar…He stirs up the people all over Judea by his teaching. He started in Galilee and has come all the way here.” Small wonder Pilate crucified him.

And now you know the true story as recorded in the Bible.

------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------

[LPC]

I suspect that Ned has a Google search set to look for "render under Caesar" throughout the Internet, so that he can then swoop in and tell everyone why they're wrong about what the passage means.

How does Ned know that they're wrong? That's easy, everyone is wrong.

The judge doesn’t understand the meaning of the quotation he used from the Gospel of Matthew (Ch. 22), which is also found in Mark (Ch. 12) and Luke (Ch. 22).

Here, Ned also shows his prowess as a mindreader, because the judge never said anything about the meaning of the quotation, and the context in which the quotation is used suggests that the judge's understanding of the meaning of the quotation is the same as Ned's.

The case in question is George Thompson v. Commissioner, 140 T.C. No. 4 (3/4/2013), a collection due process case addressing two items that the taxpayer (a Mormon) claimed should have been allowed as "necessary expenses" and so excluded from the monthly amount available to satisfy his unpaid tax liabilities. One item was tithing, and the other was college expenses of the taxpayer's children. The quotation arises in the Tax Court's introduction to the tithing issue:

This issue involves whether petitioner’s asserted religious obligation to tithe can trump his obligation to pay substantial amounts of delinquent penalties and taxes in a reasonably prompt manner. Petitioner introduced evidence, including a biblical passage from the Old Testament, to support his position. See Malachi 3:8-10. This brings to mind another biblical passage suggesting an answer to this type of dilemma: “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Matthew 22:21. However, even this formulation presents the dilemma of determining which things fall into the two respective categories. While we may be incapable of determining what belongs to God, we believe that we can, and must, decide what is Caesar’s. Therefore, we will consider this issue using the latter approach based on existing procedures and precedents.

140 T.C. No. 4 at 12-13 (bolding added).

My recollection is that Ned believes that the "render unto" passage doesn't really mean anything at all, and that Jesus was being deliberately ambiguous and evasive, and didn't actually mean what the literal words would suggest. If that is what the passage means (i.e., nothing at all), then the judge understands it perfectly, because the judge quotes Jesus only to show that what Jesus said (or meant) is irrelevant to the case.

For those who care what Caesar thinks, the Tax Court held that the categorization of of tithing as a "conditional expense" was not an abuse of discretion, because (a) tithing was not a "condition of employment" (petitioner had unpaid positions in the church from which he claimed he would be forced to resign if he did not tithe), (b) tithing was not necessary to the petitioner's "health and welfare" because "health and welfare" does not include "spiritual health and welfare," (c) the categorization did not violate the 1st Amendment as a prohibition of the free exercise of religion, and (d) the categorization did not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 because there was no "least restrictive alternative" that would serve the "compelling interest" of the government in collecting the tax due.

[The Observer]

My recollection is that Ned believes that the "render unto" passage doesn't really mean anything at all, and that Jesus was being deliberately ambiguous and evasive, and didn't actually mean what the literal words would suggest.

You remember correctly. That was the sophistry that Ned had to stoop to in order to twist what Jesus had said in order for it to mean what Ned wanted it to mean. Of course, in doing so, he ended up with the silly result of:

(a) Jesus was telling the Pharisees that no one should pay taxes.

(b) But Jesus had to be ambiguous about it so they wouldn't run to the Romans and have Him arrested for rebellion. So Jesus misleads the Pharisees.

(c) The Pharisees therefore misunderstood what Jesus was saying and thought everyone should pay taxes and couldn't fink on Him to the Roman government.

(d) But the Pharisees went ahead and lied (or thought they were lying) to the Romans after turning Jesus over to them and accused Him of telling people to not pay their taxes. Jesus doesn't respond to the accusations since He is still trying to skate the thin line between truth and saving His skin.

(e) Pontius Pilate directly interrogated Jesus about his intent to rebel, and Jesus again is deliberately vague. This misled Pilate into believing that He is innocent and proclaimed Him as such.

(f) But Pilate caved into the pressure of the Pharisees and ordered Jesus to be executed under the false conviction of being a rebel, thus frustrating Jesus's plan to escape the death sentence.

So Jesus spent a lot of time and energy trying to vague and coy about His message, indulged in some questionable manipulation of the truth, and still ended up being crucified. Seems to me that if Ned's interpretation that Jesus was really against taxes, Jesus should have just went ahead and said so since He was going to be punished for it anyway. At least He wouldn't come off looking like a wimp as He does in Ned's version.

Of course, applying Occam's Razor to this pile of nonsense would show the exact opposite, that what Jesus told the Pharisees was that God was not concerned with their material wealth and property, but the condition of their souls and relationship with Him.

[notorial dissent]

Basically, taking Nutterville as an expert on the Bible, is like taking Barkin' Larkin, or Prattlin' Pete as experts on tax law. Personally, I'd want independent verification if any of the lot wished me good morning.

[Paths of the Sea]

"Ned" has been pretty busy over on Forbes in the readers' comment section at:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreill ... tion-case/

After doing some browsing I found the following, allegedly from "Ned", which purports to tell his life story:

http://www.voluntaryist.com/howibecame/ ... UZ4A1ebX9d

The story is also published in the the first quarter edition of "The Voluntaryist".

Have y'all considered that here before in connection with Ned and what he is up to?

I didn't see it.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[The Observer]

Have y'all considered that here before in connection with Ned and what he is up to?

No, why should we? Ned has already proven to us that he is intent on clothing himself in religion in order to justify his decision to not pay taxes. Why should we expect that he would ever change? He is a one-trick pony and there is no need to stick around and see his evening show.

[Paths of the Sea]

Is Bill O'Reilly of Fox News now pushing Ned's position?

See:

http://lezgetreal.com/2013/03/can-the-c ... ent-346786

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[notorial dissent]

Well, as far as I can tell, O'Reilly has never had more than a barely nodding acquaintance with reality, and so badly wants to be a demagogue, that he he'll jump at just about anything. I think he and Nutterville would make a cute couple, they certainly deserve each other, but that runs in to something else he is opposed to.

[Paths of the Sea]

Ned and Bill have some things quite in common:

Ned wrote, in part:

> I was born in 1937,
> and grew up as one of five boys in a rather chauvinistic,
> somewhat insular,
> Irish-Catholic social network
> in the Cleveland, Ohio, area.

Ned left the Catholic Church.
Bill, however, remains Catholic to some extent.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!