I received a phone call this afternoon from a concerned Brocker asking if I’d seen the discussion at Isaac Brock about whether it was ok to lie to the bank on the various self-certification forms. Specifically he asked my opinion about the ethics of lying. He said of course that the nuns at his parochial school said one should never lie, not even to save the world! But of course, as a theologian, the story of Rahab the Harlot came to my mind. She lied, and for that both Jews and Christians consider her a great heroine. Here is the main story of her boldfaced lie (Joshua 2.1-6; RSV):
1 And Joshua the son of Nun sent two men secretly from Shittim as spies, saying, “Go, view the land, especially Jericho.” And they went, and came into the house of a harlot whose name was Rahab, and lodged there. 2 And it was told the king of Jericho, “Behold, certain men of Israel have come here tonight to search out the land.” 3 Then the king of Jericho sent to Rahab, saying, “Bring forth the men that have come to you, who entered your house; for they have come to search out all the land.” 4 But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them; and she said, “True, men came to me, but I did not know where they came from; 5 and when the gate was to be closed, at dark, the men went out; where the men went I do not know; pursue them quickly, for you will overtake them.” 6 But she had brought them up to the roof, and hid them with the stalks of flax which she had laid in order on the roof.
Now the New Testament remembers Rahab in Matt 1.5, as a great-great-great-great etc. granny of King David and Jesus; and as a woman of faith in Hebrews 11:31: “By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given friendly welcome to the spies.” James 2.25 also says, “And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?”
So it would seem that the Bible, as one the great foundational texts of both law and ethics in the Western world, has no problem with lying under certain circumstances. She lied to save the lives of two men who would soon become her new compatriots. Moreover, she’d seen that God was with the Israelites and Joshua, and she thus knew her city, Jericho, was doomed. So to protect herself and her family she decided to relinquish her Jericho citizenship under INS 349 (a) (7)–and become a daughter of Israel. She exercised her universal human right to change nationalities.
Yes, the King of Jericho would have severely punished her if he had found out her lie. And the homelanders of Jericho would have considered her a liar, traitor and tax cheat. But they didn’t write the history of the battle. Rahab had to do what was best for her family, and for that both Old and New Testaments praise her.
Hard times create unconventional heros.
@Calgary, what you just outlined might withstand charter scrutiny!! Harper should have taken the brave position and announced just that! Instead he took a political path.
Something that just occurred to me is that Canadians who were Canadian citizens at the time any tax liability was incurred are protected from IRS collections by the tax treaty. If it came down to it, wouldn’t anyone rather rely on those very real protections than the precariousness of your lies?
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/09/19/is-td-bank-overzealously-ferreting-out-of-us-persons/
The self-certification form for TD Bank is copied above. I would have no problem lying. Here is an interesting quote from an article discussing Bonhoeffer’s point of view:
It is not wrong to lie. It is wrong for the bank to ask you this question. What can the bank do in retaliation for lying, if you are caught? I am not sure, but it is not wrong to lie on this form.
@Bubbles….more very good thoughts.
I would add to that that if you do not live in the handful of countries with a mutual collection treaty, a lie could put you in a worse position.
Other thoughts……..
1. Why lie when you can simply find a local client base exception FI.
2. Why lie when you can relinquish by either taking on another citizenship OR getting even part time government employment that you quit a week later!! There are ways to relinquish cheaply and quietly if thats what you desire.
@All, I am not a water carrier for CBT, the US or FATCA!! I simply believe that one should not compromise themselves.
@George, one does not compromise themselves by responding to an inappropriate question with an answer that protects one’s family from a hostile foreign government.
The bank and the Canadian governments are compromised. Not the person who self-certifies as not a US taxpayer.
@Petros, Is TD such a great place to bank that it is worth compromising oneself instead of going to Canada Province Credit Union? Are the green chairs that comfy?
The only person that would have to lie is a pure red white and blue uni-US Citizen.
If a US Citizen is in such love with the US that they will not relinquish after being treated so badly by his/her government, then the problem is with that person. It is foolish for an expat US Citizen to remain a US Citizen post July, foolish.
Someone on these very boards described the USA as like the crazy ex-partner who will not go away.
@Petros, “protects one’s family from a hostile foreign government.”
Protecting ones family is getting rid of the blue book!!!!
Protecting ones family is staying away from the likes of TD who are in bed with the US!!!!!!
A person is nuts if they are willing to lie in order to keep banking with TD instead of banking with XYZ Credit Union.
A person does NOT need to lie to protect ones family in Canada. I would say that lying is the cheap way out and instead tell that person become a Canadian and get rid of the blue book.
@Petros
As a Canadian in Canada would you say that you are better protecting your family by lying than relying on your treaty protections in Canada? No one is that desperate to lie under these circumstances, therefore lying is not justified in order to protect your assets from the IRS. You gentleman, had a choice!
Being a landed immigrant in Canada is an entirely different story.
@Bubble and George,
Give it up already.
Give what up already, WhiteKat? One would have the impression that you believe that George and I should concede defeat. Why don’t you give it up already? I thought we were having an interesting debate.
@Bubble, you’re still PO’d that I caught you on the discriminatory ‘harlot’ comment that George thought was so funny.
Guess what? Prostitutes and liars all need to eat too.
As well, every country could have / should have refused to sign an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the US unless and until the US had provided full evidence that the US had already passed legislation (Legislature, Senate, Executive) that there would be true reciprocity for any country that signed their IGA — not a mere ‘promise’ of reciprocity.
What country in their right mind would trust the USA’s word? Really? For just one example — WMD? Let’s call it what it is as they ALL succumbed to blackmail that their economies would be at risk if not. They were all cowards. How much collateral damage in the lives of their people justifies signing the IGAs?
As well, the signing countries should have made sure that the legal document signing away their people’s financial privacy rights came not from the Treasury Department — the Treasury Department does not have the authority to enter into a Treaty with another country, do they? Is the IGA the same as a Treaty?
Every countries’ government party that agreed to this sell-out to the US of their own people for a promise of reciprocity needs to be voted out of office in their respective countries. These, our voted into office representatives did not have the well-being of ALL their countries’ people and their own countries’ sovereignty at heart when putting pen to paper.
@WhiteKat
I’m not pissed about that. You’re projecting. I told you I was being facetious with that comment. Apparently you didn’t pick up on that.
Why don’t you give it up already?
@Bubblebustin,
Sure you were.
Ok, I give up.
Not that easy, WhiteKat.
If I truly believed what you say I think about harlots, do you know me to lie and say that I was only being facetious?
@Bubble, one last comment…
You said: ” I thought we were having an interesting debate.”
Interesting debate? …Didn’t find anything interesting about it at all. Just self righteous; “I’m such a better person cause I’d never lie!”
Bubble never lies. Bubble never lies. Bubble never lies.
Can I stop now?
Girls, girls girls!!!! or should I say ladies!!!!?
@Duke, LMAO!
@George, I agree that relinquishment is the best choice. However, as one who has relinquished, I insist that I was forced to relinquish my right of return in order to be free of importunistic filing requirements and rights-violating taxes.
I think it would be easy enough to lie on the TD self-certification form, and I would say only a landed immigrant would have to. Still no one has answered me what the penalty of self-certifying not American on such a form would be. I doubt that there is any penalty or repercussions at all. On every American form that I ever lied on there was always the perjury and prosecution warning.
In any case, I disagree that one should use the language of compromising oneself. Did you not see the example Bonhoeffer’s student who lies because his teacher asks an inappropriate question?
As for the back and forth between our beloved ladies, let’s remember here that we are all on the same side. Not only that, but many of the decisions whether to lie on a self-certification, or not, or to renounce, relinquish or defy, are ones that we each have to make as individuals. So yeah, we are having a nice little debate, as far as I’m concerned. Discussions like these, I hope, will help people who are not sure what to do, decide what is the best course for them.
Sorry everyone. Is it safe to say that no one likes to be called a liar?
I think that we can all pretty much agree that this is not about lying per se, just the advisability of it and what it could bring in consequence. Some think they will win with that as their best strategy; some think we will lose with that strategy — least of some like me could not be effective in our lying.
No one is meaning to be self righteous. For those that take it as such, I am sorry and disappointed. We have listened to the take on what our individual decisions TO HAVE to lie might be and presented alternatives that might work better for our long roads ahead. To me, it is beyond absurd that we must even discuss this. We are making this decision or not and having such a debate because we are experiencing a great threat to ourselves and our families.
Can we say it is best we all will agree to disagree? We will of course have our own decisions on what best to do for our individual selves and our families realizing and accepting consequences. Not too much different on what must be our individual decisions on whether or not to renounce US citizenship. Our own due diligence is required, each of us considering then accepting or rejecting the possible consequence. The risk acceptable to me will be different than the risk others will accept in our strategies for getting back to some semblance of a normal life.
United we can stand strong. Divided against one another we will be weak.
@Calgary, re: ” No one is meaning to be self righteous. For those that take it as such, I am sorry and disappointed”
Of course no one is meaning to be self-righteous, but they are, and some of us take it as we see it.
ooops, somehow my comment got posted before I was done.
@Calgary,
I realize that you are trying to unruffle feathers, but when you say that “no one is meaning to be self-righteous”, that does not take away from the fact that they are, and it is demeaning when you say that you are “disappointed that some of us take it as such”
I call a spade a spade. I am disappointed the self-righteous do not see themselves as such, and are not aware of the effect they have on those of us that are not so “pure”, as per their self-perceived definitions of what is wrong or right.
Your whole comment reeks of self-righteousness. Sorry, but that’s my gut feeling. I know you are an important ADCS member. I will go to hell for sure..lol.
I have found this to be a very interesting debate, as I have often struggled to understand the implications of Rahab’s story. Her claim to fame was basically that she told a lie to protect the Israeli spies – and this earned her a spot in the Faith Hall of Fame, found in Hebrews 11. It is hard to reconcile these two things and this post by Petros caused me to consider all this again. While doing my devotions this morning (taken from Our Daily Bread), the Bible reading was Matthew 7:24-29. That is the passage regarding “the two foundations” and basically explains how the wise man built his house upon a rock while the foolish man built his house upon the sand. When the storms of life came, the wise man’s house stood firm while the foolish man’s house collapsed. I found the write up in Our Daily Bread somewhat enlightening in the context of this discussion, following is an excerpt:
“The right foundation makes the difference between something that lasts and something temporary. Jesus knew that though foundations are invisible, they are vitally important to the strength and stability of the house (Matt. 7:24-25), especially when it is battered by the elements. He also knew the hearts of his listeners. They would be tempted to take the easy way, find shortcuts, or do things by halves to gain their objectives.
Other foundations may be quicker or easier. Building our lives on the right foundation is hard work, but God’s truth is the only bedrock worth building on. When the storms of life hit, houses built on and held together by Him stand firm.”
The post by @George above, that he considers “that lying is the cheap way out” seems to be in this same vein. As someone who struggles, and so often fails, to act in a manner consistent with God’s Word in the decisions I make, I find this whole debate very interesting and enlightening.