Anyways. I suppose it all goes back to Christ’s second greatest commandment; which is basically the golden rule. To love your neighbor as yourself is to do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself. I don’t want to be forced to pay someone else’s retirement, nor would I want to force anybody else to pay for mine. Which is what SS is. It isn’t some savings account that we all pay into; the money I am currently paying into SS is already spent on non-SS things (like military intervention in Uganda). Much of SS is funded by debt right now, debt which future people will be forced to pay. I can’t willingly condone that. That is a brief argument for why I would oppose it.

You could state conscientiously oppose based on that, but I don’t conscientiously oppose because of the other side of the coin. Which is; as the government receives all money by force or fraud, it is essentially theft. And I advocate taking money back from thieves; so if you are able to legally get money back from the state (even if it’s not literally the same cash you had stolen from you) then by all means, take as much as possible. I’d trust retirees more than the government with the extra cash.

That’s kind of a brief answer to a complicated issue; but I hope that helps. I can elaborate on any point if requested but nor do I want to bore you with what is often seen as an unusual and unthinkable basis.

I appreciate the feedback (particularly the other side of the coin).

Would you be willing to share what religious principles prevent you from receiving aid?

I honestly haven’t heard a religiously-based argument that I believe would qualify someone to sign the form. Really curious to hear your perspective.

Thanks!

Thanks for the information. I disagree with your simplification of why a pastor would opt out. You stated
“Assume you’ve paid into the Social Security system for 50 years. Would you be okay receiving retirement benefits from the government (or any of the benefits from the other public insurance programs)?”

At first that seemed correct, and while it is still reasonable I think it isn’t correct. It’s hard to go against the term “conscientiously oppose”; seems pretty straight forward. I don’t conscientiously oppose receiving aid from the government for reasons I won’t go into here. I do fall under the category of “because of my religious principles I am opposed to,” however. In which case, I would have no problem signing it and I wouldn’t be lying. My religious principles oppose receiving aid, but they aren’t conscientiously opposed.

Thanks!

“The key here is if you have a conscious/religious objection to receiving public insurance (e.g. government grants/loans for higher education, Social Security, FHA/HUD housing loans, Medicare).”

What the form actually says it acceptance of public insurance “that makes payments in the event of death, disability, old age, or retirement;…medical care ”

student loans, government grants and housing loans are not for death, disability, old age or retirement. The form does not say “all” forms of insurance, but “any” with a qualifier.

Granted it would still include Medicare/aid. But if the minister has other better insurance it would not be an issue anyway.

Secondly, it only says for funds received as a minster. So for instance a minster could still sign and not have a problem with his wife paying into it for a secular job. This would also not cover previous secular jobs.

Can you elaborate more on your beliefs on the separation of church and state? And also the objections your church constitution has to fund raising?

So, with that stance how do you think that affects the question of ordained pastors opting out of Social Security?

I haven’t heard that description before, so curious to if you could elaborate on how Social Security is like welfare?