Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 8
Benjamin Franklin’s quote argues that if the “benefits…are universal,” the financial “burden should not be partial,” and the speaker calls this inconsistent with colonial refusal to pay Britain’s war costs; what does this inconsistency expose about human reasoning when our side is threatened, and how should Christians judge arguments about “fairness” when they are used to compel participation in violence?
Another way to ask: What does Franklin’s “fair share” argument—while colonists resisted paying Britain’s war costs—show about how we reason when we feel threatened? How should Christians judge “fairness” arguments that are used to force support for violence?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The speaker uses Franklin to show how people change their logic when it benefits their side: the colonies rejected Britain’s “fairness” arguments but adopted similar reasoning to pressure nonresistant Christians; believers should test “fairness” claims by Scripture and Christ’s teaching, not by wartime urgency.
- Franklin is quoted: if the struggle’s “benefits…are universal,” it’s unjust for the “burden” to be “partial.”
- This was applied to objectors: those who could not make “a military contribution should make a monetary one.”
- The speaker calls it “very inconsistent,” noting Britain had argued similarly about paying for the French and Indian War.
- He recounts colonial outrage at British taxes: “You can’t tax us. We don’t have representation.”
- He also emphasizes the non-resistant Christians’ scriptural reasoning: they paid taxes (“Render therefore…”) and cited Romans 13 about not resisting authority.