US Attacks Iran 2026

[Dan Z]

Dan Z, with respect, I have often put quite a bit of effort into substantive posts that are either ignored, or else picked apart with pithy responses. (You are welcome to peruse my post history to find them.)

I know you have John. That's why I often read what you have to say. I think we need your point of view.

I believe your objection is not to the substance of my post, but to the political alignment. Please sincerely ask yourself if your real objection is to the style of what I said, or if it is to the political alignment you sense. I know you and I are not politically aligned, but I think it should be possible for us to still talk to each other despite that.

Valid question. I do believe that we can learn from each other's perspective - I just think (even after reflection) that your response to Barnhart was lacking substance and not representative of your better work.

I feel that barnhart made an assertion with no basis at all that somehow if Anabaptists are going to be persecuted, it will be by Christian people. (The only Anabaptists I have met who were persecuted were persecuted by Communists, so my own lived experience is that left-wing atheism is far more of a threat for actual persecution than some hypothetical bogeyman of Christians who are, apparently, going to somehow persecute Anabaptists in America for... I'm not sure for what, exactly.)

That's a reasonable objection, especially in more recent times, although Barnahart's assertions weren't baseless in my reading. Perhaps it is worth remembering that the persecution that initially imprinted itself on our Anabaptist psyche was almost exclusively at the hands of professed Christians (Catholics and Reformers).

I have also written extensively before that I don't think Trump and Putin are the same kind of thing, or even close to it; however, a lot of people view both Trump and Putin as some kind of incarnation of evil, and then end up seeing a phantom mirage where the two sort of blend into one character. Trump's America is not anything close to Putin's Russia. Not remotely close. It does a real disservice to the actual difficulties people face in Russia to act like we have anything even close to compare it with in America; in Russia, we wouldn't be posting on an open forum like this with our real names criticising the current administration at all, whereas I feel quite a few people use MennoNet as essentially a bullhorn to gripe about Trump.

I acknowledge your concern...and I admit wrestling with how to stay balanced in relation to what President Trump represents. As far as I can tell, part of the disconnect here on MN, as well as in society, is a result of the mix of information we all digest in this info-saturated world. I agree with you that, at this point, Trump's America is not anything close to Putin's Russia - although Trump and his enablers are certainly moving us in that direction. As for Trump himself, I honestly doubt he is of a more noble character than Putin. I just suspect he is more constrained by the system he has inherited.

The funny thing about all of this is that I'm not even particularly Trump aligned or that excited about his Presidencies or enacted policies. I just don't harbour a deep level of hatred towards the man, and I don't think that some hypothetical America without Trump in power would be some kind of nirvana, and at a certain point, I have a level of respect for reality and facts and don't like to see propaganda talking points repeated unironically on this forum. The reality is that most of the criticism levelled at me (and at others) is simply because we won't join in in a Two Minutes" Hate where we declare our allegiance to "Orange Man Bad".

Fair enough.

Ultimately, my allegiance is to Jesus Christ and my citizenship in heaven, and my allegiance is not to political movements that define themselves by their opposition to Trump, and I would advise Christians who are caught in the latter to consider that perhaps they should rethink who they serve.

I stand as a brother in harmony with you in this...I would only add that your advice should apply not only to "Christians who define themselves by opposition to Trump," but Christians who define themselves in support og Trump. That is the Anabaptist witness as far as I'm concerned.

[ohio jones]

I feel that barnhart made an assertion with no basis at all that somehow if Anabaptists are going to be persecuted, it will be by Christian people.

No basis at all? I think he was assuming familiarity with five centuries of Anabaptist history, and provided an example from that history. There are plenty of others, but it's pointless to provide them if you'll simply handwave them away.

In America? Anabaptists weren’t in America five centuries ago.

No, but they were in other places, and all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Three centuries of American history do not provide a basis for exceptionalism.

Overall, I am skeptical of claims Anabaptists are going to face persecution from some hypothetical extremist Christian theocracy in America. America’s government is about as far from Christian or theocratic as it has ever been.

Strawman. Barnhart didn't say that persecution would be primarily by a theocratic government.

It is far more likely that Anabaptists will align themselves with wealth / ease or else with political factions and be lulled to sleep to abandon their convictions, versus actual persecution.

That is of course another danger, but Anabaptists are not monolithic and both dangers can be real.

[JohnH]

I would say it might be better to focus on Christians, instead of the far more parochial focus on "Anabaptists", of whom we can see in the historical record suffered persecution first at the hand of pagans, and then later during clashes with other Christians who were busy denouncing each other.

In any case, I have always viewed with suspicion the lens of "leftist, progressive governments are good because they make it easier to be an Anabaptist", particularly when nearly all persecution of Anabaptists in the last century has been at the hands of atheist, leftist governments or else at the hands of Muslim-dominated militias or rebel groups.

Perhaps we can leave it that barnhart has his hypothesis the Anabaptists will be persecuted in America by people who call themselves Christians. I will stick to my theory that Anabaptists have been, are, and will be persecuted by leftist-atheists Communists and Muslims, and consider the prospect of some kind of Reconstructionist-Reformed persecutorial force to one of the least likely things to see happen in my lifetime.

I could offer this, though: we did endure in America around 6 years ago churches being told they couldn't meet, and yes, that happened under an ostensibly Catholic President and governor (of California). That is the closest I have ever come, personally, to attending an "illegal" church service. However, it wasn't an Anabaptist church service, so it would not meet barnhart's stated criteria.

[sojourner]

In your denomination, there is not a test of membership against owning a pistol or a military-styled rifle such as an AR-15. Selective Service has made abundantly clear that they will consider owning military-styled firearms as evidence someone is not a legitimate CO. We have long had tests of membership against such things, but that shows the urgency to actually enforce this sort of thing.

Interesting. I don't recall ever hearing a sermon about gun ownership much less some models being a test of membership. My father was raised OO and later transitioned to an ultra conservative church. As a child I remember him having several pistols. So I don't think they were banned.

[ohio jones]

I could offer this, though: we did endure in America around 6 years ago churches being told they couldn't meet, and yes, that happened under an ostensibly Catholic President and governor (of California). That is the closest I have ever come, personally, to attending an "illegal" church service. However, it wasn't an Anabaptist church service, so it would not meet barnhart's stated criteria.

I had no idea Trump was Catholic.

[JohnH]

In your denomination, there is not a test of membership against owning a pistol or a military-styled rifle such as an AR-15. Selective Service has made abundantly clear that they will consider owning military-styled firearms as evidence someone is not a legitimate CO. We have long had tests of membership against such things, but that shows the urgency to actually enforce this sort of thing.

Interesting. I don't recall ever hearing a sermon about gun ownership much less some models being a test of membership. My father was raised OO and later transitioned to an ultra conservative church. As a child I remember him having several pistols. So I don't think they were banned.

Well. I’m not OO but in my group military styled firearms aren’t permitted anymore. Mostly because selective service said so.

[JohnH]

I could offer this, though: we did endure in America around 6 years ago churches being told they couldn't meet, and yes, that happened under an ostensibly Catholic President and governor (of California). That is the closest I have ever come, personally, to attending an "illegal" church service. However, it wasn't an Anabaptist church service, so it would not meet barnhart's stated criteria.

I had no idea Trump was Catholic.

It stretched on into 2021 and the lockdowns actually got stricter.

[ohio jones]

I could offer this, though: we did endure in America around 6 years ago churches being told they couldn't meet, and yes, that happened under an ostensibly Catholic President and governor (of California). That is the closest I have ever come, personally, to attending an "illegal" church service. However, it wasn't an Anabaptist church service, so it would not meet barnhart's stated criteria.

I had no idea Trump was Catholic.

It stretched on into 2021 and the lockdowns actually got stricter.

But in 2021, you wrote about that church service as "last year."

[Robert]

Grok:

Conscientious Objector (CO) Status in the US Military - 2026

Overview (as of April 2026)

Conscientious objector status remains a legally protected option for active-duty US service members under Department of Defense Instruction 1300.06 (last major update 2017, still in effect). It allows qualified individuals to seek discharge or reassignment based on sincere moral, ethical, or religious opposition to war.

Key Requirements:

• Beliefs must be firm, fixed, and sincere.
• Opposition must be to war in any form (not selective to one conflict, e.g., current Iran operations).
• Beliefs can be religious or deeply held moral/ethical (parallel to religious conviction).
• For those who enlisted, beliefs typically must have "crystallized" after joining the military.
• Cannot be based solely on politics, policy disagreements, pragmatism, or expediency.

Process:

• Submit a detailed written application (personal statement, supporting evidence, witness statements).
• Undergo interviews: chaplain, psychiatrist/mental health, and investigating officer.
• Packet reviewed up the chain of command to a service-specific CO Review Board.
• Decision: Approve for discharge (usually honorable) or 1-A-O non-combatant status, or deny.

How Secure Is It in 2026?

Moderately secure on paper, but practically challenging — especially during active conflicts like the 2026 Iran operations.

• Legal Protections: DoD policy requires commands to process applications and accommodate beliefs while pending. Refusal to process can be challenged. International human rights standards (e.g., UN recognition of CO as non-derogable right) add external pressure, though not directly binding.
• Approval Rates: Historically low for active-duty (many denials if sincerity questioned or appears selective). Process takes months; during wartime surges, scrutiny may increase.
• Current Context (2026): Reports show a massive ~1000% spike in inquiries and filings from service members (including Marines) opposed to Iran deployments. Advocacy groups like Center on Conscience & War are heavily involved. This indicates the system is accessible and being used, but does not guarantee higher approval rates.
• Risks & Limitations:
  • Submitting does not automatically stop deployment orders or duties.
  • Denial means you must still obey lawful orders (refusal can lead to disciplinary action, including court-martial).
  • Command climate can vary — some commanders accommodate promptly; others may delay or pressure.
  • In a major conflict/draft scenario, processing could slow or face heavier skepticism for "wartime" claims.

Bottom Line:

CO status is real and codified — not a myth — and has led to successful discharges or non-combat roles for those who meet the strict sincerity/all-wars test. However, it is not foolproof or quick. Success depends heavily on the strength of your evidence and consistency of beliefs. During 2026's heightened tensions, more people are trying it, but outcomes remain case-by-case.

Recommendation: Contact independent groups immediately for guidance:
- Center on Conscience & War (centeronconscience.org)
- GI Rights Hotline (girightshotline.org)

This is not legal advice — consult qualified counselors or military defense counsel for your specific situation.

[spoiler]Sources & Further Reading
- DoD Instruction 1300.06
- Center on Conscience & War Guide for Military COs
- GI Rights Hotline resources
- Recent news on 2026 CO surge (AS USA, Democracy Now, Snopes)[/spoiler]

[Robert]

How to Document Conscientious Objector (CO) Status with Selective Service Registration (2026)

Important Note: There is no official way to "register as a CO" at the time of initial Selective Service registration. The Selective Service System (SSS) requires all men (and those assigned male at birth) ages 18-25 to register, including those who would claim CO status if a draft occurs. You cannot select a CO classification during registration.

CO claims are only formally processed after a draft is activated and you receive an induction notice. However, you can document your beliefs in advance to create a record of sincerity.

Standard Registration Process:

• Register online at https://www.sss.gov/register/ (easiest if you have SSN), at a post office, or by mailing the printable Form 1.
• Registration is required by law; failure can affect federal jobs, some state benefits, etc. (though enforcement has been rare).
• Note: Automatic registration via federal databases begins December 2026 for eligible men.

Documenting Your CO Claim (Recommended for COs):

Follow these steps (based on guidance from Center on Conscience & War, updated 2026):

• Step 1: If not yet registered, print and complete the Selective Service Registration Form (SSS Form 1).
  • Some choose to write "I am a conscientious objector to war" on the form for additional documentation, though it has no official effect.
• Step 2: Write a short, signed letter stating you are a conscientious objector. Include:
  • Full name, address, date of birth, and Selective Service number (if known).
  • A clear statement: "I am opposed to participation in war in any form due to my deeply held moral/ethical/religious beliefs."
  • Brief explanation of how you arrived at these beliefs and how they affect your daily life.
• Step 3: Mail two signed copies of the letter (and registration form if applicable) to:

  Selective Service System
  P.O. Box 94739
  Palatine, IL 60094-4739

  • Send via certified mail with return receipt requested.
  • Keep copies for your records as proof of submission and date.

If Registration Itself Violates Your Conscience:
Some COs view even registering as participation in the war system. In that case, advocacy groups recommend joining a private "Draft Resistance Registry" for support instead of formal registration. Contact them for guidance.

What Happens in a Draft?

• You will receive notice and can then file a formal CO claim (historically via SSS Form 150 or equivalent).
• You must appear before a local draft board to explain your beliefs.
• Possible classifications: 1-A-O (non-combatant military service) or 1-O (civilian alternative service).
• Beliefs must be sincere, deeply held, and apply to war in any form (not selective).

Recommendations:

• Keep detailed records: journal entries, letters, witness statements showing consistency of beliefs over time.
• Contact professional organizations immediately for personalized help:
  • Center on Conscience & War – centeronconscience.org (excellent guides and support)
  • GI Rights Hotline or similar peace groups
• This is not legal advice. Laws and procedures can change; verify with current SSS resources and counselors.

[spoiler]Key Sources
- Official SSS: sss.gov/conscientious-objectors/
- Center on Conscience & War (March 2026 guidance)
- SSS registration pages[/spoiler]

If a draft is ever reinstated, act quickly and seek counsel — preparation and documentation strengthen your claim.

https://www.mennoniteusa.org/ministry/f ... resources/

https://rosedalenetwork.org/administrat ... tion-form/