Szdfan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2026 9:40 am
Of course someone can do both — be critical of war in general and criticize a specific war and those waging them. It’s like saying principled pacifism can’t criticize the Vietnam War or Richard Nixon and Robert McNamara. Why would that follow?
Because such opposition tended to be ridiculously unprincipled, and when one pulled back the curtain, it tended to be the same people fully supporting whatever Russia was doing.
Proper, principled non-resistance would want to see those fighting on both sides lay down their arms, accept Christ, and learn how to love their enemies.
Honestly, what you’re describing looks less like “principled pacifism” and more like protecting the Trump administration from criticism.
When you criticized the Biden administration for sending military aid to Ukraine, were you being a “principled pacifist”?
Historically, Anabaptism has never insisted that we cannot criticize wars or the people directing them. What it has insisted is that Christians do not participate in violence themselves.
1 x
"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless."
Szdfan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2026 9:56 am
When you criticized the Biden administration for sending military aid to Ukraine, were you being a “principled pacifist”?
No. That was a political position.
You may recall I was supportive of the pullout from Afghanistan (there is political debate that it could have been done better), but overall, I was glad to see us disengaged from a 20-year-long conflict.
Historically, Anabaptism has never insisted that we cannot criticize wars or the people directing them. What it has insisted is that Christians do not participate in violence themselves.
Historic Christianity was not engaged with the political sphere at all; modern-day progressive Anabaptism has syncretised the political attitudes of progressive-left Christianity.
In any case, criticism that is only levelled at "politician I don't like" is not principled opposition to war and violence at all. I would note that near-absence of criticism of the IRGC here on MennoNet from the leftist-progressive wing.
Szdfan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2026 9:56 am
When you criticized the Biden administration for sending military aid to Ukraine, were you being a “principled pacifist”?
No. That was a political position.
What do you see as the between a political criticism of a war and an unprincipled criticism of a war?
0 x
"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless."
Here in the US we see ourselves at the center of things - including, for better or worse, the war in Iran. That may be shortsighted.
Stepping back a bit, isn't it possible that Israel, and the hawkish and opportunistic leadership of Netanyahu, has been the instigator and driver of this war? President Trump seems like the willing (and powerful) accomplice here - not the "brains" behind the effort.
Dan Z wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2026 10:58 am
Here in the US we see ourselves at the center of things - including, for better or worse, the war in Iran. That may be shortsighted.
Stepping back a bit, isn't it possible that Israel, and the hawkish and opportunistic leadership of Netanyahu, has been the instigator and driver of this war? President Trump seems like the willing (and powerful) accomplice here - not the "brains" behind the effort.
He certainly hasn't been able to articulate the goals of the war or the strategy or the military objectives.
3 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
JohnH wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2026 10:15 amIn any case, criticism that is only levelled at "politician I don't like" is not principled opposition to war and violence at all.
And that's how you respond to people who are stating their principles. When you generally are not. By ignoring the principles people state and turning everything into a referendum on Trump, you ensure that we keep turning away from principle. And that gives you an instant answer to anything they say, just tell them that they only say that because they don't like Trump. No need to think about your own principles or understand theirs.
Perhaps it would make more sense to focus on principle and engage with what people are saying about principle if that's really what you want? Perhaps steering things AWAY from partisan politics is a better strategy unless you prefer partisan politics?
JohnH wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2026 10:15 amI would note that near-absence of criticism of the IRGC here on MennoNet from the leftist-progressive wing.
Yeah, also predictable. Some wild claim that implies something horrible about other people you want to tear down. Instead of actually discussing the subject, you go after the people. With partisan political labels every time. Turning away from principle and toward partisan politics. I'm pretty sure everyone in the discussion thinks the IRGC is bad.
Doesn't this get old? Is this really the kind of conversation you want to be engaged in day after day? Suppose you spent a week posting only at the level of principle and policy. I think that would dramatically change the board. Suppose you simply chose not to go after people or imply negative things about them. I bet you would see discussions improve dramatically.
2 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2026 12:22 pmBy ignoring the principles people state and turning everything into a referendum on Trump, you ensure that we keep turning away from principle.
I would certainly like to stop seeing everything here be a referendum on Trump. I think you could certainly take steps to stop doing that.
I'm pretty sure everyone in the discussion thinks the IRGC is bad.
Dan Z wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2026 10:58 am
Here in the US we see ourselves at the center of things - including, for better or worse, the war in Iran. That may be shortsighted.
Stepping back a bit, isn't it possible that Israel, and the hawkish and opportunistic leadership of Netanyahu, has been the instigator and driver of this war? President Trump seems like the willing (and powerful) accomplice here - not the "brains" behind the effort.
He certainly hasn't been able to articulate the goals of the war or the strategy or the military objectives.
Face it, Bibi has wanted this war for a long time. Now he has it, at our expense.
He is sufficiently amoral that he fits in well with Idi Amin.
Dan Z wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2026 10:58 am
Here in the US we see ourselves at the center of things - including, for better or worse, the war in Iran. That may be shortsighted.
Stepping back a bit, isn't it possible that Israel, and the hawkish and opportunistic leadership of Netanyahu, has been the instigator and driver of this war? President Trump seems like the willing (and powerful) accomplice here - not the "brains" behind the effort.
There might be some truth here but the US is not a helpless victim, that narrative belongs to the anti-Semitic left. My guess is the Israelis did the Intel work of finding the target where the senior leadership of Iran was in one building and put the pressure to the president, but the decision was his alone. He must stand to account for it.
