Its difficult to respect them either way. On the one hand, Pacifism is an inherently ridiculous ideology because those who believe in it can only remain free ‘because of the exertions of men better than themselves’ or as Orwell put it, because ‘Rough Men stand by ready to do violence on their behalf’.
On the other hand, they compromised their religious beliefs to fit in with secular society, which, even if you think their beliefs are a load of cobblers, demonstrates a certain level of moral cowardice on their part...
yes, I thought of Orwell immediately.....
In my foolish adolescence I lived a fair amount of time around some Quakers, although not one myself.
In my foolish adolescence, I actually thought there was something noble and upright about their pacifism.
It didn’t take too long for me to come to Orwell’s obvious and incontrovertible conclusion, that pacifists and all kinds of leftist “conscientious objectors” can only enjoy their tender pangs of conscience because of all those who ARE ready to risk their lives to defend freedom.
Gandhi could achieve much against the British because they were relatively civilized.... but Gandhi’s idea that non-violent resistance could do anything against Hitler is contemptible, not merely laughable.
On the other hand, Mennonites have maintained that commitment to pacificism throughout history even when it has meant the loss of the kind of freedom you are describing. For them, it is considered blasphemy against God to give credit to human beings for what they believe the Bible says God has already done: give them freedom.
As I understand it, the singing of the national anthem is not a “compromise of their religious beliefs”, it is a change of stance about how those beliefs are applied. The national anthem and flag have never been a set religious dogma for Mennonites and for years Mennonites have had a wide variety of responses to both.