Enforced shunning violates free moral agency

by Yomama 21 Replies latest jw friends

  • Yomama

    What is you answer not your comentary answer question.

  • Nathan Natas
    Nathan Natas

    When you joined Jehovah's Happy Funhouse, you agreed to obey the Funhouse rules by submitting to the ritual of the Submarine Absolution Bath, otherwise known as BAPTISM.

    No JW elder approaches a non-member and says, "The Power of Jay-sus COMPELS you to shun Sister Flrty!"

    No Funhouse member has a gun to their head "enforcing" shunning.

    When you joined The Funhouse, you should have been aware of what the rules were. If you didn't know the rules, that's on YOU, unless you were a minor.

    So my answer is, "A henway."

  • Longlivetherenegades

    The key here is the use of ENFORCED

  • hybridous

    Government enforcement when you break their rules:

    Armed men eventually show up at your house, attempt to take you into custody & put you in a cage. They might hurt or even kill you in the process if you resist.

    WT 'enforcement' when you break their rules:

    Self-important (and unarmed) men get on a stage and tell your social circle that God disapproves of you and they ought to stop talking to you (or else God might disapprove of THEM!)

    And there we have it. These aren't even close to the same thing. Don't let JWs off the hook for adhering to WTs demands. WT doesn't have soldiers or police.

    All WT has is their disapproval - and folks you might know who still care about that approval/disapproval.

    Hold individual JWs responsible for their choices. They are, like you and I, people with agency.

    The WT derives all of it so-called-power from their choices.

  • MeanMrMustard
    So you dodged the question answer question if you cant answer its ok ckeck mate

    Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean the question wasn't answered.

    If a government were to attempt to cause me to shun my family by imposing a fine, I would not shun. As others have pointed out, it's a false analogy. My point was that even if we grant the conditions of your scenario, it does not remove moral agency. You seem to be saying that moral agency can only attach under perfect conditions, with no consequences.

    Look, it sucks if your family shuns. But that's on them.
  • LongHairGal


    Maybe yes in the circumstance of disfellowshipping. In this instance, the religion thinks it has a right to interfere with people’s free moral agency.

    In other minor things though, when ‘dominant’ 🙄 people in a congregation decide they don’t like something or someone, anybody SEEN going against their opinion will become the object of their petty revenge. It’s the same in the world.

    Even if somebody is not announced as Df’d they can still be shunned because somebody in a dominant clique said so. I had this happen to me and I knew where it was coming from. I ignored it. The problem with the shunning routine is that it only works with an audience. So, by my ignoring what was happening and not running up to somebody and saying ‘what’s wrong’, I deprived the shunner of their audience. Sure enough, it stopped but I was past the point of caring at that time.

    Maybe I didn’t react or care about these Witness charades because I had no family in the religion and (thankfully) had my secular job and an acquaintance or two outside. Who can say? All I know is it was easy to ‘Fade’ when the time came.

    I see you have made several threads and posts on ‘Shunning’ so I assume this has hurt you deeply and for that I’m sorry.

  • MeanMrMustard
    I see you have made several threads and posts on ‘Shunning’ so I assume this has hurt you deeply and for that I’m sorry.

    Yeah, we can all agree on that.

    @Yomama: We agree that the practice clearly and completely fits into the category of "assholery". But family members do have a choice. It's true that the WT is telling them that the right thing to do (in God's eyes) is to shun. Their conscience is telling them otherwise, and they have the moral agency at that point.

    I think what causes the most hurt is that the DFed know this, and it's terrible to come to terms with the fact that one's own family are doing the wrong thing. All the relationships, all the nurturing that occurred during childhood, all the good times - "Why is my family doing this? They are good people! The religion is forcing them!" Yeah, that's a tough one for sure. But they are doing it, they are choosing a publishing company over you. It's on them.

  • DesirousOfChange

    Where I think Government can get involved is when the Cult demands the shunning of family members. This results in breaking up family networks and has a detrimental effect on Society. A family network is a positive for our society. When Cults wreck this family arrangement often the outcast members become a burden on Society.

  • carla

    If you put the same rational to a jw but insert spouse for the org how would they answer?

    Example, your spouse says something like "you gave me no choice! if I would have done x, y or z you would have left me". It is my opinion that a jw will not take kindly to being put in that box when the tables are turned on them specifically inside the marriage. The perpetrator of x, y or z does not feel free to make one decision or another knowing how the other will react (the spouse will leave or be angry). Does that make any sense to you guys? (coming from a ubm's point of view) The spouse makes the choice to make the other an outcast or outright rejects them for one thing or another yet a jw will say that jah hates divorce and they should forgive them or give them second chance. At least in the case within a marriage both parties know what the 'sin' or distasteful action was, within jw society pretty much everybody will shun at the whim of the elders without even knowing what the supposed sin is.

    Are you free if someone else makes a decision for you? If by going against the grain will garner the very same action towards yourself are you truly free? History is filled with hard decisions and those brave enough to go against the grain, thankfully. If more were brave enough to stand up against shunning maybe one day they would allow freedom of thought and action as God does. God allows free will, at least in my world.

    I agree with Doc, isn't that in part why Russia doesn't like jw's? the breakup of families?

  • road to nowhere
    road to nowhere

    We hide behind family business. It is my business to see my son physically and mentally well, fed, sheltered, has transportation and the means to work on it, and an addressed to use if needed. It is also my business to see that his siblings, mother, grandparents, cousins, uncles, aunts know of his welfare and vice versa.

    I do not shun anyone DF, though it may curtail association. As long as they are not a danger. Whether they reenter or not is their choice. I do have to be careful to not encourage staying out lest it bite me.

    We do see people who would not pee on a DF person if he was on fire. I am not that type, known for strong sympathy and kindness which I pride myself on and work at it

    I have never seen anyone DF for associating. Marked yes.

    Obviously I am not a good witness though. I'm on here and human

Share this