Enforced shunning violates free moral agency

by Yomama 15 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.

Share this