Why would the WTBTS need to join itself with a part of the U.N. just for a ' library card ?' Would it have made better sense to use the New York Public Library or the Library of Congress. I'm sure those two institutions had access to the same information. This whole ordeal really doesn't make sense when the notion of the U.N. was something held in disdain among Jehovah's Witnesses.
But I guess that some people among the Society do not make wise decisions and end up stumbling many. I think it would have been better if an apology was made to the Witnesses in general for the stumbling. I don't recall one ever being made though.
After reading through this thread, it seems that much can be explained away or an attempt made at doing so, however, as it stands, the decision makers at Brooklyn did something they later felt enough regret about as to cancel their membership with the D.P.I. when it was brought out. If the general Witness had no ill feelings toward the U.N., then maybe it would have made no difference or stumbling, but since it had been taught that the U.N. stands in opposition to God's Kingdom, then they are part of the world that we were told to stay away from. And by learning about this union of God's Earthly Organization with an Organization that stands in opposition, many were stumbled and that action will be held accountable by all those who participated, promoted and partook of that act.
Whether or not it now stands as that or just another Human Rights Organziation, it still caused many to stumble, among whom where those who were not weak in faith or weak in their standing among the Congregation.
..truth.ceeker..
Great news. The WTS did not commit spiritual prostitution with UN.
by thirdwitness 597 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
truth.ceeker
-
thirdwitness
AlanF said: When the Watchtower Society agreed to all of the requirements necessary to obtain Associated NGO status in 1992, did it agree to the following basic criterion?
"The NGO must support and respect the principles of the Charter of the UN and have a clear mission statement with those principles."
Your refusal to answer will indicate that your is answer is Yes. All else follows.
I have already clearly answered this question and proven that the answer is true. The answer is no. The WTS did not agree to do a single solitary thing. No agreement was necessary and the DPI was not seeking an agreement from the WTS. All a person has to do is look at the application and look at the accreditation form and the truth is revealed. There was no agreement made between the UN/DPI and the WTS. The WTS gave the DPI the necessary paper work, name, address, interestes, information that they were non-profit, had many constituents reading their articles, supplied copies of past articles about the UN, etc. The DPI determined that they met the criteria and they were approved by the DPI, and issued a pass.
-
AlanF
truth.ceeker wrote:
: Why would the WTBTS need to join itself with a part of the U.N. just for a 'library card?' Would it have made better sense to use the New York Public Library or the Library of Congress. I'm sure those two institutions had access to the same information. This whole ordeal really doesn't make sense when the notion of the U.N. was something held in disdain among Jehovah's Witnesses.
; But I guess that some people among the Society do not make wise decisions and end up stumbling many. I think it would have been better if an apology was made to the Witnesses in general for the stumbling. I don't recall one ever being made though.
Very good observations! The truth lies in the sorry fact that JW officials hold most JWs in disdain. Because they're part of the HQ elite, and have been appointed by Jehovah himself -- otherwise they wouldn't be part of the HQ elite, right? -- they can do things that might damage the consciences of lesser JWs. The only trick is to get away with it.
Initially, the reason to get the U.N. library card was to make it easier to access the materials that certain Writing Staff members wanted. Editor-in-chief of Awake! Harry Peloyan (now deceased) was very much involved in this, since he was in the business of marshalling the talents of various JWs to produce such abominable compendia as the 1985 Creation book, which required gathering large amounts of information. Peloyan saw to it that a September, 1991 Awake! contained an article written by Ciro Aulicino that seemed to praise the U.N. on one level -- the level of the typical non-JW reader -- and yet subtly reinforce the Society's traditional condemnation of the U.N. when in-the-know JWs read between the lines. Peloyan and Aulicino obviously had hands in later articles in Awake! and The Watchtower that similarly were written in a double-tongued manner. Aulicino often traveled by subway to the Manhattan headquarters of the U.N. to use its library. This must have been a good deal more convenient than searching out the material elsewhere. Hardly anyone in Bethel knew about these activities. Within a day of the story breaking in The Guardian, I called several Watchtower officials in Brooklyn, Bethel to get their take on it. A guy in the Legal Department was unaware of the Society's involvement, and commented that if the story were true, he was sure that the Governing Body had good reasons. A guy in the Public Relations Office was similarly unaware and said that he was sure that they would soon be informed. Harry Peloyan became so upset that I dared to call him that he was almost unable to speak, and delivered a rambling monolog on the nerve of us evil apostates in making a molehill out of a mountain (he corrected himself). Ciro Aulicino simply said, "I won't talk to you" and hung up the phone. Those were the most memorable phone calls I made, and others were pretty much the same: No one outside the Writing Department and Governing Body knew anything about the Society's having joined itself to the U.N.
As time went by, it appears that certain WTS officials realized that Associated NGO status might get them access to the political process so as to take advantage of lobbying oppportunities. For example, in the late 1990s the Society sent a representative to argue for religious/political rights in certain European countries before the U.N.'s European Human Rights Commission. About the same time, the Society sent one if its top lawyers to argue before a U.S. Congressional Sub-Committee for religious/political rights in Europe. So even though the Associated NGO status was probably obtained as claimed for the library card, it appears that savvy WTS officials later used it to play a bigger political hand.
Once, around this time, I called a WTS official and asked him what he thought about the Society's getting involved in politics this way. He at first argued that they didn't get involved in politics by merely arguing for religious/political rights before a U.N. court and the U.S. Congress, but I pointed out to him that Martin Luther King was doing nothing more than arguing for similar rights for Amerian blacks, and no one would argue that he was not heavily involved in politics. So this official had to agree that the Society had become involved in politics.
It's strange how necessity can make even the most doctrinaire Watchtower official compromise his principles, eh?
AlanF
-
zagor
Thirdwitness Do you deliberately ignore my question or are you just an asshole and a hypocrite as almost everyone here, except me, has pointed out ? And you know what, this is typical of The Watchtower, discussing letters of law and sweeping under a carpet real people related issue. I’ve printed out this whole tread so far and I’m gonna give it to this Bosnian fellow that almost lost his head because of your beloved Society’s screw up. Nice work thirdwitness, you might just be a reason he needed to leave your borganization.
-
AlanF
thirdwitness wrote:
: I have already clearly answered this question and proven that the answer is true. The answer is no.
Your claims are nothing but excuses. The very act of applying for Associated NGO status, when the criteria clearly state that such application is an agreement to promote and respect the U.N. Charter, constitutes an agreement to abide by the criteria.
To claim different is to claim that Watchtower officials deliberately misled U.N. officials about what they agreed to. Is that what you're claiming?
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse", and deliberate misleading of U.N. officials does not excuse WTS officials from following the letter of the agreement, any more than would a 1st-century Christian's holding up crossed fingers behind his back when burning a pinch of incense to the emperor absolve him of giving the appearance of emperor worship.
: The WTS did not agree to do a single solitary thing.
You lie. I've seen a copy of the application for Association, signed by GB member Lloyd Barry and a Service Dept. offiicial, and listing Ciro Aulicino as the liason between the WTS and the U.N. Do you think Lloyd Barry's signature was on a fake document?
: No agreement was necessary and the DPI was not seeking an agreement from the WTS.
Again you lie. All NGOs that receive Associated status must agree to ALL of the criteria listed for association -- including promoting and respecting all provisions in the U.N. Charter.
: All a person has to do is look at the application and look at the accreditation form and the truth is revealed.
Really. Then you go right ahead and post a scan or a link to a scan to the appropriate document. Failure to do this will be taken as inability to do so.
: There was no agreement made between the UN/DPI and the WTS.
Despite Lloyd Barry's signature. Right.
: The WTS gave the DPI the necessary paper work, name, address, interestes, information that they were non-profit, had many constituents reading their articles, supplied copies of past articles about the UN, etc. The DPI determined that they met the criteria and they were approved by the DPI, and issued a pass.
Try that bullshit on a mortgage company if you decided to quit paying your mortgage payments.
You're such a gross, disgusting liar you shouldn't even be allowed to post on this board.
AlanF
-
thirdwitness
Zagor, I have a rectum if thats what you are asking. So I guess part of me is a 'asshole'. As for your question I have a lot of people writing stuff and I am trying to answer them. If you would state your question over again when calling me names I could then see what it was and answer it. That is much easier than trying to search for it thru all the past pages.
-
jayhawk1
All a person has to do is look at the application and look at the accreditation form and the truth is revealed.
Where are there scans of this?
-
thirdwitness
AlanF words in italics:
Initially, the reason to get the U.N. library card was to make it easier to access the materials that certain Writing Staff members wanted
Thanks for the admission that the WTS did not lie when they said they became associated with the DPI to get a library pass.
Your claims are nothing but excuses. The very act of applying for Associated NGO status, when the criteria clearly state that such application is an agreement to promote and respect the U.N. Charter, constitutes an agreement to abide by the criteria.
I am going to call you to task to show us this agreement made by the WTS and the DPI. The application is only an application. It is not an agreement between the DPI and the NGO. After the application is reviewed by the DPI, the DPI determines for themselves if the NGO meets their criteria or not. The NGO does not agree to meet their criteria.
To claim different is to claim that Watchtower officials deliberately misled U.N. officials about what they agreed to. Is that what you're claiming?
The WT officials did not in any way mislead the DPI. They simply provided the information that was asked for on the application. Thats all. The WT officials did not agree to anything.
AlanF quotes me:The WTS did not agree to do a single solitary thing.
And says: You lie. I've seen a copy of the application for Association, signed by GB member Lloyd Barry and a Service Dept. offiicial, and listing Ciro Aulicino as the liason between the WTS and the U.N. Do you think Lloyd Barry's signature was on a fake document?
Who is lying? If I am lying then show me the agreement signed by Lloyd Barry agreeing to support the UN. What you saw was an accreditation form signed by Lloyd Barry telling the DPI who the representatives would be to receive the passes and what fields they were interested in. If you do not show me, you are a liar.
AlanF quotes me: No agreement was necessary and the DPI was not seeking an agreement from the WTS.
And then says: Again you lie. All NGOs that receive Associated status must agree to ALL of the criteria listed for association -- including promoting and respecting all provisions in the U.N. Charter.
If I lie then show me the agreement. You don't have to show the actual agreement between the WTS and the DPI. Show us the generic application where an agreement is made and parties sign the agreement. The WTS did not agree to the criteria. The DPI determined on their own that the WTS met the criteria for whatever reason. Probably because the WTS promotes human rights and liberties and do not advocate discriminating against other nationalities or races. If you can not show us the application with the agreement and a place for signatures of the agreeing parties then you, AlanF, are the LIAR.
AlanF quotes me: All a person has to do is look at the application and look at the accreditation form and the truth is revealed.
And then says: Really. Then you go right ahead and post a scan or a link to a scan to the appropriate document. Failure to do this will be taken as inability to do so.
You are not very well studied on the subject are you. The application and subsequent accreditation form is on almost every apostate site that talks about this subject. Here they are from a JW site:
http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/scans/1991application.html (Please note that this is the 1991 application according to apostates. I no longer believe that to be true because it ask for email and website information.)
http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/scans/2000accreditationform.html
Please show us on these forms where an agreement between the DPI and the WTS would go.
AlanF quotes me: There was no agreement made between the UN/DPI and the WTS.
And says: Despite Lloyd Barry's signature. Right.
You are embarrassing yourself just as much as you did about parousia and that was even embarrassing to your friends and fellow apostates.
AlanF quotes me: The WTS gave the DPI the necessary paper work, name, address, interestes, information that they were non-profit, had many constituents reading their articles, supplied copies of past articles about the UN, etc. The DPI determined that they met the criteria and they were approved by the DPI, and issued a pass.
And says: Try that bullshit on a mortgage company if you decided to quit paying your mortgage payments.
Let me tell you what to try. Try to get a mortgage company to loan you money without signing an agreement as to how it will be paid back. Suppose you could even get them to do that. Then suppose they sent out a brochure saying anyone who borrows money from us pays back 100 times that amount at the end of one year. Will you pay them?
Let me reiterate. No agreement between the DPI and the WTS was signed saying that the WTS agreed to support the UN.
You're such a gross, disgusting liar .
We shall see who is the gross disgusting liar. I have provided the documents proving my point. Can you provide the documents proving yours? If not you are the liar. you shouldn't even be allowed to post on this board You are the one breaking rules 1 and 3 constantly disregarding the rules.
By the way, why do you want me removed? Do I not perform a great service for apostates in showing them how ignorant JW defenders are?
-
Kenneson
That purported 1991 application states: "Please note that the ASSOCIATION of your Non-Govermental Organization (NGO) with the Department of Public Information (DPI) requires that you provide us with proof of your organizations s= no-profit status and with an ANNUAL REPORT ON ITS ACTIVITIES RELATED TO UNITED NATIONS ISSUES."
Can you tell us what this annual report consisted of? Did the Watchtower agree to this requirement?
If W.L. Barry signed the Completed by part and the date, does that not constitute a signature?
What were the responses to questions 13, 14, 15?
-
thirdwitness
Here is an example of an application which includes an agreement to support the UN. This is an application for consultative status with the UN Ecosoc. This is what you need to show us to prove that the WTS signed an agreement with the DPI to support the UN. If all NGOs signed such an application/agreement it should be easily found. And yet.........
The first page says:
United Nations Nations Unies
NGO SECTION, DESA
1 UN Plaza, Room DC1-1480, New York, NY 10017
tel: (212) 963-8652 / fax: (212) 963-9248Application for Consultative Status
with the Economic and Social Council
The last page says:I/we declare that I/we have answered the questions contained in this form to
the best of my/our knowledge.
I/we declare, that if granted consultative status, my/our organization will act
in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and ECOSOC
resolution 1996/31.
The undersigned signature/es is/are duly authorized to sign this declaration.(Signature)
Name(s) and position(s)