Great news. The WTS did not commit spiritual prostitution with UN. (page 48)

thirdwitness

Zico: I can’t see why it should really matter that much if someone in Malawi had a card saying they supported the party?

I can’t see why it should really matter that much if someone said heil Hitler and supported the Nazi party?

AlanF

In his post # 481 on page 22 of this thread, thirdwitness continues his campaign of lying on behalf of the Watchtower Society. Let's continue analyzing his lies.

:: 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.

No admission there. This has always been my position. However, my position has also been that this association was not borne of necessity but of convenience. It would have been more difficult, but still possible, to get all the materials that the Society's researcher, namely Ciro Aulicino, wanted through other means, including U.N. library depositories.

:: 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.

Here comes a strawman:

: I am going to call you to task to show us this agreement made by the WTS and the DPI.

This is a strawman for two reasons:

(1) Whether an agreement can be produced, or was even explicitly made, is immaterial to the fact that the U.N. itself has always considered acceptance of associated NGO status as an implicit acceptance of all of the clearly published criteria.

(2) Thirdwitness deliberately misrepresents what I said. What I said was that the act of applying for Associated NGO status constitutes an agreement to abide by the criteria, whereas he turns this act into another sort of agreement (apparently he is demanding a written agreement). But the very act of accepting the Associated NGO status IS the agreement.

Did the Watchtower Society, by its acceptance of Associated NGO status and various other actions, agree to abide by criteria such as promoting and respecting all aspects of the U.N. Charter? Indeed it did, as shown by the following:

First, I've already shown via U.N. materials, in my post # 4761 on page 21 of this thread, that the U.N. considers that 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." When any NGO applies for association, it receives a pile of written material explaining the Associated NGO's responsibilities, which include things like promoting and respecting the principles of the U.N. Charter. Therefore, if an Associated NGO claims ignorance of the requirements, it is lying.

Second, in various communications from U.N. official Paul Hoeffel, including and especially one dated 4-March-2004 ( http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/UN_Letter_4_Mar_2004.pdf ), Hoeffel explained the U.N.'s official stance regarding the Watchtower organization's acceptance for Associated NGO status with the DPI:

By accepting association with DPI, the organization agreed to meet criteria for association, including support and respect of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and commitment and means to conduct effective information programmes with its constituents and to a broader audience about UN activities. . .
In addition, the criteria for NGOs to become associated with DPI include the following:
O that the NGO share the ideals of the UN Charter;

Third, in its letter to Branch Committees of 1 November 2001, the Watchtower Society implicitly admits that it knew about the criteria for association:

The Criteria for Association of NGOs -- at least in their latest version -- contain language that we cannot subscribe to. When we realized this, we immediately withdrew our registration.

If the Society can compare the latest version of the "Criteria for Association of NGOs" with the supposedly different version that existed when it applied for association in 1991, and conclude that the new version contains "language that we cannot subscribe to" whereas the old version did not, then obviously the Society must have known exactly what those earlier criteria were.

This, of course, immediately raises the question of why the Society has never produced a copy of the supposedly different earlier criteria so that people can check if it is telling the truth. But because various U.N. staffers and others have shown that the 1991 criteria remained essentially the same through 2001, the Society obviously does not want to contribute to another expose of its lying.

The fact that the basics of the acceptance criteria have not changed since 1991 is proved by the following:

A U.N. press release dated 14-February 1992 ( http://www.randytv.com/secret/feb92dpia.jpg ) stated:

The Department of Public Information (DPI) accepted, on 28 January, 37 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) seeking association with it. . . The NGOs officially recognized by DPI cooperate with the United Nations to help build public understanding and support for United Nations programmes and goals. . . To be granted association with DPI, NGOs must have national or international standing, support the Charter of the United Nations . . .

A U.N. press release dated 7 August 1992 ( http://www.randytv.com/secret/aug92dpic.jpg ) stated:

The Department of Public Information (DPI) this week granted association status to 44 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from 14 countries. . . The NGOs officially recognized by DPI cooperate with the United Nations to help build public understanding and support for United Nations programmes and goals. . . To be granted association status with DPI, NGOs must be not-for profit organizations with recognized national or international standing; support the Charter of the United Nations . . .

A U.N. press release dated 26 January 2001 ( http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/un_press_release_26_jan_2001.htm ) stated:

On 17 January, the Department of Public Information (DPI) Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) selected 32 applicants from 13 countries for association with the Department. . . All the organizations conform to the principles of the United Nations Charter . . .

The common thread in these press releases is that to be granted Associated NGO status, an applicant organization must prove to the DPI that it supports or conforms to all of the principles of the U.N. Charter. Since the acceptance procedure takes at least three to six months, and the 14 February 1992 press release speaks of the NGOs accepted on 28 January 1992, and the Watchtower Society was accepted as an Associated NGO about February 1992, it follows that the Society must have submitted sufficient material to prove to the DPI that as of 1991 it supported "the Charter of the United Nations."

Further rebuttals of thirdwitness' false claims can be found at the following locations:

Most any of AuldSoul's posts in this thread.

Post # 1754 on page 6 of this thread, by stevenyc.

Post # 217 on page 10 of this thread, by cabasilas.

On the Freeminds website:
"Rebuttal of a JW's Defense of the Watchtower Society's Relationship with the United Nations" by Trevor Scott ( http://www.randytv.com/secret/unrebut.htm ). Scott rebuts arguments by JW defender Heinz Schmitz (Schmitz is no longer a JW) about why the Watchtower Society can be excused for its foray into the political arena.

Link posted by hawkaw on page 6 of this thread:
"United Nations Disassociates Hypocritical Jehovah's Witnesses" Andrew W. Lusk ( http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/united-nations-disassociates.html ). Contains basic references on the issue.

Given the above, let's move on to the rest of thirdwitness' lies.

: The application is only an application. It is not an agreement between the DPI and the NGO.

The U.N. disagrees. When the Associated NGO accepts its status, it has agreed to abide by all of the acceptance criteria.

: After the application is reviewed by the DPI, the DPI determines for themselves if the NGO meets their criteria or not.

That is a separate issue. Both the UN/DPI and the NGO separately agree that NGO meets the acceptance criteria. Otherwise the NGO would not bother to apply -- unless, of course, the NGO was attempting to deceive the DPI into granting it Associated NGO status while knowing full well that it did not meet the criteria. You actually seem to be arguing that the Watchtower engaged in such deception of the DPI. Nevertheless, the DPI's issuance of a letter of acceptance constitutes its acceptance of the NGO's submitted evidence that it meets the criteria, and the NGO's acceptance of the acceptance letter constitutes its acceptance of the DPI's judgment that it meets the criteria.

: The NGO does not agree to meet their criteria.

Nonsense.

:: 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.

Nonsense.

: AlanF quotes me:The WTS did not agree to do a single solitary thing.

: And says: You lie.

This is demonstrated above.

:: 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?

The answer is self-evident by now.

: If I am lying then show me the agreement signed by Lloyd Barry agreeing to support the UN.

I did not say that Barry signed a document specifically agreeing to support the U.N. I said that he signed an application document, the signing of which is an implicit agreement to support the U.N. Charter, according to all materials given to applicant NGOs by the DPI. This is part of your never ending stream of strawmen.

Nevertheless, as of this writing I cannot find the document that Barry signed, but am working on it. In any case, both GB member Lloyd Barry and Writing Staff member Ciro Aulicino are listed in the 1999-2000 Directory of NGOs ( http://www.randytv.com/secret/alphalist334.jpg ) as the Watchtower Society's representatives. Furthermore, their names are listed in various earlier documents, along with one Robert Johnson, a high-ranking Service Department official. Where do you think the U.N. got those names?

: 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.

As I said, the fact that Barry, Johnson and Aulicino are listed as the Society's representatives, and Barry has been shown in innumerable posts since 2001 to have signed various application and accreditation-renewals beginning in 1991, proves my point.

: 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.

As above.

: 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.

Again the strawman. It continues:

: 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.

The fact that the Society itself admits knowing the details of the 1991 application criteria, and the U.N. itself notified the Society that its acceptance of Associated NGO status constitutes accepting all of the acceptance criteria -- including agreeing to support the ideals of the U.N. Charter, proves my point. You 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.

All of this was fully established nearly five years ago. My memory of the details of the application and accreditation forms is obviously imperfect. But the fact that the Society knowingly accepted all of the DPI's association criteria cannot successfully be disputed.

: 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.

LOL! You've demonstrated yourself to be the most egregiously lying JW defender I've ever seen. This fact does not constitute an embarassment for me.

The fact is that Barry did sign the original application form and later yearly accreditation renewals. That constituted repeatedly agreeing to uphold the U.N. Charter.

: 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?

Yet another straw man. The Watchtower Society's liason man, Ciro Aulicino, and his boss, Harry Peloyan, knew perfectly well what they were getting the Society involved in. Lloyd Barry perhaps mistakenly went along with these two morons, but if so, he still bears responsibility because he was, after all, the Governing Body member. They demonstrably received a pile of material from the DPI telling them that Association acceptance criteria included supporting all of the provisions of the U.N. Charter. Even if someone claims that these morons did not know about these criteria in advance -- which is simply not believable -- the DPI sends a pile of brochures to all applicants as part of the acceptance procedure. Therefore, Aulicino, Peloyan, Johnson and Barry had another opportunity to rescind the Association application in 1991. So your analogy has nothing to do with what these morons actually did, and is thus a strawman.

: Let me reiterate. No agreement between the DPI and the WTS was signed saying that the WTS agreed to support the UN.

Let me reiterate: Acceptance of Association by the DPI constitutes acceptance of all of the acceptance criteria, including supporting the U.N. Charter. The U.N. explicitly states this, and the Society implicitly admits it.

:: You're such a gross, disgusting liar .

: We shall see who is the gross disgusting liar.

We have certainly seen it.

: I have provided the documents proving my point. Can you provide the documents proving yours? If not you are the liar.

I've done so in this post and previous ones that you've more or less read. So have many other posters over the years, a tiny number of whom I've listed above.

:: you shouldn't even be allowed to post on this board

: You are the one breaking rules 1 and 3 constantly disregarding the rules.

Calling you a liar is a simple statement of fact. So is stating that I find such gross liars disgusting. You constantly use the pejorative term "apostate". Pot, kettle, black. Remove that term from your website and from future posts, and I will refrain from calling you disgusting.

: 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?

Of course you do. My comment was meant in principle, since this board does not exist to promote the kind of lies you're so fond of. But you do provide the best example of a lying JW defender I've ever seen.

AlanF

thirdwitness

Outlaw: Do you have any idea how stupid you look to the rest of us?...

Hey, Noah, Do you have any idea how stupid you look to the rest of us?...

Hey Christian fleeing to the mountains in 70 CE, Do you have any idea how stupid you look to the rest of us?...

OUTLAW

3rd Witness..Wrong again..WBTS teachs any involment with the United Nations is wrong..Any involvement with the Untited Nations makes that religion a Whore..Thats really hard for you to understand eh?..Have you ever met a Jehovah`s Witness?..You certainly don`t know what they`ve been taught about having any association with the United Nations..You don`t know what your talking about,and your too dumb to learn..What are you doing here?..Can you play Patty Cake without drooling on yourself?..LOL!!...OUTLAW

Gary1914

You have just made a typical response by someone that when faced with the facts does not want to acknowledge them. You write a bunch of words and rhetoric as if it were fact but offer no proof of what you say.

Really? Well, actually, I was thinking the same thing about you. What a coincidence, huh?

The only difference is that I did not use quite so many words as you and I did not go back and cust and paste and cut and paste and cut............ to try desperately to prove my point.

As is true with the Bible, and with all other writings, that they can be made to prove whatever a clever person wants them to prove. You are clever and it's your agenda to prove that the Organization did not commit spiritual prostitution with the UN. Well, you can cut and paste and use that as proof to infinity if you want, and you would still be wrong.

For your information, the Organization has been toying with joining the United Nations since the early 1970's. Maybe, Sir, you should go back to your source at the United Nations and ask him (or her) if there was any correspondence between the Organization and the United Nations back then as to their joining as an NGO.

Maybe they have something you can cut and paste.

When I get some FACTS and not just your OPINION of what you have found to cut and paste I will be more than happy to acknowledge them.

OUTLAW

Hey(((SkallyWagger))),you,AlanF,Farkel and others really did start a train wreck..LOL!!..Look what your efforts have brought us..I`m gratefull to you all.....SkallyWagger gave me a smootch on the cheek..I liked it..LOL!!...OUTLAW

Gary1914

Zico: I can’t see why it should really matter that much if someone in Malawi had a card saying they supported the party?
I can’t see why it should really matter that much if someone said heil Hitler and supported the Nazi party

3rd, are you being obtuse on purpose? What I am sure that Ziro meant was that the Malawians could have simply obtained the card while not supporting the party at all. For their safety no one else had to be aware of their true feelings.

Likewise, someone could have said Heil Hitler and not supported the Nazi party at all. In fact, many did just to stay alive. They were smart enough to keep their real feelings to themselves.

stevenyc

regarding the Malawai debarcle bearing simialar wording to the acepence criteria for UN DPI association the 1976 Watchtower 10/15 p.635 says:

There all citizens have been required to become members of the country’s only existing political party, the "Malawi Congress Party." A membership card costing about twenty-five cents (U.S.) identifies the bearer as ‘acquiescing to the principles of the ruling political party,’ especially to the Life President, Dr. H. Kamuzu Banda. How are the people of Malawi to view the purchase of a "Party Card"? An official circular issued on August 27, 1975, says: "This is the one way in which we people of this country can show appreciation to our Life Leader, the Ngwazi [Dr. Banda] for developing this country of Malawi."

steve

Zico

"Zico: I can’t see why it should really matter that much if someone in Malawi had a card saying they supported the party?

I can’t see why it should really matter that much if someone said heil Hitler and supported the Nazi party?"

Thirdwitness, saying Heil Hitler was clearly worship. It is NOT the same as holding a Party card.

Why did you ignore the rest of my post?

As I pointed out, many applications for UN/DPI association are rejected. Therefore, the UN/DPI must see association with them as MORE than registering for a library card. They MUST only want associates who they believe can be of benefit to spreading their ideals. In order to get association as an NGO with the UN/DPI, the Society must have had to convince the UN/DPI their association would be of benefit to them, and they did this by showing them articles that spoke of the UN ideals.

Was convincing the UN/DPI that they supported them wrong? If not, what is wrong with convincing a Party that you support them?

Thirdwitness - Can I also ask why Witnesses in Mexico were not allowed to pray at or sing Kingdom songs at meetings, or use the bible in preaching work, at the same time Jehovah's Witnesses in Malawi were being sent to prison or killed for refusing to buy a party card?

OUTLAW

3rd Witness..Congratulations!!..That was absolutly the stupidest reply I have ever recieved on this board..Really!..Not even Fred Hall posted anything that stupid..What does Noah,have to do with the WBTS association with the United Nations?.Nothing Moron.What does 70ce Christians fleeing into the mountains,have to do with the WBTS association with the United Nations?.Nothing..Those arn`t even strawmen.Those were the ramblings of an Idiot..What the F**K is wrong with you?..The WBTS should have had nothing to do with the United Nations..Nothing!!..Do you understand what No Association means?..It means NO ASSOCIATION!....You may never win a debate but you will always be recognized as an Idiot..Your not a Winner!..LOL!!...OUTLAW

Great news. The WTS did not commit spiritual prostitution with UN.

Share this