I'd be happy for it to be called the Judean People's Front as long as the Watchtower feels some pain
LOL...yup
AAWA is here!! (The Association of Anti-Watchtower Activists)
by cedars 535 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
Max Divergent
Some people seem to be making criticisms of two main points: 1) the name, and 2) of John Cedars' backing the decisions of the board.
As to the name, I think those holding back support on the basis they think the name inappropriate are either missing the point or rejecting the messy approach of collective action. Not everyone in an association agrees with every action, but they still work together to achieve an objective. Over time they can campaign within the association for what they see, hopefully on good grounds, as a better approach (like a different name if that's their view). But in the meantime they just get on with supporting the group's objectives in accord with its rules. Those holding back support over the name might not be a good fit for a cooperative body, maybe it's better they don't get involved.
On Cedars' defense of board decisions including the name (eg: "... this is how we're doing it. It's not just me, it's the entire board. .... When board decisions are made they need to be stuck to through thick and thin.... Once the board makes a decision it is my job to make sure it is implemented and stuck to no matter what...").
He simply states the truth that as President of the association it is his job to uphold and defend the decisions of the board made in accord with its rules. Maybe he personally agrees with it, maybe he doesn't: that doesn't matter in a formal sense. Unless Arizona or AAWA's rules say differently, all we should hear is the President's support for the decisions of the board until the board makes a different decision, if it ever does. Provided any later decision is made in accord with all relevant rules, then the President's job is to support that decision just as strongly or resign. That's how it works; that's what he's done to date.
Other board members might engage in debate if they wish, preferably with members of the association, but if they happened to want to do so publicly that's up to them. AAWA will live or die by its decisions: no doubt they will listen to and hear public comment, then deliberate and come to a conclusion on whatever matters they think have import on achieving their objectives.
(Can't get rid of the italics: keep coming back once I hit Submit).
-
mind blown
The vid is beautiful! I can totally see it on 20/20!
As an ex JW I can fully relate to the vid and AAWA, but the sites visuals may be too much in attack mode for a JW. They will immediatley shut down, and go straight into "run for hills it's apostates!!", mode. It's seems as though the direction you're taking is as Annony.
The only reason I mention this is because I just started watching Steven Hassens vids. He suggests more of a subtle manner, the cult mind and emotions need to be handled differently. WTS has taken the attack mode approach, and we know where it's getting them. I'm just wondering if you may ask yourselves how you want to be veiwed? Who do you want to help with your message, and how are you going to go about it effectively? Are you taking the WTS down at any and all cost?
Just a thought.....
-
breakfast of champions
"AAWA defines a cult as any organization, religious or otherwise, that uses mind control techniques to unduly influence its members, and has beliefs or practices that are potentially damaging thereto."
This is my favorite part about the mission statement. It calls a duck "a duck".
It's not that Watchtower is a cult because it deviates from mainstream Christianity - it's because it uses classic thought reform techniques to keep people imprisoned by heir own minds, and that's what we all really are fighting for: the minds of our loved ones.
-
jgnat
...that's what we all really are fighting for: the minds of our loved ones.
ditto
-
Quendi
I have finally made the time to watch the video and want to give heartfelt thanks to all involved. Right now, all I can offer is moral support for AAWA but I hope to do more later. As for the name, I have no problem with it. I think it is very important to make it clear that people involved are not Watchtower activists because that would imply agreement with the organization’s aims, methods and goals. Instead, the anti-Watchtower wording clears up any confusion about AAWA’s stance vis-à-vis the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.
Quendi
-
betterdaze
Max Divergent said, Other board members might engage in debate if they wish, preferably with members of the association,
ARTICLE V in the Articles of Incorporation clearly states, "The Corporation shall have no members."
-
*lost*
BLIND NO MORE - excellent comment.
I LOVE THIS PLACE.
NOTHING LIKE 'GOOD WHOLESOME HEALTHY ' DEBATE TO 'EDUCATE ' THE MASSES .....
.. and hopefully wake them up ...
oh, and mabye SAVE LIVES,
rescue people from the clutches of 'bad organisation' and a 'false religion' which is
actually a CULT IN DISGUISE.
-
crmsicl
I'm just glad someone is doing something. I think the name is what it's supposed to be. It's their baby, they get to pick the name. We're family and we accept it. I do anyway.
-
Max Divergent
betterdaze: ARTICLE V in the Articles of Incorporation clearly states, " The Corporation shall have no members ."
The corporation may not, but the association has eight board members who seem to make decisions collectivley and could debate with each other if they like.