-Stupid A$$ comment deleted-
UN (again!)
by zound 35 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
DATA-DOG
I am currently e-mailing CSO NET. Here is the link. http://esango.un.org/irene/index.html
So far I have not been put in touch with anyone who can answer my questions. I am just trying to confirm things for myself. No straight answers yet. I suppose anyone else could e-mail them as well. My question is, " Has it been possible, at any time, to access the UN Library facilities without being associated as an NGO?" I know you need an official ID, but do you have to be an NGO to have such an ID? The WTBTS says that being an NGO was required. Was it really?
-
Vidiot
I still can't figure out why - if the UN library facilities were indeed open to the public prior to '91 - the WTS still felt the need for NGO registry.
What were they trying to accomplish?
-
DATA-DOG
That is why I am trying to get some reliable information from a current UN representative. I want to know if what I have been told is true. If The UN writes back and says, " NGO affiliation was needed" then why was the WT signing up? If they say, " No, it has never, ever been required to be an NGO ", then the WT is definately lying.
It's not that I believe the WT. I would just like to say, " I contacted them myself, and it is all true." If it's not true, then I will save myself the trouble. If I accuse the WT of something, then I had better be 100% correct.
-
zound
Agree with data dog. When fighting watchtowers dirty little battle of words, you have to ensure you cross all your t's and dot all your i's. Same goes for helping JW's - of course they'll defend the watchtower, but if you can get them interested in looking into the whole picture, you'd better have every scrap of info 100% backed up and sourced (not just hearsay from apostate websites).
Watchtower have a habit of saying things by implication, so that if you ever get some info that proves they are lying they or the JW's can go "Well we never said that" - we worded it in a way that strongly implied we said that, but we technically didn't (b*stards!)
I recently sent a letter, and got a reply regarding the UN and Candice Conti. Yeh they sent me west wishes and warmest greetings also (how sincere).
RE: mindblown. Thanks I have that letter from the UN website. I was more interested in the other one you posted that plainly stated "the conditions haven't changed since 1991" - but it's addressed to a private inquiry, not on public record.
As we all know - it's not about the technicallity's - it's about the moral issue. But when it comes to JW's it becomes all about the technicallity's, trying to get watchtower to wiggle out of it - you have to address all of that first before they'll think about the moral implications.
-
zound
Oh, I couldn't find anything by searching, but has anyone wrote the society and recieved a reply regarding Candice Conti?
In my letter I really laid into them regarding Conti's case and the Governing Body being found guilty in court of facilitating her abuser. Their reply was that they had no more information than what I had regarding the case - but they didn't refute anything I said or answer any of the moral questions I asked.
I'll post it here a little later.
-
zound
Well I found a snippet of the 1994 brochure.
-
zound
Also an interesting quote from a Portuguese newspaper after this broke. Translated a little rough.
"Registration as a Non Governmental Organization was only done because of being able to give humanitarian aid and defend human rights in countries around the world," says the PUBLIC Pedro Candeias, spokesman for the Association of Jehovah's Witnesses in Portugal. In Portugal, however, the decoupling of the registration is not yet known officially by the KTA, which represents close to 50,000 believers.
-
mind blown
Yes, zound, that is yet another excuse that came out of the WTS camp.
(NOTE: I have to find the official link/NGO criteria for the UN which I had, but for now go to the UN site or do a search and you'll be find the info there.)
NGO association criteria:
By accepting association with DPL/NGO, the WTS agreed to meet criteria for association, including support and respect of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations
Watchtower was associated with NGO and to become associated required the Watchtower to accept the following:
- that the NGO share the ideals of the UN Charter;
- have a demonstrated interest in United Nations issues and a proven ability to reach target or specialized audiences, such as educators, media representatives, policy makers and the business community;
- have the commitment and means to conduct effective i nformation programs about UN activities by publishing newsletters , bulletins and pamphlets, organizing conferences, seminars and round tables; and enlisting cooperation of the media.
(NOTE BELOW: That's when the WTS started printing Pro UN propaganda in the Awake. )
In 2001, the Awake of July 22 discusses the benefits of volunteering for the United Nations and their need for more volunteers.
The Awake! 2000 December 8 devoted a number of pages to discussing the fine efforts of the United Nations.The Awake! 1998 November 22 also devoted several pages to discussion of the United Nations, including praising the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
-
Vidiot
"...Registration as a Non Governmental Organization was only done because of being able to give humanitarian aid and defend human rights in countries around the world," says Pedro Candeias, spokesman for the Association of Jehovah's Witnesses in Portugal..."
Ahh.
Maybe the GB thought playing ball might open up a few overseas evangelizing opportunities for the WTS that might have otherwise been denied...
As far back as I can remember, JWs have implied that prosyletizing is a form of humanitarian work, and (as mentioned earlier) WTS reps have even formed temp alliances with other churches in advancing "freedom of religion" rights.
Assuming they'd considered it, they might have felt the potential opportunities to be worth the risk of any blowback from possible future public disclosure (like the Guardian expose), and/or maybe rationalized it using the same reasoning they've allegedly used when a high-ranking JW acquired a US passport (which apparently involves an oath to uphold the US constitution; something most JWs would regard as an expression of "nationalism", and thusly a big no-no).
I could be wrong, of course.
