Finkelstein..............one might say a lot of things about the jw's, especially if one is unwilling to present all the facts and if one has their
own agenda, :)
My chat with 2 Dubs yesterday about UN membership
by jookbeard 345 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
Finkelstein
The fact remains that the WTS agreed to the UN charter when they applied as a NGO which is recognized as a branch of the UN organization.
If they went about proceeded to obtain that status then they deceivingly lied to the UN Organization as standing hypocrites.
-
DesirousOfChange
James Woods--
Where is the Troll Clock?
Doc
-
Finkelstein
Finkelstein..............one might say a lot of things about the jw's, especially if one is unwilling to present all the facts and if one has their
own agenda, :)
My personal agenda is to always seek out and the present the Truth as it appears.
Whats your agenda then ?
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
DATA-DOG: You forgot to highlight a very important part for JLFN.
Point taken. But really- Would it matter? JLFN totally missed my points (along with yours and everyone else's) and continued on with his arguments unfazed.
He chose instead to create a "Strawman" coupled with ad hominem attacks and argue about nonsense.
-
justlookingfornow
same as yours finkey.
adcms...............no mate, I didn';t miss them, merel disagreed with them and I've made no Ad hominem attacks or strawman
arguments as you know full well sonny jim :)
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
I say again, holding status as a non governmental organisation to obtain access to information is completely different to
affiliation with the UN, that's the point you seem not unable, but unwilling to see.
----
JLFN: Have you even looked at anything posted on this topic or do you just focus solely on your next baseless retort? How you can post such an absurd comment abovewith a straight face is actually quite laughable.
Your statement is not only incorrect according to the U.N.'s own publicized information , but, according to WT policies and doctrines, as has been posted quite clearly here, WT has no excuse for having ANY affiliation with the UN. You cannot seem to understand this.
The one who refuse to see is you. Obviously, there's no amount of evidence that will change your mind.
-
justlookingfornow
I'll leave you with this last page of quotations since you're obviously unwilling to see the wood for the trees.,
" To mislead their readers, many critics of Jehovah's Witnesses quote from the current version of the DPI's NGO brochure and falsely claim that those requirements are what the Watchtower Society originally signed up to in 1991. The requirements given by the brochure for the DPI's NGOs include the requirement that the NGO should support the UN. Critics quote this brochure as the “proof” that the Society secretly knew they were supporting the United Nations. They claim that this requirement was in place since before 1991, and has remained unchanged ever since. Is this claim true?
No. The critics are lying. They simply hope that you won't think too much about it, and that you won't delve a little deeper and discover the evidence that the NGO world has changed considerably since 1991. We do not have the brochure from 1991, but we do have a copy of the 1994 brochure, which is considerably different from the current version which the apostates quote.
A new relationship
In fact, the 1994 brochure even testifies to the very fact the requirements and expectations of the DPI's NGOs were changing. Page six of the 1994 document says this:
“A new relationship between the UN and NGOs is now being created. We have seen this new relationship begin to mature. NGOs are taking on important new responsibilities.”
Indeed, the above statement proved accurate. For if we compare the current (2005) brochure to the 1994 brochure, we see major changes. For example, the 2005 brochure says the following:
“What are the Criteria for NGOs to become associated with DPI? The NGO must support and respect the principles of the Charter of the UN and have a clear mission statement that is consistent with those principles;”
Apostates often use the above quote, and repeat it endlessly as “proof” of the Watchtower Society's support of the UN. Yet this appears in the 2005 brochure, do we know if it appears in the older brochures? We already stated that we have a copy of the 1994 brochure, so does that phrase appear there? No, not at all. On the contrary, in the 1994 brochure we find that the above statement has replaced the following original statement:
“Who is eligible for association with the DPI? Non-profit organizations which: share the ideals of the UN charter;”
Notice the difference. In 2005, NGOs must support the principles of the UN Charter. In 1994, the NGOs must simply share the same ideals. Just what are those ideals?
“to maintain international peace and security; to suppress acts of aggression that threaten world peace; to encourage friendly relations among nations; to protect the fundamental freedoms of all peoples without discrimination based on race, sex, language, or religion; and to achieve international cooperation in solving economic, social, and cultural problems."
Does the Watchtower Society and Jehovah's Witnesses share those same ideals? They most certainly do — and have done so for years before the UN formed! It is understandable why NGOs should share these same ideals, for the UN would not want to assist or help any organization which promotes contrary ideas. For example, the resolution which gave the DPI power to associate NGOs elaborates on this desire:
“...the Secretary-General [should] ensure that the Office of Public Information [DPI], while reviewing the status of present organizations or considering new applications, excludes all those organizations whose aims or practices tend or contribute to the propagation of nazi ideology and racial and/or religious discrimination;”
We now have a better idea of why the 1994 requirements for being an NGO should stipulate that any associated organization should share the same ideals as the UN charter. They must share the same ideals of religious and racial tolerance and should not in any way promote contrary, racist or discriminatory ideas."
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
JLFN:
All your quotations do nothing to bolster your arguments. By WTs own standard, they should have had ABSOLUTELY NO AFFILIATION WITH THE UNITED NATIONS !!!!
It matters not one iota whether NGO status has changed or not.
I think at this point you are being deliberately obtuse.
-
justlookingfornow
well, that's quite a coincidence actually, that's just what I was thinking about you old fella, only I was too polite to say it
out loud.
"Affiliation" is a louded word, and you know it. They had no "affiliation", they held NGO status, with no political affiliation
with the united nations whatsoever, in order to access the library and it's facilities.
That is in no way "breaking bread" with the "enemy" at all.