so if the criteria did change after 1991 ( it never did ) why did it take over 10 years for the WTS to pull from the UN their NGO status? and ( I've never heard this answered) was there not a correlation with The Guardian article? and why was I and countless thousands either ignored or lied to in making enquiries to Brooklyn or their own national Branch offices about The UN membership?
My chat with 2 Dubs yesterday about UN membership
by jookbeard 345 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
Kallam
I'm not really interested about when the criteria became even more restrictive in the following years. For me, it is enough that the JW's agreed to go along with the ideals of an organization that they have placed at the forefront of the war against God. The explanation that there was some type of "error" by the person they spoke to at the U.N when they were told they needed to be an NGO to access certain infofrmation is laughable. You want me to believe that because the JW rep got a new person at the UN Service Desk, and got "bad info" that no one ever followed up? No one high up at the JW org said, "Hmm, they seem to be telling us that we need to be an NGO in this organization here that we've been calling evil for 100 years. Maybe we should do some digging. Nah, let's just join up!"
We know that the argument that this "isn't really a big deal" is a lie simply by the reaction of most JW's when they hear it. They refuse to believe it. When this all came out in the early days I told my mother that the JW's were an NGO and she laughed at me. Actually laughed. She would never believe it and even to this day refuses to believe that the JW's would have ANYTHING to do with the U.N. Arguments about what year the word "support" was added to the charter and a debate on what the word "ideal" means is only interesting to people like you and me.
To the average witness, this association is a betrayal of everything they have been told about the U.N.
-
justlookingfornow
Jookbeard, it wasn't until long after they gained NGO status that the criteria for acceptance changed.
When they were made aware of the change, they disassociated themselves. All throughout their status as NGO, they still
condemned the UN and still stated that only God's kingdom could solve mankinds problems and bring true peace and security to the Earth.
Personally I see no reall issue or problem with that, if they made an error, they rectified it, which is as much as any of us as individuals can do,
right?
-
jookbeard
actually I quite lie the notion that firstly the R&F dont know of the UN scandal at all, would laugh in your face/ call you a satanically possessed apostate or bare faced liar at even the slightest mention of it, and secondly they wouldn't have even the most remotest idea that the WTS dropped their membership because the criteria changed! which is simply laughable to present such an argument, the simple fact of being a member for over 10 years is enough for me.
you've still not answered my previous post
-
Listener
Justlookingfornow, I should have known that you're not bored at topix but I do believe you are those posters I mentioned. Your talk can be as tricky/sneaky as the organizations at times.
Let's have a look at that letter the organization wrote. It's by some section called the Chariman's Committee, whoever they are but anyway part of it states
"Still, the criteria for Association of NGO's - at least in their latest version - contain language that we cannot subscribe to. When we realized this, we immediately withdrew our registration. We are grateful that this matter was brought to our attention."
They seem to be acknowledging that it was not just the latest version of the criteria that they could not subscribe to, so what other 'versions' could they not subscribe to? What part of the criteria could they not subscribe to and why? How did they realize that they could not subscribe to certain criteria? When exactly did they realize they could not subscribe to certain criteria? They do point out that they only realized it immediately before they withdrew their registration but it in no way explains how they came to that realization other than the fact that their association was publicly announced in the paper. Therefore was it only then that they did some research of their own paperwork and hadn't read it with proper understanding prior to this?
Are they prepared to make available the paperwork they have or had, including the forms they completed, on this matter even to questioning JWs?
-
justlookingfornow
Kallam, all I can say is for me personally, the criteria for registration as an NGO is of paramount importance and significance.
Their reaction to the change in criteria is also significant. They dissassociated themselves as soon as the criteria became
objectionable and untenable.
They never changed their stance on the UN or stopped in their condemnation of it at any time during their status as an NGO.
-
justlookingfornow
Listener, "tricky and sneaky" ?
What's with the insults mate? Ad hominum argumentation much?
Have I insulted you so far in this discussion?
-
justlookingfornow
Ad hominem* excuse previous spelling :)
-
justlookingfornow
Make of it what you chosse to, which you evidently will, inspite of it's true logic.
But what cannot be ignored is the fact that criteria for NGO status DID change, that the JW's disassociated themselves
as soon as they became aware of the change in criteria.
-
justlookingfornow
The change in criteria which they objected to, was in point of fact, support for the United nations itself.