Zev's UN/WTS Scandal Web Site - Part 2

by hawkaw 122 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  SixofNine

  After all, it is the beast, you know. Are you sure that's what you wanted to say?

  It is exactly what I meant to say. You are not getting a grasp on the witness attitude towards lying. Perhaps you have seized on a couple of comments about "theocratic warfare" and are running with those comments. If so, I recommend you stop, take a breath, and look around. You went down the wrong path.

  Don't get me wrong, had the governing body ever told us that proactive lying was an acceptable strategy for doing Gods will, then yeah, we probably would have bought it. But they didn't. They told us to stay so seperate from organizations like the UN, that we wouldn't even get the chance to lie to them unless they were attacking us.

  What they told us, was that when under clear SPIRITUAL danger, one could reasonably withhold the truth from an enemy. It's a big difference from this UN situation, and as long as you try to funnel your logic into the theocratic warfare "lying" mold, w/o noticing the difference, you will not understand.
• 

  one

  ACCORDING TO THE WT

  UN =..."a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names..." Rev. 17:3

  blasphemous = irreverent, sacrilegious, unhallowed, unsanctified = Grossly irreverent toward what is or is held to be sacred.
• 

  JosephAlward

  Let me clarify my position.

  I don't trust governmental organizations always to know the truth, or its officials necessarily to be competent. Thus, when I read that a UN resolution prior to 1991 advises the DPI to grant NGO status only to those organizations that accept the goals of the UN, that doesn't necessarily mean that the DPI actually asked on its 1991 form that signers state that the accept the goals of the UN. That could have been the case, but the government does overlook things from time to time, and often doesn't follow its own advice or rules. When Paul Hoeffel said that Barry et al would have had to state that they accepted the goals, I'm not sure whether he is telling us that he was looking at the actual application form they signed, or whether he was just assuming that they made such a statement. Yes, I've asked this question, and not yet received a reply.

  Until I see a blank form from that year--or a statement from Hoeffel saying that he held the form or a copy of it in his hand, and saw the criteria acceptance statement along with the signatures, I will tend to believe the Watchtower when it says that it was unaware of the conditions under which NGO status would be granted. It is not that I don't think that the Watchtower would lie to us, since I'm pretty sure they would if they thought by so doing it would further the faith of the rank and file. The reason I tend to believe them is that I cannot imagine WHY they would risk so much for so little; surely they would have known that their application would be public. It's almost inconceivable that they signed a statement saying they support the aims and goals of the United Nations, when all along they've been saying that the United Nations is the great Satan. It doesn't make sense. What makes more sense is that the form they signed did not state that the signers accepted the aims and goals of the UN.

  The fact that evidently no blank form has been requested by the critics, and no copy of a signed form has been presented, and no statement received by Paul Hoeffel that he was looking at the Barry et al form when he responded to questions about this matter, tells me that we should exercise caution in passing judgement.

  Too many conclusions have been reached based on circumstantial evidence, in my opinion. As "evidence" that the Watchtower MUST have known that there were conditions of acceptance attached to the NGO status, Randall Watters and others have repeatedly pointed to the articles in the Watchtower which Watters say prove that the Watchtower was knowingly "disseminated UN propaganda," because this was one of the conditions of being an NGO. I disagree that those articles are propaganda for the UN; instead, they are obviously propaganda for the Watchtower. I'll try to lay out my case for this later this evening (Wednesday), if I have time.

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

  * http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  OUTLAW

  Hey hawk,I think your right.He`s just wasting your time!...OUTLAW
• 

  JosephAlward

  They told us to stay so seperate from organizations like the UN, that we wouldn't even get the chance to lie to them unless they were attacking us. What they told us, was that when under clear SPIRITUAL danger, one could reasonably withhold the truth from an enemy.

  This statement assumes the very thing which is in dispute--at least as far as I'm concerned. You are assuming that the Watchtower DID associate itself with the UN. Can the Watchtower not remain "separate" from the UN while still using information gathered by it? Just as the United States Ambassador to Germany in 1940 didn't associate himself with the Nazis, but still used--exploited--the Nazis to gather intelligence, neither did the Watchtower associate itself with the UN to exploit it--to gather information useful to the Watchtower.

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

  * http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  OUTLAW

  Hawk,I rest my case...OUTLAW
• 

  hawkaw

  After reading the above two (2) posts by Joe and as a non JW, Hawk now goes into the kitchen and opens a lower Kitchen cupboard drawer.

  Hawk pulls out a what appears to be a 3 foot long by 2 foot wide brown paper bag.

  Hawk opens the brown paper bag up fully.

  Hawk takes the bag and puts the open end of the bag over the top of his head.

  Hawk continues on the rest of the day with the paper bag over his head (in shame of his non-JW colleague just like how football fans would when they have to watch their pathetic home team get pulverized by the opposition every game fot the entire season).

  Hawk
• 

  JosephAlward

  I just spoke to Isolda Oka, information officer at the United Nations since 1988, now currently with the NGO office; she claims she knows all about the controversy.

  She stated that there was no form--as far as she or Paul Hoeffel knows--in 1991 on which applicants had to accept the aims and goals of the UN. She had already looked at the Watchtower file. "It was thin," she said. Nowhere is to be found a form like the one so many on this forum have referring to. All there was, she said, "was information about the Watchtower."

  I asked her three times whether she objected to my stating that as far as anyone there knows, there was no form in 1991 requiring applicants to accept the aims and goals of the United Nations; she did not object, though she said that she preferred to stick with the formal position of the NGO, which is that the Watchtower applied for NGO status in 1991, was granted that status, and was disassociated in 2001.

  I called back right away when I realized I failed to get a definitive answer about the forms from 1992-2001. Did they--do they--contain such a statement? Unfortunately, I got voice mail, but I left my question and my phone number; I let you know what I find out.

  Thus, we now understand what Hawkaw meant when he said that Hoeffel refused to release the information: Hoeffel "refused" to release it because he could not find it in the file. In other words, the smoking gun form never existed.

  (I reached Isolda Oka through Hoeffel's number, 212-963-8070; I got someone else, who valiantly tried repeatedly to fend off my questions with generic responses, but she finally passed me on to someone she said knew more than she did; that was Oka.)

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

  * http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  hawkaw

  Lets see what the 1992 press release stated when they got accredited.
  Does it not say they had to support the UN Charter and promote it? What does paragraph 5 state?

  .

  .
• 

  NameWithheld

  JosephAlward is throwing up strawmen. No, I doubt the actual 'form' they signed contained the words containing the words 'to support the UN charter' it was probably quite simple with blanks to fill in the required info. However, the filling out and submitting the form DID bind them to ALL the qualifications required of being a DPI associated NGO - which are QUITE clear from 1968 onward of including language of 'supporting the UN charter'. Wether or not they were aware of the full ramifications of their acts doesn't excuse them - if you enter a contract with someone you'd BETTER know what you are signing into!!!!