DT wrote: My goal is just to see if they will admit to being a NGO. If they deny it, I won't argue. I might say something like, "Thank you. It's hard to believe that Jehovah's Witnesses would actually join the UN."
There was a thread that discussed the concept in depth. The verbage presented above does not quite accurately describe the arrangement.
It's not just semantics and if you don't present your case properly you will lose before you even get started.
Nearly any organization that is not an actual government, is an NGO. They clearly *are* a Non-Governmental Organization. I sincerely doubt that they will deny that. It's within the context of an agreement and arrangement with the UN that things get crazy.
They did not *join* the UN. I believe that only governments can actually become members of the UN. (The vatican may have a seat, there, too. But I think there is something special about that. The WTS *never* had the same position/status as the vatican. Not even close.)
What the WTS *did* do, is enter into an agreement with the UN. Something that many, many agencies do.
The controversy for the WTS is that in entering this agreement, the WTS agreed - among other things - to use it's literature to promote the goals, activities and ideals of the UN - something that was condemned ad nauseum in their literature for decades.
[I noticed a switch in their tone in the Awake! mag starting in the early 90's and at the time thought it odd. Didn't sit well with me but I had other issues with the society at the time so mostly put that incongruency aside.]
When this 'partnering' became public, the WTS quickly withdrew their application/agreement, and spun a tale of "D'oh!! We didn't know that it was wrong." "We just needed a library card." "The UN changed the terms after we signed."
All are just excuses to shrug off getting caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
What I really want to know is - aside from the 'library card' - what did the WTS stand to gain? My understanding is that the affiliation was not even required for library access. My guess is that the affiliation helped put the WTS on better political ground (clout) in countries where their work was banned. Or perhaps they gained access to other 'perks' of affiliation - use of planes to provide travel to distant 3rd-world countries???
THAT's the question I'm curious about.
And yet I'm not convinced that a phone campaign is the right way to get that info.
I also agree with the other posters who expressed concern about continuing witness perception of ex-witnesses as raving lunatics who are unhappy with the consequences of their decision to leave 'Jehovah's peaceful, loving organization.'
I'd rather lead by example of living a happy, peaceful, prosperous life. And let everyone know that I'm much happier out than in.
But that's just me.
The reason I'm spelling out what might seem to be semantics is because I believe that if you are going to go thru the trouble of the exercise with this campaign, be sure that you are logically informed and not just raving about things that really are non-issues - like getting them to admit to you that they were an NGO. They still are. ANY organization that is not a government is an NGO. But not all make an appeal to partner with the UN.
It's the partnering that is the problem. And the subsequent absolution of responsibility and failure to disclose and provide plausible cause to it's members - including the DF'd swimmers at the Y.
-Aude.