Badwillie's Dad's response to UN scandal

by badwillie 17 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  badwillie

  Here's the email from my Dad,

  While I acknowledge your statement that your position would not change even if the UN question did not exist, I'd like to share some information I've just acquired on that matter. I do not yet have all the relevant detail but I'll pass on what I do have at present.
  
  I understand that the press officer at the office of public information at London Bethel on 10/22 responded to the Guardian article by refuting, point by point, the "factual errors" contained in that article. As it happens the society did apply for DPI/NGO status in 1991 for the purpose of getting access to the UN's library. In 1991 there was no requirement to sign off on a statement endorsing UN principles. In effect they were applying for a "library card". It seems that that requirement came after Kofi Annan's arrival as part of a general tightening up effected by Annan. Evidently, this requirement was slipped in unnoticed. If the Society is quilty of anything it is that they went unaware of this new requirement.
  
  Additionally, I have learned that the Society had an observer at the UN sessions for many years. Just as in the case of the press, media or any interested observer it does not necessarily constitute endorsement. I understand that the library access was a more cost effective expedient for accessing UN info..
  
  If and when I get any more detail on this I will pass it on. Otherwise, I will abide by your wish to limit conversation to light non-confrontational issues. Hope you and your family are well.
  
  love,
  Dad
• 

  DIM

  it sounds like your dad ate up the society's response to the UN situation. Maybe if you pointed out various articles by the WTS condemming ANY association w/ the UN, it would have an affect? Just doesn't make any sense why active JW's cannot see this for the blatant hypocrisy that it is.

  i'm sick and tired of hearing things from uptight-short-sighted-narrow minded hypocritics. all i want is the truth just gimme some truth - John Lennon
• 

  badwillie

  Hi DIM,
  My reply to my Dad's email was this: ok.
• 

  outnfree

  .
• 

  hawkaw

  Cool now give him a copy of the 1994 DPI brochure that Kent will be posting shortly along with all of the other stuff on the threads.

  You can show your dad using the "independent information" from the UN that the WTS is lying their faces off!!!!.

  As I said in the main UN thread - the Criteria was actually "worse" back in 1994 - the NGOs who wanted "association" not only had to Voluntarily agree to have the same ideals as the UN Charter but they had to Voluntarily Agree to PROVE their loyality to the UN.

  Wow.
• 

  DIM

  I really cannot understand his reasoning. does he think its a form of "theocratic warfare" as advocated by the society? i'm really stumped here. good response - i would have done the same. Of course, I haven't dared bring up this issue w/ my parents.
• 

  Xena

  Who knows Badwillie, maybe you got your dad thinking.. which we all know is a dangerous thing for a JW!
• 

  outnfree

  Thanks, Badwillie.

  So it's pretty clear what their line is going to be and that they're going to stick to it. At least at UK Bethel.

  Too bad their line is so easily refuted.

  It seems clear that our information campaign must emphasize that

  1/ the criteria for NGO/DPI acceptance have not changed over the years
  and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York complied with those criteria, having to submit samples at least biennially.

  2/ UN Library information is attainable at different repositories --
  there was no need to compromise with the image of the wild beast.

  3/ Is the library card a LIBRARY CARD or a PRESS CREDENTIAL?

  4/ How to explain the Society's attendance at and presentations to
  various UN-affiliated organizations?

  Oh, well, you guys all know the drill... Hurry up with that webpage, please, Wendy!

  More cost effective to use the UN Library? Perhaps. More cost effective to take swimming lessons from the YMCA rather than the country club? Definitely. But who would face censure for their action?

  outnfree

  P.S. Who was it that wrote on some other thread that they were free to agitate to get a traffic light installed? Maybe your body of elders would be ok with that, but MINE weren't!!! I signed a petition, mentioned it, and was told that I might want never to do that again as it could be construed as political involvement.
• 

  Billygoat

  I think it awesome that your dad isn't being the rabid JW by foaming at the mouth while he curses you! Haha! Seen many of those in my limited experience and on this board even!

  But something to think about...ask him why people can be disfellowshipped for just being a member of the YMCA for exercise purposes. They aren't endorsing YMCA's purpose, but just a member to make use of their work out equipment. Ask why people can get disfellowshipped for working for cleaning companies that clean goverment offices. They aren't endorsing the government, just emptying the wastebaskets!

  I know you're on the right track Willie. Glad you're here to learn!

  Andi
• 

  hawkaw

  One thing I have noticed is people saying the criteria has not changed.

  This is not quite true.

  What is true is that the main points of the criteria have not changed. Those being support for the UN and also promoting the UN through the associated NGO's literature.

  As I just reported the criteria in 1994 seemed a little tougher - ie. they had to "prove" their loyalty for at least 2 years (Jesus, Jesus, Jesus - Wow what a kick in the WTS head - I can't believe that - these idiots voluntarily agreeing to prove themselves - WOW I'M STUNNED!!!!!).

  Also keep in mind the 1994 Brochure will show you that the WTS like any other existing NGO had to write a letter to the DPI requesting an application form. So there goes that agruement that they didn't sign anything down the good old toilet.

  Also go back and look at the 1968 Resolution 1296 - you will note that the criteria consisted of about 11 points. Then the updated resolution in 1996 happened (Res. 31) and the critera increased to 19 points.

  However, no matter what the key criteria to this scandal have not changed.

  hawk