AAWA is here!! (The Association of Anti-Watchtower Activists)

by cedars 535 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • betterdaze

    When I say "committed" I mean people who are actually legally tied to the organization through its articles of incorporation.

    This may help clarify: The Articles of Incorporation for the Association of Anti-Watchtower Activists. (Scroll down to click button under Scanned Documents.) Three directors are listed.

    And this topic, from a few months ago, appears to show the germination of the "Modern-Day Truth-Seeking Internet Vigilantes" who make up most of the current officers.

    IMHO, it's a fabulous idea whose time has come, but they're shooting themselves in the foot with an Anti-anything name and "vigilantes" would hardly serve any better.

    Especially in the U.S. press, and in this post 9/11 era.

  • Lady Lee
    Lady Lee


    @Lady Lee

    What is Cedars actual legal involvement in the group since he is not a board member?

    Who said he wasn't a board member. He is the president of the legally incorporated board

    Why is he the only one who seems to have control over the name of the group?

    He doesn't. Not everyone on the board posts here so you don't see or probably don't know them but their names are on the website.

    I like the idea of this group for sure, and I can't imagine all the work and effort that has gone into this, but I am with many here who are concerned about the name. Why are our concerns about this particular matter invalid? No one seems to be answering this question other than what basically amounts to "because I said so," from Cedars.

    Didn't I just say we would be talking about it along with the many other ideas so many have put forth? Do I really have to quote myself now? Go back and read it. No where did Cedars say "Because I said so" He knows better than anyone he can't change the name unless th eother board members agree. So far after only 3 days we have been busy with a lot of other things besides the name.

    I understand Cedars' comments about the need to stay on course in order to be taken seriously, but the group is only 3 days old. If a name change is a valid consideration, isn't it worth discussing and implementing now?

    My error. It has been 3 days since the world has known about the existence of AAWA? Did you go look the website to see the history behind the making of AAWA. Or look at Cedars website for the longer story? If not here you go:



  • rocketman

    OOps, I thought that was you Cedars. Well then, Ethan Hatcher has a cool hat.

    As for the cute blond, yes, I figured that was her husband next to her. Well, he married a nice-looking gal.

  • blindnomore

    Well said Cedars and Lady Lee!

    I am here to support the cause in any way I can.

    Suggestion: How about making another video that shows the personal conviction of ex-JWs in spite of Watchtower's every effort to destroy them. I think the witnesses need to see how happy and normal we are. Each participant can make a brief introduction and relate his/her current state or achievement or send a messege for the loved ones who are confined behind the Wachtower Town.

    I love the name, by the way. I am a proud anti-Watchtower activist.

  • dontplaceliterature

    My mistake on his board membership. I see clearly now that the first member in the list is: "Myself".

    I'm glad to hear, based on your insinuation, that the possibility exists for a name change. Again, best wishes to all of you.

  • wannaexit

    I love the concept. When I watched the video I literally cried. Its professional and It feels right. I wish AAWA much success in its mission goals.

    As some have expressed, I am not in favor of the name either. The "anti" gives it a very combative tone. Someone mentioned the more softer "The Association of Watchtower Activists".

    But I will respect the name and what it stands for. A name can always be changed. Its done all the time. Its only the inception of this organization.

    All the best to the amazing protagonists. Thank you for fighting my cause and you are giving many of us a voice .

  • breakfast of champions
    breakfast of champions

    But I will respect the name and what it stands for. A name can always be changed. Its done all the time.

    I agree. The name isn't as important as what gets done. That's what's really cool about this new undertaking (VIDIOT's AAWA "bat signal" is also very cool.)

    And as far as worrying that the Society or apologists would be laughing up their sleeves if the name were to ever change. . .

    . . . . anyone ever notice how many names the Society goes by? Lets see. . . Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, WTBTS of Pennsylvania, Christian Congregation of Jehovahs Witnesses. . . . . .. . . . . . ..


    I'd be happy for it to be called the Judean People's Front as long as the Watchtower feels some pain. This is an evolving worthy cause. Great idea, great team, good luck, will support however I can.


  • The Quiet One
  • SeekingTheRealTruth

    Thank you for all your hard work! This is amazing..will definitely be sending a volunteer form.

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    I'd be happy for it to be called the Judean People's Front as long as the Watchtower feels some pain


  • Max Divergent
    Max Divergent

    Some people seem to be making criticisms of two main points: 1) the name, and 2) of John Cedars' backing the decisions of the board.

    As to the name, I think those holding back support on the basis they think the name inappropriate are either missing the point or rejecting the messy approach of collective action. Not everyone in an association agrees with every action, but they still work together to achieve an objective. Over time they can campaign within the association for what they see, hopefully on good grounds, as a better approach (like a different name if that's their view). But in the meantime they just get on with supporting the group's objectives in accord with its rules. Those holding back support over the name might not be a good fit for a cooperative body, maybe it's better they don't get involved.

    On Cedars' defense of board decisions including the name (eg: "... this is how we're doing it. It's not just me, it's the entire board. .... When board decisions are made they need to be stuck to through thick and thin.... Once the board makes a decision it is my job to make sure it is implemented and stuck to no matter what...").

    He simply states the truth that as President of the association it is his job to uphold and defend the decisions of the board made in accord with its rules. Maybe he personally agrees with it, maybe he doesn't: that doesn't matter in a formal sense. Unless Arizona or AAWA's rules say differently, all we should hear is the President's support for the decisions of the board until the board makes a different decision, if it ever does. Provided any later decision is made in accord with all relevant rules, then the President's job is to support that decision just as strongly or resign. That's how it works; that's what he's done to date.

    Other board members might engage in debate if they wish, preferably with members of the association, but if they happened to want to do so publicly that's up to them. AAWA will live or die by its decisions: no doubt they will listen to and hear public comment, then deliberate and come to a conclusion on whatever matters they think have import on achieving their objectives.

    (Can't get rid of the italics: keep coming back once I hit Submit).

  • mind blown
    mind blown

    The vid is beautiful! I can totally see it on 20/20!

    As an ex JW I can fully relate to the vid and AAWA, but the sites visuals may be too much in attack mode for a JW. They will immediatley shut down, and go straight into "run for hills it's apostates!!", mode. It's seems as though the direction you're taking is as Annony.

    The only reason I mention this is because I just started watching Steven Hassens vids. He suggests more of a subtle manner, the cult mind and emotions need to be handled differently. WTS has taken the attack mode approach, and we know where it's getting them. I'm just wondering if you may ask yourselves how you want to be veiwed? Who do you want to help with your message, and how are you going to go about it effectively? Are you taking the WTS down at any and all cost?

    Just a thought.....

  • breakfast of champions
    breakfast of champions

    "AAWA defines a cult as any organization, religious or otherwise, that uses mind control techniques to unduly influence its members, and has beliefs or practices that are potentially damaging thereto."

    This is my favorite part about the mission statement. It calls a duck "a duck".

    It's not that Watchtower is a cult because it deviates from mainstream Christianity - it's because it uses classic thought reform techniques to keep people imprisoned by heir own minds, and that's what we all really are fighting for: the minds of our loved ones.

  • jgnat

    ...that's what we all really are fighting for: the minds of our loved ones.


  • Quendi

    I have finally made the time to watch the video and want to give heartfelt thanks to all involved. Right now, all I can offer is moral support for AAWA but I hope to do more later. As for the name, I have no problem with it. I think it is very important to make it clear that people involved are not Watchtower activists because that would imply agreement with the organization’s aims, methods and goals. Instead, the anti-Watchtower wording clears up any confusion about AAWA’s stance vis-à-vis the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.


  • betterdaze

    Max Divergent said, Other board members might engage in debate if they wish, preferably with members of the association,

    ARTICLE V in the Articles of Incorporation clearly states, "The Corporation shall have no members."

  • *lost*

    BLIND NO MORE - excellent comment.



    .. and hopefully wake them up ...

    oh, and mabye SAVE LIVES,

    rescue people from the clutches of 'bad organisation' and a 'false religion' which is

    actually a CULT IN DISGUISE.

  • crmsicl

    I'm just glad someone is doing something. I think the name is what it's supposed to be. It's their baby, they get to pick the name. We're family and we accept it. I do anyway.

  • Max Divergent
    Max Divergent

    betterdaze: ARTICLE V in the Articles of Incorporation clearly states, " The Corporation shall have no members ."

    The corporation may not, but the association has eight board members who seem to make decisions collectivley and could debate with each other if they like.

Share with others