Yadirf, Membership in a labor union may not be a suitable analogy. Membership in a union is often required. A member of my household is a union member and pays dues. She does so because she was required to do so. Does she support the union? Does she get involved in it? Not necessarily - she, like you, has not attended union meetings either. But, her membership in that union is required - she had no choice. The employees voted to unionize.
The WTS was certainly not required to become an NGO member of the UN. Their enlistment was completely voluntary, wasn't it? So why enlist as a member voluntarily and then say, in effect, 'well, we don't support it?'. Now, I do understand the rest of your union analogy - I do comprehend what you are trying to say. While I can see your point of view, I am not totally satisfied that what the WTS did in this case was what sould have been done by competent jw leadership. Also, as soon as the matter became known, they disassociated themselves from the UN. Why? Why not simply stay on and explain to all their rationale for joining the UN as an NGO?
As for the church membership analogy I used, I do think it is valid. It is a voluntary membership. The person interested in becoming a jw is asked to resign. Why? Because being listed as member implies their support of the church.
When my wife stated her interest in becoming a jw, she was asked to resign her membership from the church even though she had not attended for months, and had made no monetary donations. Why? Because despite her recent lack of involvment in that church, she was still considered a member, and therefore a supporter.
Another analogy that can be made might be that of joining, say, the YMCA. Heck, my daughter was given a hard time by one jw because she she set foot inside the building once. Now, would not jws consider a membership at the YMCA as being supportive of the entity that is behind the YMCA, namely, the Catholic Church? If not, why do they generally refuse to join the YMCA?
Also, Yadirf, I take strong exception to your use of terms like "twisted" and "faulty" with regard to my conclusions. When I offered comments, I merely offered them as my own personal conclusions. You are not obliged to share them. I merely stated my view after considering available facts. I did not attack your postion, did I? Did I even mention your name? Why do you, then, feel a need to use such strong negative terms? While you are not making an attack on me as a person, I still take exception to your use of such terminolgy rather than simply trying to reason things out.
I have often found that many who post here, including, and sometimes especially, jw apologists, resort to such strong negative terminolgy when discussing matters. I am a jw myself, and I must say that some of the most unreasonable people, when it comes to trying to have a simple discussion, are active jws, who get extremely defensive at even the slightest suggestion that all may not be right with their religion. I have a family member who is like that - having a discussion with her is nearly impossible, as her demeanor quickly turns angry.
To me, there is no need for that. A simple, reasoned discussion can be had by all without resorting to such terminolgy and its ugly implications. I'll get off my soapbox now.
