I prepared the following in abrief essay form from my research on the subject.
Please read it through. It will take a few minutes.I believe it is comprehensive enough for use with almost anyone.
If any one wants it in word ot pdf format, I can email it you.
A Matter of Reason
The issue of being disturbed by the Watchtower Society becoming associated with the United Nations as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) is not a matter of faith, but a matter of reason.
There are no ?if?s? in this discussion. There is no ?if that is true? reasoning to be applied. It is a far-gone conclusion that the Watchtower Society willfully associated itself with the United Nations as an NGO, and then withdrew its association when the press discovered it. It is that simple. The rest is spin.
To be balanced and fair, it must be recognized that the Watchtower Society did not ?join? the UN. Only a Sovereign nation can do that. They ?associated? themselves with the UN. This distinction is an important one, and must be remembered.
Consider the following:
On October 8, 2001 Stephen Bates, a reporter for The Guardian wrote a story that the Watchtower Society had associated itself with the UN as a NGO, and had this status since 1992. The Guardian is a well-respected newspaper, being quoted by the Watchtower Society, NBC News, etc. It is not a sensationalistic tabloid.
On October 15, 2001 Mr. Bates reported that the next day following the article published on October 8, the Watchtower Society withdrew from association with the UN as a NGO. The reason given by the Watchtower Society was that membership was used as a means to obtain research material that was unavailable elsewhere. It should be noted that the Watchtower Society maintains that their representatives were told that in order to continue to use the library, they (the Society) had to have NGO status. In addition, the Watchtower Society identified language in the NGO application that was inconsistent with Christian belief, and as a result withdrew.
It astonishes me that the day after The Guardian article broke, that the Watchtower Society made this discovery about unacceptable language in the NGO application. Is this pure coincidence?
Here are some additional facts to consider:
Mr. Paul Hoeffel, Chief, NGO Section, Department of Public Information of the United Nations confirmed in writing the following facts about the Watchtower Society?s membership:
?This organization (The Watchtower Society) applied for
association with DPI in 1991 and was granted association in 1992. By
accepting association with DPI, the organization agreed to meet criteria
for association, including support and respect of the principles of the
Charter of the United Nations and commitment and means to conduct effective
information programmes with its constituents and to a broader audience
about UN activities.?
" The principle purpose of association of non-governmental
organizations with the United Nations Department of Public Information is
the redissemination of information in order to increase public
understanding of the principles, activities and achievements of the United
Nations and its Agencies. "
?In addition, the criteria for NGOs to become associated with DPI include
the following:
§ that the NGO share the ideals of the UN Charter;
§ operate solely on a not-for-profit basis;
§ have a demonstrated interest in United Nations issues and a proven
ability to reach large or specialized audiences, such as educators, media
representatives, policy makers and the business community;
§ have the commitment and means to conduct effective information
programmes about UN activities by publishing newsletters, bulletins and
pamphlets, organizing conferences, seminars and round tables; and enlisting
the cooperation of the media.?
It should also be noted that the NGO?s must renew their status annually. Furthermore, the application and renewal documents have not changed in the period in question which is 1991-2001. What was discovered by the Society in 2001 existed on the same documents in 1991. Maybe they didn?t notice it? Try telling a Judicial Committee something like that.
The NGO section of the UN will be happy to confirm any of this to anyone. It is a matter of public record. They can be contacted at:
United Nations
NGO Section
Department of Public Information
Room S-1070L
New York, NY 10017
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: 212-963-7233
Mr. Hoeffel?s letter can be downloaded in PDF format from: www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/watchtower.pdf
Here is something further to consider about the statements made by the Watchtower Society about the UN Library. They didn?t have to be a NGO to gain access.
The following is the procedure:
- In 1991 access was given for short periods of time, and could be achieved independent of NGO status. No NGO recognition was required.
- The pass was granted to individuals who needed to consult exclusive materials which were available only in your library and not elsewhere.
- The individual needed to fill out an application form and provide a letter of recommendation confirming the research.
- If this application was approved, instructions were given to the pass office to issue a library pass. This pass would contain a photograph of the applicant. The pass would have a defined time duration in which it was valid.
- There has been no change in this policy and procedure subsequent to 1991, except the issuance of passes has been suspended since September 11, 2001.
The Office of Ms. Maureen Andersen, Chief, User Services Section, Dag Hammarskjold Library confirmed the above to me. They will confirm the same to anyone else. They can be reached at:
United Nations
Dag Hammarskjold Library
New York, NY 10017
Email: [email protected]
The Watchtower Society stated that they only applied for NGO status to use the library. This is not entirely true. The Watchtower Society attended, as an NGO the Vilnius International Forum on Holocaust Era Looted Cultural Assets on October 3-5, 2000. Brothers James N. Pellechia, Reino Kesk and Virgilios Pudjevis attended along with sixteen (16) other Organizations. This also is a matter of public record. You can obtain the attendance record from:
www.vilniusforum.lt/participants/international.htm
The above is all true, above-board and honest. It is part of the public record. No ?secret? documents. There is no interpretation or misunderstanding. What happened, happened.
The question is, how do you and I proceed with this information?
Why did this happen?
This question cannot be answered, because there is no plausible explanation that would legitimize this action or permit the membership (you and I) to intellectually accept and condone such action. The answer is that the Watchtower Society just elected to do so, and then when it became public, tried to distance itself from what happened. It is just that simple. If you have the temerity to ask them why, you will be branded a heretic.
Why what has happened is a serious matter, and not a ?so what??, ?its not a big deal? topic.
A) What has happened is contrary to the conventional wisdom of the Society. The Society maintains that their position on the UN is the same as always, and that they were using them the same way they would use any other Governmental service like the Court system or the public library. This analogy is not correct, and compares completely different things. The Court system and the public library are free for all to use, citizen and non-citizen. Becoming an NGO is voluntary, and unnecessary to achieve their stated purpose of doing research.
B) The Watchtower Society identified the undesirable condition of the UN. This was not done by others. The Watchtower Society openly publishes condemnation of the UN, and then seeks to associate itself with it. Why? This still has not been adequately explained.
C) The membership of the Watchtower Society (you and I) were taught the above (the undesirable condition of the UN), and warned that our life was directly connected with accepting this and other ideas of the Watchtower Society. A member could be disfellowshiped for not accepting this idea, or associating with the UN or other allied organizations.
D) Many members have either lost their personal life, liberty, or have been severely persecuted because of political neutrality and adherence to this policy.
E) Apparently, the Watchtower Society does not believe these ideas themselves because they elected to associate with the UN, and did so until discovered. They withdrew the following day. The published ideas about the UN must be untrue by the society?s actions (not words).
In view of the above, what questions are raised?
1) By demonstration, The Watchtower Society doesn?t believe the things that they have published about the UN; otherwise they would not have acted the way that they did. If they don?t believe these ideas, why should I? There published position can?t be true, otherwise their actions are suicidal.
2) What else has been done that we don?t know about yet?
3) What else has been developed as doctrine that is also untrue? I.e. Voting, blood, beards, etc.
4) In view of their actions, what governance do they have over me as an individual? Only what I allow them to have.
5) How can I represent, on a local level, an organization with these actions, and tell others to have full faith and confidence in them?
It is a matter of reason and not faith.