You begin by saying:

In 1991, one of the legal corporations of the WTS registered with the United Nations as an NGO for the sole purpose of getting access to the extensive library of the United Nations. This enabled a writer who received an identification card, to enter the library, to enter the library for research purposes and to obtain information that has been used in writing articles in our journals about the United Nations. There was nothing secret about it.

May I ask, since it was apparently not a secret, when did you learn of this association between the Watchtower Society and the United Nations? Was it before or after the matter was publicized by former members?

I'll answer for you, since I'm certain of the answer. It was after the fact was identified and publicized by former members. In other words, after the story hit the press. Do you know how it is that I can be so certain of this fact, Heinz? Because it WAS secret. It was completely secret, and not you, nor any other but the elite JW leadership were privy to this fact.

Disagree? Prove me wrong Heinz. You tell your readers there was nothing secret about it, but you've offered absolutely nothing to substantiate your claim.

You continue:

At the time of the initial application, no signature was required on the form.

True to form, you fail to mention that continued association with the United Nations required the submission of an annual accreditation form, which DID require a signature. Your statement is deceptive, and your point is moot.

(The annual accreditation form, requiring a signature, is available in hardcopy form.)

You continue:

Years later, unbeknown to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, the United Nations published "Criteria for Association", stipulating that affiliated NGO's are required to support the goals of the UN.

After learning of the situation, our membership as [sic] NGO was withdrawn and the ID card was returned.

Perhaps you would explain how it is that you happen to know so certainly that the publication of "Criteria for Association" was "unbeknown to the governing body". This is a completely baseless claim. (You'll have to forgive me if I don't simply take your word for it, but you do seem to have earned a reputation on the Net as one who 'cries wolf'.)

Where is the evidence for this assertion? If you have it, why have you not made it available for others to judge the matter for themselves?

The requirements for associative status with the United Nations as a non-governmental organization have NOT changed in any significant way over the last ten years, and the Watchtower Society is very much aware of this fact. This has been affirmed by the UN-DPI (United Nations Department of Public Information) itself. But don't take my word for it. Consider the proof for yourself:

An excerpt from a letter dated October 11, 2001, from the Chief, NGO Section of the United Nations Department of Public Information:¹

This organization [the Watchtower Society] applied for association with DPI [the United Nations Department of Public Information] 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.

Excerpts from a press release dated February 14 1992 (this is the year the Watchtower Society was granted associative status with the UN), issued by the United Nations Department of Public Information²:

The NGOs officially recognized by DPI cooperate with the United Nations to help build public understanding and support for United Nations programmes and goals.

To be granted association with DPI, NGOs must have national or international standing, support the charter of the United Nations, have a broadly based membership and possess the resources necessary for effective outreach.

Excerpts from a press release dated August 7 1992 (this is the year the Watchtower Society was granted associative status with the UN), issued by the United Nations Department of Public Information:³

The NGOs officially recognized by DPI cooperate with the United Nations to help build public understanding and support for United Nations programmes and goals.

To be granted association with DPI, NGOs must be not-for-profit organizations with recognized national or international standing; support the Charter of the United Nations; have a broadly based membership; and possess the resources necessary for effective outreach.

An excerpt from a letter dated January 24, 2002, from the Interim Head of the United Nations Department of Public Information:⁴

...please see below the paragraph included in all letters sent to NGOs approved for association in 1992.

"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. Consequently, it is important that you should keep us informed about your organization's information programme as it relates to the United Nations, including sending us issues of your relevant publications. We are enclosing a brochure on the [sic] "The United Nations and Non-Governmental Organizations", which will give you some information regarding the NGO relationship."

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...
- have the commitment and means to conduct effective information programmes about UN activities...

An excerpt from the brochure "The United Nations and Non-Governmental Organizations",⁵ referred to in the letter dated January 24 2002. This brochure was sent to all NGOs registered in 1992, which would include the Watchtower Society:

Non-Governmental Organizations...

- Play a crucial role in mobilizing public opinion and building understanding for the United Nations, its related agencies and programmes.
- Monitor and promote policies of their own countries in support of United Nations goals and resolutions.

Another excerpt from the same brochure, sent to all NGOs registered in 1992, which would include the Watchtower Society:⁶

NGOs apply to the NGO and Institutional Relations Section of DPI for association. A senior Secretariat committee makes decisions according to established criteria.

Let's recap:

1. "By accepting association with DPI, the [Watchtower Society] agreed to meet criteria for association..."

2. "NGOs apply to the NGO and Institutional Relations Section of DPI for association. A senior Secretariat committee makes decisions according to established criteria."

3. "...the criteria for NGOs to become associated with DPI include the following: that the NGO share the ideals of the UN Charter... have the commitment and means to conduct effective information programmes about UN activities..."

4. "To be granted association with DPI, NGOs must...support the charter of the United Nations"

5. "The NGOs officially recognized by DPI cooperate with the United Nations to help build public understanding and support for United Nations programmes and goals."

6. NGOs "[mobilize] public opinion...for the United Nations."

7. NGOs "promote policies...in support of United Nations goals and resolutions.

Very plainly, "criteria for association" were in existence in 1991/1992 when the Watchtower Society joined the religions of the world in seeking and obtaining formal association with the United Nations. And clearly, these criteria included "support" for the United Nations.

The brochure "The United Nations and Non-Governmental Organizations" mentioned above, which was sent to all NGOs registered in 1992, also makes this statement:⁷

Association with [United Nations] DPI is given legislative authority by ECOSOC resolution 1297 which calls on DPI to associate NGOs, bearing in mind "the letter and spirit of ECOSOC resolution 1296."

ECOSOC resolution 1296 (XLIV, of 23 May 1968), states in part that an NGO "...shall undertake to support the work of the United Nations and to promote knowledge of its principles and activities..." and that "the aims and purposes of the organization shall be in conformity with the spirit, purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations."

Contrary to your dogmatic claim, the "criteria for association" with the United Nations has NOT changed in any significant way since the Watchtower Society clambered atop the UN. Indeed, the initial call for the United Nations DPI to associate NGOs back in 1968 was to accord with both "the letter and spirit" of ECOSOC resolution 1296, according to which NGOs shall undertake to "support the work of the United Nations" and "be in conformity with the spirit, purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations". From the very beginning, it was for this very purpose that NGOs were brought into associative status with the United Nations.

Your claim that it was "years later", and "unbeknown to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses" that such a requirement was added is thus seen to be patently FALSE.

All of these documents are available in hardcopy form.

Moving on, you say:

From a reader: The WT says that the UN is the unclean thing and its not to be touched.

Reply: That is not really true. The Bible and the WTS says that of Babylon the great, not the government (that is why the NWT cross-references 2 Cor 6:17 with Revelation 18).

It's much easier to knock down a straw man than the real thing, isn't it?

Why bother including the comments of a "reader" who doesn't have her facts straight? No one cares Heinz. Don't waste our time with a straw man - address the real argument.

You continue:

What the WTS has actually pooh-poohed is that the UN is mankinds [sic] last hope, or "God's kingdom on earth." To defend other JW's, the Watchtower has also recently filed with the European Court, in order to protect our rights under the UN's Declaration of Human Rights.

Really? Is that all? Nothing special about the UN then; it's just another legal body like the European High Court? Funny, I really thought there was more to it than that. Let's double-check:

"...Jehovah's witnesses recognize the United Nations as disgusting to God..." (The Watchtower 3/1/67 p. 157.)

"...'the disgusting thing that causes desolation'...is the United Nations." (Kingdom Ministry 8/94 p. 5-6.)

"The United Nations is actually a worldly confederacy against Jehovah God and his dedicated Witnesses on earth. It is really a conspiracy, with the worldly nations getting their heads together and scheming up what they may do against the visible organization of Jehovah God on earth." (The Watchtower 9/1/87 p. 20.)

"[The UN] is really a 'conspiracy,' yes, a conspiracy against the precious interests of God's Kingdom by Christ." (The Watchtower 12/15/83 p. 22.)

"The UN is actually a blasphemous counterfeit of God's Messianic Kingdom by his Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ-to whose princely rule there will be no end." (Revelation book p. 248-51.)

"The 'disgusting thing' of Jesus' prophecy is clearly identified by Scripture as the United Nations organization today. It is the same as the 'scarlet-colored wild beast' of Revelation chapter 17." (The Watchtower 2/1/79 p. 26.)

"[The UN is] 'a scarlet-colored wild beast' that is the image of Satan's bloodstained political system." (Mankind's Search for God p. 370.)

"There it is, the United Nations, acting in defiance of the Prince of Peace, earth's rightful Ruler, the Lord Jesus Christ..." (The Watchtower 1/15/77 p. 44.)

"...anti-Christ schemes for peace such as the organization of the United Nations." (The Watchtower 8/1/56 p. 462-3.)

"[The UN serves] as a mouthpiece for satanic propaganda." (The Watchtower 6/15/61 p. 360.)

"Satan has his signs and wonders, foremost of which is the United Nations organization with its headquarters in New York city." (The Watchtower 3/1/59 p. 150.)

"This substitute, the product of Satan's jealousy, which is a disgusting thing in God's sight, which arouses resentment in Jehovah God, which desolates the people's faith in God's kingdom and which will eventually cause their destruction, is none other than that scheme of modern man, a world association of nations, first making its appearance as the League of Nations and then as the United Nations organization." (The Watchtower 12/1/52 p. 714.)

Let's see if you were paying attention, shall we?

According to the Watchtower Society in the March 1, 1967 issue of The Watchtower magazine, what is "disgusting to God"? Is it the notion that the U.N. is "God's kingdom on earth"? Or is it the UN itself?

According to the Watchtower Society in the September 1, 1987 issue of The Watchtower magazine, is it the idea that the UN is "God's kingdom on earth" that is a "worldly confederacy against Jehovah God"? Or is it the UN itself that's "actually a worldly confederacy against Jehovah God"?

According to the Watchtower Society in the Revelation book, is the "blasphemous counterfeit of God's Messianic Kingdom" merely the concept of the UN as "God's kingdom on earth"? Or is the UN itself the "blasphemous counterfeit of God's Messianic Kingdom"?

Oops. Did I let the cat out of the bag?

The United Nations has been maligned in Watchtower publications for decades, as you well know. The above quotes are merely a small sampling of the condemnation and vilification that has been heaped upon the UN by the Watchtower Society. To suggest that all the Society has done is "pooh-poohed" the notion that the UN is "God's kingdom on earth" is quite preposterous. I don't see the Society condemning (or even "pooh-poohing") any such idea or concept in the above quotes. They condemn the UN itself.

You continue:

The original principles and goals expressed in the UN charter are: to maintain international peace and security; to suppress acts of aggression that threaten world peace; to encourage friendly relations among nations; to protect the fundamental freedoms of all peoples without discrimination based on race, sex, language, or religion; and to achieve international cooperation in solving economic, social, and cultural problems."
There isn't anything here which compromises our beliefs as Christians? [sic] Many JW's sign documents which state that we will protect the constitution or laws of the country he resides in, because there is no Christian conflict in protecting the stated principles of these governments.

Nice try. For once, you're making some sense; unfortunately such a line of reasoning is unacceptable to the Watchtower Society. You've strayed from the party line, and I doubt it's out of ignorance.

Using your line of reasoning, the nature of an organization (in this case, the UN) is irrelevant; what matters is only that the stated ideals of the organization do not conflict with a Christian's beliefs. The fact that, according to the Watchtower Society, the United Nations is "disgusting to God" and a "conspiracy" against His kingdom has no bearing it seems, because the UN's "original principles and goals expressed in the UN charter" do not conflict with your "Christian" beliefs.

I guess you wouldn't be averse to a "Christian" joining the YMCA then, would you? The stated mission of the YMCA is "to put Christian principles into practise through programs that build healthy spirit, mind and body for all." Certainly nothing in there that violates a Christian's beliefs, now is there? But what does the Watchtower Society say?

Is it true that for religious reasons Jehovah's Witnesses may not become members of the YMCA (Young Men's Christian Association)? Yes, that is so. We have long recognized that the YMCA, though not being a church as such, is definitely aligned with the religious organizations of Christendom in efforts to promote interfaith. (The Watchtower, 1/1/79 p. 30-31.)

Would you say that the United Nations is also "aligned with the religious organizations of Christendom in efforts to promote interfaith", Heinz?

What a classic example of the hypocrisy of the Watchtower Society. While an individual Jehovah's Witness is disfellowshipped from the congregation and shunned - treated as dead by JW "friends" and family - simply for acquiring a pass to play basketball at the YMCA (a pass that comes with no commitment to support the YMCA), the Watchtower Society quietly obtains formal association with the United Nations (an association that comes with a commitment to support the UN), an organization every bit as much aligned with "the religious organizations of Christendom", and every bit as much involved (indeed, more so) in "efforts to promote interfaith" - all ostensibly for the purpose of acquiring a library pass.

The hypocrisy is staggering!

God is going to use the UN to destroy false religion so why shouldn't we use it to promote religious freedom and human rights as long as we do not join it. We can promote it's [sic] "ideals" without promoting it as a replacement for God's Kingdom.

Umm, the Watchtower Society did join it - that's the issue, remember? The Watchtower Society joined the United Nations in the only way that a non-governmental organization can, and in the same way that other religions have joined - as a formally registered associate NGO. When they did so, they agreed to do more than "promote it's [sic] ideals". According to the press release issued in the year the Watchtower Society joined, the Society committed to "support the charter of the United Nations" and "build public understanding and support for United Nations programmes and goals."

The Society has also stated:
"Registration papers filed with the United Nations that we have on file contain no statements that conflict with our Christian beliefs."

Uh-huh. And neither do those papers I filled out when I registered at the YMCA. So how come this doesn't keep me from being disfellowshipped from the "Christian congregation", huh?

The church I attend requires no registration papers at all. I guess it won't be a problem for my Jehovah's Witness friends to attend with me, right?

What a cop out argument! Do you really think any of the other religious bodies who've sought and obtained formal association with the UN (you know, the rest of the "harlot class"?) would say anything different? They've filed the same registration papers as has the Watchtower Society! But this hasn't kept the Society from condemning every religion known to man for associating with the "beast", now has it? Talk about your double-standards.

Additionally, the WTS has previously called the UN objectives "nobel." [sic]

Right, and if I looked hard enough, I could probably find a quote from the WTS calling the objectives of the YMCA noble, too. The stated objectives of both organizations are noble, but that's not the issue. The issue is that the Watchtower Society voluntarily sought and obtained formal association with the organization that they claim is:

1. "disgusting to God"
2. "a worldly confederacy against Jehovah God and his dedicated Witnesses"
3. "a conspiracy against the precious interests of God's Kingdom by Christ"
4. "a blasphemous counterfeit of God's Messianic Kingdom"
5. "the image of Satan's bloodstained political system"
6. "anti-Christ"
7. "the disgusting thing" of Daniel
8. "a mouthpiece for satanic propaganda"
9. 'the foremost sign and wonder of Satan'
10. "the product of Satan's jealousy"
11. "[arousing] resentment in Jehovah God"
12. "[desolating] the people's faith in God's kingdom"
13. the "scarlet-colored wild beast" of Revelation

The Watchtower Society voluntarily registered with 'the foremost sign and wonder of Satan', that "mouthpiece for satanic propaganda", and agreed to use their own publications to "build public understanding and support for United Nations programmes and goals." The Watchtower Society cozied up to that "worldly confederacy against Jehovah God", committing to disseminate United Nations propaganda in their publications and outreach activities.

Tell me Heinz, as a Jehovah's Witness, do you believe Jehovah God would share His "channel of communication" with an organization that is in actuality "a conspiracy against the precious interests of [His] Kingdom"? Would He share His channel of communication with the scarlet-colored wild beast of Revelation? (Nahum 1:2)

Could it truly be said that the Watchtower Society was a "faithful and discreet slave" providing "food at the proper time" when they were in fact serving up "satanic propaganda" along side the "table of Jehovah" for ten years?

You continue:

Also, there is no conflict between the WTS's purpose and the Charter's allowance for governments to take military action. The Bible clearly states that God himself has given these governments the authority to "carry the sword" and we do not deny that authority (Rom.13:4). At the same time God requires Christians to personally reject warfare. (Matt 26:52)

So you've found a way to support the UN Charter with its provision for military action while you at the same time "reject warfare", have you? Tell me Heinz, are you familiar with "double-think"? It's a very curious concept described by George Orwell in his novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four.

A 1994 UN brochure gives evidence to the fact that there was beginning to be a change in the official requirements for participation and [sic] an NGO. On page six we find this statement: "A new relationship between the UN and NGOs is now being created. We have seen this new relationship begin to mature. NGOs are taking on important new responsibilities."

And those "important new responsibilities" taken on by NGOs were... what, exactly?

Though you imply it, and wish your readers to infer as much, you once again offer ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to support your claim that it was after 1992 that the requirement to "support" the UN and to "build public understanding and support for United Nations programmes and goals", etc. was thrust upon NGOs by the UN.

Secondly, allow me to point out (since you chose not to) that the quote you included above re "a new relationship between the UN and NGOs" is actually a quote from then Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali made in 1993 - not 1994 - despite the fact that it was included in the 1994 brochure. Since Boutros-Ghali claimed in 1993 to have "seen [past tense] this new relationship begin to mature", it is reasonable to assume that this "new" relationship was in existence when the Watchtower Society registered the previous year, in 1992, is it not?

Then we find the current Criteria for Association of NGOs describing the work of NGOs using language that Witnesses clearly cannot agree with; encouraging political participation, strengthening and support of the UN System etc.

Quotes from *1992* press release:

"...build public understanding and support for United Nations programmes and goals."

"...support the charter of the United Nations..."

Quotes from *1992* brochure:

"...mobilizing public opinion...for the United Nations."

"Monitor and promote policies...in support of United Nations goals and resolutions..."

Quotes from *1968* Resolution (1296):

"...support the work of the United Nations..."

"...be in conformity with the spirit, purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations."

It's really no surprise that the "current Criteria for Association of NGOs" contains language that "Witnesses clearly cannot agree with" Heinz, since the original criteria for association contained language that the Witnesses cannot agree with.

You continue:

Also, in the latest NGO brochure we find that there was in fact an official change in the relationship and requirements of NGOs. (http://www.un.org/MoreInfo/ngolink/brochure.htm)
Quoting from the brochure:

"After three years of negotiation, ECOSOC reviewed its arrangements for consultation with NGOs in July 1996. One outcome was ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31, which revised the arrangements for NGO consultation with ECOSOC....A second outcome...Decision 1996/297, which recommended that the General Assembly examine, at it 51st session, the QUESTION OF THE PARTICIPATION OF NGOS IN ALL AREAS OF WORK OF THE UN...Subsequently, in the General Assembly Working Group looking into the STRENGTHENING OF THE UN SYSTEM a sub-group on NGOs was formed."

Wow. If I had any remaining doubts about your lack of integrity, they are gone now. This is one of the most deceptive pieces of work I have ever seen crafted - and you have the audacity to accuse others of "smoke and mirror" tactics.

First, the entire section of the brochure⁸ from which you've taken this quote applies to NGOs who maintain consultative status with ECOSOC (Economic and Social Council), which the Watchtower Society did not. Get your facts straight. Notice that your quote from the brochure reads: "One outcome was ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31, which revised the arrangements for NGO consultation WITH ECOSOC." The Watchtower Society did not maintain consultative status with ECOSOC. THIS HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY. Both ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31 and ECOSOC Decision 1996/297, were outcomes of a review of ECOSOC's own "arrangements for consultation with NGOs", not the general NGO-UN relationship as you lead your readers to believe.

I noticed several ellipses in your quotation. Let's take a look at your first "..." [shown in red] to see what else you are keeping from your readers:

One outcome was ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31, which revised the arrangements for NGO consultation with ECOSOC. It standardized arrangements for accrediting NGOs for UN conferences, streamlined the process of applying for ECOSOC consultative status, and decided that national NGOs would be eligible to apply.

Yes indeed, quite a significant "official change in the relationship and requirements of NGOs": standardization of arrangements for accrediting NGOs for UN conferences, streamlining the process of applying for ECOSOC consultative status, and a decision that national NGOs would be eligible to apply. How very pertinent to the Watchtower Society's plight. (Not!)

Not only do these 'revised arrangements' not even apply to the Watchtower Society since these were "arrangements for NGO consultation with ECOSOC" (and the Watchtower Society did not consult with ECOSOC), but the revised arrangements IN NO WAY constitute an "official change in the relationship and requirements of NGOs" as you assert.

It's blatantly obvious that by quoting only the portion you did, and hiding the rest, your intent is to DECEIVE YOUR READERS.

The brochure goes on to mention "a second outcome". This is ECOSOC Decision 1996/297. Not surprisingly, when you quoted this from the brochure, you CAPITALIZED all the wrong words. You should have capitalized the words "RECOMMENDED" and "EXAMINED". Note:

"[Decision 1996/297] recommended that the General Assembly examine, at its 51st session, the question of the participation of NGOs in all areas of work of the UN..."

This was merely a recommendation that the General Assembly examine the issue of NGO participation. Once again there is no hint of "an official change in the relationship and requirements of NGOs", as you profess. Once again your deceit is laid bare.

The last sentence you quote from the brochure is this:

Subsequently, in the General Assembly Working Group looking into the STRENGTHENING OF THE UN SYSTEM a sub-group on NGOs was formed.

Again, you would have your readers take your CAPITALIZED words completely out of context. But let's examine these words in context to see what's really being said. First we see that there exists a "General Assembly Working Group". Did you notice? A General Assembly working group. This has nothing to do with NGOs. Secondly, this group is "looking into the strengthening of the UN System". What is the implication for NGOs thus far? Absolutely nothing. This is a General Assembly working group, having NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with NGOs.

Next we see that within this General Assembly working group, "a sub-group on NGOs was formed." Despite your wishful thinking, nowhere do we read that this NGO sub-group is "looking into the strengthening of the UN System", something that is the responsibility of the General Assembly working group.

So just what exactly was this "sub-group on NGOs" tasked with, if not "looking into the strengthening of the UN System"? You should know, since the answer is found in the very next sentence in the brochure [shown in red], which (not surprisingly) you conveniently left out of your quote:

Subsequently, in the General Assembly Working Group looking into the strengthening of the UN system a sub-group on NGOs was formed. This sub-group is examining issues of NGO access, particularly with regard to the General Assembly, and its work is on-going.

So what is the NGO sub-group doing, Heinz? Are they strengthening the UN system? Are they officially changing the relationship and/or requirements of NGOs? Not even close. This sub-group is "EXAMINING issues of NGO access" and its work is, in fact, "ON-GOING".

So much for your supposed "official change in the relationship and requirements of NGOs". There is nothing of the sort described here. Instead, we see you guilty of exactly what you accuse those JW "opposers" of - using smoke and mirror tactics to delude your readers.

After presenting this nonsense, you conclude that:

The above clearly confirms exactly what the WTS has said: That *after* they applied for NGO status there was a change in the language of the "Criteria for Association." When this was brought to their attention they *immediately* withdrew their participation.
In a nutshell: The WTS applied for a library card at the UN. After they had received this card, the requirements for holding this card changed, so they returned it. Everything was done properly, despite what our enemies say regarding the matter.

"The above" confirms nothing of the sort. Your "argument" is complete rubbish as I have shown, and does nothing other than to reveal a great deal about your own moral character.

The Watchtower Society did not apply for a "library card" at the UN; they applied for official associative NGO status with the United Nations, a relationship that required the Watchtower Society to SUPPORT the UN and to BUILD PUBLIC SUPPORT for the UN. After registering with the UN as an official associative non-governmental organization, the requirements for such a membership did NOT change, as evidenced by the 1992 (and 1968) documentation shown above.

The Watchtower Society backed out of their illicit relationship with that "worldly confederacy against Jehovah God" only after The Guardian picked up the story and exposed the Society's glaring hypocrisy, and only after the UN was alerted to the Society's decades-long campaign of slander against them.

From a reader:

****There is [sic] any reason to get this library card to get access to the books because the UN has what is called "Depository Library". In these places, you may found nearly all the books that you may found at the UN library. This libraries are around the world and what you need is a library card because these libraries are often found in public libraries or university libraries. But there is any political policy or other weird thing to apply for this library card.

Reply: Certainly, all the available information is not available at the depository libraries, contrary to some opposers [sic] claims. Looking closely, the WTS did not say that they registered as an NGO just to get a library card for the "main library." They also wanted to gain access to research material at the UN "library facilities" or the "extensive library of the UN." This library system includes more than just the Dag Hammarskjold library. It includes DPI photo, film and audio libraries, access to the NGO Resource Center [sic] which offers current UN documents, access to selected meetings, briefings, seminars, conferences, film screenings, and language courses. Are all these resources accesible [sic] with out [sic] an NGO pass? Probably not!

You said: "Certainly, all the available information is not available at the depository libraries, contrary to some opposers [sic] claims." This is yet another completely baseless assertion. Are we simply expected to take your word for this? Where is the evidence in support of such a claim?

Even were your assertion correct, it would still be only a red herring. Whether they mounted the UN to gain access to the Dag Hammarskjöld library or the NGO Resource Centre is really of no consequence. At issue is not why the Watchtower Society joined the religions of the world in committing to support and build public support for the United Nations, but that they did so at all.

You finally put your "argument" out of its misery with this:

Why have access to the UN's public information anyways? JW's are often the brunt of violations of the UN's charter of Rights and Freedoms. According [sic] the Encyc;. Americana 2000, Jehovah's Witnesses have faced more persecution in the 20th Century than any other religious group, save the Jews. But when we take steps to protect our members, even this is demonized by those that hate us and make an issue out of all this. THIS IS ANOTHER FORM OF PERSECUTION.

Then I guess the Watchtower Society would never 'demonize' (read: persecute) the nation of Israel for seeking to protect its members ("the Jews") by registering with the United Nations, huh? The Society would never "make an issue" out of it, right? That'd be really hypocritical, wouldn't it?

Israel asked the United Nations - that "disgusting thing that causes desolation" (Matt. 24:15, NW) - to "assist the Jewish people in the building of its state and to admit Israel into the family of nations" ... Israel [is] today in bondage to this Babylonish world. In every way Israel has made herself a part of this old world and is therefore doomed to destruction shortly at Armageddon... (The Watchtower 9/15/51 p. 566.)

For protection the Jerusalem of the Republic of Israel is trusting in the United Nations... (Paradise Restored p. 155.)

And now in this "time of the end" the revived nation of Israel with capital at the modern city of Jerusalem chooses to go on in the steps of its forefathers, ignoring the counsel of Jehovah God. It has again chosen "Caesar" as its friend in preference to God's kingdom by Christ. It has gone after and gained membership in the United Nations of this doomed world. There is only one outcome possible: destruction with this world because of taking the wrong course for want of the knowledge of Jehovah God and his Messianic kingdom. (The Watchtower 9/1/50 p. 277.)

Because today's Republic of Israel is a member of the UN, therefore, it should not expect to be used by ancient Israel's God in the blessing of all mankind. (The Watchtower 9/15/84 p. 15-16.)

Like Christendom, the Republic of Israel is also not in the new covenant promised by Jehovah God and validated by the sacrificial blood of Jesus Christ. Israel is in the covenant of the United Nations that resorts to a military police force. (The Watchtower 4/15/60 p. 244.)

...the Republic of Israel of today does not claim to be in the new covenant. Instead, the Republic of Israel became a member of the UN. (Worldwide Security p. 99-100.)

But it gradually became evident that what was taking place in Palestine with regard to the Jews was not the fulfillment of Jehovah's grand restoration prophecies. ... The correctness of this position was confirmed in 1949, when the State of Israel, then recently formed as a nation and as a homeland for the Jews, became a member of the United Nations, thus showing that its trust was not in Jehovah but in the political nations of the world. (Proclaimers book p. 141.)

Today, there exists the Republic of Israel in the Middle East. In self-interest, it is a member of the United Nations. ... Every member of the UN, including the Republic of Israel, will be blotted out of existence. (Worldwide Security p. 85-6.)

...we do not find [the Watchtower Society] joining the United Nations organization as one of its members, the way the recently formed nation of modern Israel has joined the United Nations. (The Watchtower 4/15/58 p. 237.)

Another case of the pot calling the kettle black. The Society is guilty of "persecution" as well as hypocrisy.

Your argument is left without a single point of substance. Like it or not, the requirement for associate NGOs to both support and build public support for the UN was in place in 1992 - this is indisputable. And I have no doubt that you yourself were well aware of this fact when you compiled this defense of the Watchtower Society. As with your Johannes Greber defense, real truth played no significant role in your argument. Any damning facts are simply omitted from your case; supportive statements are offered without any proof whatsoever; and conclusions are drawn in the absence of any and all logic.

What truly amazes me here is that you are so willing to turn a blind eye to the truth. You go the extreme length of making yourself a liar in order to defend your earthly leaders caught in their own web of hypocrisy and deceit. And of course, if anyone does expose your position, you simply cry "persecution!" and retaliate with salvo after salvo of name-calling, in the hopes that nobody will take the time to look past your slander tactics.

It's time to wake up and smell the coffee Heinz.

Regards,

Trevor Scott.