Jehovah's Witnesses believe UN will ban Religion

It goes on to say:

THE HOLY SEE AT THE UN
The Holy See is a Non-member State Permanent Observer at the United Nations. This is a rarely used designation shared only by Switzerland. It gives the holder some of the privileges of a state at the UN, such as being able to speak and vote at UN conferences. No other religion is granted this elevated status. Other religions participate at the UN like most other non-state entities - as non-governmental organisations.
The Holy See owes its participation in the UN to an accident of history - the membership of Vatican City to the Universal Postal Union and the International Telecommunications Union. The Vatican is a member of these unions because it owns postal and radio services. Soon after its formation, the UN invited these organisations and their members to attend UN sessions on an ad hoc basis, which the Vatican did.
Representatives of the Vatican and the Holy See began attending sessions of the UN General Assembly, the World Health Organisation and the UN Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation in 1951 as ad hoc observers.
In 1956, the Holy See was elected a member of the UN Economic and Social Council and also became a full member of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The Catholic church was active as an ad hoc and at times formal observer at various US bodies between 1948 and 1964, usually at its own request. In 1957, as a result of confusion regarding the use of the interchangeable use of the terms Holy See and Vatican City, the secretary-general of the UN and the Holy See reached an agreement that relationship should be henceforth understood as being between the UN and the Holy See.
In 1964, following the protocol establishing a permanent observer mission at the UN, the Holy See informed UN Secretary General U Thant that it had despatched a permanent observer to the UN's New York headquarters.
U Thant accepted the Vatican's designation and granted the Holy See Permanent Observer Status. The bar was not set very high for U Thant's acceptance of the Holy See's permanent observer status. Because permanent observer's are not officially recognised in the UN charter, the protocol for their admission developed by custom. U Thant noted of the criteria he applied in deciding whether to accept UN observers: "I have been following one line which seems to be the only possible one, that is, to accept observers when such an arrangement is proposed in the cases where the country in question is recognised diplomatically in this form or that form by a majority of UN members."
Non-member states obtain Permanent Observer status by notifying the UN secretary-general that they have appointed an observer. Unlike other entities, such as NGOs, they do not require an invitation from the General Assembly to send a permanent observer. "The secretary general acknowledges the appointment if accepted. According the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs", in deciding whether or not to afford certain facilities to a Permanent Observer, it has been the policy of the organisation to make such facilities available only to those appointed by Non-member States at the UN which are full members of one or more specialised agencies and are generally recognised by members of the United Nations."
The Holy See meets this first condition through its membership in United Nations organisations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, but it is questionable if it met the second criterion in 1964, the year it was appointed an observer.
In 1959 only 14 states out of the 82 UN members at that time had formal relations with the Vatican. Even by 1985, only 53 countries had diplomatic relations with the Holy See. (At the same time there were 159 UN member states). The United Nations did not formalise relations with the Holy See until1984.
No vote has ever been taken on the Holy See's presence at the UN by the General Assembly. The Holy See's membership in the UN agencies such as the International Atomic Energy Agency - which allowed it to qualify as a Non-member Permanent Observer - was also not subject to vote by the general conference.
Contrary to some claims, the Holy See was not invited to participate in the UN. Pope John Paul II confirmed that the Holy See invited itself into the UN when he noted, "Pope Pail VI initiated the formal participation of the Holy See in the United Nations Organisation, offering the co-operation of the church's spiritual and humanitarian expertise."
There is no evidence that the UN offered the Holy See membership or sought out the Holy See as a member state. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. In addition to the historic reasons cited above, the Holy See is today not eligible for full sate status at the UN because it can not carry out the security functions of the UN Charter due to its neutrality.
It was the Holy See that initiated requests to be recognised as a state in the international bodies. The Holy See wished to be admitted to the League of Nations, the precursor to the UN and reportedly "regretted its exclusion" due to concerns about its statehood status and the possibility it would have undue influence on the votes of Catholic member states.
In October 1944, the Pope inquired of US Secretary of State Cordell Hull what the conditions for membership would be for the future United Nations. Hull replied that, "the Vatican would not be capable of fulfilling all the responsibilities of membership."

a reply to: Transparent

Then concludes with this:

HOW THE 'HOLY SEE' USES ITS STAUS AT THE UN TO RETARD PROGRESS
While not required by UN procedure, Mon-member State Permanent Observers are normally invited to attend UN conferences and participate in these conferences with "all the privileges of a state", including the right to vote. Other types of observers do not have this privilege. They may participate in the UN conferences a non-governmental organisations, which means they may observe the proceedings, but may not vote or participate in the other formal aspects of the conference.
Because UN conferences operate on consensus, the ability to disagree with the majority consensus has significant power. The official documents of the recent UN conferences on women and population and development are replete with "objections" by the Vatican to the majority consensus.
For instance, the Holy See insisted on expressing reservations on the Beijing Platform for Action, the final report of the 1995 Beijing Conference on Women. It took issue with the concept of "women's rights to control their own sexuality" and "women's right to control their...fertility", asserting that these rights should be understood to refer only to "the responsible use of sexuality within marriage."
The Holy See also condemned "family planning" as "morally unacceptable" and dissociated itself from the consensus on the entire section on health, saying it gave "totally unbalanced attention to sexual and reproductive health".
Given its role at the UN, these official objections, entered formally into the final report of the conference, serve to weaken support for the conclusions of the majority. Moreover, they represent sectarian religious positions, not governmental public policy positions. This is exactly what the Vatican and its handful of allies - nations such as Libya and the Sudan that do not support full human rights for women - intend.
Non-member Permanent State Observers have other privileges not accorded to lesser types of observers, including the right to place items on the provisional agenda of the General Assembly and greater access to the plenary sessions of the UN and its main committees, as well as to the Security Council.
The Holy See is very active in the UN beyond the special conferences held every few years. In addition to sending a permanent observer to the UN headquarters in New York, it sends permanent observers to the UN offices in Geneva and Vienna, as well as to the UN Organisation for Industrial Development; UN Food and Agricultural Organisation; the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation; the Organisation of the American States and at least 13 other high powered bodies.
The activities of the Roman Catholic church have been detrimental to women throughout its history. From decrying emergency contraception for women who had been raped in Kosovo to burning boxes of condoms as AIDS ravages Africa, the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church has allowed outdated doctrinal concerns to take priority over the lives of real people. Nowhere is that more evident than in the UN, where the Holy See insists on foisting its limited and largely rejected view of gender, sexuality and reproductive health on a world intent on creating a more progressive personal ethic that is respectful of the common good.
While the Holy See has a right to a voice at the United Nations, that voice should only be as loud as those of the other world religions. NGO status - which the International Humanist and Ethical Union possesses - would allow the Holy See to advocate for its position without the benefit of having a special platform for its views.

When looking at the information it shows that the RCC is not a legitimate member in the status in which they have been using. Will the UN finally use it's power to sit the RCC down out of the way of their agenda? Possibly, but we have yet to see what they will do & to what degree. We do know that they will indeed silence religion in the worldly affairs that government seeks for itself.

a reply to: Transparent

Transparent.

It's now becoming "transparent" that we're so close to the fulfillment of this prophecy. As of late, with the passing of the Gay Marriage, next to come is this:

The stripping of the Church's Tax Exempt.

Now’s the Time To End Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions

The Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage makes it clearer than ever that the government shouldn't be subsidizing religion and non-profits

Two weeks ago, with a decision in Obergefell v. Hodges on the way, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah introduced the First Amendment Defense Act, which ensures that religious institutions won’t lose their tax exemptions if they don’t support same-sex marriage. Liberals tend to think Sen. Lee’s fears are unwarranted, and they can even point to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion in Friday’s case, which promises “that religious organizations and persons [will be] given proper protection.”

time.com...

Couple this with the spread of The Caliphate in the Middle East. The raping, torture and death of innocent lives at the hands of ISIS - just a matter of time when the world will have had enough of it. It will provoke the world to act as one and GET RID of religion once and for all time.


As of now, religious leaders are losing favor from the masses. Once this becomes full blown, politicians will start avoiding them like the plague.

a reply to: edmc^2

Yes! It's only a matter of time. Religion has backed itself up against a wall & have given government the ammo to use. The next phase to marriage equality being used to help destroy religion will be the usage of their places of worship fight. Did you know that if a church has done these they legally cannot turn away anyone of the public the usage of their facility?

1. Does the public ever use your facilities? If you ever allowed non-members to use your sanctuary for a wedding you could NOT deny a gay couple from using your sanctuary.
2. Does it have fundraisers where you sell cookies, popcorn, fish fries, dinners, etc for consumption at the church?
3. Has a church ever been used by another organization or group for which they paid a fee to rent?
4. Has it ever officiated or hosted a wedding or funeral or other events for non-members of the public for a fee?
5. Does the sanctuary have a pop machine or sell coffee?

a reply to: edmc^2

''As of now, religious leaders are losing favor from the masses. Once this becomes full blown, politicians will start avoiding them like the plague.''

There's so many ways this could unfold but one thing's for sure...it will happen.

originally posted by: intrepid


1975.

Ah. That explains disco.

a reply to: edmc^2

Notice what an article in Forbes July 28, 2015 entitled ''Should America Tax Churches'' said:

In part it says ''Churches reap a vast array of tax advantages, including special rules limiting IRS authority to audit a church. And what of the controversial and important classification decision? What constitutes a legitimate church? With church status being so desirable, how does the IRS police it? The term “church” isn’t even defined in the tax code, although the IRS does have a tax guide for churches and religious organizations. The IRS looks for:

1. Distinct legal existence;
2. Recognized creed and form of worship;
3. Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government;
4. Formal code of doctrine and discipline;
5. Distinct religious history;
6. Membership not associated with any other church or denomination;
7. Organization of ordained ministers;
8. Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed study;
9. Literature of its own;
10. Established places of worship;
11. Regular congregations;
12. Regular religious services;
13. Sunday schools for religious instruction of the young; and
14. Schools for preparing its members.

Most do not follow or fall into many if these categories. With religion holding hostage an annual estimation of over &7,000,000,000.00 billion dollars in unpaid tax revenue, government in the US may be ready to sink their teeth into this untapped source of revenue.

originally posted by: Transparent
a reply to: edmc^2

Yes! It's only a matter of time. Religion has backed itself up against a wall & have given government the ammo to use. The next phase to marriage equality being used to help destroy religion will be the usage of their places of worship fight. Did you know that if a church has done these they legally cannot turn away anyone of the public the usage of their facility?

1. Does the public ever use your facilities? If you ever allowed non-members to use your sanctuary for a wedding you could NOT deny a gay couple from using your sanctuary.
2. Does it have fundraisers where you sell cookies, popcorn, fish fries, dinners, etc for consumption at the church?
3. Has a church ever been used by another organization or group for which they paid a fee to rent?
4. Has it ever officiated or hosted a wedding or funeral or other events for non-members of the public for a fee?
5. Does the sanctuary have a pop machine or sell coffee?

Good info, I didn't know about that. But i do know this - many churches have accepted government money. Hence when the tax man come calling they have no way out of it but pay up otherwise....

The Church Needs To Stop Taking Government Money

Phil Lawler at CatholicCulture.org voices what should be obvious: that by taking federal money and grants, the Catholic Church has put herself in a very awkward place. Money from the government always comes with strings attached, and those strings have tied the hands of too many Catholics.

Earlier this week, President Obama handed down an executive order that requires the cutting off of government funds from “any organizations that discriminate against homosexual or ‘transgendered’ persons. This executive order is not aimed solely at the Catholic Church; many others will lose federal contracts.” The U.S. Catholic bishops have opposed this move, but since Obama did this as executive “fiat” it is hardly something one can legally oppose. That’s okay, says Lawler.

Like you said, just a matter of time.

a reply to: edmc^2

The US through by means of the United Nations will be very instrumental in carrying out the abolishment religion. I well know that the UN says that the only hope for the realization of true peace will come by it. The masses more and more are calling for the separation of religion in secular affairs.

Governments and their citizens now view religion as an international hindrance and nuisance to secular law. Based on the push for religion and politics becoming an even greater issue as to keeping the two (mainly religion) from influencing the masses, protesting against the political arena and instigating violence, I was just thinking and wanted to ask:
have you ever thought that this attack may culminate based on removing all portions of religion from interference of politics by banning everyone from the political process if they are members of religion?

Revelation 13:15-17 says that: ''The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. [cause great distress or literally killed] It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.''

As SubAce said in the thread: '' The Coming Martial Law and Destruction of Religion'', ''Religious leaders will be imprisoned and perhaps put to death. Bloodshed will run great during that time [the great tribulation]. All nominal church followers, and practisoners of all other human-made religions on earth, from Hinduism, to Islam, to Buddhism will have to flee from her. They will have to recognize the military authority of the governments, and will be forced into rejecting their religions.''


Revelation 17:12 and 13 says: ''The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast.

''''in order for earth’s political rulers to unite and carry out their “one thought” that they were given, even “God’s thought” to destroy wicked false religion, they will have to ascend to rule together for that “hour.” And thus all freedom of religion will cease to exist. As there will be no more freedom of religion, all other freedoms that come with it, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, earth-wide, will no longer exist. People will be compelled to carry the “mark of the wild beast.” The wild beast is representative of human governments. Thus all mankind will have to kneel down before the United Nations, and the tremendous power it will have at that time'. ''

Wonder if the terror attacks in Paris will have any effect on giving the UN more influence on turning against religious fanatics "now"👀

If Trump takes the white house I could see him using something with there worldwide HQ in New York City to end the Islamic threat, he is certainly talking the talk. And France is all in now.

Well then, so it begins....

President Trump on Twitter today

The United Nations has such great potential but right now it is just a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time. So sad!

Indeed Blue_Jay33. There are in the UN the original 5 world power members: China, France, Russia, the UK & the US. How do tbey view religion? We know that China has a very low tolerance for religion unless its state ran. Russia too has a very low tolerance to the point that it has outlawed certain religious activities, literature, etc as extremism, thus implementing bans, fines & arrests. They too are for the moment having relations with the Russian orthodox church (RCC). With the spike in terrism by extreme Islam France is seeking to eradicate this problem & has been under a form of lockdown since November of 2015 & have stated joining with world leaders to emininate the terror caused by extremist religion. The UK too has stated a distain for radical Islam, also having close ties with the Church of England (RCC). And with the newly installed 45th POTUS Donald Trump, who ran on the platform of destroying ISIS, is in agreance to working with the world's nations of ridding this form of radical Islam from "the face of the earth". Although in a state partnership, the relationship with the US & the RCC has soured quite a bit since the former Obama administration. With religion being a nuisance & threat world wide in the form of radicalization, terror, wars, & policy making meddlings, this banning might be triggered off by Islam first then the rest may go like a domino effect. Also, the US in its ammendment will not favor one religion over another so if one is removed all must follow suit. The 7 th head of the wild beast primarily the US really gives life to the scarlet colored wild beast the UN by influence & money. There could be a few things culminated together that could trigger off the membering nations (the 10 kings that haave nort received a kingdom at Revelation 17:12) backed by the big 5 as to give power to tbe UN like religions enormous wealth & land ownership. & the decline in the world's economy. Most world governments have been stroked & manipulated by the religion's role in world affairs. As world events unfold we need to keep on the watch as the fulfiment of this prophecy is ready to give birth as we can discern & feel the effects as labor pains for a woman. One things for sure, the fall of religion will definitely happen.

There is a direct link with Daniel the 11th chapter, Revelation the 17th chapter and the UN banning religion as we know it aswell as bringing a cease to unadulterated Christianity and replacing it with what the UN sets up. The disgusting thing or abomination is the UN & removing the constant featue or daily sacrifice & standing where it ought not to be is it removing all religion, erecting its own UN approved religion & replacing it with every letter of true teachings found in the Bible's Christian Greek or New Testament scriptures; the holy covenant...genuine Christianity.

Although the king of the South & the king of the North doesn't trust one another they will come together with other nations that will align themselves with these two kings for one common goal, that is to unite in one accord & remove religion as we know it. (Daniel 11:27-30) Why? Because collectively, God will have judged their whorish ways & will put it into the hearts of the nations. (Revelation 17:12-17)

In the midst of it all these united nations will have waged war against God & those his holy ones by not only setting up a false god, but waging a campaign to destroy those holding on to faith in his salvation by staying loyal to him instead of this newly erected false religion & its false god. (Daniel 11:31-38; Revelation 17:14)

And it starts in Russia?

Russian court bans Jehovah's Witnesses as extremist group.

Russia's Supreme Court formally banned Jehovah's Witnesses as an extremist organization Thursday and ordered the state to seize its property in Russia, according to Russian news media.

The court, after six days of hearings, ordered the closing of the group’s Russia headquarters and its 395 local chapters.

The Interfax news agency quoted Justice Ministry attorney Svetlana Borisova in court as saying the Jehovah’s Witnesses pose a threat to Russians.

“They pose a threat to the rights of the citizens, public order and public security,” she told the court.
...

www.usatoday.com...

Who will be next?

We will see who's next after this war of the king of the North and the king of the South. Daniel 11:25-36

Check out the thread: "Donald Trump the despised one of Daniel 11:21" & how it ties in to this thread.

This will not do away with Jehovah's Witnesses. As for false religion... your days have been numbered.to: edmc^2

Might have been here before but, just read the headlines and thought id
pop in and say:

One can only hope.....

And hope for not just JHW, but ALL religions....

originally posted by: Volkgeister
I recently spoke to a friend about his time as a witness (he is no longer). And he told me something interesting. Apparently Witnesses believe the UN will ban religion and are preparing accordingly.

Here is a link to:
www.thepowerhour.com...

I am not sure of the validity of his claim, and would much appreciate the input of ATS members.

Cheers.

My first thought upon reading this was, In favor of what? Chrislam? .... christ....