A Century Later, Watchtower Leaving Brooklyn
The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, which in the past couple of years has begun to unload its vast portfolio of buildings accumulated in Brooklyn Heights and Dumbo over the last century, is officially pulling up its roots and moving upstate. We have submitted a proposal to the Town of Warwick to build a complex…
The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, which in the past couple of years has begun to unload its vast portfolio of buildings accumulated in Brooklyn Heights and Dumbo over the last century, is officially pulling up its roots and moving upstate. We have submitted a proposal to the Town of Warwick to build a complex there that we’re calling the World Headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Richard Devine told the Brooklyn Eagle yesterday. The liquidation of the Brooklyn properties is not on a fast track at this point, though, because of the relatively weak real estate market. The Jehovahs Witnesses began selling back in 2007, managing to unload the Standish Arms before the market turned. A deal for the Bossert Hotel on Montague Street fell apart when RAL had to walk away from a signed contract in late 2008. In addition to its massive headquarters at 25 and 30 Columbia Heights (700,000 square feet combined), other properties in the area that still need to be sold but are not actively being market include 165, 161 and 183 Columbia Heights as well as 105 Willow Street and 34 Orange Street. We’re particularly curious about what this means for the two large parking lots in Dumbo.
After Century in Brooklyn, Watchtower Pulls Out of Heights [Brooklyn Eagle]
Jehovah’s Witnesses Plan Exodus from Brooklyn Heights [Gothamist]
Watchtower Officially Bugging Out of Brooklyn Heights [BHB]
Photo by madams girl
revealing what, benson? That I dislike prejudice or the attempt to force religion down people’s throats? That I respect the Constitution? Do tell us, please.
Let me also clarify- this doesn’t mean Churches should have no input- by all means explain why you agree with a politician or a policy. Invite him to speak. But to tell people how to vote by threatening them with expulsion or refuse them participation in Mass? Well, that not only goes against the IRS tax laws, it infringes on a congregant’s right to free speech and the freedom to vote as they see fit.. It’s politicking.
Revealing, indeed!
I’ll tell you- churches that supported Prop 8. Churches that support anti-choice legislation. Churches that pay money to political candidates -of any ilk- so that faith based legislation is passed. Churches that push for teaching “Intelligent Design” in public school science programs or American history as an outcome of Christianity in public schools (Go to Texas if you don’t believe it). Because this is exactly what they are not supposed to be doing by virtue of that tax-exempt status.
Bob;
Let me put it this way.
I think that 99% of most Americans would agree with my statement, and it is, in fact, the long-standing law of our land. So, I ask, what is all the clamoring about re: changing the tax status of some religious organizations?
I would ask those that are clamoring for a change to be more specific. What religious organizations should lose their tax exemption, and for what specific reasons?
I believe such detail would be revealing.
Benson,
RE: your 12:41 comment, I do not read bxgrl’s comment the same way you do–we’ll just have to disagree on that.
Even though our opinions on religion probably differ greatly I AGREE with your statement that “a church, synagogue or mosque can espouse whatever view they wish, all the way from “Focus on the Family” to Rev.Wright, and that is fine. What they cannot do, lest they lose their tax status, is to materially support a political party, or a particular candidate”.
legion- actually people like myself feel under attack from conservative religious institutions. Not to beat a horse that’s out of office, but the Bush years were frightening to anyone who believes in the principles this country was founded on. I agree the Founders had little thought of totally deleting G-d or spirituality from government, but they were adamant that there be no establishment of a state religion. That is very clear.
You said: “I am all for a secular, non baised government, but within reason. You simply cannot expect to dissociate the individual/citizen from the individual/belief system.
Politics has always been informed by the people that make the laws. Lately, there has been this idea that we can attack the religious institutions that influence politicians and cultural thought by way of the constitution as you are arguing.”
I think the issue becomes, who says what is within reason? Religions differ in their beliefs and what one accepts, another does not. Then there is the issue of atheists, agnostics and Humanists. I have no quarrel with someone who wants to believe I’ll burn in hell if I don’t accept Allah or Jesus- that’s their opinion, whether or not they think its the truth. But to take that belief and make laws that affect all of us, is wrong.
When it comes to gay rights, I believe it is unconstitutional to deny them the same rights and privileges as any other citizen. I don’t think, however, a Church should be forced to marry gay people but they have no right to make the state deny gay people the right to marry. I don’t believe life starts at the moment of fertilzation, and in Judaism the traditional belief was life begins with the first breath. I don’t hold with that either because i do know something about biology and science. Yet conservative religions want to stop women from using birth control or make decision about their own bodies. By legislation. And this is at its heart, unconstitutional.
Why I like argu- er- discussing things things with you. 🙂
But you sound really crabby today. Something wrong?
“I would politely tell them that I was catholic and tell them that our Jesus would win the ulimate battle of the Jesus’
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa”
HA! Too bad I never thought of that. I’d just tell them “Beat it.” I’m going to use that if they happen to re-appear. Thanks, Gem.