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
bxgrl,
you missed my point about the Columbia University clowns entirely.
I am all for free speech, allow the fools to speak and be heard, the better to counter their nonsensical arguments.
But you see, at Columbia University, the faculty and students only allow someone to speak if they meet the litmus test of the secular religion that is liberalism/socialism.
…ergo, you get fellow Americans (from the Minute Men project) getting attacked on stage, while a holocaust denier gets free reign and all the coffee he can drink.
laughable if it weren’t so pitiful an example of the circus that is “higher education” in America today. We’re not educating free thinkers, we’re indoctrinating lemmings.
speaking of separation of church and state:
vis a vis; liberalism
Should we as the American taxpayer stand by as ACORN
is funded by the “stimulus” bill and other slush funds to the tune of hundreds of millions to continue “community based activism” in the service of President Obama and the secular religion that is liberalism/socialism?
…and yes, I know that ACORN is up to it’s old tricks attempting to break into smaller units and take on other names. Won’t work, Americans are too engaged.
If you stop the tax exemption for the Church,
you stop the flow of funds to partisan hacks and
organizations that are nothing but a front for the
liberal theology or worse.
donatella- I agree with you. And it isn’t just the Catholic Church, I see the same political pushing in my religion as well, in the more orthodox groups. And that is my point- if they want to be political players, they should pay taxes. If they want to teach morality and ethics, and expect their congregations to live by those codes- that’s fine. It’s when they try to make their particular code of ethics or biblical intrepretations into law I take issue.
I can live with religious differences. I won’t accept those differences being codified into an exclusionary law. I can accept that fundamentalists think gay marriage is a sin. I won’t accept they’re attempts to deny gays legal rights. I accept they believe those of us who are not Christians will burn in hell (I disagree, but whatever.) But I will not accept their attempt to make Christianity the official religion of the United States. And don’t get me started on the right to choose.
Greenwood,
You make a fair point. If folks could be assured that different religious organizations would be taxed equitably, then there would be no violation of the establishment clause. My problem is in believing that that would be the actual situation.
While we don’t have a history of selective taxation wrt new organizations, we DO have a history of administrations on both sides of the political spectrum denying access to media companies that they perceive to be not friendly to their POV. Don’t think the same thing will happen with religions? I doubt it.
Social issues are a hot-button topic these days, and religions have strong views on these topics. I am certain that if they were to be taxed, its administration would be tainted by the political party in power (see the thread above), and that is not what this country is about.
I loathe organized religion of any kind but if someone I know belongs to one it doesn’t mean I reject him or his thinking about seminal issues. People “of” a given persuasion should be allowed to voice their political opinions but churches, etc. that make membership contingent on espousing their political beliefs or that campaign for a person or party should, in my opinion, be considered PACs & taxed accordingly.
Benson:
I’m not affiliated with any political party and vote for who I please. And even if I belonged to a major political party, I have no illusions that taxing religious organizations would ever be considered in this country. Just as I don’t think changing the laws so corporations don’t have the same rights as individuals will ever happen. But as George Carlin said, I can dream.
But let me ask, if we tax news organizations with vastly different political leanings (Washington Times and New York Times, for example)with identical rules, why couldn’t we tax all religions, regardless of political views, with identical rules? How would that violate the establishment clause?
Bob, you are right, and another poster mentioned how they do not like being told the right political action from the pulpit. This is a tension; I have discussions with my Catholic friends about this all the time — I think that it is one thing to understand the teaching of the Church and then as an educated lay person to vote my conscience, not to be told by clergy– especially when they get hyper-focused on ONE ISSUE to the exclulsion of everything. Another very smart and serious friend said that clergy were allowed to be “prophetic”, ie say unpopular things, point out injustice, etc. from the pulpit, but I think that there is a tension between the Church and democracy around telling people how to vote. I don’t like it. Nobody really ever makes this point about black churches (they ALWAYS do when it is the pro-life Catholic political activity) but I think the same principal applies.
That being said, the JWs were polite enough and good enough neighbors, but I didn’t like them much. I lived in BH for 17 years and sometimes used to sit on the Promenade on the weekend in a pleasant reverie contemplating life and the skyline and the eternal verities, and somebody ALWAYS had to come up and try to re-convert me. I would say I am a Catholic and they just wouldn’t let up. I lived in Japan and they even annoyed me there too. Very annoying. But they were sincere. Just annoying.
Rev. Wright- not nearly so offensive as Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. Once again benson you choose to impose your rightwing viewpoint on me.
“This matter is so settled and fundamental to our system that it is incredible to me that it is being debated: 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.”
Is your reading comprehension so bad you don’t understand that was my point? Because they are playing politics and putting money into those parties and candidates that will espouse their viewpoint. Maybe you should just stop trying to rewrite what I say and actually pay attention to what I said? Or is that too much to expect?
legion- if liberalism/socialism is a religion, so is conservatism. However none of them are religions so your argument makes no sense. And BTW, as much as I thought Columbia students were idjits for inviting him, the bigger picture is that Universities should be places for students to think freely, rightly or wrongly. Clamp down on freedom of thought in the universities and you have communism, fascism, and fundamentalism. People marching in lock-step is the last thing this country needs, and is completely against its values. I thought all you diehard capitalists got this? 😉