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
“I do not think bxgrl was writing about any kind of selective taxation.”
Bob;
Really? Could have fooled me. This is her statement: “we could get them to butt out instead of advocating turning back the clock on women’s and gay rights” and I think it is clear what she means. A church or synagogue that espouses her “politically correct” view? No tax. A church or synagogue that doesn’t? Tax ’em!
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.
I would invite anyone here who thinks religious organizations should be taxed to pressure their party to put it into their platform. By doing so, I can be assured that your party will lose miserably in the election – as it should be.
Finally, I remind everyone that this country has a long history of social movements that had their roots in religious organizations, from the abolitionists to the civil rights movement. Just because some currently popular religions are now espousing social views that don’t resonate with yours is no reason to change our system and our constitution.
Bxgirl – my exact point was that Jews don’t proselytize. Lubavitchers want Jews to be more observant, and act on this in a very aggressive way, in my experience. Like having guys walk onto the field in the middle of a soccer game to ask if I’m Jewish, or interrupt in the middle of a subway platform conversation.
You’re welcome bxgrl, BUT “Your pastor lives in a multimillion dollar house, drives a jag and pays hookers to visit? Tax the s.o.b.”
Such activity IMO would not be enough to trigger taxation for a religious organization. OTOH, your pastor living in poverty, walking everywhere, being celibate, AND encouraging voting for a specific party might well be a reason for loss of a tax exemption.
bxgrl & Bob are correct about the taxation issue. it would seem that benson misunderstood what they were trying to say.
This has become way to lax, especially with the religious right and there needs to be some penalties doled out in the form of taxes. The majority of these organizations (religious right) are run by some single individual crazy person anyway.
…speaking of separation of church and state,
how about the secular religion that is liberalism/socialism?
seems to be the gospel on college campuses throughout the country? They will invite the holocaust denier Ahmedinajaad to Columbia University as an honored guest but they will run Americans concerned about border security (North and South) out of town on a rail.
….[runs out of office to return later and discuss in a free for all, battle royale] 😉
Thanks bob- benson’s comment was just another in a long line of deliberately misinterpreting whatever I or MM say. Religious organizations are not supposed to engage in political work- yet here they are, pressuring lawmakers to do what they perceive as G-d’s work. THere are Jewish religious organizations that do this too and I think their tax status should be revoked as well. Stay out of politics- as the tax laws say- and then I have no problem with tax-free status. Your pastor lives in a multimillion dollar house, drives a jag and pays hookers to visit? Tax the s.o.b.
Sparafucile- that is wrong. Jews are not allowed to proselytize. It’s a no-no.We are raised to believe that if someone truly wants to convert to Judaism, they will approach us. There are a few sects today that do try to evangelize- as it were- but they are exceptions and it is frowned upon. So before you comment like that, you should learn about the subject. FYI- the Lubavitchers run charities all over the world, as do other Jewish organizations. They do charitable work for no there reason than it is part of our beliefs- Not to be self-serving and gain converts.
wow. spelling is apparently not my forte today. sorry about that.
Benson,
I think bxgrl might have been writing about using partisan political action of ANY type as a reason to tax religious organizations. Such activity is out of bounds for secular non-profits and IMO should apply to religious non-profits as well–actually I think this is currently the case, but I’m not sure how rigorous enforcement is. I do not think bxgrl was writing about any kind of selective taxation. In any case, I certainly would oppose that.