Tory MPs protest Anglicans' Israel boycott

Nine Tory MPs have written to this morning's Times to protest against the Church of England General Synod's recent decision to encourage disinvestment from companies that make products used by Israel in the Palestinian territories.  Click on the scan to read an enlarged copy of the letter.

The nine MPs - listed below - say that the decision has already caused "enormous pain to ordinary Anglican worshippers and even more hurt to the Jewish community".  It also says the decision is "partial":

"Synod might on reflection want to consider the plight of Palestinian Christians whose right to worship is explicit in Israel, yet becoming increasingly difficult within Palestinian territories, and who view with alarm the success of Hamas. They might be puzzled as to why there has been no similar overt manifestation of concern by the Church against such an explicitly anti-Jewish and anti-Christian movement."

THE NINE SIGNATORIES

• Alistair Burt, MP
• David Amess, MP
• David Burrowes, MP
• Stephen Crabb, MP
• David Davies, MP
• Greg Hands, MP
• Gary Streeter, MP
• Ed Vaizey, MP
• Ann Widdecombe, MP

Comments

[Matthew Oxley]

good on them all

[Richard]

Whatever happened to the Tory Party at Prayer?

If theyw ere to boycott both Israel and the Palestinians I might have more sympathy. The one-sidedness of this makes it appear politically motivated.

[Sean Fear]

The C of E is in (probably irreversible) decline as it becomes a far left sect, alienating its natural supporters, who increasingly are switching either to evangelical churches, or Othodoxy.

I agree that their attitude towards the Middle East is one-sided. Christians are prevented from worshipping openly in many Arab countries, yet the C of E spends its time denouncing one of the few countries in the region where Christians can worship openly.

[Tory T]

Well done to our MPs for standing up to the one eyed bullying of the CoE. Hopefully, the controversy will empower the many good people in the Church who abhor this politically-motivated boycott as much as the rest of us.

[Mark Fulford]

Without arguing the right or wrong of the Church’s decision, all organisations should be free to invest however they wish. It’s not a matter for interference from government or government wannabees.

[Richard]

"Without arguing the right or wrong of the Church’s decision, all organisations should be free to invest however they wish. It’s not a matter for interference from government or government wannabees."

Seeing as the C of E is the established State Church I don't think that this necessarily applies.

If any other branch of Christianity were doing this I'd condemn it but I wouldn't call for government action.

[Simon C]

Mark,

They are not interfering, they are expressing an opinion about the Church's stance. The difference is important.

Personally I agree with them 100%. I missed most of the Synod's debates because we were about to go away & I didn't read many papers that week. This is the first I have heard of it. I am hugely disappointed that the Synod has gone down the route that it has. I am delighted that these MPs have spoken out about it.

[Mark Fulford]

"They are not interfering, they are expressing an opinion about the Church's stance. The difference is important."

They are writing with the expectation that their political position will add weight to their request for a reversal. I would feel very uneasy about government ministers making similar comments.

[Account Deleted]

Regarding Mark's comment above;

"They are writing with the expectation that their political position will add weight to their request for a reversal."

Their political position is only relevant to what they have written insofar as the Group has standing only as politicians (and one minor TV celebrity). They are not applying political pressure to the government, as it is a doctrinal matter for the Synod,- and they are entitled to their views and to express them.

[johnC]

What a pity Peter Simple is no longer with us to describe a ranting Dr Spaceley Trellis
symbolically pulverising a Meccano bulldozer in the pulpit of Bevindon Cathedral. The Anglican Church these days is beyond parody.

[Big John]

The General Synod was rather ineptly showing support for Bishop Riah, Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem, whose views are reflected here.
Bishop Riah is a devoted servant of his Palestinian Arab Christian community. He was born a citizen of Israel in Nazareth. He is a high profile political figure in the West Bank, and is a valuable reason for the hope that we all may hold about the situation there. He suffers intermittent discourtesy and hassle, from lumpensecurity Isralis.
In spite of the personal esteem in which I hold Bishop Riah, I consider that that the views expressed in the Synod were not based on the true picture - surprise me!

[Mark Fulford]

I'd like politics and religion never to meet. I concede that I'm in a minority on that.

[Jon White]

As a practising member of the C of E, I find the Synod's actions very regretable, and totally one-sided. Other posts I have made on this site demonstrate that I am not a fan of Israeli foreign policy, but this is truly mind boggling. Why have they not called for a ban on all goods made in China, where faith is actively surpressed, or goods from North Korea, or produce from Zimbabwe, or other such vile dictatorships. Once more, the slide of the C of E into leftist political correctness under Rowan Williams is shown. Well done to those MPs who signed the letter of dissent.
As I said, i am no fan of Isreal, but this has made me angry enough to actually seek out Israeli products on the shelves of supermarkets, just to say **** you to the Synod!

[Graeme Archer]

Jon - you ask why the Synod has made this anti-Israeli statement, while ignoring the real examples of totalitarian suppressions of freedom. I imagine, sadly, that (1) it's because it's an issue that gets the limp brains of the left excited and (2) that guaranteed them some media coverage that didn't focus on their inability to get used to homosexuality and the female gender. Pathetic.

[Jon White]

Graeme- sadly I think that you are absolutely right. It could be said that the C of E actively suppresses the rights of the female gender by not allowing them to reach the higher echelons of the organisation. (Their ban on women Bishops). If any private company took this stance, they would be prosecuted.
Perhaps if they took the plank from their own eye... etc etc, they would have more relevance.

[Ted]

I could understand the CoE Synod suporting Palestinian Christians but I'm not sure that following Hamas victory and Hamas interest in bringing the Koranic teachings on dhimmi status and taxation that attacking Caterpillar is meaningful support.
Compare the old Church
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060223/ts_nm/religion_vatican_muslims_dc

[Robert Halfon]

These MPs deserve real praise for fighting against the current left consensus to attack Israel at every opportunity. For the Archbishop of Canterbury to support the Synod decision on divestment is deeply disappointing.