You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
American churches back away from Israel divestment
2005-10-16
Background piece. Short version: there is no stampede to divest.
CHICAGO - Some U.S. Protestant churches are turning their back on the idea of dumping investments in companies profiting from Israel's West Bank occupation, people involved in the issue said yesterday. Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, along with a debate over whether divestment is the right move in the first place, may have helped cool what looked like a growing trend just a few months ago.

"My reading, as a central Jewish player in this, is that there never was a [general] move toward divestment," said David Elcott, director of inter-religious affairs for the American Jewish Committee. "Here is the reality: No church in the U.S. except the Presbyterians has voted for divestment," he said, and the only place where divestment looked like it was moving forward may have been in the media," he said.

U.S. Episcopal Church leaders recently rejected divestment in favor of corporate engagement, and another major denomination, the United Church of Christ, turned down divestment at its convention last summer. The 2.5 million-member Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the largest body of that denomination, approved in 2004 a "phased, selective divestment" involving its $8 billion portfolio beginning in July 2006.
Posted by:Steve White

#4  Churches should invest ethically, not for profit maximization. Methodists investing in Seagrams is not a good idea. Disinvestment should have failed on the issue of ethics, not profit maximization, and I hope it did.

What this shows is that the leadership of the Mainline churches is totally out of contact with the membership. They have screwed up the liturgy and destroyed congregations with their little flings. There wouldn't be nearly so many no-name churches sprouting up had they kept to their knitting.
Posted by: Omaling Spugum3451   2005-10-16 15:22  

#3  The fact that divestment was put up for the vote in so many denominations says that it was, too, a movement. They were just caught in time, and shamed into backing down.

And, as this was about investing Church funds and, especially, ministers' retirement funds, self-interest should be involved in the decision making... as opposed to the rank ideology of divestment from Israeli companies just because the Palestinians don't like them.
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-10-16 15:11  

#2  I think it more likely that us Baptists know that Zionists have a way with geld. It's hardwired, a genetic thing.

/rite
Posted by: Shipman   2005-10-16 12:56  

#1  When one considers that a definite portion of this investment happens strictly with an end towards securing Israel's putative role in the Apocalypse, there arises a distinct reek of extremely unenlightened self-interest.
Posted by: Zenster   2005-10-16 12:13  

00:00