From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

I see that some countries in Africa are leaping on the reparations band
wagon, claiming that Britain owes them vast sums of money for slavery.

Actually, I think it may be a good idea - on three conditions.

The first is that those who profited from the slave trade should be made
to pay these reparations, not you and me who had nothing to do with it.
Of course, this must include not only people in Britain but those in
Africa who captured and supplied the slaves to British traders.

The second is that the reparations should go to those who were directly affected by the slave trade - basically, the slaves themselves. Just as
the reparations should not come out of general taxation in Britain, so
they should not go to general income in Africa or wherever - which in
practice means, into the pockets of politicians.

And the third condition is that the African countries and anyone else
who demands reparations should repay the cost of Britain's anti-slavery patrols by the Royal Navy, patrols which covered not only the west coast
of Africa but the Red Sea, east Africa, the seas around Indonesia and
other places. And, of course, the repayments should include suitable compensation to the families of those sailors who died, either of
tropical diseases or of naval action against slave traders.

Let's be FAIR about reparations.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

A report in the Daily Mail claims that 81% of CofE members will stop
putting money in the offering plate if the church goes ahead with woke
plans to pay "reparations" for slavery.

I have sympathy with them. These "reparations" are a mockery; how will
the church ensure that only those descended from people enslaved by
church investments in the 1700s receive the "reparations"? How has the
church worked out whether these people - assuming they can be identified
- are worse off as a result of slavery than they would have been if they
had remained in Africa? If, in fact, they turn out to be better off,
will the church be claiming money back from them?

After all, if the church owes them money because they are worse off,
then the church should be owed money from them if they are, in fact,
better off. And in calculating this "better off", it is not just finance
but health, political stability (or otherwise), education and no doubt
other factors.

So let's take a hypothetical Ogawa. Assuming we can be sure that his
ancestor was taken in to slavery as a result of church involvement in
the slave trade and assuming that we can trace his place of origin, what standard of living do people in that place currently enjoy compared with
what Ogawa currently enjoys? What standard of education does Ogawa have compared with people back in his ancestral village? What about
health-care: is Ogawa vaccinated against child-hood diseases while those
in his village are not? Was the village involved in any of the many wars
and civil wars in Africa and has Ogawa been similarly affected by war in wherever it is that he now lives?

I can see Ogawa having to fork out several hundred quid in "gratitude
money" to the CofE when all these factors are taken into account.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 11/01/2026 16:52, Kendall K. Down wrote:

A report in the Daily Mail claims that 81% of CofE members will stop
putting money in the offering plate if the church goes ahead with woke
plans to pay "reparations" for slavery.

The report claims nothing of the sort.

The question asked was "If the Church Commissioners were allocating
money to reparation, I would instead donate *more* to other charities
that are" NB I think that should be that are not.

Of 500 churchgoers (1) surveyed (yes, such a vast representation of
millions) 61% said that if the church went ahead they would place more
of their *donations* with other charities instead.

Your 81% figure comes from a different question "Which of the following
is closer to your view:

I expect the Church of England to be spending its money on issues such
as slavery reparations

I expect the Church of England to be supporting local churches
especially when so many are in financial difficulties"

To be honest if I was asked the same question I would be in the 81%.
However if they had said, The Cof E is spending -u100 million supporting
local communities impacted by historic slavery, are you for or against?
then it would be an emphatic yes, and I suspect those opposed would be considerably less than 81%.

I have sympathy with them. These "reparations" are a mockery; how will
the church ensure that only those descended from people enslaved by
church investments in the 1700s receive the "reparations"? How has the church worked out whether these people - assuming they can be identified
- are worse off as a result of slavery than they would have been if they
had remained in Africa? If, in fact, they turn out to be better off,
will the church be claiming money back from them?

The Daily Fail says "As it stands, the Church Commissioners are pressing
ahead with plans to pay -u100million in slavery reparations, spread over
nine years." This is a lie as the Church Commissioners are setting up
an investment fund (the clue is in the title) to support communities
affected by previous slavery issues, which is not the same thing, is it?

So Ogawa doesn't need to shell out his hard earned cash, nor would he
receive direct cash if he had been impacted negatively.

If church investments in the 1700's worsened the lot of those enslaved,
why not a similar investment fund to improve the lot of their
descendants? Considering the CofE sits on an investment fund of -u11
billion it's chicken feed.

But hey, why let the truth get in the way of a lie?

(1) Of these 500 "churchgoers" 20% attended 1 or 2 times a year, 21%
every couple of months or so, 27% 1 or 2 times a month, and only 31%
weekly, so hardly representative of the proper Christians who attend
more than once or twice a month.








--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 12/01/2026 15:30, John wrote:

If church investments in the 1700's worsened the lot of those enslaved,
why not a similar investment fund to improve the lot of their
descendants?-a Considering the CofE sits on an investment fund of -u11 billion it's chicken feed.

If the investments did indeed worsen the lot of those enslaved, I agree
that it is only fait that those enslaved should be compensated.
Regrettably, the 1700s were three centuries ago, so I think it highly
likely that all those enslaved are now dead.

So who exactly is going to get these reparations? And what is the legal
or moral basis for "reparations" being paid to persons 8 to 10
generations removed from the unfortunates who were enslaved? (In fact,
I've just been reading a book about the history of Northumbria which
made a statement that worked out at 15 years for a generation, so we are talking about 20 generations removed!)

It's as ridiculous as the white man with fair hair but wearing a bit of
red cloth around his essentials and claiming to be aboriginal that I saw playing a didgerdoo and raking it in from gullible tourists on Sydney's Circular Quay a couple of years back.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2