To be proud of DS over this (warning, naughty parent/Operation CHristmas CHild-related)

[SolidGoldYESBROKEMYSPACEBAR]

Ds is 8 and his school will persist in the poxy Samaritans' Purse appeal though I have written and complained at least twice (if you don't already know, it's a racist rightwing evangelical organisation, culturally insensitive, despised by most aid charities and a waste of resources.). I have never contributed to it and never will, and have explained to DS that it's a bad organisation run by bad people, and that good people (like those at his school) don't always understand that sometimes bad people pretend to be good...

Anyway, today, according to DS, one of the teachers asked the DC to guess how many shoeboxes they were going to get this year/how many they hoped for. DS raised his hand and said...... 'ZERO'

That's m'boooy!

BonzoDooDah as opposed to thinking good thoughts for Mummy you mean? The boy wasn't 'looking at things objectively', he was parroting what his mother told him to curry favor with her, as evinced by her reaction.

The polite thing to do is to not participate but show respect to your teachers by staying quiet. If an objection had to be registered then OP should have done this appropriately.

QueenOfFlaming you seem to be assuming that I'm a Christian?

If `radical fundamentalist Muslims' (or Christians or whatever) gave out presents to my child like this, I would examine the contents and either
a) discard them, or
b) let my child have the presents but discard the literature,
depending on what I thought of the contents.

It wouldn't particularly bother me tbh, religious people do a lot of funny things.

I celebrate Christmas. I am a Christian, a Catholic to be specific. My faith doesn't mean I think its OK to ride roughshod over other peoples, besides which, its not just Muslims and Hindus who they want to convert, they are also anti-Catholic. The Catholic church was furious that they used aid money to bus thousands of Catholic kids to an evangelical concert after Hurricane Mitch. They also made Catholic victims of the El Salvador earthquake sit through prayer meetings before they would give them aid provided by the US government. These are people who had literally lost everything but what they stood up in including their families. I'm not a fan of the hierarchy of my own church but my enemy's enemy is not my friend.
I just find it staggeringly inappropriate and also unnecessary as there are other charities that do essentially the same thing but without the conversions.

Ah silly me. You'd rather your child was "polite" and kept his mouth clamped shut than express a difference of opinion to someone who probably wasn't as well informed as themselves. Carry on.

Obviously if someone does not agree with you, they are 'less well informed'.

How fortunate for the OP that by coincidence her child happens to be one of the few people enlightened enough to have arrived at exactly the same views as her, through a process of 'looking at the world objectively'.

Have talked extensively and left various links on the other thread and would urge anyone who wants to know more to please read it.
Would just like to say that no one is being nasty by using "tat" as an expression for what goes in the boxes-but many of the gifts are not ecologically sound, can add to Landfill in countries without the facilities to dispose of it, are not used in that society(including the toiletries-children not used to these brands/chemicals may get allergic reactions etc. or may just not need to use them) toys like Lego are lovely but busy mothers may not have the time to supervise their use- not realise that under 3's may choke etc. - even things like hats etc-it would be better for the local economy if they were bought over there. There is no mention of not putting in sweets like haribo which often contains pork gelatine so not suitable for many Muslim/Jewish dietary requirements.
In SOME -not all countries it is akin to giving out free formula(a la Nestlé/disposable nappies-sounds great until you realise fully the practical implications.
Also even in countries where these things are not a problem there is the problem of inequality-why does one child get the lovingly packed box with quality gifts, and the next the one packed with poundland rubbish? (And yes, many people will understandably do that because their child wants to take a box to school and that is all they can afford.) what happens if there are not enough boxes for each child?
Just because something calls itself a "charity" does not mean that they are suddenly experts, that they will give sensitively or that they do not have an agenda. And it does annoy me that if one suggests that shoebox charities may not be a good thing then you are automatically painted as a Scrooge who doesn't want the kiddies to have fun at Christmas.

DD goes to a church school, and because of this I took care to explain to her when she was in Reception that if the school did OCC, then we would join in, but our box would go to Link Romania. She knows why, she knows how I feel about evangelising and she knows that I wouldn't allow her to take part in OCC.

I was pleased to discover that the school, despite being CofE, does not take part, and for the very same reasons that I am against it.

Last year I took them some literature from a friend about Link Romania (she runs a collection service for them) and they did boxes for them. This year they are doing a food collection for a local food bank and are hoping to do an old clothes/toys collection for Womens Aid.

I am V proud of DDs school.

I think that there are two issues here. Firstly, is Samaritan's purse the right organisation to use? If they are proseltyzing, they may not be ideal. On the other hand, if the option for a child is getting a lovely shoebox and having to listen to a boring lecture or never ever seeing a crayon and pad in their lives, I think that (as an agnostic) SP are probably doing net good.

Secondly, I think that sometimes we need to swallow our principles when it comes to an 8 year old. Are they really going to get the fact that the poor people are deserving but the organisation is not the right one. Or are they going to take away the message that their parents hope poor children don't receive charity?

Personally I would encourage my child to give generously at the same time as quietly having a word with the school about their choice of organisation and hoping they choose another one the following year. There is something rather mean spirited about an 8 year old voicing the hope that the school receives zero packages, IMO.

Larrygrylls-no, it is about explaining appropriate charity to your child, researching it and choosing a charity which does something useful (water/goat chicken/school books etc)

Trockodile,

But this is a charity chosen by the OP's son's school. I think it is generally a good idea as a parent to support the school one has chosen and not confuse one's child, unless they are doing something egregiously wrong.

For an older child, I might want to discuss what you mention. At 8 the easy and important message to give a child is to help people less well off than oneself, not to finely analyse the administration costs or propaganda attached to a charity.

It is perfectly possible to fill a shoebox for school and, at home, choose a suitable charity together and make a donation.

I don't understand why some people are against some Christian charities but for others, such as Mary's Meals?

The organisation has been denied charitable status in the U.S and their methods and practice do not meet the approved standards of aid charities here.

A child may well be delighted to recieve a box of plastic tat, but if that box convinces people that they have done their bit for charity then they may actually be denying charities that focus on long-term meaningful improvements or vital crisis aid the support they need.

That's why I think it is a terrible way to introduce children to charitable and aid giving .

And no a bit of good is not worth having if the net overall effect is negative.

I'm not against Christian charities. I never said I was - that's a bit of a straw man tbh.

I am against charities misleading the public about the true purpose of their donations. I am against the assumed religious/cultural supremacy that I believe is implicit in sugar-coated attempts to evangelise children.

Agree with queen and blu! My child is 7-he knows why we are not going along with the shoebox appeal at church and why we are doing our own giving.
If schools choose to be lazy and go along with a convenient charity instead of doing their own research then there is no reason not to point it out to a child. I remember giving to Band Aid etc as a child-and that horrible flat feeling when I discovered how little good it really did. We owe it to our children to be realistic about giving and charity.

"Would just like to say that no one is being nasty by using "tat" as an expression for what goes in the boxes-but many of the gifts are not ecologically sound, can add to Landfill in countries without the facilities to dispose of it, are not used in that society(including the toiletries-children not used to these brands/chemicals may get allergic reactions etc. or may just not need to use them) toys like Lego are lovely but busy mothers may not have the time to supervise their use- not realise that under 3's may choke etc. - even things like hats etc-it would be better for the local economy if they were bought over there. There is no mention of not putting in sweets like haribo which often contains pork gelatine so not suitable for many Muslim/Jewish dietary requirements."

This is such a left wing First World take it would make Private Eye's "Pseud's corner if published"! So, it is better for a baby to have NO toys than "non ecological" ones? And these poor babies may choke on lego through being undersupervised, and not any of the million and one things that they could find on the floor in any 3rd World society? And, clearly, the idea of a Muslim or Jewish person accidentally eating pork (through gelatin) is very important but it is anathema for a Christian to try and propagate something that they truly believe?

The reality is that a lot of charities are Christian and they believe they are doing good both by giving and proseltyzing. It is a part of their faith which means that they truly believe it and are prepared to make enormous sacrifices to help others. There just are not enough atheists prepared to be as self sacrificing. Personally, if people who really have nothing get chances that they never would have had, I don't care if they have to attend a church service or recite a prayer. I doubt they care either. Their time is cheap to them, it is the one thing that they have plenty of. And I am sure that, for those with their own strong faiths or lack of faith, there will be plenty of influences to counteract christian proseltyzing.

I don't know of this specific charity and, if it is not a good one, surely a parent's duty is to quietly discuss it with the school, not get their child to suggest zero gifts would be fantastic? How does that sound to teachers or other pupils?

YABU. DS is 8 and rude in my opinion and you're encouraging it because it suits your purpose. Well done you

Let's hope you're just as proud when he's equally rude and disrespectful to someone doing something you agree with.

ucskco.sasktelwebhosting.com/TheGiftMattersSchoolkit.pdf

I posted this link on the other thread and found it fascinating-I have seem similar elsewhere, but the fact that this is from a church (Canadian) will hopefully let people see that it is not an anti Christian rant.

what I believe, Larrygrylls is that trying to pass on our first world ideas and westernised Christianity to countries with very different culture/traditions and infra structure is wrong. And to do that so our children can feel good about themselves or "learn" about charity without exploring the implications is worse.

but it is anathema for a Christian to try and propagate something that they truly believe

Yes, when that belief goes AGAINST what the child/family already believes. How bloody rude to decide that Muslim/Hindu/Whatever is wrong and only Christian will do.

and are prepared to make enormous sacrifices to help others Like what exactly? Franklin Graham with his £1.2 Mil salary is hardly making a sacrifice is he?

There just are not enough atheists prepared to be as self sacrificing woah, sweeping much?

There are other, better, shoebox appeals out there. OCC is not the only choice - but it IS the choice that supports racist, bigoted homophobes.

When I was at secondary school we had a choices- we could either take part in the Shoebox Appeal, give food, toys and good quality second hand clothes to our local refuge (which was what I did) or we had the choice not to take part at all (the school was mixed faith with a Jehovah's Witness as Head Master, so those who didn't celebrate Christmas were never forced to go against their faith). In our Shoe Box one though, you didn't have to give toys, you could give tinned food, or cash/postal orders if you preferred (there were no tat £1 shops when I was a kid).

It's nicer I always felt to do something where I could see the difference it made- anyone who wanted to could come to the refuge (by arrangement and with Teachers present) when the items were handed in, a group of 30 of us used to go and serve tea and cakes (provided by our Mums) and then do carol singing as well. It was lovely as a child to see the difference it made. You didn't receive any extra credit or anything, but year in year out, that was the most popular choice at school.

Trockodile,

How is a shoebox (full of whatever a parent wants to put in it) going to pass on first world ideals?

As I said, they can take the faith message or leave it. My bet is that most of them leave it.

There is a really simple message to give children. Giving of one's time and possessions to help others less fortunate is a good thing. As adults (and adolescents) that message can then be nuanced further. An 8 year old will still be questioning WHETHER it is a good thing and why should they do it.

And, it is also disrespectful to the school. If you don't believe in competitive sports (for instance) are you going to encourage your child to tell the school that he hopes they raise zero funds for a new football pitch?

Larrygrylls-Perhaps you could read the link?

And honestly-this?

"" I don't care if they have to attend a church service or recite a prayer. I doubt they care either. Their time is cheap to them, it is the one thing that they have plenty of. ""

would say to me that you have no idea of what you are talking about. Talk about patronising.

Got to go now!

Slightly, "off topic" but I am more than a bit at a parent being so cock a hoop about their child being rude and cheeky to a teacher! Sad indication of why discipline in schools is declining when seemingly intelligent, decently mannered parents are encouraging this kind of behaviour.

I have never done the shoeboxes because of the element of pushing Christianity (though i am a Christian) and the irrelevance/inappropriateness of the contents. But what evidence is there for the assertion that "the charities commission don't think much of them" please??

frantic51 I thought that was the topic when I read the OP. Nice to know it's not me having a senior judgey pants moment

I cannot understand the "I don't like it because it spreads the word of the the religion".

Of course a religious charity will want to spread the word of the religion in question. Do you think an Islamic one wouldn't? A Jewish one? get real.

A leaflet in a shoebox of small presents. How many of the children will read it? How many of them could read it?

I think regardless of whether the children receiving those shoeboxes are are Christian or not,the point is that they are in need. In need of lots of things I would imagine. But a gift of a doll,you car etc may well mean just as much to them as anything else. They are children after all.

I'm not particularly religious myself but I don't have an issue with any religion unless it is being used in a harmful way. This is not harmful.