AIBU to hate charity Christmas shoe boxes?

[unlucky83]

We get asked to one from the school and from Sunday school ...2 Dcs that is 4 of them...last year I cut it down to 2 - doing the same this year
I really really really hate doing them...but DDs are upset if we don't ...
(at school they have an assembly where the people organising it talk to the DCs about them)...
We wander round the shops/supermarket making sure we get all the essentials on the list - buying the cheapest stuff there is ...kind of think hats/gloves/underwear are probably made by the people we send them back to..
I know I'm not on my own - everyone I know who does one says they do the same ...
Even then each box costs at least £30 ...could the money not be better spent directly by the charity buying good quality stuff that is going to last?
On the lists they say extras - like PJs - how the hell do you fit a pair of PJs for a teenager in a shoe box with all the other stuff...I find I can never fit much 'extra' in...usually just sweets as treats - good job they get toothpaste and toothbrushes or they'd have rotten teeth to add to their misery..

Then you have to find a box...then wrap the bloody things...
I just find it really difficult to wrap the box and lid separately and not get an end result that looks like it has been chewed by the dog...just spent the best part of 30 mins wrapping one that looks like a 2 yr old did it...

So am I being unreasonable to hate them and dread the leaflets coming home?

Brian - I explained upthread about my name.

It is a quote from Eddie Izzard - a true comic genius. Franklyn Graham wouldn't like him though.........

BlingBang, you are right, Franklin Graham doesn't call women who have abortions 'murderers'! What he is reported as saying is: "Abortion is wrong. It is the murder of unborn children, and no law of the land and no party platform can ever legitimize it". No Bible-believing Christian would disagree with him. In Psalm 139 and verses 13-16, it is written:

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

I don't believe Franklin Graham has ever called a homosexual 'deviant'.

Are you suggesting that UK parents are universally pro-abortion and pro-gay? I'd like to see your evidence!

neverputasockinatoaster Sorry, you're right, you did tell me...sounds very wise!

OK peeps, it's time for bed! Maybe catch you again tomorrow? Night, night all!

“There’s some of you here tonight who are guilty, guilty of murder. And there are some of you men ... you’re guilty because you’ve approved of what your girlfriend has done or what your wife has done or your sister has done,” he said. “You’ve approved it, and you’re guilty too.”

Sorry if this quote is wrong, you know how google is. Is this not accusing women who have abortions of murder?

"The consequences are frightening," he adds, citing Romans as it reads: "'God gave them over to degrading passions' including homosexuality, and 'gave them over to a depraved mind' (Romans 1:26, 28, NASB)."

FG never said this then?

Brian, you asked "Are you suggesting that UK parents are universally pro-abortion and pro-gay? I'd like to see your evidence!"

Not universally, but polls I have seen find that in particular opposition to same-sex marriage and general hostility to gay people is concentrated in the over-60s (who of course grew up while homosexuality was still criminalised), while a large majority of people of the age to have primary-age children (say 40s and younger) support same-sex marriage. Eg, Scottish opinion polls found that the highest levels of support for equal marriage were amongst women (70%), under 55s (75%) and families with children (74%) - I think that would cover a lot of parents. Another poll found that 62% of the UK population as a whole (so including a lot of the more conservative older people) supported gay marriage. I think Franklin Graham's views are certainly at odds with the majority of the British population, on this as on many things.

Also, very few people in the UK are fundamentally opposed to abortion and the numbers are shrinking. Polls are more mixed about precisely what the cut-off date should be, but the hardline 'all abortion is murder' stance has very little support in the UK.

I presume you (and most supporters of Samaritan's Purse) would fall into the one-third of 8% mentioned here.

"Factors such as gender, age and voting preference did not make much difference to attitudes on abortion. People who were most likely to be hostile towards it were those who believe in God with most certainty, rely most strongly on scripture or religious teaching for guidance, and whose religion has a strong anti-abortion message. Only 8% of the population fits this profile, according to the research, and one third of this 8% support a ban on abortion."

You really have to accept that your views are not mainstream, and therefore are not shared by the overwhelming majority of people whose children you are targeting to support your organisation.

Haven't read the last few pages....

But going back to the original OP

I do shoeboxes every year. Primarily to do an activity with the DCs to show that all children aren't as lucky as they are. I don't personally have any religious beliefs. If OCC et al want to shove a bible or whatever in there, so what? People make their own mind up about their faith.

The shoebox can also be perceived as a bit of a "novelty thing", you're probably more likely to get a couple of shoe boxes donated rather than folk parting with 30 quid of cold hard cash...although 30 quid does seem a lot, OP!!

Basically, you aren't gonna change the world if you send em or not, but I'll take the risk.

You probably do need to RTFT, saladcream.

I would not allow my dc to do shoeboxes, as I want them to actually think about how they can help children who aren't as lucky as they are.

As Brian agreed up thread, no-one is suggesting that a shoebox packed with gifts to the value of £10 is going to HELP a child in need

Plenty of honest, genuine charities out there to support.

I'll leave you and Brian to it, I think.

Morning, all! First, let me say a huge thank you to Bling, exexpat and never for taking the time to put this information out there, when Samaritans Purse and its spokepeople would rather it remained hidden.

I hope it makes at least a little impact on people like saladcream and her ilk, who prefer to bury their heads in the sand and presume that vulnerable, hungry children, whipped up into a frenzy as described by Brian himself upthread and signed up into a discipleship programme on the say-so of their parents, are capable of saying "no thanks, I prefer to keep my options open when it comes to organised religion".

We are the ones who should be saying no on their behalf, salad.

Morning Suburban and all!

There's a great clip on Youtube of Penn Jilette, who is an atheist titled "Penn Jilette gets the gift of a Bible". In it he eloquently makes the point that if someone truly believes they have knowledge about God & eternal life, they will share it and so they should. "How much would you have to hate someone to keep that kind of knowledge hidden?" he asks. I think this is what Brian is saying in his post above too.

Suburban - you say "First, let me say a huge thank you to Bling, exexpat and never for taking the time to put this information out there, when Samaritans Purse and its spokepeople would rather it remained hidden."

Really? What makes you say that? Why do you think Brian is on this thread openly engaging with it all?

Also, thanks for you post 12.10 yesterday clarifying your thoughts.
I may be missing the point when you are saying what you believe is not censorship, but if people are told when and where they can talk about their faith via shoeboxes / offer to pray, how is that not censorship?
Surely it is just like the attitude to homosexuality analogy that has been made previously, "Oh yes, homosexuality is fine. Just so long as there are no public displays, do it all in private". "Yes, talking about faith / prayer is fine. Just so long as there are no public mentions, do it all in private". Not really acceptance of other people's core beliefs and life style, is it?

It seems to me you and others are very against faith being seen in public and certainly against any OFFERS that might constitute proselytising. It would be very different if shoeboxes / food etc was only given if people signed up to a set of beliefs.

Finally, I still don't buy the argument that we must avoid offending others at all costs. (Of course I don't mean we can all go around causing maximum offence!!!! In RL I am like timidviper and don't talk about my faith much at all. I don't like evangelisation, but I do believe it is a very important right to have in a free country....).
Brian has already said that invites to church or whatever are not given out where it is not appropriate e.g. in a mosque. However, assuming a shoebox is given to two families, one is offended, but for the other it is a real joy. Why should the second family be deprived for the sake of the first? Or if a shoebox is given to 10 families and 9 are very happy but one is offended, what then? Or maybe the stats are the other way round and of 10 families, 9 are offended, but for one it all makes the difference? Should that one family still be deprived?

Beakysmum - I can quite understand that people who have strong beliefs would want to share them. However, there are times/places/ways to do that which are appropriate, and others which are inappropriate. My issues with OCC/Samaritan's Purse are that they do not draw the line in places where most other people would.

Issues I have are:

1. They solicit donations of shoeboxes from people who do not share their beliefs which are then used to promote their version of Christianity
2. They do not make it clear to schools/parents/donors in general that their boxes are going to be put to evangelistic purposes
3. Samaritan's Purse has a history of using aid work as a vehicle for evangelism. This is widely condemned as unethical by mainstream charities and governments.

It is easy to say that people can accept the aid/shoeboxes and reject the religious message, but can you not see that if an organisation goes into an impoverished, underdeveloped or disaster-struck area bearing gifts or medicine in one hand, and a bible in the other, there is a strong feeling of obligation on the part of the recipients, who are in a very vulnerable position?

Free 'no obligation' gifts are a common marketing tactic even in the cynical, marketing-aware, overprivileged West, because they still work. How much more effective must they be on people who are not exposed to marketing and commercial excess on a daily basis?

If you want to evangelise, go out and evangelise - but surely it is better and more honest to rely on the strength of the message itself to win converts, rather than drawing them in with material benefits?

Great post Beaky.

You make some sensible points.

As I posted upthread surely if the shoe boxes bring joy to people who have nothing then it is a positive and is the greater good. It sounds like Brian does understand that heavy handed evangelism isn't good and as long as it is done within the local church network who know the culture and concerns surely is it not a reasonable scenario.

Would posters rather no one supported the shoe boxes anymore.

I do understand about Franklyn Graham being heavy handed being a negative. Chatting to my friend last night about OCC. She said that Billy Graham wrote a fantastic book called Angels.

I do wonder if on this thread if any other group or religion were doing this it would be fine but because it is a christian organisation then it is a bad thing?

People have died for their faith. In China christians take tremendous risks to have house churches which are frowned on by the government. There is tremendous growth in the church.

In the UK we have so much so we don't need to depend on God in the same way but people who have nothing may have a greater need.

I do understand it is a personal belief and as a christian I have a biased perspective.

Alemci - there are other shoebox or similar schemes run by other organisations, some of which are Christian (eg Link to Hope, Mary's Meals), some of which are not (eg Rotary). People do not direct the same criticism at them as at OCC because all the other schemes make a point of distributing the boxes with no strings or religious baggage attached, even those run by Christians. OCC is the only one which uses shoeboxes as a direct tool for evangelism, which is why it is the focus of so much criticism.

thanks expat

I can see both sides. maybe they do need to rein it in a bit (apologies if it is the wrong spelling)

Thanks alemci.

And good last post exexpat. I do agree there are times and places for evangelism and times and places where it is inappropriate.

I thi k a good thing to come out of this thread is that Occ now have a new leaflet making their beliefs clear and hopefully that will be widely available. People haveevery right to know what they are supporting.

I don't think it was clear before but I don't think that was deliberate on OCCs part.

You're welcome, beaky.

We obviously don't agree about the definition of censorship. If I read your post right, you feel anyone questioning the offering of prayers is guilty of censorship. If an organisation offered to say a prayer for an individual who has not requested it, but also says they pray privately at the end of the day, and someone else says, "Why not just say the prayers at the end of the day?", that's censorship.

I'm worried that you seem to think anyone who doesn't believe praying and evangelising is ok under any circumstances must be a supporter of censorship. No-one is saying that people's religious views should be hidden away and I find it offensive that you have linked this with the persecution of lesbians and gays.

Religious people are not being forbidden from being religious. They are not even being asked not to share their religious views with others. Just have some boundaries, people!

Really my issue is more with Franklyn Graham and what he stands for and what he would like to achieve. These people scare me and if they had the power would take away a lot of the freedoms that we value and impose their view of what is moral according to their beliefs in a rigid view of Christianity. I think of those picketing abortion clinics shouting at and intimidating women trying to enter, some taking it to extremes and harming the doctors and workers. To me they are extremists and fundamentalists and I don't trust their brand of religion.

Couldn't agree more, Bling.

If he wasn't real, you couldn't make him up

Suburban -
maybe censorship is the wrong word. What word would you use for the curtailing of others activities and imposing restrictions on those activities?
And having looked at the Oxford dictionary definition of censorship it is all about "suppressing unacceptable parts" of books etc. Seems to me that is what some people are seeking to do with religious activity. Those people may think the activity is unacceptable, but that's all part of having free speech in a free country.

Having said all that, I do agree with you - have some boundaries people!

And I don't think that praying and evangelising is ok under any circumstances. See my post today 13.01.
Neither do I want to be associated with Franklyn Graham or a lot of american stuff. Extremists and fundamentalists as you say. But all part of free speech.

I'm guessing you don't have much experience of prayer, so I'll try to explain why Christians see praying for a person privately later as a different activity to praying directly with the person and therefore why they would want to be able to OFFER both types of prayer....
I think a parallel would be if person A was having an issue with a friend or colleague (person B). A third person C might say, "I'll have a word with B" but the person would never know whether they did or not and it would be a very different experience to one where person C spends time supporting A and accompanies them to discuss issues with B.
Or perhaps if person A was having an operation they were worried about, a friend might say, "I'll think of you ", which is nice, but nothing like actually showing support and accompanying them to hospital / looking after their plants or whatever.

I understand you might not see why I link restrictions on religion with restrictions on sexuality, but restrictions are restrictions. I have a good gay friend who happens to be a Christian too. He says that when we met 20 years ago, it was easier for him to talk about his faith than his sexuality. That balance has changed over the years and now he finds that talking about his sexuality and his civil partnership is easy in most places, but that talking about his faith is becoming much harder.

I don't think we'll agree on these issues of faith and where they can be expressed, but it is good to understand each other's viewpoints.

Afternoon all, got some catching up to do!

Blingblang, I don't know where you got that quote from? As for what Franklin quoted from scripture, do you have a problem with that? He is quoting the Apostle Paul, do you have a problem with him too?!

Glad I'm back, you guys are incorrigible! Brian