to ask for your help in writing an objection to Operation Christmas Child?

[autumnwinds]

Our local primary is supporting OCC and has published a piece in the village magazine explaining how wonderful it is and how much the local children enjoy it, what a difference it makes to needy children, and inviting local residents to donate too. The piece omits any reference to the evangelical christian literature that is distributed with the parcels and the way that the gifts are used as a tool to agressively convert recipients to christianity.

I would like to write a reply for publishing in next month's issue trying to give the full picture so that people can make an informed choice about whether to donate to this charity, and to suggest some alternatives that don't come with the religious baggage.

As I don't have a child at the primary yet I'm not sure about tackling the school itself about it (they are not a faith school, so not sure they should be supporting this). DC will be starting next year so I might save that fight for next xmas!

Anyway does anyone have any ideas about a few lines I could write, something succinct and unemotional? I feel quite cross about it but don't want to come across as an equally fundamentalist atheist. I've been looking for some evidence on the web for people who want to know more but most of it is not well referenced...

"It's called tolerance!" Hahahahaha, it's called tolerance unless you're gay, believe in a woman's right to control her own body or happen to believe in a different religion/have no religion? Some tolerance...... Try a model of acceptance.

Even if you take religion out of the equation OCC is a stupidly ineffective way to help those less fortunate than ourselves.

Many of those children will not have time to play with those toys, or those toys will be sold so their families can eat.

If they relied on OCC those children/families will be in exactly the same position every Christmas for the rest of their lives and their children's lives and their grand children's lives. If you can know that and still donate I say shame on you.

Nonno - If you had read the thread or any others about OCC you would have seen the plenty links to charities which don't work in such an objectionable manner. It's not as if OCC was the only way someone could give to charity, it's just, that schools are pushing their appeal without even considering what they're pushing, what people object to.

The schools backing this make it hard for parents to say no and disappoint their child or make them feel left out. Surely there are much better charities and ways to help disadvantaged kids who need help. Think of the money people spend own these shoeboxes and the money it costs to send them - surely there are much better ways to put this kind of money to better use and make it go much further.

Not for the first time do I find myself bemoaning the lack of an "exasperated" emoticon!

blueemerald, good point about reliance on OCC charity.

And if the recipients of the shoeboxes are so delighted to receive them, I wonder what would happen if they were allowed to choose how to spend the same amount of money?

Can't really imagine they'd be rushing out to buy a wholly hat and some plastic toys, do you?

wakey wakey time....

3 DCs/umpteen shoeboxes over the years and I am stating as a matter of absolute fact that I had NO CLUE until ooooohhh, about 2 minutes ago that they were gifted only when and if accompanied by (what have now seen really IS pretty extreme) overt Religious Material.

It was ALWAYS just described by the school/s as the 'Shoeboxes' and whilst I knew it was a 'Christian' Charity that did that 'Shoebox' work, until this thread I knew NADA vis the agenda attached to the gifting...

[NB suggest some of you note the oxymoronic nature of 'agenda' and 'gifting' somehow being attached?]

And yep, that does kinda concern me as I am neither thick nor illiterate, yet I had NO clue of either the above, OR the same org's (truly vile) homophobic propaganda - had I done so, I would unquestionably have diverted the gifting elsewhere..... Not least as - setting aside the conversion Trojan Horse aspect plus the hefty $$$$ of that which could be better directed - funnily enough, one of the aforementioned 3 DCs (who was SOOOOO happy to be 'building' the box/es) IS actually gay.

OP I commend you in your efforts to ensure there is full transparency. And to anyone calling her a 'hater' (truly, WTAF???) would point out the BLINDINGLY obvious fact that she is NOT seeking to 'tell' anyone what to do but the very reverse??? Namely, that all and anyone are fully informed and thus fully enabled to make THEIR 'choice' accordingly.

X-post with Puntastic....

Good luck OP. However, I have written to the head of DS' school twice about this revolting scam with no luck at all - there is a fundie buckethead in the school somewhere who actively supports the scheme. I was very reasonable in my letters, politely pointing out that in a very very multicultural, non-church school (ie loads of kids from Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and Jewish families as well as the considerable number who might tick 'cofE' on a form but only go to church for weddings and funerals, if then) it wasn't the most appropriate choice.
I've explained to DS that some 'charities' are bad ones, and he understands (his dad works within the charitable sector and it's something we talk about at home) so we give stuff to a charity shop or a food bank instead. Currently I'm in the position of gently reminding DS that he made his point about not liking the charity last year and that he's to leave his classmates alone on the subject because people don't have to agree with him - he's 9, very clever but not fully up to arguing the wrongs of evangelism, racism, homophobia and hands-in-the-till 'charities with his classmates.

Surely there are much better charities and ways to help disadvantaged kids who need help.

Yes, of course there are! And thank you, you've reminded me to set up a standing order to children on the edge - I bought one of their lovely calendars last year, and amongst the information on the projects they help; they let you know exactly what your money will do, for example:

50p - will provide a hot lunch for an entire week for a working child in one of their Drop-in Learning Centres

£1.25 - will enable a child from the slums of Haiti to attend a sports programme

£6.00 - pays for a food parcel for a boy from the slums of Haiti to take home to his family. It will feed a family of 10 for 2 days.

70p will provide a refugee child at a Children's Crisis Centre with soap, toothpaste and washing powder for a month.

£1.00 provides a child with pencils and paper for 6 months in refugee schools

Now obviously, there's not the feel-good factor of filling a shoebox and imagining a child opening it, and I'm not denying that a child will rightly be thrilled to bits to receive one. OCC know this, and as has been said over and over again, the box is just a tool to get them to convert vulnerable children to Christianity. They get the charitable donations (taped to the box), that they can spend campaigning against gay marriage, the children get a shoebox, they get their converts, and the contributors get the warm fuzzies. Is that really what charity is, or should be? Shouldn't it be helping communities with practicalities - feeding them, clothing them, educating them, and respecting any religion they may (or may not) have?

Mydogeatspoop - thanks, I've been wondering about what to do for an alternative and that charity sounds good, will have a look at it. Also a good one to show and talk about with the kids as they can see exactly what their donation can achieve.

as I have said, we don't get any complaints from the people and communities we serve!

Hmm, does that mean there isn't a problem? Or that the community actively likes the charity?

A bunch of religious foreigners come into a community. They are obviously more powerful and more wealthy. They are giving gifts.

So it would be a) rude to complain, even if they disliked it b) a total power imbalance which makes it difficult to complain c) are they even able to complain d) knowing about complaint relies of them being reported back to HQ by the people who people who the complain has been made against e) would this bunch of zealot even notice if someone was complaining because they are so caught up in their own self interest and importance f) what would be the point in complaining? Would it make any difference, and would it stop a bunch of missionaries from 'carrying out God's work'?

The problem with relying on complaints as an indicator of whether there is an issue with any type of behaviour is that it only works in dynamics where those complaining feel that the complaint will be respected and listen to. This does not happen where there is a hugely disadvantaged group. This pattern is repeated throughout society.

You should be sensitive to what issues you might create from the word go, and not be blind to it and have to have these issues pointed out to you.

I think the 'yes, I know OCC is evangelical and I don't support the proselytising/homophobia/islamaphobia at all but I'm going to do a shoebox anyway' stance utterly bizarre.

Why?? Surely there are other ways to give yourself a warm and fuzzy feeling at christmas?

Insisting that you are going to continue supporting OCC and no other Christmas shoebox charity is a reasonable indicator that you yourself are a thick, racist, arrogant,homophobic arsehole, really.

You don't want to think about the fact that the pound shop crap you are packing into a box might be getting handed out to the kids who made it on wages of about 3p a day? OK, you might not want to think about slave labour in the developing world, because then you'd have to worry about the clothes you're wearing and the computer you're using, and whether those were made under fairtrade conditions or not.

You're not keen on contemplating the environmental impact of transporting boxes of plastic hairslides and cheap pointless toys halfway across the world? You don't want to think about climate change because then you'd have to give up owning a car.

You find it hard to understand that Christmas is a festival with absolutely fuck all meaning to about half the world? It makes you feel all warm inside to do something for 'charity'and that's what matters.

People who support OCC after having its agenda pointed out to them really are fucking stupid.

You're

Time and time again, I hear the accusation that Operation Christmas Child is such an awful programme, that it is being used to impose our values onto vulnerable children, that we are betraying the trust of little ones, that we are forcing our 'religion' on them, that there are people lurking in the shadows ready to pounce on unsuspecting children to convert them. No matter what I say, no matter how many times I and others deny these false accusations and point to the truth of what actually happens at an Operation Christmas Child distribution, there are those reading my words right now who would have people on this thread, and as many others as they can find to listen to them, to believe the lies and misinformation they are so keen to spread.

So I have attached a link to an Operation Christmas Child distribution that I attended last year in Swaziland. If you want to see and hear what actually happens, if you care for the truth, I'd ask you to watch it. Here is the link:

#t=42

Don't be put off by those whose sole agenda is removing Operation Christmas Child from our schools, denying our children the opportunity to show compassion and denying disadvantaged children overseas the opportunity to know that they are loved and not forgotten at Christmas. Watch the video, see for yourselves and make your on minds up!

How many times, brian?

We are not trying to remove OCC from schools. We are trying to get OCC to be honest about what their MO is, what their "mission statement " is, the fact that their parent organisatin is engaged in anti-abortion, anti-same sex marriage campaigning around the world (but are happy to take donations from gay people and atheists), how they see the shoeboxes as an evangelising opportunity and so on, and to tell the schools that this is how they operate.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Rhonda, you are incorrigible. I don't know that we can be more honest about who we are, what we believe and what our mission is. You may have missed this but yesterday I pointed out that anyone going to the Operation Christmas Child website lands on a page whereupon the following statement is written:

Since 1990, more than 100 million boys and girls in over 130 countries have experienced God’s love through the power of simple shoe box gifts from Operation Christmas Child. Samaritan’s Purse works with local churches and ministry partners to deliver the gifts and share the life-changing Good News of Jesus Christ.

We always give shoeboxes to children based on need, regardless of their background or religious beliefs. It’s an unconditional gift of love.

Where appropriate, with each shoebox, our church partners will offer a little booklet of Bible stories. They may also invite children receiving shoeboxes to join a discipleship course called The Greatest Journey. This is a “no strings attached” programme and participation is with the consent of their parent or guardian.

Rhonda, most schools order or download resources for Operation Christmas Child in October. Since May 2013, ANYONE going to the Operation Christmas Child website will have seen that statement.

Brian, if Operation Christmas Child is not about converting children to Christianity, how do you explain this video on the Samaritan's Purse website, which is directly about how shoeboxes from Operation Christmas Child are used to reach young Hindu children and recruit them to the church?

Operation Christmas Child touches Nepal

I find this line at the start particularly disturbing: "But whenever I think of Nepal, I think of Hinduism... there is just a lot of darkness there." Samaritan's Purse equates Hinduism with darkness (=evil?).

Would you dare show that in British schools (with Hindu children among others in the classroom) and then claim the boxes are just about bringing joy to children and it's a great project for everyone to get involved in?

I don't see how anyone could object to people getting more information about OCC. Why are some people acting as if this is a bad thing?

Also, why are some people acting as if one person objecting to OCC is somehow preventing other people from making whatever donations they want?

OMG, exexpat, ultimate x-post.

I pasted the link to Brian's video, and then clicked on the Nepal link. I was appalled by the first line about Hinduism equalling darkness and I am almost speechless with disgust.

If anyone is any doubt about the aims of OCC, here is one line from the same Nepal video:

"The ultimate aim is that gift boxes are an open door for the Gospel."

Thank you, Brian. That post was invaluable.

I have made up my mind thanks. That what you do is incredibly politically and culturally insensitive and you are too arrogant and self important to even acknowledge there may be a problem.

Despite being told time and time again as you yourself admit in your own words.

Why do you think you that the accusation is repeatedly made, when other charities don't face similar criticisms?

Strange isn't it? You being the victim, and everyone else just 'not understanding' and when people have mind up their own mind as you suggest they do, you say they are still wrong in wanting to remove it from schools.

Maybe, just maybe, its because your charity isn't the great and wonderful thing you seem to think it is.

Its amazing just how you can stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la, we are great and I can't understand why people don't like what we do'.

Showing compassion, is not sending a bunch of commercialised crap in a box. I think you are confusing materialism somewhere along the line, and then using that to manipulate their spiritual beliefs.

Compassion is based on the ability to empathise - which includes the ability to actually listen to others. It involves not having such pride in believing that you superior.

The hypocrisy and irony is staggering.

It would be highly amusing, if it wasn't so scary and didn't have major implications that you are sadly totally incapable of grasping.

It is utterly pointless in trying to argue with someone of that mindset. Best just to point it out to the rest of the world, so they can get on without wasting their time on a lost cause.

And brian,if you honestly think I haven't read all the guff you just posted, please be assured that you are wrong. When the OCC video on Nepal states the following, your "no-strings" mantra is just hollow words:

"Operation Chrsitmas Child is a really simple thing. The church use this to get that first step to open the door up so that ultimately they can enter into a relationship, people can come to Christ and churches can be planning. They can transform [sic] a whole community, transform a whole generation."

redtoothbrish if Brian doesn't get the message from your post, then I think we can safely say he should be re-designated "Head of Non-Communication."

I hope someone is offering Brian first aid for that gaping shotgun wound in his foot...

I tell you what you still haven't done, Brian, you still haven't told me when you think it would be inappropriate to give evangelical literature to children along with their shoeboxes.

Because judging by the Nepal video, it clearly isn't when the child is of a different religion