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...

And the other thing you should do, Brian, is not to disappear from a thread because someone asks you either an awkward question, or one which you have resolutely refused to answer across several threads.

By all means leave a thread when you have to, but to say "Gotta go - it's Match of the Day!"is just juvenile.

Rhonda, it is unreasonable to expect one individual to be able to interact effectively with so many others, many of whom have resorted to using sarcasm to 'temper' their personal attacks. Is it any wonder so few people dare to speak up for Operation Christmas Child in here - the way they are treated? Why they come under such attack, such ridicule, is beyond me! I have stayed the course and so have come under more than my fair share of personal attack. I don't need this, I certainly don't deserve it.

I don't have the luxury of hiding behind some anonymous Mumsnet nickname; you know who I am, you know who I work for and you know where I work. I have nothing to hide and I have made myself vulnerable. I thought that would gain me a little respect, some kudos, but alas no; the exact opposite in fact. So perhaps you can give me one good reason why I should stay?

By the way, I don't know how many times I have answered your question! It is deemed inappropriate to distribute The Greatest Gift booklet if doing so would cause upset or offence; it is the local churches who decide this, working in their communities with civic and religious leaders. Got it? Happy Christmas! Brian

You should have stayed, Brian, because you are Head of Communications for an organisation that, rightly, attracts a great deal of criticism aout its methodology.

It's your job to field awkward questions and present your organisation in the light in which you hope it will be perceived. If you can't cope with sarcasm, you should ever have come on the forum, especially onto an AIBU thread.

Unfortunately, as redtoothbrush has said above, you have brought your personal views about homosexuality into this. So you have made yourself vulnerable.

And, though you think you have answered my question about when you would consider it inappropriate to give an evangelical tract to a child, you haven't. You have told me what the local churches do. And judging by the fact that in the Nepal video, they see nothing wrong with publicly denigrating the majority religion of the country (80% Hindu, 1.4% Christian according to Wikipedia), in order to bring Christianity in, they obviously set the bar for causing upset or offence very high indeed.

Brian, full credit to you for trying and everything, but just to spell it out: the main reason you're getting such a rough time on this thread is that you simply don't seem able, or even willing, to try and address posters' real concerns. That's the fundamental problem. Trying to argue around the subject, dissemble, address questions that haven't actually been asked...well yeah, that's a surefire way to annoy people. Which is what's happening.

I wouldn't bother, frankly, trying to go for the sympathy vote cos you think people are being mean to you - in your role, it's par for the course and sorry, but it's not something a real comms professional would ever think to complain about.

If you want "kudos", the only way to achieve that is to engage with people honestly. Isn't that what Jesus would have wanted?

That Nepal video is one of the most offensive things I've ever seen, but it does have the virtue of making it absolutely clear that evangelical literature is distributed with the gift boxes to children who are quite clearly being brought up in another faith. I urge all MNers who are disturbed by their children's school being involved in supporting OCC, seemingly without really knowing what is involved, to use this film to educate headteachers about OCC and Samaritan's Purse.

It's also astonishingly self-regarding; the opening sequence has dramatic photos of mountains and smoky, crowded streetscapes, with the following message written in giant capitals:

"THE LOVE OF GOD ... REACHES INTO ... THE FARTHEST CORNERS OF THE WORLD ... AGAINST ALL ODDS"

They're trying to make it sound as though they're doing something really brave, bringing boxes full of tat to children in one of the world's poorest countries, but it's hard to see that there's anything brave about it; these children's parents won't have been asked if they want their children exposed to evangelising literature from an a proselytising religion, and in any case it's likely that the parents will be working every minute of the day to put food on the table, so SP are unlikely to meet any opposition to their activities.

Matt Foster, Samaritan's Purse Regional Director, makes it very clear that the OCC boxes are bait to lure children. In a sequence showing porters carrying OCC boxes across a rope bridge, he says "We're en route to a very remote place, the only way you can get there is by foot so this place is very closed to the gospel. So the national leadership team, and the local pastors, partnering with Samaritan's Purse, feel like the best first step to get into this area is through Operation Christmas Child."

Interestingly, the film does mention two real problems for the economically underprivileged population of Nepal, slum clearances leading to people being made homeless, and the trafficking of girls and women into the sex trade, but without any indication that Samaritan's Purse have any intention of offering any practical help. In the first sequence shot in Kathmandu, we discover that four days after the OCC boxes were distributed in a slum community, "the government" destroyed their homes. I was waiting for a mention of how the local churches, supported by SP, stepped in to ensure that clean water continued to be available/distribution of warm clothes to people who'd lost everything/offered temporary shelter in church buildings - but oddly enough, there was nothing. Perhaps SP felt that the boxes of tat should be enough to make dispossessed families feel Christ's love?

As for the acute problem of sex trafficking, apparently this will magically cease to happen once Christianity get a grip. Accordingly to Suren Rasaily, Child Programs Specialist, "When the church is established, when there is the love of Christ, then trafficking can stop." Which is extraordinary, because plenty of sex trafficking happens in Christian countries; the Philippines, to take just one example.

Finally (and apologies for this essay) I'm sure I can't be the only person who's noticed the irony of this outfit being called "Samaritan's Purse"? I'm no expert on the bible, but I thought the point of the parable of the good Samaritan was that he offered real practical help (which he was able to offer, because he was rich) to a person of a different religion/culture, without any expectation of any kind of return. If Samaritan's Purse used their considerable financial resources to offer real, practical help to the very poor, with no strings attached, then they would be an organisation that I could respect.

Thank you for that blue. I am not a Christian, but I am quite happy to support Christian organisations that genuinely make a difference without strings attached. But this is not one of them. They are also breaking the guidelines set out for charities by the charity commission.

Thank you, Grennie. There are many Christian charities that do fantastic work, but this isn't one of them!

Didn't the Samaritan supposedly help a Jewish man? Took him to an inn, dressed his wounds, gave him money and then sent him on his way? No mention of converting him to Christianity as far as I can remember (and a quick google seems to agree with my remembrance of this).
I'm a devout atheist though - I'm sure Brian can tell us how the beaten up traveller was given a shoebox full of cuddly toys and a leaflet (not contained within the box) telling him how he can repent his sins.

But, I have to say I do feel a bit sorry for Brian. His organisation stitched him up like a kipper, sending him on here and expecting him to field the understandable ire of MNetters who are appalled by the blatant disrespect his organisation shows towards people of other religions, and the total lack of transparency when recruiting school-children to their campaign.

I thought I knew the worst about OCC, but the Nepal video takes their activities to new levels of arrogance and self-righteousness

Rhonda, local churches are working to guidelines laid down by Samaritan's Purse in seeking not to cause offence or upset in the very communities where they live. These distributions don't 'just happen', people distributing shoeboxes don't just 'turn up'; these distributions are planned months in advance. Community, civic and religious leaders are generally very supportive. If/where there is opposition, or a sense that upset or offence will be caused, this usually has more to do with the booklet, The Greatest Gift, and in such situations it is not distributed. That would clearly be inappropriate. But it is for them to decide, with their community, that feels right. It is not for us to edict them to do anything that they know would cause offence; that would be highly counter-productive! Brian

Brian, if you feel you are being ridiculed, maybe it is because the position you are trying to maintain - that Operation Christmas Child does not target vulnerable children for conversion - is ridiculous, when five minutes on the Samaritan's Purse website provides ample evidence to the contrary.

I think the basic problem is that you are trying to promote a campaign developed by born-again Christians in the United States, which does not have the same appeal in the largely secular UK.

Maybe if you just stuck to working through churches in the UK, rather than trying to drag non-Christian schoolchildren into it, you wouldn't spend all your time trying to cover up what you are really doing.

I was wondering if I was making too much of the evangelising side. But that video confirmed my worst fears and it was actually worse. And that is them proudly advertising themselves aand what they do.

Also watched Franklin Graham with Pierce Morgan. These people are fundamentalists. They want everyone to have to live and abide by Gods laws as they see fit. They do not tolerate to any other religion or way of thinking. They do not want a secular sate. They freak me out tbh.

Dog the good Samaritan was from the parables told by Jesus. Jesus hadn't died and christianity didn't exist at that point so it would have been difficult.

Brian, thank you for coming back to try to clarify your answer to my question.

First, give me some credit! I know OCC doesn't just "turn up". Looking at the expedition shown in the Nepal video, it's clear that something on that scale must have taken months of planning, not to mention huge costs to OCC.

I get that, as an employee of SP, you have to stick to the party line. But the problem with a nebulous guideline as you describe it, that simply asks people not to cause upset or offence, is that it becomes up to the local churches to decide where to draw the line. Having watched the Nepal video, it's clear that denigrating local religions is considered acceptable by OCC, but would be consider totally unacceptable by most people, religious or not.

So my concern is that, if that is where OCC draws the line, under what circumstances would the evangelical literature not be given out? Even one or two examples would help. Simply saying "seeking not to cause upset or offence" is not good enough. How much more offensive can you get than slagging off someone's personal beliefs?

Actually, Brian, since you want us to be gentle with you, here's what I hope is another easy question.

How does OCC decide which areas to target with the shoeboxes? What, for example, made them decide to go into a remote area of Nepal, only accessible by foot, and where possibly 80% of the population already have a religion - Hinduism?

Or have I just answered the question myself?

To be fair to Brian, his responses, and the publicity of his organisation, mirror Christianity itself. You know: it presents quite nice, frothy stuff on the outside, but when you dig a bit deeper, it starts to get illogical and offensive, and when you try to get a priest or whoever to give you straightforward answers to any questions you might have about all of that, they can't , so they tow the partyline blindly, even when it is not answering the question, they deny the truth of the evidence that cannot be refuted, and then they pull out the tiresome old "oh, you're offending me, you're disrespecting me" card, and refuse to engage.

Thanks for the clarification Brian, though I still think OCC's aims are very far removed from the parable's lesson.

Looking at the SP website however, it does appear (on first glance at least) like Samaritan's Purse itself does do worthwhile work - while I still can't agree with religious conversion tactics being mixed in with relief work, they do at least look effective at helping the communities.

Anyway, I've really no dog in this race. I'd just be more accepting of OCC as a charity if your aims were a lot more transparent, so schools in particular could make an informed choice in whether to participate.

mydog, is there any comparison between the cost effectiveness of OCC in its charity work compared with other, non-evangelising organisations? As I mentioned upthread, when you factor in the cost of transporting shoeboxes full of non-essentials into remote areas of the world, I wonder how OCC measures up against the others?

SuburbanRhonda
I've really no idea - my guess would be as good as yours, and I reckon our guesses would probably be similar.

OCC must spend a tremendous amount on marketing and branding; but then they pull in multiple times more $$ than smaller charities.

I believe they've been audited quite fiercely, and they're still a registered charity, so hopefully the money is reaching where it's supposed to. I'm still disgusted by them spending donations on anti-gay advertising, and by Franklin Graham's immense paycheck, but I suppose they must justify it somehow.

I've seen other charities break down how their donations are spent -do you have that info to hand Brian?

Oh, here we go: Standards Not Met

Samaritan's Purse (SP) does not meet the following 2 Standards for Charity Accountability.

Standard 1: Oversight of Operations and Staff - Organizations shall have a board of directors that provides adequate oversight of the charity's operations and its staff. Indication of adequate oversight includes, but is not limited to, regularly scheduled appraisals of the CEO's performance, evidence of disbursement controls such as board approval of the budget, fund raising practices, establishment of a conflict of interest policy, and establishment of accounting procedures sufficient to safeguard charity finances.

SP does not meet this Standard because:

The CEO of the organization also serves as the board chair.

Standard 4: Compensated Board Members - Not more than one or 10% (whichever is greater) directly or indirectly compensated person(s) serving as voting member(s) of the board. Compensated members shall not serve as the board's chair or treasurer.

SP does not meet this Standard because:

Four members out of the nineteen member board of directors (21%) are compensated directly, including the paid board chair/CEO.

Samaritan's Purse (SP) meets the remaining 18 Standards for Charity Accountability.

The UK definition of what counts as a charitable purpose includes "the advancement of religion", so Samaritan's Purse is probably perfectly legitimate on that score. The only problem is that they give the impression they are mainly about different charitable purposes, ie overseas aid. I wonder if the Charities Commission looks at how charities promote themselves?

Maybe we could write a letter to the charity commission? I am really concerned about this charity. But would appreciate help writing it.

Rhonda, if you click on the following link, you will be taken to the 2011/12 Trustees Report which goes into some detail as to charitable income and expenditure:

www.samaritans-purse.org.uk/_uploads/resourceDownloads/SP_Financial_Accounts_YE310312.pdf

We will be uploading the 2012/13 Trustee Report this month.

Hello Brian. Now you're back, are you going to explain the massive disparity between what you have been telling us about Operation Christmas Child, and the version shown in the Nepal video? And somehow justify how British schools should support it?