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...

Incidentally, there's a really good website that evaluates international charity provision in terms of cost effectiveness. Useful, I think. Giving What We Can.

I don't know how many times I have had to defend the charge made against Samaritan's Purse that there are things we do in the name of Jesus Christ with 'strings attached'. It is such nonsense, and highly offensive, that you would consider me, let alone the organisation I work for so devious.

A few years ago, we had The Guardian newspaper having a go, spreading lies and misinformation on Operation Christmas Child. They went too far and had to retract some things they had said. As a gesture of goodwill, we invited them to send a journalist along to see for themselves what goes on at an Operation Christmas Child distribution; we invited them to do so over several years in an effort to be open and transparent. They weren't interested. Don't you think this would be something they would jump at if they really believed the nonsense they were printing?

Do you think DfID would be so keen to work with Samaritan's Purse if such accusations were true? They check things out, I mean really check things out. They go into a lot of detail, looking at what we do, how we do it, who is involved. I have also been accused of calling people liars on Mumsnet, simply because I suggested that there are two sides to every story and wouldn't follow the now common 'pack instinct' here on Mumsnet which sees anyone taking a different view being ridiculed, coming under such attack in that they leave.

So if you don't believe what I say, why not drop a line into DfID and see what they think about Samaritan's Purse? Or would you consider them to be untrustworthy too? If you do, will you come back in here and tell us?

Alternatively, I would be happy to fund one of you - I'm mentioning no names, you know who you are - to travel to Eastern Europe, to see for yourself what goes on, to ask your questions, to pole around for 'the strings'. Is anyone prepared to do that? If not, I'm sure we'd all like to know why ...

perfectstorm, excellent previous post.

Brian, you haven't replied to any of the statements that Franklin Graham, the head of your organisation, has made against other world religions that, if the boot was on the other foot and Christianity were being denigrated in the same way, would cause international outrage.

It's a bit like you claiming to have been thought "devious" on this forum, and being mortally offended by that, only FG is saying it of all religions that aren't fundamentalist Christianity.

Hinduism = darkness
Islam = an evil religion

Are you happy with those statements, Brian, because you have been noticeably quiet on the matter? Do they represent your views, too? Or are you not willing to be talk about that?

And does SP really have so much spare cash that it would be willing to fund a trip to persuade one person in the UK that everything is above board with OCC?

I'll happily write to DfID, Brian. Please give me the name, the job title and the e-mail address of your contact there and I'll do it today.

bored and hawkmoon, no-one on this forum is trying to stop you from doing shoeboxes.

You are obviously happy with the views and aims of OCC, so good for you. Others are interested in getting information out there to help people who do not already know about these views and aims to make an informed decision whether to support OCC or not.

HTH

zataya, as shown clearly in the Nepal video linked to on another thread, the children "on the receiving end", as you put it are not told that someone's in the UK has packed a shoebox for them. They are told they got the shoebox because God loves them.

And if you read the threads carefully you will see that no-one is trying to stop people supporting OCC. They are trying to make sure people have as much information about the aims and views of OC to help them make an informed decision.

So if, having heard the head of OCC state that he think believes Hinduism to be equivalent to darkness, and Islam to be an evil religion, they still think OCC is the charity for them and their children to support, fine.

Guardian retraction from 2009.The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Saturday 14 November 2009

Operation Christmas Child asks schoolchildren to fill a shoebox full of presents for distribution, by the Samaritan's Purse charity, to children in Africa and eastern Europe. We said below that a booklet of Bible stories, sent with the boxes to some countries, includes a pledge that children are asked to sign to "become God's child today", attend church, read the Bible and convince friends to do the same. However, Samaritan's Purse have advised us that the booklet seen by the writer of our story, while similar to the one used by Operation Christmas Child, is not the one used by the charity project. The Operation Christmas Child booklet does not include a pledge page asking children to sign or commit to anything.
The problem with this is that 1) It's 2009. 2)'while similar too' 3)Does not include a pledge page. Well, that particular one may not have included a pledge page, that doesn't mean it doesn't include a pledge in any other form.
Brian,
This is about transparancy. Your literature is not transparent. Your intent is not clear to all of those involved. It's a great piece of marketing, as I'm sure you are aware from the response, but it ain't clear by any stretch.

I don't know how many times I have had to defend the charge made against Samaritan's Purse that there are things we do in the name of Jesus Christ with 'strings attached'. It is such nonsense, and highly offensive, that you would consider me, let alone the organisation I work for so devious.

So the main aim of OCC isn't religious conversion then?

Alternatively, I would be happy to fund one of you - I'm mentioning no names, you know who you are - to travel to Eastern Europe, to see for yourself what goes on, to ask your questions, to pole around for 'the strings'

Would that be to a broadly Christian Eastern European county?

From The Samaritan's Purse website:
Trying not to laugh, I attempted to explain for five-year-old understanding the differences in Shimran’s family’s Hindu faith and many gods and our faith in the one true God.

He has seen enough in our year in Nepal to realize that the world is a very different, very large place from the one he left in America. He has often had curious and insightful questions about race, poverty, and especially faith. He sat and listened as I finished by explaining that our God is real and their gods are only small figures on the shelf.

“I know that,” he said with the simple assurance only children have.?“And her gods don’t love her,” he threw out as he ran off to play again.
Nice.

I feel like I'm reading a completely different thread from some other people.

1. Giving shoeboxes or other gifts to those who would otherwise have little or nothing at Christmas is a good and charitable thing.

1. Lots of charities and other organisations provide opportunities to match givers with recipients. It's good that they exist.

1. For some reason, OCC has become the default organisation for shoebox-giving organised through schools, nurseries and other similar groups in the UK.

1. In addition to giving, OCC has a religious mission.

1. Many of the individuals who want to get involved in the giving side of OCC don't know about the religious mission, only the giving. Sometimes this is because they don't read the information given to them; sometimes detailed information is not provided so they would have to search for some but don't.

1. Some of the people who give through OCC without knowing about the religious mission would choose a different organisation if they knew about the mission.

I don't think anyone is arguing against any of the above, are they? We are accusing each other of disagreeing or denying them, but those are all irrefutable facts.

OP and others want to make sure that the people in 6 get the information they haven't read in 5. That doesn't have a great deal to do with 1 or 2.

Maybe I'm just not angry enough for this thread

About 75% of the arguments on the thread are about 3 or 4. IMHO that's missing the point.

I've done this before through work and certainly won't be doing it again. I, for one, am glad to be given the info and to be able to make a more informed choice now.

So what if they're selling Jesus? Do you really think that these impoverished children or their parents are going to be converted by some stupid pamphlet?

The pamphlet is just the first stage, but it is the opinion of the charity based on their experience that it will have that effect and it is the avowed purpose of the charity. Would they have kept going if it were not working?

It's also the informed opinion of many other religious institutions that children are most vulnerable to recruitment. That's the basis of the ongoing battle for control of schools too.

Kids may have to listen to a lecture before getting their box of goodies. So?
People sit through entire afternoons of listening to time share sellers spouting bollocks simply to get their hands on the freebies.
What's so different? Do you think these kids who have nothing would consider it a fair exchange? I'm betting they would.

Floggingmolly are you christian. If so would you be ok with your kids being enticed to join a local satanist group? Even if they didn't end up actually joining.

I am, yes. And if my kids were reduced to scrabbling in the gutters for food just to stay alive, then yes, I'd be fine; in such a situation all bets are off.

But OCC are in no way the only charity, or even the only Christian charity.

If shoeboxes are your thing why not give money to a different charity who hands out the gifts no strings attached?

The choice is not kids going without or OCC.

True, goingtobefine. Fair point well made, as they say. In my case it's just that dd's Brownie pack do them and I've never seen it as sufficiently evil to make a Stand about. You're right, though...

Can anyone recommend alternative schemes for people who wish to take this up with their schools can put forward as a suitable alternative? Christian or otherwise, with no strings attached or evangelism?

so they can put forward

NoseWiper - there are a number mentioned on the thread but Rotary Club does shoeboxes www.rotaryshoebox.org/ and Mary's Meals sends backpacks with school equipment www.marysmeals.org.uk/

Thanks kiriAnyFuckerwa I thought I had seen some mentioned somewhere, but couldn't find them again - these thread are getting long!

Well I, for one, am very glad that there's been this discussion on MN. Although my DC are no longer school-aged, I always supported whatever charity the school supported, believing they would have checked it out. I never particularly liked shoeboxes as a form of giving (I think there are more effective ways to give to charity and to enable children to learn about conditions in other parts of the world) but I went along with it because I didn't want my DC left out, and I know lots of parents who feel the same. My neighbours have primary school-aged DC and I discussed this thread (or maybe an earlier one on the same topic, can't remember now) a week or two ago with them as their school was supporting OCC. They went and saw the headteacher who did a bit more research, and the school has now switched to Mary's Meals instead. Parents are presumably quite able to decide to give to OCC should they want to, but the headteacher thought that the Samaritan's Purse approach to other religions and to LGBT rights was inappropriate - she didn't think the school should give its institutional support to the organisation. I can't imagine many headteachers deciding otherwise once they are in possession of the facts. At least, I hope not.