It's wrong because they aren't invited to attend a church service. They're invited to start a course that indoctrinates them into an extreme and right-wing Christian sect. One that thinks we live in a world of evil and corruption that can only be saved by turning to the Bible and running our democracies according to its word, that has an absolute hatred of gay people, that thinks women should submit to their husbands, that all abortion is murder and abstinence-only birth control should be practised even in areas ravaged by HIV, and that people of other faiths are led astray by Satan because those faiths are "evil" and "wicked". That is not mainstream Christianity. There's an excellent article written by the Vicar of Putney and a Philosophy lecturer at Oxford, who cannot be accused of lacking faith, and says: What is most resented about Samaritan's Purse is the way it links aid and evangelism. "We have no problem with people going into a country to do evangelical work," said Hodan Hassan, a spokeswoman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "But when you mix humanitarian work in a war-torn country with evangelisation you create a problem. You have desperate people and you have someone who has food in one hand and a Bible in another."
The very weakly worded references to their background in the literature are only there at all because the Charity Commission ordered them to alter their materials to reflect their faith-based motivations a few years ago. Before that, even the softly-softly wording was absent.
When challenged because a Mexican mission found the money they had to pay for the boxes (the costs are only met for packing and distribution in this country, automatically - local missions are expected to meet the local costs (which does rather beg the question of what they do with the rest of it?) was more than the contents were worth, the charity stated: The value of the physical content is less important. This is not humanitarian aid necessarily, but what we call a gospel sharing opportunity. The purpose is not for simply handing out a gift to a child, but for the sake of spreading the gospel. The article, by the way, is posted on a Christian blog.
The Samaritan's Purse published their own report in 2003 stating that 82% of the children given boxes in India completed the missionary course. That was their focus, not whether the issues Save the Children have identified with the project in terms of it being counter-productive, divisive and wasteful as aid are correct. They want this project not because it's an effective or even a positive way of giving, but because it's effective evangelism. They openly say as much. They don't want to give kiddies Christmas gifts. They want to use the gifts to buy access so they can convert them.
This is not about God, or Christianity, any more than the Taliban and Al Qaida are about Islam. It's about fundamentalist ideologies that seek to impose a theocracy over us all - Franklin Graham is entirely open in that aim. He wants his version of Christianity to be what governs the planet, and he wants your donations to achieve that. I for one am not happy that my little boy came home from school all excited about how he could help poorer kids have some toys to play with, when that isn't the core aim here at all. He was lied to (seems that is a Commandment Samaritan's Purse are a little wibbly on). Spreading the fundamentalist Christian word is the goal - and as a non-Fundie, I have better uses for the money.
The biggest killer of kids worldwide is malaria - how about sending the money so locals can benefit the economy by making malaria nets, which in turn save lives? Good Gifts have that on offer for anyone who wants to, you know - actually make a difference. For eight quid, you can protect a whole family this year.