To secretly fill a Christmas Charity shoebox with as good as new toys?

[ferriswheel]

I've filled an authentic one already. But all things considered I could do a great job of 'nearly new' version.

Or is this very bad karma?

[Littleraincloud]

What I don't understand with the outrage r.e. occ is yes, they are Christian but the boxes are sent out at Christmas, A Christian event. So if they didn't get sent out the real life difference for the child is they wouldn't get anything, for a celebration they previously didn't take part in? But if they do get sent them and they say they are Christian they continue getting them meaning they basically do what the majority of the UK do and celebrate Christianity once a year in December ? I'm not being today I honestly don't understand. What real life effect does it have day to day?

[rainbowduck]

The appeal I go through, everything is handed out in schools, and we get photos at the end.

I have 36 boxes in my lounge, waiting to be delivered tomorrow. We have done a mix of new toys and 'lightly loved'. I do every year. As does my friend, and she makes 200.

So, going back to original question, YANBU. X

[exexpat]

@babba "Can someone please tell me what is so bad about Christian evangelism that it gets such a bad press in the West? "

The current generation of mainly American fundamentalist Christian evangelists (people who share many of the ideas of Franklin Graham, head of Samaritan's Purse, which runs Operation Christmas Child) are particularly hateful: their anti-gay, anti-contraception and anti-abortion agenda can be held responsible for many deaths, in my opinion.
www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-kaoma-uganda-gays-american-ministers-20140323-story.html

And their influence at home has led to Trump's ban on giving US funds to any organisation which even mentions abortion, even if they do not actually carry out abortions and their main activities are in general health care: www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/23/trump-abortion-gag-rule-international-ngo-funding

[sashh]

AnneGrommit - just because somebody doesn't support same sex marriage, it doesn't mean that person is homophobic

You are going to have to explain that to me

[Willow2017]

Sally

He supports Putin on the beating up of, abduction of and humiliation of homosexuals.
He is horrified that gay men are allowed to be scout leaders as it will set the rot in the scout movement and the boys will be in danger of being converted.
He supports 'conversion therapy' of homosexuals which has been banned in USA.

The man is a walking hate monger.

[Mountainpika]

Anyone trying to force their religious beliefs on others is wrong.Religion is a personal matter and not to be forced where it's not wanted or people are put in a situation where they have no choice but to listen. I wouldn't lecture people and demand they give up their beliefs in theor gods and become atheists. I have no belief in any god. I have no right to force that on others.

[SoupDragon]

please tell me what is so bad about Christian evangelism that it gets such a bad press in the West? Other religions proselytise too, don't they?

I think all evangelism is bad. The other religions are not the ones bribing children with gifts provided by British families who have no idea this is happening though.

[sallyfox]

AnneGrommit - just because somebody doesn't support same sex marriage, it doesn't mean that person is homophobic

[sashh]

I understand that Richard Dawkins is tireless in his fundraising efforts for charity so perhaps he could help out? Oh, no, wait.....

Perhaps you should have done some research

www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/richard-dawkins#charities

British Humanist Association
Doctors Without Borders
Richard Dawkins Foundation
Save the Rhino

Causes supported 6
Animals, Conservation, Disaster Relief, Education, Health, Philanthropy

That's one person.

How many Christians are there?

[Willow2017]

Bab

It is bad when it is prioritising people in crisis with bribes to get them to convert. Telling victims of disasters that they will get aid but only if they attend a christian service first. Giving kids boxes of stuff so long as they read the book inside and promise to convert after they have read it even though they already have thier own religion.

Making racial, cultural, bigoted and homophobic views public while still professing to be a christian is bad in all ways possible. Making it your lifes mission to eradicate all other religions as they are anti christian/anti American/anti your blinkered views is bad.

[Babba]

Can someone please tell me what is so bad about Christian evangelism that it gets such a bad press in the West? Other religions proselytise too, don't they? As a child growing up in Africa, I came face-to-face with christian evangelism, muslim conversion and our own traditional paganism, amongst others, but it did not harm me. In fact, it gave me a broad outlook on life and enabled me to make an informed decision as to whether to follow a particular religion or none.

[HidingBehindTheWallpaper]

I understand that Richard Dawkins is tireless in his fundraising efforts for charity so perhaps he could help out? Oh, no, wait.....

Because he is the only atheist in the world........oh, wait......

[Willow2017]

Biangala
On the grapevine?
Its common knowledge what SP does. And as for their glorious leader a 5 minute Google will tell you all yiu need to know about him and his repulsive views and just how much money he is pocketing from this 'charity'.

It says quite clearly on thier website what they put in the shoeboxes. What it doesn't tell you re persuading kids to sign the damm book and convert (but what people have witnessed first hand and many left the organisation because of it) is easy to find too.

[HeadingHome]

I’m glad Anne posted.

[RedToothBrush]

This thread is so damaging to charities that might want to genuinely make children happy without evangelising. It is sad that people stop donating just because of what someone heard in the grapevine.

With respect, it is a good thing to encourage people to fully understand ANY organisation they donate to for charitable purposes as a matter of course. Charities hold a certain amount of power purely because of the money or donations they give.

Not doing that is actually an abdication of your responsibility as a donor.

You should hold charities to account, just as we should hold other organisations to account.

The best way to do that, is to make sure that when you give, you are interested in what happens next too, and don't just think blindly that charity = good.

Yes the focus here is on one charity which many think has questionable practices and has been the subject of more scrutiny than most (This is something that goes beyond simply being stuff 'heard on the grapevine'. It has been the subject of investigative journalism with a higher threshold of reporting things simply because they have to report in a way which doesn't get them sued by a charity with litigious tendencies). The point is that charities SHOULD be scrutinised.

It is right and proper to ask questions and to see if others have questions about a charity. It is wrong to discourage this or suggest that raising concerns damages charity.

It doesn't. It means that the better charities get supported and it encourages charities to have better practices to get that support.

If charities can not answer and respond to criticism and use PR/legal threats for different audiences because their ethos does not fit with them all, that is not transparency.

Charities must be transparent or abuses of power can occur.

[FreakinScaryCaaw]

Purse*

[FreakinScaryCaaw]

Alternative ideas to Samaritan's putse. Apologies if it's already been posted.

[IroningMountain]

Um little more than a grapevine. Nobody has said don't donate just don't fill a shoebox with plastic tat that has limited usefulness in the name of a homophobic evangelical cause and give to a far better charity that will actually be far more productive.

[Geordie1944]

I understand that Richard Dawkins is tireless in his fundraising efforts for charity so perhaps he could help out? Oh, no, wait.....

[bianglala]

This thread is so damaging to charities that might want to genuinely make children happy without evangelising. It is sad that people stop donating just because of what someone heard in the grapevine.

[Cantseethewoods]

Mountain

Poppy is totally right that you can actually research this information via the Charities Commission. However, as a funder I tend to view charities as an ecosystem. A lot of the smaller, grassroots charities in India, for example, are basically implementation partners for the larger ones, so naturally, the smaller ones are nearly 100% programme expenditure (they can allocate all staff costs to programme costs). Larger charities tend to have more structured staffing, and also do the research, pilots, policy, and advocacy, evaluation and programme design work, which is actually really important to ensure that what is done on the ground is effective and that programmes achieve impact at scale. That work requires more centralised staffing which goes into overheads.

Another example is disaster relief- a lot of people don't want to give money to the Red Cross because they see they as a big charity with big overheads, but part of the reason for those overheads is that they spend money building the relationships and global logistical framework that mean the aid truck will actually get through or the mobile clinic will be built. The smaller charities might spend every penny you give them on rice or sanitary packs but they then piggy back RC infrastructure for last mile.

Basically, a long way round of saying that I understand why retail donors only want to give to small, grassroots charities, but often the systemic change is driven by activities that result in larger "overheads".

[Mountainpika]

Thank you for that, Poppy.
Worth checking charities.

I used to sing with a choir and we did performances in various places. We turned up to do one and I wasn't pleased to find out it was to raise money for some religious group to send bibles abroad. I don't like any form of evangelising and that wasn't a charity I would have ever given to. I felt that that choir members should have had a say in the charities we supported and certainly be told in advance which charity it was in aid of.

[PoppyPopcorn]

Making cash donations to a charity - how much is actually used as we expect it to be? How much goes on admin? I realise there are costs involved, but are all costs necessary? I wonder about charities that send letters with a pen or something to every household. That must cost a lot.

You can check that out. All charities in the UK have to be registered with OSCR in Scotland or the Charities Commission. Larger charities of the type to mailshot have to submit detailed accounts and you can see exactly what they're spending money on. In fact it's more complicated than that - I volunteer in a large charity which has shops up and down the country and there are obvious overheads to running shops like manager salary, electricity etc. So a small percentage of what we take through the till goes to overheads. But money given as donation in response to an appeal and not in return for "goods" is treated differently for accounting purposes and a greater percentage goes directly to the cause. It's complex - but the figures are out there if you want to research.

You can look up Samaritan's Purse International on the Charity Commission website and see what their income and expenditure statements are. Their mission statement says: "SAMARITAN'S PURSE IS A NON-PROFIT, CHRISTIAN ORGANISATION PROVIDING CHURCH SUPPORT AND EMERGENCY RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO THE VICTIMS OF WAR, FAMINE, NATURAL DISASTER, AND DISEASE, WITH THE AIM OF DEMONSTRATING GOD'S LOVE TO ALL AND SHARING THE GOOD NEWS OF JESUS CHRIST." (not my capital letters)

You can also look at the countries in which they are operating, and see more detailed accounts if you click through the options on the left.

Dig a bit deeper, and their evangelising foremost mission is crystal clear:
" Samaritan's Purse is also focused on providing practical tools such as sending Operation Christmas Child shoeboxes and teams to churches and communities as they seek to reach out to their neighbours, and delivering a child focussed 12 lesson discipleship programme to children overseas through The Greatest Journey. In 2015/2016 902,602 shoeboxes were sent to children around the world and over 30,000 children were discipled through The Greatest Journey"

[Mountainpika]

Making cash donations to a charity -
how much is actually used as we expect it to be? How much goes on admin? I realise there are costs involved, but are all costs necessary? I wonder about charities that send letters with a pen or something to every household. That must cost a lot.
At least with the school bags I can hand over my cheque, pack the bags and follow where they go.
Yes, there are many other things they need, water being one essential. If I weren't supporting schoolbags, I'd support a water charity. But I can't do everything. So I'll stick to the schoolbags for now.