operation christmas child

[themumfairy]

I'm doing operation christmas child this year to show ds 1 and 2 the true meaning of Xmas. What sort of things do you all put in? Ideally for their own ages 6 and 8. Also any other charitable Xmas ideas welcome. I'll be 8/9 months pregnant in December so might not be able to get around much but want to show them that it's not all about presents as some are less fortunate

Oh, and the quote 'evangelising to people it is supposed to be helping' - did you read the article? SP had been given US government money to help rebuild houses in El Salvador after the earthquake. They were being paid to provide practical help, but they made people attend a prayer meeting first.

What's your agenda stopping? Exexpat has explained hers.

I'm so tired of these debates. The people I know give to OCC to do something nice. But they are ill informed and misguided. This so called charity is nothing more than a thinly veiled right wing evangelical Christian movement with the main aim of coveting the world to their brand of bigoted 'faith'.

OCC targets children of different faiths who have no need of Christmas presents or bible classes.

If you genuinely want to do something for those less fortunate at Christmas then please donate to charities who actually help. If you are fine to be a party to this underhanded and dreadful organisation then please carry on but don't kid yourself that you are helping those in need.

Also, can I just point out that not supporting Samaritan's Purse is not the same as being anti-Christian? (re stoppingbywoods: "anti-Christian arguments against Samaritan's Purse").

There are many Christian MNers who have also argued strongly against Operation Christmas Child on previous threads, e.g. this thread from last month - the OP asking for helping in opposing it is actually a Christian, as she mentions further down the thread in response to similar accusations that anyone not liking OCC must be prejudiced against Christianity.

Luckily, Samaritan's Purse is not representative of most Christians or most Christian charities.

I'm aware that some Christians don't agree with Samaritan's Purse (which is of course fine with me) and no, I don't believe that decision is inherently anti-Christian. However, some of the views put forward here are decidedly anti-Christian. Although it's possible to be anti-evangelism + humanitarian aid without being anti-evangelism per se, being against all forms of evangelism to other cultures and religions is certainly anti-Christian. Evangelism is a distinguishing characteristic of the Christian faith.

Being unable to believe that a Christian organisation would genuinely wish to combine acts of compassion with sharing a Christian message is also, to my mind, indicative of a view of Christianity that is essentially anti-Christian because it misses the genuine care for the body and soul that characterises Christianity. Just to clarify though, I'm not saying that a Christian, or anyone else for that matter, can't prefer an organisation that focuses solely on evangelism or humanitarian work.

I'm aware of the OP's position.

Samaritan's Purse works with many thousands of people who have every unmet need you can imagine. They do not specifically target children who are materially well off but in need of 'converting'.

My agenda has already been stated several times, as many times as expat stated hers. I have no problem with people not supporting Samaritan's Purse or any evangelical organisation. I do have a problem with the altruistic efforts of evangelistic organisations being written off as nothing more than a means to a rather heartless and calculating end.

I also have a problem with what seems to be a growing problem in mumsnet; the view that if enough posters are against a view or organisation, it is alright to be sloppy with the facts when painting a negative picture of what they do or stand for. You, expat may not have used the word 'conditional' but that accusation has been levelled at OCC on this and other threads by a number of posters. Perhaps you can understand that I'm weary of seeing the same inaccuracies trotted out each year? It should be enough to say that we don't like something or don't agree with it. A smear compaign only makes it harder for others to make their minds up based the facts, good and bad. Which was the other part of my agenda - I don't care who supports OCC but would prefer that anyone stumbling across this thread has the chance to see some of these unsubstantiated claims being challenged. I'm very happy for OCC and Samaritan's Purse (and every charity under the sun) to be challenged for genuine shortcomings.

Samaritan's Purse would not be the first charity I would choose to support. But they do a great deal of genuine humanitarian work (and solid Christian outreach, for those who see that as a good thing). The Samaritan's Purse that is presented in these threads is a gross distortion of the reality.

Do you think Christian evangelism aimed at children of other faiths is harmless?

If Samaritans Purse was the only charity providing humanitarian aid then I think I could overlook the evangelism but if it's a choice of aid+evangelism or just aid on its own I think the latter is vastly preferable. Particularly when the intended recipients may have their own faith.

Poster I completely understand your viewpoint. Don't personally hold it but see where you're coming from.

I do believe that sharing the message of Jesus with all people, regardless of age of race or religion, is A Good Thing. But appreciate that others don't and that's ok with me.

That's big of you.