Operation Christmas Child - Make An Informed Decision

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Locke

It seems to me that these 'evil religious missionaries' are the only people willing to do the good deed.

What does that say about the people who would condemn that good deed solely on the basis of those who perform it?

You'd rather say, screw the kids? You'd rather they get nothing as opposed to something given to them by a religious charity?

This seems monumentally wrong.

I've donated a shoebox to Operation Christmas Child since I was in grade 3. I'll continue, thanks.

Locke.

So I take you it would have no problem if it was a Muslim charity handing out shoe boxes and trying to convert children to Islam? Or is that somehow different?

We could also consider the humanitarian work Hezbollah does in Lebannon. If, as you seem to suggest, that the ends (gifts and aide to children) justifies the means (in this case conversion to evangelical christianity) then presumably you couldn't "condemn that good deed solely on the basis of those who perform it".

[Devils'Advocate]

#1 - as for that there is nobody else out there doing something, Canada Foster Parents Plan is a secular group that is doing a lot of good. And once a year I get the two children I "adopted" a gift... last year the boy got a soccer ball and the girl got coloured pencils and a pencil sharpener. You could say that what these kids need is not balls and pencils but money into their economy but why not both? FPP puts money into the community as well by drilling wells and helping build irrigation systems for farms.
#2 - what disgusts me about many of these Christian groups is that they are taking advantage of a people who feel their God has left them. If muslim woman loses her 3rd child to malaria, she obviously is going to doubt her faith. These groups use your generosity, caring and selflessness to fulfill their agenda. I wouldn't participate.
#3 - I agree with the post above mine. If this was the Jehovah Witnesses that were converting impoverished families, there would be more concern. But converting people to Christianity many Canadians would say "yeah, that's a great thing... fewer Muslims in the world has to be a wonderful thing".

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by troutman

Who is saying they should get nothing? How about giving the gifts - hold the religion?

There are plenty of non-religious and secular groups that give aid all over the world. Indoctrinating poor vulnerable children to any particular religion is seen as a form of child abuse by many (ex. Dawkins). I wouldn't go that far - I think children should be taught about all religions. Missionaries don't do that though.

A true gift has no catch attached to it.

Does that mean the gift holds any less value to these children who dont have anything? If you can honestly say it does, then I can see your point. Otherwise, I think I have made mine.

This is not about religion, so what if they hand out gifts while reading the Christmas story from the Bible and handing out Christian pamplets? I am sure they are not strapping them to a chair and using shock therapy until they convert, and then handing them a single shoebox.

This is akin to having dinner served at the Mustard Seed, which unless I am horribly mistake, is still a street ministry, you go have a free dinner and have the opportunity to hear someone talk about God. Having been to one of these dinners, I can certainly attest that no one at the dinner really is offended that the people offering them a good meal are also the ones standing on there spiritual soapbox.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

So I take you it would have no problem if it was a Muslim charity handing out shoe boxes and trying to convert children to Islam? Or is that somehow different?

We could also consider the humanitarian work Hezbollah does in Lebannon. If, as you seem to suggest, that the ends (gifts and aide to children) justifies the means (in this case conversion to evangelical christianity) then presumably you couldn't "condemn that good deed solely on the basis of those who perform it".

I think I missed the part where they were including bombs in the packages for the children of parents of opposing religous factions. Until they start doing that, this comparison is not valid. This organization is giving presents to kids, and in the process apparently putting effort into converting them, they are not a military group that will kill you if you are not of their religion.

Big difference here.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I think I missed the part where they were including bombs in the packages for the children of parents of opposing religous factions. Until they start doing that, this comparison is not valid. This organization is giving presents to kids, and in the process apparently putting effort into converting them, they are not a military group that will kill you if you are not of their religion.

Big difference here.

Odd that you say that because Hezbollah provides aide and services to both Christians and Muslims in Lebanon.

Care to provide a link to back up your claim of bombs in children's packages? Haven't heard that one before.

Finally to quote Locke, whose post I was responding to: " What does that say about the people who would condemn that good deed solely on the basis of those who perform it?"

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Rathji

This is akin to having dinner served at the Mustard Seed, which unless I am horribly mistake, is still a street ministry, you go have a free dinner and have the opportunity to hear someone talk about God. Having been to one of these dinners, I can certainly attest that no one at the dinner really is offended that the people offering them a good meal are also the ones standing on there spiritual soapbox.

excellent example. just wanted to quote it again so it doesn't get missed.

and to answer some of the questions, no - i would not have a problem at all if JW's, muslims, mormons, etc, etc, etc decided to do some humanitarian work and gave a brief explanation of their belief system while doing it. are some of you really THAT threatened by free thought and free speech that you think these charities are bad?

[bigtmac19]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Does that mean the gift holds any less value to these children who dont have anything? If you can honestly say it does, then I can see your point. Otherwise, I think I have made mine.

This is not about religion, so what if they hand out gifts while reading the Christmas story from the Bible and handing out Christian pamplets? I am sure they are not strapping them to a chair and using shock therapy until they convert, and then handing them a single shoebox.

This is akin to having dinner served at the Mustard Seed, which unless I am horribly mistake, is still a street ministry, you go have a free dinner and have the opportunity to hear someone talk about God. Having been to one of these dinners, I can certainly attest that no one at the dinner really is offended that the people offering them a good meal are also the ones standing on there spiritual soapbox.

Excellent post, very well said.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by tkflames

As a side note with any organization the important thing is knowing what your putting money into. Every charity will have its benefits but there is a lot of merit to knowing the motivations of the organization. Franklin Graham the International President of Samaritan Purse (Operation Christmas Child) has been quoted as saying things like

Islam is a "VERY WICKED AND EVIL RELIGION"
and something to the effect of "the USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS on countries like Iraq and Afghanistan is acceptable"

(I didn't find the exact quotes but here is a CBC article making reference to it http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/st...m-protest.html)


Again its unfortunate that poor children are caught in the middle of this debate, but I agree with the original poster that your money would be better spent supporting the work itself vs. supporting a reverend with an agenda...

No one has a comment on this? This can be overlooked 'for the children' right?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Odd that you say that because Hezbollah provides aide and services to both Christians and Muslims in Lebanon.

Care to provide a link to back up your claim of bombs in children's packages? Haven't heard that one before.

Finally to quote Locke, whose post I was responding to: " What does that say about the people who would condemn that good deed solely on the basis of those who perform it?"

I was not saying they did, however my metaphor was not clearly communicated. I was merely saying that the 2 organizations can hardly be compared straight up, as one is international known for helping people and trying to promote the teachings of Christ and the other is known internationally for helping people and killing people.

Being an organization that uses charity to further their own agenda is fine, and I do not fault Hezbollah for using these tactics, my problem with them is what they do with this support. Any Christian organization who has done these same things in the past (and there have been many, I assure you) I also condemn with the same conviction.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

No one has a comment on this? This can be overlooked 'for the children' right?

does one person saying something 'bad' (or in this case a couple things) make everything they ever do 'bad'?
does this make the entire concept of this charity 'bad'?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Does that mean the gift holds any less value to these children who dont have anything? If you can honestly say it does, then I can see your point. Otherwise, I think I have made mine.

This is not about religion, so what if they hand out gifts while reading the Christmas story from the Bible and handing out Christian pamplets? I am sure they are not strapping them to a chair and using shock therapy until they convert, and then handing them a single shoebox.

This is akin to having dinner served at the Mustard Seed, which unless I am horribly mistake, is still a street ministry, you go have a free dinner and have the opportunity to hear someone talk about God. Having been to one of these dinners, I can certainly attest that no one at the dinner really is offended that the people offering them a good meal are also the ones standing on there spiritual soapbox.

Ever heard of the term "captive audience"?

Tom Cruise wants to come to your house tonight to give your children some gifts he got at the dollar store. Your children really want these toys. Oh, but first you have to listen to him talk to you about Scientology for four hours. Do you let him in?

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by troutman

Ever heard of the term "captive audience"?

Tom Cruise wants to come to your house tonight to give your children some gifts he got at the dollar store. Your children really want these toys. Oh, but first you have to listen to him talk to you about Scientology for four hours. Do you let him in?

are my kids living in absolutely miserable poverty? is this my kids only chance at getting any sort of toys or presents or some items that would increase their quality of life pretty much ever?

if so: preach on tom. kids deserve to have the chance to be kids.

edit: it wouldn't matter anyway - no kid is gonna have enough money to pay for the auditing and such that goes along with scientology.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

thanks for the reminder though about the shoeboxes, it had slipped my mind. for every shoebox you don't donate (i guess that'd be one each year), i'm going to donate 3.

awesome throw 3 more in for me. Its not that i don't want to, its just doing it myself would deprive 2 extra children of boxes you otherwise would have sent

[4X4]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

He was obviously being sarcastic by employing the exact term the very Christian missionaries you're defending used to describe their targets of conversion in "uncivilized" countries decades ago. Take a look at this article from the New York Times, circa 1908, to see what he was getting at:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...669D946997D6CF

What a lame argument. 100 years ago your great grandfather was dropping N-bombs. What does that say about you? Not a damn thing.






As for the no strings attached gift giving, I don't see what the anti-religious are upset about. They want to spread their message. They think that they are doing these children a double favour by bringing them both temporary and long term happiness.
Maybe the kid grows up a little less jaded about the way of the world and goes on to form his or her own theories about where we came from.

It's no different than telling them about santa claus.

Y'all need to get off their backs about this. I grew up in a religious home yet I do not believe in god. It's a decision that people can't make until they're older. So in the meantime, who gives a crap what they believe.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Dan02

awesome throw 3 more in for me. Its not that i don't want to, its just doing it myself would deprive 2 extra children of boxes you otherwise would have sent

so i'm up to 7 this year.... i'm not sending more than 10 though.... otherwise i'd have to start receiving shoeboxes cause i'll be the one living in poverty.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

does one person saying something 'bad' (or in this case a couple things) make everything they ever do 'bad'?
does this make the entire concept of this charity 'bad'?

Wow. This rates up there with "Hitler did some good things too."

So I guess you wouldn't have a problem with the Aryan Nation handing out shoe boxes either.

Edit: Maybe the pedophiles could get in on this as well. You know, they'd just be doing a good deed.

[Burninator]

Operation Christmas isn't a perfect charity. But just to play devils advocate for a bit here. What happens to the children that are converted to Christianity and are told that condom use is a sin? Last time I check Africa is sort of having an AIDS problem.

[Burninator]

Also, March Hare was being sarcastic when he posted that article. You seriously think he is going to use an article from 99 years ago to make a point. Come on now.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Wow. This rates up there with "Hitler did some good things too."

So I guess you wouldn't have a problem with the Aryan Nation handing out shoe boxes either.

Edit: Maybe the pedophiles could get in on this as well. You know, they'd just be doing a good deed.

Worst post in this thread. Hitler? Pedophiles? Because he thinks muslims are wicked? All religions think they're the right one! If they didn't, it'd defeat the whole purpose! Can you be any more arrogant? Kids are getting gifts. Toys. Crayons. And you liken it to Hitler and Pedophilia.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Operation Christmas isn't a perfect charity. But just to play devils advocate for a bit here. What happens to the children that are converted to Christianity and are told that condom use is a sin? Last time I check Africa is sort of having an AIDS problem.

Great point...

My contention is that they already 'know' they're sinning by having sex outside of marriage. So if they're going to do it, why not use a condom?

If they can't figure that out, then Darwin is at work.

As for whether they should be using condoms when married to keep one person clean, I don't know. Except that by the time someone gets married, they should have enough life experience to question religion or at least some of it's rules.