Operation Christmas Child - Make An Informed Decision

[Phaneuf3]

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.

wait wait wait, you're comparing telling kids the christmas story while giving them gifts to hitler and pedophilia?

you sir, win the prize.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by 4X4

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?

Yeah, I just threw it out there for discussion. I realize it's not without it's flaws. I don't know enough about the Christian influence to actually argue the point.

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.

Personally I would rather not leave it to natural selection, but rather educate them more. And to be honest I am not sure if educating them in a Christian manner is beneficial or not. But for this case, I would say that Operation Christmas Child is doing far more good and harm. I would prefer a secular approach, but it's better than nothing any day.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by 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.

Sarcasm is lost on a lot of people 'round these parts.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Sarcasm is lost on a lot of people 'round these parts.

[Hack&Lube]

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.

Funny how little people know about the religions or groups they try to discuss/debate.

The issue of contraception is only something conservative Catholics advocate (cue Monty Python: "every sperm is sacred!") One of the goals of the Evangelical (hence not Catholic) groups attached to OCC is to stop the spread of the Aids epidemic in Africa and third world countries via education on abstinence or condom usage. Many protestant Christian families do use contraception...

The stuff Burninator and 4x4 are talking about doesn't exist in any Christian religion and just seems like more myth that people who don't know much about religion make up about it. Then again, the entire issue of abstinence and no sex before marriage...actually isn't even in the Bible! The Catholic fears of contraception are based on interpretations of life being sacred...and I have no idea what this "keep the other person clean" stuff 4x4 is talking about. A lot of religious beliefs, dogma, and rules that people believe exist in that specific religion don't really have any theological basis...and are more a product of culture and interpretation that people need to question and investigate more often.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Sarcasm is lost on a lot of people 'round these parts.

Too bad it isn't a setting you can turn on in your browser.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Funny how little people know about the religions or groups they try to discuss/debate.

Well I didn't claim to be an expert, in fact I said quite the opposite.

[MarchHare]

The issue of contraception is only something conservative Catholics advocate (cue Monty Python: "every sperm is sacred!") One of the goals of the Evangelical (hence not Catholic) groups attached to OCC is to stop the spread of the Aids epidemic in Africa and third world countries via education on abstinence or condom usage. Most protestant Christian families do use contraception...

Factually incorrect. Certainly in parts of Europe and the developing world, Catholics are highly vocal in their opposition to contraception use, but here in North America, it is the protestant evangelical groups who scream the loudest about teaching anything but "abstinence-only" sex education and programs to distribute condoms to students, etc.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by 4X4

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.

Actually it was the part where he stated that nuking Iran and Afghanistan was acceptable that I had a problem with. Funny you overlooked that tidbit.

And of course I'm making an extreme point by suggesting that Skinheads or pedophiles hand out gifts. But with so many apologists saying that the gifts are the important thing, not the agenda of the group giving them out, I thought I would highlight just how ridiculous that argument was.

As you say the important thing is the kids getting gifts, it shouldn't matter the source. What's the difference, right?

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Actually it was the part where he stated that nuking Iran and Afghanistan was acceptable that I had a problem with. Funny you overlooked that tidbit.

And of course I'm making an extreme point by suggesting that Skinheads or pedophiles hand out gifts. But with so many apologists saying that the gifts are the important thing, not the agenda of the group giving them out, I thought I would highlight just how ridiculous that argument was.

As you say the important thing is the kids getting gifts, it shouldn't matter the source. What's the difference, right?

the difference is a partial quote that wasn't even a direct quote taken out of context of ONE person in a very large volunteer organization that is widely seen as doing far FAR more good than harm vs. a group that is hell-bent on exterminating jews and tried to do it (and not that it matters, but was frighteningly close to doing it) among other things.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

wait wait wait, you're comparing telling kids the christmas story while giving them gifts to hitler and pedophilia?

you sir, win the prize.

The problem is that the group is doing FAR more than telling the Christmas story. (Isn't it amazing that after one person uses that expression, subsequent posters state it as a fact?)

If you had clicked the original link provided you'd have read this:

“Shoe box gifts are distributed along with The Greatest Gift of All, an illustrated booklet that gives a clear presentation of the true meaning of Christmas—God’s love and salvation in Jesus Christ. The booklet has been printed in 65 languages. Local churches and ministry groups help us deliver the gifts and Gospel booklets…” - The November, 2002, Samaritan’s Purse Canada Newsletter


“Our outreach to these children and their families may begin with a shoe box gift but our ultimate goal is to open doors to share the Good News of Jesus Christ and to open hearts to receive Him as Lord and Savior." - Franklin Graham


“That’s one of the things about Samaritan's Purse,” Michael, an OCC representative, said. “It’s not just about giving the boxes so the children can receive presents. Giving the boxes actually evangelizes more than people think."


“It’s not just a big gift. It’s not just humanitarian aid. It is a tool for evangelism so thank you for helping us evangelize our people.” - OCC representative, Kosovo



"We are in a Third World War... It's a global fight against Islamic fundamentalism" - Franklin Graham, Oct 17, 2004

It's clearly not as innocent or altruistic as you and others have suggested, is it?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Factually incorrect. Certainly in parts of Europe and the developing world, Catholics are highly vocal in their opposition to contraception use, but here in North America, it is the protestant evangelical groups who scream the loudest about teaching anything but "abstinence-only" sex education and programs to distribute condoms to students, etc.

Technically incorrect. This has nothing to do with actual use of contraception but the idea of having sex at all...which using contraception would entail. That kind of zealous campaign is purely aimed at promoting abstinence with the idea that handing out condems encourages...teens not to abstain.

But the issue isn't with the actual contraceptive tool, which many modern Christian families do use.

Again, I submit that the entire abstinence argument has no actual Biblical basis and is a product of human intepretation, culture, and convention that many religious groups zealously promote...justified by intepretation of some verses that ambiguously tell people not to engage in sexual immorality.

[tkflames]

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...

Originally Posted by longsuffering

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

Shamelessly quoting myself in search of a legitimate counter opinion as it adds to the above argument.

(Thanks for support longsuffering)

[4X4]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Actually it was the part where he stated that nuking Iran and Afghanistan was acceptable that I had a problem with. Funny you overlooked that tidbit.

OK, I don't wanna get caught defending Franklin Graham or his extreme views, but there's no quote in there from him regarding that. There's another guy saying (somewhat ambiguously) that he made comments along those lines. And now you're saying that he "stated that nuking Iran and Afghanistan was acceptable". C'mon now. I don't like the guy any more than you do, but let's refrain from putting words in his mouth. Unless you've got the quote.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

the difference is a partial quote that wasn't even a direct quote taken out of context of ONE person in a very large volunteer organization that is widely seen as doing far FAR more good than harm vs. a group that is hell-bent on exterminating jews and tried to do it (and not that it matters, but was frighteningly close to doing it) among other things.

Even when that one person is the President of the group that sponsors the program??????

It seems to me that your defending the group and excusing their excesses and hidden agenda just because they're associated with Christianity.

So its all right if Christians are doing it, but its dead wrong for another group with an agenda to do it.

And before you accuse me of another heinous crime, let me state that I don't support Skinheads or Pedophiles handing out gift boxes to further their agenda in the same way as I don't think this Christian group should mask their real agenda by wrapping it up in a shoe box for children.

[4X4]

I don't see how it's a hidden agenda when everybody knows about it.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

It seems to me that your defending the group and excusing their excesses and hidden agenda just because they're associated with Christianity.

So its all right if Christians are doing it, but its dead wrong for another group with an agenda to do it.

what?! do you honestly see no difference between trying to enslave a race of people for forced labour and then exterminating them and giving a kid a copy of the bible other than their religious beliefs?

WHAT HIDDEN AGENDA?!? operation CHRISTmas child, put on by a CHRISTian organization during the CHRISTmas holiday that tells the kids they are helping the story of CHRIST who is the main figure in CHRISTianity who's birth is the centerpiece of the CHRISTmas holiday. this agenda isn't very hidden if you ask me.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by tkflames

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)

If you read the article...

Enns said Graham has also made comments "which amount to essentially the use of nuclear weapons on countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, and that's highly incompatible with the Christian gospel."

I take that statement to mean that Graham didn't actually say those things at all and that this is just an allegation from a Muslim group that is against him. And yes, this is not purely altrustic, of course the whole OCC is an evangelical tool. None of us are arguing that it isn't. I think the real debate here is rather...is it really such a a bad thing? Can't people be given gifts yet make up their own minds? These are people volunteering their time and money and effort to make the lives of others better and honestly believing they are doing a good thing. Perhaps people don't realize that a lot of charities and shelters and clothing programs and soup kitchens right here in Calgary are religiously based...and even the large ones historically (Salvation Army, YMCA, many hospitals) were also.

When they were writing the convention on humans rights for the nascent United Nations they had an difficult time trying to find a justification for why human rights were fundamental outside of religious reasons as to that point in Western history, religious motivations were the only enshrined rationale for charity and human rights in the historical western tradition. I'm saying that religion, despite it's shortcomings, is a force for goodwill and can do good that wouldn't be done otherwise...The good far outweighs the bad in situations like charities such as OCC. There's no hidden agenda, their intentions and written and obvious.

BTW, as a sidenote, the one issue of Franklin Graham being "ONE person in a very large organization" or just the "President of the group that sponsors the program" isn't properly acknowleding the real influence of Franklin Graham in the U.S. He is tapped to be the successor to his father, Billy Graham, who is one of the most influential people in the U.S. (and the entire evangelical Christian base in Western countries) as the founder of many of these evangelical groups and close friend and personal advisor to almost every American President since before WWII. He is a very close friend of both Bush and Clinton families...Given that context, it is far worse for the him to be condoning the use of nuclear weapons against Islamic countries...

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by 4X4

OK, I don't wanna get caught defending Franklin Graham or his extreme views, but there's no quote in there from him regarding that. There's another guy saying (somewhat ambiguously) that he made comments along those lines. And now you're saying that he "stated that nuking Iran and Afghanistan was acceptable". C'mon now. I don't like the guy any more than you do, but let's refrain from putting words in his mouth. Unless you've got the quote.

http://bupipedream.com/pipeline_web/...le.php?id=4707
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011029/schell
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1023-35.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...aham.pentagon/


I am still trying to find the correct source for the quote but the actual quote is:

"“I think we're going to have to use every — and I hate to say it, hellish weapon in our inventory, if need be, to defeat these people…. let's use the weapons we have, the weapons of mass destruction if need be and destroy the enemy.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Graham

Edit: here is the reference
http://cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/lt.01.html

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I don't see how it's a hidden agenda when everybody knows about it.

I never said hidden...but its important that people consider the agenda when deciding on where their donations should actually go.