Operation Christmas Child - Make An Informed Decision

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

If you read the article...


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.

see above...

[4X4]

Originally Posted by tkflames

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

that was aimed at longsuffering, who did say it.


As for this guy talking junk about the enemy, we know full well that there are extremists in every religion. And typically, the most extreme tend to be leaders and those with loud voices. I'm still not worried that Joe Missionary is teaching children in Africa that we need to nuke Iran.

I don't know for sure whether Joe Missionary is telling them that or not, but I'd wager that if Samaritans Purse's army of missionaries held the same extreme views as Graham, they'd be in NA trying to recruit people to support Bush. Not poisoning the minds of children in Africa with toys and bibles.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by tkflames

see above...

I'm not going to defend Franklin Graham and I don't agree with most of the Southern Baptist Evangelical views of the U.S. that are so prominent in their politics...but this was made 3 days after 9/11 when interviewed and nobody really knew who had attacked the U.S. and many people were making comments of this nature.

Don't let the American monopolization and politicization of 9/11 fears turn a charity (which predates it) into fearmongering about a shoebox in which you aren't donating anything to anybody except $5 for shipping and the kid who gets it in the end.

In the big picture of the world, perspective trumps principle.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

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?

Well apparently he DID say something similar, at least twice. From Google:

When referring to Islam which he characterized as "evil and very wicked he is quoted as saying: "Let’s use the weapons we have, the weapons of mass destruction if need be, and destroy the enemy."

A slightly different version of the quote has him saying “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.”

And although maybe you don't dispute that OCC is an evangelical tool, others have.

Finally, and for the last time, I can't accept that excuse of "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?"

If that was the case, and sorry to trot out the same extreme example, it would acceptable for White Supremists and pedophiles to had out Christmas boxes to the little kiddies then to let people make up their own minds.

Surely principle matters doesn't it? A group with an agenda is using Christmas and children to promote its own agenda. Either that is right, for any group, or wrong, for any group.

[4X4]

"Using Christmas".

You just don't know what you're talking about.

edit** This just in: Jews around the world are "using" hannukah to teach youngsters about Yahweh.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I'm not going to defend Franklin Graham and I don't agree with most of the Southern Baptist Evangelical views of the U.S. that are so prominent in their politics...but this was made 3 days after 9/11 when interviewed and nobody really knew who had attacked the U.S. and many people were making comments of this nature.

Don't let the American monopolization and politicization of 9/11 fears turn a charity (which predates it) into fearmongering about a shoebox in which you aren't donating anything to anybody except $5 for shipping and the kid who gets it in the end.

In the big picture of the world, perspective trumps principle.

That's totally fair (although when looking at their financial report "shipping money" as everything else is part of ministry). I am not saying send a shoebox, or don't send a shoebox. The original point of this thread was to consider if money could be better spent in other ways. Again, I am not telling anyone how to donate their money, rather just to be aware of where that money is going.

Cheers.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Surely principle matters doesn't it? A group with an agenda is using Christmas and children to promote its own agenda. Either that is right, for any group, or wrong, for any group.

No, I'm sorry but in the real world, principle doesn't matter...even though we'd like them to to make things neat and tidy. The world is not black and white. It's all grey and messy.

The world is full of billions of people all with their own ideas and motivations but there is no such thing as equal opportunity or equal voice for everyone. Given a political climate or the legitimacy of history, or a legacy of acceptance...it is simply more acceptable for certain groups to promote their agendas and conduct their operations than other groups.

I do agree that it would be nice for some people to set up an alternative if they so desired...as the typical donations to the Red Cross, Unicef, etc. simply do not have the hands on connection that people feel (and their recipients feel) with the shoeboxes. Even as the grumpy cynic I am about life and religion, I prefer sending somebody something to make them smile rather than a cheque which has no guarantee of doing anything positive for them...either to be gobbled into paying for bureaucracy or being wasted as a large proportion of global development funds are. Think about all the development money that has poured into African countries since the waves of independance in the 60s and try to see what good it's done? For many people...not very much if anything at all.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Surely principle matters doesn't it? A group with an agenda is using Christmas and children to promote its own agenda. Either that is right, for any group, or wrong, for any group.

every group has an agenda. if the group doesn't have an agenda, they wouldn't be doing anything. this agenda could be promoting caring and humanitarianism but this still is an agenda.

since all agendas are bad in your books and you have to have an agenda or motivation to do something other wise you wouldn't do it - anyone who does anything is the equivalent of the nazis or pedophiles, right?
or - how do you decide between 'good' agendas and 'bad' agendas?

[MoneyGuy]

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.

Christianity doesn't preach that condom use is a sin.

[Azure]

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".

Wow.

Hezbollah is a 'terrorist' organization. OCC is a 'charity' group.

And you're an ignorant fool if you want to compare the two.

[Azure]

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.

That certainly can be seen as a problem.

But like you said...it is not a perfect charity organization.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Azure

Wow.

Hezbollah is a 'terrorist' organization. OCC is a 'charity' group.

And you're an ignorant fool if you want to compare the two.

Since the moderators don't seem to take issue with you referring to me as an arrogant fool, I'll throw that term right back at you since you are apparently too dense to understand that I wasn't comparing the two groups but simply used Hezbollah's social efforts as an example why other posters shouldn't state that the ends (doing good deeds) justifies other activities a group may do (in Hezbollah's case attacking Israel, in OCC's case actively and openly trying to convert children to their brand of evangelical Christianity and the message of intolerance that it's President preaches).

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised seeing that you so totally missed the point and made an ass of yourself when the term 'savages' was used earlier in the thread.

Why don't you let the grown ups talk while you go play with your GI Joe's?

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

every group has an agenda. if the group doesn't have an agenda, they wouldn't be doing anything. this agenda could be promoting caring and humanitarianism but this still is an agenda.

since all agendas are bad in your books and you have to have an agenda or motivation to do something other wise you wouldn't do it - anyone who does anything is the equivalent of the nazis or pedophiles, right?
or - how do you decide between 'good' agendas and 'bad' agendas?

Thanks for putting words in mouth, while ignoring the gist of what I wrote.

Never did I compare OCC to nazi's or pedophiles, I commented on the tactic of driving an agenda (conversion to evangelical christianity, which is their agenda NOT promoting caring and humanitarianism) by the use of gifts for children by suggesting that if the gift was all that mattered, as you suggest, it shouldn't matter whether the gift came from OCC, the Aryan Nation or from that group that condones sex with children.

As long as the children are happy, right?

Never did I say that "all agendas are bad". I said lets recognize that OCC isn't doing what they do simply to make kids feel good about Christmas. They openly state that their desire is to convert children to their brand of evangelical Christianity and the message of intolerance that it's President preaches.

YOU are the person who ignores or excuses OCC's agenda because it tugs at your heartstrings.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by 4X4

"Using Christmas".

You just don't know what you're talking about.

edit** This just in: Jews around the world are "using" hannukah to teach youngsters about Yahweh.

My friend it is you who doesn't know what they are talking about. OCC openly admits that it USES the shoebox program with the hope of converting children and their families to their brand of Christianity, not Christianity in general.

“I believe God has blessed this program because it is about more than Christmas presents... As long as evangelism is the focus, God will continue to bless it.” - Franklin Graham

I wonder what your reaction would be to your child coming home with a shoebox provided by the local Mosque, complete with the Koran and a list of reasons why he should convert to Islam. I doubt you'd be so open minded.

And before you toss another flippant remark about Jews using hannukah, please tell me where they are actively trying to convert children in Africa and other troubled parts of the world.

[transplant99]

So if I understand the anti-religious slant in this thread...

I should not send a box of goodies and necessities to an impoverished child in Africa because Franklin Graham is advancing his "agenda" of spreading Gods love to those same children who are looking for the very help offered because he has a problem with fundamental Islamists?

I think I will load up and send 10 this year and I am not a Christian.

[bigtmac19]

Wow, a lot of venom in this thread, as is usually the case when discussions arise over Religious/Political issues. Pretty sad commentary.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Thanks for putting words in mouth, while ignoring the gist of what I wrote.

Never did I compare OCC to nazi's or pedophiles, I commented on the tactic of driving an agenda (conversion to evangelical christianity, which is their agenda NOT promoting caring and humanitarianism) by the use of gifts for children by suggesting that if the gift was all that mattered, as you suggest, it shouldn't matter whether the gift came from OCC, the Aryan Nation or from that group that condones sex with children.

As long as the children are happy, right?

Never did I say that "all agendas are bad". I said lets recognize that OCC isn't doing what they do simply to make kids feel good about Christmas. They openly state that their desire is to convert children to their brand of evangelical Christianity and the message of intolerance that it's President preaches.

YOU are the person who ignores or excuses OCC's agenda because it tugs at your heartstrings.

haha oh boy...
since you seem like such a fan of hypothetical questions and not much else, lets give it a go.... so lets say a charity group has NO religious affiliation whatsoever. it goes out to give gifts trying to do some good. little do you know, this group's long term agenda is to get the people on their feet, strengthen their economy and have them become self sufficient.

NOW - this group simply isn't giving out presents to kids.... oh no, this group clearly has an agenda that you were not aware of (well, maybe you should have been aware of but some people don't seem to be very quick on picking up on this kinda stuff, evidently). is this group as 'evil' as these christians from OCC letting the kids know more about the culture they come from? would you compare them to the aryan nation or child molesters?

if think that a charity like the one i described is wrong or you can't see the hypocrisy of your own statements and can't admit that your objection is based solely on religion, i feel bad for you.


edit: and yes, i am excusing OCC's agenda because i'm not blindly hating every agenda as you apparently claim to. i'm simply weighing the pros and cons and asking myself: 'is this organization doing significantly more good than harm?'.
would i prefer it to be non-religious? yea, sure. find me a secular alternative that is following the same concept.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So if I understand the anti-religious slant in this thread...

I should not send a box of goodies and necessities to an impoverished child in Africa because Franklin Graham is advancing his "agenda" of spreading Gods love to those same children who are looking for the very help offered because he has a problem with fundamental Islamists?

I think I will load up and send 10 this year and I am not a Christian.

Nice drive by Tranny. If only FG's agenda was to spread gods love. Their own literature states it is much more than that.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

haha oh boy...
since you seem like such a fan of hypothetical questions and not much else, lets give it a go.... so lets say a charity group has NO religious affiliation whatsoever. it goes out to give gifts trying to do some good. little do you know, this group's long term agenda is to get the people on their feet, strengthen their economy and have them become self sufficient.

NOW - this group simply isn't giving out presents to kids.... oh no, this group clearly has an agenda that you were not aware of (well, maybe you should have been aware of but some people don't seem to be very quick on picking up on this kinda stuff, evidently). is this group as 'evil' as these christians from OCC letting the kids know more about the culture they come from? would you compare them to the aryan nation or child molesters?

if think that a charity like the one i described is wrong or you can't see the hypocrisy of your own statements and can't admit that your objection is based solely on religion, i feel bad for you.


edit: and yes, i am excusing OCC's agenda because i'm not blindly hating every agenda as you apparently claim to. i'm simply weighing the pros and cons and asking myself: 'is this organization doing significantly more good than harm?'.
would i prefer it to be non-religious? yea, sure. find me a secular alternative that is following the same concept.

Wow, you've got it all wrong if you think my objections are because I'm anti-religious. Although I'm not devote by any definition, I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Heck, I even contribute to the Mustard Seed because I know what their program is about. They don't try to hide it.

But call me names if that makes you feel smarter. I'm a grown man, I can take it.

Just don't strain yourself by taking time to really consider the points I've tried and failed (with you) to make.

My distaste for this program is that it smacks of being a wolf in sheep's clothing. Everyone would want to get on board with bringing sunshine into a child's life. Even a monster like me. But sue me if I object to the fact that in the founder's mind, helping kids is secondary to conversion to evangelical Christianity of a brand that promotes religious intolerance (Islam is evil) and advocates nuking countries that are of a different faith.

I wonder why they don't put that on the Samaritans Purse website or in Franklin Grahams bio?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You figure the founders beliefs are immaterial, while I choose to direct my donations to groups that I share a value system with.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Wow, you've got it all wrong if you think my objections are because I'm anti-religious. Although I'm not devote by any definition, I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Heck, I even contribute to the Mustard Seed because I know what their program is about. They don't try to hide it.

But call me names if that makes you feel smarter. I'm a grown man, I can take it.

Just don't strain yourself by taking time to really consider the points I've tried and failed (with you) to make.

My distaste for this program is that it smacks of being a wolf in sheep's clothing. Everyone would want to get on board with bringing sunshine into a child's life. Even a monster like me. But sue me if I object to the fact that in the founder's mind, helping kids is secondary to conversion to evangelical Christianity of a brand that promotes religious intolerance (Islam is evil) and advocates nuking countries that are of a different faith.

I wonder why they don't put that on the Samaritans Purse website or in Franklin Grahams bio?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You figure the founders beliefs are immaterial, while I choose to direct my donations to groups that I share a value system with.

i don't believe the founders' beliefs are immaterial, but i weigh what they do a lot more heavily than what one person in the organization says.

further, the quote which you seem to object to the most (nuking and such) has been taken out of context (not saying its been interpreted wrong, but i would like to know the entire context) and wasn't it said relatively closely following the 9/11 attacks? i'm sure this fellow wasn't the only one who made comments that force would be used to defend their country - up to and including nuclear weapons if necessary.



again, i believe this concept is far too good of an idea - for the kids receiving the packages as well as for the kids and adults sending them - to simply abandon it or try to convince others to abandon it based on a handful of out of context quotes from one or two people. and once again, find me an organization utilizing the same concepts without the few distasteful bits about it and i'd gladly support them as an alternative.