Operation Christmas Child

[AnythingAtAll]

What are your thoughts on Samaritan's Purse's Operation Christmas Child?

If you don't know what Operation Christmas Child is, here's a link from the website that explains it-
http://www.samaritanspurse.org/operatio ... act-sheet/

It's a REALLY big thing where I live. Everyone makes a shoebox. Back when I attended youth group at my church, we would "mass-produce" these shoeboxes in a factory line style. My school is collecting boxes, like they do every year, and everyone is encouraged to make one.

I have made and sent a shoebox every year since I can remember, but this year I don't want to (for what I think are obvious reasons).

What are your thoughts on this? Is it harmless or harmful?

[Cirion Spellbinder]

It's a REALLY big thing where I live. Everyone makes a shoebox. Back when I attended youth group at my church, we would "mass-produce" these shoeboxes in a factory line style. My school is collecting boxes, like they do every year, and everyone is encouraged to make one.

I think I also did something like this when I used to go to Catholic School.

I have made and sent a shoebox every year since I can remember, but this year I don't want to (for what I think are obvious reasons).

I presume it is because you don't want to support religious indoctrination?

What are your thoughts on this? Is it harmless or harmful?

I'd say it's an overall harmless program. I think it would be fair to say the joy that children in need receive from getting neat presents and possibly converting to Christianity to gain a sense of security greatly outweighs any intellectual damage that it may do.

I usually feel uncomfortable participating in Christian charity events until I realize that I need to get over my ego and realize that what is being done will leave an overall good mark.

[brimstoneSalad]

I think pseudocharities are harmful, since they give people a sense of having done something good without really having done much or anything at all.

There was a thread about ways to do good a while back, and it included "adopt a pet from a shelter"; I argued extensively on how this should not be considered a charity (if you like dogs or cats as pets, that's fine, but it's not a charity). The same is the case here. It's a feel good activity that pretty much just wastes time and money, when we could be doing much more good by devoting that time and money to more worthy causes.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

I think pseudocharities are harmful, since they give people a sense of having done something good without really having done much or anything at all.

Define pseudocharity.

There was a thread about ways to do good a while back, and it included "adopt a pet from a shelter"; I argued extensively on how this should not be considered a charity (if you like dogs or cats as pets, that's fine, but it's not a charity).

What was the problem with adopting those animals?

It's a feel good activity that pretty much just wastes time and money, when we could be doing much more good by devoting that time and money to more worthy causes.

The money would probably be better allocated to food, water, and industrial supplies for those in need, but are toys not important for kids? They serve no practical purpose, but I imagine children get relief from these toys in their otherwise destitute and bleak lives. Maybe it should not be emphasized, but it seems reasonable to provide these types of things on a smaller scale.

[brimstoneSalad]

Define pseudocharity.

It's like junk food; something that fills people up with calories but doesn't provide good nutrition.

For "charity", it's something that makes people feel good about themselves, but doesn't do any meaningful good; either it's directly counterproductive, or it is so ineffective based on cost that it is virtually useless and is counterproductive to doing good because it competes with actual effective charities.

There was a thread about ways to do good a while back, and it included "adopt a pet from a shelter"; I argued extensively on how this should not be considered a charity (if you like dogs or cats as pets, that's fine, but it's not a charity).

What was the problem with adopting those animals?

I'm hoping somebody remembers the thread.

There's nothing wrong with it as long as it's not considered charity. Spend over $10,000 to save one animal's life, vs. a few dollars in vegetarian outreach to save hundreds (like by giving to mercy for animals).

A less effective "charitable" option that competes with actually effective charities is not charity anymore, it becomes counterproductive.

The money would probably be better allocated to food, water, and industrial supplies for those in need, but are toys not important for kids? They serve no practical purpose, but I imagine children get relief from these toys in their otherwise destitute and bleak lives. Maybe it should not be emphasized, but it seems reasonable to provide these types of things on a smaller scale.

Yes they are, and not just marginally so, and no, 'toys' aren't important.

Toys are free for kids. Buy kids an expensive fancy castle fort, and they'll play with the box instead.
Educational toys have value, but that's not what's being stuffed into these shoe boxes. Also, the retail markup people are paying, and the system of distribution, makes the whole process absurd.

Even if it were meaningful as a charity, you should give money, not things; the money you give can be used to buy much more at lower cost than the stuff you were able to buy with it at retail markup.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

I agree with you now brimstoneSalad. Thank you for clarifying. As a kid, I remember avoiding my toys to play with rocks, sticks, boxes, and scrap metal. So toys are basically free and this charity is basically useless.

[brimstoneSalad]

I agree with you now brimstoneSalad. Thank you for clarifying. As a kid, I remember avoiding my toys to play with rocks, sticks, boxes, and scrap metal. So toys are basically free and this charity is basically useless.

Not just useless, since it competes with other charities. It's like homeopathy -- in theory it could just be harmless and a waste of money, but since people do it instead of using actual medicine, its harmful.

Many people have a certain "charity quota" they try to fill (even if not, we're all limited in funds), and by making them feel good in doing something useless, you have an opportunity cost of them not contributing to more useful things that save lives or actually make the world a better place.

If you wanted to do the most harm possible to the world while being congratulated for your efforts and supported in it, starting a "charity" like this is pretty much how you'd do it. Distract people from the real, meaningful, issues with superficial time and money sinks that do nothing good but make them feel better about themselves and become complacent.

"My dog has cancer, help me raise $20,000 for the surgery to save one very old dog's life who will die soon either way instead of hundreds of humans or thousands of other animals through more effective charity."

"Let's buy overpriced retail toys to put in shoe boxes and send to first world kids who will play with them for a few minutes and don't need them so they can learn about the generosity of Jesus instead of saving legitimately needy children from deadly diseases or providing life changing vocational education."

Etc.

Ineffective "charity" isn't just useless, it's malignant.