Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JumpinJesus
Nope, "little poor kids."
Remember, intent matters. My wording implies a certain amount of cynicism directed at those who think that these kids are in such dire straits that they just beam when us upper middle class philanthropists give to them so altruistically. Hell, I'll bet they're just happy knowing we acknowledge them. We don't need to give them toys. But this is far off topic, and a lot of people at TFP hate semantic debates, sooo....
To answer this, I defer to Charlatan's post since this is pretty much what I would say but I would like to add:
Would it be okay if I donated thousands of Anton LaVey talking dolls that spouted things like, "There is no heaven; there is no hell, except here on earth"? I'm sure there would be no uproar at all over that. Would I be allowed to act surprised and disappointed when they were returned to me?
|
Ok JJ, that's a fair counter-point (in terms of 'shoe on the other foot' perspective). My disagreement with your post (previous) stems from the point that I don't believe there's any ill-intent here (at least not just yet). If and when it is ever exposed as a publicity stunt then I shall certainly concede. But so far, I agree with the "mountain-out-of-a-molehill" view here. It's a charitable donation. Nothing more. I also agree with gilda and other's contention that it's no big deal. Much ado about nothing...
Roach, why would a Muslim child be receiving a Christmas gift? I think that is a very relevant point. If it's just random gifts for the needy then sure, religious sensitivity would make some sense, just like they should refuse Barbie dolls and Star wars figures (sexist, violent, racist). But if it's a charitable donation for a religious holiday such as Christmas, then a Jesus doll would be highly appropriate. For example, if there was a similar drive for Halloween, should all the costumes that reflect the religion behind Halloween be refused/returned (witch costumes etc)?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JumpinJesus
I think you misunderstood my "intent matters" comment. I was referring to the order of my words, not the intent of Mr. LaRoe. I was going down a semantic road and had to stop myself.
I grew up in a secular household. Neither of my parents were religious (well, that is until they divorced and my mother became a crazy Seventh Day Adventist - but that's a different topic). I grew up knowing Christmas as the holiday where I got lots of presents and ate a lot of chocolate. I can say this, if I got a doll that told me the only way to get to heaven was to be born again, I'd never play with it unless it was to put a firecracker in its ass. I know I know, I'm going to Hell for that, but back to the topic.
If that is what Mr. LaRoe thinks is a neato toy for kids, then he's an idiot and has no concept of what kids want on Christmas. How many letters do you think Santa is getting this year that read:
Dear Santa,
I've been really good this year. Please bring me a PSP, a bunch of Yugi-oh cards, a Dragon Ball-Z Destroyer set, and a talking Jesus doll.
|
Well now, if you're gonna call out Mr. LaRoe for being stupid for not knowing what kids like these days then a whole bunch of people are gonna fall into that category: grandmas for giving socks and underwear, relatives for giving fruitcake, significant others for giving the wrong size/color sweater etc.etc.
Likewise, if you gave me a Barney doll or Tickle-me Elmo doll, I would also be pissed at it for telling me all the time to love everyone etc, or to tickle it. I happen to like the Cartman Talking doll but I bet that some parents would take exception to the things he says. But hey, as long it doesn't speak any religion that's a-ok.
This is like people who get mad at In-N-Out for putting religious quotes on their soft drink cups and food wrappers.
At the end of the day, if it was truly that big of a deal, then take it back.
Whatever happend to beggars can't be choosers.....