Toys for Tots says No to Jesus!
 

So yeah... I agree with this stance. I'm a bit sickened by the fact that someone is actually SUPRISED by the fact they turned down the offer. Also, "Michael La Roe, director of business development for both companies"... does that mean the jesus doll manufacturer AND the Toys for Tots Charity? I was a touch confused on this part.

At any rate, good for them turning it down!

I think it means that he's the director for both of those companies.

And I agree with you, I'm surprised that he's surprised they turned down his offer. It's not a Christian group he was offering toys too, so he shouldn't be surprised at all.

-Tamerlain

This seems like a no-brainer to me. The Toys For Tots program clearly made the right decision here.

So if they didn't recite Bible verses, then they'd be ok? Or is it the fact that they resembled a religious figure?

I'd imagine it's both. It's religious in nature, for both reasons, and that's where the problem lies. It's not even really anti-religious, as far as the decision goes, but I think it's in good taste.

I don't know man, I mean, the gifts are a nice gesture. It should be up to the parent to decide if they want it or not.

It seems about as smart a decision as the muslims turning down Jewish doctors during the tsunami.

I'd say it's about as smart as (insert interest group) turning down medical help from a whale biologist.

What is so difficult to understand about people not wanting to be preached at by religion? For whatever odd reason, people are naturally resistant to being told their path in life is doomed or a waste. If anyone has "bonus" sensitivity to this I'd think it would be Christians.

Well, but think about the logistical challenge of that.

Suddenly you don't just have big boxes of pre-wrapped, generic gifts that any child can get and appreciate. Suddenly you have to have some set aside for special looking at and questions. You've got to manage a quick little interview with each parent before giving the gift to the child, make sure none of them accidentally get the wrong thing. Your staff requirements just went way up, as well as your PR liability. It's a whole big hassle that only distracts from the stated mission of TfT.

I don't agree with you there. Also your analogy doesn't fit at all (at least I don't see it).

First of all, the doll doesn't tell anyone their path in life is doomed or a waste (it's possible but we don't have the facts). I can understand if someone doesn't want to have a Jesus doll but it's a matter of choice. If you read my post, you will see that I believe it should be up to the parent to decide if they want it or not.

As for preaching, one could argue that a Barney doll or Sesame Street preaches also. All that love and what-not.

If they don't like a "gift", then they can either turn it down or not accept it whatever. Did anyone consider that some of the kids might want that doll? If people are going to be overly sensitive about these things, then they should also turn down Barbie dolls as being sexually offensive and racist.

Hmmm...you have a point there. I really have no idea how these things work. I saw a toy drive once where they just had people come up to a truck and pick out toys so I assumed that's how they work. Also, every year when they have toy drives, they always want it to be unwrapped. I mean think about it, how do you separate boy toys from girl toys then right?

At the end of the day, it just seems silly to turn down someone's goodwill and charity.

Think cymel pretty much said it all.

jorgelito,

You don't get to choose what you get... it's not Toys R Us. The charity gives x gifts per child per family and that's that. Neither the parents nor the children get to choose a Tonka Truck or a Barbie (or a talking Jesus). The possibility to offend with a Furby is far smaller than with a talking Jesus doll.

Ah, I see, I see. I guess each charity is different then. Then poor little boy who gets the Barbie then LOL!

Is Toys for Tots a Christmas thing? It just occurred to me if it's a Christmas thing, then there should be zero chance of offending Jewish and Muslim kids. All my previous examples and experiences are based on a Christmas toy drive thingy.

"The idea was for them to be three-dimensional teaching tools for kids," La Roe said. "I believe as a churchgoing person, anyone can benefit from hearing the words of the Bible."

Teaching tool? Tell that to the atheist, Jewish, Muslim, or any non-Christian household that receives the doll. The specifics of Toys for Tots is a toy that a boy OR girl could play with, because they don't have the resources to be separating the gifts for any reason. I agree, Toys did the right thing.

Hmm, that's a really good point... Christmas gifts shouldn't offend non-Christians since they wouldn't likely participate in Christmas. However, I think Toys for Tots may also encompass other "holiday season" holiday's as well. Also, many atheists and agnostics celebrate Christmas as a non-religious, tradition-based holiday. *shrug* It's a thought though...

I bet the Jesus doll is white too...

YAHOOOOO!!! Another thread where I actually have experience in the area! I was in the Marine Corps for 8 years, and helped out on the drive, and the distribution. The process is simplified where you bring an UNWRAPED toy, it can be gender specific, or not, doesn't matter. Next step, we go thru the toys to make sure there is no religious content...this includes Bibles of any religion, or toys oriented towards religion. Next they are sorted by gender, or non-gender, and by age groups(we bring toys to any age child) After this is done, they are then wrapped by one of the local charities, with a tag stating gender and age group. The distribution centers are either ran by the Marines, or a local charity group, who then distributes anywhere from 3 to 5 toys per child in some cases, depending on apparent demand, and how well the drive did. So the parents have no idea what the gifts are either, since they are already wrapped.

Awesome, thanks for the insight Deltona. Good to hear from a first-hand experience. That makes more sense now.

One question, are these drives just for Christmas or is it ongoing? If so, do they remove any reference to Christmas, or Santa so as not to offend anyone? I think they started doing this at schools too (EX: Holiday Drive instead of Christmas).

In my experience, the staffers always wore Santa hats (for a Christmas toy drive that is).

In the end though, I think it's the spirit of giving that's important here instead of the silly PCness.

I can't really see why not distributing the Jesus dolls would be a problem. Imagine that it was a Buddha reciting Buddhist teachings or a Wiccan pentacle that played neo-Pagan recordings. It would hardly be a blip, except for the condemnation of the group attempting to force their belief system on others.

I want to address the "surprise and disappoint[ment]" faced by Michael La Roe.

They knew exactly what they were doing when they offered to donate the buddy christs to Toys for Tots. Feigning surprise is tacky on his part. Common sense would tell us that one2believe decided it would be wonderful to spread the word of Jesus by donating all these wonderful teaching tools to poor kids around the country. They knew they would be turned down and knew they would use this to again say something like, "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!"

Also, why do they work on batteries? Why can't they work on faith? That way the little poor kids can be told, "If it doesn't work, it's because you're a heathen. You don't believe in Baby Jesus enough."

Interesting theory, do you have any evidence to back this assertion up?

Interesting theory, do you have any evidence to back this assertion up?

Or it could be just one organization donating an item for a charity.

They got turned down, that's it.

End of story.

It smells like a publicity stunt to me. Maybe I'm just a cynic but think it's quite probable that the guy knew that T4T would reject the toys because of their religious content. Now they are able to:

1) Cry foul on T4T because they are trying to take Christ out of Christmas
2) Let the public know about their product in hopes that parents will buy this for their kids, and finally,
3) Hope that Christian charity groups and people that buy toys for those groups will buy the toys and donate them.

Brilliant.

I agree.

This a win win for donating company. If the toys were accepted they get to prosthletyze if they are not, they get to open another front in the war on Christmas.

By it's very definition, an opinion is unprovable. But I'll say it again, just because I enjoy saying it so much. They knew exactly what they were doing. Their feigned surprise and disappointment is a ruse.

And I still say it should run on faith, not batteries.

Religious people always have an agenda. They didn't want to donate those toys so that kids could have fun with them, they wanted to donate those toys so they could spread their disease and/or have a publicity stunt.

Now the religious nutjobs can call for a boycott on Toys for Tots :rolleyes:

"Poor little kids", huh?

I'd be willing to bet that the children receiving these toys wouldn't be the least bit offended by their religious context, primarily because they'd be too young to understand them. They'd simply be happy to receive a free toy.

People are always making mountains out of molehills.

As a parent, I would be deeply offended if someone started trying to convert my child to any religion.

There is no molehill here.

It is just being polite.

Would it have been better if it had have been any one of the following toys:

A talking George W. Bush: "Stay the Course!" "Mission Accomplished"
A talking Buddha: "Peace" "Your possessions chain you to the material world"
A talking Terrorist: "I'm getting some virgin tail! Allah Ahkbar!"

The answer is you don't give political/religious toys to a charity.

I can't believe I missed this earlier. Of course as a "churchgoing person" he's going to believe that! If I'm a Muslim then of course I'm going to believe anyone can benefit from the words of the Koran - and we could go on like this with every religion and their teachings.

-Tamerlain

Is it just me, or is this thread split down partisan lines?

I would very much like to know if Carno were being sarcastic. I don't know enough about any of the people here yet to be able to tell for sure. If not your post was very offensive. Many religious people are not only not nut jobs, but quite sane and some are even well educated. In fact there are even some scientists that profess a faith in religion. I think all people that lump members of any large grouping (such as religion and gender) and make stereotypical offensive statements based on that grouping are nut jobs, though I do admit it would be considered offensive to state that.

Christmas is a religious holiday. I can't imagine anyone getting upset about receiving Jewish religious toys for Chanukah. This is like getting mad at people for giving away free costumes at Halloween- it's an expected part of the holiday, because it is where the holiday stems from.

Now if you want to argue that Christmas and Easter should not be supported in any way by the government, this includes closing of government agencies and schools, I might be able to agree with the arguments. But the Marines, as a whole organization, by giving gifts for ANY religious holiday, are already involved in promoting the religion that the holiday celebrates.

As for whether this was a publicity stunt or not, I dunno. It would certainly not be the first time that a company, regardless of whether it is religious in nature or not, had pulled something of the sort. It’s the American Way.

Everything is split down partisan lines these days.

If you're so concerned then take the toy away from your child.

I still think it's a case of people making a mountain out of a molehill.

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?

I agree there. If the Marines didn't want to take their donation, they shouldn't have raised such a fuss over it.

Intent matters, you say? Fine then. Prove that they had some alterior motive for distributing the toys. The bottom line is that you can't, as intent is nearly impossible to prove. What we do know is that they toys were donated to TFT for distribution on/around Christmas. Anything else you want to add beyond that is pure speculation and holds about as much water as a cup with no bottom.

Oh. And I also hate semantics.

They're sure to be some people offended by the doll while others aren't. Of course, if you're offended by the doll and don't want your child to have it, then take it away from them.

Simple, eh?

I would also like to reiterate a point which has been brought up a few times. What's wrong in receiving a doll of Jesus on a holiday with explicit ties to Christianity? Jesus is one of the staples of Christmas, the other being Santa Clause.

jj:

please please please can i have an anton lavey doll?

addendum:

in a case like giving a jesus doll to a muslim family, say, intent is irrelevant.
the inability to acknowledge the simple fact of the family's being muslim points to an obliviousness that no amount of vacant "well i meant well" is going to erase.
it's just stupid.

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.

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)?

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.....

I wonder if Jesus would approve of a talking Jesus doll.

Methinks, not ...

As Deltona pointed out, there are protocols and procedures they follow and anyone donating could easily have found that out. It wasn't the Marines making a fuss, it's the guy trying to ram the dolls down their throats doing such. The TfT's has been a great cause for years and they strive to make it as unoffensive and fair as can be.

Like Charlatan, I'd be offended. We're not talking street urchins with no adults around; yes, the kids might not care or just want to stick a firecracker up the doll's ass, but ultimately it's the parents/guardians choice how to raise those kids, not some Fundy's. And as someone who has donated a great deal of toys both to T4T and the local hospital, I know enough to make the donations as neutral all around as possible.

Actually, I would think Christians would be offended as well, making their supreme icon nothing more than a toy with batteries?
jesus doll I should buy a few, switch the robes to black leather and sell them as Bikers for Christ dolls.....

That is a very good question. IMO most people that make money on religion have a far greater chance of going to hell than those that simply don't believe. Kind of the money changers at the temple sort of thing. But like I said before, God hasn't ever seen fit to come knocking on my door to hand me the trophy of understanding, so it's still possible I'm wrong, don't tell my husband I said that though ok? Might make him think I can be wrong other times, and we can't be having that.