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.

No one can prove this was a publicity stunt, and there's no way they'd admit it, but c'mon. Sometimes things are just obvious.

If you want to proseletyze, get your own distribution channel, don't try to use an organization that's actually trying to do some good.

These guys need to go back and re-read Matthew 25.

Even though I have some doubts about divinity itself, I've been very much enjoying the dashboard Jesus my older son gave me a year ago last father's day. Sometimes he dances to the motion of the car and sometimes to the music if it's loud enough! And I don't think Jesus minds that we enjoy it. Be good and do well and go like a god and the world will be a better place! XX

Perhaps they could donate the mounds of talking prophets to churches to pass out with the christmas baskets of needy families?

That is awesome NG!! I would totally buy one from you if you could make one. Actually, I think it would be totally cool to have a whole series of Jesus:

corporate Jesus - Jesus wearing a business suit with a cell pone and briefcase
hippy Jesus - tie dye and Birkenstocks, maybe carrying a pint of Ben & Jerry's
sports Jesus - sports uniform and sneakers
hip-hop Jesus - self explanatory
Chinese Jesus
Barista Jesus - you know, wearing the Starbucks garb, dispensing verses with lattes

etc. etc.

NG, you could also alter the stuff he says to more universal and neutral lines.
Like "Be nice to others" or the hippy Jesus could say "Peace brother" - I don't think any of those type of quotes would be offensive.

You know, come to think of it, I remember a few years back I bought one of those Mcfarlane figurines, the Jesus one for my friend for secret Santa. They also make a Noah and Moses too.

That's a good idea too. It seems to make the most sense.

Ahhh... Ok.

We're not talking about children who constantly have their choice of presents for Christmas, but those who usually go without Christmas gifts year in and year out. These children are happy to receive ANY toy that they are given. As I stated prior, I'd be willing to bet every penny that I own that any child who received one of the dolls wouldn't have complained about it's religious context.

If you're a parent and you don't want your child to have the toy, then take it from them. It's a hard concept to grasp, I know, but it works. You're still making a big deal out of nothing.

In fairness, that last remark of mine about Mr. LaRoe being an idiot was a flippant comment, even though it is based on my assumption that this was a calculated move on his part. However, I refuse to defend the intelligence of anyone giving fruitcake as a gift, even if it's me.

And I have to back off my diatribe a bit. I visited Toys for Tots website and learned that it is a Christmas-specific charity. I had operated under the mistaken assumption that it was all-inclusive of the winter holidays. I can concede the point that there's nothing wrong with giving a Christian gift on a Christian holiday. I still hold, however, that not everyone who celebrates Christmas does so for Christian reasons and this needs to be a consideration when gift-giving.

I know this woman who makes some kick-ass dolls. I'll see what I can do. :thumbsup:

Personally, I could care less if my kid got a talking Jesus doll. I'm not a Christian, but I'm also not going to deny it to my child if she chooses to be a Christian. I actually have a little toy Jesus sitting atop one of my bookshelves, courtesy of another TFPer. And believe it or not. I'm not as bent out of shape over this as it may appear. It just seemed like a decent discussion to get into, and I've actually enjoyed it so far.

However, I still still still think it was a calculated move. I'll readily admit that I could be wrong about this whole episode, but admitting one is wrong is never any fun so I tend to avoid it as much as possible.

JJ, your point is very well taken and I agree with you that the difference between Christian and secular holidays needs to be considered (in gift-giving).

I too have enjoyed this discussion, flippant remarks and all. Give me your address and I will send you a Jesus fruitcake for the Holidays! :lol: (Everyone loves fruitcake!!)

We'll just have to wait and see if this story develops any further to determine if it's a publicity stunt or not.

I love a good fruit cake... how dare you take my fruit cake in vain!

That may be the best comment yet in this thread.

So apparently they're gonna accept the toys after all:

http://cbs4boston.com/topstories/loc...319145558.html

That company got some pretty good visibility over this issue..

I wish T4T had said why they changed their minds.

Jewish tots wouldn't know what to make of Christmas gifts anyways but it's sure to offend anybody other than the real bible-thumpers.

Any gift for the general public should be non-commercial/political/religious if it's to seem sincere. Giving "$50 off" coupons for a new Mercedes probably wouldn't be well recieved either.

Why does everyone assume that Jewish families don't observe Christmas? I was raised Jewish, but every year we would have a tree in our den with gifts under it. We would also celebrate Hannukah as well(Notice the usage of the words "observe" and "celebrate"). If I do ever have kids, I would observe christmas for the simple fact that its a day that a child can look forward to and get excited about, not because it has religous meaning.

Christmas has become such a popular holiday that many people observe it without religous conotation(sp?). And as far as I understand it, just like Halloween, Christmas has its roots in pagan religions, not Christianity. It was adopted by Christianity as a means to convert non-christians in Europe as the religion was spreading(again, see Halloween, or All Hallow's Eve). Kind of as a way to tell people "Hey, converting to Christianity isn't THAT big of a change, this is what that holiday you have is actually for".

And for those thinking that La Roe didn't have an ulterior motive, just look at what he says:"A 3-D teaching tool for kids" and "Anyone can benifit from hearing the words of the bible". He's obviously not doing this to try and make kids happy over the holidays, he's wanting to make converts.

If it was about making kids happy, he would give something to spark kids imaginations and that they could have fun with. I mean, come on, how much fun is it to listen to a doll quote bible verses? I can just see the look on this guys face as he visits homes and see's some little boy playing with Jesus decked out in make shift army fatigues with a machine gun, or a little girl playing with it prettied up in a nice evening gown with some make-up on.

Yes, Christmas and Easter both have their beginnings as pagan holidays; however in modern context they are both Christian religious holidays. Since we don't live in ancient times when these were pagan holidays, it is reasonable to expect religious connotations associated with a RELIGIOUS holiday.

Oh, but they're so much more fun as pagan holidays. :)

Oh I'm sure this is true. Pagans tend to know how to have WAY more fun than stuffed shirt Christians. There is a chance that Christians might decide to kick me out of the clubhouse for saying that though, and then when would I get to use the secret handshake?

Amen Sister!!! Got your Yule log yet?

You can party with the Pagans any time ya like. :)
Most of us wont bat an eyelash at the Sunday trip ya take down the road.:thumbsup:

That is exactly what they did. TfT did not take the jesus dolls, but passed them onto some other un-named charity.

From the TfT main website:

"The Talking Jesus doll issue has been resolved. Toys for Tots has found appropriate places for these items. We have notified the donor of our willingness to handle this transaction."

My take on the religious angle is that TfT probably donates toys to kids on Kwanza, Yule, and Hannukah. I highly doubt that they only deliver toys on the 25th of December.

That said, the TfT website mission statements only mention Christmas and they don't mention (that I could find) what types of toys they won't take. Seriously, their FAQ should include that info. And I think the mission statement should include Kwanza, and Hannukah since they fall near Christmas on the calendar and I bet the Marines donate toys to kids accidently or on purpose on those holidays in certain neighborhoods in the USA.

Jonathan

Jonathan

Christmas in my home is never a religious holiday. No mention of jesus or saints or three wise men. My christmas and millions of other people do christmas as a gift and love giving day. That is all.

As for Easter, eggs and bunnies are pagan in nature (mostly german) and I have been to about 20 easter egg hunts as an adult and child and I don't recall once hearing "jesus resurrection" at any of them. Some were sponsored by the cities of Boise, Idaho and Seattle, WA and they did not mention religion of any kind.

Jonathan

I wonder how you came to this conclusion, exactly. This ought to be interesting.

I am a Christian but yet I believe that it would not be a good move for the Marine TFT's program to hand these out. It would only encourage militant religious groups who do not worship Christ to declare Holy war. Our military should not be getting involved in distribution of any religious items. Next thing you know there were be dozens of religious groups trying to proselytize through the military. I think that's the wrong avenue and it would distract our military from their main purpose. They made the right choice. I'm irritated the the religious company actually thought their gift was appropriate. A Christian may be quite offended if their child recieved a Koran for Christmas so why can they not put themselves in another person's shoes and be considerate??

[stereotypes] Never heard of a Wican refusing to let their child go trick or treating because it's satan worship, only Christians, granted not all Christians, but the stuffed shirt variety sure do. Don't get a lot of Wicans boycotting Disneyland either come to think of it, thats pretty much a Baptists thing, though others have joined in from time to time.

Not saying that Wicans and other pagans don't do these things, but its usually the Christians.

When comparing ONLY those two religions and no others are brought into the mix, it's usually the Christians boycotting the fun stuff- like Disneyland and Halloween- and the Pagans having fun.[/stereotypes]

:lol: :lol: :lol: Good times.


I agree with Charlatan on this one. Trying to convert people, especially children, is inpolite (to put it mildly). If these dolls were distributed to those who are already Christian, then there'd be no problem.

Why is that marketing to children is always so...insidious? It never seems to matter what an organisation is peddling, if it's to kids it always makes my skin crawl.

And La Roe uses an 'I believe' argument as well. 'I believe as a churchgoing person, anyone can benefit from hearing the words of the Bible.'

I hate these arguments because they always seem to be used to state something as though it's fact, while the actual fact is really nondescript. I think in this example the reader is meant to take 'anyone can benefit from the words of the Bible,’ as fact. Whereas the actual fact is really just a statement about what La Roe believes.

Some call it clever, some call it marketing, as I mentioned, I tend to think of it as insidious.

Mass marketing Jesus Christ! It’s a dirty job but I guess someone has to do it.

as i wait for my anton lavey doll to arrive......(tapping foot on the floor)....

xmas in all its appalling commercial grandeur is the mass marketing of jesus dolls by its nature. i find it kind of funny at one level that there would be any expectation concerning the spiritual potentials of commodityjesus. unless of course some rituals were performed over commodityjesus to imbue it with special powers.
but that would be hoodoo, wouldn't it?
and dont evangelicals reject hoodoo?

i expect that handing out little plastic commodityjesii this time o year will have no evangelical import whatsoever.

what i do expect is that folk who might get commodityjesus and who are not themselves of the judeo-xtian orientation will find in them a fine example of american cloddishness, yet another index as if any was needed of the difficulty that seems endemic of amuricans of a certain persuasion to admit that theirs is not the hegemonic religious reality, that there are many many people who do not believe as they do.

these people of course are among the Fallen who are awaited by Hell simply because they do not believe as the christians do. so perhaps there is some logic in christianland that squares the dispatch of plastic commodityjesii in this realm with the awaiting Hell in the next.

or maybe the logic goes:

harrass them, deluge them and they will submit. saturate them, negate them and they will come around.
demonstrate that combination of insensitivity and oblviousness that makes christianity such an attractive option
reinforce that with plastic commodityjesii and the Fallen will come around.

or maybe the logic goes:

your dog can decapitate the plastic commodityjesus and chew on the plastic commodityjesus head.
no doubt the gnawed plastic commodityjesus head will lay around the floor of for many days.
at some point. spore-like, its superpowers will begin to emanate. Revelation will surely follow and another Nonbeliever will of course bite the dust.

but what it looks like:

in one or another book by the polish journalist kapuscinski, there is a section about private american contributions to famine relief in africa.
among the objects sent were trailers full of left plastic high-heeled shoes and hundreds of thousands of razorblades.
because you never know: someone in a famine might feel it important to totter about on a left high-heeled plastic shoe and if they do that, they will probably want to have a shave.

I know there's an argument that says that Christmas is for Christians, but the holiday has been largely secularized. Thousands upon thousands of nonChristians celebrate Christmas for the spirit of the holiday rather than for Christ, and I think that's more than fair. Christmas is lovely.

All children need playthings, and charities use the spirit of Christmas as a reason to give children presents. While a Jesus toy may be nice for Christian kids, it's not necessarily suitable for the rest of the population. If the toy company was giving its Jesus dolls to churches to distribute to the children of the congregation, there'd be no problem at all, but trying to get a (mostly) secular group to accept Jesus toys to give to anonymous children isn't the best way to go about things.

I hope that hundreds of Christian children get the Jesus toys, and that the rest of the children get things that can stimulate them ^_^

Just because you take over a holiday doesn't make it yours. Just because people who are not Christians decide that they want to celebrate Christmas because it is such a lovely holiday, does not give you the right to determine what it is we're celebrating. It’s the birth of Jesus Christ, hence the name CHRISTmas.

This is ours. You’re intruding on our day, and then getting pissed because we aren't letting go of it cheerfully. I don't get it. I'm glad to share, but don't take more than your fair share, and don't decide what a holiday means just so you can be a part of it too.

Like I said, we want to talk about why it's wrong for the government to support a religious holiday; I'm on your side. But that argument that "we want to celebrate too so you have to accommodate us" is like the houseguest that starts bitching about what kind of laundry powder I use, deal with what I've got, or get your own.

You see the irony in this, don't you?

It’s a true story. Sometimes I jump around and don't look at the big picture. I have to admit here, I was wrong, and I do apologize.

As an after thought to all this, the morality aside, what about the fact that it's a crap toy? I don't know what life was like for you at school, but if I had a talking Jesus doll, I would have had the p*ss taken out of me something chronic.

I actually think that we've lost sight of the real meaning of Christmas here, and that's presents! And preferably not crap ones that might be a means of indoctrination.

I agree with everyone here that thinks this was not a good thing. The doll christians win either way. On the one hand they sneek in a religious doll to begin their conversion brainwashing on the little kids that are already downtrodden - a big target of christians. Next, they know they'll get publicity if they are rejected. If they were really serious about helping they'd have their own toy drive and donate normal toys instead of subliminal crap.

I think Toys for Tots made a solid decision there. No reason to accept a doll with religious connotation when they're not aware of the children's religious background. I'm sure that the company can find some other organization to donate those dolls to. I know that I wouldn't offer one to my niece or nephews. They're a religious family, but those dolls sound frightening. I don't like talking toys too much anyway.

Good call toyfortots. I'm sure there are parents out there who would not want a talking Jesus in thier homes. I know If someone geve my kids one it would quickly disappear.

I think they should have accepted on the condition that they are provided with talking Moses, Mohammed (yes, I know,) Zoroaster, Brahman, Confucius, and Nietzsche toys. Bonus points if not a single toy matched the recipients' beliefs.

I'm glad Toys For Tots filters out religious toys for their cause, and I'm glad this was resolved.

Also, can we get back to calling it Yule yet?

I still like my dashboard Jesus. I'm kind of glad it doesn't talk. I'd send a bunch to toys for tots, but I think the spring might be a safety issue.
Regarding holidays and who they "belong" to I feel compelled to ask, can't we just agree not to agree and yet allow each other to enjoy them, for whatever reasons we have? Time off from work is valuable. That warm, fuzzy, loving feeling in the darkness of the year is great. The extended family coming together is fulfilling for me. Giving and sharing and caring are good for the soul, no matter how you conceptualize that slippery concept. I love you all even though I don't know you. Enjoy the dark days!