Toys for Tots rejects Jesus....Follow

What about Jewish kids celebrating Hanukkah? ***** em over?

As per my last post, when was the last time you ever heard of a poor Jew when not in reference to the holocaust?

After getting wooden tops and pencils for Hanukkah year after year, they need a little cheer every now and then, no?

Don't they get the heart of a gentile on the 4th day and to foreclose on someone's farm on the 6th?

Don't forget the pound of flesh on the 5th.

Good one.

Cartman: Here's a little dreidel
Cartman: That's small and made of clay
Cartman: But I'm not gonna play with it
Cartman: 'Cos dreidel's fucking gay.

Kyle: Hey, Shut your mouth, fatass!
Cartman: Jews, play stupid games..
Cartman: Jews, that's why they're lame.

Sure. But if they're recieving free christmas gifts, why be surprised if the gift you recieve might just have something to do with the holidy itself?

If my family decided to celebrate Ramadan, and went to someplace to get free Ramadan gifts, I don't think I'd be too surprised or shocked if some of the gifts maybe had stuff like verses from the Koran in/on them.

While some might think that Easter is all about a bunny handing out candy, I would also not be surprised to encounter stuff about Crucifiction in amongst the bunny stuff.

It's not like even non-Christians don't know where the "christ" part of the word came from. You may not choose to celebrate it as a religious holidy, but I don't think it's fair to demand that no one else do so either. In this case, you had a toy company that sells religious specific toys. They choose to donate some of those toys to a charity. What the heck is wrong with that? It's not like they're charging you for them or something.

Are we really that afraid of religion in our society that we refuse to allow even the possiblity that children might be exposed to it?




You're offended because a company that makes Jesus dolls thought it might be a good idea to donate a few thousand of them to needy children for Christmas?


Look. I'm agnostic, but I'm agnostic because *I* made a choice about religion, not because my parents and the society I live in did everything they could to ensure that I'd never be exposed to anything having to do with religion. I'm far more offended that the secularism of our culture has gotten so extreme that a religious group apparently isn't allowed to even *give away* anything that might be construed as religious in nature anymore. And on a holiday traditionally celebrated by/for that same religion to boot!

Look. Keeping religion out of our laws? No problem. A great idea. But deliberately pushing religion out of any social event as well? Ridiculous. Religious views represent free speach too folks. The 1st amendment goes both ways here. If toy's for tots wants to exclude any religious material from their charity, that's their choice to make. Heck. I don't even necessarily think it's wrong of them to do that. But I also don't think it's wrong for the toys to have been donated in the first place.

Your post assumes that the company that donated the toys complained that their toys weren't being distrubuted by Toy's for Tots. But that's not indicated in the story at all.

The point is that the company is free to donate the toys. Toys for Tots is free to distribute therm or not. Both excersized that freedom, but for some reason several people want to blame the company that donated the dolls as though they did something "evil" by donating the toys.

Ever consider that neither company made a stink about it at all, but that the news got ahold of it and thought "Gee! We'll get some folks riled up with this story..."?

And they, sadly, were correct.

I don't know who broke the story but I think that One2Believe's comments that Toys For Tots is violating their own mission, that it shouldn't be a big deal and then saying "Oh sure but those Bratz dolls are okay..." is pretty akin to my examples.

Yes, There are many christian Sects, who's members would be offended if you gave their child anything that goes against their sects dogma.

Just imagine you're home playing D&D with a few buddies and your 8 year old comes home with a Chick track and says that you all are going to hell, for playing a game.

The tracks themselves look like an innocent comic books, but the messages are offensive to a lot to of Christians.

Nothing made me more upset as a parent, then the fact that other people felt they have the right to try to convert my child to join their church. Even as an atheist, I sent my girls to a Sunday School where they could learn about different faiths and make their own decision when, they were older.

Someone may no longer be a practicing member of the religion in which they were raised, but many people feel the need to teach their children about the traditions of their past. Just think of the Day of the Dead, where Mexicans have combine their native culture with the newer Catholic faith they converted too, after the Spanish came and conquer their land.

Video of what? Someone reporting on the same story as the AP? You're like a slightly more coherent version of MonxDot.

Jophiel

Sorry I was typing a long piece and when I posted it, I had to edit a part out as it was mentioned while I was typing.

There is an old video of this doll covered in blood fighting other action figures. The Marines had to deal with the problem last year and the media is forgetting to look in their achieves and reporting it as a new story. It is nothing more than a story that is being regurgitated on the net. So the Marines are posting what they told them last year and being adamant about it.
............................................

The Marines stopped accepting Teddy Bears years ago because Cotton teddy bears had been a carrier of the toxins from peanuts. It was a carry over from both cooperative farm equipment working both fields, warehouses storing both raw products and local trucking companies hauling both.

These dolls are made with an Asian made body/special order domestic body being remounted with a specially made head for a specific market gullible enough to buy them. The Marines are rejecting them, as they are not really new toys.

The Marine Corp Reserve handling this project cannot use toys made at the VA hospitals or a small mom and pop shop. They are collecting toys in front of EB Games and Game Stop at the mall while also collecting at Toys-R-Us. It has to do with having the Unions and businesses that are donating space for the toy boxes saying it isn't right as much as a small Reaganomics business trying to get in. Imagine if "with out a treaty" the Marines accepted dolls that break a trade embargo by going through Hong Kong. A cupie doll of christ is a Trojan horse and both Kerry and McCain are supporting the Marines on this issue. John Glenn was a Marine Reserve Officer and he has archival pictures supporting Toys for Tots. With the President in Vietnam, carrying a trade agreement from Congress this story is a political issue and the Marines are standing at attention protecting children from the political aspirations of others.

I stand at the side of the Marines on this issue.

Only Ned Flanders' kids would want a talking Jesus doll for Christmas anyway, gah.

This is the point I was responding to Joph. How do you know that the donor *didn't* have the grace to do just that? You're assuming that they got in a huffy, started complaining to anyone who'd listen, and called a news confernence or something in order to take their "cause" to the masses.

I'm simply pointing out that there's absolutely *nothing* in the story to support that assumption. The comments from One2believe's spokesperson were presumably in response to the news agency asking them what they thought about Toys for Tots not distributing the donated dolls. Um... What do you expect them to say? More to the point, how do you leap from that to them not having the grace to simply accept it and move on?

Do you really think that the resolution occured *because* the media got involved? Or do you think that maybe the two organizations were figuring out what to do all by their lonesomes without it? Where's the lack of grace here Joph? Sounds like it's in a media story that seems designed to do nothing by exagerate the issue and a public that eats that sort of story up (as apparent by many responses in this thread).

Maybe we should take a cue from the spokesperson and realize it's "not a big deal"...?