Girlcott Gloria Jean's

I was already boycotting the filthy stuff

I've been avoiding them because I'm wary of Hillsong's involvement in politics, but now I'm ropeable.

Fuck yeah

Seriously? Gloria Jeans?

Glad they've gone away in this area.

Boycott, btw, has nothing in particular to do with boys, but is named after a person's last name.

Ah, now, you see, in feminism we have a special technical term for words like girlcott and herstory. We call them "puns". :-)

Srsly, I don't know if Gloria Jeans outside Australia has anything to do with this crap.

The problem here is that when I first heard the word (over 20 years ago... egads I'm old) it was used to define a sort of reverse boycott - a case where people deliberately bought particular items because to buy so would be to support a cause. I've got no problem with the word "herstory", for example - I've only seen it used in the context of "feminist analysis of historical events and their effects on women, etc." - but with two diametrically opposed meanings of "girlcott" doing the rounds, the word needs to be used with caution.

I've never heard that definition before.

That was the only meaning I'd heard the word given, but then I hadn't heard it for about 20 years. I had a quick google and found the meaning you gave it is more common these days but did find a couple of examples of the version I remembered:

The power of our purses will be recognized by girlcotting (supporting) countries like New Zealand and boycotting South African goods.

We'll wait to hear from our readers about any Nicaraguan "girlcottt," as we've heard this type of action is being called.

Yah, some people seem to be using "girl" as the opposite of "boy". :-)

Atheist curiosity; what role do you see deities as playing, if they don't cause natural phenomena?

I hold multiple, changing beliefs, but my current thinking is that the gods are an expression of natural phenomena, or identified with natural phenomena, rather than bureaucrats directing natural phenomena. Does this make sense?

Yes. Would it be too atheist to say they're a way of telling stories about nature?

For the most part they are ways of telling stories about culture, and human nature. And often about parts of human nature we find it hard to speak about otherwise, particularly our own selves.

The way I usually explain my combination of naturalism and wacky neopaganism to friends is to say that the gods live in human minds and human culture - and some people say this means they don't matter, wtf? thats a pretty important place, us being humans and all!

It helps that such stories often justify human behaviour. I'm not entirely anti-theist, but I have major issues with theism as a basis for morality, mostly where priveleged groups are concerned.

And that's not solely about The Big Three, either; Classical religion wasn't without social issues. It's not even about overt oppression, eg I have Salvation Army issues. It's a mistrust of culturally powerful groups telling explanatory stories without a verifiable basis.

It makes sense to say that human beings need to put a human face on things to understand them in certain ways.

I'll agree that it can help.

Just to be weirdly personal, recent death in my nuclear family, and it made more sense to me that this was a purely physical thing. Prior to that I had vague agnosticism, but the more I knew about cancer and her treatment, the more it made sense that humans are a product of a larger, inhuman process and don't have souls. This isn't nearly as depressing as it sounds. So I'd question "need" - it's one way of filling in the blanks.

I'm sorry to hear that! :-(

It's a big ask, on the part of conventional religion, for us to accept that an all-powerful, all-good deity would do that to someone we love.

Sorry, it was the clearest way to explain where I'm coming from. We're functioning at this end.

I'll admit to enjoying morally grey polytheism, but mostly as something to read about. It wasn't the idea of a cruel God that didn't make sense, more the idea of anything beyond the physical. As in, if there's something beyond our awareness, then it's beyond our awareness. But, not everyone finds that logic helpful.

There's nothing to apologise for, mate.

I just needed a straw for that particular closed-minded 'happy clappy' camel.

No more small soy hazlenut lattes for me. (At least from them!)

I don't use them anyway (chain) but I'll pass this information on to some friends who do - thank you.

That is really sad.

I don't go Mall walking... I support my local coffee shops anyway...

You know, I have no issue with Mercy Ministry's style of treatment. Whatever floats peoples' boats without harming others and all that. (I fully believe people should have a right to harm or neglect themselves). What shits me is that they are not up front about the treatment's faith-based nature. If they believe in it, why not be honest? Conversion by stealth is not just wrong, it's disturbing, and providing faith-based treatment to those seeking and expecting medical care is nothing short of criminal. Fraud, I believe. Something else that shits me is the reports that while treatment is free, patients are pressured to provide donations - up to and including transfers of government benefits. That doesn't strike me as ethical, more like extortion.

Ah. That lot. Dangerous. Definitely a bunch to avoid at all costs. I won't say anymore on an unlocked post because it's personal history.

:-( and also >:-(. Fuckers.

What is the Hillsong/ GJ's connection?

It's complicated - have a squiz at this:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-business-of-giving-mercy/2008/03/17/1205602293116.html